• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VikingsNotMinnesota

  1. I think both look good honestly (though obviously not in the black disaster they are using the knight logo in currently). I think the knight logo would be good for an alternate red out maybe, but I think keeping the R logo is fine. I prefer the R simply because it's iconic, but I wouldn't be mad if theoretically they switched to the knight full time.
  2. Adidas is 2 for 2, color me impressed. Now if only they could get templates not designed by monkeys...
  3. Nah, this is the exception. There is nothing on the jersey that adidas can possibly :censored: up with their template, and it's designed enough to not look way too plain. Honestly, Adidas hit their first home run in forever, and regardless of how trashy their track record is I hope this forum can put down their spandex art snobbery for a bit to recognize that.
  4. The whole "Sleeve stripes on the undershirt only half the team will wear" thing can die any time now. Other than that, really solid uniform, glad my worrying was for nothing.
  5. I'm starting to think Adidas has become self aware and is just producing uniforms as a way to create ironic memes directed at themselves at this point.
  6. Jesus... I'm one of the biggest proponents of safety over looks on here, but I think that's ridiculous. Surely there is a way to make a safe helmet that doesn't have more holes in it than the work of Phillipe Rushton.
  7. Damn those are nice. Wish the subliminal stuff was gold instead of the sameish color, but I love how clean they are. Kinda wish their only monochrome was the purple though, not sure if I'm a fan of the whiteout as much. And of course, the BFBS is unnecessary.
  8. Potentially unpopular opinion: If those are faux screen printed numbers I am 100% down for that. Reminds me of the 80s-90s Nebraska uniforms, which imo isn't a bad thing to go back to. I'm sure Adidas' template will somehow massively screw it up due to some kind of easily avoidably warping that will make it look ridiculous, but the idea is great in principal.
  9. I can't be the only one who initially skimmed that and read "Ohio State" and just totally flipped out for a second or two, right?
  10. Well I'm trying to have a discussion on why I think current mizzou uniform that was posted is better than the older on that was posted, and I assumed you were arguing the opposite, but if you're admitting you didn't put much thought into it, I guess I'm just wasting my time.
  11. Interesting. I don't totally disagree with your reasoning, however I think you're mis-applying it here. In particular, I think you are grossly over stating how complex the mizzou uniforms are. You're calling them costumes (which is an empty insult, by the standard any uniform with a theme that's not just traditional generic striping is a costume, which even then you're implying that anything that is a costume is inherently bad design) I think really only has relevancy as far as they have a theme. Which I think just at face value is kind of true, they are very much trying to imitate a tiger with it's design. However your implication that they are complex is way off base. There are two colors on the whole uniform (which looking at it again, my previous complaint that it needs white is probably wrong, that would make it too busy), no stripes on the helmet, and 4 stripes on both the pants and the jersey. Whereas the uniform you posted has 3 colors on the pants and the helmet, both with different schemes, 6 stripes on the pants alone, and jersey numbers that are a different color than the helmet logo. Don't get me wrong, I like the uniform that you posted, however it's interesting to me that you make the statement implying you only need to use 3 lines, when the uniform you posted clearly needed more than three lines to do so, with 3 different colors I may add. Your comparison to the Cincinatti Bengals uniform is also way off base. I agree, the bengals uniform is a disaster, with a potentially good idea gone horribly wrong, however I don't see how this Is just as busy as horribly mangled as the mizzou one. I have to wonder if you're really just grouping all modern "costumes" into the same group and assuming the same things about them, there just isn't any other explanation as to why you think those two uniforms are even comparable. I'll admit, I'm not a design student, so this isn't my field of expertise. However I am a music composition/production major, and a lover of all sorts of art, so I think I can understand your points. I 100% agree, if you only need 3 lines, use 3 lines. One of the biggest mistakes a newbie comp student does is write pieces with a lot of notes, but very few chords, making it seem much more complex than it actually is. These are Chopin wannabes who don't have the talent to match what he made, but want to think they're really intelligent (which to be fair, was totally me in high school). That said, I think you're missing all of the other implications of that point, namely that sometimes things take more than 3 lines to say, and sometimes what's said in only 3 lines is just really :censored:ing boring. I think the mizzou uniform doesn't even really take more than 3 lines, but the original uniform posted definitely needs more than it's basically 2 lines it took to make a good design. The helmet alone is great, however there isn't a single other design element on the rest of the uniform, and in that case I think it desperately needs at least one extra line. I appreciate your insight as someone who works in this field, however I think you need to realize the other implications of what your professor said. If everyone only took 3 lines to say what they need to say, then many of our books would only be 140 characters.
  12. At the risk of restarting a huge argument (and also ignoring the fact that you didnt address a single point I made in that post), I'm very curious as to what your reasoning is for why the modern black/yellow/black mizzou uniform is better than the older mono black uniform (which is an odd position from you because I know you HATE monochrome). Because from what I can tell the only reason is that it's simpler and older, which to me seems like a very intellectually lazy position to take.
  13. That is ridiculous. You cannot honestly say that you are a fan of design and creativity and reduce all uniform design into a "traditional = good, non traditional = bad" dichotomy. Those old mizzou uniforms have absolutely no design element in them whatsoever other than the helmet stripes, which I will admit are great. I can't even tell if those pants have stripes. The jersey lacking white is a severe detriment, and the stripe on the helmet is not consistent with any other part of the uniform. You have plain black pants, a black jersey with gold numbers and no outline (basically a practice jersey) and a great helmet that matches nothing on the rest of the uniform. In what world is that a great uniform? Because despite what oldschool said, it's not this one. Gold pants with the helmet stripe on them and white outlines on the numbers would make a great uniform, but only then would I agree that it's fantastic. I think current Mizzou's regular home and away are lacking because the traditional home doesn't use the stripes at all, and the cuff design is out of place, and the roads have those awful grey panels, but the yellow alternate is a fantastic modern uniform (even if it maybe needs a bit more white) that manages to unique, well designed, and striking while not being grotesque. I wish mizzou would just make a home and away based on that and not do the billion one offs and other garbage they've muddied their brand with, because nike struck gold with that particular set. I'm waiting for the day we take every design on a case by case basis instead of being reactionaries to the general incompetence of modern designers, because there are some fantastic modern designs that aren't just old school in nature.
  14. Ok, I'm gonna interject here, in what world are literal high school uniforms better than what dsaline posted? I get that this board has a hardon for traditional uniforms, but there is no way that those uniforms are at all special enough to qualify as their best uniforms. Sure it's way better than their piping mess of the 2000s, but let's be real, when Mizzou where's their regular uniforms, they're nice. Nike did a great initial job with them, the problem is all the awful one offs they wear.
  15. Yeah for what they are, they're really nice. Just wish those sleeve caps were green instead of black, makes it look a lot cheaper with the random fill tool usage.
  16. If there is one thing that bothers me about this forum, it's that people legitimately care more if a helmet looks pretty than whether college students suffer less brain injuries.
  17. Any excuse for them to not wear their grey uniforms is a good thing.
  18. "Anthony Young lost 27 consecutive games for the Mets from 1992-'93 but 'never let his losing records ... rob him of his sense of humor or his grace," the team said in announcing his death at age 51." The Mets are so bad at managing their players that they can't even mourn their own deaths without accidentally roasting them.
  19. Did the designer behind these just forget outlines exist? People use those for a reason dude, it's not just silly tradition/
  20. Who the hell gave the OK to showcase those uniforms with no pads? Good god it looks like they're adults showcasing kids t-shirts.
  21. M's above .500 for the first time this season. Really excited, but also disappointed that I'm excited that we're above .500 for the first time in 76 games.