College Football 2019

[WavePunter]

3 hours ago, Power_Ranger_Rick said:

FTFY

 

can we stop pretending like this isn't a subjective thing (something that it is perfectly acceptable to agree to disagree on). Sure, by and large, it's a safe bet to say that the overwhelming majority of top recruits would seem to prioritize team success over "swag", but i don't think that anyone was levying a claim contrary to that (highest educated estimate put out there was 10%-20% of athletes for whom uniforms was a major consideration, i believe?).

 

Making claims like "winning matters 110% more [period]", in reference to the opinion of student-athletes is not only absurd because you are purporting to know the often undisclosed specifics behind the decisions made by recruits, but there is also significant room for error with the conflation between the the National Champs and the teams that recruit the most talented kids (where, while there is overlap, it is most certainly not a 1:1 ratio of recruiting class ranking => on-field success).

 

I echo @bucky_bleichert 's sentiment here. Agree to disagree.

All other factors being relatively equal; sure, uniforms and "swag" might begin playing a role.. but I can tell you with absolute certainty that it's not a major factor for any kids who are being recruited by top programs.. EVERY team who has won a CFP National Championship has been a Nike school.. that kinda sorts a lot of that out for you (especially with regard to examples like KJ Hill - as other suppliers have traditionally equated to less success than Nike at the top level), so comments like his (while rare) don't really carry as much weight, because if Clemson, Bama, tOSU, Oklahoma, Georgia, Michigan, etc were all Adidas or UA, then he'd likely be at an Adidas or UA school.. but he's a top tier athlete and all the top tier schools are Nike, so it worked out for him..

But I deal with recruits on a daily basis (albeit not at the major D1 FBS level), and I have literally NEVER heard of a kid choosing our school or eliminating our school from consideration due to our supplier or his personal brand preferences.. 

It might be a factor when choosing between non-contenders (like Arkansas vs South Carolina vs Tennessee, and choosing the Nike school), but it truly doesn't matter - especially at the highest levels.. winning and NFL potential are the primary interests of recruits, followed by facilities, campus environment, location, etc, and then maybe uniforms down the line..

And as pointed out by @GFB , the schools aren't really the customers.. the schools are the billboards for these companies.. the suppliers pay the schools to wear their gear in order to sell merchandise and sell uniforms to high schools who want "the best", etc.. and a school's apparel deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars is much more valuable to an institution than landing some recruit.. the admin at the UA school can wipe away their tears from losing KJ Hill with their hundreds of millions of dollars.. him saying that had ZERO affect on them.. at the end of the day, the brands don't matter that much to the recruits, and the recruits don't necessarily matter that much to the schools (beyond the coaching staff)..

[Scrumptious Ham]

The Ham....I love it.

 

[infernoqueso]

I can tell you as a college athlete myself, the equipment can play a part in decision making.  Not necessarily in uniform aesthetic but definitely in gear.  I play baseball at a school that has a Rawlings baseball deal and that definitely factored into my decision.  Especially in regards to the quantity of gear and specifically being able to order a custom glove.  Not the sole reason ,but it can be a deciding factor for sure. I definitely would not have made the same decision if it was a mizuno sponsorship.

[AndrewMLind]

With all due respect, it might make a difference in lower levels, in situations where all other factors are equal or depending on the sport. But I don’t think anyone truly believes uniforms are more important to elite college football athletes than any of the various factors listed above — primarily getting to the National Football League, winning national/conference titles and/or earning a degree that will set you up for life after football.

 

That said, we *are* on a sports logos/uniform forum, so I’m sure we’d all like to see them play some sort of role. And while many of us like to point to Oregon as the poster child for what flashy new and alternate uniforms can do for a program, the Ducks are still looking for their first national championship and finally just signed their first Top 10 recruiting class in school history last cycle. If it made such a difference, they would have accomplished both a long time ago.

 

Other schools following Oregon’s lead essentially negated any advantage they had in that department, too. And even then, the best program in college football over the last decade (having won five national championships and seven straight recruiting titles) has just one alternate uniform to its name over that time — and you could barely tell the difference unless you’re one of us who obsesses over those minute details.

 

Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, Oklahoma and Georgia — arguably the five best teams in the sport since the implementation of the playoff — are great programs that develop prospects into elite players, which is why they’ll continue to land the best recruits. The fact that they’re wearing Nike gear is just an added bonus, not a deciding factor.

[RichO]

12 hours ago, infernoqueso said:

I can tell you as a college athlete myself, the equipment can play a part in decision making.  Not necessarily in uniform aesthetic but definitely in gear.  I play baseball at a school that has a Rawlings baseball deal and that definitely factored into my decision.  Especially in regards to the quantity of gear and specifically being able to order a custom glove.  Not the sole reason ,but it can be a deciding factor for sure. I definitely would not have made the same decision if it was a mizuno sponsorship.

 

This is why recruits get shown the full range of gear- here's the workout stuff you'll wear doing weights, the shoes, the gloves, etc. It's a marker of the investment in the program, the way for sports that split scholarships among athletes, what portion the athlete is offered is a marker of their investment in that athlete. 

 

When those player react videos to new uniforms were a thing- the aesthetic never mattered. What mattered was "new stuff" 

[infernoqueso]

27 minutes ago, RichO said:

 

This is why recruits get shown the full range of gear- here's the workout stuff you'll wear doing weights, the shoes, the gloves, etc. It's a marker of the investment in the program, the way for sports that split scholarships among athletes, what portion the athlete is offered is a marker of their investment in that athlete. 

 

When those player react videos to new uniforms were a thing- the aesthetic never mattered. What mattered was "new stuff" 

Right on, we get a new hat design every year, and despite some being ugly it is always exciting to wear the new swag on the field just to be different.  I'm sure its exactly the same when a football program gets a stupid chrome lid or all white uniform.  

[JTernup]

I think the biggest factor in the uniform/supplier discussion is really one of perception and how that subconsciously impacts us. I'm a huge Nike/Jordan fan, I don't like adidas as much but will wear it if I find a deal, UA I actively avoid I'm not a fan of their clothing, shoes, aesthetics or the demographics that wear them. 

 

IMO Nike and Jordan schools look better, the gear is cooler, the brand is iconic to me. Adidas is really neutral from my perception and UA schools are negatively impacted by my perception. That isn't enough to dissuade someone but people are complicated and having a subconscious edge in the perception of recruits DOES have value.

 

On a related note, I have attended 3 DI universities with major athletics programs. I received my BA from a Nike school, my MS from a Nike school, and am doing my PhD at a Nike/Jordan school. Did that play into my decision at all? NO. is it a coincidence I didn't end up at an UA school for one of these degrees, IDK, I do know about how perception could be shaped by this. And I'm not an athlete so it really doesn't impact me much at all.

[WSU151]

10 minutes ago, JTernup said:

UA I actively avoid I'm not a fan of their clothing, shoes, aesthetics or the demographics that wear them. 

 

Please explain what this means...

 

There are no UA shirts that look aesthetically pleasing? Really?

 

You're not a fan of the demographics of people who wear UA? What are those demographics?

[CaliforniaGlowin]

Mock up of LIU helmets with shark logo.  That blue one is awesome.  Isn't that wordmark just a sticker that can be replaced?  They haven't done a full reveal yet.

 

[RichO]

40 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

Please explain what this means...

 

There are no UA shirts that look aesthetically pleasing? Really?

 

You're not a fan of the demographics of people who wear UA? What are those demographics?

 

Can't speak for Ternup, but I always describe UA as being the official brand of that dude at the gym who's just the worst. Really messes with my perception of the brand.

[MJWalker45]

6 minutes ago, RichO said:

 

Can't speak for Ternup, but I always describe UA as being the official brand of that dude at the gym who's just the worst. Really messes with my perception of the brand.

I've just viewed it as overpriced for what it is, unless it's on sale or at the outlet store. I should never be expected to pay $60 for a sweatshirt for a 7 year old that they will outgrow in 5 months, or $175 for a track suit that has no lining in it. 

[Webfooter]

Looks like a couple Oregon players are showing off their green game jerseys.  Main differences appears to be smaller numbers, removal of the colored nameplate box, new collar design (similar to some of the prototype jerseys they were wearing in practice last season), addition of the "150 Anniversary" patch, Nike logo placement on the collar, and using the Oregon O instead of text box on the chest.  They fixed some issues many had with last year's uniforms but they're also still too plain for my liking. 

[Clintau24]

15 minutes ago, Webfooter said:

Looks like a couple Oregon players are showing off their green game jerseys.  Main differences appears to be smaller numbers, removal of the colored nameplate box, new collar design (similar to some of the prototype jerseys they were wearing in practice last season), addition of the "150 Anniversary" patch, Nike logo placement on the collar, and using the Oregon O instead of text box on the chest.  They fixed some issues many had with last year's uniforms but they're also still too plain for my liking. 

 

The swoosh on the collar looks awful. The chest O doesn't look good either.

[MJWalker45]

17 minutes ago, Webfooter said:

Looks like a couple Oregon players are showing off their green game jerseys.  Main differences appears to be smaller numbers, removal of the colored nameplate box, new collar design (similar to some of the prototype jerseys they were wearing in practice last season), addition of the "150 Anniversary" patch, Nike logo placement on the collar, and using the Oregon O instead of text box on the chest.  They fixed some issues many had with last year's uniforms but they're also still too plain for my liking. 

I feel like Oregon should rotate their logos to the left. Put PAc-12 logo at the neck and the swoosh on the right, similar to what SEC teams have done at times. 

[AndrewMLind]

Those photos aren't the greatest, but it's a new template, too. There are two seams that run down the sides on both the front and back of the uniforms, ventilation holes near the numbers and a "cowcatcher" mesh area on the collar. The Ducks have mesh-looking numbers now, too.

[AndrewMLind]

(double post, sorry)

[upperV03]

Here’s a better look at the upper front of the green jersey:

In addition the aforementioned changes and the new template, the numbers also have a perforated effect as well. There’s also a thin shiny green stripe on the top of the shoulders.

 

Also, here’s a glimpse of a mockup of the updated yellow set:

[SportsLogos.Net News]

Oregon Ducks Upgrade To Nike’s Latest Uniform Template

July 31, 2019 - 21:06 PM

Oregon has been at the forefront of uniform innovation since Nike co-founder Phil Knight first made a sizable donation to his alma mater in the late-1990s. So it’s no surprise to see the Ducks will be outfitted in the company’s […]

Read More...

[Webfooter]

Oregon's football numbers now have the same perforated look as the numbers on the softball and baseball teams' jerseys.

[Green27]

I think the uniforms are better without the contrasting color box things they had last year for NOBs, but I wish the O and Swoosh were swapped on the front, like Clint mentioned. 

 

Also, I hear there is at least one surprise jersey coming from the Ducks, which is a very bold prediction, I know.