Bucks Become First NBA Team With Alternate Court Design

Post #1 » by **RealGM Wiretap** » Sat Oct 3, 2015 7:55 pm

The Milwaukee Bucks are the first team to feature an alternate court design to complement their alternate uniform.

The Fear the Deer court shares the same design philosophy as the new uniforms, with the logos and color palette stripped down to keep the focus squarely on the team.

Zach Lowe of Grantland reports a new court costs about $115,000, possible slightly more with design fees.

Via NBA.com

DJ3thenew23 · Post #2 » by **DJ3thenew23** » Sat Oct 3, 2015 8:56 pm

Pictures sine RealGM is too lazy: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2575205-milwaukee-bucks-unveil-fear-the-dear-alternate-uniforms-and-court-design

I think it looks pretty cool, they should use it for more than just 4 games.

SeanDaRyan · Post #3 » by **SeanDaRyan** » Sat Oct 3, 2015 9:37 pm

I like it. Bucks are back!

Pickled Prunes · Post #4 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Sat Oct 3, 2015 9:53 pm

Look, I love basketball but I don't care what the court looks like. I would have been happier if they donated the cost of the court to their favorite charity. With that amount of money they could have put up new rims at every public court in Milwaukee or fed thousands of starving children... but I guess it looks nice.

UWM_Brew_Buck · Post #5 » by **UWM_Brew_Buck** » Sat Oct 3, 2015 10:54 pm

Pickled Prunes wrote:Look, I love basketball but I don't care what the court looks like. I would have been happier if they donated the cost of the court to their favorite charity. With that amount of money they could have put up new rims at every public court in Milwaukee or fed thousands of starving children... but I guess it looks nice.

What does charity have do with anything? They just paid (120k?) for marketing/promotion and did something unique that fans will enjoy. It will also presumably last them a long time, sound like a decent investment to me.

Melwing · Post #6 » by **Melwing** » Sun Oct 4, 2015 12:52 am

Pickled Prunes wrote:Look, I love basketball but I don't care what the court looks like. I would have been happier if they donated the cost of the court to their favorite charity. With that amount of money they could have put up new rims at every public court in Milwaukee or fed thousands of starving children... but I guess it looks nice.

You could say that about every single penny of profit they make, and every penny they spend on any project. You're just cherry picking for idealism.

Dcebucks11 · Post #7 » by **Dcebucks11** » Sun Oct 4, 2015 1:49 am

Pickled Prunes wrote:Look, I love basketball but I don't care what the court looks like. I would have been happier if they donated the cost of the court to their favorite charity. With that amount of money they could have put up new rims at every public court in Milwaukee or fed thousands of starving children... but I guess it looks nice.

I highly doubt you donate much out of your own pockets. If you do kudos to you but come on bruh.

icarus · Post #8 » by **icarus** » Sun Oct 4, 2015 5:22 am

Dcebucks11 wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:Look, I love basketball but I don't care what the court looks like. I would have been happier if they donated the cost of the court to their favorite charity. With that amount of money they could have put up new rims at every public court in Milwaukee or fed thousands of starving children... but I guess it looks nice.

I highly doubt you donate much out of your own pockets. If you do kudos to you but come on bruh.

He probably has a lot less disposable income than an NBA team. Us poor folk can't donate as much because we often live paycheck to paycheck. I doubt NBA owners are in the same boat. But while we're on the topic, poorer people actually donate a larger portion of the income than rich people, even though rich people can afford to donate a much larger share of theirs and still live comfortably.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/10/06/wealthy-americans-are-giving-less-of-their-incomes-to-charity-while-poor-are-donating-more/

miltk · Post #9 » by **miltk** » Sun Oct 4, 2015 7:15 am

all nba unis are horrid, are you kidding.
sure hope lac doesn't follow

UWM_Brew_Buck · Post #10 » by **UWM_Brew_Buck** » Sun Oct 4, 2015 3:45 pm

icarus wrote:
Dcebucks11 wrote:
Pickled Prunes wrote:Look, I love basketball but I don't care what the court looks like. I would have been happier if they donated the cost of the court to their favorite charity. With that amount of money they could have put up new rims at every public court in Milwaukee or fed thousands of starving children... but I guess it looks nice.

I highly doubt you donate much out of your own pockets. If you do kudos to you but come on bruh.

He probably has a lot less disposable income than an NBA team. Us poor folk can't donate as much because we often live paycheck to paycheck. I doubt NBA owners are in the same boat. But while we're on the topic, poorer people actually donate a larger portion of the income than rich people, even though rich people can afford to donate a much larger share of theirs and still live comfortably.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/10/06/wealthy-americans-are-giving-less-of-their-incomes-to-charity-while-poor-are-donating-more/

Got to watch out for Forbes, last article I read on there was full of misinformation about the Bucks arena. This article is very deceiving, it mentions nothing of the actual percentage of income given just the amount they gave to charity compared to 2006.

HornetsNationYT · Post #11 » by **HornetsNationYT** » Sun Oct 4, 2015 4:53 pm

miltk wrote:all nba unis are horrid, are you kidding.
sure hope lac doesn't follow

Blazers(Jerseys are Nice),Hornets(I don't even got to explain)

nba2k16 · Post #12 » by **nba2k16** » Sun Oct 4, 2015 8:20 pm

Let me guess, next they will come out with a Road Court design and try ro use it on the road at other arenas? :lol:

Pickled Prunes · Post #13 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Sun Oct 4, 2015 11:17 pm

Pickled Prunes · Post #14 » by **Pickled Prunes** » Sun Oct 4, 2015 11:55 pm

Pickled Prunes wrote:Look, I love basketball but I don't care what the court looks like. I would have been happier if they donated the cost of the court to their favorite charity. With that amount of money they could have put up new rims at every public court in Milwaukee or fed thousands of starving children... but I guess it looks nice.

Melwing wrote:You could say that about every single penny of profit they make, and every penny they spend on any project. You're just cherry picking for idealism.

Dcebucks11 wrote:I highly doubt you donate much out of your own pockets. If you do kudos to you but come on bruh.

UWM_Brew_Buck wrote:What does charity have do with anything? They just paid (120k?) for marketing/promotion and did something unique that fans will enjoy. It will also presumably last them a long time, sound like a decent investment to me.

It's funny and a little scary that out of all the outlandish things I've said on real GM, this is the the one that got the most negative feedback. (I did get slammed three or four years ago for suggesting Rondo was overvalued... but time heals all wounds when you're 100% right.)

Just for fun, I'll explain my thoughts.
I am a guitar teacher. A couple years ago Coldplay came to town and a handful of my students went to the show. At their next lessons I asked each of them about the show. The first thing each of them mentioned was the LED wristbands all the fans got at the door. They apparently all lit up in unison at key points in the show. Not one of them mentioned anything about the music. It was very telling that each of them believed that they had just attended the best concert of their lives but none of them had anything to say about the actual music.

When I read that the Bucks were getting an alternate floor the first thing I thought about was Coldplay and their wristbands. It has nothing to do with basketball or how the team will perform but it is clearly designed to fool the fans into believing that they are witnessing a better show than they are. Smoke and mirrors. It isn't an exciting story to me because I'm not looking at the floor, I'm watching the game. What would have been a good story is them replacing all the public hoops in Milwaukee or feeding thousands of kids. I could get behind that.

Long stary short: If you think the Bucks play some good ball on their new floor this year then I suggest you go see Coldplay... I hear they put on a good show.

icarus · Post #15 » by **icarus** » Wed Oct 7, 2015 6:06 pm

UWM_Brew_Buck wrote:
icarus wrote:
Dcebucks11 wrote:
I highly doubt you donate much out of your own pockets. If you do kudos to you but come on bruh.

He probably has a lot less disposable income than an NBA team. Us poor folk can't donate as much because we often live paycheck to paycheck. I doubt NBA owners are in the same boat. But while we're on the topic, poorer people actually donate a larger portion of the income than rich people, even though rich people can afford to donate a much larger share of theirs and still live comfortably.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/10/06/wealthy-americans-are-giving-less-of-their-incomes-to-charity-while-poor-are-donating-more/

Got to watch out for Forbes, last article I read on there was full of misinformation about the Bucks arena. This article is very deceiving, it mentions nothing of the actual percentage of income given just the amount they gave to charity compared to 2006.

Alright, so go straight to the source: https://philanthropy.com/interactives/how-america-gives#search

The income bracket with the fewest number of states with the highest percentage of donation (Dark green color - 4.12%) is the $200k+ bracket. Change income to $25k or below and every single state changes to the dark green color. According to the data, there is an inverse relationship between income and how much you donate as a percentage of your income.

UWM_Brew_Buck · Post #16 » by **UWM_Brew_Buck** » Wed Oct 7, 2015 11:09 pm

icarus wrote:
UWM_Brew_Buck wrote:
icarus wrote:
He probably has a lot less disposable income than an NBA team. Us poor folk can't donate as much because we often live paycheck to paycheck. I doubt NBA owners are in the same boat. But while we're on the topic, poorer people actually donate a larger portion of the income than rich people, even though rich people can afford to donate a much larger share of theirs and still live comfortably.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/10/06/wealthy-americans-are-giving-less-of-their-incomes-to-charity-while-poor-are-donating-more/

Got to watch out for Forbes, last article I read on there was full of misinformation about the Bucks arena. This article is very deceiving, it mentions nothing of the actual percentage of income given just the amount they gave to charity compared to 2006.

Alright, so go straight to the source: https://philanthropy.com/interactives/how-america-gives#search

The income bracket with the fewest number of states with the highest percentage of donation (Dark green color - 4.12%) is the $200k+ bracket. Change income to $25k or below and every single state changes to the dark green color. According to the data, there is an inverse relationship between income and how much you donate as a percentage of your income.

I just commented to show the failure of the Forbes article to support the claim in the title. That link still doesn't prove anything though, it just shows that the 25k income has more counties that give 4% than other brackets. Which may or may not show that 25K incomes donate more or less income % than other brackets.

icarus · Post #17 » by **icarus** » Thu Oct 8, 2015 8:12 pm

UWM_Brew_Buck wrote:
icarus wrote:
UWM_Brew_Buck wrote:
Got to watch out for Forbes, last article I read on there was full of misinformation about the Bucks arena. This article is very deceiving, it mentions nothing of the actual percentage of income given just the amount they gave to charity compared to 2006.

Alright, so go straight to the source: https://philanthropy.com/interactives/how-america-gives#search

The income bracket with the fewest number of states with the highest percentage of donation (Dark green color - 4.12%) is the $200k+ bracket. Change income to $25k or below and every single state changes to the dark green color. According to the data, there is an inverse relationship between income and how much you donate as a percentage of your income.

I just commented to show the failure of the Forbes article to support the claim in the title. That link still doesn't prove anything though, it just shows that the 25k income has more counties that give 4% than other brackets. Which may or may not show that 25K incomes donate more or less income % than other brackets.

You can change by state as well and the data still stays the same. And if you do that you'll see that rich people just don't donate all that much. If you still don't think that proves anything, I don't know what to tell you.

UWM_Brew_Buck · Post #18 » by **UWM_Brew_Buck** » Thu Oct 8, 2015 9:50 pm

icarus wrote:
UWM_Brew_Buck wrote:
icarus wrote:
Alright, so go straight to the source: https://philanthropy.com/interactives/how-america-gives#search

The income bracket with the fewest number of states with the highest percentage of donation (Dark green color - 4.12%) is the $200k+ bracket. Change income to $25k or below and every single state changes to the dark green color. According to the data, there is an inverse relationship between income and how much you donate as a percentage of your income.

I just commented to show the failure of the Forbes article to support the claim in the title. That link still doesn't prove anything though, it just shows that the 25k income has more counties that give 4% than other brackets. Which may or may not show that 25K incomes donate more or less income % than other brackets.

You can change by state as well and the data still stays the same. And if you do that you'll see that rich people just don't donate all that much. If you still don't think that proves anything, I don't know what to tell you.

It doesn't prove the claim that is all I am saying I merely pointed this out because the Forbes article just compares what changed, not the actual percentages. If we had the raw data I am sure we could prove or disprove the title's claim but in the presented form that cannot be proven. I wouldn't be surprised at all if lower incomes gave a higher percentage just this website doesn't show it with this graph. This graph just shows that there is a higher number of median families that give more that 4.12% of their income.