College Football Uniforms - 2015 Season

[Kevin W.]

Looks great.

Please tell me you're joking. There's nothing about that jersey that looks great. The shoulder stripes are still wrong. The number font is wrong. The tire tread is everywhere.

[the_grateful_ted]

Looks great.

Please tell me you're joking. There's nothing about that jersey that looks great. The shoulder stripes are still wrong. The number font is wrong. The tire tread is everywhere.

The tire tread is spreading like an actual disease

[doctorpeligro]

Looks great.

Please tell me you're joking. There's nothing about that jersey that looks great. The shoulder stripes are still wrong. The number font is wrong. The tire tread is everywhere.

What it comes down to is this: I want my team to win. In regards to the uniform, the Techfit jersey gives my school the best chance to win. Is it a huge difference? Of course not, but the Techfit jersey, in terms of function, is the best jersey on the market. It was designed to make the player harder to grab. It is lighter, uses less fabric, and has practically no seams. That makes it a better football jersey than comparable jerseys from Nike and Under Armour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVXs7OfbMqY

Am I enamored with the "tire tread?" No, but I can live with it (maybe it is because the tire tread is more of a liability on a darker jersey).

A set of stripes down to the armpit on a compression shirt (with little sleeve length) would look out of proportion and worse than what adidas came up with for UCLA.

[Kevin W.]

No offense, but you sound an awful lot like a paid shill.

[doctorpeligro]

No offense, but you sound an awful lot like a paid shill.

I'm not. But I've done my research.

[jgiff17]

Looks great. Hopefully it's their primary and not their alternate.

So the story about the stripes not being able to look like the old jerseys because of the new material and sewing was all bs correct?! Because this crap goes down further than the others and way past the materials coming together and still doesn't look anything like the traditional. It's cool to come on here and see the new looks but when traditional looks are being murdered by some artistic turd that probably doesn't watch or care about sports it really irritates me and I'm sure most of you all. I wouldn't mind the ncaa or the conferences standing up and have some limits on how many helmets pant jerseys teams can have and also make them wait 3 years before they can change anything from the recent set.

Looks great. Hopefully it's their primary and not their alternate.

So the story about the stripes not being able to look like the old jerseys because of the new material and sewing was all bs correct?! Because this crap goes down further than the others and way past the materials coming together and still doesn't look anything like the traditional. It's cool to come on here and see the new looks but when traditional looks are being murdered by some artistic turd that probably doesn't watch or care about sports it really irritates me and I'm sure most of you all. I wouldn't mind the ncaa or the conferences standing up and have some limits on how many helmets pant jerseys teams can have and also make them wait 3 years before they can change anything from the recent set.

[GriffinM6]

No offense, but you sound an awful lot like a paid shill.

I'm not. But I've done my research.

A Jersey does not give a team a better chance to win. It matters how good your program is. I'm a Miami fan, and I don't expect them to play better because they will have techfit jerseys. I expect them to play better when Al Golden's sorry ass gets fired and they actually hire a competent coach.

[Webfooter]

Looks great.

Please tell me you're joking. There's nothing about that jersey that looks great. The shoulder stripes are still wrong. The number font is wrong. The tire tread is everywhere.

What it comes down to is this: I want my team to win. In regards to the uniform, the Techfit jersey gives my school the best chance to win. Is it a huge difference? Of course not, but the Techfit jersey, in terms of function, is the best jersey on the market. It was designed to make the player harder to grab. It is lighter, uses less fabric, and has practically no seams. That makes it a better football jersey than comparable jerseys from Nike and Under Armour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVXs7OfbMqY

Am I enamored with the "tire tread?" No, but I can live with it (maybe it is because the tire tread is more of a liability on a darker jersey).

A set of stripes down to the armpit on a compression shirt (with little sleeve length) would look out of proportion and worse than what adidas came up with for UCLA.

Are you serious? When has a uniform and its technology ever won a game for a team? Even Oregon, with their top-of-the-line Nike jerseys, has never claimed a uniform won them a game. The technology is nice but at the end of the day, it comes down to the skill of the players and their ability to execute a gameplan to win ballgames.

[Mingjai]

Looks great.

Please tell me you're joking. There's nothing about that jersey that looks great. The shoulder stripes are still wrong. The number font is wrong. The tire tread is everywhere.

What it comes down to is this: I want my team to win. In regards to the uniform, the Techfit jersey gives my school the best chance to win.

Like the 2006 Olympic hockey tournament that was won by Sweden, one of the two teams not wearing the mythical Nike Swift hockeys jerseys that were 43% lighter and offered 15% less wind resistence than traditional jerseys. The other team not wearing Swift jerseys, the Swiss, finished second in their group upsetting both Canada and the Czechs.

An nice marketing piece on the wonders of the Swift jerseys: http://www.hockeycanada.ca/en-ca/news/2005-nr-114-en

[Red Wolf]

I suspect that UCLA jersey will look fine on the field. That is, assuming the tire tread is more sublimated than the promo shots make it look like it was last year. Though it does concern me that it seems to be covering the entire jersey.

[doctorpeligro]

I get that people don't like the aesthetic choices that adidas has made. I, too, hated their past few sets of March Madness uniforms.

In football, however, adidas' jerseys are technically superior. From a functional point of view, the ideal football jersey would be very similar to a wrestling unitard: a tight, seamless outfit that limits access points for the opponent to grab the fabric.

In football, the most functional jersey would be hard to grab (very tight and without seams) and just large enough to cover the shoulder pads.

[doctorpeligro]

Looks great.

Please tell me you're joking. There's nothing about that jersey that looks great. The shoulder stripes are still wrong. The number font is wrong. The tire tread is everywhere.

I never liked the Clarendon font for UCLA. I always thought it looked a little too . . . well, feminine:

I don't care for the script "Ucla" either. I would replace it with this:

(maybe too TCU-ish?)

or even this:

[MJWalker45]

I suspect that UCLA jersey will look fine on the field. That is, assuming the tire tread is more sublimated than the promo shots make it look like it was last year. Though it does concern me that it seems to be covering the entire jersey.

It won't be. The only time no one notices it is when the jersey is white. I'm betting gold Shockweb pants will be included as well. The only "good" looking part of that uniform, the stripes, need to be skinnier and closer to the shoulder/sleeve area. The numbers are ok but don't need a pattern running through them. And the Pac-12 logo is virtually invisible. This is not a good uniform.

[Geoff]

I never liked the Clarendon font for UCLA. I always thought it looked a little too . . . well, feminine:

Can we not drag even unintentional misogyny into this, please?

And I get what people find aesthetically pleasing is all subjective but this is literally the only time I can remember someone saying they don't like the script UCLA.

[CLEstones]

I never liked the Clarendon font for UCLA. I always thought it looked a little too . . . well, feminine:

Can we not drag even unintentional misogyny into this, please?

And I get what people find aesthetically pleasing is all subjective but this is literally the only time I can remember someone saying they don't like the script UCLA.

Why can't he say it looks feminine to him? Feminine is an adjective. Just because something looks feminine to him doesn't mean he a misogynist. We are talking about football uniforms. Men's football uniforms. I could never understand this over the top Political Correctness. Its not like he is saying "OMG IT LOOKS LIKE A FEMALE FONT AND WOMEN ARE BY FAR THE LESSER SEX! MEN DOMINATE THIS WORLD SO EVERYTHING SHOULD BE DONE MANLY!" He said it looks a little feminine. How is that not ok? Masculine and Feminine have real characteristics... its ok to use them when describing something.

People are so over the top sensitive. He didn't say anything offensive. He was describing the logo. Give it a rest.

[oldschoolvikings]

I never liked the Clarendon font for UCLA. I always thought it looked a little too . . . well, feminine:

Can we not drag even unintentional misogyny into this, please?

And I get what people find aesthetically pleasing is all subjective but this is literally the only time I can remember someone saying they don't like the script UCLA.

Why can't he say it looks feminine to him? Feminine is an adjective. Just because something looks feminine to him doesn't mean he a misogynist. We are talking about football uniforms. Men's football uniforms. I could never understand this over the top Political Correctness. Its not like he is saying "OMG IT LOOKS LIKE A FEMALE FONT AND WOMEN ARE BY FAR THE LESSER SEX! MEN DOMINATE THIS WORLD SO EVERYTHING SHOULD BE DONE MANLY!" He said it looks a little feminine. How is that not ok? Masculine and Feminine have real characteristics... its ok to use them when describing something.

People are so over the top sensitive. He didn't say anything offensive. He was describing the logo. Give it a rest.

You just wrote about it at least three times as much as he did, dragging out the tired "politically correct" bit. So who's being over sensitive?

[MJWalker45]

I'm with Geoff on this. This is not a feminine font, it's been the standard uniform font for years, and every time UCLA goes away from it they come back to it. Why? It's a classic look and it goes back to some of UCLA's best football teams. When everyone else had standard block numbers with very little deviation this was how they helped stand out from the crowd.

[oldschoolvikings]

Looks great. Hopefully it's their primary and not their alternate.

That looks like complete and utter carp. The monumentally stupid fabric pattern is only the start of how bad this is. The awkward shoulder stripes, the useless lines across the numbers... nauseating.

[TedHymanImages]

What about that looks great?

Was wondering the same thing. Sooo bad.

[sportzfan]

I get that people don't like the aesthetic choices that adidas has made. I, too, hated their past few sets of March Madness uniforms.

In football, however, adidas' jerseys are technically superior. From a functional point of view, the ideal football jersey would be very similar to a wrestling unitard: a tight, seamless outfit that limits access points for the opponent to grab the fabric.

In football, the most functional jersey would be hard to grab (very tight and without seams) and just large enough to cover the shoulder pads.

Except that all jerseys are designed to be form fitting like that