IceCap

After seeing Nate Hackett do that does Denver owe Brian Flores an apology or....?

The way I remember it was that the city and team would share custody of the Sonics' name and records for five years. If Seattle got a new team in that time they'd get the Sonics' identity and records. That didn't happen though, so the rights to the Sonics' records and identity reverted back to the Thunder. I remember when the NBA added those gold championship tags to the teams. They were actually going to add one to the Thunder's jerseys but the Thunder asked them not to, because they wanted to de-emphasize the Seattle connection. The key thing is though that the NBA considered the Sonics' history the Thunder's, and the Thunder had to opt out of that. I'm sure the Sonics' name and logos are Seattle's first choice and I'm sure that the NBA would prefer to have it too. The Hornets/Bobcats/Pelicans cluster shows they'll move the lineage around to accommodate fans and teams. I guess it all comes down to how accommodating Clay Bennett wants to be.

https://seattle.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2012/2/20/2811279/nba-in-seattle-supersonics-team-name It's in no way guaranteed it'll be the SuperSonics. I'm sure the NBA would try to broker a deal to transfer the name and records to a new Seattle team, but Bennett may decide to try and squeeze as much out of that IP as possible.

It's a Maroons reference. http://nhluniforms.com/DefunctTeams/Maroons5.html

We've been talking about that plan as our "college football playoff fix" for AT LEAST eight years on BASS.

It's dull, for one. If the team from the capital of the United States can't use red, white, and blue then who can?

You should probably get off the internet if you can't handle someone disagreeing with your opinion.

Nothing about that Bucs uniform was good. Every decision was a downgrade. And in an act of divine providence the team won another Super Bowl after dropping it, proving that the uniform gods are just On a more serious note... let's compare them to the set they replaced, specifically looking at what changed. Number font- This is the most glaring one. Going from a standard but timeless block font to some weird alarm clock metallic... thing... was the wrong move. Nothing about this was a good idea. Colours- The red and orange. They went from crimson and burnt orange to a brighter red and orange. This is, in my estimation, a downgrade. The older, darker colours had more character given the team's name and what the colours were originally trying to invoke. The pewter also suffered. Wilson Athletics could make sparkly pewter pants in 1997, but Nike (the same company that can't make a kelly green football jersey) can't replicate that ancient magic, apparently. So the pewter got downgraded to flat, dirty brown. Striping- The first Super Bowl set was pretty standard as far as football uniforms go, but it worked. The set they replaced it with was indicative of all of Nike's worst impulses of the mid 2010s. Shards of colour at weird angles, that went nowhere. Their pants and the Jags' pants of the same era, are both examples of this (same with the Titans' current uniform). It was "modern" but that was six, seven years ago modern. If you look at what teams are coming out with now...that style is already starting to look dated. There's also the fact that the striping of this uniform included a pewter yoke on the jerseys. Not only was this a mistake conceptually- pewter works best for the Bucs limited to the pants and helmets- but because of the above mentioned changes it just looked like dirty brown. No one wants to buy a dirty brown shirt. Facemask- going from black to chrome was such a bad move. Logo placement- some like the giant logo. To me it looks like college football garbage. The current uniform splits the difference. Far less contentious I think is the decision to randomly replace one of the sleeve logos with a "BUCS" wordmark. Why? In what way is that a good idea? Logos- some like the "updated" logos. To me they're over-produced. The 1997 logos looked properly pirate-y. Something worn and weathered. The logos introduced in 2014 were too sleek, and the metallic skull is just dumb. I'm pretty bummed that the team didn't toss the new logos in 2019, but whatever. Recolouring them in the old colours improved them slightly. To me the entirety of the 2014-2019 set was a failure. Nike's mid 2010s trend chasing at its almost worst, only saved from total embarrassment because Jacksonville found a way to do the same sort of thing but with worse helmets around the same time.

You need to consider that Dan Snyder is an idiot though. That was always going to complicate things.

They should have though. It's better than most of their logos.

We're on the same page as a picture of Nike's ridiculous-looking collars!

Guess what guy? You're not the arbiter of what can and can't be said here. And if you're still confused? This is a mod telling you that. Get over yourself.

Quiet the Swooshkateers won't like that talk.

Whatever your issues with Adidas in the NBA or college football, their work in the NHL has mostly been pretty solid. So the loss of that is certainly going to be cause for concern when one of the obvious replacements has ruined the NBA and is in the process of ruining the NFL and MLB.

The freak out happening because fans of the one league Nike hasn't projectile vomited onto would prefer it stay that way is kind of interesting. Nike fans really feel entitled.

I suppose my point is that there's no evidence Nike's work will "look good" if the NBA, MLB, and NFL are any indication. And I mean yeah sure they've butchered uniforms in those leagues but SURELY the NHL will reign them in, right? lol ok. Reebok/Adidas are the same company. And while Reebok's early EDGE uniforms were awful, they eventually settled into a pretty solid groove. The switchover to Adidas branding and the AdiZero template brought some new growing pains, but by and large the uniforms were solid. Nothing I've seen from Nike in any of the three major leagues they design uniforms for suggests that they'll do a good job in the NHL.

Yeah. If you think the Nike you're getting in 2022 is the Nike of 1997 then I have ocean-front property in Saskatchewan to sell you.

Here's the thing. I didn't always like what Adidas gave us (the new collars still suck) but on the whole they respected team traditions while still branching out to try new stuff. It's not an easy tightrope to walk, and Adidas' NHL work managed it better than most. But I'm not sure who can look at the Parade of Aesthetic Disaster going on in the NFL, or the travesty that's become the NBA and think "oh yeah sure Nike would be great for the NHL." Give it to CCM or Bauer. A company that knows hockey and cares about hockey. Hockey is my favourite sport and the NHL, despite its best efforts, remains my favourite league. Seeing what happened to the NBA, NFL, or even MLB (City Connect) happen to the NHL would hurt.

To quote my colleague @infrared41... I give up. Stupid has won.

I'd rather CCM play it safe for a decade than whatever the passes for "creativity" at Nike these days.

Speak for yourself, America.

Best outcome: CCM Pretty good outcome: Bauer Awful outcome: Nike BURN IT DOWN: Fanatics

Yeah that was bad. For me it was when people accused the Stars of being "Original Six Dressup" with their current unis. Right, because a team founded in 1967 isn't allowed to look traditional. Also which O6 team wore kelly green again?