JESSEDIEBOLT

Members
  • Content Count

    342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JESSEDIEBOLT


  1. On 10/6/2018 at 3:20 AM, skip88 said:

    Wow, Nike has turned the NBA into a fashion league. 10+ jerseys for each team, each with a more ridiculous name than the other. + New jerseys every season. 

    Has nothing to do with team identity, only about making more money of dumb fans.  You see a game and you don't know who is playing, what a disgrace, and then you also got ads on jerseys! Unbelievable  

    I pray Nike don't get the MLB deal.

     

    LOL. If you don't know who's playing, that's your fault. The score bug, front of jerseys, announcers, etc say team names plenty. Come on man. Grey or black or whatever other color jerseys aren't keeping you from knowing what team is playing.


  2. 3 hours ago, VDizzle12 said:

    The smartest thing for Nike, the NFL and the Browns to do is involve Cleveland fans, coaches and players in the process. Don't let them design anything obviously. But do focus groups and gauge reactions before everything is official. If they cared enough to do it the first time, they wouldn't be in this mess. 

     

    Imagine if they did something dumb like white helmets and we have to wait 5 years to see it fixed again? or forcing us to watch all white uniforms for another 5 years.

     

    Dumb idea. It's on Nike/NFL/Browns to design something thats appealing to fans. 


  3. On 1/1/2018 at 4:52 PM, Ice_Cap said:

    All of this is true, but it was all true when teams adhered to 2-4 colours shrug

    It’s not like people only realized the Chicago Bulls were a cornerstone of Chicago once they rolled out their CM Punk unis. People figured it out long before then. 

     

    I agree. Which is why if I wear a royal blue Maple Leafs t-shirt? I just don’t wear Maple Leafs gear the next day. I don’t sit around going “gosh, I wish I had a gold and orange Maple Leafs shirt!”

    People can, and do, wear things other than officially licenced merchandise from sports teams :D 

     

    Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? Nike, in the context of NBA uniforms, shouldn’t be the dominant brand. The teams’ brands should come first. Nike, in this context, is just a manufacturer. They shouldn’t be outshining any single NBA brand. 

     

    According to who? The Maple Leafs are still doing just fine from a branding perspective with just royal blue and white. The Canadiens’ simple red, white, and blue colour scheme is still iconic. As are the Yankees’ midnight navy pinstripes on white. 

    Heck, look at the NBA. The Celtics in grey or black will never replace the equity they have in simple green and white. And the Lakers? They’ll always be purple and gold first and foremost. 

     

    So teams can, and often do, just fine with just 2-4 colours. 

     

     

     

    Of course people wear non-team branded apparel. You're missing my point. I'm speaking from a team/manufacturer position. Offering more options means more potential revenue. Fans are only going to buy so many purple and gold Lakers shirts. If they go to a game and see a black/white shirt they may be more inclined to purchase because they already have enough purple/gold gear. It's about increasing the probability that a fan will wear team branded apparel on the regular. 

     

    I wasn't saying Nike should outshine the team. I'm saying that Nike is a bigger brand than any team in the NBA, and they don't adhere to 2-4 colors like NBA teams do. My point is that teams/brands in general don't NEED to adhere to a strict color scheme to have a strong brand. 

     

    Teams are fine with 2-4 colors. No one is arguing against that. I'm simply saying that doing things outside the box won't kill a brand because theres more to a brand than color.

     

     


  4. On 1/1/2018 at 4:53 PM, andrewharrington said:

     

    I’m with you in principle, but even I will concede that this practice is pretty lame and lacking in vision or purpose.

     

    Also, wearing the same colors every day? Does anyone even want to wear licensed sports apparel every day? :-)

     

    Of course no one is wearing licensed merchandise on a daily basis. But you're missing my point. From a team/business perspective, offering fans options can only mean more money. If a fan walks into the team store they're only going to buy so many shirts that have the same colors. Fans may be more inclined to buy a black/white shirt if they already own other team colored apparel. 


  5. On 12/30/2017 at 9:05 PM, Ice_Cap said:

    I don’t need see what a brand with as much equity as the Bulls has to gain from adding design elements and colours that were never part of it until now. 

     

    It’s just not teams with established brands though. Take a team like the Jazz. They’ve been purple, gold and green. Green and gold, Blue, purple, teal, and bronze. Double blue and white. Navy, green, and gold. 

    They seem to have finally settled on that last one, but now they’re adding an Astros-esque sunrise set. Which doesn’t match anything in their current brand. Or their past brand. The Jazz are one of those teams that has been all over the map, and as such really aren’t associated with a single “brand.”

    Sticking with something long-term is a start, but how does the “City Edition” look help with the overal problem of a muddled brand? 

     

    I guess my problem with “City Edition” looks is this; what’s the benefit for a team to not look like themselves?

     

    A brand is much more than design elements/colors. Sports teams bring people together from in/around a given city. They create fun environments for fans and players who ultimately spend/generate money. A successful brand can build a story that engages people. Utah certainly put a lot of thought into their city uniforms/court. They aren't just throwing a randomly colored uniform out there. 

     

    Major brands like Nike don't rely on a single color scheme. The idea that a sports team has to strictly adhere to a set of 2-4 colors is outdated. 

     

    No one wants to wear the same colors every single day. All teams sell black & white merch in their fan shops even though Brooklyn is the only team in the NBA with a truly B/W brand. 


  6. 9 hours ago, BellaSpurs said:

    I hope the NBA is regretting this tearable eyesore of a mess (pun intended) Nike has done with their teams uniforms. Maybe I’m crazy but they’ve ruined some uniforms. Nuggets shouldn’t be in Navy, Indiana Doesn’t grow basketball , Minnesota  shouldn’t be as forgettable with such a unique name, and Cleveland isn’t “the land”.

     

    Sorry for my little rant, continue as before.

     

    Nike manufactures the uniforms but basically everything you listed is decided by teams. Try again.


  7. 37 minutes ago, Froob said:

    Why did Clippers insist on randomly adding black? Their unis should be, white, navy, red, and baby blue. Sucks they won't have a red uniform (allegedly). 

     

    I think they look better with black. Their logos are still not the best, but I definitely enjoy their brand with this season's updated uniforms.


  8. 7 hours ago, jus2damcrazey219 said:

     

    Simple. It muddles things/tradition/the known for no reason other than for kicks and giggles. What is wrong with:

    1. Home

    2. Away

    3. Alt 1 (alt/throwback/civic pride)

    4. Alt 2 (alt/throwback/civic pride)

     

    We've known it to be that way for so long and people are used to it. Those Nikefied names have no soul, purpose or reasoning to them other than "marketing purposes" which is pretty pointless to everyone except Nike.

     

    So you'd rather have 3+ options for the true title of "Alt 1" and "Alt 2" than "City" and "Statement". Okay.

     

    Why bring up the "soul" of a name of a uniform when "soul" has nothing to do with Home/Away/Alt. The "Nikefied" names certainly have purpose and reasoning...your point is invalid.


  9. 7 hours ago, DG_Now said:

     

    Except I don't -- and won't -- know the difference among the various titles. They're nonsense words that have no practical meaning, especially when existing words (home, away, light, dark, classic, whatever) worked a whole lot better. And as long as the jerseys are falling apart, have poor visual contrast and/or look like trash, Nike doesn't get the benefit of people learning their dumb language.

     

     

    And for an added bonus, the Lakers continued to wear their home jersey on the road, in yellow against the white Suns last night.

     

    Can someone explain how Nike forcing the Lakers to withhold their purple jersey for a month and a half increases sales? I don't get that. People already know the Lakers have a purple jersey; they've had one for half a century. What's so special about Nike's version that it needs to be locked away for an arbitrary amount of time?

     

    You're just being salty. It's 5 words. For one, you know what "classic" means. That's pretty straightforward. The rest are just as descriptive as "home" or "away". What about "home" means white? In the NFL it tends to mean dark. What about "away" means anything? Not like everyone wears the same color when away. "Statement"/"icon" is just as descriptive. GET OVER IT.


  10. 14 hours ago, kimball said:

     

    I think he's complaining about the stupid Nike speak more than anything. Which I think we all kind of find ridiculous.

     

    But in what way is "Association/Icon/Statement/City/Classic" ridiculous? It's just a title for a uniform. You can call it whatever you want to call it but for organizational and marketing purposes Nike had to give the uniforms some sort of title. 


  11. 18 hours ago, mafiaman said:

    So, let me get this straight:  Each team has four jerseys, The Icon, the Association, The Leaders, and The Legends.  Right?  

     

    Ridiculous.  How about "home," "away," and "alternate" and call it a day.  

     

    How is it "ridiculous"? What difference does it make? Get over it.


  12. On 11/8/2017 at 1:57 AM, colortv said:

    The Knicks inconsistency with the shades of Orange, Blue, and Gray they use across media is so annoying:

     

     

    Website:

     

    NYK.svg

    logo_1_1.png?itok=DdAkQPN_

     

    10995114547706245105

     

     

    Instagram:

     

     

     

     

     

    17931864_1174443049319912_32287946174197

     

    Look at the shading of the logo behind Hornacek vs. the one next to the score:

     

    http://www.nba.com/knicks/video/teams/knicks/2017/11/06/1719393/1509945122637-nykhornacek11052017-1719393

     

     

     

    The blue isn't necessarily -inconsistent- but rather different based on color profiles (RGB version v CMYK v PMS etc etc)