VikingsNotMinnesota 426 Posted January 22, 2017 3 hours ago, Midway said: You've really bent over backwards to try and twist my words into some "he hates player safety" narrative. I'll do the mods a solid and not play your petty little game. I'm not sure how anyone else is supposed to interpret the words "regardless of the helmet's safety merits" as anything other than at the very least not putting player safety first. Like I'm not really stretching here, you literally just told us to disregard the safety merits of a safety device because it looks ugly. That's not me mangling words, that's just kinda blatant. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midway 581 Posted January 22, 2017 I'll concede that "regardless" was not the correct term, but you've read too much into what I've said from the start. I've never once indicated that I don't care for player safety. My one and only gripe on the matter is that these innovative new helmets are looking more and more like overdesigned crap. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
duma 7 Posted January 22, 2017 On 1/19/2017 at 7:44 AM, tron1013 said: Uni-Watch column on ESPN on further helmet safety innovations, may affect logo placement in 2017 and beyond story here another potential helmet design change for 2017. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2001mark 1,204 Posted January 22, 2017 1 hour ago, duma said: another potential helmet design change for 2017. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MJWalker45 5,753 Posted January 22, 2017 10 hours ago, duma said: another potential helmet design change for 2017. That looks like something that would get rolledout if DC did a Booster Gold movie. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walkerws 525 Posted January 22, 2017 What company is this? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Webfooter 949 Posted January 22, 2017 5 hours ago, walkerws said: What company is this? Gridiron Labs, which seems to be more of a design studio than an actual helmet company at this point. They say it's a concept of what they think helmets will look like in the next 15-20 years. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LAWeaver 953 Posted January 22, 2017 It wouldn't surprise me at all if helmets become more and more similar to what we see in stock car racing, or at the very least, something like it, where the facemask and the helmet are one piece. Gridiron Labs is the design firm that created some of the FXFL identities such as the Brooklyn Bolts, Boston Brawlers, Florida-but-not-Florida Blacktips, and the eventual Hudson Valley Fort. They even made the identities of some of the failed A11FL, like the Dallas Wranglers, Bay Area Sea Lions, and New Jersey Generals. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dont care 6,568 Posted January 23, 2017 1 hour ago, mr.nascar13 said: It wouldn't surprise me at all if helmets become more and more similar to what we see in stock car racing, or at the very least, something like it, where the facemask and the helmet are one piece. I dont think so just because if something happens alot of times they have to be able to take of the face mask to be able to work on the head and neck without having to remove the whole helmet and risking further injury. you will never see a football helmet where the face mask is a part of the helmet and not clipped on. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlackBolt3 1,380 Posted February 7, 2017 We have our first supplier switch of the year! Who is it you may ask? YOU ALREADY KNOW IT'S RUTGERS GOING FOR THAT SWEET ADIDAS MONEY. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tron1013 207 Posted February 7, 2017 You talking about the vaunted school that always delivers NYC Metro Area's hearts, minds and eyeballs, the Scarlet Knights of Rutgers, who just got punked by Nike and had to sign with Adidas? 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Webfooter 949 Posted February 7, 2017 So if a team changes uniform suppliers but no one really cares about said team, does the change really mean all that much? 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MJWalker45 5,753 Posted February 7, 2017 23 minutes ago, Webfooter said: So if a team changes uniform suppliers but no one really cares about said team, does the change really mean all that much? Only because we can forsee how horrible they will look in the new uniforms. Under Armour could have been a good move but at the end of the day it comes down to money. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
buckeye 402 Posted February 7, 2017 The worst team in the conference goes for arguably the worst supplier for football, makes sense. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lahaye7 575 Posted February 7, 2017 Rutgers at times looked pretty rough after the last swoosh upgrade, can't imagine what adidas is going to foist on them. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cajunaggie08 660 Posted February 7, 2017 Adidas's super reflective taped on numbers would match up well with Rutgers silver helmets if they bring those back. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botiger 91 Posted February 7, 2017 I really liked the Rutgers silver helmets. I think it was a major upgrade over the boring red with white "R" they had in the past. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BJ Sands 3,823 Posted February 7, 2017 I thought Rutgers looked pretty decent this season. The look was clean and modern. So, I'm expecting a downgrade from adidas. 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pianoknight 2,991 Posted February 7, 2017 As others have said, it comes down to money. When you're a big dog you can pretty much punch your own ticket with the supplier of your choice (see: Michigan going to Jordan) but a lot of the smaller schools in FBS are looking for every possible dollar. There are only about ten athletic programs (whole department, not just football) in FBS that are fully self-sufficient. Most run at a deficit and essentially get subsidized by the university as a massive marketing stunt. Often, football profit gets drained away by financial losses from baseball, track, swimming, etc. Only a very select few athletic departments actually turn a profit for their school. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
8BW14 1,401 Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, BJ Sands said: I thought Rutgers looked pretty decent this season. The look was clean and modern. So, I'm expecting a downgrade from adidas. I don't know, hopefully it's at worst a sideways move. We know we'll get the ugly tech fit pattern but the jerseys will probably be pretty plain otherwise if Adidas continues to produce simple designs. I think we'll get a red helmet with the big R, red, white, and probably black jerseys with contrasting collars and/or cuffs and stripeless pants( hopefully not, but probably). If they keep it simple and avoid the foil numbers and stripes they really can't go wrong. this is would be perfect, but with adidas logos instead of Nike. Block numbers would be fine too. Edited February 7, 2017 by 8BW14 0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites