OnWis97 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 That light blue and burgundy (or whatever it is) is beautiful. Yeah, purple and gold makes the most sense for Kings, but to hell with it. That is too nice (and unique). Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM0313 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: Not the USFL, but the WLAF. Really?! Man, I've got my would-be NFL challengers mixed up! Those are very sharp helmets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Just now, MCM0313 said: Really?! Man, I've got my would-be NFL challengers mixed up! Those are very sharp helmets! The helmets were indeed beautiful, as was the colour scheme. And also note that the WLAF wasn't a would-be challenger to the NFL; it was the NFL's own project. In order to make the association with the NFL clearer, the league later became known as NFL Europe. (Though I think the original name was better.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 This whole "Sac" moniker really is a common term around here when referring to the city. I mean yeah I get it because HAHAHABALLS!1!, but the shortened version is nice, because Sacramento really is too much of a mouthful. On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCM0313 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 21 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: The helmets were indeed beautiful, as was the colour scheme. And also note that the WLAF wasn't a would-be challenger to the NFL; it was the NFL's own project. In order to make the association with the NFL clearer, the league later became known as NFL Europe. (Though I think the original name was better.) Gotcha. Why did I think the Knights were part of USFL? Did USFL ever have a New York- or New Jersey-based team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tp49 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, MCM0313 said: Gotcha. Why did I think the Knights were part of USFL? Did USFL ever have a New York- or New Jersey-based team? The Generals. They were owned by Donald Trump originally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjd77 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 hour ago, AAO said: That had the ugly script throwback, numerals, number on the chest above the wordmark and weird pattern and trim. The hues were also different. That's why it was poorly received *AND Shiny fabric* A combination for disaster With the new logos and wordmarks, they can pull it off much better Or they could have a purple road, black alternate, and keep the gold as trim and accent colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAO Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 I'm not going to do any updates with red and blue. I really doubt they'll head that direction..plus it's not making sense because those were primarily Cincy/KC days 54 minutes ago, AAO said: And here's how these uniforms could play out.. I hope. I'm not sure that they'd put "SAC" on a uniform..but they need at least one uni with the home city name. Sacramento's too long, unless you condense it. Which no wordmark in their new brand is condensed. All extended. I'm expecting something conservative with minor new/different nuances Behance Network || ianbakar.com || Dribbble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: The helmets were indeed beautiful, as was the colour scheme. And also note that the WLAF wasn't a would-be challenger to the NFL; it was the NFL's own project. In order to make the association with the NFL clearer, the league later became known as NFL Europe. (Though I think the original name was better.) The WLAF was not officially affiliated with the NFL the first couple of years. A couple NFL owners had investments in WLAF teams, but there wasn't an official partnership between the leagues. The NFL only invested in the league when all of the teams were in Europe. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendocfc Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Just a hunch since I barely know anything about the NBA: Could it be those lot could do a Clippers and only change logos,since the colours are staying largely the same,according to an article on the main site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 On 4/24/2016 at 2:28 AM, Bucfan56 said: Problem is, those colors represent the worst stretch of basketball the Kings have had in Sacramento, and are pretty much the embodiment of the cheapness and downright AWFUL management of the owners (Believe it or not, there really was a time when the Kings were even more poorly run then they are now or during the Maloof era). They only wore powder blue because some jenky local print shop screwed up their order and instead of getting them reprinted, the owners just said, meh, just give us a discount and we'll keep em! I know quite a few Kings fans out here, and I seriously haven't run across a single one who's been here through the full stretch that actually wants those colors to return. That's an awesome story if true. Has Paul Lukas, or any other "authority" validated it? Sounds like you're saying the Kings were supposed to get Royal blues, but got Powder blues instead and we're like "OK!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 53 minutes ago, WSU151 said: The WLAF was not officially affiliated with the NFL the first couple of years. A couple NFL owners had investments in WLAF teams, but there wasn't an official partnership between the leagues. The NFL only invested in the league when all of the teams were in Europe. Are you sure? This New York Times article from 1992 says "The World League was formed in 1989 by a unanimous vote of N.F.L. owners to expand American football to Europe and offer a developmental league for N.F.L. prospects." And this 1991 Los Angeles Times article calls the NFL the WLAF's "parent company". Both of these articles are from the period when there were teams in the U.S. and Canada as well as in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockstar Matt Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 2 hours ago, AAO said: That's aggressive. It's really not an issue Here's the other two purported possibilities: I don't like either. 2006 Utah Jazz all over again without the navy Purple and old/metallic gold is the most viable route I love that purple and light blue scheme. Such a unique color scheme. If I'm not mistaken, I don't think those two colors have ever been the main two in a color scheme for one the North American professional sports teams, have they? But out of curiosity, with the dark purple and gold scheme, would adding red to it as a tertiary help it? I've always associated purple, gold and red as a good Royal-themed color scheme. Plus, it'd help differentiate the Kings from the Lakers even more so (not that their colors are really similar that at all. Two completely different shades). Cowboys - Lakers - LAFC - USMNT - LA Rams - LA Kings - NUFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSU151 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 28 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: Are you sure? This New York Times article from 1992 says "The World League was formed in 1989 by a unanimous vote of N.F.L. owners to expand American football to Europe and offer a developmental league for N.F.L. prospects." And this 1991 Los Angeles Times article calls the NFL the WLAF's "parent company". Both of these articles are from the period when there were teams in the U.S. and Canada as well as in Europe. I stand corrected - good finds. I always remember a Sports Illustrated article that featured the start up of the WLAF, and I always thought it was independent. The players were never affiliated with NFL teams until the switch to NFL Europe. Smart is believing half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowld Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 I believe it was reported earlier today that the colors are purple, silver and white. No black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan33 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 What is wrong with Purple, Silver and Black anyways? It's a perfectly attractive scheme that is pretty rare among sports teams. First the hockey team, of the same name, ditches it and now Sacramento follows. The scheme minus black would be acceptable but still a downgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 Despite wanting the Kings' colors back, I'm actually not in favor of changing color schemes,. That said, the Nuggets need something that's theirs and theirs alone. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DustDevil61 Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 44 minutes ago, bowld said: I believe it was reported earlier today that the colors are purple, silver and white. No black Some black is needed to break things up, but Purple/Silver as-is isn't bad, either. I'd also be on the Purple/Silver/Gold* bandwagon as well; those 3 colors are the most regal colors one can think of and could work well together IMO. *Metallic Gold AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 2 hours ago, hendocfc said: Just a hunch since I barely know anything about the NBA: Could it be those lot could do a Clippers and only change logos,since the colours are staying largely the same,according to an article on the main site? I seriously hope not, because the template is hands down the worst part of their current set. But knowing the Kings, that wouldn't surprise me. On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted April 25, 2016 Share Posted April 25, 2016 4 hours ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said: Yeah I get that. Kind of a weird situation tho, since Cali has so many teams. I don't think it'll be a big deal if they go the gold route. Yeah, that would be like saying Boston and Washington, DC couldn't have vaguely similar color schemes in anything. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.