2011-2012 NCAA Football Uniform Thread

[infrared41]

Truth be told, there is no such thing as a good or bad uniform. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

You haven't said much in this thread that I agree with but on that point we actually agree. Which begs the question; if that's how you see things, why are you arguing with anyone who disagrees with you?

Anyway, I wish the Buckeyes would go back to these...

[WSU151]

Fourth, they need to remove black and grey since those are too modern

Fifth, sprinkle some boring dust on the uniforms

Then they'd be perfect

Add some neon yellow, maybe some pink, and some anthracite, and then they'd look SICK!!!!*()(!*!!!!.

See how that works?

------------------------------

This jersey is 1000000 times better than current road unis. The silver (aka gray...aka school color) on sleeves really looks good.

[MJWalker45]

This jersey is 1000000 times better than current road unis. The silver (aka gray...aka school color) on sleeves really looks good.

The school colors are actually scarlet and gray but they always looked like silver with Champion. But since Nike changed the type of material used for pants, they have been either way lighter or just a little too dark. That pants color is what their currents should try to match

[thespleenenator]

Truth be told, there is no such thing as a good or bad uniform. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

You haven't said much in this thread that I agree with but on that point we actually agree. Which begs the question; if that's how you see things, why are you arguing with anyone who disagrees with you?

Anyway, I wish the Buckeyes would go back to these...

I don't know, I like arguing, it's fun. but only if there is some kind of reasons being made for an argument. You can't win an argument against someone who says "I'm right because I say so". Then it's not fun.

[JaxNoles]

Black isn't neutral and they aren't using it as a neutral color. They are wearing black instead of their school color, red; which isn't the same at all as wearing it as a neutral base color (like white).

Black, grey and white are the neutral colors. Look it up. All in all, I don't care what a team wears as long as it looks good.

When is comes the branding and identity of a school or team, black and gray/silver are NOT neutral colors.*

The whole point of "school colors" is for tradition and to promote the school. That's why most school fight songs mention their team colors in them. That's why a lot of money is spent to promote the schools using their specific colors.

When you start adding any color you want to the scheme, the message of "this is XX school" gets ruined. Michigan is blue and maize (gold). Add black, and it's not "Michigan" anymore, it's black, blue and gold. Same for Oregon, Miami, and others.

That's why most people here are against "black for black's sake". Adding extraneous colors is a big slap in the face to the history of the school/institution, and the image that's been preserved for generations is basically worthless.

*Exception: Baseball. The gray used for uniforms is just dark enough to differentiate it from solid white. A light gray baseball uniform is pretty much the only neutral color uniform due to the historical nature of it.

Michigan has a creative helmet stripe that looks fierce, and fully represents a wolverine.

Just to set the record straight, Michigan's helmet stripes have ZERO to do with a wolverine. All goes back to Princeton using the design so that they're players could be seen more easily by the QB.

[WSU151]

I don't know, I like arguing, it's fun. but only if there is some kind of reasons being made for an argument. You can't win an argument against someone who says "I'm right because I say so". Then it's not fun.

You have to get your facts right when you argue though. Saying that a whole bunch of teams have similar stripes when they really don't doesn't help your cause. And then posting two different responses to the exact same post (see: lame pun attempt) makes you look like a d-bag.

[infrared41]

Truth be told, there is no such thing as a good or bad uniform. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

You haven't said much in this thread that I agree with but on that point we actually agree. Which begs the question; if that's how you see things, why are you arguing with anyone who disagrees with you?

I don't know, I like arguing, it's fun. but only if there is some kind of reasons being made for an argument. You can't win an argument against someone who says "I'm right because I say so". Then it's not fun.

So first you say "Truth be told, there is no such thing as a good or bad uniform. It's all in the eye of the beholder." Then you say you're trying to "win" an argument over something that you yourself just admitted is subjective. Newsflash chief. When the argument is over a subjective opinion, you can't "win." Ever. Period.

People are probably going to call you an idiot or a moron. They're probably going to call you a wide variety of derogatory names. When they do, you might want to remember this little exchange. Just in case you're not following me here, you pretty much admitted that you're basically behaving the way you are for the sheer joy of being an ass-hole. Good luck with that. I'm sure it will serve you well around here.

[thespleenenator]

I don't know, I like arguing, it's fun. but only if there is some kind of reasons being made for an argument. You can't win an argument against someone who says "I'm right because I say so". Then it's not fun.

You have to get your facts right when you argue though. Saying that a whole bunch of teams have similar stripes when they really don't doesn't help your cause. And then posting two different responses to the exact same post (see: lame pun attempt) makes you look like a d-bag.

I understand your first point, but with the exception of SMU, they do have similar striping. Florida has similar striping when they have their away jerseys.

To your second point, the pun was that someone said all football uniforms aren't unique and europe calls soccer football and they don't where helmets so he technically wrong. It was me being a smart ass. After that I'm not quite sure what the problem is.

[infrared41]

To your second point, the pun was that someone said all football uniforms aren't unique and europe calls soccer football and they don't where helmets so he technically wrong. It was me being a smart ass. After that I'm not quite sure what the problem is.

Two problems. First, and most importantly, your soccer comment wasn't funny, it was stupid. Really stupid. Second, one does not "where" a helmet. They "wear" one.

[thespleenenator]

Truth be told, there is no such thing as a good or bad uniform. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

You haven't said much in this thread that I agree with but on that point we actually agree. Which begs the question; if that's how you see things, why are you arguing with anyone who disagrees with you?

I don't know, I like arguing, it's fun. but only if there is some kind of reasons being made for an argument. You can't win an argument against someone who says "I'm right because I say so". Then it's not fun.

So first you say "Truth be told, there is no such thing as a good or bad uniform. It's all in the eye of the beholder." Then you say you're trying to "win" an argument over something that you yourself just admitted is subjective. Newsflash chief. When the argument is over a subjective opinion, you can't "win." Ever. Period.

People are probably going to call you an idiot or a moron. They're probably going to call you a wide variety of derogatory names. When they do, you might want to remember this little exchange. Just in case you're not following me here, you pretty much admitted that you're basically behaving the way you are for the sheer joy of being an ass-hole. Good luck with that. I'm sure it will serve you well around here.

That's why it's so fun. There is no right answer. If there was a right answer, then nobody would argue. The fun is trying to achieve a goal that is unobtainable. You have to convince someone that you are right when there is no such thing as right. But there has to be a reason behind each answer. Otherwise, it turns into this forum. Grant it, I helped this forum turn into what it is now, but I've admitted when I'm wrong, I stood ground when I think I'm right. That's how people should argue.

[WSU151]

I don't know, I like arguing, it's fun. but only if there is some kind of reasons being made for an argument. You can't win an argument against someone who says "I'm right because I say so". Then it's not fun.

You have to get your facts right when you argue though. Saying that a whole bunch of teams have similar stripes when they really don't doesn't help your cause. And then posting two different responses to the exact same post (see: lame pun attempt) makes you look like a d-bag.

I understand your first point, but with the exception of SMU, they do have similar striping. Florida has similar striping when they have their away jerseys.

Not really. Maybe you're a very casual college football fan. Maybe you just started watching college football last year. But to most of us here, we can differentiate the striping between OSU, Texas, Florida and Iowa pretty easily. They are all different striping patterns.

To your second point, the pun was that someone said all football uniforms aren't unique and europe calls soccer football and they don't where helmets so he technically wrong. It was me being a smart ass. After that I'm not quite sure what the problem is.

In this certain situation, your first response to infrared (who was trying to help you out) was "Yes." Then two minutes later, you replied to his same post and said "Wrong again" then tried to deliver your lame joke. I can show you where you looked like a moron, if you really want me to. It was a page or two back.

[thespleenenator]

To your second point, the pun was that someone said all football uniforms aren't unique and europe calls soccer football and they don't where helmets so he technically wrong. It was me being a smart ass. After that I'm not quite sure what the problem is.

Two problems. First, and most importantly, your soccer comment wasn't funny, it was stupid. Really stupid. Second, one does not "where" a helmet. They "wear" one.

I know. I'm terribly sorry. It was horrible. No more lame puns.

[infrared41]

That's why it's so fun. There is no right answer. If there was a right answer, then nobody would argue. The fun is trying to achieve a goal that is unobtainable. You have to convince someone that you are right when there is no such thing as right. But there has to be a reason behind each answer. Otherwise, it turns into this forum. Grant it, I helped this forum turn into what it is now, but I've admitted when I'm wrong, I stood ground when I think I'm right. That's how people should argue.

What you're doing can generously be called a fool's errand. Also, it's "granted" not "grant it" genius. Finally, you're an ass for taking pride in the fact that you're ruining this place.

Oh, and your user name is beyond stupid.

[thespleenenator]

That's why it's so fun. There is no right answer. If there was a right answer, then nobody would argue. The fun is trying to achieve a goal that is unobtainable. You have to convince someone that you are right when there is no such thing as right. But there has to be a reason behind each answer. Otherwise, it turns into this forum. Grant it, I helped this forum turn into what it is now, but I've admitted when I'm wrong, I stood ground when I think I'm right. That's how people should argue.

What you're doing can generously be called a fool's errand. Also, it's "granted" not "grant it" genius. Finally, you're an ass for taking pride in the fact that you're ruining this place.

Oh, and your user name is beyond stupid.

Well someones getting testy. See, this is where it stops getting fun. When people start spewing childish insults like that. There is no debate with someone who's only form of defense is insults.

[thespleenenator]

I don't know, I like arguing, it's fun. but only if there is some kind of reasons being made for an argument. You can't win an argument against someone who says "I'm right because I say so". Then it's not fun.

You have to get your facts right when you argue though. Saying that a whole bunch of teams have similar stripes when they really don't doesn't help your cause. And then posting two different responses to the exact same post (see: lame pun attempt) makes you look like a d-bag.

I understand your first point, but with the exception of SMU, they do have similar striping. Florida has similar striping when they have their away jerseys.

Not really. Maybe you're a very casual college football fan. Maybe you just started watching college football last year. But to most of us here, we can differentiate the striping between OSU, Texas, Florida and Iowa pretty easily. They are all different striping patterns.

To your second point, the pun was that someone said all football uniforms aren't unique and europe calls soccer football and they don't where helmets so he technically wrong. It was me being a smart ass. After that I'm not quite sure what the problem is.

In this certain situation, your first response to infrared (who was trying to help you out) was "Yes." Then two minutes later, you replied to his same post and said "Wrong again" then tried to deliver your lame joke. I can show you where you looked like a moron, if you really want me to. It was a page or two back.

I responded to him and then thought of a joke that at the time I thought was funny... it wasn't.

[GFB]

Truth be told, there is no such thing as a good or bad uniform. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

You haven't said much in this thread that I agree with but on that point we actually agree. Which begs the question; if that's how you see things, why are you arguing with anyone who disagrees with you?

I don't know, I like arguing, it's fun. but only if there is some kind of reasons being made for an argument. You can't win an argument against someone who says "I'm right because I say so". Then it's not fun.

So first you say "Truth be told, there is no such thing as a good or bad uniform. It's all in the eye of the beholder." Then you say you're trying to "win" an argument over something that you yourself just admitted is subjective. Newsflash chief. When the argument is over a subjective opinion, you can't "win." Ever. Period.

People are probably going to call you an idiot or a moron. They're probably going to call you a wide variety of derogatory names. When they do, you might want to remember this little exchange. Just in case you're not following me here, you pretty much admitted that you're basically behaving the way you are for the sheer joy of being an ass-hole. Good luck with that. I'm sure it will serve you well around here.

That's why it's so fun. There is no right answer. If there was a right answer, then nobody would argue. The fun is trying to achieve a goal that is unobtainable. You have to convince someone that you are right when there is no such thing as right. But there has to be a reason behind each answer. Otherwise, it turns into this forum. Grant it, I helped this forum turn into what it is now, but I've admitted when I'm wrong, I stood ground when I think I'm right. That's how people should argue.

Actually, I don't believe that is right. Basically, you are arguing over a long-debated argument that goes all the way back to the philosophers Immanuel Kant and David Hume.

Let me put it to you this way: Imagine you take these two songs:

Song 1

Song 2

and you play both of them for two people: one is a 55 year-old music critic, and the other, a 17-year old "punk". You ask both which they believe is the better song. Of course, the music critic chooses song 1, while the punk chooses song 2. But just because both songs were chosen, do we now say "both songs are equally good?" Or is there a sense of "good taste" that the music critic has acquired that the punk does not have? Should we take both recommendations at their face value or should we hold the music critic's discretion in higher regards than the teenager's?

You could switch out music with uniforms and than have the debate... basically, it all boils down to "is there such a thing as good taste or is it all subjective?"

Here's a lengthy article explaining more of the philosophy behind it if you wish to learn more:

Aesthetic theories of David Hume and Immanuel Kant

[TornadoGTS]

Just kinda thinking out loud here, but does anyone else think Michigan' away uni would benefit from a blue stripe on the yellow pants? Because to me, the helmet and jersey have a decent mix of blue and yellow, but the pants just being straight yellow kinda throws it off for me.....

Where the unpopular opinions thread again? LOL.

[gdu]

I looked again, and except for SMU, I was right. They do all have similar striping.

No, you're wrong. And that isn't an opinion. They aren't close. If you think "they do all have similar striping" this forum isn't the place for you.

[gdu]

Just kinda thinking out loud here, but does anyone else think Michigan' away uni would benefit from a blue stripe on the yellow pants? Because to me, the helmet and jersey have a decent mix of blue and yellow, but the pants just being straight yellow kinda throws it off for me.....

Where the unpopular opinions thread again? LOL.

I do not think that would look good. I see where you are coming from, but if you are going to wear the same color of pant home and away, it should be the same pant (see Texas, USC, OU, etc...).

[TheOldRoman]

The school colors are actually scarlet and gray but they always looked like silver with Champion. But since Nike changed the type of material used for pants, they have been either way lighter or just a little too dark. That pants color is what their currents should try to match

I agree that the pants under Nike have been terrible. Not just that they are far too light, but because they mess up the stripe continuity by making the black way thicker than on the helmet. Still, I am surprised to find that their colors actually feature gray and not silver. They need to move away from the silver, which makes matter worse by having the sparkle paint. Whatever they do, they need to make the pants match the helmet.