Utah Mammoth new name for Utah HC?

Wish they would have went with Mammoths, but it's so much better than the most generic choice "Outlaws" that so many seem to be in love with. Outlaws sounds like a created team from Madden.

Mammoths are badass.

Because it is meant to have more than one meaning. Like how the Wild is both about the wilderness and a wild animal... Mammoth is both a noun (animal) and adjective (size)

Sounds great in theory, but it sounds weird in practice. Everyone is going to say THE Utah Mammoth, like Ohio State does with the Buckeyes. Guaranteed.
 
Wish they would have went with Mammoths, but it's so much better than the most generic choice "Outlaws" that so many seem to be in love with. Outlaws sounds like a created team from Madden.

Mammoths are badass.



Sounds great in theory, but it sounds weird in practice. Everyone is going to say THE Utah Mammoth, like Ohio State does with the Buckeyes. Guaranteed.
I really don't see that as an issue.
 
Given there is a solid presence of the Kachina and related people in Utah, why didn't the owners press hard and just bought the entire identity of the Coyotes?
 
Mammoths are cool but I don't understand why they want to make it singular, like we're all collectively one single mammoth
The trend towards singular names is annoying

The Colorado Avalanche. Then again, their brand is synonymous with playoff success.

I think people will embrace their name and logo - whatever it ends up being - if the team gets it done on the ice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
Given there is a solid presence of the Kachina and related people in Utah, why didn't the owners press hard and just bought the entire identity of the Coyotes?

cause they had to get the former owner to actually be willing to sell the team to avoid the issue going to the courts and potentially having the NHL lose that court fight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenSeal
Should have been Raptors for the Utah Raptor fossils discovered there.

Great logo potential too.
Mammoth fossils have been discovered there too and like others have pointed out, teams don't tend to reuse names of teams in other sports anymore because of all the copyright and trademark issues that would come with it. It's been over 30 years since a team used the name of another team in a major NA sport and that was when Carolina's NFL team named themselves the Panthers just weeks after the Florida Panthers played their first game in 1993.
 
Damn good point. Thank you!

as far as i know, there is no per bylaws of the NHL set a minimal requirement of seating capacity for the building that the team plays in. Avoiding having the issue ending having the courts involved was in the NHL's best interest. There are only two ways for league to have the ground to take away a franchise from an person. Criminally and financially. Twice sports leagues were sued over franchises and that resulted in franchises being awarded Seattle mariners and Charolette getting their NBA team back after it was moved to new olearns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoldenSeal
as far as i know, there is no per bylaws of the NHL set a minimal requirement of seating capacity for the building that the team plays in. Avoiding having the issue ending having the courts involved was in the NHL's best interest. There are only two ways for league to have the ground to take away a franchise from an person. Criminally and financially. Twice sports leagues were sued over franchises and that resulted in franchises being awarded Seattle mariners and Charolette getting their NBA team back after it was moved to new olearns.
Wow, I didn't know that. Talk about a cautionary tale...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad