Virginia Football Going Pro Combat

[Harmening]

It's after 3:30 and no one has anything. No web shots, no video, nothing. #FAIL

Can we :censored:ing retire FAIL already? Jesus Christ.

Couldn't agree more.

[ESTONES6]

I half expected to see giant swords going down the sides of the jersey and pants.

[illini1]

Anyone notice something missing from the pants?

No swoosh. Bet they'll fix that for the first game.

The Swoosh is actually on the right hip of the pants, not in the place it used to be. It was like this on Oregon's pants last year. I'm assuming all teams getting new uniforms in the future will have the Swoosh on the right hip.

[mmejia]

I like these. A lot. The blue-orange-blue set is my favorite. This is a very sharp look that's fitting for UVA's image. Well done, IMO.

[Brave-Bird 08]

hate the piping used on pro combat pants. hate hate hate!!

i always liked the look of Virginia's jerseys with the big logo on the sleeve. really made they lose those.

these uniforms look really plain, generic,...whatever. lame in my opinion.

[Harmening]

hate the piping used on pro combat pants. hate hate hate!!

i always liked the look of Virginia's jerseys with the big logo on the sleeve. really made they lose those.

these uniforms look really plain, generic,...whatever. lame in my opinion.

I was really made they lose those, too.

[JJSCOTT]

any pics of the backs?

[dmhtfld]

any pics of the backs?

this is the only one i could find

[BrandMooreArt]

That's about as boring as it gets. Which means people around here are going to love it...

dont confuse simple with boring. these are simple and effective. very nice uniform

[Lights Out]

How are they effective? There isn't even shoulder striping, and apparently, two parallel blobs can pass for pants striping nowadays.

[IceCap]

I like them. It's a clean look, which seems to be sorely lacking in NCAA football. Good for UVA.

How are they effective? There isn't even shoulder striping, and apparently, two parallel blobs can pass for pants striping nowadays.

How are they effective? Lets see...

1) Do they cloth the players? Yep.

2) Do they convey the team's identity through the use of team colours and logos? Yep.

So they seem pretty effective to me.

And Pro Combat doesn't mean that they have to do something crazy, that's just what the teams did last year to showcase how the uniform was different.

Well, if you can have crazy designs like gradients or two-tone numbers, and it works with your identity, why not do that full-time?

Because it would look awful?

It makes no sense for Nike and the teams to show off how ProCombats are "different" and then immediately hide all the differences as soon as the new line enters general use.

Well because ProCombat is essentially like the RBK Edge hockey sweaters. They're just a new cut/materials to enhance performance. They don't need to feature stuff like gradients and two-tone numbers.

[Lights Out]

Well, yeah, they're effective in terms of the bare minimums such as functioning as clothing. However...

1) Do they establish a strong brand? No, they look exactly like the cheap uniforms people buy for Pop Warner teams from wholesale manufacturers.

2) Are they uniquely recognizable as Virginia Cavaliers football? No, they've already been compared to Clemson and Illinois in this thread.

3) Are they the slightest bit interesting? No, they're about as basic as it gets, and would never stand out in a store full of uniforms.

And Pro Combat doesn't mean that they have to do something crazy, that's just what the teams did last year to showcase how the uniform was different.

Well, if you can have crazy designs like gradients or two-tone numbers, and it works with your identity, why not do that full-time?

Because it would look awful?

Miami's two-tone numbers didn't look awful. They actually made sense with the identity, and I have no idea why they hadn't thought of it before.

It makes no sense for Nike and the teams to show off how ProCombats are "different" and then immediately hide all the differences as soon as the new line enters general use.

Well because ProCombat is essentially like the RBK Edge hockey sweaters. They're just a new cut/materials to enhance performance. They don't need to feature stuff like gradients and two-tone numbers.

But if it's possible to use gradients and two-tone numbers, and those gimmicks actually work with and enhance your brand, you'd probably sell more merchandise by doing it. Hell, even some "classic" shoulder striping like the Colts use would be a major improvement on Virginia's extremely basic uniforms.

[IceCap]

Well, yeah, they're effective in terms of the bare minimums such as functioning as clothing. However...

1) Do they establish a strong brand? No, they look exactly like the cheap uniforms people buy for Pop Warner teams from wholesale manufacturers.

Yes, they do establish a strong brand. From what I've seen UVA football has always utilized traditional uniform designs. So what we see here is simply a continuation of that tradition. Thus they do reinforce the brand that is University of Virginia Cavaliers football.

2) Are they uniquely recognizable as Virginia Cavaliers football? No, they've already been compared to Clemson and Illinois in this thread.

Again, this seems fairly consistent as far as Cavs football uniforms go. Illinois and Clemson utilize similar colour schemes, and thus comparisons will be inevitable. This shouldn't be counted against any of the uniform sets though. You see the same thing elsewhere in sports, specifically red, white, and blue uniforms in baseball.

3) Are they the slightest bit interesting? No, they're about as basic as it gets, and would never stand out in a store full of uniforms.

This is just your opinion, it's not fact. To further emphasize this point....

That's about as boring as it gets. Which means people around here are going to love it...

Simple does not equal boring. It's a cheap cop-out to automatically make that connection. It allows you to avoid having to actually look at the uniforms in question and think about the design from a marketing/tradition/aesthetic standpoint.

My $0.02? These are much better then some of the other over-striped/over-panelled/over-piped uniforms that seem to make up the bulk of NCAA football uniforms.

And Pro Combat doesn't mean that they have to do something crazy, that's just what the teams did last year to showcase how the uniform was different.

Well, if you can have crazy designs like gradients or two-tone numbers, and it works with your identity, why not do that full-time?

Because it would look awful?

Miami's two-tone numbers didn't look awful. They actually made sense with the identity, and I have no idea why they hadn't thought of it before.

So because it worked for one team they should apply similar designs to all teams because they can? No thanks.

[IceCap]

It makes no sense for Nike and the teams to show off how ProCombats are "different" and then immediately hide all the differences as soon as the new line enters general use.

Well because ProCombat is essentially like the RBK Edge hockey sweaters. They're just a new cut/materials to enhance performance. They don't need to feature stuff like gradients and two-tone numbers.

But if it's possible to use gradients and two-tone numbers, and those gimmicks actually work with and enhance your brand, you'd probably sell more merchandise by doing it. Hell, even some "classic" shoulder striping like the Colts use would be a major improvement on Virginia's extremely basic uniforms.

Simple answer; two-tone numbers and gradients don't work with and enhance brands 99% of the time. Most of the time they just look gaudy. Yes, in some cases they do work, but trying it with every team to see if it will work only to come out with an awful uniform is what led to the trash we saw during the 90s.

[Lights Out]

Well, yeah, they're effective in terms of the bare minimums such as functioning as clothing. However...

1) Do they establish a strong brand? No, they look exactly like the cheap uniforms people buy for Pop Warner teams from wholesale manufacturers.

Yes, they do establish a strong brand. From what I've seen UVA football has always utilized traditional uniform designs. So what we see here is simply a continuation of that tradition. Thus they do reinforce the brand that is University of Virginia Cavaliers football.

The awesome late-'90s ones on the first page with the cool trim and Times Roman numbers was anything but traditional. Also, it's probably the best brand they've had.

2) Are they uniquely recognizable as Virginia Cavaliers football? No, they've already been compared to Clemson and Illinois in this thread.

Again, this seems fairly consistent as far as Cavs football uniforms go. Illinois and Clemson utilize similar colour schemes, and thus comparisons will be inevitable. This shouldn't be counted against any of the uniform sets though. You see the same thing elsewhere in sports, specifically red, white, and blue uniforms in baseball.

I understand that there are going to be similarities in uniforms when several schools/teams use the same color scheme, but these three sets look almost exactly the same. All extremely plain, with as little striping or other uniform elements as possible. It would be very easy to confuse Clemson, Illinois, and Virginia, especially now with Virginia's new boring set.

3) Are they the slightest bit interesting? No, they're about as basic as it gets, and would never stand out in a store full of uniforms.

This is just your opinion, it's not fact.

How is it not fact? There are no unique, eye-catching elements on their new uniforms. Compared to most college uniforms, these are extremely stark and basic. They look like they were thrown together in fifteen minutes.

Which uniform would you put out in a store front to attract the eye?

I don't know about you, but I would walk right past the Virginia set without even noticing them.

[IceCap]

Well, yeah, they're effective in terms of the bare minimums such as functioning as clothing. However...

1) Do they establish a strong brand? No, they look exactly like the cheap uniforms people buy for Pop Warner teams from wholesale manufacturers.

Yes, they do establish a strong brand. From what I've seen UVA football has always utilized traditional uniform designs. So what we see here is simply a continuation of that tradition. Thus they do reinforce the brand that is University of Virginia Cavaliers football.

The awesome late-'90s ones on the first page with the cool trim and Times Roman numbers was anything but traditional. Also, it's probably the best brand they've had.

The trim looked like a blurred mess unless you were right there in front of the jersey, and times roman looks great on a term paper, but falls WAY short when it comes to sports uniforms.

2) Are they uniquely recognizable as Virginia Cavaliers football? No, they've already been compared to Clemson and Illinois in this thread.

Again, this seems fairly consistent as far as Cavs football uniforms go. Illinois and Clemson utilize similar colour schemes, and thus comparisons will be inevitable. This shouldn't be counted against any of the uniform sets though. You see the same thing elsewhere in sports, specifically red, white, and blue uniforms in baseball.

I understand that there are going to be similarities in uniforms when several schools/teams use the same color scheme, but these three sets look almost exactly the same. All extremely plain, with as little striping or other uniform elements as possible. It would be very easy to confuse Clemson, Illinois, and Virginia, especially now with Virginia's new boring set.

Um, pardon? No, these three uniforms do NOT look "almost exactly the same."

For one, Clemson uses purple, not navy. Secondly, Clemson and Illinois use orange helmets, Virginia uses navy helmets. Clemson uses piping to nowhere, Illinois and Virginia do not. Illinois uses solid orange numbers, Clemson and Virginia use white numbers outlined in orange. Clemson and Illinois use traditional three striped helmet striping, Virginia uses a navy helmet with no stripes. Finally Illinois uses a traditional three striped striping pattern on their pants, Virginia uses a custom striping pattern on their pants.

If you honestly think these three uniforms are "almost exactly the same" then I don't know what to tell you.

3) Are they the slightest bit interesting? No, they're about as basic as it gets, and would never stand out in a store full of uniforms.

This is just your opinion, it's not fact.

How is it not fact?

It's called an opinion. What you consider interesting may not be what others consider interesting. For example, your idea of utilizing two-tone numbers and gradients seems absolutely atrocious to me.

There are no unique, eye-catching elements on their new uniforms. Compared to most college uniforms, these are extremely stark and basic. They look like they were thrown together in fifteen minutes.

Which uniform would you put out in a store front to attract the eye?

I don't know about you, but I would walk right past the Virginia set without even noticing them.

Again, simple does not equate boring. I would indeed look at the Idaho uniforms first, and I would think "for an over-piped mess these aren't that bad." Then I would look at the Virginia jerseys and think "ah, that's a nice, clean, crisp jersey."

[infrared41]

How are they effective? There isn't even shoulder striping, and apparently, two parallel blobs can pass for pants striping nowadays.

Better yet, how are they not? Seriously, that argument is like asking people to describe how an apple tastes or what orange looks like.

On topic, I think they look, for lack of a better term, incomplete. Not awful but not great. I give them a solid C.

(Good God that's twice in two days now that I've been underwhelmed by "classic" looking uniforms. First the Astros' throwbacks and now this. There's something wrong with me. )

[Lights Out]

Um, pardon? No, these three uniforms do NOT look "almost exactly the same."

For one, Clemson uses purple, not navy. Secondly, Clemson and Illinois use orange helmets, Virginia uses navy helmets. Clemson uses piping to nowhere, Illinois and Virginia do not. Illinois uses solid orange numbers, Clemson and Virginia use white numbers outlined in orange. Clemson and Illinois use traditional three striped helmet striping, Virginia uses a navy helmet with no stripes. Finally Illinois uses a traditional three striped striping pattern on their pants, Virginia uses a custom striping pattern on their pants.

If you honestly think these three uniforms are "almost exactly the same" then I don't know what to tell you.

Clemson's "purple" is very similar to navy, and the piping is hardly noticeable. And obviously there's going to be minor differences between the uniforms - three schools are not going to be allowed to take the field wearing the same exact uniforms as each other. But they're as similar as they can possibly be without NCAA interference, minus Clemson's purple color and Illinois' numbers.

Again, simple does not equate boring. I would indeed look at the Idaho uniforms first, and I would think "for an over-piped mess these aren't that bad." Then I would look at the Virginia jerseys and think "ah, that's a nice, clean, crisp jersey."

That was a Boise State Broncos uniform, not an Idaho Vandals uniform. And as for the Virginia jersey, I think plenty of people who don't have the knowledge of uniforms that the members of this board do will think, "Oh, that's a nice Clemson/Illinois jersey" without even realizing it's Virginia's uniform.

[IceCap]

Um, pardon? No, these three uniforms do NOT look "almost exactly the same."

For one, Clemson uses purple, not navy. Secondly, Clemson and Illinois use orange helmets, Virginia uses navy helmets. Clemson uses piping to nowhere, Illinois and Virginia do not. Illinois uses solid orange numbers, Clemson and Virginia use white numbers outlined in orange. Clemson and Illinois use traditional three striped helmet striping, Virginia uses a navy helmet with no stripes. Finally Illinois uses a traditional three striped striping pattern on their pants, Virginia uses a custom striping pattern on their pants.

If you honestly think these three uniforms are "almost exactly the same" then I don't know what to tell you.

Clemson's "purple" is very similar to navy, and the piping is hardly noticeable. And obviously there's going to be minor differences between the uniforms - three schools are not going to be allowed to take the field wearing the same exact uniforms as each other. But they're as similar as they can possibly be without NCAA interference, minus Clemson's purple color and Illinois' numbers.

Helmet colours and number colours (in addition to one base colour in the case of Clemson) aren't "minor differences," they're integral parts of the uniform's design. Clemson, Virginia, and Illinois are about as similar to each other as the Pittsburgh Penguins and Boston Bruins were from 1980-2002. Same (or close) colour schemes that are still noticeably different.

Again, simple does not equate boring. I would indeed look at the Idaho uniforms first, and I would think "for an over-piped mess these aren't that bad." Then I would look at the Virginia jerseys and think "ah, that's a nice, clean, crisp jersey."

That was a Boise State Broncos uniform, not an Idaho Vandals uniform. And as for the Virginia jersey, I think plenty of people who don't have the knowledge of uniforms that the members of this board do will think, "Oh, that's a nice Clemson/Illinois jersey" without even realizing it's Virginia's uniform.

Boise is in Idaho no? For a Canadian who only really watches NCAA football for the BCS Championship game I think I was pretty close.

Anyway no, I don't think anyone will mistake these Virginia uniforms for Clemson or Illinois if they actually spent oh, 3 seconds, to look at them, with the Virginia Cavaliers logo right there at the base of the colour.

Plus I would trust Clemson fans to know that their school's colours are purple and orange and not navy and orange.

[ESTONES6]

any pics of the backs?

this is the only one i could find

I think i would like the pants a little more if they had the pants one color, the front stripe the second color, and the back strip a third color.

...Then again... it could just look like a circus tent.