College Football 2012 Season

[aawagner011]

Colorado State to Under Armour

http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20121115/SPORTS/311150040

[lahaye7]

I was wondering too, hope so. Its always a good looking game

Does anybody know if the USC-UCLA game will be color on color this weekend?

[TheoW]

http://www.washingto...ida-state-game/

Would love to see FSU wear the white pants, and even that supposed white helmet against this. BTW, will FSU every wear the garnet or white pants again? I haven't seen them since Jimbo took over.

[CDixonDesign]

Colorado State to Under Armour

http://www.coloradoa...PORTS/311150040

Instant downgrade, IMO. However, we'll see what kind of direction UA takes...

That brings up the discussion I wish we could have more insight into. Exactly how much do Universities really want to become more like flagships such as Maryland and Oregon? Has the culture changed so much in CFB that teams are actually wanting to pursue being the team with many uniform combinations?

How much does that factor into teams like Colorado jumping ship from manufacturer to manufacturer? Did UA promise Colorado more love than Nike was giving them in that department?

[andycumbee19]

The dumbest part of that Maryland new uniform has to be the yellow facemask clips.... Anything other than clear just looks dumb (especially when it's yellow on black). So much so that it draws my eyes right to the clips themselves instead of the uniform

[BrandMooreArt]

Colorado State to Under Armour

http://www.coloradoa...PORTS/311150040

Instant downgrade, IMO. However, we'll see what kind of direction UA takes...

That brings up the discussion I wish we could have more insight into. Exactly how much do Universities really want to become more like flagships such as Maryland and Oregon? Has the culture changed so much in CFB that teams are actually wanting to pursue being the team with many uniform combinations?

How much does that factor into teams like Colorado jumping ship from manufacturer to manufacturer? Did UA promise Colorado more love than Nike was giving them in that department?

im not an UnderArmor fan either but i think calling their decision a downgrade right after they sign the deal is jumping the gun just a little

im not sure if CSU wants to become a flagship, but they may want some help in the marketing/branding department. one of the main reasons teams change uniform design without re-branding (reposition themselves in market/change their values/goals) is to generate some excitement and get some attention. but it dosent sound like they want to be the next Maryland, he said something about "we did some interesting stuff with orange but we're predominately green and gold". from that, i dont think they want to be too crazy.

hard to say what was promised, id love to know why they chose UA over the others. taste in design, artistic direction, price, product quality (i think they'll be disappointed with UA quality) could be all that and likely more. i dont think the others would say "heres what we invision for you: 3 helmets and 5 jerseys". it might even be that the CSU people just "clicked" best with the UA people. whatever the case, UA made them feel good about the future of their product

[pcgd]

hard to say what was promised, id love to know why they chose UA over the others.

[CDixonDesign]

Ah....most of my response was skewed because I missed the little detail "State" in Colorado State. Most of my reaction was based upon Colorado switching from Nike to UA, which would be a downgrade, IMO.

Colorado State switching from Russell to UA is a sure upgrade. They jumped up to another bar, just not the highest one.

[TimEOBrien]

Once again, until there's an actual design to review, CSU didn't upgrade or downgrade. Stop being a swoosh fanboy when there is nothing to be a fan of, it makes you look stupid.

[CDixonDesign]

Once again, until there's an actual design to review, CSU didn't upgrade or downgrade. Stop being a swoosh fanboy when there is nothing to be a fan of, it makes you look stupid.

Swoosh fanboy? Accusations like that are what's tearing this board down, forcing highly respected individuals in the Design field to leave this place, and contributors with talent walk away from most of the general population of this board.

There's a difference in people who come here to contribute and simply post day-in and day-out about how much that they "love this, and hate that, hate this helmet, let's do this to this and that" because they simple like sports logos, and people who understand the basis of design, the intentions and interpretations of Graphic Design, and what makes brands successful, unsuccessful, and the like.

So please, save your "Swoosh fanboy" horses@#% accusation for someone else....

I CAN make an accurate assumption that Colorado State as a school, as a brand, and as a marketing depart WILL BE AN UPGRADE with a partnership with Under Armour compared to Russell because of the culture of those two manufacturers. If you can't agree that Under Armour has the philosophy, capability, direction, and general HIGHER quality of design, then you are just absolutely blind....

[TimEOBrien]

whoa, pump the breaks bro. way to early to get this upset.

All I'm saying is that you've intimated that any design Nike would've done for CSU is better than any design UA would do and both would be better than any design Russell has done or will do. That type of blanket statement - which is total bullshît since it's a completely unknowable hypothetical - reeks of homerism to Nike.

I don't think you're a fanboy, but you sure as hell sound like when when you say stuff like that. That's all.

[CDixonDesign]

whoa, pump the breaks bro. way to early to get this upset.

All I'm saying is that you've intimated that any design Nike would've done for CSU is better than any design UA would do and both would be better than any design Russell has done or will do. That type of blanket statement - which is total bullshît since it's a completely unknowable hypothetical - reeks of homerism to Nike.

I don't think you're a fanboy, but you sure as hell sound like when when you say stuff like that. That's all.

I think there's a big difference in being anywhere near the "fanboy" accusation and actually having a preference. Call it a monopoly, call it front running, but honestly in my heart of hearts ranking a manufacturers capabilities in the design field, the general consensus falls for the most part in this order:

- Nike

- Adidas

- Under Armour

- Russell

We're fortunate enough to have contributors, including myself, that work closely with some of these companies, so it creates a diverse environment for discussion, from all sides. But when you get down to brass tax, there's a reason that most teams/universities/companies choose Nike. Each manufacturer has it's swings and misses, but in my opinion (which is why this forum for discussion is even successful, because we have that right) Nike has had the least because of their capabilities as a brand...

[DelayedPenalty]

whoa, pump the brakes bro. way too early to get this upset.

Fixed your post, Timmeh.

I don't think you're a fanboy, but you sure as hell sound like when when you say stuff like that. That's all.

Stop being a swoosh fanboy when there is nothing to be a fan of, it makes you look stupid.

[TimEOBrien]

If it's too early to get upset, then it's clearly too early for proper grammar and spelling.

And you're right, I phrased my first comment to CDD very poorly and accidentally made an accusation even I didn't believe. I apologize to CDD. No excuses. What I should've said was the comment made him sound like a fanboy - especially when he made assumptions before a design or marketing strategy has even been unveiled.

CSU was arguably Russell's best school design-wise and one of their bigger fish (along with Geo Tech) they probably got a lot of undue attention. Now, if they'd gone to Nike or Adidas, they'd just be another small program that would probably end up getting ignored - like what happened to Northwestern and why they left /// for UA. I like the move to UA, but they could easily come up with some horrendous design and ruin CSU's classic look (like their helmet) and while I don't see that heppening, I'm waiting to pass judgement.

[pianoknight]

This Russell set for Ohio is ten-thousand times better than half of the Under Armor monstrosities.

For that matter, it's also better than a bunch of Nike and Adidas schools, too.

Tim wins. You can't blindly say that everything by a particular manufacturer is inherently good or bad.

[mania]

Counterpoint:

[CDixonDesign]

This Russell set for Ohio is ten-thousand times better than half of the Under Armor monstrosities.

For that matter, it's also better than a bunch of Nike and Adidas schools, too.

Tim wins. You can't blindly say that everything by a particular manufacturer is inherently good or bad.

Counterpoint:

Precisely my point. All manufacturers have hits and misses. Ohio is one of Russell's home runs.

Take all the hits, and all the misses, even as a general opinion, and throw them all on the scale. The order of which side the pendulum swings will, in the end, have the swoosh on top. Even if you took, given Nike's monopoly on many markets, a random sampling of 10 identities.

[pianoknight]

But historical track record is not a guarantee of future performance - only an indicator. Russell could conceivably create the best uniform in the history of football. It's unlikely, but it's impossible to tell.

It's like Schrodinger's Cat, only in this case Phil Knight is inside the box.

[gdu]

If it's too early to get upset, then it's clearly too early for proper grammar and spelling.

And you're right, I phrased my first comment to CDD very poorly and accidentally made an accusation even I didn't believe. I apologize to CDD. No excuses. What I should've said was the comment made him sound like a fanboy - especially when he made assumptions before a design or marketing strategy has even been unveiled.

CSU was arguably Russell's best school design-wise and one of their bigger fish (along with Geo Tech) they probably got a lot of undue attention. Now, if they'd gone to Nike or Adidas, they'd just be another small program that would probably end up getting ignored - like what happened to Northwestern and why they left /// for UA. I like the move to UA, but they could easily come up with some horrendous design and ruin CSU's classic look (like their helmet) and while I don't see that heppening, I'm waiting to pass judgement.

Then that's pretty sad, since they wore a Russell template that many other schools did too (and lots of high schools).

[guest23]

This Russell set for Ohio is ten-thousand times better than half of the Under Armor monstrosities.

For that matter, it's also better than a bunch of Nike and Adidas schools, too.

Tim wins. You can't blindly say that everything by a particular manufacturer is inherently good or bad.

the ohio uniform is essentially a generic ucla striped template that is no different from the nike lsu/va tech...in addition ucla stripes have been around since at least the 1940's.

judging by past work russell is good at two designs:

- plain/no stripes

- ucla stripes

pretty sad for a uniform company.