2011-2012 NCAA Football Uniform Thread

[thespleenenator]

New balance and UA are going to disappear. Adidas may still sponsor some programs, but they will lose some big names. I wouldn't be surprised if teams like UCLA and TExas A&M switch over at some point. It's going to happen.

A&M will not be switching back to Nike anytime soon. When our contract ran out with Nike a few years ago, the deal they offered A&M to renew was basically a slap in the face to the A&M athletic director as it was far less that what Nike is paying Texas. Nike made it clear that they felt A&M was not an important client to maintain. Nike has put all their chips into UT (which isnt a bad decision from a business standpoint) when it comes to college football in the state of Texas. Adidas was more than glad to offer A&M a deal that was comparable to the Nike-Texas deal in terms on money. A switch may happen down the line, but it will not occur while Bill Byrne is the A&M Athletic Director.

I did not know that. When was the switch made?

[Guest]

2007.

[thespleenenator]

Weird. I was think well maybe Nike envisioned Texas joining the Pac-10 and making a super conference, and then possibly having a shot a sponsoring an entire conference. But unless they hired some almost good but not quite good psychics, I have no idea why they would not want Texas A&M. Do you know if they went after TT?

[rams80]

Weird. I was think well maybe Nike envisioned Texas joining the Pac-10 and making a super conference, and then possibly having a shot a sponsoring an entire conference. But unless they hired some almost good but not quite good psychics, I have no idea why they would not want Texas A&M. Do you know if they went after TT?

I think you need to call it a night.

[Guest]

Weird. I was think well maybe Nike envisioned Texas joining the Pac-10 and making a super conference, and then possibly having a shot a sponsoring an entire conference. But unless they hired some almost good but not quite good psychics, I have no idea why they would not want Texas A&M. Do you know if they went after TT?

I think you need to call it a night.

He should have done so long ago.

[thespleenenator]

Weird. I was think well maybe Nike envisioned Texas joining the Pac-10 and making a super conference, and then possibly having a shot a sponsoring an entire conference. But unless they hired some almost good but not quite good psychics, I have no idea why they would not want Texas A&M. Do you know if they went after TT?

I think you need to call it a night.

He should have done so long ago.

I never said it was a realistic goal. I was just trying to think of reason to completely give up on T A&M. I know their not as big as Texas, but they're still a big program. And Kevin, I was the one who defended you, so if I would've called it a night TaylorGrangeordie might have flipped a lid.

[LetsGoOakland9]

Way to completely ignore the point I was making.

You said, "Oh, that's right, most of them are Nike schools!"...After you make that comment, all he did was think about how Nike has a larger sample of schools than Adidas. He simply disproved your comment by doing simple math.

And regarding about every other post you've ever had, since when did you become the person to say what's right/wrong or what's acceptable/not acceptable?

Quite frankly, you bitch too much about everything and anything you possible can. I don't care if they suspend me for saying because my life doesn't depend on this message board like yours probably does, but you honestly need someone to kick your ass lol. Quit thinking you're better than everyone else, stop being so argumentative and actually say things that have substance to them instead of every post trying to one-up everyone.

+1

[thespleenenator]

Way to completely ignore the point I was making.

You said, "Oh, that's right, most of them are Nike schools!"...After you make that comment, all he did was think about how Nike has a larger sample of schools than Adidas. He simply disproved your comment by doing simple math.

And regarding about every other post you've ever had, since when did you become the person to say what's right/wrong or what's acceptable/not acceptable?

Quite frankly, you bitch too much about everything and anything you possible can. I don't care if they suspend me for saying because my life doesn't depend on this message board like yours probably does, but you honestly need someone to kick your ass lol. Quit thinking you're better than everyone else, stop being so argumentative and actually say things that have substance to them instead of every post trying to one-up everyone.

+1

-1

There, now it's even

[gdu]

From Husker Fan Day:

It looks like Nebraska is wearing a new patch on the left shoulder that says "Big Red in the Big Ten - The Inaugural Season". Looking at other photos, some players had the patch on their jerseys, some did not so I don't know if it will be a game worn patch or not.

Wonder if they can figure out a way to shoehorn another logo patch onto their jerseys. Maybe an anniversary or something

I'm surprised all B1G teams aren't wearing team colored versions of the new conference logo like the PAC10 did last year, especially with the addition of Nebraska.

I thought I was going to hate that, but now I think it is great, great branding in this time of conference uncertainty. Doing it in school (rather than conference) colors makes all the difference.

[gdu]

I like them keeping it simple, but I would have liked to see orange pants on the road

I agree. If they want to keep it simple, they should wear orange/white at home and white/orange on the road. Bizzarely enough, I'm not much of a traditionalist, but I am when it comes to Miami's combinations.

Agree.

[gdu]

From Husker Fan Day:

It looks like Nebraska is wearing a new patch on the left shoulder that says "Big Red in the Big Ten - The Inaugural Season". Looking at other photos, some players had the patch on their jerseys, some did not so I don't know if it will be a game worn patch or not.

Wonder if they can figure out a way to shoehorn another logo patch onto their jerseys. Maybe an anniversary or something

It's funny how people cry about modern teams like Oregon adding a uniform or piping that looks good, but when "traditional" teams add a ridiculous amount of patches on their jersey it's okay. What happens IF this team makes a bowl game? that's 3...

you can say "the black jersey/helmet is pointless" "pointless piping" but isn't this patch pointless? everyone on earth knows they joined the Big 10

Who says it's ok. That was an Oregon fan complaining. I assume you hate it and I do too. I haven't seen anyone who think's it's okay.

[gdu]

It's funny how people cry about modern teams like Oregon adding a uniform or piping that looks good, but when "traditional" teams add a ridiculous amount of patches on their jersey it's okay. What happens IF this team makes a bowl game? that's 3...

you can say "the black jersey/helmet is pointless" "pointless piping" but isn't this patch pointless? everyone on earth knows they joined the Big 10

So, you think adding a commemorative patch is worse than adding a black helmet and jersey when black isn't in the color scheme? Really?

Worse? Is there some sort of hierarchy of unnecessary uniform design elements? So piping beats patches, BFBS beats piping, and anthcrite is worse than piping? Jesus Christ on a stick judge uniforms based on overall design, not special criteria that some uniforms worse than others. ASU's monochrome black doesn't automatically look worse than ULL's uniforms just because one is BFBS. This is starting to get ridiculous.

A patch is a one year thing. Sometimes they detract from a jersey's overall aesthetic, but after the season's over they're gone. Adding black to a uniform set that had previously been black free is always meant to last. It's not a one year temporary thing. It's there to stay until the next uniform do-over, and even then it has a tendency to stick around through two or three sets. That's the difference. A patch is temporary, and in some cases it looks nice too. Adding black almost always looks awful and it's never done as a temporary measure.

I can only think of one team's colour scheme, either at the pro or scholastic level, that benefited from the unnecessary addition of black; the Calgary Flames. It's muddled up every other identity it's been unnecessarily injected into.

Actually, it's usually done on a temporary measure. very few schools (Oregon, ASU) have actually used black consistently after introducing it. Most of this time, it's just for one game as a "blackout" promotion.

No, it's not temporary. Even if a black jersey is limited to one or two "blackout" games a year it's still being shoehorned into uniform sets year after year. With a patch it's gone by the start of next season.

I get that you like black uniforms, and that's fine. It would be boring if we all liked the same thing. Don't lie/twist reality to make a point though.

When was the last time MTSU has worn back? SMU? Utah? Virginia Tech? Florida State? Kentucky? Mississippi State? FIU? Most of the time, it's temporary or rarely used. They almost ever incorporate it into their color schemes. Even multiple BFBS offenders (Washinton, Rutgers) haven't incorporated it into the color schemes (although with the success UW has had in those uniforms, they actually might). like I said, the only two teams that haven't done this are ASU and Oregon. And I don't like black uniforms. I like black uniforms when they actually create a new uniform for them instead of just recoloring their previous uniform black.

Weird questions since the answer (very recently) seems to go against the point I think you are trying to make.

[gdu]

The traditional programs don't need to resort to such needless nonesense. That's why your prediction's off, and why trends are as short-lived as they are. The classics never go out of style.

Georgia has already worn a black alt. Texas players (including VY) have publicly begged Mack to. USC fans want to.

[gdu]

If anything, it'll get to the point where we'll see a reversal of the trend, and the NCAA will prohibit schools from wearing uniforms that aren't predominantly school colors.

This would mean that no schools would be able to wear white? Black, grey and white are all neutral colors.

The only 2 schools I can think of that added random colors, were TCU (red) and CSU (orange). But they both had reasons behind it. If schools start adding random colors like that for no reason, I'm sure the NCAA will step in.

orange wasn't random for CSU. It was a throwback to their old school colors of pumpkin and alfalfa.

[gdu]

In two more years Pro Combat will be old news.

Do you mean the technology or the wacky 1 game uniforms?

[gdu]

You clearly don't know how big of a company Adidas is. You do know that Adidas and Nike are the two biggest sports apparel manufacturers in the world, right?

Of course. I'm talking in terms of college football. Adidas is going to rule soccer and cricket. I think most of the big schools are going to want to capitalize on the Pro combat craze, and I bet some will do that.

In 2010, a school went from Nike to adidas. So there's that.

Which school?

Arkansas.

No, Arkansas went from Adidas to Nike. FAU went back to Adidas.

I think he was talking about Miami (OH).

[gdu]

Black is not limited to Nike.

Most of the time it is. Here's the list of those BFBS schools I listed a while back. Notice a pattern?

Oregon, ASU, Washington, Stanford, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia Tech, SMU, Mississippi State, FIU, MTSU.

Oh, that's right, most of them are Nike schools! You can also include Florida State, which is a Nike school, though I respectfully disagree with people who say that FSU's Unconquered uniforms were BFBS. Either way, it's more than 60%.

7 of 11 isn't really a pattern and if you do the math it looks like a higher percentage of adidas schools went BFBS than nike schools.

edit: saw after posting this that someone else already made the same point.

[gdu]

BSU 2.0, they are trying to blend in with the field!!!

Those are not good looking uniforms. I like the idea of sticking with the two school colors, but that can only work if you don't minize the use of 1 to as little as possible.

[gdu]

If anything, it'll get to the point where we'll see a reversal of the trend, and the NCAA will prohibit schools from wearing uniforms that aren't predominantly school colors.

This would mean that no schools would be able to wear white? Black, grey and white are all neutral colors.

The only 2 schools I can think of that added random colors, were TCU (red) and CSU (orange). But they both had reasons behind it. If schools start adding random colors like that for no reason, I'm sure the NCAA will step in.

No. Black is absolutely not neutral. It clashes with navy and brown, therefore, it's not neutral. The next time you put black paper in your printer and print something out, you can claim black is neutral.

I used to work at a printing company and we did print on black, but that's not the argument.

You can say brown and navy don't look good with black, well how does yellow look with white? pretty terrible...just as any dark color would look bad with black, bright colors look bad with white.

Whether it's a neutral color or not is besides the point. BFBS means adding black because it is trendy and helps with marketing, not because it looks good aesthetically. Furthermore, it is almost always done at the expense of an actual school color.

[gdu]

New balance and UA are going to disappear. Adidas may still sponsor some programs, but they will lose some big names. I wouldn't be surprised if teams like UCLA and TExas A&M switch over at some point. It's going to happen.

A&M will not be switching back to Nike anytime soon. When our contract ran out with Nike a few years ago, the deal they offered A&M to renew was basically a slap in the face to the A&M athletic director as it was far less that what Nike is paying Texas. Nike made it clear that they felt A&M was not an important client to maintain. Nike has put all their chips into UT (which isnt a bad decision from a business standpoint) when it comes to college football in the state of Texas. Adidas was more than glad to offer A&M a deal that was comparable to the Nike-Texas deal in terms on money. A switch may happen down the line, but it will not occur while Bill Byrne is the A&M Athletic Director.

That is the A&M spin. What really happened is A&M said they weren't going to accept a deal from Nike unless it was equal to, or better than, Texas'. Nike isn't brain dead, so of course they weren't going to offer them a similar deal to Texas'.

There is a great article out there somewhere about it. The Nike rep actually laughed out loud when the Aggies asked for the same money as Nike was giving Texas.