NBA Changes 2019-20

[joshey]

5 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Red, white, and blue is, to me, a quintessentially “New York” colour scheme. You’ve got one team from the city wearing it in every other “Big Four” league. The Rangers, Yankees, Giants.

The Knicks will never give up on blue and orange (nor should they) but the Nets can make red, white, and blue their own in interesting ways. Especially if they go all-in on the Dr. J look. 

 

Ew, no. 

 

 

Yankees are really a blue, white and grey team. Red is only in logo. But really blue and white. And other than the aways and pants, Giants pretty much never use red anymore they’re more of a blue and white with red in the side team than rwb. Nets should never touch what they’ve done. They are a modern classic in the nba. 

[MDGP]

7 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The slate blue and bronze was just so 90s. 

 

I used to think the same thing, though now I think it was just the execution of those jerseys. Both utilized a ton of extremely 90s trends. I'd have to imagine that combined with restraint, that color scheme could easily become classic/stand the test of time.

[IceCap]

16 minutes ago, joshey said:

 

I agree only bc it’s a superior color scheme. Rwb is overdone but for DC and Philly it’s perfect. That scheme would work great for a lot of other cities. Magic come to mind for the NBA. 

See, the problem with “red, white, and blue only work for DC and Philly” is you end up getting A LOT of crappy replacement schemes for other red, white, and blue teams. 

 

Someone’s seriously suggesting the Pistons should go back to teal and dark red. Come on now. 

Or how you always get people who pop up now and then suggesting the Indians swap blue for brown, or how the Twins should adopt the Vikings or Wild’s colour scheme. Or the occasional “the Red Sox should swap out blue for green” people. I hate to think what colours you all think the New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens should wear. 

The only “they should drop rwb for...” argument I can get behind are the calls for the Clippers to embrace powder blue and orange. 

 

Red, white, and blue is a simple yet effective colour scheme. There’s a reason it’s used as often as it has been. 

 

10 minutes ago, joshey said:

 

Yankees are really a blue, white and grey team. Red is only in logo. But really blue and white. And other than the aways and pants, Giants pretty much never use red anymore they’re more of a blue and white with red in the side team than rwb. Nets should never touch what they’ve done. They are a modern classic in the nba. 

Yankees merchandise is pretty red, white, and blue oriented. And the team seems to cycle through phases where red shows up on their dugout jackets. To insist the Yankees aren’t a red, white, and blue team seems disingenuous. 

Also great Giants argument. “They aren’t a red, white, and blue team, except when they are!” 

Their road jersey is mostly white and red

 

The Nets’ black and white uniforms were cool and trendy but modern classic? Nah. What’s classic about them? What great moments have enshrined them in NBA history? Or even Nets history? That one time Jason Kidd spilt pop on the court because he was out of timeouts? 

 

It’s a trendy thing that Nike is clearly struggling with to keep relevant. Go red, white, and blue like the Yankees, Rangers, and Giants. Hell, like the Dodgers before them. It’s got staying power. 

 

5 minutes ago, Lafarge said:

 

I used to think the same thing, though now I think it was just the execution of those jerseys. Both utilized a ton of extremely 90s trends. I'd have to imagine that combined with restraint, that color scheme could easily become classic/stand the test of time.

The black Capitals alternate that became the primary dark look for the latter half of the slate blue and bronze era was pretty restrained and classic. It still fell short compared to the red, white, and blue look. 

 

As for the Wizards? The whole brand was a mistake. They’re pretty much the Bullets again. They just need to pull the trigger (heh) and revert the name already. 

[FiddySicks]

20 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Red, white, and blue is, to me, a quintessentially “New York” colour scheme. You’ve got one team from the city wearing it in every other “Big Four” league. The Rangers, Yankees, Giants.

 

 

I get that, to an extent, but I feel like R/W/B is really befitting of a city like Philadelphia, and even moreso, Washington DC, too. DC, for example, also has three teams wearing R/W/B (Caps, Nats, and Wizards), and Philly also has two (Sixers and Phillies). 

 

I kinda feel like R/W/B would work fine for ANY of the traditional big east coast "Founding" cities. It's easy for the scheme to get a bit watered down. The Nets, with the move, are sort of the newest team in that market, so them changing makes the most sense. 

[joshey]

3 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

See, the problem with “red, white, and blue only work for DC and Philly” is you end up getting A LOT of crappy replacement schemes for other red, white, and blue teams. 

 

Someone’s seriously suggesting the Pistons should go back to teal and dark red. Come on now. 

Or how you always get people who pop up now and then suggesting the Indians swap blue for brown, or the Twins adopt the Vikings or Wild’s colour scheme. Or the occasional “the Red Sox should swap out blue for green” people. I hate to think what colours you all think the New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens should wear. 

The only “they should drop rwb for...” argument I can get behind are the calls for the Clippers to embrace powder blue and orange. 

 

Red, white, and blue is a simple yet effective colour scheme. There’s a reason it’s used as often as it has been. 

 

Yankees merchandise is pretty red, white, and blue oriented. And the team seems to cycle through phases where it shows up on their dugout jackets. To insist the Yankees aren’t a red, white, and blue team seems disingenuous. 

Also great Giants argument. “They aren’t a red, white, and blue team, except when they are!” 

Their road jersey is mostly white and red

 

The Nets’ black and white uniforms were cool and trendy but modern classic? Nah. What’s classic about them? What great moments have enshrined them in NBA history? Or even Nets history? 

It’s a trendy thing that Nike is clearly struggling with to keep relevant. Go red, white, and blue like the Yankees, Rangers, and Giants. Hell, like the Dodgers before them. It’s got staying power. 

 

The black Capitals alternate that became the primary dark look for the latter half of the slate blue and bronze era was pretty restrained and classic. It still fell short compared to the red, white, and blue look. 

 

As for the Wizards? The whole brand was a mistake. They’re pretty much the Bullets again. They just need to pull the trigger (heh) and revert the name already. 

 

I meant really mostly they brand themselves and really identify. When’s the last time Yankees or giants wore a red jersey? It’s been a long time. Marketing they both stay mostly white and blue. When I think rwb I think of them as all equals. 

 

Yankees blue is also closer to midnight blue or navy (without looking up exact color name). Giants are famous for marketing themselves in the blue and white scheme. Main giants logo is either in blue and white or white and blue. Red is an afterthought in both identities (other than giants away which seems to be your main argument). 

 

Nets were cool and trendy? You’re in for a fun next few years of black white and coogie all over. 

[MDGP]

5 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The black Capitals alternate that became the primary dark look for the latter half of the slate blue and bronze era was pretty restrained and classic. It still fell short compared to the red, white, and blue look. 

 

As for the Wizards? The whole brand was a mistake. They’re pretty much the Bullets again. They just need to pull the trigger (heh) and revert the name already. 

 

I don't disagree with you on any of these points. I definitely wouldn't use the color scheme for either team, especially where they both had great red white and blue looks.

 

I think the black uniforms' problem was the lack of proper color balance. I think the scheme needs to be primarily blue, black secondary, and copper/white as tertiary colors to really work. I'd love to see a non DC team give it a try.

[Krz]

Wait, it’s almost exactly the same as the summer league jersey.

[IceCap]

11 minutes ago, joshey said:

Nets were cool and trendy? You’re in for a fun next few years of black white and coogie all over. 

Hey, nothing I can do if they want to look like clowns. Well nothing short of calling them on it on a message board

 

11 minutes ago, joshey said:

When I think rwb I think of them as all equals. 

No other colour scheme works like that. The Raptors aren’t a red and white team just because black is the third most prominent colour. The Mariners aren’t a blue and white team just because teal is the third most used colour in their scheme. And who would ever say the A’s are a green and white team just because gold is the third most prominent colour? 

 

The Rangers are a red, white, and blue team. The Giants very much are a red, white, and blue team. Even if they work grey pants into the mix. The Yankees? Grey’s used by every MLB team. The Yankees are a red, white, and blue team, even if red is used incredibly sparingly (I actually fall in line with @the admiral, viewing the Yankees as being beyond the concept of team colours, but if I had to give them a scheme it’s rwb). 

 

The Nets though? What have they done to earn the black and white look “modern classic” status? People applied that term to the Devils’ unis in the mid 2000s, but that’s because they were classically designed and the team won a few Cups with an old school mentality. 

Since then the term’s been abused. And nothing the Nets have done has really elevated the black and white look. Meanwhile the rwb Dr. J look is associated with some pretty fun basketball and the most cultural relevance the team has ever had. 

[IceCap]

10 minutes ago, Lafarge said:

 

I don't disagree with you on any of these points. I definitely wouldn't use the color scheme for either team, especially where they both had great red white and blue looks.

 

I think the black uniforms' problem was the lack of proper color balance. I think the scheme needs to be primarily blue, black secondary, and copper/white as tertiary colors to really work. I'd love to see a non DC team give it a try.

I think the best thing to do would be to tone down the slate blue. Maybe a soft royal? Honolulu blue maybe? And yeah, what you said about colour balance is pretty much spot-on. 

The slate just seems so trendy. It was used when teal was the hottest thing in sports and it just seems like it so badly wants to be teal without being it.  

[SFGiants58]

15 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

See, the problem with “red, white, and blue only work for DC and Philly” is you end up getting A LOT of crappy replacement schemes for other red, white, and blue teams. 

 

Someone’s seriously suggesting the Pistons should go back to teal and dark red. Come on now. 

 

I agree. Nobody really wants to imagine a time when your biggest star (Grant Hill) spent more time on the injury list than on the court. 

 

15 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

Or how you always get people who pop up now and then suggesting the Indians swap blue for brown, or how the Twins should adopt the Vikings or Wild’s colour scheme. Or the occasional “the Red Sox should swap out blue for green” people.

 

Well, I wouldn't want to switch any of them now. Had color diversification been done in the 1960s or '70s (like what the A's did) beyond "brighten a few shades and use powder blue road uniforms," you could have plenty of color schemes that'd be classic today. The Red Sox in red/dark green (think now, but with dark green replacing navy), the Twins in green/blue of some kind, Cleveland with maroon/orange or brown/red or navy/insert lighter color here, or Atlanta with black/red could have all been fantastic given the right execution.

 

However, that didn't happen, and the teams handle color distribution and font/uniform design well enough to differentiate them. I'm good with this.

 

15 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I hate to think what colours you all think the New York Rangers and Montreal Canadiens should wear. 

 

They handle their respective color schemes in inverted ways, so I've never seen the need for either one to "switch it up," save for the Canadiens using the 1940s white sweater as a third. 

 

15 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The only “they should drop rwb for...” argument I can get behind are the calls for the Clippers to embrace powder blue and orange. 

 

Red, white, and blue is a simple yet effective colour scheme. There’s a reason it’s used as often as it has been. 

 

I agree. It's far easier to use than royal/red and it fits with many apparel demands/matching colors. 

[joshey]

I guess it’s mostly semantics. I’m a Nets fan so I’m also biased but they are so deeply entrenched in the black and white and it works so well it’s become theirs. In terms of winning obviously they have net earned “modern classics” yet but it’s just how I see things, ya know? 

[Digby]

It makes very little sense for the Nets to adopt a RWB color scheme. The New York Nets look is a nice and classic one, but it also is waaaay too close to the Sixers' look. And I don't know why you'd want the Nets to rock royal blue when their two primary rivals for the foreseeable future, the Knicks and the Sixers, are already doing that.

 

I have some quibbles around the current look (mostly the number font, which is atrocious) but I think it's stellar from a branding perspective. The stark color scheme is polarizing but that has helped them plant their flag and stand out. It fits their community (the modern-day Brooklyn) perfectly, which is to say "tough, but sophisticated, but really just moneyed beyond belief". And it provides separation from both the New Jersey and the Long Island eras, to further delineate the Brooklyn era. I think it's been one of the more successful rebrands of the decade and I don't see a good reason to change it, especially when they're about to sell a lot of merch.

[IceCap]

9 minutes ago, joshey said:

I guess it’s mostly semantics. I’m a Nets fan so I’m also biased but they are so deeply entrenched in the black and white and it works so well it’s become theirs. In terms of winning obviously they have net earned “modern classics” yet but it’s just how I see things, ya know? 

I get it, and winning cures all ills. The only real difference between the Dallas Cowboys’ classics and the pre-piping and panels Cardinals set was that the Cowboys won a lot and the Cardinals didn’t. That’s often the difference between the two. 

 

I think the Nets’ black and white look worked at first with the whole “Brooklyn subways sign” vibe but I donno. Maybe this is just me? It just seems tired. Maybe I would be ok with it if they had a more dynamic logo? I don’t want anything crazy but a plain B inside a basketball just isn’t cutting it. 

 

9 minutes ago, Digby said:

It makes very little sense for the Nets to adopt a RWB color scheme. The New York Nets look is a nice and classic one, but it also is waaaay too close to the Sixers' look. And I don't know why you'd want the Nets to rock royal blue when their two primary rivals for the foreseeable future, the Knicks and the Sixers, are already doing that.

The Dr. J look is so unique that I think it differentiates itself from the Knicks and 76ers enough on its own. 

 

9 minutes ago, Digby said:

The stark color scheme is polarizing but that has helped them plant their flag and stand out. It fits their community (the modern-day Brooklyn) perfectly, which is to say "tough, but sophisticated, but really just moneyed beyond belief".

There’s a lot about “modern-day Brooklyn” that can be critiqued, and not in the best of ways  

 

9 minutes ago, Digby said:

I think it's been one of the more successful rebrands of the decade

By what metric though? Sales? Even the BuffaSlug, perhaps one of the most reviled rebrands of all time, topped NHL sales charts. New stuff sells, regardless of design. 

Cultural impact? Are the Nets more culturally relevant now than they were during the Dr. J era or even the Jason Kidd Finals run era? 

I asked this before, but I’ll ask it again. What’s the big moment associated with the black and white Nets look? Kidd spilling pop on the court? 

 

9 minutes ago, Digby said:

I don't see a good reason to change it, especially when they're about to sell a lot of merch.

If you’ll allow me to get into the mindset of a cynical team executive? 

That’s exactly the reason to change. Sell a bunch of KD gear now and then sell it all again as soon as possible  

[truepg]

22 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

I don’t want anything crazy but a plain B inside a basketball just isn’t cutting it. 

 

This. The Brooklyn Nets' branding was weak from the start. The font they use is generic and doesn't look good for a sports team. The uniforms are forgettable. I'm not a fan of the BW color scheme, but the identity could've been executed a lot better. Jay-Z's team did a very poor job. I don't think they should switch to RWB, though, since that scheme is really overused indeed.

 

What comes to the Coogi pattern, it's not a bad idea for the City jersey, but it's kinda meh for me, since it doesn't stick out much and the pattern looks as if it was solid brown color from distance anyway.

[Digby]

25 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

The Dr. J look is so unique that I think it differentiates itself from the Knicks and 76ers enough on its own. 

 

There’s a lot about “modern-day Brooklyn” that can be critiqued, and not in the best of ways  

 

By what metric though? Sales? Even the BuffaSlug, perhaps one of the most reviled rebrands of all time, topped NHL sales charts. New stuff sells, regardless of design. 

Cultural impact? Are the Nets more culturally relevant now than they were during the Dr. J era or even the Jason Kidd Finals run era? 

I asked this before, but I’ll ask it again. What’s the big moment associated with the black and white Nets look? Kidd spilling pop on the court? 

 

If you’ll allow me to get into the mindset of a cynical team executive? 

That’s exactly the reason to change. Sell a bunch of KD gear now and then sell it all again as soon as possible  

On the Dr. J look, I agree as an NBA nerd, but I don’t think it’s different enough to the general populace. Also agree on the Brooklyn bit, but again, they’re selling to the Brooklyn of today, so here we are.

 

That they were poorly managed on the court all these years is a mark against them, but they rode it out to KD and Kyrie, two legitimate stars who will move merch and be iconic in that look. They don’t have to try to sell us Deron Williams or a washed KG as the icons of Brooklyn black and white anymore. 

 

Now if Kyrie implodes them into further mediocrity, then it might be time to change course. But I don’t think we should judge a brand based on whether they’ve had a great on-court moment on some arbitrary timeline. 

[~Bear]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

Red, white, and blue is, to me, a quintessentially “New York” colour scheme. You’ve got one team from the city wearing it in every other “Big Four” league. The Rangers, Yankees, Giants.

Maybe it's just me, but I think of Blue/Orange as more of the New York signature colors between the Mets, Knicks, and Islanders. Red/White/Blue makes sense for any East Coast city, but it doesn't strike me as belonging to any one city. So many teams have had, at some point, a combination of these three colors.

 

The Nets don't have the greatest uniforms, but at least Black/White is something unique for the NBA. I agree that their "remix jersey" was their best look since going to B/W, and although not perfect, it's something that could be built off of for a more interesting identity. 

[FALCON6]

5 minutes ago, ~Bear said:

Maybe it's just me, but I think of Blue/Orange as more of the New York signature colors between the Mets, Knicks, and Islanders. Red/White/Blue makes sense for any East Coast city, but it doesn't strike me as belonging to any one city. So many teams have had, at some point, a combination of these three colors.

 

The Nets don't have the greatest uniforms, but at least Black/White is something unique for the NBA. I agree that their "remix jersey" was their best look since going to B/W, and although not perfect, it's something that could be built off of for a more interesting identity. 

I agree, Orange and Blue are on the city flag. Nod to the Dutch roots, I think.

[Quillz]

The Mavs really need a tweaked logo. I'm surprised they haven't attempted to "flatten" it yet.

[Lights Out]

1 hour ago, Ice_Cap said:

The slate blue and bronze was just so 90s. 

I don't agree. The Wizards' and Capitals' uniforms from that era were very '90s, but the color scheme itself is a classy-looking combination based on the presidential seal. It's a lot more inspired than the generic red, white and blue.

[The_Admiral]

Tagging in late to this one, but I would have preferred the New York Nets in midnight blue and red with some Subway/Helvetica-inspired design (net as in basketball net but also net...work...of...railroads?) crossed with the old side-panel Nets design that everyone associates with them the same way the horizontal stripes are associated with the Not Bullets. I think that could have been gritty and no-nonsense enough. The Brooklyn Nets brand is one of my least favorites in all of sports. A lot of that is because Brooklyn itself is so contemptible but as pure design it sucks too. Poor man's Spurs with Dodgers ripoffs and Notorious B.I.G. pieces of flair as special treats. Garbage.