kolob

Are we sure they're getting one?

Jerry was great. I had a few interactions with him as a kid here in Utah. One, where he called me a "sneaky ass kid" at a sports card show because I brought over 15+ things for him to sign.

As a fellow Utahn ... I'm not sure how excited I am for this?

Only the 1960 season ...

I had the same thought about a merge keeping the PAC name, but at this point just kill it and invite WSU and OSU to the Mountain West.

At this point I kinda believe everything ...

I agree. For a city as eccentric as New Orleans their brand plays it REALLY safe. As a lifelong Utah Jazz fan I must admit it'd be interesting to see how the evolution of the team's brand would have gone if they stayed in New Orleans.

I love the fiesta colors, but honestly ... I'd like the colors incorporated in their "Statement Jersey," especially one the style of the black one. Those are sharp. I'd just rather them stick to the black, silver and white for their more traditional look.

I can see them (possibly) doing a throwback, but their '89-96 sets are basically an incorporation of the Muskies' plain set.

It definitely didn't have anything to do with he Summer Olympics, but 1982 (when they changed to R,W,B) it was supposed to be the year they moved to LA.

Your post brought a thought in mind that this might be the start of a trend. I could see teams going this route of honoring multiple eras in future designs. Sure, there's the 75th anniversary uniforms, but there was little cohesion there (not to mention a one year thing for most teams). But, teams like Golden State, the Clippers, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and Philadelphia could make that work and do well with it. ADD: I guess you could say it kind of started with Cleveland's recent redesign.

Sadly me too.

Seconded. NoB under the number would be perfect and a good nod to team history.

They have to also have the names under the number.

And, if they do enough community outreach then every family can field their own community hockey team.

Actually it dates back to their Cincinnati days.

I'd get it if it was a renovation, better not be a new building.

What an infuriating paragraph. Aging? 1998? PLEASE!

Neither have I. I like it.

I agree. Especially, now that teams don't officially announce a lot of those trades until after July 1st. It would prevent awkward photo ops like this from happening ...

Smaller market, rabid fan base of the sport (Kentucky, Louisville), had a taste of pro basketball, lost their team, and not remotely the top market without a team in the top tier pro league of their sport ... that's what I am basing my opinion off of, I know there are other differences between the two.

I just used that as an example. I don't think they'll get a team, they're kind of like the NBA's Quebec. They have the arena, fan interest, etc. But, I don't think they have the money or overall market to be more appealing over, say, Tampa, Nashville, Kansas City or even Vancouver. Their shot ended when the Rockets, Grizzlies and Hornets passed them over in the early-2000s.

Just to push that back a bit, they'd still get a $1 billion expansion fee in Louisville, Vegas or wherever. But, that'd be in addition to a sizable relocation fee if a team moved to Seattle. Granted, since we're going to be getting a Sonics 2.0 team either way, an expansion team would provide a cleaner history if they were to take Seattle's historical records from OKC.

It should be Seattle over anyone else. But, I don't know if it changes the NBA's plan to expand if they were shipped off to Seattle. The addition of two more teams to get to 32 seems like a given.