College Football Uniforms - 2017 Season

[AndrewMLind]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

lol if you think Nike would do better. 

 

Rutgers' last set was perfect. 

[MJWalker45]

2 hours ago, Lights Out said:

 

 

 

 

That uniform set looked better with the Rutgers wordmark, but if they used that current knight with this design it could be a look that others would try copying.

[Lights Out]

4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

That looks just as bad. Seriously. What's the noticable difference? It's an all black uniform for a team that shouldn't have an all black uniform.

You've got bad attempts at chainmail sublimation on both.  

Both have matte black helmets with the same logo, done up in silver. 

 

Sure, there are minor difference in the numbers and striping, but really? That Nike black alternate and Adidas' black alternate are essentially the same concept. They just toyed with it differently. 

 

That's why I don't get the shoe company allegiances this board tends to cultivate. Nike, Adidas, UA. They're all following the same trends. All doing the same stuff. The idea that one shoe company's unnecessary all black matte helmeted alternate is good and the other shoe company's unnecessary all black matte helmeted alternate is bad is nonsensical. It's the same crap being pushed by three manufacturers.

The helmet and color combo are the same, so those are a wash.

 

Tasteful collar logo vs. huge stretched, warped wordmark - advantage: Nike.

 

White (more legible) numbers vs. red numbers - advantage: Nike.

 

Actual stripes that are identifiable as Rutgers vs. glorified practice jersey - advantage: Nike.

 

Decent template vs. TechFit tire treads - advantage: Nike.

 

Whether or not Rutgers should be wearing a black alternate is one thing. But the fact is, they're wearing them, and Nike did a better job by every objective measure than Adidas did.

 

For the record, I have no allegiance to any uniform manufacturer. I have an allegiance to good uniforms. And right now, the TechFit template is by far the biggest crime against college football aesthetics. So as long as Adidas remains married to it and keeps forcing it on every team, I will continue to criticize them for it. And that doesn't make me a shill for Nike, Under Armour or Russell.

[VikingsNotMinnesota]

4 hours ago, Lights Out said:

I think the word "iconic" is being thrown around too loosely for a logo that has only been around since 2001 and a program that isn't exactly Ohio State or Michigan status.

 

Rutgers has worn similar logos on their helmets before:

 

 

All of their success in the modern era has come with the R logo, and people still remember back in 2006-2008 when Rutgers had those epic Big East showdowns on national tv. Obviously it's nowhere near as iconic as most other somewhat traditional power's logos, but it's the closest thing Rutgers has to iconic, and I don't see them dropping it any time soon, at least I would hope not.

[VikingsNotMinnesota]

3 hours ago, 8BW14 said:

I will agree with you that both of the black Rutgers uniforms are rather unnecessary and ill advised, basically recycling a tired, generally poorly executed concept. Rutgers should be wearing red and white with or without black trim on the numbers/R logo. 

I will say, though, that the Nike version is better executed with the more prominent red striping. It feels more thoughtful at least than the rather plain Adidas uniform.

 

Your larger point still stands though, it doesn't really matter who makes the uniform, if it's good, then fine. If it's bad, then fine, but Nike is just as capable of producing trendy half-baked concepts as Adidas.

Yeah basically this. I don't think anyone is arguing that Rutgers needs a black uniform, but nike did the all black uniform much better.

[oldschoolvikings]

4 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

I don't get the shoe company allegiances this board tends to cultivate. Nike, Adidas, UA. They're all following the same trends. All doing the same stuff. The idea that one shoe company's unnecessary all black matte helmeted alternate is good and the other shoe company's unnecessary all black matte helmeted alternate is bad is nonsensical. It's the same crap being pushed by three manufacturers.

 

Well said. It's so odd to me that people feel some sort of fanish connection to a multi-billion dollar corporation.

 

In college football, all the best visual identities (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Alabama, LSU, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, USC, UCLA...) have looks that pre-date the takeover of the shoe companies.  All the best looks were established well before Nike or Adidas starting remaking the uniforms of other every team. All the best.  All. The. Best.

[oldschoolvikings]

3 hours ago, AndrewMLind said:

 

Rutgers' last set was perfect. 

 

 

 

 

[IceCap]

28 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

Tasteful collar logo vs. huge stretched, warped wordmark - advantage: Nike.

The entire look is aweful. Black head to toe? It's bad, on a conceptual level. What each version uses for its collar logo- wordmark or logo-is meaningless when the concept itself is flawed. Nike's addition of a bit of red on the collar, pants, and jersey is meaningless when the overall package is flawed on a base level. 

 

It's like someone at Rutgers had the bad idea of an all-black alternate with a chainmail pattern. They gave that basic idea to Nike, and Nike did their thing. Then they switched suppliers and gave Adidas the same basic idea. And Adidas did their version. 

 

The base idea is bad though, which is why I'm not going to debate point by point with you. Who the hell cares if the white numbers outlined in red on Nike's looks more legible than the Adidas version's red numbers with white outlines? The basic idea both are based off of is bad. Neither uniform looks good. At all. 

 

And both companies (along with UA) are in the business of pushing the same crap on schools. There's little to distinguish the design philosophies behind those three, because it's all the same garbage.

Just packaged differently to garner the support of the team in question's fans and the fans of whatever shoe company happens to have designed it. 

 

36 minutes ago, Lights Out said:

For the record, I have no allegiance to any uniform manufacturer. I have an allegiance to good uniforms. And right now, the TechFit template is by far the biggest crime against college football aesthetics. So as long as Adidas remains married to it and keeps forcing it on every team, I will continue to criticize them for it. And that doesn't make me a shill for Nike, Under Armour or Russell.

Be it the NBA, the NHL, the NFL, or NCAA college football...you've always had this hatred for Adidas. 

Which in and of itself is one thing. Adidas is part of the problem, after all. What makes me point it out when discussing uniforms with you is that you seem to cheerlead Nike. That's baffling to me because both companies do the same thing, use the same tactics, and are working with the same basic design philosophies to push nearly indistinguishable products. 

 

The problems plaguing the world of sports design aren't limited to Nike, Adidas, or UA. All three engaged in this game of one-upmanship until they all just became the same. 

 

Seriously. Take the Nike and Adidas logos off of those two black Rutgers alternates and show them side by side. They look like they came from two different designers operating under the same design philosophy from the same studio. The fact that they came from separate companies is disheartening. 

[mjd77]

2 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL! Was that the game they lost something like 78-0?

[LAWeaver]

^^^Yes.

 

I loved Rutgers' uniforms last season, though I'm a little biased because I prefer Nike over Adidas and I'm not afraid to admit it.

 

The black set was great, but that game against Michigan is why they should abandon the blackout set. 78-0 should be enough to abandon them forever, but this IS Rutgers we're talking about here. 

[FightingGoldenDevil]

Adidas ruined ASU. Other than the bowling ball helmet Nike did an amazing job for the devils. I'll never understand the stretch pattern that adidas has on their templates. It never has and never will look good. I don't have any allegiance to shoe companies, but my two colleges (Minnesota and ASU) both have the same colors and have iconic looks. The difference is adidas destroyed ASUs identity and Nike added onto Minnesotas identity

[dakotapalm]

42 minutes ago, FightingGoldenDevil said:

Adidas ruined ASU. Other than the bowling ball helmet Nike did an amazing job for the devils. I'll never understand the stretch pattern that adidas has on their templates. It never has and never will look good. I don't have any allegiance to shoe companies, but my two colleges (Minnesota and ASU) both have the same colors and have iconic looks. The difference is adidas destroyed ASUs identity and Nike added onto Minnesotas identity

Bingo. And as a Michigan fan, here is why I will look back at the Adidas era with revulsion (well, that and Dave Brandon).

[aawagner011]

Surely the award for worst adidas Michigan alternate was this one:

 

[oldschoolvikings]

2 minutes ago, aawagner011 said:

Surely the award for worst adidas Michigan alternate was this one:

 

 

I thought it looked good here...

 

 

 

[Blazersfan38]

Beavers new alternates are gross.

consider me 

[scraw28]

the jersey will always have a special place in our hearts for this moment

5 minutes ago, oldschoolvikings said:

 

I thought it looked good here...

 

 

 

 

[aawagner011]

Here are some better looks at Oregon State.

 

 

 

 

They are one of the more infuriating teams. They have so many good pieces and throw it away for a hideous modern look.

 

This is so close. And yet, so far away.

 

 

So many questions. Why the stripes on the facemask? They are so distracting. Why the truncated pants stripe? Though, that many the the least of this set's concerns. And why the swooping sleeve stripes when everything else uses straight stripes.

 

These were brilliant. All of the good aspects above given some level of restraint.

 

[GriffinM6]

That's a really nice helmet. The rest... not so much. The sleeve striping is a complete joke. 

[upperV03]

Here's the release video:

They'll debut the new uniforms in their September 9th home game against Minnesota.

[AndrewMLind]

Make the jersey black and change everything that's gray or anthracite to orange and you've got yourself one fine looking uniform.