NHL "RBK EDGE" Jerseys-> opinions?

**BEEDEE** · 14th September 07, 10:27 AM

Well at the consumer pricing - I think I'll save my money for another kilt! At least the design won't change every few years.

Brian

**Mr. MacDougall** · 14th September 07, 10:36 AM

I really hate the new Coyotes logo. The original was unique, and represented a hocky team from the Southwest, and inspired pride in me. The new one... looks like every other lame sports logo ever.

**Colin** · 14th September 07, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. MacDougall

I really hate the new Coyotes logo. The original was unique, and represented a hocky team from the Southwest, and inspired pride in me. The new one... looks like every other lame sports logo ever.

As a born and breed Winnipeger, I still prefer the Coyotes Original logo

Yes we are still sad that the Jets left

**Mr. MacDougall** · 14th September 07, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Colin

Yes we are still sad that the Jets left

I can understand that. I'm still sad the Tucson Toros minor league baseball team became the Sidewinders when Phoenix acquired the Diamondbacks. I'm sad that Phoenix acquired the Cardinals football team. I guess I'm just generally disappointed by the state of professional sports in Arizona.

**MacWage** · 14th September 07, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Mr. MacDougall

I can understand that. I'm still sad the Tucson Toros minor league baseball team became the Sidewinders when Phoenix acquired the Diamondbacks. I'm sad that Phoenix acquired the Cardinals football team. I guess I'm just generally disappointed by the state of professional sports in Arizona.

I miss the "old" Phoenix Firebird baseball logo, it looked cool!

As for "old" NHL logos, I LOVED the Atlanta Flames logo, simple, elegant, and to the point. Calgary "STOLE"/"acquired" them, and adopted a horse theme (that spouts flames).

**Rampant Lion** · 14th September 07, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by MacWage

Calgary "STOLE"/"acquired" them, and adopted a horse theme (that spouts flames).

The horse was really only featured on the thrid jersey and nobody here in Calgary liked it because you couldn't tell what it was supposed to be.

Originally Posted by Colin

Seriously, we have a team in Arizona, 2 in Florida, 3 in California, and talk of a Vegas team (I can picture a hockey team called the Vegas Showgirls now), yet we have no teams left in the Canadian prairies or Maritimes where people can still play on outdoor ice for 5 months a year and they live and breathe hockey.

Last time I checked Alberta was considered a prairie province and we have two hockey teams here.

Originally Posted by MacWage

The problem is that 30 teams just isn't ENOUGH to cover this large of a geographic expanse.
Teams are NEEDED, if the sport wants to cover a US market and a Canadian one. My issue with the move of the Flames was that it abandoned a GENERATION of potential fans. Many in the South have NO idea WHAT hockey even is. When I wear my NHL jerseys, people ask me if I am ON THE TEAM. In another decade there WILL be more Southern fans.
The problem with the Southern market is over saturation in a short period. With my apologies to Calgary, they SHOULD have gotten an expansion franchise to model on their own unique town.
The NHL should have "aided" Glen Ford and the rest of the group that sought to keep the Flames in Atlanta and worked a deal with Turner to broadcast games on TBS. People could have gotten "used to" the sport, THEN expand slower into the US, while keeping teams IN Canada. As it is now, there are many teams and not enough fans to adequately support them. EACH is FIGHTING for recognition in their own market.
The Atlanta and Southern news organizations SUDDENLY realized this year that Atlanta HAD an NHL team.

So, I blame the decisions made in 1980 and many between then and now for the problems the NHL is facing. They tried to resolve problems of their own creation in an all-out effort that alienated MANY of their own base fans, leaving many without teams.

In MY opinion, there SHOULD be 40-50 teams in 2 larger conferences (more along the Baseball model) with MORE teams in Canada and a more "even" distribution in the US. Now, I can't say which cities should lose their teams, but some cities have high PR and low attendance, while other have GREAT attendance and almost NO PR (like Atlanta, which has very high attendance with little to no local media support).

Just my own, half-informed opinion.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. There are too many teams in the NHL right now. Look how long the season lasts. The playoffs run well into June. Adding more teams would means a greater percentage of the teams wouldn't make the playoffs. Who wants to support a team when there would be less than a 50% chance of your team making the playoffs.

Also, the more teams, the more games, and the more tired the athletes get, which leads to more injuries.

Now, I don't know much about the situation when the Flames moved to Calgary, but what I do know is that it created one of the best rivalries in professional sports: The Battle of Alberta. Although with the number of inter-division games that are played now, the rivalry is becoming less and less special.

**Arlen** · 14th September 07, 10:39 AM

Some of them are fine, but I really do not like the Penguins shirt.
And they are my NHL team, so that sucks.

**Colin** · 14th September 07, 11:08 AM

That's probably the last time the NHL was smart enough to relocate a team to a Canadian city. It sure seems like Bettman has something against having teams in Canada. We may only represent 1/5 of the teams in the NHL, but the Canadian teams account for 1/3 of the revenue. Maybe one day they will stop trying to force hockey on an oversaturated US sports market and bring it back to the fans that really want it.

Seriously, we have a team in Arizona, 2 in Florida, 3 in California, and talk of a Vegas team (I can picture a hockey team called the Vegas Showgirls now), yet we have no teams left in the Canadian prairies or Maritimes where people can still play on outdoor ice for 5 months a year and they live and breathe hockey.

What can you do? Ever sport is now about the $$$$ rather than the fans.

**MacWage** · 14th September 07, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Colin

That's probably the last time the NHL was smart enough to relocate a team to a Canadian city. It sure seems like Bettman has something against having teams in Canada. We may only represent 1/5 of the teams in the NHL, but the Canadian teams account for 1/3 of the revenue. Maybe one day they will stop trying to force hockey on an oversaturated US sports market and bring it back to the fans that really want it.

Seriously, we have a team in Arizona, 2 in Florida, 3 in California, and talk of a Vegas team (I can picture a hockey team called the Vegas Showgirls now), yet we have no teams left in the Canadian prairies or Maritimes where people can still play on outdoor ice for 5 months a year and they live and breathe hockey.

What can you do? Ever sport is now about the $$$$ rather than the fans.

I understand.

The problem is that 30 teams just isn't ENOUGH to cover this large of a geographic expanse.
Teams are NEEDED, if the sport wants to cover a US market and a Canadian one. My issue with the move of the Flames was that it abandoned a GENERATION of potential fans. Many in the South have NO idea WHAT hockey even is. When I wear my NHL jerseys, people ask me if I am ON THE TEAM. In another decade there WILL be more Southern fans.
The problem with the Southern market is over saturation in a short period. With my apologies to Calgary, they SHOULD have gotten an expansion franchise to model on their own unique town.
The NHL should have "aided" Glen Ford and the rest of the group that sought to keep the Flames in Atlanta and worked a deal with Turner to broadcast games on TBS. People could have gotten "used to" the sport, THEN expand slower into the US, while keeping teams IN Canada. As it is now, there are many teams and not enough fans to adequately support them. EACH is FIGHTING for recognition in their own market.
The Atlanta and Southern news organizations SUDDENLY realized this year that Atlanta HAD an NHL team.

So, I blame the decisions made in 1980 and many between then and now for the problems the NHL is facing. They tried to resolve problems of their own creation in an all-out effort that alienated MANY of their own base fans, leaving many without teams.

In MY opinion, there SHOULD be 40-50 teams in 2 larger conferences (more along the Baseball model) with MORE teams in Canada and a more "even" distribution in the US. Now, I can't say which cities should lose their teams, but some cities have high PR and low attendance, while other have GREAT attendance and almost NO PR (like Atlanta, which has very high attendance with little to no local media support).

Just my own, half-informed opinion.