How do you feel about the new ALTERNATE jerseys?
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
T
thesanityannex
Guest
it is too late for arguing like this. go to bed already. who cares about the jerseys, we don't have to wear them.
poor brad miller.
poor brad miller.
loopymitch
All-Star
hoopsfan said:Pistachio ice cream sucks!
No it doesn't!
I don't get it. I post the reasons why I disagree and people act like it's a personal attack. That's what never seems to come across on message boards. I like arguing. That's why I bother posting at all. But an argument to me is not a fight. It's a discussion where people take different sides and list the pros and cons. I try really hard not to be condescending, but I do like to be thorough. Because ambiguity is what needs to be eliminated in arguments. If we can't understand each other, than we aren't arguing the facts. We may even be arguing for the same point. But why is it always treated like an attack when I list reasons why I disagree and respond to other people when they list reasons for the other side? It's not personal! Seriously! It's not.
Basically what I said is this..
I see why most people would call these uniforms ugly. But ugliness, I believe, is an enherited cultural belief. Like how the women in renaissance paintings are always well-proportioned but all the models nowadays are super skinny. It's not that one is inherintly more beautiful than the other. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I think that the eye is trained over time to see certain things as beautiful. SO when people say that "X is ugly" that doesn't mean to me that X is always ugly. That X=ugly is a true statement. It means to me that that person, because of their cultural, has been trained to see a certain kind of beauty and whatever X is, it doesn't posess that quality. And I'm asking people to question themselves for a second and ask if maybe the uniform isn't really ugly, but maybe instead it doesn't fit the typically accept standard for beauty in this culture. We could take that same picture and show it to many different cultures and run the same poll and I would bet the results would show that certain cultures do find it beautiful. I don't know which ones, but there is definately a population somewhere that finds this beautiful.
About the Lakers thing, I suppose I just understand the rivalry issue differently than most. I also have this problem of thinking logically when clearly fandom is an illogical practice. How logical is it to say that the Kings are the good guys just because they represent Sacramento? That's completely illogical. And yet somehow I'm a Kings fan. Or at least I kindof am. Because I try to find logical reasons for it besides just the typical, they've always been the good guys (cause I grew up there, my dad was a fan, etc) so they will always be the good guys.
So I try to put myself in an illogical frame of mind and think about it like a fanatic. If we really wanted to hurt our rivals, what would we do? In this case we would ignore them. Because they're desperate to think they're still relevant in the playoff picture. And just because they had purple and gold first doesn't mean we can't take it away. Their gold isn't really even gold anyway, it's yellow. We know it and they know it. So gold is ripe for the taking. Sorry Lakers, we got there first. Now doesn't that make just as much logical sense as saying that anything close to Lakers colors is to be avoided and that the rivalry lives on even though they suck and we don't? None of it makes logical sense, so pick whichever side sounds better to you. Staying away from purple and gold because they had it first sounds like it empowers the Lakers to me. Seizing what is there for the taking empowers our guys. Doesn't that sound better then (in an illogical sports fan kind of way)?
And I'm not going to buy a jersey. I never have bought a jersey, and likely never will buy a jersey. I like the team alright, but those jerseys seem like a total ripoff to me. The price for what you're betting is extortion. But then that's just me thinking logically again. And I don't think that's what this is about anyway. I guess the people that do buy jerseys should have more say on what goes on them than I do, as a non-jersey buyer. I wouldn't bother e-mailing the Kings about it or anything because it jhust doesn't affect me that much. But since I'm here anyway and the question was made, I felt like sharing my opinion on the matter anyway. Mostly because I knew right away (because of the culture thing) that this jersey was going to be facing a torrent of criticism and I thought maybe someobody should stick up for the poor, misunderstood jersey. I even said in my first post that it does seem ugly to me too. But then I'm not sure if that's me talking or my culture because I can see the beauty in it at the same time. But anyway, the jersey deserves to have somebody speak in it's defense.
You don't have to tell me I'm being condescending or ridiculous or any of that. Maybe I am. I'm just trying to be honest. And I'm trying to defend my point of view, because there usually aren't very many people who agree with me and will defend it for me. It's just an argument. I know what I believe and I'm trying to explain why. I like you guys. All of you. Even the ones I disagree with. I wouldn't come back if I didn't. I don't know if you were referring to me specifically or not, but in case you were, I just wanted you to know that. I like you guys okay. We disagree, I'm used to it. But I'm going to keep trying to convince you otherwise anyway because if I'm not doing that than I wouldn't be posting at all, and if I weren't posting at all, that would mean that I didn't care.
Basically what I said is this..
I see why most people would call these uniforms ugly. But ugliness, I believe, is an enherited cultural belief. Like how the women in renaissance paintings are always well-proportioned but all the models nowadays are super skinny. It's not that one is inherintly more beautiful than the other. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I think that the eye is trained over time to see certain things as beautiful. SO when people say that "X is ugly" that doesn't mean to me that X is always ugly. That X=ugly is a true statement. It means to me that that person, because of their cultural, has been trained to see a certain kind of beauty and whatever X is, it doesn't posess that quality. And I'm asking people to question themselves for a second and ask if maybe the uniform isn't really ugly, but maybe instead it doesn't fit the typically accept standard for beauty in this culture. We could take that same picture and show it to many different cultures and run the same poll and I would bet the results would show that certain cultures do find it beautiful. I don't know which ones, but there is definately a population somewhere that finds this beautiful.
About the Lakers thing, I suppose I just understand the rivalry issue differently than most. I also have this problem of thinking logically when clearly fandom is an illogical practice. How logical is it to say that the Kings are the good guys just because they represent Sacramento? That's completely illogical. And yet somehow I'm a Kings fan. Or at least I kindof am. Because I try to find logical reasons for it besides just the typical, they've always been the good guys (cause I grew up there, my dad was a fan, etc) so they will always be the good guys.
So I try to put myself in an illogical frame of mind and think about it like a fanatic. If we really wanted to hurt our rivals, what would we do? In this case we would ignore them. Because they're desperate to think they're still relevant in the playoff picture. And just because they had purple and gold first doesn't mean we can't take it away. Their gold isn't really even gold anyway, it's yellow. We know it and they know it. So gold is ripe for the taking. Sorry Lakers, we got there first. Now doesn't that make just as much logical sense as saying that anything close to Lakers colors is to be avoided and that the rivalry lives on even though they suck and we don't? None of it makes logical sense, so pick whichever side sounds better to you. Staying away from purple and gold because they had it first sounds like it empowers the Lakers to me. Seizing what is there for the taking empowers our guys. Doesn't that sound better then (in an illogical sports fan kind of way)?
And I'm not going to buy a jersey. I never have bought a jersey, and likely never will buy a jersey. I like the team alright, but those jerseys seem like a total ripoff to me. The price for what you're betting is extortion. But then that's just me thinking logically again. And I don't think that's what this is about anyway. I guess the people that do buy jerseys should have more say on what goes on them than I do, as a non-jersey buyer. I wouldn't bother e-mailing the Kings about it or anything because it jhust doesn't affect me that much. But since I'm here anyway and the question was made, I felt like sharing my opinion on the matter anyway. Mostly because I knew right away (because of the culture thing) that this jersey was going to be facing a torrent of criticism and I thought maybe someobody should stick up for the poor, misunderstood jersey. I even said in my first post that it does seem ugly to me too. But then I'm not sure if that's me talking or my culture because I can see the beauty in it at the same time. But anyway, the jersey deserves to have somebody speak in it's defense.
You don't have to tell me I'm being condescending or ridiculous or any of that. Maybe I am. I'm just trying to be honest. And I'm trying to defend my point of view, because there usually aren't very many people who agree with me and will defend it for me. It's just an argument. I know what I believe and I'm trying to explain why. I like you guys. All of you. Even the ones I disagree with. I wouldn't come back if I didn't. I don't know if you were referring to me specifically or not, but in case you were, I just wanted you to know that. I like you guys okay. We disagree, I'm used to it. But I'm going to keep trying to convince you otherwise anyway because if I'm not doing that than I wouldn't be posting at all, and if I weren't posting at all, that would mean that I didn't care.
Last edited:
D-Mass
Starter
hrdboild said:
I like message boards for the same reason, and disagreement is what keeps them going. No hard feelings here at all! And I think it's important to separate the arguments from the people. I may call an idea ridiculous, but I don't judge the person based on that. Thanks for the honesty, hrdboild, especially in a thread where you aren't exactly in the majority.
iheartBrad
All-Star
They're okay...I saw them on another site...I didn't even think "Lakers" until somebody else mentioned it first...personally I don't think they're like the Lakers jerseys or colors at all...the yellow/gold is a different color...and these are rumored to be the alternate jerseys its not like they're the new home jerseys where we'd have to see them a gazillion times and everywhere...and if these turnout to really be the alternate people WILL buy them...just cuz a few people hear say that they won't doesn't really mean anything...not to mention the fact that a lot of people are saying they're gross but eventually you'll get over the whole "newness factor" to them and they'll grow on you
K
KingFrog1
Guest
Knee Jerk
Alright, I've been reading this website for years now and have never posted because I hate registering with websites. But this thread has me as irritated as I've ever been, so I couldn't help but share my thoughts.
First of all, you are all completely knee-jerking to this uniform. You are going off of a VIDEO GAME image. Can you at least WAIT and see what it's going to look like on the players on the court?
Second, gold and yellow are completely different on athletic uniforms. Take one of college football's classic rivalries - Michigan and Notre Dame. When they play, I never think "gee, this game would be much better if they didn't have the same colors". Michigan's yellow is MUCH different than Notre Dame's gold. And it looks like we're getting Notre Dame's gold. I doubt Michigan fans are complaining about Notre Dame trying to "be like us".
Third, it makes sense. Gold was discovered in our region. Kings wore gold. They made the tie-in with the 6th Man being the "Gold Standard". What's so wrong with that? It sounds like to me this is the first time in sports history a team is going out of its way to tribute their fans. That's pretty flattering to me.
Fourth, VF21 - or whatever your name is. I've always read your posts and have appreciated your views. And I appreciate that you're a moderator and have 17,000+ posts. But I'm getting irritated with your responses on this topic. It seems like anyone who likes the jersey is getting ripped by you and you're trying to force your opinion on them (you even told one poster to leave the topic just because she disagreed). Then, you claim that YOU are being ridiculed? It's called a discussion. Some people agree, some disagree. Appreciate everyone's opinion and keep the conversation going.
John Thomas is a smart man. The Maloofs are smart men. They aren't going to do anything to jeapordize the "look and feel" of this franchise. The league has to approve uniforms and I'm sure if they felt the colors were too close to the Lakers, they wouldn't have let it happen.
Patience everyone. Patience.
Alright, I've been reading this website for years now and have never posted because I hate registering with websites. But this thread has me as irritated as I've ever been, so I couldn't help but share my thoughts.
First of all, you are all completely knee-jerking to this uniform. You are going off of a VIDEO GAME image. Can you at least WAIT and see what it's going to look like on the players on the court?
Second, gold and yellow are completely different on athletic uniforms. Take one of college football's classic rivalries - Michigan and Notre Dame. When they play, I never think "gee, this game would be much better if they didn't have the same colors". Michigan's yellow is MUCH different than Notre Dame's gold. And it looks like we're getting Notre Dame's gold. I doubt Michigan fans are complaining about Notre Dame trying to "be like us".
Third, it makes sense. Gold was discovered in our region. Kings wore gold. They made the tie-in with the 6th Man being the "Gold Standard". What's so wrong with that? It sounds like to me this is the first time in sports history a team is going out of its way to tribute their fans. That's pretty flattering to me.
Fourth, VF21 - or whatever your name is. I've always read your posts and have appreciated your views. And I appreciate that you're a moderator and have 17,000+ posts. But I'm getting irritated with your responses on this topic. It seems like anyone who likes the jersey is getting ripped by you and you're trying to force your opinion on them (you even told one poster to leave the topic just because she disagreed). Then, you claim that YOU are being ridiculed? It's called a discussion. Some people agree, some disagree. Appreciate everyone's opinion and keep the conversation going.
John Thomas is a smart man. The Maloofs are smart men. They aren't going to do anything to jeapordize the "look and feel" of this franchise. The league has to approve uniforms and I'm sure if they felt the colors were too close to the Lakers, they wouldn't have let it happen.
Patience everyone. Patience.
KingsFrog #1 - Sometimes what you see on the board isn't the whole story. There was a reason I made my comment to kingscrocgirl.
If you had bothered to read the thread "Jerseys" I think you would see that I've even said it may be a tempest in a teapot. But I'm not going to back down on my right to post an opinion without becoming a target for personal attack. I would defend anyone else from those kinds of things, and I'll certainly defend myself.
I'm sending you a PM. If you have further questions about this, I think it would be best to handle it off the board. I think you'll understand why once you see the PM.
If you had bothered to read the thread "Jerseys" I think you would see that I've even said it may be a tempest in a teapot. But I'm not going to back down on my right to post an opinion without becoming a target for personal attack. I would defend anyone else from those kinds of things, and I'll certainly defend myself.
I'm sending you a PM. If you have further questions about this, I think it would be best to handle it off the board. I think you'll understand why once you see the PM.
K
KingFrog1
Guest
VF21 said:
WHO is personally attacking you? Why do you keep saying that? Someone is DISAGREEING with you. There is a HUGE difference.
I'm not going to discuss this further because it's totally irrelevant. The topic of the thread is the new jerseys. The poll indicates close to 70% of our members HATE the concept.
Will they change their minds? Perhaps.
The point is that sometimes marketing strategies don't work out as planned. If we - the fans who will be spending our hard-earned $$$ - don't like the jerseys, we won't buy them. It won't matter what I or anyone else says on a message board.
Thank you for understanding. Future posts in this thread that are more personal about me than germane to the discussion of the jerseys are going to be deleted.
Will they change their minds? Perhaps.
The point is that sometimes marketing strategies don't work out as planned. If we - the fans who will be spending our hard-earned $$$ - don't like the jerseys, we won't buy them. It won't matter what I or anyone else says on a message board.
Thank you for understanding. Future posts in this thread that are more personal about me than germane to the discussion of the jerseys are going to be deleted.
K
KingFrog1
Guest
Oh geez. 70% of people don't like the jersey? Then I change my mind...I hate it. I want to do what everyone else does, knee-jerk react on something that came off of a video game.
Last edited by a moderator:
love_them_kings
Starter
KingFrog1 said:
obviously everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I have no problem with anyone who likes the jersey. Personally, I saw the picture and didn't like the fact that they remind me of the colors of a certain team that I have loved to hate over the past 6 or so years, so I choose not to like them. I don't think it's a knee-jerk reaction, it's just an opinion. Will my opinion change when I see them on the players? nope, not really. I may think they look better (or worse) in person, but I'd still rather buy something that is the colors I associate with the Kings...
uolj
Starter
hrdboiled, I think you are missing a key point. Sure there are some who think the jersey is ugly, and others who live amongst Laker fans and must deal with the extra antagonism they have already begun receiving, but it's difficult to argue/discuss those points because they are specific to the individual.
The real issue that can be discussed is whether this new design is an indication of an infatuation by the Maloofs of the Lakers' successes, or whether they are simply ignoring the comparison and dismissing the presence of their rivals by doing so. Of course, even if you don't believe that the move was motivated by a desire to emulate the Lakers, you must also consider the obvious appearance of such a move, especially after reported attempts to get Shaq and Phil Jackson in previous off-seasons. At the very least it is that appearance that is so unappealing to many Kings fans.
If you asked a couple years ago (pre-Colorado) whether you would want Kobe or Shaq on the Kings, many fans would say no, even if it was for free. The reason was that you want to succeed on your own terms, not with the aide of your "enemy", and not in their image either.
For those fans that don't consider the Lakers to be rivals, or who don't give them much consideration at all, it makes sense that these jerseys wouldn't be a problem. But I don't see how you can deny the legitimate gripe many of us have based on the reasons I described above.
The real issue that can be discussed is whether this new design is an indication of an infatuation by the Maloofs of the Lakers' successes, or whether they are simply ignoring the comparison and dismissing the presence of their rivals by doing so. Of course, even if you don't believe that the move was motivated by a desire to emulate the Lakers, you must also consider the obvious appearance of such a move, especially after reported attempts to get Shaq and Phil Jackson in previous off-seasons. At the very least it is that appearance that is so unappealing to many Kings fans.
If you asked a couple years ago (pre-Colorado) whether you would want Kobe or Shaq on the Kings, many fans would say no, even if it was for free. The reason was that you want to succeed on your own terms, not with the aide of your "enemy", and not in their image either.
For those fans that don't consider the Lakers to be rivals, or who don't give them much consideration at all, it makes sense that these jerseys wouldn't be a problem. But I don't see how you can deny the legitimate gripe many of us have based on the reasons I described above.
K
KingFrog1
Guest
I'll again state that yellow and gold are comletely different. See my Michigan vs. Notre Dame comparison.
And quite frankly, the Kings got closer to Lakers colors when they changed to purple from blue and red. I don't see anyone complaining that we're purple. They went to purple because purple is associated with royalty. So is gold.
And quite frankly, the Kings got closer to Lakers colors when they changed to purple from blue and red. I don't see anyone complaining that we're purple. They went to purple because purple is associated with royalty. So is gold.
uolj
Starter
Did you have a chance to read the thread? Yellow and Silver are completely different. Yellow and gold are slightly different, but still similar. Also, there is a difference between sharing a single color, and sharing both colors. A gold jersey with purple lettering and white accents is basically what the Lakers wear and what this alternate jersey uses. The shades might be different, but the color schemes themselves are very close. Can you see the distinction?KingFrog1 said:
iheartBrad
All-Star
There are like 7483743874 different teams in the NBA that all have that one blue color (Utah, Memphis and now-supposedly-Indiana and Denvers alts)...you don't really hear people always talking about that
This thread has gotten out of hand IMO...to have your own personal preference and oppinion is one thing...but people are really getting themselves all worked up over colors in an alternate jersey
This thread has gotten out of hand IMO...to have your own personal preference and oppinion is one thing...but people are really getting themselves all worked up over colors in an alternate jersey
K
KingFrog1
Guest
uolj said:
More than once.
uolj said:
Now you're just being overparticular.
uolj said:
Just like Michigan and Notre Dame, no, I don't see the distinction. One is navy and athletic yellow (or as they call it, "maize"). The other is navy and gold. There's a difference. Just like there's a difference here.
Besides, gold is relative to our region and our name. Can you see THAT distinction?
uolj
Starter
I said that only because I was repeating what I and others had already said, so if you hadn't had a chance to read the entire thread, you might have missed it.KingFrog1 said:
I think you do see the distinction between a single shared color and a shared color scheme. Michigan and Notre Dame is a good example of a color schemes that are virtually the same. So then there are more questions to see if one of those schools' fans should be upset about it. Are Michigan and Notre Dame major rivals? Did one of the two schools recently change or add that color scheme? Has that same school recently made other moves or indications that appeared to show a desire to emulate the other?KingFrog1 said:
What if Michigan decided to wear alternate jerseys for one game that were gray and maroon (similar to major rival Ohio State's colors)? I think their fans would have as much right to be displeased about that as we are about this.
Yes. I actually referenced that in an earlier post. I said that it was a good thing that there were legitimate reasons being given for the change, but they don't make up for the other issues mentioned.KingFrog1 said:
uolj
Starter
By the way, there are two interesting questions here. One is whether or not you personally like the new jerseys, which is an opinion and not really subject to debate.
The other is whether the opinion of those who don't like the jersey is a legitimate one (even if you don't agree) and if there is enough sentiment against the jerseys to undo the decision partially or fully. That's a bit more interesting, but I haven't really seen much argument/discussion about why that opinion is not legitimate or it is not enough to overturn the decision.
The other is whether the opinion of those who don't like the jersey is a legitimate one (even if you don't agree) and if there is enough sentiment against the jerseys to undo the decision partially or fully. That's a bit more interesting, but I haven't really seen much argument/discussion about why that opinion is not legitimate or it is not enough to overturn the decision.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
loopymitch
All-Star
Bricklayer said:Too logical uolj.
So, with deep and sincere apologies to our guys (who deserve infinitely better, not to mention a better photoshop job), let me present to you our newly Las Vegas'd SOLID GOLD lame' Kings!:
lmao, good one brick!
uolj said:
Yeah but all of that is speculation. I didn't think Lakers when I first saw the jersey and I wouldn't have thought that at all if a bunch of other people hadn't brought it up in this topic. It's possible this decision was made without any regard to the Lakers whatsoever. I think that's actually MORE likely than any of the scenarios you suggested which seem to be reading into the situation something which isn't there. It's not that I don't see the Lakers as rivals. I watched that 2002 Conference Finals series at USC surrounded by Lakers fans. I hear about it from people I know everytime the Lakers and Kings play. The jerseys aren't a problem for me not because I don't think the Lakers rivalry exists anymore, but because I really don't think they are connected to the Lakers at all. Seriously. It's yellow. Look at pictures. Lakers jerseys are yellow. They don't look like these at all. I think all of this speculation that it's connected to the Lakers is making a big deal out of nothing. Not liking the jerseys is one thing, but citing them as evidence of a continuing inferiority complex or some kind of conspiracy to acquire former Lakers by "wooing them" with familiar colors -- I think that's really all in your head. It's the Spurs and Suns and Mavs and Rocket and Nuggets that the Maloofs are worried about. The Lakers....eh.
Last edited:
GeorgeofSacramento
Bench
Hmm, did you notice the FULL PAGE add in today's Sac Bee with quotes about how the Kings fans are "GOLD" (in bold print). Looks like they're trying to hype the gold color theme this season and boost alternative jersey sales.
NBAGURU
G-League
VF21 said:Assuming the "leaks" are right, these are our new alternate jerseys:
(Disregard the Pacers one. I didn't want to take the time to Photoshop it out...)
I'm starting a poll to see how our members, some of the most loyal Kings fans around, feel about the uniforms.
I have NBA Live 06 for the PS2. Does anybody have the "code" to get the alternate jersey for the Kings?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
