College Football 2014 Season

[PhlyBoy]

Here's my thing with Oregon, and it'll probably drive people insane on here. Yes they are Green and Yellow, but Black, Volt, Carbon Fiber, anthracite, and chrome you can make a legit argument that those are Oregon colors. Offically, no. But those are their unofficial colors (along with green and yellow). When anyone thinks of Volt or Anthracite it is Oregon. They did it all first (basically. Black probably was somewhere else but Oregon made it popular again in recent time). Every other school that uses that crap? Yes, it's stupid as all hell, use your own colors. But Oregon? They're the exception. And we can argue that they shouldn't use those colors, but we all know those instantly as Oregon colors.

[mad43dog]

New white UAB helmet

Dragontales Dragontales

It's almost time for Dragontales

[DPV713]

Here's my thing with Oregon, and it'll probably drive people insane on here. Yes they are Green and Yellow, but Black, Volt, Carbon Fiber, anthracite, and chrome you can make a legit argument that those are Oregon colors. Offically, no. But those are their unofficial colors (along with green and yellow). When anyone thinks of Volt or Anthracite it is Oregon. They did it all first (basically. Black probably was somewhere else but Oregon made it popular again in recent time). Every other school that uses that crap? Yes, it's stupid as all hell, use your own colors. But Oregon? They're the exception. And we can argue that they shouldn't use those colors, but we all know those instantly as Oregon colors.

This is definitely my take on it. BFBS, GFGS, tons of alternates and non-"official" school colors look terrible and don't work for schools in college football. Oregon, however, is the exception.

[Kevin W.]

Oregon's thing has always been about promoting Nike. It's never been about Oregon's brand. That's why you see Oregon wearing the colors that Nike tells them to wear, and that's why Phil Knight pretty much owns the university. They sold out and they do whatever their corporate overlords tell them to do because money talks. There's no independence there. They are Nike U. They are the NCAA's first corporate-owned state school.

[drdougfresh]

RE: the never-ending debate on Oregon's brand, here's Phil Knight's take (which I completely agree with):

You don’t need a sign on the Eiffel Tower. When you see the Eiffel Tower, you know that’s the Eiffel Tower. Now when you see the O, that's Oregon.

Color is one piece of visual identity, which is one piece branding. Branding is a collection of an innumerable amount of visuals, sensual experiences, emotions, and interactions. Coke runs an ad with Coke in a Coke glass by itself. Is it a branding fail because there's no red on it? No. You still know this is Coca Cola:

It's more than color. You know the shape of the glass, you know the logo, and that accumulation of condensation on the outside says 'ahhh, refreshing,' which is the exact thing Coke wants you to feel when looking at this (and that's why they play up the carbonation, the sound/visual representation of carbonation, and someone saying 'ahh' in a lot of their advertising). Branding is all about building emotional, psychological, and physical connections with a company and their products.

When you look at the consistency behind Oregon's branding over the years, the fact that the uniforms are varied is such a small piece of the equation. Think about it. Messaging has stayed the same (speed/strength), the on-field product has been solid, the gameday experience is engrossing as ever, the talent level has stayed top-notch, and the team is winning consistently. Sure, the uniforms have changed a bit over the years, but they always include: 1) the O, 2) a visual representation of speed/strength, and lately 3) a wing pattern of some sort. How well these are conveyed is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't trash their entire brand.

To be honest, I think the lack of interaction with the team itself makes people less likely to see this whole picture (if you're not around Oregon enough to understand how miniscule uniforms are in the grand scheme of things, you judge the success of the school's entire brand based on your limited interaction with them every Saturday -- most of which is their uniforms). I also think there's a rampant misunderstanding of what a brand actually is. You can not like the changes that Oregon makes all the time, that's fine. But to say that Oregon has no brand, or that their ever-evolving look is bad for them is foolish.

Look at their enrollment since all of this started with Knight and Moos. The constant change might bother you as a traditionalist, but in all honesty, it's smart business.

Oregon started a trend that is helping other universities capitalize on a revenue stream that was previously untapped -- apparel. Look at the list JPDesign just posted: by my quick count, 20 of the top 25 have recently changed their entire look or participated in a one-off program that produced a ton of extra fan gear and generated buzz around the program. Hard to argue with that.

I'm far from a Nike/Oregon fanboy -- just tired of people using the wrong language in a debate that, IMO, is exhausted

/rant

[guest23]

RE: the never-ending debate on Oregon's brand, here's Phil Knight's take (which I completely agree with):

You don’t need a sign on the Eiffel Tower. When you see the Eiffel Tower, you know that’s the Eiffel Tower. Now when you see the O, that's Oregon.

Color is one piece of visual identity, which is one piece branding. Branding is a collection of an innumerable amount of visuals, sensual experiences, emotions, and interactions. Coke runs an ad with Coke in a Coke glass by itself. Is it a branding fail because there's no red on it? No. You still know this is Coca Cola:

It's more than color. You know the shape of the glass, you know the logo, and that accumulation of condensation on the outside says 'ahhh, refreshing,' which is the exact thing Coke wants you to feel when looking at this (and that's why they play up the carbonation, the sound/visual representation of carbonation, and someone saying 'ahh' in a lot of their advertising). Branding is all about building emotional, psychological, and physical connections with a company and their products.

When you look at the consistency behind Oregon's branding over the years, the fact that the uniforms are varied is such a small piece of the equation. Think about it. Messaging has stayed the same (speed/strength), the on-field product has been solid, the gameday experience is engrossing as ever, the talent level has stayed top-notch, and the team is winning consistently. Sure, the uniforms have changed a bit over the years, but they always include: 1) the O, 2) a visual representation of speed/strength, and lately 3) a wing pattern of some sort. How well these are conveyed is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't trash their entire brand.

To be honest, I think the lack of interaction with the team itself makes people less likely to see this whole picture (if you're not around Oregon enough to understand how miniscule uniforms are in the grand scheme of things, you judge the success of the school's entire brand based on your limited interaction with them every Saturday -- most of which is their uniforms). I also think there's a rampant misunderstanding of what a brand actually is. You can not like the changes that Oregon makes all the time, that's fine. But to say that Oregon has no brand, or that their ever-evolving look is bad for them is foolish.

Look at their enrollment since all of this started with Knight and Moos. The constant change might bother you as a traditionalist, but in all honesty, it's smart business.

Oregon started a trend that is helping other universities capitalize on a revenue stream that was previously untapped -- apparel. Look at the list JPDesign just posted: by my quick count, 20 of the top 25 have recently changed their entire look or participated in a one-off program that produced a ton of extra fan gear and generated buzz around the program. Hard to argue with that.

I'm far from a Nike/Oregon fanboy -- just tired of people using the wrong language in a debate that, IMO, is exhausted

/rant

Nike started making money off of michigan, alabama, penn state, fsu, tosu, usc etc. way before oregon became a top tier nike school. They were one of the last teams in the pac 10 to wear the swoosh on their uniforms. To say that oregon had a role in creating the college apparel merchandising machine is laughable. They eventually became a national player after knight dumped a ton of money into recruiting, coaches, facilities and a rebuilt stadium. People love to say the uniforms played a role but there are much more impactful and fundamental drivers at play here.

In terms of the school gaining popularity and enrollment, with the help of nike and espn promoting the sport like crazy, big time college football exploded and enrollment has increased at all football power schools, not just oregon. So if the traditional uniformed schools saw the same benefits that oregon saw over the same time period, the impact of the uniforms are being blown way out of proportion. Also you can look at a counter example of a program like boise achieving national notoriety (beating oregon soundly several times) without having any of the luxuries that the ducks enjoyed in terms of uniforms and facilities. They simply put a superior football product on the field. The blue turf only helped once they started to win.

Do re-brands contribute to future success of an otherwise stale brand? Yes they can but their impact is often overstated.

[hailstateunis]

New white UAB helmet

I assume they will wear these against Mississippi State on Saturday?

[Clintau24]

New white UAB helmet

I assume they will wear these against Mississippi State on Saturday?

From what I've seen, yes.

[ONUV]

the team that pretends to play college football in nashville is wearing white helmets, gold jerseys, white pants against ole miss.

[Harmening]

RE: the never-ending debate on Oregon's brand, here's Phil Knight's take (which I completely agree with):

You don’t need a sign on the Eiffel Tower. When you see the Eiffel Tower, you know that’s the Eiffel Tower. Now when you see the O, that's Oregon.

Color is one piece of visual identity, which is one piece branding. Branding is a collection of an innumerable amount of visuals, sensual experiences, emotions, and interactions. Coke runs an ad with Coke in a Coke glass by itself. Is it a branding fail because there's no red on it? No. You still know this is Coca Cola:

It's more than color. You know the shape of the glass, you know the logo, and that accumulation of condensation on the outside says 'ahhh, refreshing,' which is the exact thing Coke wants you to feel when looking at this (and that's why they play up the carbonation, the sound/visual representation of carbonation, and someone saying 'ahh' in a lot of their advertising). Branding is all about building emotional, psychological, and physical connections with a company and their products.

When you look at the consistency behind Oregon's branding over the years, the fact that the uniforms are varied is such a small piece of the equation. Think about it. Messaging has stayed the same (speed/strength), the on-field product has been solid, the gameday experience is engrossing as ever, the talent level has stayed top-notch, and the team is winning consistently. Sure, the uniforms have changed a bit over the years, but they always include: 1) the O, 2) a visual representation of speed/strength, and lately 3) a wing pattern of some sort. How well these are conveyed is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't trash their entire brand.

To be honest, I think the lack of interaction with the team itself makes people less likely to see this whole picture (if you're not around Oregon enough to understand how miniscule uniforms are in the grand scheme of things, you judge the success of the school's entire brand based on your limited interaction with them every Saturday -- most of which is their uniforms). I also think there's a rampant misunderstanding of what a brand actually is. You can not like the changes that Oregon makes all the time, that's fine. But to say that Oregon has no brand, or that their ever-evolving look is bad for them is foolish.

Look at their enrollment since all of this started with Knight and Moos. The constant change might bother you as a traditionalist, but in all honesty, it's smart business.

Oregon started a trend that is helping other universities capitalize on a revenue stream that was previously untapped -- apparel. Look at the list JPDesign just posted: by my quick count, 20 of the top 25 have recently changed their entire look or participated in a one-off program that produced a ton of extra fan gear and generated buzz around the program. Hard to argue with that.

I'm far from a Nike/Oregon fanboy -- just tired of people using the wrong language in a debate that, IMO, is exhausted

/rant

I'd be pissed if a server brought that glass of Coke to my table.

[GeauxColonels]

RE: the never-ending debate on Oregon's brand, here's Phil Knight's take (which I completely agree with):

You don’t need a sign on the Eiffel Tower. When you see the Eiffel Tower, you know that’s the Eiffel Tower. Now when you see the O, that's Oregon.

Color is one piece of visual identity, which is one piece branding. Branding is a collection of an innumerable amount of visuals, sensual experiences, emotions, and interactions. Coke runs an ad with Coke in a Coke glass by itself. Is it a branding fail because there's no red on it? No. You still know this is Coca Cola:

It's more than color. You know the shape of the glass, you know the logo, and that accumulation of condensation on the outside says 'ahhh, refreshing,' which is the exact thing Coke wants you to feel when looking at this (and that's why they play up the carbonation, the sound/visual representation of carbonation, and someone saying 'ahh' in a lot of their advertising). Branding is all about building emotional, psychological, and physical connections with a company and their products.

When you look at the consistency behind Oregon's branding over the years, the fact that the uniforms are varied is such a small piece of the equation. Think about it. Messaging has stayed the same (speed/strength), the on-field product has been solid, the gameday experience is engrossing as ever, the talent level has stayed top-notch, and the team is winning consistently. Sure, the uniforms have changed a bit over the years, but they always include: 1) the O, 2) a visual representation of speed/strength, and lately 3) a wing pattern of some sort. How well these are conveyed is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't trash their entire brand.

To be honest, I think the lack of interaction with the team itself makes people less likely to see this whole picture (if you're not around Oregon enough to understand how miniscule uniforms are in the grand scheme of things, you judge the success of the school's entire brand based on your limited interaction with them every Saturday -- most of which is their uniforms). I also think there's a rampant misunderstanding of what a brand actually is. You can not like the changes that Oregon makes all the time, that's fine. But to say that Oregon has no brand, or that their ever-evolving look is bad for them is foolish.

Look at their enrollment since all of this started with Knight and Moos. The constant change might bother you as a traditionalist, but in all honesty, it's smart business.

Oregon started a trend that is helping other universities capitalize on a revenue stream that was previously untapped -- apparel. Look at the list JPDesign just posted: by my quick count, 20 of the top 25 have recently changed their entire look or participated in a one-off program that produced a ton of extra fan gear and generated buzz around the program. Hard to argue with that.

I'm far from a Nike/Oregon fanboy -- just tired of people using the wrong language in a debate that, IMO, is exhausted

/rant

I'd be pissed if a server brought that glass of Coke to my table.

Wayyyyyy too much ice.

[Kevin W.]

Oh my God, I didn't notice that about the picture until you mentioned that. I've been ripped off by cups with too much ice before but that is absurd.

[kewp80]

Oh my God, I didn't notice that about the picture until you mentioned that. I've been ripped off by cups with too much ice before but that is absurd.

Ever been to Sonic? Ask for a Coke and you get a Coke slushy.

[Derek94]

Uh, there's this thing called free refills.

Maybe back in the 80s but I guarantee every establishment that has servers offers free and unlimited refills on cola.

Now, if you order orange juice and milk, then all bets are off. However very rarely will either of those beverages be sold with ice cubes.

[Clintau24]

Oh my God, I didn't notice that about the picture until you mentioned that. I've been ripped off by cups with too much ice before but that is absurd.

Ever been to Sonic? Ask for a Coke and you get a Coke slushy.

Always ask for "light ice".

[TheRicSlick]

I love how we go from talking about Oregon, to ice.

[djam2410]

RE: the never-ending debate on Oregon's brand, here's Phil Knight's take (which I completely agree with):

You don’t need a sign on the Eiffel Tower. When you see the Eiffel Tower, you know that’s the Eiffel Tower. Now when you see the O, that's Oregon.

Color is one piece of visual identity, which is one piece branding. Branding is a collection of an innumerable amount of visuals, sensual experiences, emotions, and interactions. Coke runs an ad with Coke in a Coke glass by itself. Is it a branding fail because there's no red on it? No. You still know this is Coca Cola:

It's more than color. You know the shape of the glass, you know the logo, and that accumulation of condensation on the outside says 'ahhh, refreshing,' which is the exact thing Coke wants you to feel when looking at this (and that's why they play up the carbonation, the sound/visual representation of carbonation, and someone saying 'ahh' in a lot of their advertising). Branding is all about building emotional, psychological, and physical connections with a company and their products.

When you look at the consistency behind Oregon's branding over the years, the fact that the uniforms are varied is such a small piece of the equation. Think about it. Messaging has stayed the same (speed/strength), the on-field product has been solid, the gameday experience is engrossing as ever, the talent level has stayed top-notch, and the team is winning consistently. Sure, the uniforms have changed a bit over the years, but they always include: 1) the O, 2) a visual representation of speed/strength, and lately 3) a wing pattern of some sort. How well these are conveyed is certainly up for debate, but it doesn't trash their entire brand.

To be honest, I think the lack of interaction with the team itself makes people less likely to see this whole picture (if you're not around Oregon enough to understand how miniscule uniforms are in the grand scheme of things, you judge the success of the school's entire brand based on your limited interaction with them every Saturday -- most of which is their uniforms). I also think there's a rampant misunderstanding of what a brand actually is. You can not like the changes that Oregon makes all the time, that's fine. But to say that Oregon has no brand, or that their ever-evolving look is bad for them is foolish.

Look at their enrollment since all of this started with Knight and Moos. The constant change might bother you as a traditionalist, but in all honesty, it's smart business.

Oregon started a trend that is helping other universities capitalize on a revenue stream that was previously untapped -- apparel. Look at the list JPDesign just posted: by my quick count, 20 of the top 25 have recently changed their entire look or participated in a one-off program that produced a ton of extra fan gear and generated buzz around the program. Hard to argue with that.

I'm far from a Nike/Oregon fanboy -- just tired of people using the wrong language in a debate that, IMO, is exhausted

/rant

Coke Logo on one side, number of ice cubes in the cup on the other side ?

[Clintau24]

This UTSA - Arizona game is rough uni-wise...

[djam2410]

just now seeing photos from Eastern Michigan's first home game with a gray field....this is terrible, who allowed this??

[Cosmic]

just now seeing photos from Eastern Michigan's first home game with a gray field....this is terrible, who allowed this??

It looks like they're shooting a sequel to Pleasantville.