truepg

2 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

Ummm BS?
 

It’s the North Star State, the State Motto is literally “L’Etoile Du Nord”. The neon green is a little odd, sure, but there’s not a single Minnesotan who’s questioning the North Star in the identity. 

 

Ever heard of the Minnesota North Stars? And the Wild, Twins, and Loons all have the North Star in their logos as well. 
 

I don’t think they used the North Star to justify neon green… I think that the star in the T-Wolves logo is pretty great, and would have been a part of the identity, regardless of the color or specific shade of green chosen. 

Yes.

Regardless of the North Star being symbolic to Minnesota, the identity of the team is the Timberwolves. The wolf, the trees. Those two are the main and clear elements that the brand is based on, and that imagery and the logos served excellently as the crystal-clear symbolic core of the identity ever since the KG days.
 

Even though I find the presence of star imagery fitting for a Minnesota brand, there was no need for additional key visual elements or narrative to the brand, or, moreover, replace the trees with it, as they did. I also remember the neon green being tied to the star at the time of the presentation. Heck, there's a whole secondary ball-logo just featuring the star.

Hence the BS.

19 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

 

This was pre-Malice. I don't recall any sort of crackdown on uniform aesthetics after Malice since the Celtics introduced their BFBS alternate the next season and the gold/black Wizards uniform came the season after that.

How is the color black in the uniforms even associated with the Malice? Neither of the teams involved wore black. 

2 hours ago, adsarebad said:

Why the neon green though?

 

The previous green was due to the trees right?,  trees like, timber?.... and the wolves who live in the forest full of that timber?

 

Why is neon green better than something that made sense to the  city and team name? 

It's not. That neon green doesn't make sense for the Timberwolves. And neither do we need any of that added Northern star BS in the identity that they tried to justify that shade of green with..

12 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

I do understand the greater distaste of trying to over force elements to a logo, but I have to disagree here on this one. Were there some forced elements to the last T Wolves logo? Sure. But what exactly were those “forced”elements? Trees! They were trees. It’s half of the team name. And this is a team that has a history of using the tree motif on their uniforms already. There are very few logos that I love to an irrational level, and that logo is one of them (oddly, two of them play in Minnesota, as I feel similar about the Wild logo. Bucs first flag is the other. I digress). The current logo is about as generic of a wolf logo as you could get. It might as well be painted on the court of a middle school gym it’s so generic. 

I don’t get why that ”hidden” tree in the previous logo is even talked about in all this. To tell you the truth, I don’t get it why they had to disgiuse a tree in the wolf’s neck to begin with, since there are trees in the background anyway, or you could place some literal trees at the front too, and it’s not an element you’d have to hide, it’s literally part of their identity.

That being said, the tree is built in there seamlessly and doesn’t break nor disrupt the silhouette or the graphic in any way to be even brought up as an argument in this discussion. If there really is a ”T” in there too (which I never saw or knew of, btw), it is also worked-in with the shape of the ear much better than the lousy way the ear is drawn in the new logo.

The previous logo is so much better in quality as an illustration and as a logo/graphic. The yellow eye and neither the red tongue that the primary logo used to have ever bothered me at all and always looked fitting in the identity.

13 hours ago, FiddySicks said:

With the T Wolves, I absolutely HATE that they ditched this logo

 

For this garbage logo

 

 

ENORMOUS downgrade IMO. If anything, they could’ve just cleaned the first logo up a bit and added in some green, and it would’ve been such a solid update to their original logo. What they went with stripped all of the life and character out of it. 

That, and the updated front-facing wolf primary logo too was miles better than what they switched to.

2 hours ago, who do you think said:

 

Easy, it's navy. The Mavs' identity was the double blue team before Nike came along and trashed their identity (and everyone else's) with all the useless alts. They do it better than Minnesota does it with their horrid main jerseys, Memphis with their eternally bland look, and Utah during their brief double blue era in the 00s.

 

Dallas is fine where they are and some of the recognizable main uniforms in the league. The blue-green Cowboy-M logo and all the uniforms associated with it were awful, and I just know that whatever this board would have them rebrand to would look like generic ass.

I agree with you on the Mavs' identity having been solid from the beginning, until Nike got their hands on the league and made it a mess. The 90s' blue-green cowboy hat brand is a bit lame and not up to par either. However, the current look has run its course, in terms of aesthetics, no less. I would welcome the addition of green to their palette.

I don't put the other "double-blue" teams, as people tend to call them here, in the same equation, since double-blue is not the main thing any of their identity is based on. Memphis used to have a great identity, and a more all around-solid than the Mavs ever from the 00s' rebrand, but got watered down over time first with the removal of the inline in their jersey numbers (one of many downgrades that were introduced with Adidas' Rev30 unis) and blanded out in this latest rendition.

9 hours ago, -Akronite- said:

In fact, I'd like to see them shift and lean into a navy/orange/gold look. It's far more fitting for the name (dark navy feels more thunderstormy) and the lighter blue standard uniforms have always looked so generic. 

 

I think they look great tonight against Dallas. 

I agree. Apart from those being their best-designed on-brand uniforms, they're also limited to the proper amount of colors used, and don't have any unnecessary outlines. The Insignia font doesn't look good outlined, at least not with multiple. The lighter blue is the odd one out in their color scheme, indeed.

Only that they should've emphasized orange and yellow on this respective alternate court of theirs. Now it looked all too muted and dark while they were wearing these unis.

EDIT: That, or a palette of orange, lighter blue, and white (maybe navy). But that gets too close to the Knicks territory. That's why they should focus on orange, what the Knicks have been frightened of doing all this time.

On 5/14/2024 at 4:08 PM, TBGKon said:

 

That's a better and more interesting logo with the same bridge motif than what the Warriors have, which never awoke any excitement in me.

On 5/15/2024 at 1:03 PM, Old School Fool said:

That's how you do a gray court if you do one. It actually remains looking interesting using those painted areas of color, including the out of bounds. Something that's not typical of gray courts. NBA teams should take note of how it's done the right way.

32 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

 

We're talking about two different things. I agree the Cavs have some unique elements to their branding, but I was referring specifically to uniforms. You said the Thunder's uniforms were terrible, I disagreed, and presented as an alternative a truly awful uniform, which is that of the Cavs, which even you agree look like practice jerseys. I wasn't debating the teams' respective visual identities in the whole; the Thunder logo, as most seem to agree, is pointless. But when it comes to uniforms, the Thunder set provides a bright and appealing color palette with a design that is neither too simple nor adorned with gimmicks. They're great despite the logo. If we're wondering why their uniforms have been around so long, that's the reason. 

 

To me, the Wolves Classics carry those same qualities and, yes, the brighter neon green certainly adds a new and welcome dimension to the look. But that isn't what makes them great. What makes them great is that they don't rely on novelty or fads to make them stand out. They're basketball uniforms that let the colors and the wordmark do the heavy lifting. 

 

I understand the nostalgic pull of the KG-era tree-trimmed look, but I've always thought they were too heavy on novelty and a product of their time: A shift toward darker navy at a time when that was trendy, the novelty tree-trim, a cartoonish '90s font, the aggro wolf logo. It was good in as much as it represented an era, but it was far from timeless. 

 

 

I see that you were talking about uniforms in particular, and my point still was that despite of all the things mentioned, the Cavs' uniforms are better, and OKC's are poor. Mainly for all the other reasons I went over.

To me this Classic Wolves' uniform in question is just a basic basketball template that has gained people's sympathy for the brighter green, a fresher color scheme that is unique to the league, and the throwback factor. The fact that their regular sets happen to be even duller also didn't hurt the case.

The KG-era uniforms had certain elements that were over the top product of the 90s, but the tree trim is an iconic and distinctive element they could own that should've been held onto no matter what. The more aggressive typography in general and logos suited the identity better to me. Ironically, the black uni also fit the look exceptionally well. And I just like the color palette of that era for them more.

22 minutes ago, gosioux76 said:

A contrast to this would be the Cavs, where there's simplicity but no character. 

Oh, I couldn't disagree more with this one. Yes, the uniforms are under-designed and basically are "summer league" uniforms, as they have been called. But the Cavs have a very solid and attractive graphic identity and assets (without going into intricacies of how the "global" logo was assembled), and a stylish, distinctive and very cohesive color palette. That's why, while being really bare and lackluster indeed, their uniforms are still more interesting than the Nuggets', for example, and definitely better than OKC's.

As a matter of fact, with all the unnecessary influx of black lately I've been complaining of myself, the Cavs are the one team whose color pattern it actually fits tremendously well and compliments the wine and gold much better than navy which it replaced. In their case adopting black was the right thing to do.

What comes to the Wolves, these Classic uniforms are nothing special nor bad per se, but also don't have the same amount of unnecessary elements thrown together while still remaining generic. I think it's the brighter shade of green that people are fascinated by this time around. They don't have nearly as much character as the tree trim unis, however,  which would be my choice over those any day of the week.

On 5/8/2024 at 5:39 AM, GoGreenGoWhite said:

I've really come around a lot on this set post 2019(?) refresh. Especially the home getup, those colors really pop! That Love's patch is really horrendous though, gotta be the worst in the NBA.

 

Their colors is really one redeeming thing in all that, especially when the emphasis is on orange. Even though I don't love their color palette at all, and it has a color or two too many. Maybe it's largely in contrast to many other teams that have drifted towards black and navy, on the other hand.

Those uniforms are still trash, however, with the generic font and multiple outlines, and neither did that wordmark flip make any sense. Their whole identity is being "generic", in those colors. It lacks character, and needs a whole proper redesign from the ground. None of the "deviation" attempts we've seen on various alternates have been it.

Well, they finally got onto something proper with their last City jersey, but based on the current brand assets, nevertheless.

3 hours ago, pepis21 said:

I don't know like you guys, but I fall in love with this:

 

It's much, much better than current alternate and I wouldn't mind if they use it instead of away uniform for the rest of the playoffs and make it a permament alternate in next season.

To me it’s much better for the reason that it vastly resembles and is based on their 00s’ set, which was much superior than everything they replaced it with.  The only upgrade was the new wordmark. The pinstripes don’t look bad on the uniform either.

10 hours ago, BBTV said:

I don't love black in either of those palettes.

 

The black only really works with the copper and the yellow, but not the purple or light blue.

 

Maybe the next time the Hawks lose their minds, they can try it (they'd have to abandon red though, or at least relegate it to one of the 32 alts they'll have.)

Exactly.

I’d like the Hawks to stick to their traditional nice colors, though

8 hours ago, Lights Out said:

 

It's not the most inspiring look, but no way is it worse than the Thunder, Nets, Rockets, or Jazz.

You're spot on on all except the Rockets. Even with all the bastardization of the original form of the current "soaring R" identity that has happened along the way, it still isn't anywhere in the worst look conversation.

36 minutes ago, BBTV said:

There’s not many nba or nhl teams that have better dark looks than they do white ones imo. 

Here I'd have to disagree, though. When evaluating uniforms as they are, as clean as some white ones do sometimes look, I usually find the colored counterparts to be more appealing and visually interesting.

7 hours ago, Germanshepherd said:

I’ve always been a supporter of home teams wearing colored jerseys for a similar reason. 
 

If you’re the home team you should be showcasing your colors and forcing the opposing team to wear a neutral white. Football got this right. 

 

However, I do favor lighter colored colors for home uniforms in basketball like the Lakers and Pacers in gold because that makes for some good, easily identifiable double color games, but if a team’s only options are black or white they should wear black at home imo.  

On top of being a clear system and an instant indicator, there's no need for the home team to be showcasing their colors to the fullest on their uniform at home, since the court and all the surroundings are already displaying it very prominently for them, down to the crowd. Let alone that the home crowd is well familiar with the local team's colors and identity. That's why the visitor is representing and making their identity to be seen as a counterforce in that overwhelmingly outside environment. In the end, it makes for a rational and pleasant watching experience.

Usually, when the home team wears their color at home, it looks like overkill for that color to be present way more than enough, and oftentimes blends in with the painted areas of the court.

5 hours ago, Pyromania1983 said:

Wow, we're actually getting a really great uniform matchup tonight where both teams are wearing the primary uniforms that truly represent their aesthetic identity. This is crazy lol!

Wrong. That's messed up, the whole thing should be the other way around. The game is played in Philly, the Sixers shouldn't be wearing a colored uniform, when their court displays those colors prominently already.  Also, the Knicks shouldn't be wearing a white home uniform, and should be showcasing their colors instead playing on the road.

Other than that, for the current state of things, it is crazy, yes.

2 hours ago, MCM0313 said:

Ding ding ding ding! Our whole culture seems to be forgetting this. You see it with NFL players wearing different sock colors across a team. You see it with crap alts that flagrantly disregard teams’ general style and color scheme. In the NBA you can’t even tell which team is which at first glance anymore, which is incredibly bothersome in a league whose uniforms used to be so full of color and personality. 
 

In every league that has “city edition” uniforms, those should not be allowed in the playoffs. I’m on the fence about throwbacks - Minnesota’s are awfully nice - but, generally, if it isn’t either white or a specific listed team color, it shouldn’t be allowed in the playoffs. Yes, I’m grumpy. 

You see, I get the logic behind why they are allowing it. It's yet another means to continuously sell as many different jerseys as possible and generate revenue – the same reason that black (and navy) are shoehorned into and made dominant in so many teams' identities – and in case of shoes, to provide a platform to showcase and market the models/colorways to boost their sales. It's just that all that is happening at the expense of aesthetics and professional image of the product. Similarly as the game itself that is played in the NBA is currently dictated by the analytics maximizing efficiency, which in turn results in a gameplay that is not pretty at all nor fun to watch (one could argue if at all watchable).

There has to be a certain limit, though, an extent, to which you take advantage of the strategic opportunities, while still maintaining a professional and attractive appearance and gameplay that is pleasing and interesting to watch, respectively. A certain amount of balance, so to speak.

But, as long as the current state of things sells, it will stay the way it is. Unless the dissatisfaction reaches some really noticeable levels. But will it ever?

Well, yeah, the shoes have been such an eyesore and have cheapened the look (alongside the current uniform policy and ever-changing one-and-done alternates) the last few years ever since they allowed to wear any color you want, and the players have taken full advantage of that. I'm not even advocating for only black/dark or white with accents as it used to be with that Hardaway situation, all I'm saying is stick to team colors. There is plenty of room to show individuality and style within those conditions.

1 hour ago, dont care said:

But it’s never been a rule that alts and city uniforms weren’t allowed in the playoffs for the NBA. If it was the nfl then sure you have a point, or even nhl where they have to declare what their home and away uniforms are going to be for the playoffs and only where those.  But the NBA has never had such rule.

Maybe there wasn't a strict rule in place (even though I'd argue there was), but the NBA used to have a clear uniform protocol where the home team wore a white (light) uniform, and the visitor wore dark that was always adhered to, apart from just some very few singular exceptions. It not only acted as a professional standard for the league, the way things were done, but foremost was also a direct indicator of which the home team was of the two.

On another note, same applies to shoes. It's a total mess and a clown-show now that they let players wear colors that don't belong to or fully contradict the team brand, as they often do. It was such a nice and refreshing experience taking a glimpse into international level competition just recently, where they wear shoes matching their uniform colors. So professional-looking and stylish.

13 hours ago, dont care said:

The lakers won a championship wearing a jersey they hadn’t wore the year before. Why wouldn’t teams be able to wear what ever they want in the playoffs

Because "doing whatever you want" is not an attribute of a professional context.

18 hours ago, Germanshepherd said:

The Wolves are using the classic editions as their home set, which I didn’t think was allowed. 

 

Not wild about the Knicks wearing their pointless Navys or the Suns in black but it could be way worse. 

11 hours ago, PrimalCookie said:

I'm disappointed the Magic aren't using the throwbacks - Minnesota is so it's definitely allowed. However, I can't really complain since they're not using the city at all.

 

Both games in Cleveland will be Cavs white/Magic black, in Orlando it's Magic blue/Cavs white, so at least the consistency will be nice.

I'm ok with the Wolves wearing the classics at home in this case instead of their regular whites, since those aren't any better. Would've definitely been nice to see the Magic wear their throwbacks too.

I even forgot there was a navy Knicks uni, that's how pointless and irrelevant it is.

What about the Cavs – so, after they shoved the dark uniforms at home thing down the throat this season, they're all of a sudden wearing white both at home and on the road? I miss the days when the NBA had a professional uniform designation that made sense and instantly indicated the home team so much.

6 hours ago, Brave-Bird 08 said:

Sorry to quickly pivot, but seeing "global logo" made me think for a second about each team's "global" logo -- and man. 

 

Is the Houston Rockets technically official logo the worst in American pro sports? 

 

 

 

No, it isn’t, but I don’t see any reason why they had to come up with this. I’m sure there was a primary logo version with the wordmark included. And it’s not like they had to add a basketball, the logo already featured a basketball motif in the form of the rim.

Looking at the original font now, it sure does look a bit too Chinese in style, but it could’ve been just updated and streamlined to an extent. I like that overall character style for the Rockets which the R logo has too.
 

The Agency font, on the other hand, is too bland, and has been that for the Pacers as much.

11 hours ago, tscuzzy said:

The league has too much red & black and I really wish the Raptors or Rockets would consider a slightly different direction with primary colors. 

It's just that the Rockets shouldn't be using black to begin with. They jumped on the black bandwagon only during the last ten years and similarly to several other teams eventually dragged it all over their identity. Eliminate black, and all of a sudden there is one red & black team less.

I never liked the yellow for the Rockets, and the 00s' color scheme felt just right. At the end of the day, just throwing thoughts around, the red & blue color scheme and style seen on the City(?) uni could work equally well with powder blue instead, if they ever wanted to take that route, now that the Clippers failed to capitalize on it.

1 hour ago, Digby said:

I don't get it either. The double outline blurs everything, the typeface is dull and has a weird V shape, the husky dog in the logo of that time looks like he's old and panting like a mouthbreather. Their late-90s look was corny, but much more memorable and interesting.

 

I still place the Wolves as a team that doesn't have a "look" that they need to own, they haven't found the perfect thing yet, so I'm fine with them being one of those teams that just rebrands every so often. Not everyone can be the Celtics or the Bulls, as I've mentioned as a hobby-horse of mine before. I think their current logo package would be more than salvageable if the core home/away uniform set didn't miss and if they hadn't forgotten about the green.

Agree on the throwback unis.

But I, for one, think that the Wolves had established a look of their own, which is the green tree trim pattern, first and foremost, and that grayish blue and black base colors.