Conrad.

NBA Changes 2017-18

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, kimball said:

 

I've grown accustomed to it when the home team is wearing anything darker than gold or orange. But, my mind automatically goes to home vs. home jerseys with gold or orange. But, I'd much rather have color vs. color when possible.

 

 

I think there are a couple solid city uniforms ... Denver, Portland, Atlanta and Memphis. Even the far out ones like Utah, Chicago, Miami and Boston are good. Other than that ... meh.

Forgot about Denver. They are the only one that actually did a good job, and even that one had flaws. Portland was meh, it feels cluttered and minor leagueish. Atlanta and Memphis?? Come on now. I could have done what Memphis did. Chicago and Utah were average, not good though. Boston just another classic team to fall into the GFGS trap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Teal said:

All is all, I think the City sets have been a success. 

What? The city uniforms were nothing short of a disaster and a major disappointment/missed opportunity. Most uniforms look like something a GLeague team would use for a promotional night. I can just see “Chinese Night” writen all over the Rockets and “Future Night” on the Hawks. So many issues with these unis.

 

Knicks- God Awfulness. Really? Holy :censored: these are bad.

 

Raptors- Also, really? Not team colors. North? We know you guys are “north”. Dont need to tell us what direction your team is.

 

Heat- No words for this. Like soccer teams, I cannot stand it when teams use non team colors. Trashy uni.

 

Rockets- Tell me how Chinese characters represent Houston? Idk, and I live here. Badddd.

 

Warriors- I get this one a bit. Big asian population. Still doesn’t look great.

 

Pelicans- I actually dont really mind the colors here, but those numbers...UGLY. This is one of the few that has a reasonable explanation. Still doesn’t make it look good.

 

Jazz- I don’t like gradient all that much. Kind of sloppy, but one of the better ones.

 

Thunder- Okay, so I don’t think anyone likes the OKC logo. I don’t think many really care for Gray for Grays sake. Well slap those two together and this is the crap you get!

 

Spurs- I lost the logo in the ugly, computerized camo.

 

Mavericks- Okay, city abbreviation here doesn’t work. Also, not the right shade of green. Again, trash. 

 

Celtics- Its their sleeved jersey with a subtle pattern and no sleeves. Really put some thought into this BS. 

 

Pacers- Strange, Strange. Is it wrong that this might be viewed as one of the better ones?

 

Cavs- F off. 

 

Bucks- I don’t hate this one, but it looks like one of Adidas’ Christmas Day unis. Not awful.

 

Kings- Maybe the best one? Not SAC colors, but the throwback is fine. I like that logo!

 

Wiz- Yeah, no. Who thought it was a good idea to put “The District Of Columbia” onto a jersey. Cluttered junk here.

 

Magic- Fu*k you, Disney! 

 

Bulls- Why not use this in Bulls colors. Not the worst, but not very good.

 

Nets- I like the bridge touch. Overall, looks like their version of the Indy set.

 

Pistons- Gray? Of course! 

 

Los Suns- Slap some adds on it and it would be a perfect WNBA uni! Booker already looks like a girl. Wearing this won’t help.

 

Wolves- Apparently blue was too dull of a color. 

 

Sixers- Not great, not awful.

 

Lakers- The yellow looks neon in 2k. I actually kinda like these.

 

Denver- My favorite, but should have used powder blue.

 

Clips- Well they brought back the orange we wanted...in the worst possible way.

 

Memphis- Can I interest you in a story about sanitation workers?

 

Blazers- Red is a bit bright. The pattern is strange, but mot really bad. Whatever.

 

Hawks- Absolute hideousness

 

Hornets- Not good. 

 

Think about what could have been. I mean we could have had some great, city inspired jerseys. But...NIKE.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cardsblues02 said:

What? The city uniforms were nothing short of a disaster and a major disappointment/missed opportunity. Most uniforms look like something a GLeague team would use for a promotional night. I can just see “Chinese Night” writen all over the Rockets and “Future Night” on the Hawks. So many issues with these unis.

 

Knicks- God Awfulness. Really? Holy :censored: these are bad.

 

Raptors- Also, really? Not team colors. North? We know you guys are “north”. Dont need to tell us what direction your team is.

 

Heat- No words for this. Like soccer teams, I cannot stand it when teams use non team colors. Trashy uni.

 

Rockets- Tell me how Chinese characters represent Houston? Idk, and I live here. Badddd.

 

Warriors- I get this one a bit. Big asian population. Still doesn’t look great.

 

Pelicans- I actually dont really mind the colors here, but those numbers...UGLY. This is one of the few that has a reasonable explanation. Still doesn’t make it look good.

 

Jazz- I don’t like gradient all that much. Kind of sloppy, but one of the better ones.

 

Thunder- Okay, so I don’t think anyone likes the OKC logo. I don’t think many really care for Gray for Grays sake. Well slap those two together and this is the crap you get!

 

Spurs- I lost the logo in the ugly, computerized camo.

 

Mavericks- Okay, city abbreviation here doesn’t work. Also, not the right shade of green. Again, trash. 

 

Celtics- Its their sleeved jersey with a subtle pattern and no sleeves. Really put some thought into this BS. 

 

Pacers- Strange, Strange. Is it wrong that this might be viewed as one of the better ones?

 

Cavs- F off. 

 

Bucks- I don’t hate this one, but it looks like one of Adidas’ Christmas Day unis. Not awful.

 

Kings- Maybe the best one? Not SAC colors, but the throwback is fine. I like that logo!

 

Wiz- Yeah, no. Who thought it was a good idea to put “The District Of Columbia” onto a jersey. Cluttered junk here.

 

Magic- Fu*k you, Disney! 

 

Bulls- Why not use this in Bulls colors. Not the worst, but not very good.

 

Nets- I like the bridge touch. Overall, looks like their version of the Indy set.

 

Pistons- Gray? Of course! 

 

Los Suns- Slap some adds on it and it would be a perfect WNBA uni! Booker already looks like a girl. Wearing this won’t help.

 

Wolves- Apparently blue was too dull of a color. 

 

Sixers- Not great, not awful.

 

Lakers- The yellow looks neon in 2k. I actually kinda like these.

 

Denver- My favorite, but should have used powder blue.

 

Clips- Well they brought back the orange we wanted...in the worst possible way.

 

Memphis- Can I interest you in a story about sanitation workers?

 

Blazers- Red is a bit bright. The pattern is strange, but mot really bad. Whatever.

 

Hawks- Absolute hideousness

 

Hornets- Not good. 

 

Think about what could have been. I mean we could have had some great, city inspired jerseys. But...NIKE.

 

 

 

Um, not sure if I’d call this an opinion — it’s mostly just a rant with no substance with misogynistic undertones. But, one of the reasons why teams like the Jazz, Heat, Grizz, Kings and Bulls went with non-team colors is because Nike’s vision for this City Jersey is to allow teams to go “off brand” to celebrate their communities or in the Lakers case great players.

 

My issue with the team that have gone off brand —and the same issue I have with most throwbacks — is that they don’t match the court as well. I like that the Jazz who went extremely off brand paired it with a matching court. The Kings did the same. And, I’m sure the Warriors will have their city logo on the court as well when they play at home.

 

I like the intention of these jerseys, but I don’t think every team has caught onto the vision of them that the Jazz, Grizz, Bulls and Heat have so far.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, kimball said:

Nike’s vision for this City Jersey is to allow teams to go “off brand”

This isn’t a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the Blazers/Hawks game right now, I noticed another small little change to the Hawks’ white uniforms that I, and maybe the rest of us missed earlier this fall. They changed the Pac-man logo on the shorts from white and red to volt and red:

la-sp-cavaliers-hawks-capsule-20160502

getty-images-871055522.jpg?itok=yd9ARjZC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

 

In your opinion.

I don’t need see what a brand with as much equity as the Bulls has to gain from adding design elements and colours that were never part of it until now. 

 

It’s just not teams with established brands though. Take a team like the Jazz. They’ve been purple, gold and green. Green and gold, Blue, purple, teal, and bronze. Double blue and white. Navy, green, and gold. 

They seem to have finally settled on that last one, but now they’re adding an Astros-esque sunrise set. Which doesn’t match anything in their current brand. Or their past brand. The Jazz are one of those teams that has been all over the map, and as such really aren’t associated with a single “brand.”

Sticking with something long-term is a start, but how does the “City Edition” look help with the overal problem of a muddled brand? 

 

I guess my problem with “City Edition” looks is this; what’s the benefit for a team to not look like themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I don’t need see what a brand with as much equity as the Bulls has to gain from adding design elements and colours that were never part of it until now. 

 

It’s just not teams with established brands though. Take a team like the Jazz. They’ve been purple, gold and green. Green and gold, Blue, purple, teal, and bronze. Double blue and white. Navy, green, and gold. 

They seem to have finally settled on that last one, but now they’re adding an Astros-esque sunrise set. Which doesn’t match anything in their current brand. Or their past brand. The Jazz are one of those teams that has been all over the map, and as such really aren’t associated with a single “brand.”

Sticking with something long-term is a start, but how does the “City Edition” look help with the overal problem of a muddled brand? 

 

I guess my problem with “City Edition” looks is this; what’s the benefit for a team to not look like themselves?

Money from sales of jerseys that are that are released anew every year? Just a wild guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I've been thinking about it, the more I think the most egregious WTF of the Nike uniform era is this: Brooklyn wearing three different jerseys that are nearly identical except for the number of letters in the front wordmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anythinglogos said:

Money from sales of jerseys that are that are released anew every year? Just a wild guess

 

Could also be an opportunity to test the waters for rebranding purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Digby said:

The more I've been thinking about it, the more I think the most egregious WTF of the Nike uniform era is this: Brooklyn wearing three different jerseys that are nearly identical except for the number of letters in the front wordmark.

THIS! One of them should have been the Brooklyn Blue alt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kimball said:

 

Um, not sure if I’d call this an opinion — it’s mostly just a rant with no substance with misogynistic undertones. But, one of the reasons why teams like the Jazz, Heat, Grizz, Kings and Bulls went with non-team colors is because Nike’s vision for this City Jersey is to allow teams to go “off brand” to celebrate their communities or in the Lakers case great players.

 

My issue with the team that have gone off brand —and the same issue I have with most throwbacks — is that they don’t match the court as well. I like that the Jazz who went extremely off brand paired it with a matching court. The Kings did the same. And, I’m sure the Warriors will have their city logo on the court as well when they play at home.

 

I like the intention of these jerseys, but I don’t think every team has caught onto the vision of them that the Jazz, Grizz, Bulls and Heat have so far.

 

Yes, that was rant. I wasn’t being derogatory towards anyone, except Nike. Oh boo hoo I said the Suns jersey looks like a WNBA uniform. Off brand isn’t smart. You want to build a strong brand that is recognizable. Your problem with these is the COURT?!?! Okay. I get it, but I think that is the least of the issues.

 

Give me a good explication on how Toronto’s, Charlotte’s, Houston’s, Dallas’, Minnesota’s, Cleveland’s and Phoenix’s jerseys represent their cities. And then there are ones that do represent their cities, but they still suck! Example: ALL OF THEM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I don’t need see what a brand with as much equity as the Bulls has to gain from adding design elements and colours that were never part of it until now. 

 

It’s just not teams with established brands though. Take a team like the Jazz. They’ve been purple, gold and green. Green and gold, Blue, purple, teal, and bronze. Double blue and white. Navy, green, and gold. 

They seem to have finally settled on that last one, but now they’re adding an Astros-esque sunrise set. Which doesn’t match anything in their current brand. Or their past brand. The Jazz are one of those teams that has been all over the map, and as such really aren’t associated with a single “brand.”

Sticking with something long-term is a start, but how does the “City Edition” look help with the overal problem of a muddled brand? 

 

I guess my problem with “City Edition” looks is this; what’s the benefit for a team to not look like themselves?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think by the classical principles of branding, it would be considered a bad move. However, branding today is much different than those principles we all learned, which is why we have logos that change and evolve depending on their context; logos that can be modified with color or photos or another variable; logos that replace themselves after a given amount of time.

 

The point is that “good branding” is much less constrained than it has ever been because more people can figure it out and are interested and engaged in brands that take creative risks to avoid becoming stale and over-corporatized. “Off-brand” uniforms are the sports industry’s version of that; a creative outlet for a team to take a risk without having to commit to changing the core of the brand.

 

We always complain about how teams do these things solely to make money. What if they do them in order to be warmer, more interesting, more fun? Doesn’t that make them more authentic and more humanistic? Is it impossible for a sports team’s goal to be the ideal; an extension of us and our cities, rather than a cold corporation whose only goal is to take our money?

 

Honest questions. Not rhetorical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely ridiculous that the Lakers wore purple at home, etc. The NBA has become a big mash up of uniforms and it sucks. No tradition, no nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Griffinmarlins said:

Dude, tell me about it. I'm a Hawks fan and they only have one Nike jersey available on their official store, and it's only customizable. I mean at least put Schröder up there. The guy has been on the team since 2013. 

 

Not sure if that's the case for other teams that don't have superstar players though. 

 

12 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

I don’t know about the website, but all there is in-stadium is Gordon. I don’t think the Nike takeover could have gone worse, both aesthetically and logistically.

 

Part of the issue is that Nike is being weirdly exclusive with what retailers they're even allowing to sell their NBA gear right now. A lot of the larger stores (Champs, Fanzz, etc) are getting gear, but it's really limited in what they're offering and it's kind of few and far in between. Other smaller stores (such as Sports Fever and the like) that used to be VERY strong sellers of NBA gear and who always had a VERY large selection under Adidas, are being told by Nike that they wouldn't be getting any of the new Nike NBA gear at any time. The guy who owns the SF stores in the local malls here in the Sacramento area is simply beside himself with the decision because NBA gear is literally half of their stock, and Nike refuses to do business with the smaller retailers now. Yet, they'all still sell them as much NFL gear as they want, so, go figure. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anythinglogos said:

Money from sales of jerseys that are that are released anew every year? Just a wild guess

Do we have confirmation that these will change every year?

 

Regardless, there's something to be said about building a long-term, consistent brand. Don't sacrifice the long term for the short term. If you do you might end up like the Utah Jazz, Vancouver Canucks, and San Diego Padres. A team with plenty of past looks, but no real brand.

 

49 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

We always complain about how teams do these things solely to make money. What if they do them in order to be warmer, more interesting, more fun?

Call my cynical, but I don't think that's a motivation here.

 

Besides. There's nothing "fun" about forcing the Lakes to hold off on wearing their purple jerseys (an essential element of their very successful brand and on-court look) just because Nike wants to withhold a set of their novelty jerseys. There's nothing really fun about the Cavs in stupid, grey "The Land" jerseys either, to be honest.

 

49 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I think by the classical principles of branding, it would be considered a bad move. However, branding today is much different than those principles we all learned, which is why we have logos that change and evolve depending on their context; logos that can be modified with color or photos or another variable; logos that replace themselves after a given amount of time.

Except this isn't universal. Teams like the Yankees and Canadiens consistently prove that you can still be very successful from a branding standpoint by staying with a simple, classic look.

"Not every team can be the Yankees and Canadiens" doesn't sound convincing to me because they weren't always "the" Yankees or Canadiens. They were brand that were built partially by remaining consistent.

 

49 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

brands that take creative risks to avoid becoming stale and over-corporatized

This whole thing seems overly corporate to be honest :(
We had "home," "road," and "alternate" unis in the NBA for decades. Then Nike comes on board and we have "association," "icon," etc...I just can't see this whole thing as anything but clever Nike marketing.

 

As far as stale brands go...again, I would point to the Habs and Yankees.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

 

Part of the issue is that Nike is being weirdly exclusive with what retailers they're even allowing to sell their NBA gear right now. A lot of the larger stores (Champs, Fanzz, etc) are getting gear, but it's really limited in what they're offering and it's kind of few and far in between. Other smaller stores (such as Sports Fever and the like) that used to be VERY strong sellers of NBA gear and who always had a VERY large selection under Adidas, are being told by Nike that they wouldn't be getting any of the new Nike NBA gear at any time. The guy who owns the SF stores in the local malls here in the Sacramento area is simply beside himself with the decision because NBA gear is literally half of their stock, and Nike refuses to do business with the smaller retailers now. Yet, they'all still sell them as much NFL gear as they want, so, go figure. 

 

 

 

None of this surprises me and I really don't get it. It'd be really :censored:ing dumb if Nike NBA gear became a prestige brand just for fun. That's kind of gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cardsblues02 said:

Yes, that was rant. I wasn’t being derogatory towards anyone, except Nike. Oh boo hoo I said the Suns jersey looks like a WNBA uniform. Off brand isn’t smart. You want to build a strong brand that is recognizable. Your problem with these is the COURT?!?! Okay. I get it, but I think that is the least of the issues.

 

Give me a good explication on how Toronto’s, Charlotte’s, Houston’s, Dallas’, Minnesota’s, Cleveland’s and Phoenix’s jerseys represent their cities. And then there are ones that do represent their cities, but they still suck! Example: ALL OF THEM

 

 

It wasn't necessarily the Sun jersey comment, it was the one about Devin Booker. It was a stupid comment and you lose any credibility to your "opinion" when you cheapen it with asinine BS like.

 

The courts are my main problem. And, I guess my main point I was trying to make is I like a more immersive experience with throwbacks and these city jerseys that go off brand. When the Kings played on a replica court a couple years ago with their baby blue throwbacks plus they're doing that now with their black statement and city jerseys with a coordinating court. I like what the Bucks did with the MECCA court as well and the Raptors when they honored the Huskies.

 

Teams like the Kings and Jazz who have off-brand colors in their city would look VERY out of place playing on their regular courts. I like that they added a coordinating court. It helps a lot in the selling of story they're trying to tell.

 

But, I agree with you ... not every team has embraced the spirit of the city jerseys. Especially Minnesota, Denver, Phoenix and Dallas. I just don't think that ALL of the city jerseys suck. 

 

Share this post


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