Jump to content

2012-13 NBA Logo & Uniform changes


Conrad.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Three stripes! Three stripes!! I hate adidas so much for forcing the three stripes on everything in the NBA. These sets aren't as offensive as some of years past, but it's still not good.

Cant you read????? the 3 stripes aren't for adidas! "The uniforms take inspiration from Houston’s rich aeronautical history" The lines are to show "the speed of the jet planes that dot its skies"

goforbroke_zpsb07ade0a.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three stripes! Three stripes!! I hate adidas so much for forcing the three stripes on everything in the NBA. These sets aren't as offensive as some of years past, but it's still not good.

Cant you read????? the 3 stripes aren't for adidas! "The uniforms take inspiration from Houston’s rich aeronautical history" The lines are to show "the speed of the jet planes that dot its skies"

LOL.

Go A's!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad I'm not the only one bothered by the mandatory stripes. We know, adidas. It's enough you stick your logo on the AS jersey chest. Nike or Reebok never shoved it down our throats like this.

My solution for the SEA-SAC dilemma:

Kings actual franchise moves to SEA, and becomes the Sonics, taking their history back from OKC, as well as the SAC years since the Sonics became the Thunder.

OKC keeps its Thunder history, but adopts the Kings history prior to the move to OKC. More importantly, they're forced to change their awful identity into a King-themed overhaul, thus becoming the Oklahoma City Kings. This will appease the folk clamoring for the Kings' long-standing, albeit nomadic, history to be preserved actively. O-K King Kevin Durant. It's got a ring.

Hopefully you can tell I'm kidding, and the Kings randomly having 5 years of their history in SEA while the rest is in OKC would be dizzying, but I guess I'd just like to see OKC have a second whack at their logo/color scheme. Would really simplify things if SEA can get their old history back, but then the Kings history situation becomes tricky. Dumping it in OKC would be all kinds of crazy fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never wrote that the Sonics history should be re-writen. I wrote few pages ago that I support the way Jets 2.0 did it. You just cannot force people of Seattle to cheer for a team called Kings. The franchise went through the multiple name changes already and black and purple were not their original colours anyway.

You can't force Seattle to cheer for a team called the "Seattle Kings," but it'll happen naturally. Fans won't refuse to show up if they're not the Sonics. They may not care about the Kings' history prior to Seattle, but recognizing that history as the history of the Seattle-based Kings team is more honest then pretending that they're the Sonics. The fact that the name "Seattle Kings" actually fits the area makes it all the more apparent that they should keep the Kings' name upon moving.

Now while the Rochester Royals' uniforms always seemed to be red, white, and blue every iteration of their logo that I can find has been purple and white. So while the team may not have worn purple and black prior to the 1994 change the use of purple is still a nod to the team's visual history.

As for the team having "multiple name changes"? I wouldn't call one name change "multiple." On top of that, they changed from "Royals" to "Kings." Hardly a huge departure. They only changed their name once, out of necessity, and they kept the theme of their identity intact when they did so.

Again, I find it ludicrous to wipe away the history of the second oldest team in the NBA just to pretend that they're the Sonics of old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't force Seattle to cheer for a team called the "Seattle Kings," but it'll happen naturally. Fans won't refuse to show up if they're not the Sonics. They may not care about the Kings' history prior to Seattle, but recognizing that history as the history of the Seattle-based Kings team is more honest then pretending that they're the Sonics. The fact that the name "Seattle Kings" actually fits the area makes it all the more apparent that they should keep the Kings' name upon moving.

I just made the same point on the episode of the Logocast that should be out tomorrow (cheap plug).

Baltimore fans supported the Ravens, even though they weren't the Colts. Houston fans supported the Texans, even though they weren't the Oilers. These were fans who were just happy to have teams to love in their hometowns again. If Seattle is the basketball town it's supporters purport to be, they'd support the Kings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no purple in their identity for nearly 40 years so reaching back to Rochester logo is still a far fetched approach in my opinion. Moreovoer, they were called Seagrams and Pros in the pre-NBA years and if you consider a location as a part of the team name that makes also a couple of them. But I don't want to discuss the definition of the team name here because that's not my point.

I agree that legally teams do not belong to the fans. They are considered as continous enterprises that may change the owner/location but since they keep the players, they should keep the records. As far as I understand, in most of the cases in the past the franchises kept all their "intellectual property" upon move so there was not controversy about acknowledging the past. However, the recent moves (Hornets to NO, Sonics to OKC) involved were some restrictions thus e.g. they cannot profit from the throwbacks. That means that legally Thunder is not a full successor of the Sonics and this name is still available.

I believe that SuperSonics should return for two most important reasons

1. If one acknowledges the ownership, one should also acknowledge the right to profit. Sonics will fill the arena much quicker and sell much more, so from a business point of view, keeping the Kings name would be a poor decision.

2. No sport team can exist without the fans. Why would anyone restrict their fanbase in order to satisfy few historians?

EDIT: Yes, they would probably support the Kings eventually. However, the moves that mani mentioned happened in the ancient times. Yes, 10 years is an era when it comes to PR. Nowadays, with all the social media around you cannot afford to establish a team that is not well received but the local community. How do you want attract free agents to such market? How do you want to be perceived as a manager if you choose a solution that will hurt your organization financially? Winnipeg wanted to start clean but people in Manitoba would not accept any other name than Jets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all comes down to the strength of the team's identity.

No one would even think about moving the Yankees or Celtics. It would be unconscionable.

Someone tried to move the Browns and it was pretty much unconscionable...there was a big outcry, and because of that the franchise / identity got a hiatus and Baltimore took the players but not the franchise / identity.

Someone tried to move the Sonics and it was really shady...there was a big outcry but not as much of a victory in solution; the franchise goes but Seattle keeps vague rights to reuse the identity.

When they try to move the Rochester/Cincinnati/KC-Omaha/KC/Sacramento Royals/Kings for a 4th time, I doubt there will be such an outcry. Nomad franchise gets rebranded again. And if they become the "new Sonics" that's fine to me. The Sacramento Kings have existed for 25 years and were relevant for about 5 of them. Seattle Supersonics is a much more beloved identity that never should have left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, those All-Star uniforms are a bit disappointing. Seems as if they're losing inspiration for them. Just bland.

Yeah they used to have I guess regionalism? If that's a word. Phoenix comes to mind they had some of the best packages IMO. Even their recent one I was a big fan of. These latest ones just seem so uninspired and generic. Especially being that it's Houston, there's so much you can do and so many directions you can go with it but they chose to almost do nothing. And on top of a bad logo they have to add HUGE Adidas stripes an camo on the uniform. Smh. So disappointing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I do like that they went back to mixing blue and red on each uniform, as well as the shade of blue they used, but they're totally bland, and I hate the stencil look to the script.

Weird that Reebok did a better job with NBA apparel. Last time in Houston, in '06, they tied in an aeronautical flare.

Ey4YAEC.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of following the game, those were the worst uniforms ever in my opinion. I had problems distinguishing the teams as one had white shorts and the other white jerseys. They might work individually but the matchup was terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't force Seattle to cheer for a team called the "Seattle Kings," but it'll happen naturally. Fans won't refuse to show up if they're not the Sonics. They may not care about the Kings' history prior to Seattle, but recognizing that history as the history of the Seattle-based Kings team is more honest then pretending that they're the Sonics. The fact that the name "Seattle Kings" actually fits the area makes it all the more apparent that they should keep the Kings' name upon moving.

I just made the same point on the episode of the Logocast that should be out tomorrow (cheap plug).

Baltimore fans supported the Ravens, even though they weren't the Colts. Houston fans supported the Texans, even though they weren't the Oilers. These were fans who were just happy to have teams to love in their hometowns again. If Seattle is the basketball town it's supporters purport to be, they'd support the Kings.

But mania, in both cases the teams got brand new names. Neither of them took the identities of a defunct, and established franchise. Would Baltimore and Houston just keep sitting pretty, if they were named after a current NFL team like the Chiefs or the Broncos, if they were to ever relocate? If there's too much history involved, it would be as wrong as playing football on an ice rink, and hockey on a field.

If this ever gets put into consideration, it will be the Jets all over again. Fans will protest until they get their Sonics back. Those fans may show up to games, and they may buy the new merch, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear them chant "We Want the Sonics" non-stop at Kings games...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, those All-Star uniforms are a bit disappointing. Seems as if they're losing inspiration for them. Just bland.

Yeah they used to have I guess regionalism? If that's a word. Phoenix comes to mind they had some of the best packages IMO. Even their recent one I was a big fan of. These latest ones just seem so uninspired and generic. Especially being that it's Houston, there's so much you can do and so many directions you can go with it but they chose to almost do nothing. And on top of a bad logo they have to add HUGE Adidas stripes an camo on the uniform. Smh. So disappointing.

I'm also a little tired of them just using the basic red and blue color scheme for each conference. I miss how they used to occasionally use the host city's colors (San Antonio's turquoise All Star jerseys come to mind).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.