BFBS, Good or Bad

[DrJack]

We're kind of also dancing around another issue. One of the primary justifications for the existence of collegiate athletics is that the teams serve as advertisements for the schools. Now, when we consider that 1) the list of completely self-funding college athletic departments is rather limited and 2) as a consequence, a lot of athletic departments need the tuition and activity fee dollars of their academic student body to survive, maybe these school advertisements should prioritize donning the academic school colors and not whatever looks cool or whatever Nike told you to wear this month.

Oregon is one of those completely self-funding athletic departments. Does that make it ok to have BFBS now?

I'm of the mind that BFBS is good when the design is good, and bad when the design is bad. Its a color just like white that any team can use. Not every team SHOULD use black but most teams out there can make it work. A black jersey is just as likely to ugly as a purple or a green or a red jersey is. But when its black everyone around here flips out and whines about Nike ruining another team's identity. I think ASU's new black alts look great. I think Washington's are pretty ugly. I think the Mets and Knicks look better without the black in their uniforms. I HATE the Celtics use of black. I kind of like the Orlando Magic's black alternates, but think the jersey design is pretty bad regardless of color. They're bad, but it has nothing to do with being black. I loved Florida State's black alts, thought they looked awesome.

So the bottom line is that black is just another "supporting color" and I've got no problem with teams using it. BFBS is not inherently good or bad, despite the negative connotation it has around these boards.

That's the thing though, nobody talks about RFRS or PFPS because teams don't just make red or purple uniforms if those aren't there colors. Some of us think the same should be true of black.

Because those aren't neutral colors

Really, neither is black, in the sense of sports identities. White is plain, basic, like a canvass for the team's colors. Other than gray for baseball away uniforms, white is really the only neutral color. Black definately falls within the aspect of a team's color identity, whether as trim, accent or primary.

I disagree. Black in today's sports world has become a neutral color, almost as much as white. I think a lot of teams view black that way, and thus black jerseys consistently pop up. Traditionally you are right, black wasn't always used the way it is used today. But now, yeah, black is much more of a neutral color than it ever was in the past. And for the most part, the people guilty of BFBS unis aren't the teams rooted in tradition anyway (Celtics excluded).

But if you (and lots of people share your view here) still think black CAN'T be considered a neutral color for sports teams, then you will probably continue to see BFBS as a gross violation of uniform aesthetics.

[evanaho]

For this thread to be fair, we need to define BFBS (black for black's sake). Though I doubt we could come to a consensus, this is my definition:

BFBS - featuring black (or anthracite ) as a primary color of a team's uniform when it exists outside of the organization's standard colors

Now we can split hairs over "standard colors" all day, but my stance is that BFBS waters down the identity of the organization. I have no problem with fan gear being black, white, gray, khaki, anthracite, or cammo, but when you are officially representing your institution with a jersey, utilize the institution colors. As far as ASU's decision to add black as an official color... *sighs* At least they're using proper decorum, but I preferred the maroon and gold set.

I would prefer FSU's gold alts to a BFBS jersey, even if the BFBS is better-looking because at least we can distinguish the gold belongs to the 'Noles.

If every organization uses black, anthracite, white, and their school colors (of which some schools have 3) then we're slowly running out of chromes to differentiate teams. I like being able to identify teams immediately by their uniform colors.

Just FYI...

I recognize there was a post earlier detailing which schools have historically used black on the uniforms, but I'd like to take it a step further. The following 6 division 1A football schools identify black as an official school color on the university website:

Army, Central Florida, Cincinnati, Georgia, Iowa, Louisville, Maryland, Missouri, Northern Illinois, Oklahoma State, Purdue, South Carolina, Southern Mississippi, Troy, Texas Tech, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest

The following schools traditionally use black in their color scheme, but I could find no mention of it as an official color of the school. You may be surprised...

Ball State, Duke, Eastern Michigan, Idaho, Ohio State, Oregon State, Louisiana-Lafayette*, Marshall, Middle Tennessee, NC State, North Texas, Northwestern, San Diego State, TCU, Utah, Western Michigan

*No mention of ANY school colors on the institution web site.

[WSU151]

The following schools traditionally use black in their color scheme, but I could find no mention of it as an official color of the school. You may be surprised...

Ball State, Duke, Eastern Michigan, Idaho, Ohio State, Oregon State, Louisiana-Lafayette*, Marshall, Middle Tennessee, NC State, North Texas, Northwestern, San Diego State, TCU, Utah, Western Michigan

*No mention of ANY school colors on the institution web site.

San Diego State decided upon its school colors of crimson and black in 1928. Oregon State's official colors have been orange and black since at least 1930.

[rams80]

We're kind of also dancing around another issue. One of the primary justifications for the existence of collegiate athletics is that the teams serve as advertisements for the schools. Now, when we consider that 1) the list of completely self-funding college athletic departments is rather limited and 2) as a consequence, a lot of athletic departments need the tuition and activity fee dollars of their academic student body to survive, maybe these school advertisements should prioritize donning the academic school colors and not whatever looks cool or whatever Nike told you to wear this month.

Oregon is one of those completely self-funding athletic departments. Does that make it ok to have BFBS now?

Does the school charge a mandatory activity fee to all its students?

[WSU151]

I don't think an activity fee is necessary when you have Phil Knight subsidizing the athletic department.

[rams80]

I don't think an activity fee is necessary when you have Phil Knight subsidizing the athletic department.

So? Arkansas has WalMart and Jerry Jones subsidizing them (among others) is the subject of what amounts to a "Cult of the Pig" among the residents of the state, and they still charge a (modest) activity fee.

Oh and yes Oregon does.

[WSU151]

Where are you going with this? How much of the Oregon Rec Center fee goes to the athletic department?

[evanaho]

The following schools traditionally use black in their color scheme, but I could find no mention of it as an official color of the school. You may be surprised...

Ball State, Duke, Eastern Michigan, Idaho, Ohio State, Oregon State, Louisiana-Lafayette*, Marshall, Middle Tennessee, NC State, North Texas, Northwestern, San Diego State, TCU, Utah, Western Michigan

*No mention of ANY school colors on the institution web site.

San Diego State decided upon its school colors of crimson and black in 1928. Oregon State's official colors have been orange and black since at least 1930.

I stand corrected on SDSU and admit to publishing erroneous information in that respect. You are correct, scarlet and black are SDSU's official athletic colors.

I don't lament OSU's use of black and nor do I consider them a BFBS school. That being said, this is what I have uncovered in my own research. From Oregon State University's Alumni Association website:

"Although Oregon State's athletic teams generally wear orange, black and white-based uniforms, orange is considered the school's official color."

http://alumni.oregonstate.edu/eclips/carry/feb13_2004.html

Please let me know if there is a reputable source stating otherwise! I would be pleased to be corrected in this respect.

[rams80]

Where are you going with this? How much of the Oregon Rec Center fee goes to the athletic department?

It's in the incidental fees. The key phrase is "students get free athletic tickets" because of them. That's your typical sign that the athletic department gets some of that money.

And my point is that if an athletic department gets ANY money through mandatory fees from its entire student body, regardless of necessity or size, they should respect the school colors and their ostensible role as advertisements for the school, not certain nameless athletic equipment manufacturers.

[WSU151]

As you can see from Stuckey and Dmo, Oregon students hate the Nike changes and overall influence...

People don't pay the activity fees so Nike respects the uniform. They pay fees so they can get into games and other events for free.

I've never paid a student fee thinking "gosh, I hope my school's colors are respected by big corporations in the athletics department"

[andrewharrington]

I look at it from a mostly aesthetic standpoint. While I don't like the Mets' black uniforms, it is for a different reason than Paul Lukas. He's concerned with the tradition of the team, I'm concerned with the fact that it doesn't look good.

I agree, and you've found a great way to articulate the crux of the problem I have with many of the traditionalists in the uniform scene. There is WAY too much time spent on analyzing the tradition of the program or team and not enough time asking whether or not it looks nice. If a uniform looks great then why should it be rejected and shunned on the grounds of "not traditional enough"?

I see where you're coming from, but the crux of you viewpoint is that most uniforms that completely break from tradition don't look all that nice. There's a reason that 'traditional' uniform elements have stood the test of time. Do I like traditional uniform elements? Sure, but I like them a whole lot more when they look like they've been combined with modern aesthetics and appropriately freshened as a result.

Modern uniform design, on some levels, creates a more complete uniform at times, but the design elements themselves are generally not very strong or they are incorporated in ways that don't suit a uniform particularly well. Traditional uniform elements look better, and they create better single garments, but the design elements are often not combined in a strong enough fashion to create that perfect whole. The solution is to take those traditional elements, or at least the idea of those traditional elements, and work them into a unique, cohesive whole.

History is much more important than you might realize as well. There's a reason Under Armour hasn't gone wild on police and military clothing, even though they supply a lot of the performancewear for those industries. There's a precedent; there's history there. Same reason referee uniforms and umpire uniforms remain basically the same as they've been for decades. The teams shouldn't have different standards in that regard. That history is what builds the recognizability required to field a strong brand. A team like the Kansas City Chiefs may not have a boatload of success in its history, but the visual brand that they've built over the years is second to none. When you think about it, a Chiefs home game is as instantly recognizable as anything in sports, and it's because of the consistency they've built through history.

[rams80]

As you can see from Stuckey and Dmo, Oregon students hate the Nike changes and overall influence...

People don't pay the activity fees so Nike respects the uniform. They pay fees so they can get into games and other events for free.

I've never paid a student fee thinking "gosh, I hope my school's colors are respected by big corporations in the athletics department"

Just because you do doesn't mean all of your fellow students do. These are involuntary fees assessed on everyone-including the more studious members of the student body who will never even set foot in any of your school's stadia prior to graduation day. These fees are justified because the athletic team is pitched as a way to advertise the school. That's why you need to respect the school colors-because you're taking money from everyone in the school for it.

[WSU151]

As you can see from Stuckey and Dmo, Oregon students hate the Nike changes and overall influence...

People don't pay the activity fees so Nike respects the uniform. They pay fees so they can get into games and other events for free.

I've never paid a student fee thinking "gosh, I hope my school's colors are respected by big corporations in the athletics department"

Just because you do doesn't mean all of your fellow students do. These are involuntary fees assessed on everyone-including the more studious members of the student body who will never even set foot in any of your school's stadia prior to graduation day. These fees are justified because the athletic team is pitched as a way to advertise the school. That's why you need to respect the school colors-because you're taking money from everyone in the school for it.

Are you talking about those studious students who don't give a crap about football uniforms? If it was a real problem, you'd see protests and boycotts of the activity fees.

[rams80]

As you can see from Stuckey and Dmo, Oregon students hate the Nike changes and overall influence...

People don't pay the activity fees so Nike respects the uniform. They pay fees so they can get into games and other events for free.

I've never paid a student fee thinking "gosh, I hope my school's colors are respected by big corporations in the athletics department"

Just because you do doesn't mean all of your fellow students do. These are involuntary fees assessed on everyone-including the more studious members of the student body who will never even set foot in any of your school's stadia prior to graduation day. These fees are justified because the athletic team is pitched as a way to advertise the school. That's why you need to respect the school colors-because you're taking money from everyone in the school for it.

Are you talking about those studious students who don't give a crap about football uniforms? If it was a real problem, you'd see protests and boycotts of the activity fees.

How many people actually look at the fees they are hit with come tuition time? If you bury something in the fine print most folks won't notice. And the absence of protests doesn't make this any less unethical on the behalf of the school or the athletic department. If you say you need the teams to advertise the school, and you are taking student money to pay for the teams, they should wear the colors of the school-not what Nike wants you to pimp this month.

[Lights Out]

That's ridiculous. Just because something is used as an advertisement doesn't mean it's restricted to school/company colors only. By your logic, Coca-Cola was unethical for running these ads during the World Cup:

OMG, blasphemy! They used yellow, green, AND blue with their normal red, those bastards! Don't they know that, since their colors are red and white, they are ONLY supposed to use red and white in their ads?

[rams80]

That's ridiculous. Just because something is used as an advertisement doesn't mean it's restricted to school/company colors only. By your logic, Coca-Cola was unethical for running these ads during the World Cup:

OMG, blasphemy! They used yellow, green, AND blue with their normal red, those bastards! Don't they know that, since their colors are red and white, they are ONLY supposed to use red and white in their ads?

Does Coke make its employees contribute to the marketing and advertising budget?

[The_Admiral]

They pay fees so they can get into games and other events for free.

This is kinda awesome.

[rams80]

They pay fees so they can get into games and other events for free.

This is kinda awesome.

That's just one example of the fine liberal arts education you get as an undergraduate student at a major university.

[JohnnySeoul]

I'm starting to think we're over-thinking the significance of black jerseys

Very true. What about the Sacramento Kings? When they switched from light blue to purple, was that PFPS? Or the New Orleans Hornets added yellow, was that YFYS? I find it quite interesting that people get upset over black and not over other added colors (i.e Sacramento's purple, New Orleans' yellow, and etc)...some sort of subconscious racism?...I dunno.

If the Mavs had made green alts just to sell green alts (but had no other history of the color), that would be GFGS, but that isn't what happened.

Ah, but the Mavs did go BFBS (Blue) though. But since it wasn't the "evil" black that everyone hates on here I guess that one is ok too. lol

Mavericks have always used blue.

Not 2 different shades.

[JohnnySeoul]

I'm still flabbergasted that he tried to play the race card in a uniform discussion.

No I didn't...try again. I said it with a "?".