NHLToL: 2012 Edition
Monday · Jun 25 · 2012 | 12:03 AM PDTIcethetics got its start five years ago as a meager blog called NHL Tournament of Logos, in which visitors voted to determine which team mark was best. There was no criteria. Just two logos and a vote button. No reason either. It was just something I set up for fun.
But it became more popular than I thought. Over the last few years, the one question I'm asked more than any other is, "When is the next logo tournament?" There hasn't been one in a long time so it's a fair question. The streak ends today. The 2012 edition of the NHLToL is now underway.
If you plan to participate in the voting, you'll probably want to know how the tournament works. It's not terribly complicated but then it's not terribly simple either, so I'm here to explain.
We Start with All 30
It's only fair that all 30 team logos have a shot at the crown. And, of course, there will be a bracket. But that bracket will only hold 16 logos. How do we determine which logos qualify for the bracket? Glad you asked.
Qualifying for the Bracket
Luckily, we're starting with an even number of logos. Thirty logos give us 15 polls in the qualifying round. Every team has been assigned an opponent at random. The winners of each qualifying poll automatically advance to the bracket. I know what you're thinking.
Doesn't this mean good logos could be left out of the bracket if they are defeated by slightly better ones in their qualifier? Yes, but the only alternative is a time-consuming round-robin format. Plus, the point isn't to determine a bracket, it's to determine a winner. The best logo will win regardless of how it gets there. At least that's the theory.
The Top 15 + a Wildcard
So if the winners of all the 15 qualifying polls advance, that leaves an open slot in the 16-logo bracket. Easy solution. We need a wildcard. One loser will advance to the bracket. The logo that loses by the lowest percentage will occupy the 16th position.
The rest of the 16 slots will be determined by voting percentage. For example, a team that wins its qualifier with 90% of the vote will place higher in the bracket than a team that finished with, say, 60%. The higher the percentage, the higher the position in our bracket. Quite simple.
The bracket match-ups will look like this:
The nice thing about this setup is that it's practically impossible for any rematches. Here's the thing. We know that #15 and #16 will have faced each other in the qualifier because #15 will be the logo that won by the lowest percentage and #16 will be the one that lost by the lowest. So I said "practically" because it's possible these two could meet again in the big finale.
The Voting Process
Now the important bit. Every poll will be open for five days. New polls will go up every day for the qualifying round. Subsequent rounds will begin after the previous round's final poll closes. When you vote, you will not be able to immediately view the results. However, poll results will be revealed after the poll has closed.
Now, if you want to know how the logos will be matched up in the qualifying round, there's one way to find out. You'll have to come back every day to see the new poll! The last Qualifying Round poll goes up July 9. The bracket will be announced on July 15 and Round 1 voting will begin the following day.
Any questions left for me to answer? Ask away.
Reader Comments (27)
YEAH BABY! I was hoping there would be another tournament! So stoked!
Forgot to mention, I discovered this site after the first two tourneys so I finally vote in one of these!
Which logos will be used? You have the Predator's regular logo going up against the Ducks' alternate logo. I'm a Canucks fan and there are a plethora of different logos to choose from - some better than others.
Sorry, thought it was obvious. First tournament will be primary logos, naturally. And while the Ducks logo in question is used on their alternate jersey, it is, for all intents and purposes, the team's current primary mark.
It seems that I can vote more than once. Is that the intention? Somebody could artificially inflate the number of votes his/her favorite team receives.
Been over this before so I apologize if I'm short. No matter how it may seem to you, no one is getting multiple votes. I've done exhaustive testing on these polls. You can click the vote button as many times as you want, but the system will count only your first vote. It does this by logging a unique identifier for each voter. The only way you could vote more than once is by using multiple computers or Internet-connected devices. And I can't stop anyone from doing that — nor would I want to.
why do this if the canadians are just going to probably win again? if not them, then just any other predictable original 6 team...
Eddie: You're welcome to not participate if you don't see the point. It's just for fun anyway, man. But since 2007, we've done two NHLToLs with two different end results. Yes, the Canadiens logo won the first time, but the Blues logo won in 2010. Who's to say if either of those win again in 2012. That's why we're voting.
Yay !! It's BACK !! :)
But, you should've added all the defunct teams too.. ;)
Unless you decide to go with all the defunct teams and defunct current NHL teams's logos.. ;)
I would like to register my protest against matching up expansion-era teams against original six teams. Considering this community's preference for the old and bland, no team that goes against an original six team in the opening round stands a chance. Why not match each original six team against each other so we can learn some new data: 1, which modern logo the community prefers (as opposed to the already-understood fact that the community does not like modern logos), and 2: which old logo the community prefers (as opposed to the already-understood fact that the community only likes new logos.)
Matching the Sharks (great) logo against the Red Wings (also great, but way more popular by virtue of its age) logo will produced expected and boring results as will the matchup of the Wild's great (but unpopular, because modern) logo against the Habs boring (but popular, because old) logo. We will not learn anything new about the community's preferences with these matchups.
TorontoSharksFan: I appreciate the input. Two things. 1) As I said, all match-ups are random. There's no fairer way of doing it. Your method would insure that half of the Original Six logos don't make it to the bracket. Maybe they are good and you're deciding that they aren't simply because they're old (the same way you're accusing the community of thinking they're good simply because they're old). Being old could merely be a side effect of being good. Standing the test of time and what have you. And 2) looking at the current voting results, (and without giving anything away) let's just say you might be surprised at your fellow readers. Your presumptions about what the "community prefers" notwithstanding, the only way we'll know anything for sure is if everyone gets a chance to vote. Consider your protest registered.
I think you could actually divide it into temporal conferences: use the same random matchups, but make it more likely that logos based on closer graphic design periods. I'm sure there is a way to determine the fifteen most and least recent logo designs.
This would guarantee the most popular "classic" logo matches up against the most popular modern one. Also, the assumptions I make about this community's preferences are hardly baseless, you've satirized it yourself in the not-too-distant past.
By the way, I by no means think all old logos are bad and all new logos are good. I'm a big fan of the logos of the 3 oldest central division teams, I just don't like letter logos (in hockey jerseys, that is; they can look great on ballcaps), and here again I don't necessarily prefer the newest logos. I'd vote the Habs logo over the Ducks logo in a heartbeat.
Just like how the Stanley Cup final represents the clash of playstyles inherent to the two respective conferences, I think it'd be neat if the next logo competition's final represented the clash of graphic design styles, old and new.
Thank you for considering my words, I do realize its a little too late in the game to implement my ideas for this logo tournament :p
TorontoSharksFan: Again, I really am grateful for the feedback. I always consider reasonable suggestions. I'm just not sure I agree with your assessment. For one thing, you can't guarantee a popular classic logo faces a popular modern logo without holding a poll to determine what's popular. Anything else would simply be you or me interjecting our own biases into the process — something I'm strictly trying to avoid. Hence, random partners in the qualifying round.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply your presumptions were baseless. And yes, I do tend to agree with you to an extent. I'm just saying that impartiality is required to make the whole process fair. As soon as I (or anyone else) starts making determinations about which logos should face each other, impartiality disappears. What's then to stop me from arranging not just the qualifying round but also the entire bracket to end up with a logo I like being voted the winner?
Anyway, I'm not telling you to shut up and go away. I'm open to new ideas. Obviously, it's too late for this tournament, but if you wanted to create two logo "conferences" based on design styles, feel free to list them here. If there's an appetite for it amongst Icethetics readers, maybe we do another tournament down the road to see how/if the results differ.
Well, Chris, I decided to follow you up on your suggestion, and from my research, the split between old and new comes during the early 90s, with Dallas representing the most-recently designed old logo, and Florida representing the oldest modern logo (that is still in use.) St. Louis sharpened up the feathers on their logo a slight amount, but putting them in the 'new' category would cause Florida to go into the old category and St. Louis to go in the new category. And I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that the Florida logo is less modern in its sensibilities than that of St. Louis, so here's the breakdown according to the analysis I did with the help of The Hockey Uniform Database. I've left aside colour scheme changes like that of Pittsburgh and Vancouver, and reverts like Buffalo and the Islanders because the essential design elements are the same.
15 Newest designs (Logos first introduced following 1991-1992 season):
2011:
01) L.A.
02) Nashville
03) Tampa Bay
04) Winnepeg
2007:
05) San Jose
06) Washington
07) Ottawa
2006:
08) Anaheim
2003:
09) Columbus
10) Phoenix
2000:
11) Minnesota
1997:
12) Vancouver
13) Carolina
1995:
14) Colorado
1993:
15) Florida
*****
15 oldest (Logos introduced prior to 1991-1992 season):
1991:
16) Dallas (introduced with Northstars)
1982:
17) New Jersey
1980:
18) Calgary
1979:
19) Edmonton
1972:
20) New York Islanders
1970:
21) Buffalo
22) Toronto
1968:
23) Pittsburgh
1967:
24) St. Louis
25) Philadelphia
1950s
26) Chicago
27) New York Rangers
28) Boston
Pre-war
29) Detroit
30) Montreal
And if anyone tries to tell me that the Boston logo is a "new" design, because they added seriphs to the 'B', I will cyber-punch them in the web-face.
And right there is why we'll never do a logo tournament your way. Sorry, TorontoSharksFan but that adolescent and unnecessarily aggressive "pre-defense" — while it may be prevalent on the Internet and tongue-in-cheek — is no less a sign of partiality.
In fact, the modernized Bruins logo would have to be placed in the 2007 category despite your protests. Otherwise, we might as well just put any logo we want in any year we want. The simple fact is, a design with that kind of precision did not exist on Bs sweaters in the 1950s — no matter how much you "cyber-punch" anyone.
Same goes for the Penguins. There was no Vegas gold in 1968. That logo comes from 2000. The Blues logo was created in 1998, not 1967. The Sabres logo with the dark blue and silver outlining is from 2008. The Canucks' orca logo may have first come along in 1997 but it was recolored in 2007. And if you think colors don't matter to a logo, then you haven't spent enough time hearing from your fellow readers.
The thing is, by your method — which put the 2007-revamped Bruins logo in the 1950s — the Predators 2011-revamped logo should still be listed under 1998. All they did was simplify/modernize it. It remains a saber-tooth tiger head. I could be convinced of a doing a tournament that pits logos against each other based on the year they were designed, but fairness is nowhere to be found when the rules aren't uniformly applied.
And by the way, the LA Kings logo — while it became their primary mark in 2011 — was created in 2008 for their third jersey. Your placement in 2011 goes against everything else on your list. I'll chalk that one up to a mistake. And for the record, unless you're talking about Vietnam, there are no pre-War logos left in the NHL. They've all been modernized since the 1950s to some extent.
So why am I spending so much time defending a tournament that doesn't even matter? Well, that's a good question. Let's just say there is a rhyme and a reason to the way I did this thing. I didn't throw it together at the last second. I actually put thought into it. It doesn't invalidate your opinion by any stretch. It goes without saying that you're entitled to it. But in my mind, without fairness, there's no point to any of this.
TorontoSharksFan: Our discussion got me thinking of a blog post that's been a long time coming. Check it out.
So glad to see Montreal lose in the first round. That logo gets way more credit than it deserves. Design-wise, it's one of the worst in the league. The only reason it gets any love is because it's an Original Six logo.
So glad to see the return of the ToL! As far as the ongoing discussion featured above between yourself (Chris) and TorontoSharksFan....
I think the concept of it is a nice idea...but I don't know that there's a possible execution. Chris, you're right. You can't pick-and-choose when to place a logo just because it "fits" with a specific era. I think I had suggested something like what TSF is suggesting during the last ToL (possibly selfishly as a Panthers fan...don't hate me for that, by the way, Chris haha).
Something else to add into what you said about the Preds logo and the Bruins logo being treated the same way...isn't the LA Kings current logo (2008) simply a modernization of a logo from 1988...which was simply a modernization of a logo from 1975...which was simply a tweaking of a logo from 1967?
Obviously, the primary mark ToL is most important, and the secondary mark (or wordmark?) ToL would be next, followed by a hundred others. But IF there was ever an "era"-based ToL, I would think the only "fair" way to do it would be the era the TEAM came into existence and NOT the logo...you could even mix in different "versions" of the same franchise (i.e. Atlanta Thashers and current-Winnipeg Jets). Best Original Six Logo, Best Class of 1967 Logo, etc.
But, again, I'm loving that the ToL is back...I just felt (as someone who had a similarly-based suggestion two years ago) that I would chime in. And by the way...the Panthers beat the Lightning (in logo voting)!!! YES!!! :)
Here's an idea to throw in there for a future version of the ToL....since most of us are wasting our time on here instead of doing work anyways.... Each current franchise (including existing ones originating in another city) gets one poll that includes EVERY primary logo they've had in their history including color tweaks and modernizations, then the winning logo for each franchise gets set into the bracket in the same way, or, put into their respective current divisions... and play it out like the real playoffs. Understandably, some polls will be enormous (like Van City's) and some will only have 1, 2, or 3 options. It could look something like this:
Step 1: 30 "History of Primaries" Polls, 1 for each team
Step 2: 6 "Division Rivals" Polls, 1 for each current division in the NHL
Step 3: Skip the quarter finals....go straight to semis. Bracket the top 8 teams (aka 6 division leaders + 2 wildcards based on closest losing % in the division). Yes there could be a rematch...but who isn't game for the chance of an upset?
Step 4: Crown a winner
Step 5: Repeat for thirds...defunct franchises....etc, etc, etc
Technically speaking, the current Rangers logo is from 1978. The point is moot, but still.
I really like JD idea above (i was thinking of a similiar idea while reading the comments). Chris, since the ToL is back does that mean banners will be back as well? And with Montreal getting knocked out, it proves that teams DO have a chance against original 6 teams.
How did Los Angeles's logo beat Vancouver's? I think LA's logo is hideous
Wait why are 1 and 3 in the same bracket and 2 and 4 are also?
Shouldn't 1 be with 4 and 2 be with 3?
Wingnut: I'm not sure what difference it makes. It's just how I happened to set up the bracket.
Any chance of doing the worst of the worst logo tournament with the remaining 14 logos and lets say the 2 that got beat the most in the top 16, then make a rebrand competition with the worst 4-6 logos.
Chris, I'm having trouble seeing the results from the bonus polls from the last round (and the first quarterfinal poll as well)...are they just not being shown yet, or is it an issue with both browsers/computers I've tried on?
Drew: It's not your computer/browser. I have to manually turn on the poll results when the polls end. I haven't gotten around to doing yet on those polls.