2011-2012 NCAA Football Uniform Thread

[Guest]

Well there you have it. One of the most traditional programs on record started one of the most despised fads amongst these boards. Oh the irony.

The Fab Five was Michigan basketball, not football.

As you've pointed out with the mets, it was not just regulated to football.

But your argument about it being "one of the most traditional programs" is invalid. Michigan football is not Michigan basketball. They are two separate programs.

With the exception of the fab 5, not really.

By that argument, Duke football is one of the best programs in all of football by way of their association with the basketball program.

Also, the color may have been officially added only recently but as I've previously established, Colorado's is not BFBS because it has a long historical precedent.

[LetsGoOakland9]

WHO GIVES A

[Guest]

WHO GIVES A

You're free to leave any time you want. This is a sports logo message board. Debating these things is what we do, no matter how inane the debate may get.

[TheOldRoman]

It may have started with the University of Michigan back in the early 90s. The Fab 5 used to wear black socks, even though Michigan's colors are blue and maize.

As far as pro teams go, I think it may have been the Atlanta Falcons. Jerry Glanville had them switch from red jerseys to black ones, and he used to wear black from head to toe on the sidelines, he felt he looked more like a "bad ass".

It could also have been the White Sox, who changed from navy and red to black and silver around the same time. I could have sworn they called their alternate jerseys the "black Sunday jerseys".

Well, the White Sox had used black for around 20 years in a period which was one of the most successful in franchise history. They returned to a modernized version the "go-go" Sox set from the late '50s, only with silver instead of red. And you couldn't say they went BFBS in 1947 because black was pretty much the only color they hadn't worn at that point. They tried everything.

[IceCap]

The LA Kings started the modern BFBS fad when they went with black and silver in 1988 specifically to mimic the Raiders. I'm pretty sure it's the first case of a team adding black without historical precedent to move merchandise/look cool.

And Oregon fans claiming black is part of their tradition is hilarious. Doesn't your Nike-contrived marketing campaign school philosophy state that you don't do "tradition?"

[Guest]

And Oregon fans claiming black is part of their tradition is hilarious. Doesn't your Nike-contrived marketing campaign school philosophy state that you don't do "tradition?"

Argument over.

[oddball]

The LA Kings started the modern BFBS fad when they went with black and silver in 1988 specifically to mimick the Raiders. I'm pretty sure it's the first case of a team adding black without historical precedent to move merchandise/look cool.

And Oregon fans claiming black is part of their tradition is hilarious. Doesn't your Nike-contrived marketing campaign school philosophy state that you don't do "tradition?"

You're 100% wrong on the Kings an starting the modern black fad, it was actually the Vancouver Canucks who changed to black and wanted to look tougher.

[IceCap]

Was merchandising a factor when the Canucks went with black though? The Canucks change, I thought, was still a few years before merchandise became a primary concern.

[guest23]

ok for those that want to have a rational discussion here are a few key points in regard to the color black in sports uniforms:

sports apparel was not considered to be a significant profit generating entiry until the 1990's...you have the hip hop community (nwa) and starter to thank for that.

the eagles were the catalyst for bringing black cleats back into fashion in the nfl when they did the memorial to one of their position coaches

nike and the fab 5 may have been the 1st to make black socks team issued and marketed to the public but I remember individuals in college basketball and football experimenting with black socks (nebraska fb comes to mind) several years before

black socks may have been a precursor to the black trend but it's not the same as a bfbs uniform...black fashion merch created by the various manufacturers of the time (hats & jerseys) coupled by the rapid ascent of sales of raiders gear really created the black gear = $$$$$$$$

total assumption here but I'm assuming some marketer decided to take the concept of fashion jersey to the next logical step of thinking that game worn black uniforms would provide even greater sales of black merch...this is the moment when BFBS is born...black fashion gear makes it into actual game play for the sole purpose of driving incremental apparel revenue.

with all that being said you now have coordinate efforts to incorporate the color black into uniforms with the sole purpose of making $$$$$...they use cute excuses like throwbacks or tribal tribute or black outs but the bottom line is that marketers continue to hold onto the 90's premise that black sells better than any other color.

[pcgd]

And consumers do nothing to disprove that. Black sells from sports to high fashion. It always will.

[IceCap]

And consumers do nothing to disprove that. Black sells from sports to high fashion. It always will.

Which is fine. I just wish more teams followed the LA Lakers' lead and sold black apparel without diluting their on-court identity with it.

[thespleenenator]

And consumers do nothing to disprove that. Black sells from sports to high fashion. It always will.

Which is fine. I just wish more teams followed the LA Lakers' lead and sold black apparel without diluting their on-court identity with it.

Well, there's also the fan participation aspect of it. Sure, teams can just sell black apparel, but if they call a blackout and call all fans to wear black, then black sales are going to soar, especially if they make special t-shirts and or sweaters for the game. Plus, it gives more exposure to the black apparel that they actually have.

[scottysprings]

Kevin W. and thespleenenator take any and all enjoyability out of this thread.

[gdu]

If, in USC's case, the fans are the reason why black uniforms are being considered, then the opinions of the fans need to be disregarded. The word of the fan is not sacrosanct.

The players just convinced Kiffin to let them wear black socks this season. First time team rules have permitted anything other than white socks. Slippery slope ahead.

[rcb05]

Why does North Texas refuses to put this logo on the helmet?

[guest23]

If, in USC's case, the fans are the reason why black uniforms are being considered, then the opinions of the fans need to be disregarded. The word of the fan is not sacrosanct.

The players just convinced Kiffin to let them wear black socks this season. First time team rules have permitted anything other than white socks. Slippery slope ahead.

that's not the 1st time I've heard this but they've worn black socks before and it was never a big deal so I don't see why it would be this time around

[gdu]

If, in USC's case, the fans are the reason why black uniforms are being considered, then the opinions of the fans need to be disregarded. The word of the fan is not sacrosanct.

The players just convinced Kiffin to let them wear black socks this season. First time team rules have permitted anything other than white socks. Slippery slope ahead.

that's not the 1st time I've heard this but they've worn black socks before and it was never a big deal so I don't see why it would be this time around

Take a close look at the picture you posted. Those are black ankle braces. In the past guys have used those or black spat. Anyone wearing black socks (there have been a couple) was breaking team rules.

[bigwalk]

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).

I'm pretty sure I'm the "he," (based on the responses), and I was most definitely talking about FAU. Although you're right about Miami U.

[bigwalk]

Yes, it did exist back then, since by most measurements BFBS started with the Mets in 1998, and the reasoning you just gave is the foundation of BFBS. They started wearing black as a means of getting noticed.

It's not a tradition, no matter how much you try to justify it. I'm not going to continue this argument because it's clear that you're never going to get it.

I'll see your Mets in 1998, and raise you Duke basketball in the 96-97 season.

[bigwalk]

I think part of the problem with the idea of "black for black's sake" is that, when you're a professional sports team, changing your entire identity (like the Kings) is sort of outside the realm of "BFBS." To me, (and this is for the purpose of establishing a starting point), we should be looking at including it in your identity (like Duke or the Mets), rather than changing the identity (like the Kings.)