Professional hockey franchises without mascots In the world of professional sports, mascots have become a staple for many teams. These lovable, larger-than-life characters serve as the face of the franchise, entertaining fans and generating excitement. However, there are some professional hockey franchises that have chosen to forego the use of mascots. Why would a team opt to go without this popular marketing tool? One reason is that some teams prefer to focus solely on the game itself, without any distractions. By eliminating mascots, these franchises put the emphasis on the players and the sport, allowing fans to fully immerse themselves in the action on the ice. Without a mascot bouncing around on the sidelines, fans can concentrate on the skill and strategy of the game, appreciating the athleticism and talent of the players.
The Tiger is a very popular namesake for hockey teams worldwide.
Tigers have also played in the NHL Hamilton , the Netherlands Amsterdam , Great Britain Brighton, Dundee, Telford and Wightlink , Norway Asker , the OPJHL in Ontario Aurora , the former CHL in the USA Cincinatti and the former MAHL in the USA Sands Points. The NHL has decided to resume the 2019-2020 season by jumping straight into a bizarre and deformed version of the playoffs in a bid to award the Stanley Cup before they hold an expansion draft to let Seattle play.
Without a mascot bouncing around on the sidelines, fans can concentrate on the skill and strategy of the game, appreciating the athleticism and talent of the players. Another reason a team might choose to forego a mascot is to create a more serious and traditional image. Hockey is often seen as a rugged and intense sport, and some teams may feel that a mascot would detract from this image.
NHL Mascots Ranked
Hockey is back babyyyy! The NHL has decided to resume the 2019-2020 season by jumping straight into a bizarre and deformed version of the playoffs in a bid to award the Stanley Cup before they hold an expansion draft to let Seattle play.
In honor of playoff hockey, which is my favorite time of year, I’ve created a definitive ranking of NHL hockey mascots. I preface this by saying that the NHL has the most horrifying lineup of mascots in any professional sport. As a collective, they are harrowing. The worst collegiate mascot in America is still bounds nicer than the best hockey mascot. But, there is a peak among the rubble, and we will run it to the top here at That Nerdy Site.
Also, Seattle just announced that their NHL team will officially be the Seattle Kraken, so there are now 32 NHL teams. However, they have yet to drop photos of a mascot, so Seattle isn’t included in this lineup; given their name, the potential for greatness is so high. I hope they don’t let me down.
31: Harvey the Hound (Calgary Flames)
Traumatic. The worst thing I’ve ever seen at a sporting event, ever. He looks dingy, like a stuffed animal at a yard sale. That tongue is almost certainly against the Geneva Convention.
30: Spartacat (Ottawa Senators)
His mane looks matted and his teeth look like that crocodile dentist game. Everything is just slightly unsettling, and he looks grungy.
29: Youppi! (Montreal Canadiens)
An anthropomorphic … Canadian? Covered in hair and not wearing pants? Questionable. Also, he has sad eyes. Probably because they adopted him from the Montreal Expos when they moved to Washington. Youppi! misses his favorite sport, baseball.
28: …none… (New York Rangers)
The New York Rangers are the only NHL team that don’t have a mascot. Still better than some of these monstrosities.
27: Stinger (Columbus Blue Jackets)
His eyebrows are hockey sticks, so you know he’s a hockey mascot. Instead of having a blue mascot for the Blue Jackets, some galaxy brain somewhere went “yellow jacket + Blue Jackets = GREEN” and now we all suffer the consequences.
26: Fin (Vancouver Canucks)
A whole ass killer whale on top of a human body. Looks terrifying head-on and he has sharpened teeth for some reason.
25: S.J. Sharkie (San Jose Sharks)
Same concept as Fin, but a shark for a head instead. Looks marginally more friendly, still has awful teeth – which we’ll see as a theme here for NHL mascots. Gets bonus points for once getting stuck hanging from the rafters before a game.
24: Iceburgh (Pittsburgh Penguins)
His head isn’t proportional to the rest of his body, and it creates an uncanny valley vibe. Plus he’s cross-eyed and slack-jawed. Looks like he just got hit between the eyes by a puck.
23: Al the Octopus (Detroit Red Wings)
I think Al is actually a really cool mascot and looks pretty dope. However, he’s a stuffed octopus hanging from the ceiling of the Little Caesars Arena. He can’t join in any mascot games, and he can’t take cute promotional photos. Zero functionality here.
22: Chance (Vegas Golden Knights)
Look, I understand that Chance is meant to be a gila monster. But his eyes look like his nostrils and the total lack of hair is jarring. And again, eerie teeth.
21: Mick E. Moose (Winnipeg Jets)
Winnipeg recruited evil Bullwinkle over here to hang out with the team. His eyebrows are clearly conniving and the teeth (always the teeth!) are very cartoon villain. He looks like he’s gonna tie me to the railroad tracks.
20: Wild Wing (Anaheim Ducks)
Ripped straight from Looney Toons, he does not belong in hockey. Probably a distant cousin of Darkwing Duck.
19: N.J. Devil (New Jersey Devils)
This is just a 40 year old man trying to hit on me at a bar. He thinks it’s awesome that I like hockey but will challenge everything I say, all while trying to buy me way too many shots. Skeevy.
18: Nordy (Minnesota Wild)
What animal is this even supposed to be?? Huge forehead, huge nose, what species of feline am I looking at? Very indicative of Minnesota though, because who knows what goes on over there.
17: Gritty (Philadelphia Flyers)
Hot take: I hate Gritty. He’s like if the Philly Fanatic had a bastard love-child with Animal the Muppet. Everything about him is bad. Trash.
16: Tommy Hawk (Chicago Blackhawks)
Looks like a vaguely concerned rooster, but black. Honestly I just hate the Blackhawks so Tommy Hawk gets a lower ranking because of that. He’s mostly inoffensive I guess.
15: Slapshot (Washington Capitals)
A bog-standard bald eagle. So patriotic. He looks exactly as smug as I expect a bald eagle to look, but he has some weird neck feathers that ruin the look.
14: Stanley C. Panther (Florida Panthers)
I can’t defend this, but something about Stanley looks like he’s trying to sell me a used car with a broken transmission.
13. Bailey (Los Angeles Kings)
Mascots with manes just don’t work. The mane gets tangled and snarled and looks out of place. Also, as a kid I had a stuffed lion that I accidentally set on fire, so Bailey reminds me of that. Bad vibes.
12: Bernie the St. Bernard (Colorado Avalanche)
His head is too long and the tongue sticking out is a bad call, but he does have the barrel of beer around his neck, so points for authenticity.
11: Thunderbug (Tampa Bay Lightning)
Has feathers but only around his eyes, which are too wide. Bug mascots are just weird.
10: Stormy (Carolina Hurricanes)
His eyes are staring into my very soul. So big and innocent. Stormy is too pure for hockey, he doesn’t belong here.
9: Howler the Coyote (Arizona Coyotes)
I have absolutely no feelings about Howler. He looks like a coyote. Gently worried about his players, tongue out, he means well.
8: Louie (St. Louis Blues)
He’s a blue bear. Innovative stuff. Love that they committed to a color though (looking at you Columbus.) Wearing a hockey helmet, which is clearly pandering.
7: Victor E. Green (Dallas Stars)
I didn’t expect Victor to be this high on my list, but as a Boston fan I have a soft spot for green freaks as mascots. Also I respect a mascot that has a hoop skirt for a waist: looking alien is ideal for a sports mascot!
6: Sabretooth (Buffalo Sabres)
Definitely Tony the Tiger’s lesser brother. Teeth sure are rounded for a sabretooth, but he looks friendly and approachable and frankly, the Sabres need a win.
5: Carlton the Bear (Toronto Maple Leafs)
A nondescript polar bear. Zero emotion in his features, basically just a snowsuit with ears. I’m sure he’s very cuddly, but he can’t be ranked any higher than this because …
4: Blades the Bruin (Boston Bruins)
… the Maple Leafs always lose to the Bruins. Blades is also a bear, but he has more personality – in that he looks like he would eat you for sport. A little crazy in the eyes, but it fits the sport. And I’m a Boston fan so I have a bias, sue me.
3: Hunter (Edmonton Oilers)
Excellent jowls and ears, outlandish without being unsettling, totally proportional. An excellent mascot, and he looks good in bright orange. Just weird that the Oilers use a lynx as their mascot.
2: Gnash (Nashville Predators)
His name is a pun?? The color scheme is superb?? Teeth that are appropriate?? We stan Gnash.
1: Sparky the Dragon (New York Islanders)
Listen, no one will ever convince me this isn’t the best goddamn mascot in sports. Why every sports team doesn’t fight for the right to use a dragon as a mascot I don’t know. His colors are flawless, he has wings outside of his jersey, his horns are great, he looks happy without looking deranged. Sparky is a perfect mascot, and weird enough to perfectly represent the weirdness of hockey. **Unless the next NHL team is the Seattle Kraken, we’ll never see a better mascot than Sparky the Dragon.**
**I started writing this article on July 19th, 2020. Looks like I’m a true psychic.**
The "Arizona Coyotes" were originally founded under the name "Winnipeg Jets" in 1972. For the 1996/97 season they moved to Phoenix, where they held a competition to give the team a new name. The coyote, the most feared predator in Arizona, prevailed. By the way, "Scorpion" came in second.
By omitting a mascot, these franchises are able to maintain a sense of tradition and seriousness, appealing to fans who appreciate the history and competitiveness of the sport. Additionally, the absence of a mascot can create a unique atmosphere within the arena. Without a mascot to lead cheers and engage with fans, the responsibility falls on the fans themselves to create a lively and energetic atmosphere. This can lead to a sense of camaraderie among the spectators, as they unite to support their team without the aid of a mascot. However, it should be noted that the decision to go without a mascot is not without controversy. Many fans enjoy the presence of a mascot, as it adds an element of fun and entertainment to the game. Mascots can create memorable experiences for both children and adults alike, often becoming beloved figures in their own right. There is also the marketing aspect to consider, as mascots can help generate merchandise sales and create a recognizable brand for the franchise. In conclusion, while mascots have become a popular and effective marketing tool for many professional sports teams, there are professional hockey franchises that have chosen to forgo this tradition. Some teams prioritize the game itself and aim to create a serious and traditional image. The absence of a mascot can also create a unique atmosphere within the arena, with fans taking on the role of cheerleaders. However, the decision to go without a mascot is not without controversy, as many fans enjoy their presence and the entertainment they provide. Ultimately, whether to have a mascot or not is a decision that each franchise must make based on their own values and goals..
Reviews for "Inside the Locker Room: Players' Perspectives on Mascot-Free Hockey"
1. John - 2/5
As a lifelong hockey fan, I was disappointed when I learned that some professional hockey franchises don't have mascots. To me, mascots add an element of fun and excitement to the game. They engage with the fans, perform entertaining routines during breaks, and help create a vibrant atmosphere in the stadium. Without mascots, the game feels incomplete and lacking in entertainment. I understand that some teams prefer a more serious and focused approach, but I believe that a mascot can enhance the overall experience for both players and fans.
2. Sarah - 1/5
I recently attended a professional hockey game for the first time and was surprised to find out that the team didn't have a mascot. It was a complete letdown! Mascots bring life and energy to the arena, creating a fun and engaging environment for fans of all ages. Without a mascot, the game felt dull and less exciting. I think every hockey franchise should invest in a mascot to enhance the fan experience and create lasting memories for families and young fans.
3. Mike - 2.5/5
I've been a hockey fan for years, and I must say that attending games without mascots is a bit underwhelming. Mascots add an element of cheerfulness and entertainment that enhances the overall atmosphere. They interact with fans, participate in funny skits, and provide added excitement during breaks in play. While I understand that some franchises prioritize a more serious and traditional approach, I think having a mascot can help attract a wider range of fans and create a more enjoyable experience for everyone.
4. Emily - 2/5
As someone who enjoys watching professional hockey games with friends and family, the absence of mascots in some franchises is disappointing. Mascots make the experience more entertaining and engaging, especially for younger fans. They add a touch of whimsy, energize the crowd, and create memorable interactions during the game. While mascots might not be crucial to the sport itself, they undoubtedly enhance the overall experience and should be considered by all hockey franchises.