This morning, the Utah Hockey Club revealed the new name and permanent identity of Utah’s NHL franchise: the Utah Mammoth.
According to the team, “More than 10,000 years ago, herds of mammoth claimed Utah as their home and, ever since, the mammoth has embodied strength, momentum, and an earth-shaking presence – qualities that are brought to life by the passion of Utah’s hockey fans and that mirror the franchise’s bold emergence into the NHL. In a process driven by the community, the Utah Mammoth name was chosen by fans during a 13-month process involving four rounds of fan voting and more than 850,000 votes.”
The announcement follows on the heels of the accidental leak of its name last week.
We’ll get to the uniforms in a second, but let’s first focus on the team’s new logo, the “Mountain Mammoth.”
The team rendered the new logo in black and white as well as color:
Per the team: “The Mountain Mammoth logo captures the fierce power of the mammoth mid-charge, tusks up, and ready to attack. Within the mark are nods to the state including the Wasatch Mountain Range and snow-capped peaks that form the beast’s crown; the shape of Utah, which is subtly embedded in the mountain silhouette; and the curved tusk to form a bold ‘U.'”
In addition to the main logo, the team has also introduced several secondary marks:
“The secondary marks underscore the team’s identity and unwavering pride in the state and include the word “UTAH” with the Mammoth tusk embedded into the ‘U,’ as well as the tusked ‘U’ standing alone as a bold lettermark. The Utah Badge is a classic emblem inspired by the UTAH stairstep design from the franchise’s inaugural season – paying homage to the history of hockey in the state and showcasing the club’s commitment to continuing to grow the game,” added the team.
Additionally, “Accompanying the visual identity is a unique custom-designed typeface, Mammoth Sans, which features a 10-degree forward slant that mirrors Utah’s mountainous terrain and reflects the team’s relentless pursuit of progress. Details like the angled crossbars on the ‘A’ and ‘H’ serve as another visual link to the team’s inaugural lettering system and the steepness of Utah’s highest peaks.”
The Mammoth (that’s going to take a bit of getting used to) also unveiled new uniforms. The black home uniform will have the new mammoth logo as the crest on the jersey, while the white sweater will remain basically unchanged, keeping the “UTAH” diagonal wordmark.
The black sweater will have the new Utah-shaped logo as a shoulder patch, while the white jersey will bear the new mammoth logo on the shoulders. Here’s a closer look at the two new jerseys:
Here is how the team describes the new uniforms:
“The organization’s inaugural season color palette will remain at the center of the team’s permanent identity. The colors consist of Rock Black, representing the darkness of night in the mountains; Salt White, illustrating both the snow on Utah’s peaks and the famous salt flats; and Mountain Blue, a representation of Utah’s rich winter sports history and its clear skies for more than 230 days a year.
“The team’s uniforms will retain the same striping design fans have come to love, now updated with Mammoth marks. The home jersey remains Rock Black, anchored by the Mountain Mammoth primary logo on the chest and Utah Badge on the shoulders. The away jersey continues in Salt White, featuring the inaugural season UTAH stairstep design with an updated typeface across the front and the Mountain Mammoth primary logo on each shoulder. Player numbers will be styled in the Mammoth Sans font, and “Est. 2024” will be stitched inside the collar of both jerseys – a tribute to the NHL’s arrival in Utah.”
And what unveiling would be complete without a hype video?
A new Ice Age dawns. Introducing Utah Mammoth. #TusksUp pic.twitter.com/B2yuoflDRt
— Utah Mammoth (@utahhockeyclub) May 7, 2025
I’ll obviously need to see the full uniforms in action to render a full opinion, but so far, I like what I see. As I’ve mentioned before, I wish the team could have worked something out with Yeti Coolers to either use the name “Utah Yeti” or at the very least, to go with the “Yeti” (or sasquatch/Bigfoot) logo that was presented to fans in the voting. But Utah Mammoth isn’t a bad identity (even if the team is laying into that very heavily for branding). The new logo feels a bit Brandiose-inspired, but it only appears as the crest on the black sweater. The uniforms themselves won’t be too different from the club’s first year “Utah Hockey Club” uniforms.
Not mentioned (nor shown) is whether the team will have a third jersey this season. A third sweater in light blue would be the next logical step.
Now that the UHC saga finally appears to be “over,” what do you think of the new name, logos and uniforms?
It’s okay, though the Mammoth Head should really be on both the home and road. Taking into account the absolute snoozefest that was the Jazz highlighter rebrand, it could have been a lot more boring.
I agree with mammoth would look good on front of both.
I’d prefer it if they switched. I love the current black sweater. The logo on the white one is a definite improvement.
I really like the Mammoth primary logo and think it should be on both the home and away sweaters. Hockey sweaters are huge and perfect for big logos. I also like how the mountains are included in the logo.
I agree. I bet they make this change down the road.
I think the U with the tusk secondary mark would have made a better shoulder patch for the black jerseys.
I agree. The U tusk comes off as most unique secondary
Double agree. The Utah state with hockey stick is such a terribly weak logo. It has no personality whatsoever, nor does it have the look of a classic “no personality” logo, like a roundell or a shield or something.
The logo looks like an EA Sports create-a-team logo. Not impressed that this is what they came up with after 13 months.
It looks like something I’d see on my recommended page on IG. Not that it’s bad or not professional, just that there’s something missing
It’s interesting…considering how “in style” retro looks, logos, etc have been lately with design, I’m amazed at how often franchises just do the minor league baseball logo look. All these new logos look like they are from the same A.I., and the next team will also look like that. Understandably Utah is brand new, but…
I couldn’t put my finger on how to describe the aesthetic of these types of logos … “minor league baseball” is the perfect description!
Mammoth was what I voted for at the beginning of the fan voting process and I’m literally thrilled this is where we have arrived. I can already see that they’ll be getting a lot of my money for their merch which I am looking forward to. Tough, bold, gritty, cold. This is a fantastic visual identity for a hockey team in Utah.
Could they have been the Mammoths, at least?
Mammoth rolls off the tongue easier, and has multiple meanings which I’m sure the organization/broadcast teams will be able to work in to describe big wins, comebacks, crowdsizes, and just just about any other opportunity to describe something as being “mammoth.”
Uniwatch has already been over this about 2 weeks ago. They can’t. Mammoth is far superior as singular.
Looks like a generic create-a-team logo on an EA Sports NHL game. It does look better when seen on a jersey
I disagree. I think the logo is quite nice. It’s a mountain range that doubles as the head of an animal. That takes a lot of forethought and adept design skills, especially to make it look seamless.
I don’t care for the main logo, but I love the “U” with the tusk in it!
Feels like a few too many ideas thrown in & not quite working together.
I did wonder looking at the logo & the clever mountains whether there was a “U” hidden in there & whether they were going to pretend the tusk was a “U”. It really isn’t, and overlaying it over the U in Utah doesn’t help convince – it makes it look less like a “U”!
That said, I do like the sloping A and H – but then why have the road jersey with the different typeface??
However, its great seeing a new identity in the NHL, as expansion Golden Knights/Kraken aside, all recent rebrands have gone back to old identities, so there seems to be a fear of trying something new.
I wish the jerseys weren’t black though: looks a bit like the Sharks’ black jerseys, or the Jets with navy/light blue. Hopefully, similar to the Golden Knights, we’ll have a nice light blue alt, which will make the switch to permanent in a couple of years to give them more of a unique look.
It also resembles the Kings uniforms quite a bit, probably especially if you’re color-blind.
Only if you’re full black/white colorblind.
It could have been worse.
Positives:
– The colors, the arm and leg stripes.
– Clean look.
Negatives:
– The hem stripes still don’t match the others.
– The new boxy numbers are a downgrade.
– Adding the mountains from the Yeti logo to the Mammoth’s head looks silly.
– The head should be on both jersies. Put the wordmark on alternates.
I really like this logo and name choice. This is on par with nhl expansion teams being fun in which a younger generation will grow with.
A++ Their fans will love it. The only thing missing is a light blue alt jersey, but I expect that to be released in a few years.
“More than 10,000 years ago, herds of mammoth claimed Utah as their home …”
Um, no; the plural of mammoth is mammoths. They’re not moose or deer or trout. This is a ham-handed attempt to make “mammoth” the plural of “mammoth” which it isn’t.
Imagine if the 1945 World Series was the Detroit Tiger vs. the Chicago Cub. Or Super Bowl XLI was the Indianapolis Colt vs. the Chicago Bear.
This is not a bad identity overall, but the singular name is just stupid, stupid, stupid.
Agreed, and the attempts to invent a justification for it make everybody slightly stupider.
As a question of grammar, the singular would make sense if the team meant Mammoth as the adjective for the concept of extraordinary bigness, the synonym for “huge.” Which would be very close to the Wild precedent, though even as a devoted Wild fan I hate that name. And they could totally represent the conceptual identity with a mascot of the animal! Though not the one they’re using, since the head only does not really communicate any aspect of bigness. But if they’re going to commit to being named after the animal, then the plural form takes the S: Mammoths.
Publications are under no legal or moral obligation to repeat or follow along with bad grammar. The team should be reported upon as the Mammoths until such time that the team clarifies that no, actually the name signals the concept of unusual largeness, not the prehistoric animal.
Agree . Overall like the logo, but the whole thing improves by leaps and bounds if they call them the Mammoths – is it too late to change??
If it was truly Brandiose, it would have been the Utah Ice Mammoths with a comically enraged Mr. Snuffleupagus swinging a hockey stick, so this is a little better. I don’t know if I am ever going to like the singular team name.
More like the “hive city toothy fur boulders”. But you got the logo description spot on. Don’t forget they would have run the whole thing to market off a first draft sketch with zero refinement.
Yeti was my first choice (still have no idea how a cooler maker gets to claim “Yeti” for all of eternity). But Mammoth is okay. Think the logo is decent. The tusk U is cool. Think they could have done a lot worse. And if this was Nike and the NBA, they would have.
Overall, another solid addition to the NHL.
This is where I am too. The mammoth logo is the original yeti logo with the animals changed. Could have been worse. Yeti would have been great. This is a good compromise I suppose. The tusked U is better than the Utah hockey stick. Not a fan of the white uni. Diagonal word marks are for college and the Rangers.
Paul’s “Is it good or is it stupid?” model doesn’t really work here, since this is neither particularly stupid nor particularly good. The Mammoth logo is fine, the diagonal wordmark is fine, and only four letters make it pretty easy to read. The new design is fine, neither top nor bottom five, neither brilliant nor disaster.
It’s all relatively good. The Mammoth head logo is cool and solid, but at the same time its the same generic style as all other new logos (as someone mentioned it looks like it was created on EA Sports video game).
Overall, going from the Kachina/Peyote Coyote to the Mammoth is a step down in logo and uniforms. But the ownership group and overall franchise is a step up.
I think through the years Coyotes -> Mammoth will always seem like a step down and loss of a unique awesome logo and uniform, just like Whalers -> Hurricanes.
But a massive (or perhaps I should say mammoth) upgrade from Phoenix to SLC. Utah feels like a true hockey market and will draw well for years to come. Winter sports matter there.
Hockey in Phoenix was never a fit.
I agree that Salt Lake City, Utah generally feels like a better fit for a winter sport like ice hockey over Phoenix. But that really doesn’t matter, if it did, there would be zero teams south of the northern US states. Phoenix was about as good of a market as it could have been, given all of the factors against it (non-traditional market, transient community, and the biggest one – horrific ownership situation for the entirety of its existence). Utah is starting fresh with a better ownership group, which is a huge plus for support.
If only the Coyotes could have stayed in downtown Phoenix or built their arena in Scottsdale decades ago, which fell through.
Feels very minor league. But I suppose we’ll get used to it in time.
I like the name, but would have preferred Mammoths. The logo does have that shadowed, clip art quality so I would give that a C. We don’t always have to have 15 hidden symbols in a logo. A cool depiction would be enough. I like the colors but not if this would preclude similar colors for when the Houston Aeros join the league.
Mammoths would’ve been way better, but overall, I can’t complain. The color scheme has always looked clean, and the logo meshes well with the home jersey. In today’s day and age of uniforms, you never what these teams are going to come up with, but this is a good look.
My only gripe is the stripe inconsistency between the jerseys. Why do the stripes on the black jersey have negative space in-between, but the stripes on the white jersey don’t? Pick one and stay consistant across the brand.
Exactly my only complaint about this identity. Otherwise it is fine with me, even the singular Mammoth…
In regards to the black sweater, I really like the elbow striping and the striping at the bottom of the sweater. I think the black lines between the light blue/white/light blue stripes make them really pop. This black jersey is 200% better than the white jersey but I’d prefer non-black colored pants. I’m over mono-black.
I guess it’s not terrible in a league that has teams called “Wild” and “Avalanche” but it barely meets the bar.
Not really enjoying this WNBA-style era of singular collective team names.
Add the NBA Heat to that…also still a very weird nickname.
It feels like the team colors were picked in anticipation of getting the rights to use Yeti as the team name. Since they couldn’t secure rights, Utah is sorta stuck with these colors in spite of the team’s name. I like Mammoth, as it is unique in the pro sports world (sorry lacrosse fans), but the name and the team colors are a mismatch in my eyes.
I like it but as another commenter said, something about the logo looks like the generic ones you can choose from in sports games
First, as an Avalanche fan (and while still grieving from the first-round ouster to the arch-rival Stars), I like this name and look for the neighboring natural rivals. And, like any rivalry, the process evolves; the Avalanche had to evolve from the Nordiques 30 years ago, albeit quicker and sharper in one summer than the Mammoth’s 13-month rebrand from the Coyotes.
Still, the Mammoth logo is sharp albeit busy, but it works up close and distant. And the Utah-stick logo helps the team evolve in its unique transition from the UHC. Definitely among those rooting for a Mountain Blue alternate jersey to complete this glacial process.
Feels very minor league and/or video game create-a-team. Adding an S to the end probably would make me feel better about the nickname, but the logo looks too slick and uninspired, like something AI would create if you told it to give you a logo that combined mountains and a mammoth. Also, the color scheme leaves a lot to be desired, feels too close to the Tampa Bay Lightning, and, as much as I like baby blue, it is becoming a little too trendy now. We knew they were keeping these colors, but I think there were better and more unique options they could have gone with to make their brand stand out. Black and light blue aren’t the colors that come to mind when I think Utah or wolly mammoths. It seems like they were 99% ready to go with Yeti (which I also disliked) and did some prebranding, including the colors, based on that assumption. It is almost like they had to wedge a different nickname into a pre existing brand strategy.
This name and branding lands them squarely in never to be good expansion team territory. Ala Thrashers. Something which the Golden Knights and Seattle Kraken managed to avoid
I’m underwhelmed, but this works as a brand evolution. It’s not a major departure from their current look, so it won’t enrage fans who bought jerseys this past season.
Year 1 – Utah Hockey Club with generic diagonal text on jerseys. Sell a bunch of merch.
Year 2 – Unveil Mammoth name, mammoth logo on home jersey, updated diagonal text and shoulder patches on away jersey. Sell a bunch of merch.
Year 3 – Light blue alt. Sell more merch.
Year 4 – Mammoth logo added to away white. Gotta get that merch!
Year 5 – Throwback home black jersey with diagonal text. Complete the set!
And don’t forget a complete rebranding when/if Yeti ever becomes available. And of course, the Mammoth throwbacks that would follow a few years later. Cha-ching.
My observations:
“Tusks Up” is hard to say – especially more than once in a row
Looking forward to a Mountain Blue alternate jersey – gotta make that happen
The tusk U should be able to stand on its own – on a hat or a separate patch or something
The Mammoth logo only has one tusk. ‘Tusk up’ is much easier to say.
Thank goodness Yeti coolers held their ground, cuz the first thing I think of when I think of Yeti coolers is hockey in the state of Utah. /snark
First thing I thought of was the Nashville Predators. Am I alone here?
You are not alone – that’s the first thing that I thought as well. It also reminds me of the Sabres’ old logo:
link
Looks more like a mastodon than a mammoth.
Google a comparison and see.
The logo, as a logo, has grown on me. But it still feels more apt for a non-sports corporation or manufacturing brand than a hockey team. Despite having three colors, it feels very flat to me, which is emphasized when it’s placed on a black sweater. The black-on-black alt logos on the shoulders don’t improve the jersey either. The whole thing would work better on a blue or white sweater. Winter, ice, and snow don’t intuitively suggest dominant black with white accents; they suggest white with blue accents. Black can work here, but only as a tertiary accent color.
I like the idea of the tusk on the U, but I don’t love the execution here. Especially when the team calls out the shape of Utah in the logo, it seems a missed opportunity for the left side of the U not to rise higher than the right like the shape of the state of Utah.
The big silver lining is that my Minnesota Wild no longer have the dumbest name in the NHL.
It’s not that much better, but Wild is still worse (The Wild’s logo and uniforms are still cool though).
I’m a Wild fan, and I think the Wild name is terrible, but less bad. To wit, the Wild are named after the concept of wildness, not a particular noun. Wild in the team’s name is effectively the adjective form of the word, so the singular is logically and grammatically defensible, if nonetheless dumb. Whereas Utah expressly says the team is named for the noun form of the word, for the animal named “mammoh,” not the concept of bigness that is expressed with the adjective “mammoth.” The plural of the noun takes an S, so Mammoth here is wrong. It is a typo. Wild, for all its faults as a name, is not a typo.
For some reason I see the mammoth head logo and it immediately conjures up the Buffalo Sabres’ jerseys for the late 90s and early 2000s.
This looks like a generic create-a-team from EA Sports.
Like – this is the default team you start with before making any customizations when you open the create-a-team mode.
Very disappointing.
I’m surprised the GI Joke, Pinktober, Mother’s Day, batting practice, cancer awareness, faux back and other abomonations have not been released. Oh wait, have to leak it out one week prior to create a stir…
I like the name, I like the uniforms, but I’ve never been a fan of black jerseys with blue and white colors. Same goes for the Carolina Panthers. With these blues and whites, I think yellow would’ve been a great color instead of black.
I love the Utah badge stairstep design with the hockey stick, A+. Kind of wish this could’ve been used as a logo either on their home or away.
Maybe on the third jersey?
And the crowd goes mild!
Certainly could be worse, but it feels very generic. Singular team names always make me think of an expansion league that is going to fold suddenly in the middle of the second season. It also feels a touch too close to the Avalanche. The U-Tusk is pretty slick though.
The state outline logo, which has the state name, should be on the away jersey instead of just the name.
The primary mark is the weakest part of the branding. Love the tusk U and kind of wish they did the tusk on the state mark instead of the hockey stick.
The font is a downgrade.
Still not a fan of the incomplete striping on the waist vs the sleeves. They should match in this case.
Change the shoulder patch on the home to the tusk U mark.
I love all the alt logos.
1. I think they absolutely did the best they could within the constraints of copyright law (thanks a lot, Yeti Coolers). This name and logo is great, the only reason it feels like a loss is because Yeti would have been better.
2. It’s cool that they’re pretty much keeping one of the inaugural season sweaters.
3. Congrats to Utah for finally having their first culturally/geographically accurate top tier team. Salt Lake City has never been a hotbed of jazz music, and Utah does not have a royal family. However, mammoths did actually live in Utah thousands of years ago.
Overall, I like the logo. I went back to the UW article on the three proposed logos and its pretty clear they combined the Mammoth with the Yeti for the UHC proposed logos. The big difference is Utah cleaned up the tusks, but otherwise it’s what would’ve been the UHC logo all the way down to the eyes. Only a couple minor differences. It’s a solid logo for a team formed in the modern age. I agree that Utah Yeti would have been great, but no complaints here. I hope the Utah fans appreciate it.
They italicized the shape of Utah, which seems like an odd choice to me.
I will think of them as the Utah Very Large because of that stupid singular nickname.
Best they could’ve gone with for names but it feels kinda lacking still. Maybe they’re touch it up in the upcoming years after giving it a season or two to settle in with people.
Wild team identity idea: keep the wasatch logo and call the team the “Wasatchsquashes”. If nothing else it’d be a funny workaround for “Yeti”.
Sweet Jeezus… the plural for mammoth is mammoths. Put the damn S on it.
Yet another modern logo failure. Teams should be looking at the Hartford Whalers logo for inspiration – not the Nashville Predators.
The Mammoth logo is as if the Predators logo and the Wild’s logo had a baby.
Lazy.
Reminds me too much of U of Maine hcokey (white jersey)
Hate hate HATE that it’s singular. MammothS would have been way better, I can only hope they switch to it after a year or two. I like the mountains added into the logo, but the thick outlines do make it look minor league. Is anyone good enough of a graphic artist to make a version of it that looks a little more pro?
I see the season headlines:
“Mammoth loss…”
“Mammoth playoff hopes go extinct”
“Mammoth losers…”
“Tusks hooked…”
Seems very, copy someone else’s homework but change it up enough vibes, between the Predators and Mammoth logo
I see there is some backlash but I am completely fine with the logo. It is an improvement; they added the mountain range in there. It wasn’t part of the proposed Mammoth logo in the voting. Mountain range was included for the one that was for Utah HC vote selection.
It takes a while get used to a new logo when unveiled and allow it to become established. Looking at the NHL website showing it with all the other team logos. Looks fine. We could be critical of a lot of the established logos in the NHL now if they were just unveiled.
This is solid. It’s helps that Black/Sky Blue is a really underrated color scheme. I like that the tusk makes a U kinda and other wise it’s decent.
I liked the color scheme from the beginning, but I’ve heard a lot of negativity about it being too plain online, so it’s nice to see someone else who likes it.
I like the Utah look generally.
I will admit I don’t love the logo. There’s something off about the shape of it. Its on a weird 45 degree northwest to southeast axis, rather than being symmetrical. Mabe because of the trunk and the tusk it feels like its moving down and right.
I find it really noticeable in actual photos on the jersey. I find it vaguely unsettling.
I like everything else. The singular name, the colours (which I guess were locked in last year), the generally traditional look of the whole thing.
The diagonal “UTAH” on the white jersey is just completely lame. This looks like every other rec league team jersey I’ve ever faced off with. I agree with most everyone else – they should have put that fantastic logo on both sets.
Reminds me of Ralph Wiggum’s “I’m Idaho!”
I think the people who believe this logo is generic have never tried to design a logo. Putting together the mountain and the mammoth is very clever and they made a great rendering. We will see this logo for a long time.
My take: they did a great job incorporating the mountains. It took the best idea from an otherwise bad logo (the yeti) and used it to make a dandy out of an otherwise unimpressive logo (the original mammoth). It’s a little bit Minnesota Wild, but if you’re going to be derivative, why not copy one of the best there is? I get that mammoth isn’t plural but I don’t care (is kraken plural? Why aren’t they the Colorado avalanches? Does jazz even make sense as the name of a sports team?) the quirk will age well. I just hope announcers etc conjugate for a singular like they would a term like juggernaut (here COMES the mammoth). The U tusk logo is another winner, but the state hockey stick logo needs to get gone and stay gone. The wordmark is pretty darn meh for a first (second?) effort. It’s just… fine… standalone but looks weak on the diagonal. It would be better served going straight across or vertically arched. For my money, though, the shortness of UTAH, and the color scheme and general uni design are screaming for a script wordmark on the uni with the classic underline tail even. As has been mentioned above, I fully expect to see a baby blue uni join the fray at some point. I think the whole look would be elevated with a quirk like heathered grey shorts, but that’s beyond the point.
The interesting bit about a mammoth is that they were so large we use it an adjective. Why not have the whole thing in a logo, instead forcing a U shape and mountains around a head?
I’m a fan. good simple design, just enough story telling/hidden elements. Nice color combo
2 out of 10.
As pedestrian as they come.
The top of the Mammoth looks like he’s wearing a yamaka.
Tusk and truck visually interlock. Inexcusable.
The black and white uniforms have NO unique characteristics.
The secondary logos a DULL as F.
They took 18 months to roll this snoozer out.
BRUTAL.
I like the logo and colors, and am thrilled they stuck with traditional jersey striping and not mountain themed stripes. I wish the road jersey also featured the primary logo and that the “UTAH” jerseys were made the third jersey in light blue. My biggest gripe is the singular ‘Mammoth’. So AHL.
The primary logo feels like the 1990’s again. So if you don’t like it, don’t worry, it will change.
Am I the only one seeing an M in the hockey stick? An Easter egg that they never even mentioned to us! Also, has Wolfgang Van Halen been notified of this?
Would be funny if he recently changed the band name from Mammoth WVH to just Mammoth to block this.
Considering the atrocities we get from Nike and the NFL, these work for me.
Nice job Mammoth!
Can’t help but think that someone in Utah is thinking “Dang, I wish we could have made that eye red, but…”
A little disappointing, but it could have been worse. I didn’t like any of the final three options, but this might be the “best” of the three, if it weren’t for the similarly named lacrosse team in Denver.
The crest really doesn’t work for me. The tusks are way too small. I’m not sure what exact species they’re supposedly referring to, but Columbian mammoths and woolly mammoths had huge tusks with a really nice curl. I’d like to see more of a full-body or head-on depiction that emphasizes the imposing dimensions and those awesome tusks. The head-mountains are a little too clever.
The colors are pretty good, and I’m expecting a light blue sweater at some point. I don’t usually like diagonal lettering on hockey sweaters (Rangers get a pass), but for a new team it makes sense. I feel that since hockey is the only one of the main sports where a big chest logo is the norm, it’s usually a missed opportunity to do anything other than a crest.
Logo is fine as well as the colors. But as others have mentioned, the striping pattern should have remained consistent across the two jerseys. And I absolutely despise the Carolina Hurricanes’ inspired approach of logoed home jersey and wordmark road jersey.
“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the team’s application for “Utah Yetis” and “Utah Yeti” due to a “likelihood of confusion” with the existing Yeti brand.”
Aren’t we going to also have confusion differentiating the hockey team from the rock band Mammoth WVH?
I lost a tooth biting into my iPhone because I thought it was an actual apple.
Not fond of the singular and the inconsistent striping but otherwise this is a nice looking identity. The primary logo is really nice. Tusks up is awkward. And remember: why did mammoths get extinct? Slow, heavy creatures who could not adapt to a change in climate. So why pick this team name for a transplant team of fast, agile athletes? But on its own I like it. Maine Black Bears lookalike, but I like it.
As reported here back on February 17, the NHL is considering going back to white jerseys for home and dark for away. If it happens, I suspect Utah puts the Mammoth on the white jerseys.
“…the shape of Utah, which is subtly embedded in the mountain silhouette;” – Am I the only one not seeing this?
It’s pretty subtle, but it’s there:
link
Mammoths would be a great name. Mammoth is not. And that logo is a stinker.
It should have been Yeti and that will never not be true.
Hell, they should have bought the cooler company and leaned into it.
They even used the Yeti logo they designed just swapped out the creatures faces. Feels like settling. They should have been in talks with Yeti coolers before it became public knowledge. Mammoth is ok but Yeti was great. Aye…
I guess a version of “baby blue” is the 2020’s version of the 1990’s “teal”. LOL I do like the design though. It should look pretty good on the ice.
I like the Mammoth sets, but point to two details that I dislike: 1) the lower stripes on the hem of the jerseys differ from those on the sleeves- I know the Canadiens make that work, but they’re the exception, and 2) Fanatics seems to be maintaining that horrible yoke collar (that Adidas introduced) on the home jersey- Yuck!. ‘Would like to see a light blue 3rd!
I blame the Wild for this “whoa there’s hidden things in the logo” stuff. Hidden elements don’t make a logo good; in fact, they mostly make a logo overly busy and clunky.
God, Yeti would have been one of the most unique and cool sports team names ever. What a disappointment… That logo looks like its straight out of Madden ’05 build your own franchise….