NBA Changes 2017-18

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Shadojoker said:

Wow we sure are divided on these City Edition uniforms!

 

I truly believe a few the teams hit the mark, 1/3 missed the mark completely and 1/3 needed just one more tweak and they would have gotten it right.

 

Teams that needed small/minor tweaks 

Lakers- add purple to wordmark and numbers. Or change the wordmark to this.

 

I never liked this jersey probably because the number font doesn't match the ones used worn in LA up until 1997-1998 (excluding throwbacks); it' s too thin. Also, this jersey isn't authentic nor is it the one worn on the SLAM cover; the neck trim colors on that jersey was purple-gold-purple.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

38 minutes ago, HighCheese said:

Would have loved to see the old diddy green mavs jerseys make a comeback instead of the terrible black they decided to go with

 

 

It's really weird that jersey basically disappeared. As I remember, it was pretty universally loved when it was in rotation. And, TBH, it'd be a better overall aesthetic than the blue/blue look they've had since the early 2000s.

[Shadojoker]

2 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

not sure how "change the entire color" or "change the wordmark" or "bring back a different jersey altogether" are considered "small adjustments".

Small changes to make them nice compared to Phoenix, Orlando, Atlanta, Toronto, Dallas, Houston,OKC, amf Indiana (on the fence with love or loathe).

 

If you changed the wordmark, color,etc for those uniforms THEY STILL BE TRASH. They need a complete overhaul. 

 

Nuggets part was for the "complete makeover section" that I started to do but realized I was beating a dead horse so I stopped before "edit". ?

 

@sayahh

Was just using the image for reference. That was an eBay item. Was too lazy to Google for this cause I was at work. But since you are nitpicking. Here ya go.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Shadojoker said:

Small changes to make them nice compared to Phoenix, Orlando, Atlanta, Toronto, Dallas, Houston,OKC, amf Indiana (on the fence with love or loathe).

 

If you changed the wordmark, color,etc for those uniforms THEY STILL BE TRASH. They need a complete overhaul. 

 

Nuggets part was for the "complete makeover section" that I started to do but realized I was beating a dead horse so I stopped before "edit". ?

 

@sayahh

Was just using the image for reference. That was an eBay item. Was too lazy to Google for this cause I was at work. But since you are nitpicking. Here ya go.

 

LOL I wasn't nitpicking! I just never liked that jersey but I know a ton of people who seem to love it.  Just noticed that you only wanted to draw attention to the wordmark so I guess you could've just used the blue jersey but since you were talking about the city jersey it would make sense to choose the photo of a black jersey.  I only had an issue with it because I wasn't sure if by wordmark you intended to include the number font or not, since even this photo of Kobe doesn't have the right font number as far as I can tell

 

On a separate note, Have a Happy 2018!

[BBTV]

If they straightened out the "Los", I could get behind using that script on the purple jerseys as the primary ROAD look.

 

I can actually appreciate what Nike tried to do with this new system and why they tried it, but it's just not working, and it's not one of those things where you just need to give it time.

 

Teams NEED consistent home and road looks, with maybe the occasional alternate and/or throwback.  The home looks should be consistent throughout the league - either light or dark.  It's too frustrating watching a highlight or seeing a still photo and having no idea who is home and who is road.

 

I cannot think of any team that has better dark jerseys than light - maybe the Spurs but that's it.  It's just the nature of basketball jerseys that the wordmarks and secondary colors will *sigh* "pop" more against white.

  

[Krz]

17 hours ago, HighCheese said:

Would have loved to see the old diddy green mavs jerseys make a comeback instead of the terrible black they decided to go with

 

I see people wearing these all the time at the AAC, miss them, but too much colors

[Teal]

19 hours ago, DG_Now said:

 

It's really weird that jersey basically disappeared. As I remember, it was pretty universally loved when it was in rotation. And, TBH, it'd be a better overall aesthetic than the blue/blue look they've had since the early 2000s.

An underrated classic in my opinion.

[Froob]

20 hours ago, sayahh said:

I never liked this jersey probably because the number font doesn't match the ones used worn in LA up until 1997-1998 (excluding throwbacks); it' s too thin. Also, this jersey isn't authentic nor is it the one worn on the SLAM cover; the neck trim colors on that jersey was purple-gold-purple.

I love that it says Los Angeles on it, it'd be nice to see one Laker jersey with the city name on it. 

[JESSEDIEBOLT]

On 12/30/2017 at 9:05 PM, 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?

 

A brand is much more than design elements/colors. Sports teams bring people together from in/around a given city. They create fun environments for fans and players who ultimately spend/generate money. A successful brand can build a story that engages people. Utah certainly put a lot of thought into their city uniforms/court. They aren't just throwing a randomly colored uniform out there. 

 

Major brands like Nike don't rely on a single color scheme. The idea that a sports team has to strictly adhere to a set of 2-4 colors is outdated. 

 

No one wants to wear the same colors every single day. All teams sell black & white merch in their fan shops even though Brooklyn is the only team in the NBA with a truly B/W brand. 

[IceCap]

39 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

 A brand is much more than design elements/colors. Sports teams bring people together from in/around a given city. They create fun environments for fans and players who ultimately spend/generate money.

All of this is true, but it was all true when teams adhered to 2-4 colours shrug

It’s not like people only realized the Chicago Bulls were a cornerstone of Chicago once they rolled out their CM Punk unis. People figured it out long before then. 

 

41 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

No one wants to wear the same colors every single day.

I agree. Which is why if I wear a royal blue Maple Leafs t-shirt? I just don’t wear Maple Leafs gear the next day. I don’t sit around going “gosh, I wish I had a gold and orange Maple Leafs shirt!”

People can, and do, wear things other than officially licenced merchandise from sports teams  

 

42 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

Major brands like Nike

Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? Nike, in the context of NBA uniforms, shouldn’t be the dominant brand. The teams’ brands should come first. Nike, in this context, is just a manufacturer. They shouldn’t be outshining any single NBA brand. 

 

43 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

The idea that a sports team has to strictly adhere to a set of 2-4 colors is outdated. 

According to who? The Maple Leafs are still doing just fine from a branding perspective with just royal blue and white. The Canadiens’ simple red, white, and blue colour scheme is still iconic. As are the Yankees’ midnight navy pinstripes on white. 

Heck, look at the NBA. The Celtics in grey or black will never replace the equity they have in simple green and white. And the Lakers? They’ll always be purple and gold first and foremost. 

 

So teams can, and often do, just fine with just 2-4 colours. 

 

 

[andrewharrington]

49 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

No one wants to wear the same colors every single day. All teams sell black & white merch in their fan shops even though Brooklyn is the only team in the NBA with a truly B/W brand. 

 

I’m with you in principle, but even I will concede that this practice is pretty lame and lacking in vision or purpose.

 

Also, wearing the same colors every day? Does anyone even want to wear licensed sports apparel every day? :-)

[IceCap]

As an aside? 

I know not every team can be the Lakers, Celtics, Habs, or Yankees. 

 

My my point is, though, that these teams weren’t always what they are now. They cycled through early, whacky uniforms to find what worked, yes. 

That was the point though. That when they found what worked they proceeded to build successful brands around it.

The “City” uniform thing is just a cycle of endlessly changing out one random alternate for another (if the yearly switch out claims are to be believed), 

 

We’re not looking at less well-established teams trying to define their brand through experimentation. That would imply an end-goal. Which doesn’t exist here.

 

A team I look to as a modern example doing it right would be the New Jersey Devils. Up until the latest rebrand at least. 

The team isn’t an Original Six franchise, but they approached their brand as if they were. The result was a modern classic of a uniform and logo that felt like it had as strong a brand as the Leafs, Habs, Red Wings, etc. 

 

Which is what I’m getting at. The Jazz aren’t the Lakers, but their brand could be something special in its own right if they would just commit to it. 

Going with a Tequila Sunrise look that doesn’t match anything else they have ever worn isn’t committing to the brand. 

[andrewharrington]

5 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

As an aside? 

I know not every team can be the Lakers, Celtics, Hans, or Yankees. 

 

My my point is, though, that these teams weren’t always what they are now. They cycled through early, whacky uniforms to find what worked, yes. 

That was the point though. That when they found what worked they proceeded to build successful brands around it.

The “City” uniform thing is just a cycle of endlessly changing out one random alternate for another (if the yearly switch out claims are to be believed), 

 

We’re not looking at less well-established teams trying to define their brand through experimentation. That would imply an end-goal. Which doesn’t exist here.

 

I don’t think we know that for sure yet, as unlikely as it may seem. The Lakers, for example, set a smart precedent by saying no to LA symbols and landmarks and instead implied that the Lakers *are* LA as much as anything else, so they will honor LA by creating uniforms in the image of team legends.

 

I’m speculating (as you are) that it’s not Nike’s intent, but it remains to be seen whether any teams will use this as an experimental means to an end to “find their brand,” so to speak, or whether other teams will sort of “opt out” of the city program and do their own thing with it like LA has. Again, I definitely wouldn’t consider this likely, but I wouldn’t say the book is closed on it.

[AnPheitseog]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

All of this is true, but it was all true when teams adhered to 2-4 colours shrug

It’s not like people only realized the Chicago Bulls were a cornerstone of Chicago once they rolled out their CM Punk unis. People figured it out long before then. 

 

I agree. Which is why if I wear a royal blue Maple Leafs t-shirt? I just don’t wear Maple Leafs gear the next day. I don’t sit around going “gosh, I wish I had a gold and orange Maple Leafs shirt!”

People can, and do, wear things other than officially licenced merchandise from sports teams  

 

Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? Nike, in the context of NBA uniforms, shouldn’t be the dominant brand. The teams’ brands should come first. Nike, in this context, is just a manufacturer. They shouldn’t be outshining any single NBA brand. 

 

According to who? The Maple Leafs are still doing just fine from a branding perspective with just royal blue and white. The Canadiens’ simple red, white, and blue colour scheme is still iconic. As are the Yankees’ midnight navy pinstripes on white. 

Heck, look at the NBA. The Celtics in grey or black will never replace the equity they have in simple green and white. And the Lakers? They’ll always be purple and gold first and foremost. 

 

So teams can, and often do, just fine with just 2-4 colours. 

 

 

Not to mention the fashion jersey market, and the ability to sell things to fans that will never be worn.

 

 

If they want to sell a yellow and black raptors jersey, go right ahead.

 

Yellow tee shirt with the logo on it? go for it.

 

You can sell a lot of things, without sacrificing what you wear during the game.

[WSU151]

19 minutes ago, DiePerske said:

Not to mention the fashion jersey market, and the ability to sell things to fans that will never be worn.

 

 

If they want to sell a yellow and black raptors jersey, go right ahead.

 

Yellow tee shirt with the logo on it? go for it.

 

You can sell a lot of things, without sacrificing what you wear during the game.

 

I'd guess that things that are worn during the game sell better than their fashion counterparts.

 

I don't have a problem with the City idea.  Some are better than others, but that's inherent in a project like this. 

 

I doubt the Lakers will always pay tribute to legends...they'll try to tie-in the actual location at some point; this year, Kobe was honored both in the rafters on the uniform...we won't see that every year. 

 

And I don't really agree that teams have weakened or ruined their brands by wearing these City unis.  Strong brands allow a little variation, especially one-year/minimal games stuff.

[BShaw20]

Lakers are wearing the MPLS in Minneapolis.  Have they worn that jersey there before, as LA Lakers?

[upperV03]

^Nope, at least not that I’m aware of. The Wolves wore their blue uniforms, so it was a blue vs. blue matchup tonight in Minneapolis:

[kimball]

3 minutes ago, upperV03 said:

^Nope, at least not that I’m aware of. The Wolves wore their blue uniforms, so it was a blue vs. blue matchup tonight in Minneapolis:

 

Combined it reads as Minneapolis, Minnesota.

 

Oddly cool.

[swilson160]

I like sports uniforms. So I enjoy seeing more of them. Are some terrible? Yep. Are some off-brand? Yep. 

 

But how boring would these boards be if everyone was like the Yankees and Canadiens? What the hell would people with this interest talk about? 

 

Give me more alternates. Give me throwbacks and fauxbacks. Give me crazy designs and weird concepts and experiments. GIVE ME MORE UNIFORMS TO LOVE AND HATE AND ARGUE ABOUT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S FUN ABOUT LIKING SPORTS UNIFORMS. 

[IceCap]

21 minutes ago, swilson160 said:

But how boring would these boards be if everyone was like the Yankees and Canadiens? What the hell would people with this interest talk about? 

I mean this place wasn't exactly a ghost town when most teams rocked the standard "home-road-alternate" setup.