Skip to content

Utah Hockey Club Unveils Jerseys, Logos and Colors for 2024-25 Season

In what can only be described as a surprise move, this afternoon the “Utah Hockey Club” came into being and introduced a set of jerseys, as well as logos and colors the team will wear for the 2024-25 season. The team is being relocated from Arizona (the Arizona Coyotes are no more) to Salt Lake City beginning this fall, with a long-term identity still to come.

The colors used during the first season are “mountain blue,” “rock black” and “salt white,” and will be the team’s colors moving forward, even though an official nickname has not yet been decided upon.

Here’s a quick video showing the jerseys and colors:

Here’s a look at the home (black) and road (white) sweaters:

And here’s a look at the logos and colors:

According to the AP, “Smith Entertainment Group announced the move Thursday and unveiled the initial logos and jerseys that will be used in 2024-25 in concert with the $1.2 billion sale closing. Ryan Smith’s company, which also owns the NBA’s Utah Jazz, bought the team formerly known as the Arizona Coyotes in April.”

The team is allowing fans to vote to determine the name the team will use for the long term. It entered its second round of voting last week, with six options available: the now-incumbent Utah Hockey Club, the Utah Blizzard, the Utah Mammoth, the Utah Outlaws, the Utah Venom and the Utah Yeti. Fans can vote using the link below:

Insofar as the club has only unveiled some rudimentary graphics of the new home and road sweaters, we’ll need to wait until the full set of uniforms are unveiled — that is expected to occur sometime before the 2024 NHL Draft, which takes place Friday and Saturday, June 28-29, a mere two weeks away.

However, based on these first early looks, I rather like the simplicity. While the colors of black, blue and white will remain the team’s official colors going forward, this is just a placeholder design. It’s classic: UTAH in diagonal letters across the chest, with stripes of blue/black/white/black/blue on the home sleeves, and white/black/blue stripes at the hem. The road white jersey features the same wordmark, with slightly different sleeve (blue/black/blue) and hem (black/blue) striping from the home jersey.

Here’s a side-by-side:

Readers? What say you?

Comments (2)

    I wonder why the horizontal part of the “H” has an incline in the wordmark, but on the jersey the same section is level. As does the section in the word “Hockey”. Odd.

    It *is* angled. Maybe you’re seeing the effects of an optical illusion due to the letters sloping in the opposite direction as the “H” crossbar.

    It’s definitely not angled for HOCKEY in the image that shows the full set of graphics. And as someone else mentions, the U in UTAH is styled differently than the U in club. It doesn’t bother me too much since many teams use different fonts or wordmarks for the name vs the location. I think what trips this up is also what they were hoping made it work: running all the words together with the same stroke weight and spacing. The two text styles are not only so similar, but there aren’t enough examples of repeat letters to see that this is intentional, there ARE enough examples to make the viewer think it might be a mistake or odd choice, however. Again, it doesn’t bother me too much visually, since they’ve mismatched the colors, and now I know what they’re doing. But it does bother me as a designer who would have done it differently. A thicker or thinner stroke weight in either element, and simply fonts that are more clearly different (making them quite similar is actually pleasing to the eye, but with UTAH being only 4 letters, this is too similar) would go a long way.

    The font for “UTAH” and separate “HOCKEY CLUB” has distinct differences that will bother me forever. I’d love to hear why the outer curve of “U” in utah is smooth, but the “U” in club is angled and squared. Same with the angle in the utah “H” but not in “H”ockey. Feels very rushed to me, really dislike the round logo as well. I love simple but not this, not sure why I had such a strong response, but could have been epic.

    Simple only works if you execute it well. The less there is to see, the more there is to notice.

    Not bad for place-holders…like the colors but not their silly names. Wish the hem(?) stripe pattern match the sleeves. No matter.
    Those team name options are just terrible. I’m rooting for Outlaws, but will lay odds ownership had already chosen a monicker and the voting is mere optics.

    Forgot to mention that those sweaters would pair nicely with Mountain Blue breezers.

    Really hate singular team names (unless the plural of the name is spelled the same as the singular). What is wrong with “Mammoths” or “Yetis”?

    I can’t stress just how strongly I agree with you. Especially with “Mammoth,” the presence or absence of an “s” at the end completely changes the meaning of the word.

    Utah Mammoths = Utah “big, hairy, pre-historic elephants”
    Utah Mammoth = Utah “really, really big”

    Have to say I disagree. It’s so novel having a nickname not end in a plural, the singular is endearing.

    I dunno man, maybe it was more endearing 4 or 5 expansion teams ago; like, you could get away with it in the ‘90s but now it would almost feel instantly dated.

    Agreed, I dislike all of the singular names,but especially if they go with Yeti or Blizzard. The Colorado Avalanche used the Yeti footprint shoulder patch in the past, so people may still associate Yeti with Colorado. Blizzard also gives me an association to the Avalanche. I don’t think having two state hockey teams next to each other with snow-based nicknames is a good idea.

    Interesting for me to think about because I always considered the plural of yeti to be yeti. Before you ask or retort, no I don’t have any particular reason or linguistic rule or proof that it should be that way. I just found it to be a pleasing way to say it plural or singular. As for mammoth, I understand that there is an interpretation of that word that might make the singular acceptable, but I think that what they’d be angling at is something akin to “behemoth” or “juggernaut” which are nouns that would be referring to the team as a whole and thus make more sense as a singular, whereas mammoth in that same sense would be a misused adjective rather than a noun and wouldn’t sound right in the singular.

    In that note: I’m not sure why I hear “Chicago Bears” (for example) and it never occurs to me in the slightest that the players aren’t actual bears, but when I hear Utah Mammoths, the silliness of referring to humans as mammoths immediately comes to mind.

    I like Utah Yeti, but Colorado on occasion uses a Bigfoot footprint as a logo, so I wonder if they’ll go that way knowing that if they ever want to use a big footprint it’s going to be derivative. Outlaws immediately brings the XFL team to mind. Hockey Club is fitting to me because of the nature of the team existing in Utah. It just felt so “f—k Arizona, we’re sick of it! Just move the team to Utah. Here, Utah, you have a team now, you start next season.” Feels like a barebones, last minute name like hockey club just fits. Like the league was so sick of Arizona’s crap that they didn’t even care about hyping up the new location as marketable yet, they just wanted the team out of there. Plus, hockey club is so non-committal, they could use a yeti, a mammoth, an outlaw, mountains, bees, whatever they want as a logo.

    I love singular names. It’s so rare nowadays. I hope it’s kept singular.

    Very reminiscent of the PWHL. I’ll be rooting for “Utah Hockey Club” to prevail!

    Wonder what the jersey/pants colors will be. Would be interesting if the home helmet were black and the pants were blue. Probably would help spice it up.

    I’m for sure rooting for blue pants on each of the uniforms with socks matching the respective jersey

    I really like “Utah Hockey Club” as the team name. You can still have a team nickname but it doesn’t have to be part of the team name similar to soccer.

    Cause there aren’t enough blue and white teams in the NHL already? At least it’s a nice shade of it, but was hoping they’d go with some light purple as well, or shades of brown/tan if they went with the Canyons name. The names left in the poll are all terrible, to be honest. Blizzard is far too similar to Avalanche, Mammoth, Yeti and Outlaws just sound amateur. Canyons or Black Diamonds would’ve been the way to go if you ask me.

    Could have incorporated black diamonds into the jersey numbers. I was thinking the number on top of a black diamond. 2-digit numbers would be double black diamonds.

    I like the simplicity of these (but also wish the hem stripe matched the sleeves). Light blue breezers with the black jersey would like nice.

    When they inevitably become the Utah Yeti and unveil something cartoonish, I imagine we’ll miss these.

    I don’t get the rush to put out placeholder unis and then waiting more than a season to pick an identity. These are too plain for me. They still had months to come up with a scheme, could have just waited. Maybe they want to sell merch already.

    “I don’t get the rush to put out placeholder unis”

    They HAVE to have something for the NHL Draft. I’m sure they’re already in deep development with Fanatics for a permanent uniform, but — at least based on Nike’s *timeline* — require as much as 18 months. Maybe Fanatics will be quicker, but I’m sure there was no way they could have a permanent uni in the short time frame from the end of the ‘yotes to this.

    Also, wouldn’t you rather they take their time and come up with something good rather than do a shitty rush job (and I don’t even know if that’s possible).

    Well, these will definitely do for the draft. I suppose I see your point. But they’ve also already given their color scheme. I’m betting we’re going to see Utah Yeti eventually

    I wouldn’t say they had to have something ready by the draft. When the Atlanta Thrashers were moved to Winnipeg in 2011, they didn’t; Mark Scheifele, their first round pick that year, was handed a black “NHL” jersey to wear. Granted, the turnaround time was tighter then, as the sale was publicly announced on 5/30 and the draft was 6/24, just 3 days after the sale was officially approved by the Board of Governors on 6/21. Winnipeg actually announced their team name at the draft as well, having not made that information public beforehand.

    That said, I get wanting to have at least something in place by the draft, and not wanting to commit to a name before letting the fans have their say, but I desperately hope they settle on Outlaws. It is the only name out of the bunch that actually sounds good as rendered. Can we please get an English teacher to remind SEG of the difference between nouns and adjectives, so they can correct Mammoth to Mammoths?

    This is some trend. First it was Washington Football Club then the whole PWHL and now Utah Hockey Club. It’s all kinda cool, unprecedented, neat, mysterious and interesting all in one.

    I really hate the inconsistency of the striping pattern from the sleeve to the hem of each jersey, and from one jersey to the other. Of the potential names, I find Outlaws to be the least objectionable, but only because it’s the only one that doesn’t lean on the played out trope of names that don’t end in s.

    I understand that there might be shades of white. ‘Rock Black’?!? There are shades of black? Do I have to have a trained palate(palette?)

    Utahn here. I like these, though I would have preferred blue sweaters over black—kind of like the Penguins 3rd. I like any of the names except Outlaws. Too close to Raiders for me, especially since they’re back.

    Overall it’s bland, but better to be bland than terrible. I hope they take their time and get the final design right, even though none of the short-listed names have much identity.
    I agree with the other commenters who are annoyed by the inconsistencies between stripes and collars and inconsistent H’s. It all just feels so uncommitted.
    I hope they go full PWHL and put the names below the numbers.

    My concern is that many of the remaining name options seem to irritate the Colorado fan base… Blizzard seems a bit close to Avalanche (two winter weather related names in such close proximity), and Avs fans feel a bit protective of Yetis since they’ve been clambering for years to get Howler back as their mascot

    As an NHL fan who doesn’t care about teams in the Mountain West, the fact that we could have a fierce rivalry between the Avalanche and the Blizzard makes that my second-favorite name after HC. I don’t like singular team names, but of the available option, I most like Blizzard.

    Also, the owners of the Colorado Avalanche own the Colorado Mammoth, a lacrosse team.

    Aren’t the colors a little too similar to the Kraken? I guess “rock black” makes it different looking enough and kraken do have 3 shades of blue instead of just 1 for Utah. This design just feels boring.

    Quite similar to the the modern Jets as well. I know black vs. navy, but when black is paired with light blue, it looks navy to me at first glance. I wonder if Winnipeg will ever go back to the red white and blue though…

    There’s only one name that UHC should be …


    The intro song is amazing, and the colors are wonderful. Plus, LDS.

    I agree. Using the Jazz’ current purple and “mountain” blue would have been a nice look and unique in the NHL. But then again, this color scheme is also unique in the NHL.

    I didn’t think they’d just lift the PWHL’s whole thing, but that’s what they’ve gone and done.

    This whole move screams amateur hour, and those final names are atrocious.

    Were you expecting a team that’s existed for all of 6 weeks to have a fully developed and trademarked name, logo, and uniform banged out by now? I hate to break it to you, but only amateurs would expect that. Also, the PWHL ain’t the first team or league to just have a generic placeholder name. I can quibble with the design of what they have, amd yeah some of the names leave a bit to be desired, but what were you expecting them to have at this point?

    With all due respect to the GOAT Paul Lukas, I really think UHC should have used purple instead of black to better align themselves with the Utah Jazz.

    Yea they had or have a chance to be unique. No one uses purple in the league right now. The Jazz are going to they should have also. I’ve seen some pretty good Yeti mock-ups using purple and light blue they look sharp. Utah Hockey Club is not cool it’s extremely lame IMO. We’re not snooty Euros watching footie. The black and mountain blue remind me of San Jose when they entered the league sans gray.

    Let’s flip that attitude round… why do snooty North American fans need scary nicknames that they eventually just shorten anyways?

    So if these are the permanent team colours and the team ends up being called the Yeti. I can’t help but think they are heavily borrowing from the identity of the WHL’s old Kootenay/Winnipeg Ice.


    I dig the color combination, although I would’ve preferred the blue and black be swapped as the primary color. I’m honestly pleasantly surprised, as I was expecting monochrome or overly cartoonish given the way SEG has handled the Jazz’s uniforms. For a placeholder uniform and logo, it’s fine. And I’d rather have fine than embarrassing. No need to rush things and end up with the Wasatch equivalent of the Gorton’s Fisherman Isles debacle.

    Still, it’ll be a bummer that the eventual team name won’t have any real connection to the state of Utah. The Jazz and RSL are both long-running jokes in that regard, and most of the college teams here are either generic – Cougars, Aggies, Wolverines, Blazers, or Wildcats – or too on-the-nose with Utes. I was really hoping the NHL team would break that and go for Black Diamonds, but it’ll probably be Yeti or Utah HC when it’s all said and done. Won’t be the worst name for a team in Utah, but that’s a pretty low bar.

    Nice Colors. Simple Presentation. Classic angled UTAH on the chest (like the Rangers).

    Hopefully with a move and change of owners, the hockey leadership gets shuffled from what they had in Arizona, and the team hits some sort of success.

    Like everyone else, I wish there was consistency between the sleeve and body stripes.

    I’m also not crazy about that shade of blue. It seems way too pale to me. A richer color (think Carolina Panthers process blue or Detroit Lions Honolulu blue) would be sharper.

    Because Utah is known for its arches, please, please, please render the NOBs in a vertical arch.

    I understand not wanting to commit to too much (once they have a name, that will flavor the rest of the visual identity), but nailing down a color scheme and graphics package and uniforms (even if for one year) has potential, and implications. First, look at the devil rays faux-backs. This Utah one year uni is a chance to do something like that. Something that pretends to be from another era (hockey has done great design eras to draw from), that will live in their team’s visual history forever. Thus could certainly be an old hockey uni, but there’s nothing classic, or refined, or particularly old-school about it. It’s just basic and no frills. Secondly, this is hockey. They will inevitably be invited to the winter classic, and sooner than later, being an expansion team. The NHL has shown great execution in making faux-backs for teams that don’t have traditional sweaters to draw from for that game. Utah needed to go that route here. A simple sweater is great, but give it something interesting and unique (besides a little slant on the H). A diagonal block letter wordmark always feels like a rangers rip-off to me (even though I know it’s like Michigan “owning” the three-stripe helmet “wing”), and it’s just an unremarkable look. A script mark would have given it a little more visual appeal to me, even if it was a basic script. And they don’t have to overdo the striping/trim/etc, but make them match across the board at least.

    The colors look too much like San Jose. I had heard that they might use the same colors as the Jazz (purple/teal).

    Just voted for Outlaws but I know it will be Yeti for sure. The uniform so far is OK except for the striping inconsistency already mentioned by others.

    Question for the folks harping on the striping inconsistency: Do you hate all jerseys within inconsistent striping? Because it’s actually fairly common. Blackhawks , Canadiens, Sabres… basically all of the teams, e.g. Panthers, that have just a single thin stripe along the hem.

    The inconsistent striping is pretty much the only visually-interesting thing about these jerseys.

    “Within consistent”? Ugh. Obviously it should say “with inconsistent”.

    Oh, and obviously all the name choices suck but “Utah Venom” at least has a good ring to it. All of the other ones are clunky and do not roll off the tongue nicely.

    Outlaws would work nicely if they were calling themselves Salt Lake (City) _______.

    I can imagine them keeping the black jersey as a third to maintain continuity for a few years once they nail down the final team name and visuals. Discarding it completely after one year would seem like the team doesn’t know what it is doing (although I do believe it has all been pre-planned to go down this way). To completely throw them away after one year would also probably anger fans that spent $400 on a black shirt.

    My prediction – they keep both of these for season 2 and introduce a blue jersey with the permanent logo as an alt. Season 3 – blue becomes the primary home sweater and black becomes the third.

    A few years later, they get a new white jersey. A year or so later, the black one is retired and they wait a season or so before they roll out a new alternate.

    The thing I hated about the Adidas jersey template was the whacky collars. If these UHC mock-ups are accurate, it would seem Fanatics are going to continue the dual-colored mess of a neckline on the home set…

    The home jerseys, would work better with other black elements such as helmets, gloves and pants. As for the road unis, I’d like to see those in the sky blue color, that would make the uni pop more.

    So my hot take is that all of this is good. The name, the jerseys (mostly), the colors, the logo. I hope they keep it all (they won’t). My only change would be making the bottom stripping on the jerseys match the sleeves like others have pointed out. Other than that it’s all gravy. I’m a massive fan of simplicity across the board, name, logos, jerseys.

    I’m a Red Sox fan but I think the Yankees uniforms are perfect, especially the changes made to the away. I think the New York Giants home blues are the best jerseys in the NFL. All I want is simplicity. (so yeah, the Nike era is killing me a bit).

    The uniform is ok as a quick placeholder, but the bar for uniforms of expansion franchises has been set pretty high by the Golden Knights and Kraken. I’m not sure these colors provide much flexibility in terms of uniform creativity. We’ll see what happens when they pick a name. I’ll give this placeholder jersey a C grade.

    It should have been Black Diamonds. I’d be into the mammoth option if it was Mammoths, I don’t know what they are thinking with “Mammoth.” For a placeholder whatever, but whoever suggested Utah Hockey Club could be a permanent name for an NHL team should be drawn and quartered

    They can pick any mascot and not have to change these jerseys next year.

    I gotta say I’m a bit disappointed they didn’t follow the Real Salt Lake example and go with Club de Hockey Royale d’Utah.

    Very LAME. Just a dull presentation all around.

    Why not just have HOCKEY written across the front of the jersey?

    The Utah Moguls.

    Also, where is the obligatory logo combining a map of Utah with a hockey stick?

    These hockeyball smartness people think not goodly.

    Really, really ugly jerseys. It looks like all of the design work involved going into the closest elementary school and asking the 2nd grade class to come up with uniform colors and put “Utah” on the front.

    I hope the “professional” design team didn’t get paid much but I’m sure it was probably a $250,000 job or even more.

    Seriously, I think a team of 2nd graders could have come up with something no worse than this.

    Ha! I said a variation of the same thing – the first thing that came to mind was that this was done by a kid.

    Lame. This looks just like a dozen other teams from my beer league who do it this way because it’s cheap and easy. This is a big moment for Utah sports and the stage deserved something better than what a middle school student could have designed in art class, even if it is only a placeholder.

    These are just about what we thought they’d be. Plain, easy on the eyes, no frills. It’ll work for a year.

    I like the sweaters and colors but that circular logo still reads “Hockey Utah Club” to me. :/

    Yetis is the best name by far.

    Pretty crappy. Also the best name of the original bunch was Black Diamonds and the ones they did pick are lame.

    Not a big fan of words on a hockey jersey. A silhouette of the state would’ve been fine.

Comments are closed.