Tuesday
Mar302010
Polls: NHLToL Week 4
Tuesday · Mar 30 · 2010 | 6:00 AM PDTPolls close Sunday, April 4 at 11:59 PM
Western Conference
 Edmonton Oilers |
 Calgary Flames |
NHLToL 37
|
 Phoenix Coyotes |
 Columbus Blue Jackets |
NHLToL 38
|
 Dallas Stars |
 Detroit Red Wings |
NHLToL 39
|
 Chicago Blackhawks |
 Minnesota Wild |
NHLToL 40
|
 Vancouver Canucks |
 San Jose Sharks |
NHLToL 41
|
 Los Angeles Kings |
 Nashville Predators |
NHLToL 42
|
Eastern Conference
 Carolina Hurricanes |
 Boston Bruins |
NHLToL 43
|
 Ottawa Senators |
 Toronto Maple Leafs |
NHLToL 44
|
 Washington Capitals |
 New Jersey Devils |
NHLToL 45
|
 Atlanta Thrashers |
 Philadelphia Flyers |
NHLToL 46
|
 Montreal Canadiens |
 Buffalo Sabres |
NHLToL 47
|
 New York Islanders |
 Tampa Bay Lightning |
NHLToL 48
|
Commenting: Feel free to add your comments about the polls below. Keep it short, relevant and friendly. Currently, commenting is unmoderated. Abuse it and commenting will go away. I'd prefer to offer an open discussion but not at the expense of civility. Also, if you choose to announce the logos you've voted for, do it in paragraph form. Comments with long lists will be removed.
Reader Comments (78)
One thing more on the Wild logo is that the river is also in the shape of the state bird the loon.
Holy Jesus, Umbie99... that's insane.
Unbelieveable that somebody could come up with all these ideas that work so well. All the imagery is so subtle, and it all works so well.
Somewhere, I'm sure there's a "MW" or the state outline in that logo. There just has gotta be....
I am perplexed by those people who never saw the animal head in the Wild logo. That is actually the first thing that should pop out and be recognised by your brain once you look at the logo, and only after the subtle details should become noticeable. I say, if you can't see the animal head in the Wild logo, you shouldn't be lurking around a logo-related site and judge logos in general. First learn to look at logos in the right way.
Having said that, I agree with those who think that the Wild logo is way too busy. Yes, it is nice, but it's overdone and way too clever (if one can even state this in a negative way). I voted for the Blackhawks logo, because it just looks awesome. Yes, it can be argued that it also has too many details, but unlike Wild, those details are there for the aesthetic reasons of depicting the Indian head, while in the Wild logo each detail is meant to depict a different thing, or even several things (like river-mouth, star-eye, etc.), so as a whole it's just way too busy and overloaded for my taste. I actually like when a logo detail has a double meaning (like the J in the Devils logo standing for letter J and for horns and tail, or the snow in the Avs logo standing for letter C), but it's not pleasing when there is too much of that going on in one logo.
Just because you saw the head the first time doesn't mean everyone else did. There is more in the logo to guide your eye to the right to see the wilderness rather than to the left to possibly notice the outline of a nose and mouth.
Ever heard of optical illusions? http://loscuatroojos.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/scary_optical_illusion_count_faces.jpg
This one is a bit more obvious than that of the Wild's logo but still, its not like I stare at the wild logo all the time. When I first saw it I saw a wilderness and since that is what I have always thought it was that is what I saw every time I looked at the logo. Now that I see the head that seems to be all that catches my eye.
Sorry THEWATERBOTTLE, I didn't know it was a requirement to see every single detail in every logo ever made to like hockey or logos.
I don't understand how anyone could say the Wild's logo is busy, especially when the Blackhawk's logo is so detailed.
These are totally different styles of logos.
Detailed doesn't necessarily mean busy. The brain can process detailed a lot easier than abstract if it is presented in a recognizable form.
The Blackhawks logo looks like a somewhat realistic picture. There is no abstract symbolism in the logo. People see a head right away. It is very simple and straight forward. The Wild logo has abstract concepts like rivers that make up a mouth, a north star that makes up an eye, and trees that do really nothing but visually confuse you. There is also confusion as to what the animal is. Is it a bear or some type of wild cat?
I'm not saying the Wild logo is the worst thing in the world but it's anything but simple and I don't think it's a classic. I think in time people will see it as dated and even tacky. I see it as a product of it's era.
i really like the new sharks logo introduced with the edge system, it's really cool. the logo they had before looked like a retarded shark.
I am surprised by the people who didn't see the animal head in the Wild logo? It's fascinating how people can see, or not see, such different things. I am curious though, to those who didn't see the animal head: What the heck did you think the outline was?
OCONN96, I don't even know from which angle to start when replying to you...
Well, firstly, the Wild logo is not an optical illusion, it's a goddamn sports logo! Whatever is depicted on a logo should be plainly obvious to see. That's kinda the logo's primary purpose... And the Wild logo is primarily an outline of a bear head, then the rest of the details come in. When you first saw all those nice trees, rivers and shooting stars, didn't it cross your mind why all those nice pictures were confined incide some weird assymmetrical shape instead of a usual circle, diamond, triangle, oval, etc., and if this did actually cross your mind, didn't you ask yourself why was it inside this weird unusual shape and what this shape resembled? (These question was rhetorical, as it is obvious that those questions didn't occur to you)
Secondly, there is another point that kinda flows from the one above and supports my view that the logo is too busy: if some people fail to see the bear head, if the logo feels like some optical illusion to some people and confuses them, then probably it means that the logo is indeed too busy, too "clever" and too overdone.
The above shouldbe enough, I guess...
THE WATER BOTTLE
Have you tried decaffeinated coffee or valium?
I live in Oiler Country. Hockey country. Live and die hockey. With the exception of a couple of people I work with and asked, NONE OF THEM has EVER noticed the bear head.
I always thought it was just a WILDerness scene because they are called the WILD. No, I didn't consider the shape of it. Not once. I guess I'm confused.
Say what you will about the Ottawa - Leafs contest, the Leafs logo is too simple, too ad like etc. The Ottawa logo ISN'T EVEN A SENATOR!
It's a centurion. An ancient greek senator - what they're obviously trying to draw upon - would be a dude with an olive wreath. No armour there.
PAUL
If half the people can't even see what is drawn on a logo, then I guess the logo is a fail.
I actually find the Wild logo clever and creative as a drawing, but it's not so great as a logo for the above reason
The Minnesota Willed? lol
NY Islanders logo kicks ass. End of story.
The Calgary logo is ugly, the black looks like fire that has burned out. The white looks like it still ignited, but black? Has anyone ever seen black fire?
wow... didn't realize it was possible not to see the bear head in the wild logo. i remember pointing that out when i was like nine years old and i got nhl 2003. the part it took a while for me to notice was the forest inside the bears head, which is hard to miss now i think about it.
As a Thrashers fan, I agree that our logo needs revamping or just an outright replacement. I kinda liked it when it was revealed over 10 years ago, but it looks pretty lame these days. I think it would look much better with out the hockey stick. However, I totally disagree with the guy that said our mascot is lame. I love it. It's unique in all of sports, and it represents the state bird. Naming a team after a non-raptor bird has a long history (Cardinals, Orioles, Penguins, etc). And c'mon, can you really complain about the mascot when there are teams in this league named after such killer concepts as a tree leaf or a style of music? Yes, those have other meanings associated with the place they represent, but then, so does ours.
As a Sabres fan, I'm glad to see the Slug being destroyed, even if it is by Montreal (actually, I hate to admit it, but the Canadiens' logo and jerseys are among my favorites.) It will be gone next season, so who cares if it loses. Put the Sabres' third (classic) logo on there and ... well, it would still probably lose to Montreal, but it would beat a lot of other logos in the competition.
I don't think people understand that the bruins logo is a 'B' in a HUB. (Based on the nickname for the city of Boston, the 'hub of the universe'.)
Seems many people voted based on love of team rather than the quality of the logo itself. Too many "it's a classic!" votes for teams like the Flyers, Leafs, and Devils whose logos are boring.
I see there a lot of canuck logo haters out there, what makes so that you don't like it? Is it a negative bias created from the fact that almost everyone besides canucks fans hates the canucks? or is the logo just bad? Being from vancouver, I have always thought the logo was uniquely west coast, original and one of the better ones in the nhl
@Mike
I love repeating myself.... the logo doesn't symbolize what a "Canuck" is. It says that there are orcas in the ocean.
I said last week it's like the Nashville Cowboys, but with a tigerhead logo. They just don't match up, and I think that's a huge part of what the logo should be.
I think it makes for a more exciting C than the C created by the stick in the rink though.
@Mike
No, it is just uniquely bad. When they went back to blue and green as the primary colours, they took an already dreadful logo and made it devoid of colour. Not only is it ugly, it doesn't match the jersey colours. The logos one saving grace prior to the Edge era was that the primary colours of the jersey, were found in the logo.
Now I'm hearing rumors that if the Canucks are to take part in a winter classic, the may pay omage to their 40th anniversary with a specialty jersey that would celebrate the first season the played. It would be the classic stick in rink logo. So, let me see. The home and away sweaters feature blue, green and white. The current alternate, with the modern stick in rink, has blue, green and white. So what is their plan to mark 40 years, and a possible winter classic appearance? Another jersey with.....blue, green and white. This is the definition of redundant. And yet another reason why so many people find the Canucks identity ugly and boring. Kudos for having green in the league, but they just aren't creative, at all.
The Whale is suiting to the city of Vancouver it's self... The whale pays more attention to the city than it does to the nickname. The native art and orca scream British Columbia! The biggest problem with the Canucks is the name "Canucks"! The team is never going to make a logo that will please the masses because the term "Canuck" is just far to controversial.
How would you symbolize a Canuck exactly? For me it would be a leaf... But obviously that will not be the logo for obvious reasons. So the only other option would be to go around the world and ask people what they connect with the identity of Canadians... I could assure you that it would either be a maple leaf or a hockey player.
Personally, I think they were along the right track with the "Flying Skate logo". The only thing I would do differently to that is make it green and blue, since that is west coast colours and wouldn't make the logo look like a plate of spaghetti lol.
I don't see whats so bad about the Canucks logo. I think its nice and it represents the west coast quite nicely. The last thing they should do is replace it with the ugly Johnny Canuck logo head above the fat ugly 'V'. I hate that thing. The Johnny Canuck head is ok, but the V looks plain bad and turns the whole logo into a cartoony looking thing. Personally I think the Red Wings have a great logo, as do the Blues and Devils.
First off I'm going to say I know that this a logo contest and that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Now that being said this is a logo contest not a contest for the original six to advance because of their longevity and history. If put up against a newer logo that is obviously a better design the classic logo always advances and wins. Leave the I'm voting for my favorite team out of this. This contest is on design not favorites. The Maple Leaf logo for example, classic yes and many years of history is one of the worst logos in the NHL why must it advance over a better designed logo. So let's put some thought behind our choices before you officially choose a winning logo.
The Maple Leafs logo is not the best in the NHL or anything, but it is a simple and bold design and I like it. It's obviously not a graphic masterpeice, but that doesn't mean it can't be an effective team logo. Less is more in a lot of people's opinion. Look at Boston Montreal St.Louis...all simple and clean logos. They usually get my vote.