Conrad.

NBA Changes 2017-18

Recommended Posts

On 11/24/2017 at 10:45 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I don't disagree at all with that last part. The Nets' final set before their move was the best uniform they ever had.

 

b5rZV3a.jpg

 

This beautiful uniform was worn for twelve years. It coincided with the team's best period in its NBA history: Martin, Jefferson, Carter, and the incomparable Kidd. (I know that it ended badly with Kidd -- twice. But he transformed that franchise.)

 

In this uniform, the Nets experienced plenty of excitement in the regular season and the playoffs, and twice made the Finals.  What's more, this set actually achieved the task of incorporating a net design into the look. Ideally, it should have remained unchanged after the move.

 

But, if the team was intent on changing the colours to black and white and on simplifying the look, then the black and white version of the classic ABA style was the way to go.

 

Instead, we got a look that is beyond generic; the Nets are more aesthetically bereft than the Thunder. The uniforms say only the locality name (which is not even a city name -- the f-ing team should be the "New York Nets", damn it!); and the uninspiring number font is thin and wispy, as opposed to the bold varsity number font of the Celtics that stands out so well under thin lettering.

 

Furthermore, the Nets' primary logo, a decent continuation of the previous era's shield, is terribly underutilised. The team improperly uses the secondary circular logo in places where the primary logo belongs, such as on the backdrop used for interviews, and, worst of all, at centre court.

 

The primary logo appears on the regular shorts; but on the uniforms that debuted today it was replaced by the secondary circular logo. It's like these guys are going out of their way to annoy me.

 

Say at what you will about the quality/execution of the elements of their identity, but you can’t deny they hit the other marks. They were run of the mill and forgettable in the blue and red garb. The current one, generic as it may be, sets them apart and gives them a mature look that transcends the court. They were also smart to ignore your advice and put all their chips on Brooklyn, cashing in on the most populous, proud (and unused in sports!) sub-location of the city whilst avoiding becoming second fiddle to all the other “New York” teams.

 

On 11/25/2017 at 4:55 AM, WSU151 said:

You can post 10,000 pictures if you want, but until a 2000 jersey is right next to a 2017 jersey in the same picture, we’ll never know the actual difference due to all the variables that Jonah listed.

 

o5cgnz-b88683196z.120160408190721000ghif

 

This. The issue could be anything, including the new fabric reflecting light in a slightly different way. Too many variables to compare photos.

 

On 11/25/2017 at 4:16 PM, upperV03 said:

Just like they do for the throwbacks, the Warriors have a new center court logo to correspond with their Statement uniforms, which they’re debuting tonight.

DPgTtrhUMAA3Evy?format=jpg

Here’s a video showing them swapping out the throwback logo for the “The Town” logo:

Pretty nice, although they should’ve arched the Warriors wordmark on the bottom of the inside of the circle. As it is, it just looks a bit awkward. Plus, there’s hardly any blue on the uniform, so it would’ve been better to swap the colors of the center court logo (but leave “The Town” blue, obviously).

 

That graphic looks great in team colors. 

 

Speaking of the Warriors, does anyone think they’ll modify their logo when they move across the bay since their current one depicts the Oakland half of the bridge? ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

This. The issue could be anything, including the new fabric reflecting light in a slightly different way. Too many variables to compare photos.

 

 

Or you could believe your lying eyes. Some people actually watch the games.

 

Speaking of, Lakers are in purple tonight....and it looks really nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s great to see the Lakers in purple again. They look especially good with the purple accessories and yellow-topped socks:

DPsRLJ2VAAEJeH9?format=jpgDPsOfXRUIAE5LS6?format=jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andrewharrington said:
On 24/11/2017 at 10:45 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

b5rZV3a.jpg

 

This beautiful uniform was worn for twelve years. It coincided with the team's best period in its NBA history: Martin, Jefferson, Carter, and the incomparable Kidd. (I know that it ended badly with Kidd -- twice. But he transformed that franchise.)

 

In this uniform, the Nets experienced plenty of excitement in the regular season and the playoffs, and twice made the Finals.  What's more, this set actually achieved the task of incorporating a net design into the look. Ideally, it should have remained unchanged after the move.

 

But, if the team was intent on changing the colours to black and white and on simplifying the look, then the black and white version of the classic ABA style was the way to go.

 

Instead, we got a look that is beyond generic; the Nets are more aesthetically bereft than the Thunder. The uniforms say only the locality name (which is not even a city name -- the f-ing team should be the "New York Nets", damn it!); and the uninspiring number font is thin and wispy, as opposed to the bold varsity number font of the Celtics that stands out so well under thin lettering.

 

Furthermore, the Nets' primary logo, a decent continuation of the previous era's shield, is terribly underutilised. The team improperly uses the secondary circular logo in places where the primary logo belongs, such as on the backdrop used for interviews, and, worst of all, at centre court.

 

The primary logo appears on the regular shorts; but on the uniforms that debuted today it was replaced by the secondary circular logo. It's like these guys are going out of their way to annoy me.

 

Say at what you will about the quality/execution of the elements of their identity, but you can’t deny they hit the other marks. They were run of the mill and forgettable in the blue and red garb. The current one, generic as it may be, sets them apart and gives them a mature look that transcends the court. They were also smart to ignore your advice and put all their chips on Brooklyn, cashing in on the most populous, proud (and unused in sports!) sub-location of the city whilst avoiding becoming second fiddle to all the other “New York” teams

 

I've got bad news for you: the Nets are as second-fiddle as you can get in New York. They had a brief honeymoon period right after the move, when the question of whether Deron Williams would re-sign was the big news, and then when they brought in Pierce and Garnett. But that's long gone. This team is every bit as marginal to the New York fan's consciousness now as it was when it was in New Jersey. 

 

And the lustre of the Nets stripped-down look has worn off, as well. For a hot minute in 2012 the Nets were amongst the top selling teams in merchandise; now they don't crack the top 10, while the Knicks rank at no. 5. Kristaps Porzingis has the 7th-best selling individual jersey; if there is a Net in the top 100 I would be shocked. Not even Jeremy Lin can make a difference. With the Knicks he was Linsanity; with the Nets he is Linvisible, Linsignificant, Linconsequential -- take your pick. And it's not just because he's been injured so much.

 

The Nets had the moment in the spotlight right after the move when they could have embraced the grooviness and funkiness of their history.  They could have positioned themselves as a team for all New York and a refuge for any fed-up Knick fans. They could have been Dr. J's team come back home.

 

But they chose the wrong J:  instead of Dr. J, they went all-in on Jay-Z, allowing that minuscule-stake minority owner to dictate matters of aesthetics and branding, and wound up marginalising themselves in the long run. In identifying not with the City as a whole but with one specific part, they lost the battle with the Knicks before it had even started, by ensuring that the majority of New York City's fans would never embrace them as their hometown team.

 

In the New York scene, the Nets are not just the less dominant team like the Mets or the Jets; they are a peripheral team like the Islanders and the Devils. Their attendance is near the bottom of the league and sinking; their television ratings are at the very bottom and holding fast. And their sterile and lifeless aesthetic has quickly become passé. The Nets have played themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I've got bad news for you: the Nets are as second-fiddle as you can get in New York. They had a brief honeymoon period right after the move, when the question of whether Deron Williams would re-sign was the big news, and then when they brought in Pierce and Garnett. But that's long gone. This team is every bit as marginal to the New York fan's consciousness now as it was when it was in New Jersey. 

 

And the lustre of the Nets stripped-down look has worn off, as well. For a hot minute in 2012 the Nets were amongst the top selling teams in merchandise; now they don't crack the top 10, while the Knicks rank at no. 5. Kristaps Porzingis has the 7th-best selling individual jersey; if there is a Net in the top 100 I would be shocked. Not even Jeremy Lin can make a difference. With the Knicks he was Linsanity; with the Nets he is Linvisible, Linsignificant, Linconsequential -- take your pick. And it's not just because he's been injured so much.

 

The Nets had the moment in the spotlight right after the move when they could have embraced the grooviness and funkiness of their history.  They could have positioned themselves as a team for all New York and a refuge for any fed-up Knick fans. They could have been Dr. J's team come back home.

 

But they chose the wrong J:  instead of Dr. J, they went all-in on Jay-Z, allowing that minuscule-stake minority owner to dictate matters of aesthetics and branding, and wound up marginalising themselves in the long run. In identifying not with the City as a whole but with one specific part, they lost the battle with the Knicks before it had even started, by ensuring that the majority of New York City's fans would never embrace them as their hometown team.

 

In the New York scene, the Nets are not just the less dominant team like the Mets or the Jets; they are a peripheral team like the Islanders and the Devils. Their attendance is near the bottom of the league and sinking; their television ratings are at the very bottom and holding fast. And their sterile and lifeless aesthetic has quickly become passé. The Nets have played themselves.

 

Fair enough, but I don’t think the red and blue or the stars and stripes would have mitigated the managerial mistakes that led to the current lackluster team. Both of those are “me too” identities, while the current one is signature to them. Success is worth a lot, and they simply lost all the chips they pushed in to achieve it. You said it yourself; The hope of KP alone has reinvigorated the Knicks, while the Nets are bereft of anything resembling hope at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cavaliers new black jerseys look so much better than I expected them to. Still would look better with a normal wordmark, mind. But the color balance works, and the pattern is striking. I renounce my previous statements about the Cavs being at their best with navy blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

Say at what you will about the quality/execution of the elements of their identity, but you can’t deny they hit the other marks. They were run of the mill and forgettable in the blue and red garb. The current one, generic as it may be, sets them apart and gives them a mature look that transcends the court. They were also smart to ignore your advice and put all their chips on Brooklyn, cashing in on the most populous, proud (and unused in sports!) sub-location of the city whilst avoiding becoming second fiddle to all the other “New York” teams.

 

How do you cape for everything I hate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Fair enough, but I don’t think the red and blue or the stars and stripes would have mitigated the managerial mistakes that led to the current lackluster team. Both of those are “me too” identities, while the current one is signature to them. Success is worth a lot, and they simply lost all the chips they pushed in to achieve it. You said it yourself; The hope of KP alone has reinvigorated the Knicks, while the Nets are bereft of anything resembling hope at the moment.

 

This 100%. The Brooklyn experiment has failed because of on-court mismanagement, not because they use a bad number font (and they do use a bad number font). Warriors gear still sells like hot cakes and I doubt it's because of their "regional health group" aesthetic branding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Not even Jeremy Lin can make a difference. With the Knicks he was Linsanity; with the Nets he is Linvisible, Linsignificant, Linconsequential -- take your pick.

 

I'm Jim Rome. CBS SPORTS RADIO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I've got bad news for you: the Nets are as second-fiddle as you can get in New York. They had a brief honeymoon period right after the move, when the question of whether Deron Williams would re-sign was the big news, and then when they brought in Pierce and Garnett. But that's long gone. This team is every bit as marginal to the New York fan's consciousness now as it was when it was in New Jersey. 

 

And the lustre of the Nets stripped-down look has worn off, as well. For a hot minute in 2012 the Nets were amongst the top selling teams in merchandise; now they don't crack the top 10, while the Knicks rank at no. 5. Kristaps Porzingis has the 7th-best selling individual jersey; if there is a Net in the top 100 I would be shocked. Not even Jeremy Lin can make a difference. With the Knicks he was Linsanity; with the Nets he is Linvisible, Linsignificant, Linconsequential -- take your pick. And it's not just because he's been injured so much.

 

The Nets had the moment in the spotlight right after the move when they could have embraced the grooviness and funkiness of their history.  They could have positioned themselves as a team for all New York and a refuge for any fed-up Knick fans. They could have been Dr. J's team come back home.

 

But they chose the wrong J:  instead of Dr. J, they went all-in on Jay-Z, allowing that minuscule-stake minority owner to dictate matters of aesthetics and branding, and wound up marginalising themselves in the long run. In identifying not with the City as a whole but with one specific part, they lost the battle with the Knicks before it had even started, by ensuring that the majority of New York City's fans would never embrace them as their hometown team.

 

In the New York scene, the Nets are not just the less dominant team like the Mets or the Jets; they are a peripheral team like the Islanders and the Devils. Their attendance is near the bottom of the league and sinking; their television ratings are at the very bottom and holding fast. And their sterile and lifeless aesthetic has quickly become passé. The Nets have played themselves.

 

The definitely missed a big chance at the beginning. They were actually pretty hyped up when they had the team with Williams, Johnson, Garrett, Pierce, Terry, and made the 2nd round. But since then its obviously been a disaster. Now, yes they are way behind in terms of popularity. But they also have been the worst team in the league by far. With no draft picks. What player so they have that s going to sell jerseys?  A permanently hurt Lin? DeAngelo Russell?

 

They will never surpass the Knicks but if a superstar came to Brooklyn and they were a good team, I do think they would be a lot more popular. Also, over time they will naturally have more fans. It takes a while for a situation like this. Its not like they are moving into a new market. Everyone in Brooklyn was probably already a Knicks fan they aren't going to just change teams. 

 

I do think they made the right re-branding decision though to go Black and White. Although I do think they should use the old stars on the uniforms and use "Nets" on one of their jerseys.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teams shouldn't change their colors. Logos and uniforms can evolve through the years, you can even tweak shades a little bit, but your colors in terms of the most basic words you'd use to describe them should stay the same. Otherwise, you end up like the Padres, Astros, and Canucks, and even the Astros and Canucks have gone back to the colors they were established in. The Nets could go with royal blue, navy blue, or that weird pseudo-tie-dye blue they used for a couple years in the early '90s, but overused as they may be in sports, they should have stuck with red, white, and blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, the admiral said:

Teams shouldn't change their colors. Logos and uniforms can evolve through the years, you can even tweak shades a little bit, but your colors in terms of the most basic words you'd use to describe them should stay the same. Otherwise, you end up like the Padres, Astros, and Canucks, and even the Astros and Canucks have gone back to the colors they were established in. The Nets could go with royal blue, navy blue, or that weird pseudo-tie-dye blue they used for a couple years in the early '90s, but overused as they may be in sports, they should have stuck with red, white, and blue.

 

Ah, yes, and look like Washington, Philadelphia, and/or Detroit, three of the seven geographically closest teams.

 

^_^

 

5 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

How do you cape for everything I hate?

 

It’s a gift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:
5 hours ago, the admiral said:

The Nets...should have stuck with red, white, and blue.

 

Ah, yes, and look like Washington, Philadelphia, and/or Detroit, three of the seven geographically closest teams.

 

A creative design overcomes similar colours.  The Kidd-era Nets set is never going to be confused for Detroit or Washington or Philadelphia or anything else.  It is uniquely Nets.

Related image

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Fair enough, but I don’t think the red and blue or the stars and stripes would have mitigated the managerial mistakes that led to the current lackluster team. Both of those are “me too” identities, while the current one is signature to them. Success is worth a lot, and they simply lost all the chips they pushed in to achieve it. You said it yourself; The hope of KP alone has reinvigorated the Knicks, while the Nets are bereft of anything resembling hope at the moment.

The current identity is "me too" as well - it's blatantly derivative of the Spurs and (color scheme aside) the Celtics. It also debuted at a time when the aesthetic fad of the moment was adopting very safe, conservative, "classic" looks. The Cavs, Jazz, Wizards and Knicks all switched to retro-inspired uniforms at around the same time the Nets did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those teams went back to their own histories while the Nets threw their history in the garbage. Even worse, the dear old Islanders not only had to move into the Jellybean Omni, they had to play Brooklyn Nets dressup. Finally, a hockey team for middle-aged dudes in Nassau County was Jay-Z approved!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

A creative design overcomes similar colours.  The Kidd-era Nets set is never going to be confused for Detroit or Washington or Philadelphia or anything else.  It is uniquely Nets.

Related image

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, well put. I think the argument that multiple teams can’t have similar color schemes doesn’t give good design enough credit. As you stated, no one would confuse the Nets for the 76ers, Pistons, etc. The Kidd set had a look of its own. 

 

Its the same for the argument against multiple purple teams back in the day; the Raptors never looked like the Suns, the Suns never looked like the Bucks, and the Bucks never looked like the Lakers, and so on. They each had designs that set them enough apart, so multiple purple teams was never really that much of a problem. I feel it to be the same for RWB teams, not just in basketball but for the most part across sports. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, the admiral said:

 

I'm Jim Rome. CBS SPORTS RADIO

 

Ferdinand Cesarano's post reads EXACTLY like a Jim Rome rant. I can just hear it in my mind perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now