OnWis97

It would have been nice if Wemby would have ended up in the East (or Edwards, for non-Wolves fans). Or if the Hornets would have held onto SGA. With Brunson as a notable exception, it seems like the best players all either get drafted by a West team, get traded to a West team, or sign with a West team.

Anyone that was writing Denver off after Game 2 really doesn't know Minnesota sports.

Wait...an NBA offseason thread and the Timberwovles have not reached the offseason? What the heck is happening here?

Question...

In T-Wolves/Nuggets, all seven games are blue (Den) vs white (Min). The Wolves are scheduled to wear their basic home Association white jersey six times and their white throwback once.  Denver is scheduled to wear various blue jerseys.  

How are these decisions made? I figured it was probably up to the home team, though in that case, I'm surprised the T-Wolves didn't get some blue at home. It's not the top seed deciding the entire series, is it?

13 hours ago, infrared41 said:

 

For reasons passing understanding, I feel the same way about old Cleveland Stadium.

 

Anyway, good stuff @B-Rich. Thanks for sharing it.

I have a nostalgia for old dumps, too. I hated the Metrodome and have almost no nostalgia for it. But I loved my annual trip to Milwaukee County Stadium as a kid and while the current ballpark is better in most ways (except maybe for the way the fan-roof keeps things always partly closed), I'll always prefer County Stadium.

I've been to Oakland Colosseum once, in 2007. And even though the Metrodome was still around, I thought going to an outdoor hunk of concrete and steel was really fun, given all the modern ballparks I'd visited by then. Is it better than those places? No. But I still really enjoyed it (and will be SF in a few weeks when the A's are at home and am considering going just because it's my last opportunity to go to a place like that for MLB).

I love, love, love the "I-State" look. I prefer these colors without blue trim. And I really didn't like the spinning bird on top of the initials.

Their first look, while a bit too USCish was my favorite. Everything since has been a step back in my opinion. Even so, these are still very nice and amongst the best in the country (there are times I'd have called the USCish unis #1 in the country).

The T-Wolves sweep of Phoenix is the first sweep of a seven-game series by a Minnesota team.

Were those Baltimore, Memphis, and St. Louis uniforms legit? It seems odd to me that teams that never came to fruition would have gone that far down the branding road.

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

Pro sports font sets should NEVER contain an open-topped 4.

 

Close your 4s, bros.

I hope you've misplaced this comment (i.e., I hope this is a popular opinion).

1 hour ago, Captain Invader said:

Agreed.

 

Though, I might add that the Guardians two years ago came out with the Gball logo on the right sleeve.

Yep. And I was irrationally upset about it.

They designed a logo that theoretically included a backwards "G" on the other side of the ball and, due to the design, had to put the patch on the right side.

On one hand, good job.
On the other, you're right; way too easy.  Geez Lions, just come here and look at our reactions.  No professionals needed to figure this one out. I look forward to this plain-pants trend being over.

Doing this to the pants would make the primaries an A+.

The Twins still don't have an ad patch, last I checked. But they moved their sleeve patches to the right sleeve. I assumed it was to make room for an ad patch (even though I think most teams put them on the out-facing arm, anyway).

I've been told that the default for team patches is now the right arm. Is that because more right-handers means the ad default would be the left? Fanatics is not able to put these patches on the left because Fanatics? Some other reason?

Seeing a patch on the right and not the left tweaks my OCD...it's always been the left.

Side note/unpopular opinion...but boo to the Browns for ditching the awsome brown facemask in favor of the sore-thumb white one.

I think that this spells the end of franchise continuity in the NHL. Only MLB survives. For now.

4 minutes ago, PurpleHayes said:

 

I think it's OK in the NBA or other leagues since they play so many games...but not the NFL, where there are only 17 (soon to be 18) games.

I agree with others that the NBA has blurred identities way more than the NFL has and in this respect it's worse. Turning on a game and seeing the Magic in orange and the Lakers in black is what we're talking about. In the early days of alts, I'd buy this argument; give me like 5-10 games of the Pistons in red alts or the Bulls in Black...but the alts held to the identity. Now they really don't.

In 1996, some teams had nice  uniforms and some teams didn't. But they all had clear identities.

21 minutes ago, infrared41 said:

 

How about this? We've reached the point where even logo geeks like us can tune in an NBA game and have no idea who's playing because the teams have so many uniforms. It's like if Coca-Cola had 20 different "can combos" for Coke Classic and most of them had an alternate logo and colors. That's how it dilutes the brand.

Good analogy. If I love Coca Cola and then I go into the store and all the packaging is yellow out of the blue because of a "Yellow at Walgreens" promo, I'm less likely to notice and purchase it. Sure, if I really want to, I'll seek it out. And if I'm a huge cola addict, I'll probably be generally aware of all the packaging options and find it. But brands like this thrive on familiarity. Coca Cola would be crazy to not have its products be clear to the customers.

Sports are a bit different, I suppose. The impact of spending a couple of seconds of thinking Celtics/Heat is Kings/Clippers because of off-brand uniforms (before noting the score bug) might not be as big of a financial and customer retention concern. But money is also not what we're concerned with here; we're concerned with our own takes on uniforms and it makes sense that some of us don't like the watering down of identities, along with the flat out confusion of who's who.

4 minutes ago, YelichGraphics said:

I'd argue that the Texans very much spelled out which helmet they will wear. Nothing about their release gave me the impression they were planning on mix and matching the helmet, and I don't think there has been another instance in the NFL, maybe other than the Broncos release, where that was and or is the case. I could be wrong though.

I was referring to the fact that they will wear multiple helmets, thereby watering down that identity. Most fans won't understand the helmet/jersey combos and won't know in advance what's being worn. They'll just know that the Texans wear three different helmets. That they've indicated their plans doesn't really solve the watering down problem.

Just now, YelichGraphics said:

I've simply never understood this take. What makes having more options less professional? What makes having combinations and the ability to put show your brand in an another way that it contrasts the competitors brand on the same playing field. Hey if it looks good it looks good. By no means am I happy with all of the Texans choices but I don't think choices makes a team any less professional. In fact it gives this forum another thing to argue about on a week to week basis when it comes to pants and socks choice.

To me it waters down the identity.  Universities are not as tied to football and football helmets for their identity, as they have bigger athletic departments and more.  While Michigan bringing out an "M" helmet and a cartoon mascot helmet to go along with their famous helmet would raise eyebrows, at most schools, it's all an expansion of a broader identity.

I'm well into my 40s and so maybe this isn't the same for younger people but the the helmet was a defacto alternate (or occasional primary) for all teams when I was younger. T-shirts, jackets, hats, stickers, etc. displayed the helmets. I still remember my Vikings pajamas with the helmet taking up most of the front.  While this has diminished some, the helmet has remained a part of the identity...now you have no idea which helmet the Texans will wear. This holds true to several other teams. The helmet, outside of maybe Dallas and a couple of other teams, is going away as a key team identifier.

This went better than I anticipated. I think the red, white, and blue primaries (I suppose the red isn't "primary") are upgrades...even with the horn missing from one for no reason. I really anticipated disliking this.

H-Town is awful. 

My ranking:

1. Lions. Short of perfection on the primaries but an enormous improvement. A-. (Would be easy A if no unnecessary black uniform and then add stripes to the pants and it's an A+).
2. Jets: B+. Huge improvement. That logo just works, the Namath look was tired and the previous look was blech.
3. Broncos: C+. Improvement overall but missed the boat on what would have made people happy and it's a bit gimmicky. Like the Namath jerseys, the previous look was aging poorly.
4. Texans: C. Improved primary jerseys but too many identities with the original, the horns, and the H. H-Town is brutal and of these four teams, they were the one in least need of a change. I never loved their look but it was sturdy and generally classic for a newer team. Upgrading to these jerseys (sans H-Town)  would have made sense but all the other stuff makes it a bit of a mess.

I think it's kinda like the Buffaslug...it's not terrible in its own right but it's not what the people wanted; it's a letdown.

To me, it's a slight improvement. As much as the little shoulder design isn't that exciting, neither is 25 years of side panels tapering into the armpits. I think the update is an upgrade My personal tastes lead me to calling the number font an improvement (though I still hate the 4). The overall helmet situation is a bit of a downgrade as the "summit" (lol) white one is not very good and the new stripe thingy up the middle stinks (that said, I didn't like the tapered stripes either).

Overall, not terrible. But with the dark shades and the less-than-exciting design (and for some that it's not a throwback), I see why people are disappointed...kinda like when the Sabres went to blue and yellow and then pulled the rug out with a logo that totally missed the boat.

OBSERVATION: This thread is moving fast so I'm not sure if anyone else has suggested this...Denver was ahead of the "sleeves are going away" game with their late-1990s design. It feels like they could be starting another trend here: stripes don't go all the way around anymore, so just arc color(s) across the shoulder.

I'm with you on  the Dolphins.

LOL.

The NFL schedules a game in  a stadium that bans the color green. And they schedule...the Eagles and the Packers.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/could-eagles-packers-face-jersey-ban-in-brazil-soccer-rivalry-may-prevent-both-from-donning-green/

I don't mind small wordmarks, but I don't like how the blue jersey has none while the other two have them. But that's a small thing.

The prevalence of white makes the color balance so much better. The previous set, while getting away from black, also didn't buffer the blue from the silver well enough.

Pros: Block numbers, great blue/white/silver balance, unique but pleasing stripes, absence of black on the primaries, removal of sleeve text.

Cons: The black jersey and some very minor things (pinholes and inconsistent use of wordmarks).

Barring a huge pants and/or helmet screw up, this is a very big upgrade.

Like others have said, I don't love the perforated numbers. I don't think the black alt is needed. But otherwise, the blue and white jerseys are improvements. The color balance is much better and the letters in the sleeves are thankfully gone.
 

Do we know for sure they're keeping the silhouette on the helmet or is there a chance they'll be going to some Jags/Panthers-like "ferocious" cat head?