Josh.0

NBA Changes 2015-16 Season

Recommended Posts

Once again, I highly doubt those numbers on the Rockets' summer league jerseys are any indication of the numbers on the actual jerseys. From the Adidas catalog, the number font was staying the same and the only difference was an actual outline on the numbers instead of a drop shadow. Those numbers ^^ do not match the wordmarks at all, and it wouldn't make any sense for them to use that font. The Pacers' don't atleast slightly matches the wordmarks. Plenty of teams use different fonts on their summer league/practice uniforms, so I don't think those numbers are significant in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Top 3 oldest logos in the NBA...

1. Bulls (1966)

2. Kings (1994)

3. Celtics (1996)

Longevity isn't the NBA's strong suit when it comes to branding.

Yeah, but that's not really saying much.

MLB, which I think most would argue is the most traditional of the big 4, only has 2 teams that have not changed logos since the 90s. CHC and NYY.

If you're saying "since 1999", then you're forgetting about the Rockies, Braves, White Sox, Mariners, Athletics, Mets, Phillies, Cardinals, and Dodgers (slight change in blue, but 99% the same).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who don't wanna click the link this is a summation of sorts Le7u8bT.jpg

Is there any news on the teams that haven't shown their changes?

I'm curious about the Rockets. Home+Road silhouette is the jersey cut change right? Stretch? What is that? Latin Nights uniform? Alt 2, is this a completely new alternate uniform added to the alt 1 red/yellow they already have? Pride is the only one i'm clued in on being a yellow sleeved "Clutch City" uniform.

Anyone got any info on the other changes they are making?

The definition of each jersey is actually under each heading. It actually explains it. Not trying to be a smart ass. But here we go.

Stretch unis: Holiday uniforms (Christmas,St Patrick's Day,Latin Nights,etc)

Pride: Sleeved variations of the uniforms that can be a completely different uniform template than the regular set.

Alt 1- light colored alternate uniforms such as Cavs Gold,Nuggets gold, Hornets Teal, Suns Orange..etc..Alternate unis that can be worn at home. Maybe a Rockets yellow uniform.

Alt 2- alt unis that can be worn on the road ..dark colored alts..etc Rockets "Houston" red&yellow alt goes under this category.

Now as for the other new uniforms such as Houston's silhouette wordmarks and Pride unis..we don't know yet

So Alt 2 is a new alternate then? They wouldn't just list their current alternate in that category if it's for teams making changes right? I do remember back someone saying the Rockets were doing a red and white version of their current alternate and scrapping the red and yellow altogether. Hope this isn't true.

Look again guys - The Rockets do not have an Alt 1. They only have Alt 2, which is the same Red/Yellow alt currently being used. Silhouette is the new cut, already breifly exhibited in the Christmas jersey leak. "Stretch" is the holiday/heritage-themed mod jerseys ("Los Rockets" jersey in this particular case). Pride is referring to the Yellow Clutch City jersey, the only new uni we have yet to see, which won't be revealed until media day. Aside from a few minor modifications to font/numbers, this is what you'll see from H-Town in 2015.

But why would they list the Rockets alternate 2 if it's just the same alternate? They are listing changes, and it does say confidential so you are saying it's most likely number font change for the current alternate?

New number font in summer league for the Rockets is probably being changed for all the current uniforms and that's why alt 2 is listed is my guess.

niusgNX.jpg

I like it better than just using the Pacers numbers, but i still prefer the original unique numbers they used that actually matched the wordmark.

I wouldn't read too deeply into it. A lot of teams use number fonts in Summer League that don't match their actual uniforms:

jHqoqlC.jpg

GzPrgYF.jpg

SLgU8GN.jpg

hyXeqWE.jpg

The Adidas catalog still has them using the Pacers-ripoff numbers:

G8es2Ya.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like the Nuggs don't have the updated wordmark on those summer league unis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, I highly doubt those numbers on the Rockets' summer league jerseys are any indication of the numbers on the actual jerseys. From the Adidas catalog, the number font was staying the same and the only difference was an actual outline on the numbers instead of a drop shadow. Those numbers ^^ do not match the wordmarks at all, and it wouldn't make any sense for them to use that font. The Pacers' don't atleast slightly matches the wordmarks. Plenty of teams use different fonts on their summer league/practice uniforms, so I don't think those numbers are significant in any way.

On the money. Slight difference, nothing drastic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So was Ibaka.

628x471.jpg

I see also some confusion about Hornets' history records. Let me quote Wikipedia

"At a press conference heralding the change, team officials also announced that as part of a deal with the NBA and the Pelicans, the renamed Hornets reclaimed the history and records of the 1988–2002 Hornets, while all of the Hornets' records during their time in New Orleans from 2002 to 2013 remained with the Pelicans."

Wow, I had no idea of that. That seems excessively messy...and that's coming from a Browns fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officially, that graphic handles New Orleans and Charlotte incorrectly.

That's not true is it? There was never any retroactive history transfer - in fact if the Sonics history were returned it would be unprecedented (since there was nothing retroactive about the Ravens official expansion status.)

Speaking of expansion - the original Mavs logo with the western font is missing.

Well OKC decided to ditch the sonics history and keep the title they won in Seattle, and don't wear a gold tab on their collar indicating they won a championship.

The Thunder technically have the Sonics' history, they just choose not to celebrate it. The "shared" deal worked out with Seattle stipulated that the Thunder would return the Sonics' history to Seattle if Seattle were granted an expansion team within five years of the Sonics leaving. That hasn't happened, meaning that the Thunder are under no obligation to return the history to Seattle. The records of the old Sonics team are with the Thunder as far as the NBA itself is concerned.

The above paragraph just highlights how silly this revisionist history really is. "Sending" history back to Seattle. As if it were something you could pack up in a box and mail somewhere.

No, history doesn't work like that. History belongs to the organization that lives it. The team that won the 1979 NBA Championship now plays in Oklahoma City. Regardless of how upsetting that may be.

But you know they will. I'd be blown away if they don't. That's North American sports today. Prior to Cleveland, we never did that (turns out the rest of the world does not do what we do). But now it's something to do to appease the fans. If SEA gets an expansion team, I'd be stunned if the history is not "shipped" to Seattle. The expansion back-from-hiatus Sonics will have the gold tag on the back collar and finish with the third worst record in, um, franchise history.

The question is what if the Timberwolves or, worse yet, the Bucks (since they have a title) move there? Or even worse, the Kings? Then the Sonics come off of hiatus and the old team goes on hiatus (probably permanently). But I'd bet that a relocated franchise would take on the Sonics history and that team's records would be treated like a franchise that went under.

So far the NHL is doing it right. But I suspect one day, we'll find out that the Jets are getting the Old Jets' history, the Coyotes will be an expansion team, and the Atlanta Thrasher went belly-up. MLB, the sport most dependent on history will probably keep doing it how they've been doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptors and Clippers fans be likeindiana-jones-and-the-last-crusade-you-c

Regarding their rebrand...

Hawks fan should feel about the same (though their redesign's only about 90% bad as opposed to the Clippers and Raptors who downgraded literally everything about their set).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could a team sell just a few good years of history?

Like could the Phillies sell or trade the history / records from '07-'11 to the Cubs if they were willing to pay for it and give up some prospects? Then the Cubs could claim that they ended the curse, and won 5 straight NL East titles after being "temporarily shifted to the East before being transferred back to the Central".

"Due to a "unique arrangement", the Cubs called Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia home for 5 seasons, where they won the club's first World Series in 100 years....."

Just stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean that makes sense to me? What seems messy about it?

Mainly the fact that it's a retroactive revision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Officially, that graphic handles New Orleans and Charlotte incorrectly.

That's not true is it? There was never any retroactive history transfer - in fact if the Sonics history were returned it would be unprecedented (since there was nothing retroactive about the Ravens official expansion status.)

Speaking of expansion - the original Mavs logo with the western font is missing.

Well OKC decided to ditch the sonics history and keep the title they won in Seattle, and don't wear a gold tab on their collar indicating they won a championship.

The Thunder technically have the Sonics' history, they just choose not to celebrate it. The "shared" deal worked out with Seattle stipulated that the Thunder would return the Sonics' history to Seattle if Seattle were granted an expansion team within five years of the Sonics leaving. That hasn't happened, meaning that the Thunder are under no obligation to return the history to Seattle. The records of the old Sonics team are with the Thunder as far as the NBA itself is concerned.

The above paragraph just highlights how silly this revisionist history really is. "Sending" history back to Seattle. As if it were something you could pack up in a box and mail somewhere.

No, history doesn't work like that. History belongs to the organization that lives it. The team that won the 1979 NBA Championship now plays in Oklahoma City. Regardless of how upsetting that may be.

But you know they will. I'd be blown away if they don't. That's North American sports today. Prior to Cleveland, we never did that (turns out the rest of the world does not do what we do). But now it's something to do to appease the fans. If SEA gets an expansion team, I'd be stunned if the history is not "shipped" to Seattle. The expansion back-from-hiatus Sonics will have the gold tag on the back collar and finish with the third worst record in, um, franchise history.

The question is what if the Timberwolves or, worse yet, the Bucks (since they have a title) move there? Or even worse, the Kings? Then the Sonics come off of hiatus and the old team goes on hiatus (probably permanently). But I'd bet that a relocated franchise would take on the Sonics history and that team's records would be treated like a franchise that went under.

So far the NHL is doing it right. But I suspect one day, we'll find out that the Jets are getting the Old Jets' history, the Coyotes will be an expansion team, and the Atlanta Thrasher went belly-up. MLB, the sport most dependent on history will probably keep doing it how they've been doing it.

But I definitely see the reason for doing so. Let me ask this (honest question): anybody here fans of a team that was previously somewhere else and won a championship? Do you get all excited talking about those past teams? Do your local sports stations replay those videos and images when remembering past glory days? Are the old jerseys from the earlier team hanging in sports bars in the area?

I understand that sports are a business, and a team has the right to retain its history. But from a celebratory perspective, I think you have to take the fans into account. I don't think fans want to celebrate another team, and that in turn influences the NBA's decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a fan on both sides.

Twins fan (Washington Senators)

Fan of Minnesota North Stars (now Dallas Stars) and have a new(ish) NHL team that, in theory, could have taken that history.

Both leagues did it right.

Do the Twins celebrate the Senators history? Do we have a banner up for the 1924 World Series? No. Do we have Walter Johnson's number retired...no...though I am pretty sure he never wore one and I sometimes wonder what they'd do if he had. I know the Giants and Dodgers do more to acknowledge their NY history than do the Twins. I don't know whether that's about the name change or just the organization's decision. And I think they should. I think they should have franchise history markers in the concourse and have at least one for the Senators, one for Walter Johnson (or all Senator HOFers) and one for 1924. They don't need to make a huge thing of it or make it equal to the post-1961 banners but (like the Dallas Stars do) I do wish they'd acknowledge it more.

So your point is not incorrect...we Twins fans do not really embrace the Senator years (though it's long enough ago that Washington fans probably don't either). This was proven when Walter Johnson did not make the "Franchise FourTM". And taken a step further, I have much more appreciation for the 1991 North Stars run to the Stanley Cup Final than does basically any Dallas Stars fan. But what happened is what happened...Nobody is asking me to give up memories of that 1991 run but it still happened to a team that moved away. Harmon Killebrew (Franchise FourTM) member, started with the Senators. He did not go to a new team in 1961. Nats fans should not say "Fun Fact: Harmon Killebrew started his career with us" the way Phillies fans could about Ryne Sandberg. The 1965 AL champ Twins were built starting in Washington in the 1950s. Mike Modano started in Minnesota and ended up having a HOF career in Dallas. I don't want the new Minnesota franchise "claiming" Modano's first few years; they happened with an entirely different team. Suggesting that the Wild (even if they are called the North Stars) are the team of Neal Broten and the 1981 and 1991 Stanely Cup finalists is artificial. It invalidates (EDIT: "confuses" is probably a better word) the evolution of the league, its teams and in some cases its championships (as some of the 1999 championship was built in Minnesota; the Stars were not a 1993 expansion team).

Nobody is asking fans of relocated teams to celebrate titles in old cities. Nobody is asking fans in the old cities to give up their memories. But what happened really should be clear and not whitewashed. And the Kings, Bucks, and even the T-Wolves have history. History that, should one be relocated to Seattle, will contribute to the success (or lackthereof) of the new Sonics. Call 'em the Sonics. But don't pretend that Xavier McDaniel played for 'em or that Andrew Wiggins changed teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that makes this so bad is that franchises are ever changing. Players change, stadiums change, uniforms (usually) change. Even names can change (it looks like Washington will have to change their name after over 80 years with it). Therefore franchises ARE their history. That's what makes them, what defines them. The 1906 New York Giants and the present day San Francisco Giants remain linked together because, no matter how much things change, they'll always be the 1905 World Champions (among other things). This will remain a fact no matter what changes happen to players or uniforms or stadiums or even cities. Sports is an evolution, and the history books link franchises together.

I mean, the NBA is now telling a Hornets fan who stuck with his team when they moved to New Orleans that they actually switched to a completely different franchise. And that's just not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the NBA is now telling a Hornets fan who stuck with his team when they moved to New Orleans that they actually switched to a completely different franchise. And that's just not right.

How many 90s Hornets fans are still following the New Orleans franchise and not the one in Charlotte?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the NBA is now telling a Hornets fan who stuck with his team when they moved to New Orleans that they actually switched to a completely different franchise. And that's just not right.

How many 90s Hornets fans are still following the New Orleans franchise and not the one in Charlotte?
I'm sure they're out there, honestly maybe a few more than in most case moved because some cheered for the team because of their branding, not the city, and I'm sure a number of them still stayed with the same franchise when they switched names. It doesn't matter how many, the fact of the matter is that anyone who stuck with this franchise got screwed.

I remember there being a guy on a forum I went to who'd stuck with the A's since they were in Philadelphia, so stuff like this does happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the NBA is now telling a Hornets fan who stuck with his team when they moved to New Orleans that they actually switched to a completely different franchise. And that's just not right.

How many 90s Hornets fans are still following the New Orleans franchise and not the one in Charlotte?
I'm sure they're out there, honestly maybe a few more than in most case moved because some cheered for the team because of their branding, not the city, and I'm sure a number of them still stayed with the same franchise when they switched names. It doesn't matter how many, the fact of the matter is that anyone who stuck with this franchise got screwed.

I remember there being a guy on a forum I went to who'd stuck with the A's since they were in Philadelphia, so stuff like this does happen.

I know this happens some. I think it's particularly common with fans from no-team areas. For (a made up) example, a fan from New Mexico took on the North Stars as his hockey team and continued to follow them as they became the Dallas Stars. I know this happens. However, I don't know that the "fan emotion" angle is the one to play from the "pro-franchise-history" side, as I totally acknowledge there is a ton more fan emotion to draw from on the "pro-city-history" side. Regarding the North Stars example, there are a lot more people like me (North Stars fans sad to see them go) or Dallas Guy (Stars fan who does not care too much about the Minnesota history) than there are like my fake "followed the franise in both cities" guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, the NBA is now telling a Hornets fan who stuck with his team when they moved to New Orleans that they actually switched to a completely different franchise. And that's just not right.

How many 90s Hornets fans are still following the New Orleans franchise and not the one in Charlotte?

Exactly, I loosely followed Charlotte in the 90s. Was disappointed when they moved, wasnt interested in following the Hornets in New Orleans though, but I jumped on the Bobcats bandwagon as soon as they were announced. And Charlotte is still my team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.