kolob Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 5 hours ago, The_Admiral said: I don't recall any crackdown, either (I'm on the side that this ban on black uniforms was misconstrued or made up), but it did directly give us the dress code. I am looking for sources, but I believe in the early 2000s there was a "ban" on black alternate jerseys. It had nothing to do with "The Malice in the Palace" and I don't think it had anything to do with race? But, if I recall correctly, it was mostly to add more color into the league because by the end of the '90s a number of teams were kind of defaulting to black secondary jerseys. It's why we had these ... 3 1 Quote "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." Lily Tomlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 36 minutes ago, kolob said: Somebody remind me what the Suns were trying to accomplish with this era of uniforms again??? 4 Quote *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 51 minutes ago, kolob said: I am looking for sources, but I believe in the early 2000s there was a "ban" on black alternate jerseys. It had nothing to do with "The Malice in the Palace" and I don't think it had anything to do with race? But, if I recall correctly, it was mostly to add more color into the league because by the end of the '90s a number of teams were kind of defaulting to black secondary jerseys. I distinctly remember conjecture here that the ban on black alternates was not about "injecting color" but about avoiding some sort of thug look at a time when that had to be avoided. But that still raises more questions than it answers: no one said anything about the Spurs. Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chcarlson23 Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 20 hours ago, truepg said: It's not. That neon green doesn't make sense for the Timberwolves. And neither do we need any of that added Northern star BS in the identity that they tried to justify that shade of green with.. Ummm BS? It’s the North Star State, the State Motto is literally “L’Etoile Du Nord”. The neon green is a little odd, sure, but there’s not a single Minnesotan who’s questioning the North Star in the identity. Ever heard of the Minnesota North Stars? And the Wild, Twins, and Loons all have the North Star in their logos as well. I don’t think they used the North Star to justify neon green… I think that the star in the T-Wolves logo is pretty great, and would have been a part of the identity, regardless of the color or specific shade of green chosen. 8 3 Quote "And those who know Your Name put their trust in You, for You, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek You." Psalms 9:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truepg Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 (edited) 2 hours ago, chcarlson23 said: Ummm BS? It’s the North Star State, the State Motto is literally “L’Etoile Du Nord”. The neon green is a little odd, sure, but there’s not a single Minnesotan who’s questioning the North Star in the identity. Ever heard of the Minnesota North Stars? And the Wild, Twins, and Loons all have the North Star in their logos as well. I don’t think they used the North Star to justify neon green… I think that the star in the T-Wolves logo is pretty great, and would have been a part of the identity, regardless of the color or specific shade of green chosen. Yes. Regardless of the North Star being symbolic to Minnesota, the identity of the team is the Timberwolves. The wolf, the trees. Those two are the main and clear elements that the brand is based on, and that imagery and the logos served excellently as the crystal-clear symbolic core of the identity ever since the KG days. Even though I find the presence of star imagery fitting for a Minnesota brand, there was no need for additional key visual elements or narrative to the brand, or, moreover, replace the trees with it, as they did. I also remember the neon green being tied to the star at the time of the presentation. Heck, there's a whole secondary ball-logo just featuring the star. Hence the BS. Edited May 29 by truepg 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacat_12 Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 16 hours ago, kolob said: I am looking for sources, but I believe in the early 2000s there was a "ban" on black alternate jerseys. It had nothing to do with "The Malice in the Palace" and I don't think it had anything to do with race? But, if I recall correctly, it was mostly to add more color into the league because by the end of the '90s a number of teams were kind of defaulting to black secondary jerseys. I always thought the ban was on teams without black in their colour scheme coming up with a black alternate. The Jazz 90's third jersey often gets cited as the reason for this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kolob Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 4 hours ago, spartacat_12 said: I always thought the ban was on teams without black in their colour scheme coming up with a black alternate. The Jazz 90's third jersey often gets cited as the reason for this. It could have been? But, that doesn’t necessarily negate why the Hawks, Magic and Suns didn’t have a black jersey during the early 2000s. Quote "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." Lily Tomlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGP Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 5 hours ago, spartacat_12 said: I always thought the ban was on teams without black in their colour scheme coming up with a black alternate. The Jazz 90's third jersey often gets cited as the reason for this. Is this another situation where people took an actual NFL rule and applied it to every other league? Because people are constantly citing the five year rule for other leagues despite it being repeatedly noted that it only applies to the NFL. The same thing happens during jersey leak season on here. Someone will post a rumor or a wishlist and then 5 pages later everyone's talking about it as though it's 100% fact that has been revealed to us by the league itself. 5 Quote I've got a dribbble, check it out if you like my stuff; alternatively, if you hate my stuff, send it to your enemies to punish their insolence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kg54mvp Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 14 hours ago, truepg said: Yes. Regardless of the North Star being symbolic to Minnesota, the identity of the team is the Timberwolves. The wolf, the trees. Those two are the main and clear elements that the brand is based on, and that imagery and the logos served excellently as the crystal-clear symbolic core of the identity ever since the KG days. Even though I find the presence of star imagery fitting for a Minnesota brand, there was no need for additional key visual elements or narrative to the brand, or, moreover, replace the trees with it, as they did. I also remember the neon green being tied to the star at the time of the presentation. Heck, there's a whole secondary ball-logo just featuring the star. Hence the BS. You have to understand from a Minnesotan’s point of view. We love love love our state, and all of the symbolic imagery that’s part of it. Nearly everyone I know has some sort of MN themed hat, shirt, or sweater. We are suckers for our state outline, lakes, northern lights etc. Sure, teams may not need to add additional imagery like a North Star, but it’s a fun way to include the whole state. We are in a cool position as all of our teams represent Minnesota, not just a city like most others. I think if more teams had the state as their team name, they’d add some sort of state elements as well. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digby Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 On 2024-05-28 at 5:34 PM, kolob said: I am looking for sources, but I believe in the early 2000s there was a "ban" on black alternate jerseys. It had nothing to do with "The Malice in the Palace" and I don't think it had anything to do with race? But, if I recall correctly, it was mostly to add more color into the league because by the end of the '90s a number of teams were kind of defaulting to black secondary jerseys. And look where we are now! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynasty Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 On 5/28/2024 at 6:12 PM, tBBP said: Somebody remind me what the Suns were trying to accomplish with this era of uniforms again??? Their primary logo at that point had a good amount of grey, so maybe they wanted to tie the third color across their whole uniform rotation? I know that the following rebrand saw grey replaced with a heavy usage of black (as well as a minimization in purple). That was another dumb decision on their behalf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truepg Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 7 hours ago, Kg54mvp said: You have to understand from a Minnesotan’s point of view. We love love love our state, and all of the symbolic imagery that’s part of it. Nearly everyone I know has some sort of MN themed hat, shirt, or sweater. We are suckers for our state outline, lakes, northern lights etc. Sure, teams may not need to add additional imagery like a North Star, but it’s a fun way to include the whole state. We are in a cool position as all of our teams represent Minnesota, not just a city like most others. I think if more teams had the state as their team name, they’d add some sort of state elements as well. Believe me, I do. But from a brand perspective, you can’t just add elements without diluting it. The Timberwolves had a very strong representation of their brand, and one of the most identifiable and recognizable in the league. If they found a subtle way to add the star somewhere in the graphics, so be it. However, replacing the trees with the star narrative was a mistake. I’d argue the identity was already very Minnesotan as it was. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmejia Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 I’ve always associated Minnesota’s dark blue and neon green with the Northern Lights. That color scheme has always seemed so naturally northern wilderness to me. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaydre1019 Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 19 hours ago, MDGP said: Is this another situation where people took an actual NFL rule and applied it to every other league? Because people are constantly citing the five year rule for other leagues despite it being repeatedly noted that it only applies to the NFL. The same thing happens during jersey leak season on here. Someone will post a rumor or a wishlist and then 5 pages later everyone's talking about it as though it's 100% fact that has been revealed to us by the league itself. The 5 year rule is a real thing in the NBA as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WizFanPolarBear Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 Slight change of topic, I've been reading this forum for a little bit but posting now for the first time. What's the general consensus here on Nike getting rid of the Home/Away/Alternate split of uniforms back in 2017? Personally, I dislike it. I've had a lot of issues with Nike as the outfitter for the NBA but this is my biggest gripe. And what do you guys think the odds are that the NBA doesn't come to another agreement with Nike for the future, once their contract is up after this coming season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDGP Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 51 minutes ago, shaydre1019 said: The 5 year rule is a real thing in the NBA as well. Show me the rule, because literally the only place I have ever seen it referenced is on this forum and a single post on reddit. Meanwhile there are plenty of examples through 2018 of teams not having to wait 5 years. Philadelphia 76ers 2007-2009, 2 seasons Minnesota Timberwolves 2008-2012, 2 seasons Phoenix Suns 2013-2017, 4 seasons Denver Nuggets 2015-2017, 2 seasons Los Angeles Clippers 2015-2017, 2 seasons Sacramento Kings 2016-2017, 1 season Denver Nuggets 2017-2018, 1 season Memphis Grizzlies 2017-2018, 1 season And if they HAVE implemented a 5-year jersey rule since 2018 then it's pretty damn pointless seeing as the league completely reclassified how jerseys work and every team in the league unveils new jerseys every season with half of them wearing those "alternates" more than their supposed primaries. 2 1 Quote I've got a dribbble, check it out if you like my stuff; alternatively, if you hate my stuff, send it to your enemies to punish their insolence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SantosD_ Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 2 hours ago, WizFanPolarBear said: Slight change of topic, I've been reading this forum for a little bit but posting now for the first time. What's the general consensus here on Nike getting rid of the Home/Away/Alternate split of uniforms back in 2017? Personally, I dislike it. I've had a lot of issues with Nike as the outfitter for the NBA but this is my biggest gripe. And what do you guys think the odds are that the NBA doesn't come to another agreement with Nike for the future, once their contract is up after this coming season? My biggest problem with the NBA getting rid of home/away uniforms is that teams have started using a lot of alternate uniforms and most of the time they are outside of the team's color scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lights Out Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 If there is a five-year rule, it stands to reason that the NBA doesn't consider changing some fonts and colors around on the existing uniforms to be the same as a full rebrand. That whole list is teams that either made minor tweaks to their existing set or had already made those tweaks and were now doing a full rebrand. Quote POTD: 2/4/12 3/4/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaydre1019 Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 2 hours ago, MDGP said: Show me the rule, because literally the only place I have ever seen it referenced is on this forum and a single post on reddit. Meanwhile there are plenty of examples through 2018 of teams not having to wait 5 years. Philadelphia 76ers 2007-2009, 2 seasons Minnesota Timberwolves 2008-2012, 2 seasons Phoenix Suns 2013-2017, 4 seasons Denver Nuggets 2015-2017, 2 seasons Los Angeles Clippers 2015-2017, 2 seasons Sacramento Kings 2016-2017, 1 season Denver Nuggets 2017-2018, 1 season Memphis Grizzlies 2017-2018, 1 season And if they HAVE implemented a 5-year jersey rule since 2018 then it's pretty damn pointless seeing as the league completely reclassified how jerseys work and every team in the league unveils new jerseys every season with half of them wearing those "alternates" more than their supposed primaries. To my understanding it's a nike thing. Nike's general timelines are a lot longer than Adidas' were. Apparently teams would sometimes get wind of incoming Adidas alts months before they were released. Whereas Nike has ~2 years lead time for every new jersey and very strict deadlines along the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kolob Posted May 30 Share Posted May 30 2 hours ago, MDGP said: Show me the rule, because literally the only place I have ever seen it referenced is on this forum and a single post on reddit. Meanwhile there are plenty of examples through 2018 of teams not having to wait 5 years. Philadelphia 76ers 2007-2009, 2 seasons Minnesota Timberwolves 2008-2012, 2 seasons Phoenix Suns 2013-2017, 4 seasons Denver Nuggets 2015-2017, 2 seasons Los Angeles Clippers 2015-2017, 2 seasons Sacramento Kings 2016-2017, 1 season Denver Nuggets 2017-2018, 1 season Memphis Grizzlies 2017-2018, 1 season And if they HAVE implemented a 5-year jersey rule since 2018 then it's pretty damn pointless seeing as the league completely reclassified how jerseys work and every team in the league unveils new jerseys every season with half of them wearing those "alternates" more than their supposed primaries. People quote "The 5-Year Rule" like it's some unchangeable constitutional statue ... whether it's the NFL and NBA. The reality is, it will change if it makes sense (meaning $$$). The NFL does hold teams to a pretty stringent 5-year rule, which is good practice IMO. The NBA used to be that way, but since Silver has taken over that's changed, especially with bringing old logos back. But, it seems like the NBA has a "5-Year Rule" on main logos with a more fluid "policy" on the jerseys, especially with Nike. I believe ... initially in 2017 the rule was Icon/Association jerseys could be changed every five years, Statement every three years and the City Jersey every year. Obviously, that was all thrown out the window when the Jazz kept their first City Jersey for 3-4 years along with a number of other teams. So who knows anymore? Quote "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." Lily Tomlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.