2012-13 NBA Logo & Uniform changes

[TaylorMade]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the blue in the Knicks' logo and the blue on their uniforms is not the same?

[goforbroke]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the blue in the Knicks' logo and the blue on their uniforms is not the same?

I think that was one of the key changes they made in the logo and uniform changes the past 2 years is synch those up. ColorWerx would know for sure but it should match now, at least match better than it used to.

[TaylorMade]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the blue in the Knicks' logo and the blue on their uniforms is not the same?

I think that was one of the key changes they made in the logo and uniform changes the past 2 years is synch those up. ColorWerx would know for sure but it should match now, at least match better than it used to.

It definitely does not. The blue on the waist band of their uniforms is a dark royal blue, where as the logo at half court is a light, almost Carolina blue.

[shaydre1019]

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.

I wonder if the Astros had any effect on those uniforms. Definitely reminiscent of the tequila sunrise jerseys.

Despite their one logo unis, I feel like Nike would get way more creative with these if they had the chance.

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

[TruColor]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the blue in the Knicks' logo and the blue on their uniforms is not the same?

I think that was one of the key changes they made in the logo and uniform changes the past 2 years is synch those up. ColorWerx would know for sure but it should match now, at least match better than it used to.

It definitely does not. The blue on the waist band of their uniforms is a dark royal blue, where as the logo at half court is a light, almost Carolina blue.

I should do a blog post about this one...they've been trying to match them up, but they're using a paint color on the court that's not even close to the true color.

[goforbroke]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that the blue in the Knicks' logo and the blue on their uniforms is not the same?

I think that was one of the key changes they made in the logo and uniform changes the past 2 years is synch those up. ColorWerx would know for sure but it should match now, at least match better than it used to.

It definitely does not. The blue on the waist band of their uniforms is a dark royal blue, where as the logo at half court is a light, almost Carolina blue.

I should do a blog post about this one...they've been trying to match them up, but they're using a paint color on the court that's not even close to the true color.

I wonder if that has to do with how the lights hit the court.. I remember last year when they first painted the logo there it look very saturized on TV. This year it looks better not sure if they changed the colors or the lights.

[TruColor]

I wonder if that has to do with how the lights hit the court.. I remember last year when they first painted the logo there it look very saturized on TV. This year it looks better not sure if they changed the colors or the lights.

It's supposed to match this:

Which it doesn't seem to.

[hawk36]

I don't buy the argument that the Kings name should be kept because they are one of the oldest basketball franchises. They were the hottest potato of the league failing to establish lasting fanbase in 5 different cities. Les Harrison assembled a great team in the 40's but I don't think anybody in Seattle gives a damn about.

70 years of basketball tradition should not die so people can squint and PRETEND it's still :censored:ing Shawn Kemp and Gary Payton on the floor.

I agree that 70 years should not die, just as I think that 40 years in Seattle should not die. Seattle should continue its 40 year history when it gets an NBA team again and Sacramento or Kansas City or Omaha, etc. should continue the Kings history when they get a team.

Bottom line, players, coaches, owners come and go while fans remain for generation after generation. The fans have much more emotional investment than any owner who is willing to move a team could ever have.

[OnWis97]

I don't buy the argument that the Kings name should be kept because they are one of the oldest basketball franchises. They were the hottest potato of the league failing to establish lasting fanbase in 5 different cities. Les Harrison assembled a great team in the 40's but I don't think anybody in Seattle gives a damn about.

70 years of basketball tradition should not die so people can squint and PRETEND it's still :censored:ing Shawn Kemp and Gary Payton on the floor.

I agree that 70 years should not die, just as I think that 40 years in Seattle should not die. Seattle should continue its 40 year history when it gets an NBA team again and Sacramento or Kansas City or Omaha, etc. should continue the Kings history when if they get a team.

Bottom line, players, coaches, owners come and go while fans remain for generation after generation. The fans have much more emotional investment than any owner who is willing to move a team could ever have.

Fixed that: Some time in our new reality (that we now shuffle names/histories around to our desires rather than the truth), a City will not get a team back. Then that history will be gone. I did not like the Cleveland Browns deal either, but at least there was a pretty clean break: Browns history rests for a few years and league expansion takes care of it. In the NBA, we have a freaking mess on our hands with an old franchise leaving a city that may or may not get a new team. And expansion is not likely in the NBA future. As a T-Wolves fan, if our team moves to Sacramento (very possible), we would not get an NBA team again. I'd MUCH rather my franchise remain alive (even as the Sacramento Kings) than be considered "defunct until such time that Minnesota gets a new team". At some point, some team, whether it be the Kings or someone down the franchise-shuffling road, is going to be considered defunct, even though it really just relocates. And let's just hope they don't try to do this with the Hornets; though I would be curious to see whether they retroactively say that the NO team was always the Pelicans and, of course, do away with any existence of the Bobcats.

40 years in Seattle did not die either. It would not die if Seattle never got another team. But is the NBA's "official" history really going to show:

• Seattle Sonics took several years off
  
• OKC is an expansion team (that took several players with it)
  
• Kings are on indefinite hiatus.
  

Are the new Sonics really going to say in a couple of years that "so-and-so just broke the franchise's rookie rebounding record held by Kevin Durant."? It's just flat out dishonest. While I admit that I'd want to see the team called the Kings, I'll expand by saying this: I can live with the reversion to old names. I can live with the "new" Sonics hanging banners that pay homage to "Seattle Basketball history" (i.e. player numbers and their NBA championship). But the re-writing of history (and that's what it is) is just flat out dishonest. Written in their NBA Encyclopedia (or whereever their official histories are written for public consumption) needs to be that this franchise went from Rochester to......to Sacramento, to Seattle, where they now are the Sonics; the second such franchise to carry that name in Seattle. But, if they follow the Browns formula anyway, that is not what they are going to do. They are going to take reality, put White Out on it, and write on top of it.

As for the passion of the fans emotional investment, well that devotion could not stop the Sonics from moving, so why should it bring them back? (This is NOT a rip on Seattle fans...it's a statement on the reality of the world...same with my fellow North Stars fans). They lost their team. Now, they'll have a new team they can be passionate about, should they so choose. Naming them the Sonics does not, or should not, hide the fact that this team was ripped from Sacramento the same way the original Sonics were ripped from them. Really, all I am asking for is honesty "on the books"...Sonics, green and gold, banners (though separated for "City History" and different ones for the new franchise), and a place where a newcomer could go to read the truth.

In an honest moment, I'd tell you that I kind of wish the outcry for the "State of Hockey" losing a team to Texas would have led to them being forced to change their name. Then we'd have the Dallas Armadillos and the expansion Minnesota North Stars complete with "N-Star" logo. (in no small part because the name "Wild" is so bad). But I would NOT want it along with the NHL shuffling the histories around. It would not placate me or make me any less disappointed about losing my team to Dallas. I would always know the truth. For what it's worth, I am actually quite appreciative that Dallas maintains the North Stars retired numbers and does not totally pretend its pre-Dallas history did not happen. I prefer the NHL's handling of this (there's something you don't say alot). The histories remain intact and honest. Winnipeg has its Jets; they just don't pretend they never lost 'em.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

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.

I wonder if the Astros had any effect on those uniforms. Definitely reminiscent of the tequila sunrise jerseys.

Despite their one logo unis, I feel like Nike would get way more creative with these if they had the chance.

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

Kobe and Nash do that same thing a lot nowadays.

[IceCap]

I don't buy the argument that the Kings name should be kept because they are one of the oldest basketball franchises. They were the hottest potato of the league failing to establish lasting fanbase in 5 different cities. Les Harrison assembled a great team in the 40's but I don't think anybody in Seattle gives a damn about.

70 years of basketball tradition should not die so people can squint and PRETEND it's still :censored:ing Shawn Kemp and Gary Payton on the floor.

I agree that 70 years should not die, just as I think that 40 years in Seattle should not die. Seattle should continue its 40 year history when it gets an NBA team again and Sacramento or Kansas City or Omaha, etc. should continue the Kings history when they get a team.

Bottom line, players, coaches, owners come and go while fans remain for generation after generation. The fans have much more emotional investment than any owner who is willing to move a team could ever have.

Fans don't have an ownership claim to anything.

Anyway there's no guarantee that Sacremento, Kansas City, Omaha, Rochester, or Cincinnati will ever get another team. By forcing the Kings to become the Sonics you're essentially killing seventy years of a franchise's history. That's the reality of what's going to happen if the league engages in this group-think make believe.

[larrypep]

I don't buy the argument that the Kings name should be kept because they are one of the oldest basketball franchises. They were the hottest potato of the league failing to establish lasting fanbase in 5 different cities. Les Harrison assembled a great team in the 40's but I don't think anybody in Seattle gives a damn about.

70 years of basketball tradition should not die so people can squint and PRETEND it's still :censored:ing Shawn Kemp and Gary Payton on the floor.

I agree that 70 years should not die, just as I think that 40 years in Seattle should not die. Seattle should continue its 40 year history when it gets an NBA team again and Sacramento or Kansas City or Omaha, etc. should continue the Kings history when they get a team.

Bottom line, players, coaches, owners come and go while fans remain for generation after generation. The fans have much more emotional investment than any owner who is willing to move a team could ever have.

The Sonics previous 40-year history is not dead, it just resides in Oklahoma City now. The new Sonics history will pick up where the Royals/Kings leaves off. Nothing is dead, they just moved to another city. To reverse history or alter it in an unnatural way is well, unnatural. The teams just up and carpetbagged it, no amount of rationalization changes that. That's the way it is in pro sports, it's all about the almighty dollar, and the fans get the shaft in the end.

The city is free to celebrate its sports history though, and perhaps they should, but it is dishonest to say the new Sonics (old Royals/Kings) are the legacy of the old Sonics (current Thunder).

[jordub]

Turns out that logo on the hat was right

Not horrendous. The "bird-de-lis" looks silly, and the crescent on the ball makes it look like clip art if you don't know there's meaning behind it.

Uniforms can go a lot of directions here. Really hoping they don't go navy roadies. Gold might look bad, though.

Should we start a betting pool on which logo will be placed above the name on back? I'm going with the "Crescent City" one.

When I first heard of the color change, I imagined a brighter gold. This is very reminiscent of the old Denver unis, and not very palatable in my opinion.

The Cans are certainly using a brighter red, though.

[pHiL Kizer]

Turns out that logo on the hat was right

Not horrendous. The "bird-de-lis" looks silly, and the crescent on the ball makes it look like clip art if you don't know there's meaning behind it.

Uniforms can go a lot of directions here. Really hoping they don't go navy roadies. Gold might look bad, though.

Should we start a betting pool on which logo will be placed above the name on back? I'm going with the "Crescent City" one.

When I first heard of the color change, I imagined a brighter gold. This is very reminiscent of the old Denver unis, and not very palatable in my opinion.

The Cans are certainly using a brighter red, though.

You hit it square on the head with this one! I almost forgot about Denver's old color scheme.

[jordub]

Looks better with the brighter gold:

Or navy in the back:

[BigBubba]

Overall, not terrible, but the red bill of the pelican annoys me to no end.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

After 2 days to take it all in, I'm fairly impressed.

[MellowTheMyth]

I can't help but feel as though they should have made the beak gold instead of red. That will forever irk me.

[jordub]

These jerseys would be so much better if the drop shadow at least made sense.

[CS85]

I seriously can't stress enough that the choice of colors is total garbage.

• "It references the state flag." So does nearly every state and city flag in the entire country.
  
• "Those colors are the most marketable." How does it gain marketability in a market flooded with similarity?
  
• "It's patriotic, or something." Shut up.
  
• "The Saints! The Saints use gold." Congratulations, you really had to dig deep to tack on a color that has been used by almost every sports franchise ever.
  

The design is actually pretty awesome, I just wish they didn't cave to this hackneyed color palette

Also fix the damned A's, please.