New Oregon Helmets!?!?!

[harperdc]

something many people forget: before the late '80s, we have no real football tradition. I may contradict myself by pointing out that *ahem* we have more Hall of Famers than many of the "traditional" football powerhouse colleges (link: pro football hof site), but then again, we also played in the "toilet bowl," a 0-0 tie against Oregon State in 1983.

We don't have the grand traditions of some of the east coast schools, or other Pac-10 teams like UCLA, USC or Washington. Plus, the campus is very progressive (update your jokes, folks: less hippies, more "trustafarians" and Californians) and the "tradition" of football at Autzen is more focused on the on-field action than some pomp and circumstance - one of the great traditions I enjoy is playing "The Pick" on the replay board before each game.

This is the beginning of traditions, and the team and program are still clawing for identity. Unfortunately it's sometimes misguided by Nike.

[andrewharrington]

Do I like the daimondplate? No. Do I like that black? No. However, Icecap, I don't really follow your logic that something like the Broncos' uniform is progressive to uniform design while this diamondplate is destructive to uniform design. There's no clout to that because it's the opinon of one man. I've never seen diamondplate on a uniform before, so why can't it be just as progrssive as a batwing stripe up the side of the jersey to the neckline? Would plaid be progressive? There's a team from Chapel Hill that uses a nice argyle accent on its basketball shirts, so I don't see why not.

Some design elements work, some don't, but it doesn't mean they're not progressive. Sometimes you have to try something to find out whether it works or not. There comes a time when a decision must be made to stick with something or ditch it. The Broncos should have ditched it about 5 years ago because that has not stood the test of time for me. Vertical sleeve stripes aren't working for me, either, so I think the Falcons need to find another 'progressive' design. I don't think black is working for a lot of teams. I don't think tapered stripes are working for anyone in particular.

I applaud Oregon for trying something new, but I think they need to setle down and start some tradition. I think this was the best conceptual uniform they wore in recent memory. This basic style could become 'the look' for Oregon Athletics and it could stand the test of time because of its simplicity and cleanliness.

I could do without the all yellows, and I think the facemask should be the same color as the helmet. The all white uniforms were very simple, and I think they would have worked with green sleeves as well. The yellow sleeves on the green weren't bad, but I think the uniform could have worked just as well with an all-green jersey. It would have been very simple, yet refined. I would have liked yellow pants with the green jersey and green or white pants with the white jersey.

[Krona]

***JUST ANNOUNCED ON A LOCAL SPORTS TALK SHOW***

the "O" will be placed on the back of the helmets. it just got worse.

[baseballking99]

are you serious?

[Drew22]

***JUST ANNOUNCED ON A LOCAL SPORTS TALK SHOW***

the "O" will be placed on the back of the helmets. it just got worse.

Oh no....

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse.

[walkerws]

Cool. I cannot wait to see it. It's like a reverse Dartmouth helmet. The Big Green wear two stripes on the side and a D above the front bumper. This will be an outstanding look when they take teh field. If only they had the Michigan style bowl patches.

[ColeJ]

i <3 the oregon ducks.

[harperdc]

remove the diamond plating from the sleeves, and what do you have?

different colored sleeves, "DUCKS" over the number, and a slightly experimental font. I actually like the pattern and design style used for this year's uniforms better than the last ones, though the number font is probably better if only because the other Oregon sports use the other font.

the relative simplicity and cleanliness - save this year's basketball jerseys, the ones from the last two years actually are cleaner than their predecessors too - is carried in the other sports, just with the Oregon font and numbers and colors. Sure, we have nuclear yellow basketball jerseys - at least it's a school color and is pretty clean.

I'm just afraid the marketing department will get too much ahold of the team, and the addition of black to being a primary color - it's now an alternate for the basketball team *and* football team - sucks.

I think, given time, the Oregon identity created recently can stick. Hell, after three games I wasn't mortally afraid of the diamond plate anymore either - I can get used to that sort of thing. Sticking with a look, though, would be pretty nice.

[IceCap]

Do I like the daimondplate? No. Do I like that black? No. However, Icecap, I don't really follow your logic that something like the Broncos' uniform is progressive to uniform design while this diamondplate is destructive to uniform design. There's no clout to that because it's the opinon of one man. I've never seen diamondplate on a uniform before, so why can't it be just as progrssive as a batwing stripe up the side of the jersey to the neckline? Would plaid be progressive? There's a team from Chapel Hill that uses a nice argyle accent on its basketball shirts, so I don't see why not.

Some design elements work, some don't, but it doesn't mean they're not progressive. Sometimes you have to try something to find out whether it works or not. There comes a time when a decision must be made to stick with something or ditch it. The Broncos should have ditched it about 5 years ago because that has not stood the test of time for me. Vertical sleeve stripes aren't working for me, either, so I think the Falcons need to find another 'progressive' design. I don't think black is working for a lot of teams. I don't think tapered stripes are working for anyone in particular.

I applaud Oregon for trying something new, but I think they need to setle down and start some tradition. I think this was the best conceptual uniform they wore in recent memory. This basic style could become 'the look' for Oregon Athletics and it could stand the test of time because of its simplicity and cleanliness.

So what's considered a progressive design is judged by your opinion? Sorry, doesn't work like that. Fact of the matter is that the Broncos design is progressive because not only has it spun off numerous direct copies at most levels of football, it also started the trend of pants striping continuing onto the jersey, jersey side panels, and tapered pants stripes. What you or I think about the design is irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is that Broncos uniforms have had an enormous impact on football uniform design. The Falcons, all though not as much as the Broncos (and even borrowing an element from Denver), have also spun off their fair share of imitators. That is the definition of progressive design.

The Vikings, Cardinals, Bills, Bengals, and Titans all use at least one uniform element that has been replicated throughout football.

Even the uniforms the NY Jets introduced in the 1960's (the ones the current uniforms are based off of) can be considered progressive because they popularized the idea of a jersey's sleeves being a different colour from the rest of the uniform.

The Oregon Ducks are a completely different case. What they have is ugly and unnecessary. It isn't progressive. How many other university teams will use diamond platting? How many high schools or pop warner teams? This new uniform style will have barley any, if any at all, effect on basic uniform football design. Very few teams in the future, if any at all, will say "let's copy Oregon! Let's throw some diamond platting on there!" They are much more likely to use Broncos style striping, Falcons style sleeves, shoulder yokes, or side panels.

That is why these UO uniforms are not progressive, just ugly. They will not inspire an entirely new era of football uniform design like the Broncos uniforms have.

[whitedawg22]

That's not a sunset, that's a bird on fire.

[ColeJ]

Do I like the daimondplate? No. Do I like that black? No. However, Icecap, I don't really follow your logic that something like the Broncos' uniform is progressive to uniform design while this diamondplate is destructive to uniform design. There's no clout to that because it's the opinon of one man. I've never seen diamondplate on a uniform before, so why can't it be just as progrssive as a batwing stripe up the side of the jersey to the neckline? Would plaid be progressive? There's a team from Chapel Hill that uses a nice argyle accent on its basketball shirts, so I don't see why not.

Some design elements work, some don't, but it doesn't mean they're not progressive. Sometimes you have to try something to find out whether it works or not. There comes a time when a decision must be made to stick with something or ditch it. The Broncos should have ditched it about 5 years ago because that has not stood the test of time for me. Vertical sleeve stripes aren't working for me, either, so I think the Falcons need to find another 'progressive' design. I don't think black is working for a lot of teams. I don't think tapered stripes are working for anyone in particular.

I applaud Oregon for trying something new, but I think they need to setle down and start some tradition. I think this was the best conceptual uniform they wore in recent memory. This basic style could become 'the look' for Oregon Athletics and it could stand the test of time because of its simplicity and cleanliness.

So what's considered a progressive design is judged by your opinion? Sorry, doesn't work like that. Fact of the matter is that the Broncos design is progressive because not only has it spun off numerous direct copies at most levels of football, it also started the trend of pants striping continuing onto the jersey, jersey side panels, and tapered pants stripes. What you or I think about the design is irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is that Broncos uniforms have had an enormous impact on football uniform design. The Falcons, all though not as much as the Broncos (and even borrowing an element from Denver), have also spun off their fair share of imitators. That is the definition of progressive design.

The Vikings, Cardinals, Bills, Bengals, and Titans all use at least one uniform element that has been replicated throughout football.

Even the uniforms the NY Jets introduced in the 1960's (the ones the current uniforms are based off of) can be considered progressive because they popularized the idea of a jersey's sleeves being a different colour from the rest of the uniform.

The Oregon Ducks are a completely different case. What they have is ugly and unnecessary. It isn't progressive. How many other university teams will use diamond platting? How many high schools or pop warner teams? This new uniform style will have barley any, if any at all, effect on basic uniform football design. Very few teams in the future, if any at all, will say "let's copy Oregon! Let's throw some diamond platting on there!" They are much more likely to use Broncos style striping, Falcons style sleeves, shoulder yokes, or side panels.

That is why these UO uniforms are not progressive, just ugly. They will not inspire an entirely new era of football uniform design like the Broncos uniforms have.

you can see the future?

i'm not saying you're wrong, but... man...

[IceCap]

Do I like the daimondplate? No. Do I like that black? No. However, Icecap, I don't really follow your logic that something like the Broncos' uniform is progressive to uniform design while this diamondplate is destructive to uniform design. There's no clout to that because it's the opinon of one man. I've never seen diamondplate on a uniform before, so why can't it be just as progrssive as a batwing stripe up the side of the jersey to the neckline? Would plaid be progressive? There's a team from Chapel Hill that uses a nice argyle accent on its basketball shirts, so I don't see why not.

Some design elements work, some don't, but it doesn't mean they're not progressive. Sometimes you have to try something to find out whether it works or not. There comes a time when a decision must be made to stick with something or ditch it. The Broncos should have ditched it about 5 years ago because that has not stood the test of time for me. Vertical sleeve stripes aren't working for me, either, so I think the Falcons need to find another 'progressive' design. I don't think black is working for a lot of teams. I don't think tapered stripes are working for anyone in particular.

I applaud Oregon for trying something new, but I think they need to setle down and start some tradition. I think this was the best conceptual uniform they wore in recent memory. This basic style could become 'the look' for Oregon Athletics and it could stand the test of time because of its simplicity and cleanliness.

So what's considered a progressive design is judged by your opinion? Sorry, doesn't work like that. Fact of the matter is that the Broncos design is progressive because not only has it spun off numerous direct copies at most levels of football, it also started the trend of pants striping continuing onto the jersey, jersey side panels, and tapered pants stripes. What you or I think about the design is irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is that Broncos uniforms have had an enormous impact on football uniform design. The Falcons, all though not as much as the Broncos (and even borrowing an element from Denver), have also spun off their fair share of imitators. That is the definition of progressive design.

The Vikings, Cardinals, Bills, Bengals, and Titans all use at least one uniform element that has been replicated throughout football.

Even the uniforms the NY Jets introduced in the 1960's (the ones the current uniforms are based off of) can be considered progressive because they popularized the idea of a jersey's sleeves being a different colour from the rest of the uniform.

The Oregon Ducks are a completely different case. What they have is ugly and unnecessary. It isn't progressive. How many other university teams will use diamond platting? How many high schools or pop warner teams? This new uniform style will have barley any, if any at all, effect on basic uniform football design. Very few teams in the future, if any at all, will say "let's copy Oregon! Let's throw some diamond platting on there!" They are much more likely to use Broncos style striping, Falcons style sleeves, shoulder yokes, or side panels.

That is why these UO uniforms are not progressive, just ugly. They will not inspire an entirely new era of football uniform design like the Broncos uniforms have.

you can see the future?

i'm not saying you're wrong, but... man...

Call it an educated guess.

[Krona]

Check out a tiny action shot of Brady Leaf in the booger helmet.

http://goducks.com/SportSelect.dbml?DB_OEM...&SPSID=3383

[andrewharrington]

Do I like the daimondplate? No. Do I like that black? No. However, Icecap, I don't really follow your logic that something like the Broncos' uniform is progressive to uniform design while this diamondplate is destructive to uniform design. There's no clout to that because it's the opinon of one man. I've never seen diamondplate on a uniform before, so why can't it be just as progrssive as a batwing stripe up the side of the jersey to the neckline? Would plaid be progressive? There's a team from Chapel Hill that uses a nice argyle accent on its basketball shirts, so I don't see why not.

Some design elements work, some don't, but it doesn't mean they're not progressive. Sometimes you have to try something to find out whether it works or not. There comes a time when a decision must be made to stick with something or ditch it. The Broncos should have ditched it about 5 years ago because that has not stood the test of time for me. Vertical sleeve stripes aren't working for me, either, so I think the Falcons need to find another 'progressive' design. I don't think black is working for a lot of teams. I don't think tapered stripes are working for anyone in particular.

I applaud Oregon for trying something new, but I think they need to setle down and start some tradition. I think this was the best conceptual uniform they wore in recent memory. This basic style could become 'the look' for Oregon Athletics and it could stand the test of time because of its simplicity and cleanliness.

So what's considered a progressive design is judged by your opinion? Sorry, doesn't work like that. Fact of the matter is that the Broncos design is progressive because not only has it spun off numerous direct copies at most levels of football, it also started the trend of pants striping continuing onto the jersey, jersey side panels, and tapered pants stripes. What you or I think about the design is irrelevant, because the fact of the matter is that Broncos uniforms have had an enormous impact on football uniform design. The Falcons, all though not as much as the Broncos (and even borrowing an element from Denver), have also spun off their fair share of imitators. That is the definition of progressive design.

The Vikings, Cardinals, Bills, Bengals, and Titans all use at least one uniform element that has been replicated throughout football.

Even the uniforms the NY Jets introduced in the 1960's (the ones the current uniforms are based off of) can be considered progressive because they popularized the idea of a jersey's sleeves being a different colour from the rest of the uniform.

The Oregon Ducks are a completely different case. What they have is ugly and unnecessary. It isn't progressive. How many other university teams will use diamond platting? How many high schools or pop warner teams? This new uniform style will have barley any, if any at all, effect on basic uniform football design. Very few teams in the future, if any at all, will say "let's copy Oregon! Let's throw some diamond platting on there!" They are much more likely to use Broncos style striping, Falcons style sleeves, shoulder yokes, or side panels.

That is why these UO uniforms are not progressive, just ugly. They will not inspire an entirely new era of football uniform design like the Broncos uniforms have.

you can see the future?

i'm not saying you're wrong, but... man...

Call it an educated guess.

That's not even the opinion of one man anymore. All it is, is speculation, and it's laughable. In my post, every opinionated statement I made contains a phrase such as 'to me' or 'for me' or 'I think' because I recognize that those particular statements are, in fact, opinonated. My point is that, beyond speculation that you assume will be correct, your argument has no substance. You don't have a good reason why this innovative texture has any less design merit than some innovative striping.

Are you sure it was the design of the Broncos' jerseys that had every coach and their mom smitten, or was it the two Super Bowl trophies they brought in, the winning with which they were associated, and the money generated from dressing your team like the Super Bowl champs and selling merch? It's not always merit that gets a design noticed and copied. Nike did this with Miami, and when Miami brought home the crystal football, teams started going hog-wild for Miami-style jerseys, and they still do, 4 years and a new style later.

I think if Nike really wanted to make a popular Oregon uniform, they could. What they are doing, though, is moving forward by opening the door toward new trends and possibilities in uniform design. By the way, progressive does not mean 'to inspire others to copy:'

pro gres sive

1. favoring or advocating change or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are.

2. employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.

That's exactly what Nike is doing with Oregon, like it or not.

[rainmaker17]

Just another example of Nike using UO as their personal lab-rat, guinea pig, sacrificial lamb for whatever nonsense their art and design team can cook up after a night of popping mushrooms and e.

This sums it up in a nutshell.....in my traditional look-loving opinion. Well put Leeds.

[Schilly]

I keep reading people saying that the ducks legacy is schanigng unifprms and having ugly uniforms all the time...Las I checked Oregon sused the same old green Jersey and yellow helmet from teh 1980's through the 1998 season. They then went to the Joey Era Uniforms For I believe 5 years (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). As many in here are supporting those were good uniforms.

They then went to the Uniforms the previous uniforms for 2 years.

I really haven't heard many complaints about htat uni set, except there were too many combinations since they had 3 colors of jerseys (Green, Yellow, White). The school adopted a new color of yellow at about that time. But really are those uniforms outrageous and ugly from a designs standpoint? No, not IMO.

So now we get to 2006, yes they get a little different with the diamond plate and the font. but outside of those 2 elements they uniforms are really pretty simple. ANd yes once again one of the hyped complaints about them is that they have too many color combos to wear. I watch most ducks games...12 games 6 on the road IIRC this season White on White for those. I think they only worse the Yellow Jerseys once, the Black jerseysd 2times and the green ones 3 times. THey wore the green helmets for all 12 games. OF course opinion is opinion, but come on really is haveing 1 season of ugly uniforms really a legacy of doing so?

[harperdc]

and besides, was everybody ordaining the Bronco jerseys a great success in football jerseys after they were shown to the public? Hellll no, there was a shedload of backlash because they were messing with an establish team's tradition. Now that they've had this uniform and look for close to 10 years, it's becoming the 'new' tradition.

Oregon's got some traditional new pieces - the wordmark and font, the "O" (which I do enjoy), the colors, and a tradition of breaking traditions. It works for our campus culture (believe me, if there was an uproar about this type of stuff, people would report on it - there isn't, so they don't) and it works for the football department.

You realize that Oregon football in the past few years has had the highest compliment paid to it: new rules limiting what you can do in pursuing recruits. No, not regarding strip clubs or booze or anything, but personalized touches like comic books for the players, things like that. Yes, the NCAA has made rules because Oregon (and, very specifically, sports marketing interns) has come up with better ways to get recruits (make jokes about the on-field results all you like, that's not my point): to them, this is just another one of those tools. The uniforms are cooler - okay, may look weird to uni anoraks, but a uniform anorak isn't the stud high school athlete being recruited to play for the Ducks and it isn't his or her opinion that matters; it may sound stupid, but sometimes stupid things stick in recruits' minds, and seeing as, again, we don't have the ages of football tradition that some schools do, the department has to get more creative until they can bank on that sweet nest egg that is established tradition.

take it as you will ethically, but it's smart business.

[Schilly]

link to photo Gallery from Practice

http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/photos/gal...y.ata?g_id=6048

[BlueSky]

Why doesn't Oregon just wear ref stripes? As Oklahoma found out, they're all on the same team...

[Gothamite]

Oregon's got some traditional new pieces - the wordmark and font, the "O" (which I do enjoy)

I do too. It's very classy.

The only good thing Nike's done in Eugene.