2011-2012 NCAA Football Uniform Thread

[bigmike]

I prefer the Penn State Uniforms with the trim just because it gives it some contrast and its not as boring as the new ones.

Anyways I was glad to see some uniform news on here. The whole argument about black is stupid, you guys really need to just shut up about it and move on.

It's relevant to the proceedings. Some new NCAA uniforms for 2011-2012 include black, we're discussing the pros and cons of its use. It's on topic.

I know some of it has to do with the new uniforms and everything, I just find the argument really dumb because its been going on and on. Obviously not everyone who post on here has the same opinion about whether a team is wearing BFBS. Is it really such a big deal that everyone argues over it for 70 pages, its not like anyone is convincing the other person to change their mind, it just keeps going on and on and seems like a very dumb argument.

Just my thoughts on it.

[IceCap]

Captain Broadbrush strikes again!

I'm basing this on observable posting habits. I'm pretty sure you were one of the people calling Penn State's last uniform set (with the contrasting cuffs and collar trim) plain and boring. Now once they remove the trim you're ready to defend the previous set that had it? If this is a case of not knowing something good while you had it just say so. Don't try to pass yourself off as someone who was ready to accept Penn State's understated look all along. You simply weren't.

My point was, the previous Penn State uniforms were never my favorite, but they were a hell of a lot better than what they're going to wear this coming season.

So the bolded then? There's nothing wrong with that.

As for the issue at hand, they wore uniforms without the contrasting cuffs and collars longer then they wore the the uniforms with the contrasting cuffs and collars. Objectively speaking the trim-less versions are more Penn State's "look" then the trimmed versions are.

[Brave-Bird 08]

interesting that gopennstate has a video devoted to the helmet. they always seem to be the first team to don new helmet designs, and usually use the same type exclusively.

I almost feel like that has become Penn State's trademark in the past decade.

[Lights Out]

Fair enough, but Penn State won both of their consensus national titles with the trim, an additional two split national championships with the trim, three Big Ten championships with the trim, and won 21 bowl games with the trim. I'd say the trimmed uniforms are Penn State's "look" on the national stage.

[IceCap]

Fair enough, but Penn State won both of their consensus national titles with the trim, an additional two split national championships with the trim, three Big Ten championships with the trim, and won 21 bowl games with the trim. I'd say the trimmed uniforms are Penn State's "look" on the national stage.

See, this point I will concede to you. I'm a big believer in teams sticking with uniforms that they win titles in. Penn State did have a lot of success in the trimmed versions of their uniforms. They probably should have kept those.

I prefer the Penn State Uniforms with the trim just because it gives it some contrast and its not as boring as the new ones.

Anyways I was glad to see some uniform news on here. The whole argument about black is stupid, you guys really need to just shut up about it and move on.

It's relevant to the proceedings. Some new NCAA uniforms for 2011-2012 include black, we're discussing the pros and cons of its use. It's on topic.

I know some of it has to do with the new uniforms and everything, I just find the argument really dumb because its been going on and on. Obviously not everyone who post on here has the same opinion about whether a team is wearing BFBS. Is it really such a big deal that everyone argues over it for 70 pages, its not like anyone is convincing the other person to change their mind, it just keeps going on and on and seems like a very dumb argument.

Just my thoughts on it.

I'm not trying to convince someone else that my taste in uniforms is "better" then theirs. If someone likes black uniforms, all the power to them. We all like what we like, right?

What I get hung up on is the seeming inability of some fans of black to accept basic truths. Black is added to increase merchandise sales. That's it. The excuses of it being added to make a team look "tougher" or "sleeker" or "meaner" are just marketing strategies to sell to the public because the paying public probably won't respond well to "we added black so you'll spend more of your hard earned money on our products." When the Mets added black they even said as much. Sure, there were a few excuses thrown about regarding the team honouring the Giants, but team officials were pretty candid when they admitted that they added black to increase merchandise sales.

A family friend is a higher up in the athletic department at my alma mater, traditional colours being purple and white. They've added black in the last ten years and said family friend has said it was done simply to get kids to buy more school gear. I'm pretty sure the North Stars admitted to adding black because they started to fall behind on merchandise sales as well.

If you like the way black looks, cool. I won't argue personal taste with you. It's when you try to insist that black is more then just a marketing ploy that I take issue because at that point you're arguing against a well-established fact.

[slapshot]

I thought it had been covered before that Penn State's trim was not a design decision but a functionality one.

They always wanted to have trim the same color as the jerseys, but the technology hadn't advanced to make it acceptable or comfortable to them until now.

[thespleenenator]

Fair enough, but Penn State won both of their consensus national titles with the trim, an additional two split national championships with the trim, three Big Ten championships with the trim, and won 21 bowl games with the trim. I'd say the trimmed uniforms are Penn State's "look" on the national stage.

See, this point I will concede to you. I'm a big believer in teams sticking with uniforms that they win titles in. Penn State did have a lot of success in the trimmed versions of their uniforms. They probably should have kept those.

I prefer the Penn State Uniforms with the trim just because it gives it some contrast and its not as boring as the new ones.

Anyways I was glad to see some uniform news on here. The whole argument about black is stupid, you guys really need to just shut up about it and move on.

It's relevant to the proceedings. Some new NCAA uniforms for 2011-2012 include black, we're discussing the pros and cons of its use. It's on topic.

I know some of it has to do with the new uniforms and everything, I just find the argument really dumb because its been going on and on. Obviously not everyone who post on here has the same opinion about whether a team is wearing BFBS. Is it really such a big deal that everyone argues over it for 70 pages, its not like anyone is convincing the other person to change their mind, it just keeps going on and on and seems like a very dumb argument.

Just my thoughts on it.

I'm not trying to convince someone else that my taste in uniforms is "better" then theirs. If someone likes black uniforms, all the power to them. We all like what we like, right?

What I get hung up on is the seeming inability of some fans of black to accept basic truths. Black is added to increase merchandise sales. That's it. The excuses of it being added to make a team look "tougher" or "sleeker" or "meaner" are just marketing strategies to sell to the public because the paying public probably won't respond well to "we added black so you'll spend more of your hard earned money on our products." When the Mets added black they even said as much. Sure, there were a few excuses thrown about regarding the team honouring the Giants, but team officials were pretty candid when they admitted that they added black to increase merchandise sales.

A family friend is a higher up in the athletic department at my alma mater, traditional colours being purple and white. They've added black in the last ten years and said family friend has said it was done simply to get kids to buy more school gear. I'm pretty sure the North Stars admitted to adding black because they started to fall behind on merchandise sales as well.

If you like the way black looks, cool. I won't argue personal taste with you. It's when you try to insist that black is more then just a marketing ploy that I take issue because at that point you're arguing a well-established fact.

OF COURSE IT IS A MARKETING PLOY!! Everybody knows that! I just think that, when done right, it can be a marketing scheme that looks good.

[Eye]

Penn State's new uniforms suck. Penn State's old uniforms sucked.

[Red Wolf]

How many people are even going to notice (outside of this board) that Penn State's uniforms are even different? It's such a small, insignificant change that it seems completely ridiculous to see posts by people saying how awful the new Penn State uniforms are compared to the very slightly different previous set. Heck, if I didn't visit this board I probably wouldn't have noticed the change.

[thespleenenator]

Penn State's new uniforms suck. Penn State's old uniforms sucked.

See kids: this is what a troll looks like.

[DrJack]

However, black isn't added for "black's sake". That makes no sense. Black is added for aesthetics' sake.

Bull. It's always added for one reason and one reason only. To sell merchandise. That's all it's added for.

But attractive, pleasing design is always the intent behind a designer choosing to add black.

You would be wrong.

Why would a professional designer add black to a design if they didn't think it looked good? They wouldn't. But black is in right now. And it is making its way into many, many sports identities, because it looks good.

Bottom line, yes, teams want to make money. But I don't agree with the notion that people buy a jersey just because its black. They buy it because it looks cool, and a lot of times they think it looks cool because its black. So when black is added to sports identities in this day and age, it is done because the designer thinks its a good look for that team. And the team likes it because if the designer can convince them its a cool look, then they can also convince them that it will sell.

If making a black jersey was just like printing money, then EVERY team in the country would have a black jersey. You would be dumb not to. Penn State would have just unveiled a black jersey. Michigan would have a black jersey. Arizona would have a black jersey. But they don't, and its not because those schools don't like money. Its because black wouldn't work with those color schemes.

The teams that do have a black jersey have them because some designer thought "this team could look good with black." Its done for aesthetic reasons. BFAS.

[IceCap]

OF COURSE IT IS A MARKETING PLOY!! Everybody knows that! I just think that, when done right, it can be a marketing scheme that looks good.

1) Stop yelling.

2) Apparently some of your fellow Ducks fans are having trouble grasping the bolded part. Kudos to you for getting it though.

[DrJack]

If you like the way black looks, cool. I won't argue personal taste with you. It's when you try to insist that black is more then just a marketing ploy that I take issue because at that point you're arguing against a well-established fact.

Can it possibly be both? Yeah its marketing. But its also design. Its done to look good, and good looking things sell well. Making attractive jerseys that are popular with fans isn't some kind of sneaky marketing ploy that they hope we won't notice. This isn't a cold-activated mountain sticker on a beer bottle. It isn't a gimmick. Its uniform design. Black isn't nicotine. Its a color.

I just read in GQ that red is supposedly the color of the season for men. And the other day I got an email from J.Crew advertising a bunch of red clothes. Now, are they designing red clothes because they think it is a good look (...yeah), or are they marketing red because its some marketing ploy to get me to buy new clothes (...also yeah)?

You act like you've caught the sports world in some giant conspiracy. "Ah hah! They added black to make money, and they think we won't notice, but I know the truth!" Designers and teams design jerseys to look good, and then they market them to sell. How is this a big secret? And why should I hate black because of it?

[IceCap]

However, black isn't added for "black's sake". That makes no sense. Black is added for aesthetics' sake.

Bull. It's always added for one reason and one reason only. To sell merchandise. That's all it's added for.

But attractive, pleasing design is always the intent behind a designer choosing to add black.

You would be wrong.

Why would a professional designer add black to a design if they didn't think it looked good? They wouldn't.

Yes, they would. A designer ultimately works for his or her client. If the client wants black then the designer will add black, even if they think it looks terrible.

But black is in right now. And it is making its way into many, many sports identities, because it looks good.

No, it's making its way into many, many sports identities because it sells. It may look like crap in a lot of cases, but it's used because it's perceived to increase merchandise sales.

Bottom line, yes, teams want to make money. But I don't agree with the notion that people buy a jersey just because its black. They buy it because it looks cool, and a lot of times they think it looks cool because its black. So when black is added to sports identities in this day and age, it is done because the designer thinks its a good look for that team. And the team likes it because if the designer can convince them its a cool look, then they can also convince them that it will sell.

Black became the "in" colour during the Raiders' glory years. The team had a reputation for being tough and dirty, yet they always won. Black Raiders gear became the gear of choice for people who wanted to be associated with winning, toughness, and a willingness to bend the rules to get what they want. So people who weren't necessarily Raiders fans bought black Raiders gear. Soon other teams started added black to jump on that bandwagon and BFBS was born.

It's not about looking good, it's about shoehorning black into a pre-existing colour scheme to try and sell more stuff because some team almost thirty years ago was successful and "gritty" while wearing black.

If making a black jersey was just like printing money, then EVERY team in the country would have a black jersey. You would be dumb not to. Penn State would have just unveiled a black jersey. Michigan would have a black jersey. Arizona would have a black jersey. But they don't, and its not because those schools don't like money. Its because black wouldn't work with those color schemes.

Two answers here.

The first is that some teams don't need to rely on the black marketing gimmick. Penn State has a long history/tradition of success. They don't need to resort to gimmicks like black jerseys to sell merchandise, the brand that is Penn State does that pretty well. Same for any number of traditional teams. The Canadiens, Red Wings, Yankees, and Pistons don't need black alternates. Those teams have build up legacies that sell without cheap gimmickry.

The second is that most teams do have black gear. They just don't wear it during games. Almost every team out there has black hats or t-shirts with team logos, and some teams even have black fashion jerseys without actually wearing black during the games themselves (Lakers). During the 90s, the first peak of the BFBS trend, there were numerous officially licensed black fashion sweaters for NHL teams. The Red Wings and Rangers in particular come to mind. My point is that a lot of the teams that we don't consider to have jumped on the black bandwagon have, they've just limited it to merchandise. Why have they done that? So they can take advantage of black's popularity without ruining their on court/field/ice look.

The teams that do have a black jersey have them because some designer thought "this team could look good with black." Its done for aesthetic reasons. BFAS.

No, teams with black have them because some guy in marketing for a team conducted a focus group and found that black sells, so he took his findings to the team's upper management and they commissioned a designer to design a black jersey. It had nothing to do with what the designer thought. The designer just has design what the client, ie the team, wants him or her to design.

[thespleenenator]

If you like the way black looks, cool. I won't argue personal taste with you. It's when you try to insist that black is more then just a marketing ploy that I take issue because at that point you're arguing against a well-established fact.

Can it possibly be both? Yeah its marketing. But its also design. Its done to look good, and good looking things sell well. Making attractive jerseys that are popular with fans isn't some kind of sneaky marketing ploy that they hope we won't notice. This isn't a cold-activated mountain sticker on a beer bottle. It isn't a gimmick. Its uniform design. Black isn't nicotine. Its a color.

I just read in GQ that red is supposedly the color of the season for men. And the other day I got an email from J.Crew advertising a bunch of red clothes. Now, are they designing red clothes because they think it is a good look (...yeah), or are they marketing red because its some marketing ploy to get me to buy new clothes (...also yeah)?

You act like you've caught the sports world in some giant conspiracy. "Ah hah! They added black to make money, and they think we won't notice, but I know the truth!" Designers and teams design jerseys to look good, and then they market them to sell. How is this a big secret? And why should I hate black because of it?

You just lost man points for that statement.

[DrJack]

If you like the way black looks, cool. I won't argue personal taste with you. It's when you try to insist that black is more then just a marketing ploy that I take issue because at that point you're arguing against a well-established fact.

Can it possibly be both? Yeah its marketing. But its also design. Its done to look good, and good looking things sell well. Making attractive jerseys that are popular with fans isn't some kind of sneaky marketing ploy that they hope we won't notice. This isn't a cold-activated mountain sticker on a beer bottle. It isn't a gimmick. Its uniform design. Black isn't nicotine. Its a color.

I just read in GQ that red is supposedly the color of the season for men. And the other day I got an email from J.Crew advertising a bunch of red clothes. Now, are they designing red clothes because they think it is a good look (...yeah), or are they marketing red because its some marketing ploy to get me to buy new clothes (...also yeah)?

You act like you've caught the sports world in some giant conspiracy. "Ah hah! They added black to make money, and they think we won't notice, but I know the truth!" Designers and teams design jerseys to look good, and then they market them to sell. How is this a big secret? And why should I hate black because of it?

You just lost man points for that statement.

I can deal with that.

[IceCap]

You act like you've caught the sports world in some giant conspiracy. "Ah hah! They added black to make money, and they think we won't notice, but I know the truth!" Designers and teams design jerseys to look good, and then they market them to sell. How is this a big secret?

I never claimed to have caught the sports world in anything. The Mets admitted to only adding black because they wanted to boost merchandising sales. There's no conspiracy, nothing for me to "uncover." No big secret.

Since it's not a big secret it's just frustrating to see you and other continue to claim it's anything more then a marketing ploy. Of course it is, the teams that have added black have said so themselves.

And again, designers have very little say. If a team highers a designer to design a black jersey, then he or she has to design a black jersey whether they think it'll look good or not. Team management makes the decision to add black, not designers.

And why should I hate black because of it?

Do you not read the posts you respond to?

I never said you had to hate black because it's a marketing ploy. In fact I said the exact opposite. If you like the way black uniforms look, good for you. Just don't try to claim that the addition of black is something it's not.

[Kevin W.]

I just read in GQ

GTFO.

[oldschoolvikings]

Fair enough, but Penn State won both of their consensus national titles with the trim, an additional two split national championships with the trim, three Big Ten championships with the trim, and won 21 bowl games with the trim. I'd say the trimmed uniforms are Penn State's "look" on the national stage.

You said "trim".

[Lights Out]

I just read in GQ

GTFO.

I see your "mea culpa" phase has predictably come to a quick end.