Under Armour Commerical

[leafs13]

You just got to remember "Man, if you don't got under armor, you don't got a pulse." or something like that.

[Blue Falcon]

Under Armour Abstract

by Randal Stevens

Regarding the Analytical Abstract as to Resolve the Paradox Underlying Under Armour:

We Must Protect This House

If you have watched any football games this year, you have no doubt been presented with the awesome power of Under Armour. While the Judge is almost positive that Under Armour is some sort of athletic apparel line, it is the Under Armour crew that has puzzled a nation. You know the commercial I?m talking about. WE MUST PROTECT THIS HOUSE!

BACKGROUND: The Under Armour crew works out in a minimalist warehouse setting. Location of gym remains unknown. Each member wears uniform white shirts and black shorts. Their leader enjoys walking down tunnels, which have crude and outdated lighting systems, despite the overall quality of equipment found elsewhere. The leader expressly warns of impending danger from outside, probably due to the fact of now ?being on top.? He then asks who would be willing to protect ?this house,? to which he gets a unanimous response of encouragement. He then implores the group to act on their promise and ?protect this house.?

QUESTIONS: Who makes up the Under Armour Crew? Why must they protect their house? And most importantly, who is their enigmatic leader? While accusations fly, the commercial offers no concrete evidence, only vague innuendoes that lead to unfound, yet enticing assumptions. The following is an abstract on the Under Armour gang. It is important not to succumb to ?What you think.? With a phenomena such as the Under Armour gang, one should not dare take the slightest liberty, lest Under Armour?s secretive nature masks a more sinister agenda.

GOAL: analyze and establish who belongs to the gym, of what nature is the gym, and who (friend or foe) seeks to invade the gym.

A salient point, touched on but not emphasized, is not just whom the UnderArmor crew plans on combating, but why they need to protect their gym, be it a warehouse or not. Before attacking this problem logically, we must first dispel one assumption, and then establish two more that are critical to further this treatise.

Assumption #1 (contested) ? Under Armor Crew is a football team. This assumption, held my many, asserts that the Armour squad is nothing more than a football team. This is easy to understand, which is exactly why the Judge urges caution. Certainly they resemble a team ? they rally around each other and confirm that they will, in fact, protect their house (hereafter "House"), a term often used by animated sports figures when referring to their home field.

As enticing as this explanation may be, we must be wary not to base the foundation of our analysis on an unproven, loosely inferred assumption. We must ask ourselves to account for these points of doubt:

1. The only fact we have is that they are in a gym.

2. There are no formation blackboards, no coaches (only the enigmatic leader), no uniforms, no equipment.

3. Most pre-game speeches are not made in a workout facility. They are made in the locker room directly before a game.

With neither facts nor evidence to the contrary, it would be irresponsible and faulty to approach the Under Armor enigma with the assumption that the members of House are nothing more than a gang of gym attendees.

Assumption #2 (offered) - Gym is super gym. House, regardless of who or what it contains, is clearly exclusive. This attests to the closely-knit nature of the group and the underground nature of the facility.

Assumption #3 (offered) ? House and/or its members are clearly desired by non-members. The danger from, and preparation for, invading parties of House and its members demonstrate this.

Hypothesis #1- The nature of discontent in House stems from a hidden clause (hereafter ?Protection Clause?) in a gym contract that holds member of said gym responsible for House protection.

The nature of Protection Clause would resemble the style in which hidden fees are presented in a contract, probably on page 27, subsection 4.3, subparagraph b, or something like that. Protection Clause would read something to the effect of:

?In consideration acknowledged by House to be received herewith, and intending to be legally bound hereby, Protectee hereby irrevocably and unconditionally promises to forever protect House, property of House, reputation of House, patrons of House, and management of House.?

Then, ten pages later, they?d slide some bullplop addendum requiring 725 days notice before anyone can cancel their membership. Essentially, they might have snuck in a binding clause that these guys must defend the gym against all sorts of armed and unarmed combatants, real or imagined. The one guy who could read in the group must have told the others and now they are super-pissed. Knowing there is nothing they can do about it, they now protect House.

REBUTTAL TO HYPOTHESIS #1- While it will be necessary to consult with the Sports Court staff psychologist (i.e. Hobo Stan who sleeps behind the 7-11 downtown), it should be evident to anyone that members of House are way too psyched up to protect House. Their enthusiasm and basic ?joie de protection? makes it highly unlikely that their willingness to protect House arises from coercion or contractual obligation.

Hypothesis #2 ? Under Armour crew is engaged in gym-gang warfare.

If the cult classic ?Warriors? has taught us anything about inner city gang wars, it is that members of respective groups must wear designated apparel in order to distinguish themselves from other affiliations. The conformity of dress in the Under Armour group leads us to believe that they need a method of recognizing their own from other rival weightlifting gangs. While their can theoretically be any number of ?gym-gangs,? real estate is limited, thus putting a premium on prime fitness facilities. Therefore, the group must understandably ready themselves in a constant state of alert, so that they can best defend House from Mongol-esque ?gym rats? who have been displaced due to loan defaults, evictions, etc. Their biggest rival, although they haven?t yet been displaced, is the Russel Athletic Soldiers. Per their latest commercial, they have, whether it be through legal or illegal means, commandeered the Coliseum for running stairs, sprints, and possibly shuttle-runs.

REBUTTAL TO HYPOTHESIS #2 - None

Hypothesis #3 ? House is meeting place for clandestine activity.

As layers are peeled away from the cloaked mystery of Under Armour, one falls deeper into a world of secrets and subversion. Fact ? the Armour crew works out in an abandoned, secretive warehouse. Fact ? by all appearances, the crew is training for something. Fact ? that ?something? presents enough of a threat that warrants protection of House. A fight is ongoing, dear readers, and one that the Under Armour wages in the shadows.

So what noble crusade do our valiant heroes wage? What evil hath plagued our world that calls for the fury and wrath of Under Armour?

A) One possibility is that they are the legendary Under Armour League of Patriots. This group, if they

truly exist, consists of strict constitutionalists that have vowed to protect the 3rd Amendment from the

Norman yoke of Great Britain. When off camera, the crew unwinds to the legendary Led Zeppelin

classic "No Quarter", where John Paul Jones tickles the ivory and inspires these modern day Minutemen.

Spreading their freedom-fighting wings to the 2nd Amendment and inspired by the episode of ?Homer

Joins the NRA? as well as the fiery pulpit of their sixth grade civics teacher, the UALP fights to ensure

your right to protect your family and home in case the king of England walks through your door and

?starts pushing you around.? As the final vitriolic spit-in-the-eye, the UALP uses the Anglicanized spelling

of ?armour,? rather than the more common, American spelling of ?armor.? According to inside sources,

while the last line of defense is the motivational speech, the first line of defense is devilishly employed

irony.

REBUTTAL TO HYPOTHESIS #3, subsection A ? It is clear that the patrons of House do not have the mental prerequisites to establish effective irony, nor are they even protected by the 2nd Amendment to bear arms due to their prior felony convictions.

The other possibility is that they are the Pink Panthers, the militant faction of the Gay Liberation Front.

The design of the form fitting Under Armour apparel and the nature of the commercial itself can best be

described as ?pretty gay? (not that there is anything wrong with that). You may ask, but aren?t these guys

strong and macho? Yes, but that alone is not a determination of sexual orientation. In fact, such behavior

and demeanor are necessary for subversive homoeroticism. For more information, read the opinion of

Judge Mark Makers in United States Army v. Scene in Predator Where They Set Traps While Sweaty

and Shirtless, and the opinion of Judge O. Crow in World Boxing Commission v. Hugging on the Beach

Scene in Rocky III. In fact, these two landmark cases of homoeroticism in masculine movies helped

identify the founder of the Pink Panther as Carl Weathers, who was involved in both scenes and who

carried over the attention of homoeroticism from the silver screen of Spartacus into the 21st Century.

REBUTTAL TO HYPOTHESIS #3, subsection B - None

[BlueSky]

Goliath deserves to lose if they're running a pitch sweep on 4th down at the 10 yard line. 

Element of surprise, baby!

Didn't work out for 'em though...

[Jigga]

Under Armour Abstract

by Randal Stevens

What the fluff is all that about? It's a bunch of incoherent, inconclusive babble. That overused Billy Madison quote may actually to this

[Blue Falcon]

Does anyone else get the feeling that the "WE MUST PROTECT DIS HOUSE" thug is some guy who wasn't good enough to make it in the NFL? Or good enough to get on that horrible cancelled ESPN show, whatever it was called?

Why is it a "must" that the house be protected? What house? And protected from who? Surely those weight-lifting thugs will need some firearms if they are to truly protect the house.

[VitaminD]

Does anyone else get the feeling that the "WE MUST PROTECT DIS HOUSE" thug is some guy who wasn't good enough to make it in the NFL? Or good enough to get on that horrible cancelled ESPN show, whatever it was called?

In the original commercial, wasn't the "thug" looking to protect the house Eric Ogbogu, who starred at Maryland at about the time Under Armor was getting off the ground. Last time I checked, he's with the Cowboys. So I guess he WAS good enough to get into the NFL, and IS good enough to still be there.

To respond to an earlier post, the lettering font is not what Ohio State wears. Ohio State wears sans-serifed Block Varsity for their lettering.

[Blue Falcon]

Does anyone else get the feeling that the "WE MUST PROTECT DIS HOUSE" thug is some guy who wasn't good enough to make it in the NFL? Or good enough to get on that horrible cancelled ESPN show, whatever it was called?

In the original commercial, wasn't the "thug" looking to protect the house Eric Ogbogu, who starred at Maryland at about the time Under Armor was getting off the ground. Last time I checked, he's with the Cowboys. So I guess he WAS good enough to get into the NFL, and IS good enough to still be there.

To respond to an earlier post, the lettering font is not what Ohio State wears. Ohio State wears sans-serifed Block Varsity for their lettering.

If that's true, then Ogbugu didn't do a good job of protecting dis house on Monday Night against the Skins.