The Utah Fill-In-The-Blanks

Now that the Arizona Coyotes have officially moved to Salt Lake City, the next step will be to find out what their new name is.  All we know is that the team will be branded "Utah" and that the plan is to have a nickname in place by the start of the 2024-25 season.  This won't be a "Washington Football Team" situation.  Owners Ryan and Ashley Smith want the team to have an identity and the players to be able to say they don't just play for "Utah."

Ryan Smith has some ideas for how he wants the team to look.  He also owns the Jazz and wants to connect the hockey team with them in some way.  But he also doesn't want to be "like Pittsburgh," where they share the same colors.  It seems more likely that the colors and possibly the logo will be similar, which will create a great opportunity for co-branding the teams that'll share the Delta Center.

Ultimately, though, it'll be up to the fans.  The Smiths are planning on having a "Name the Team" contest for the social media age by creating a bracket where fans will be able to vote online for their preferred name.  They registered nine different trademarks, which lends further credence to the idea of an eight-team bracket.  One of the names they trademarked was "Utah Hockey Club" (and "Utah HC"), but I think that was more to prevent somebody else from snapping it up than because it's a serious option.

Even if the Smiths hadn't already publicly committed to an actual nickname, this isn't MLS, where every team has some form of "FC" or "United" as part of their name.  "Utah Hockey Club," if it's ever used would be just as a placeholder name simply because it's so generic.  Don't forget, the ex-Coyotes don't just need a name.  They need a logo and uniforms, too.  These things take time to design, so, even though the Smiths have said they'll have a name in time for next season, I can see "Utah Hockey Club" being used next season if there's any sort of delay.

"Utah Grizzlies" is not among the options, which may have been a surprise to some.  There are likely two reasons for that.  The first is the most obvious one.  The minor league team known as the Utah Grizzlies still exists, so they own that trademark.  Even if they didn't, though, it probably would've been an issue to obtain a trademark to the "Grizzlies" name since there likely would've been an objection by the Memphis Grizzlies.  So, it makes sense that they'd want to avoid both of those potential problems and give the former Coyotes a completely unique identity.

Of the seven available choices (again, I'm not counting "Utah HC" and "Utah Hockey Club" as realistic options), some are better than others.  While none of them are great, there are a few that are definitely less bad.  And there are a couple that would give the Smiths their desired co-branding options with the Jazz.  If these are the eight, here's how I'd rank them heading into that fan vote:

7. Ice: Hockey's played on ice.  Everybody knows this.  You don't need to reinforce it by giving your team a name that sounds like the cheap local beer that people only buy because they're curious how it tastes.  Come to think of it, "Utah Ice" doesn't even sound like a good beer (it was almost certainly be non-alcoholic, too).

6. Fury: Sounds like the name of either a minor league team or one that plays a sport like arena football, soccer or rugby.  An NHL team, though?  Absolutely not!

5. Venom: We're starting to get better, but this one still seems a little amateurish.  It also sounds like the name of one of the gladiators on American Gladiators.  Although, if "Venom" were chosen, they could probably come up with a pretty cool logo with a snake sticking its tongue out wrapped around a hockey stick (or a U or V).

4. Yetis: Without a doubt, "Yetis" would have the coolest mascot!  The Avalanche already have a bigfoot logo as one of their secondary marks, though, so what would be the point of calling your team the "Yetis" if you couldn't use such obvious imagery?  It's also way too close to "Utah Utes," which is obviously already a well-established brand.

3. Outlaws: I wouldn't be opposed to the name "Utah Outlaws."  It doesn't seem to make too much sense for Utah, but, then again, "Jazz" doesn't either, so that's clearly not a big issue.  It's also unique, which is a big plus.  The only team I can ever recall being called the "Outlaws" was the Las Vegas entry in the original XFL.

2. Blizzard: This one would work well on several levels.  The Jazz's old logo featured the snow-capped Wasatch Mountains, and they could easily be incorporated into a logo for the "Blizzard."  It also has the same double Z as Jazz, so that would help with the co-branding.  However, it's close enough to Avalanche that I can see Colorado objecting.

1. Mammoth: In my opinion, this is the best of the seven.  There's a lacrosse team named the Colorado Mammoth, but I don't think there's much chance of people confusing the two (much like when the Golden Knights ran into the trademark issue because of that parachute troop).  And, aside from that, it's the most unique choice.  "Utah Mammoth" just sounds cool, and there are some great logo and mascot possibilities incorporating a woolly mammoth.  If I end up participating in this contest, "Mammoth" will be my choice.

Regardless of which name ends up being chosen, connecting Utah's new NHL team to the Jazz is a smart move.  I don't think doing the "Pittsburgh thing" is such a terrible idea, but it would also be tough to just automatically use the Jazz's colors before picking the franchise's new name.  The Jazz and the ex-Coyotes will be partners, and the Jazz are the recognizable brand that's been in Salt Lake City for 45 years.  Hopefully the Utah Whatevers of the NHL will become just as recognizable.