NBA switching to Nike in 2017

[shaydre1019]

I do hate the no trim look. Maybe for a few newer teams, that's fine. I like the tight jersey look. Reminds me of the 60's era with the wife beater look. Loved that. The biggest thing i worry about is those awful baggy shorts. Tight jersey with huge baggy shorts looks so ridiculous. Does the NBA have a rule on short length? No lower than the knees? Wish it was 2 inches above the knee.

Curious to know why some of these teams moved forward with redesigns or rebrands knowing Adidas was out and if there are teams who opted to wait for Nike to take over and design their rebrand/uniform updates. Is it because it's not just Adidas people who are working on the logos and uniforms? Can an NBA owner hire a design artist he likes instead of someone who works for Adidas? Is the only thing to worry about is if the new design fits the new fabric/cut that Nike will make?

I actually really like nikes college basketball cut, or at least the cuts they used for these . reand these minds me of seeing old pictures and highlights of the Bird McHale era celtics.

I hope the changes that come with nike bring a cut similar to the ones i posted but with smaller shorts.

My personal wish when Nike goes back to being the apparel company of the NBA is to go back to the Dri-Fit technology that they did back in the early 2000s. Those were good looking and better maintained jerseys and shorts. In fact when Adidas first got the NBA contract, they kept the Dri-Fit look up until the 2010-11 season when of course they went extremely downhill when they decide to do things their way and went to a thing called "Rev 30" and became an eyesore to watch, and will be for two more seasons.

I know its wishful thinking but I always loved the Dri-Fit uniforms that Nike, Reebok, Champion, Adidas, etc. created 12 years ago in NBA and college sports.

I prefer how 90% of the rev 30 change looks to how the league looked before. Personally i like that they went away from the shiny/dazzle material. I also like that the uniforms appear far less baggy after the switch. Only a few gripes, like the adjustments that teams had to make, like the grizzlies number changes.

[M4One]

Not sure if this is the place to put it, but I was watching Prime Time Sports and they had Darren Rovell on to talk a little bit about the Nike deal. He says Nike probably won't make their money back off the deal and it was more about not allowing Under Armor to get it. He also says that ads on jersey might still be a while before they happen, if at all. Apparently, the networks aren't happy about paying all that money to air the games and not get a cut of the sponsorships and maybe end up competing against a sponsor they sell to.

As for the swoosh on the jersey, I have no probably with it. I always found it a little funny that the manufacturer's logo wasn't on the jersey in some location.

[OnWis97]

Not sure if this is the place to put it, but I was watching Prime Time Sports and they had Darren Rovell on to talk a little bit about the Nike deal. He says Nike probably won't make their money back off the deal and it was more about not allowing Under Armor to get it. He also says that ads on jersey might still be a while before they happen, if at all. Apparently, the networks aren't happy about paying all that money to air the games and not get a cut of the sponsorships and maybe end up competing against a sponsor they sell to.

As for the swoosh on the jersey, I have no probably with it. I always found it a little funny that the manufacturer's logo wasn't on the jersey in some location.

Why?

I get that we are used to those on college, NFL, NHL, etc., but I was surprised by how many people think this is a good thing (as opposed to a minor bad thing or at least being indifferent). It's a corporate advertisement. It looks like we are just conditioned to accept it.

That's why I am stunned the big four don't have full corporate sponsorships dominating uniforms yet. Given that we'd almost certainly become conditioned to it in a few years (and the rising popularity of soccer), they're crazy not to do it. But I hope they don't.

As for the swoosh on the jersey, I think it's a bad thing. A bad thing I can live with, but still a bad thing.

[M4One]

Not sure if this is the place to put it, but I was watching Prime Time Sports and they had Darren Rovell on to talk a little bit about the Nike deal. He says Nike probably won't make their money back off the deal and it was more about not allowing Under Armor to get it. He also says that ads on jersey might still be a while before they happen, if at all. Apparently, the networks aren't happy about paying all that money to air the games and not get a cut of the sponsorships and maybe end up competing against a sponsor they sell to.

As for the swoosh on the jersey, I have no probably with it. I always found it a little funny that the manufacturer's logo wasn't on the jersey in some location.

Why?

I get that we are used to those on college, NFL, NHL, etc., but I was surprised by how many people think this is a good thing (as opposed to a minor bad thing or at least being indifferent). It's a corporate advertisement. It looks like we are just conditioned to accept it.

That's why I am stunned the big four don't have full corporate sponsorships dominating uniforms yet. Given that we'd almost certainly become conditioned to it in a few years (and the rising popularity of soccer), they're crazy not to do it. But I hope they don't.

As for the swoosh on the jersey, I think it's a bad thing. A bad thing I can live with, but still a bad thing.

It is exactly because I am so use to seeing the manufacturer's logo on all the jerseys. I have no problem with Nike putting their swoosh on the jersey since they make it anyways. That's to be expected. No different than seeing a BMW badge of a 3 Series. However, slap on a McDonalds logo on the front, then I would have a big issue.

[Webfooter]

Not sure if this is the place to put it, but I was watching Prime Time Sports and they had Darren Rovell on to talk a little bit about the Nike deal. He says Nike probably won't make their money back off the deal and it was more about not allowing Under Armor to get it. He also says that ads on jersey might still be a while before they happen, if at all. Apparently, the networks aren't happy about paying all that money to air the games and not get a cut of the sponsorships and maybe end up competing against a sponsor they sell to.

As for the swoosh on the jersey, I have no probably with it. I always found it a little funny that the manufacturer's logo wasn't on the jersey in some location.

Why?

I get that we are used to those on college, NFL, NHL, etc., but I was surprised by how many people think this is a good thing (as opposed to a minor bad thing or at least being indifferent). It's a corporate advertisement. It looks like we are just conditioned to accept it.

That's why I am stunned the big four don't have full corporate sponsorships dominating uniforms yet. Given that we'd almost certainly become conditioned to it in a few years (and the rising popularity of soccer), they're crazy not to do it. But I hope they don't.

As for the swoosh on the jersey, I think it's a bad thing. A bad thing I can live with, but still a bad thing.

It is exactly because I am so use to seeing the manufacturer's logo on all the jerseys. I have no problem with Nike putting their swoosh on the jersey since they make it anyways. That's to be expected. No different than seeing a BMW badge of a 3 Series. However, slap on a McDonalds logo on the front, then I would have a big issue.

Same here. I've got no problem with the maker putting their mark on their athletic gear like they do with just about everything else a player is wearing. A small manufacturer's logo is not exactly going to hurt the overall integrity of the uniform's visual design.

[Webfooter]

As for the cut of Nike's NBA uniforms, I'd imagine they'll follow the model of Nike's USA Basketball uniforms, which aren't that much more form fitting than Adidas' uniforms.

2014 World Championship uniforms:

2012 Olympics:

[orangefaniniowa]

I prefer how 90% of the rev 30 change looks to how the league looked before. Personally i like that they went away from the shiny/dazzle material. I also like that the uniforms appear far less baggy after the switch. Only a few gripes, like the adjustments that teams had to make, like the grizzlies number changes.

And others like me prefer the shiny/dazzle material compared to today's Rev 30, which looks more like cheap material found in a third world country. NBA had the best type of jersey fabric from the early 90s (Champion era) up until 2010 than any other pro sports leagues.

[JPDesign]

As for the cut of Nike's NBA uniforms, I'd imagine they'll follow the model of Nike's USA Basketball uniforms, which aren't that much more form fitting than Adidas' uniforms.

2014 World Championship uniforms:

2012 Olympics:

2012 looks good. 2014 looks like a women's jersey.

[jrodsep]

As for the cut of Nike's NBA uniforms, I'd imagine they'll follow the model of Nike's USA Basketball uniforms, which aren't that much more form fitting than Adidas' uniforms.

2014 World Championship uniforms:

2012 Olympics:

2012 looks good. 2014 looks like a women's jersey.

2014 is still better than sleeves

[MJWalker45]

Aren't they the same cut?

[walkerws]

The dots in the shirts We're rendered differently but other than that the base is the same

[JPDesign]

They're both called "Hyper Elites" but the 2014 version was a more tailored fit. The biggest difference to me is how far over the side panel seam comes. On the newest version, it runs down the players' stomachs almost.

Not the best of comparisons, but KD is the only player I can find good images of in both uniforms. If you look at the shoulders you can see a width difference but also look at the way it fits through the chest.