College Football Uniforms 2011 SEASON

[IceCap]

well, if you say so . . .

brand is the publics perception

I think you're over-thinking it. Oregon doesn't have an "outlaw" brand. Their "we don't do tradition," aside from being a problematic philosophy as I've explained earlier, is Nike constructed. Which is fine, if Oregon athletic teams are content to play as Team Nike. A brand so clearly driven by a corporation such as Nike (to the point where the teams are wearing Nike corporate colours over team colours) isn't "outlaw" in any sense of the word. It's the opposite, really. Bowing down to the almighty corporate dollar. They aren't sticking it to the man, they're being funded by the man.

[thespleenenator]

Nevin Shapiro - Miami booster that gave these guys anything they wanted (prostitutes, cars, etc.) from 2002-2010.

They old Hurricanes did heroin for breakfast, hookers for lunch, and then, after practice, they'd make it rain at the club. Then, they took that same swagger to the field. They were also completely broke, giving them more of an outlaw feel. Plus the 1980s-90s Hurricanes won. These guys? Not so much.

[BrandMooreArt]

well, if you say so . . .

brand is the publics perception

I think you're over-thinking it. Oregon doesn't have an "outlaw" brand. Their "we don't do tradition," aside from being a problematic philosophy as I've explained earlier, is Nike constructed. Which is fine, if Oregon athletic teams are content to play as Team Nike. A brand so clearly driven by a corporation such as Nike (to the point where the teams are wearing Nike corporate colours over team colours) isn't "outlaw" in any sense of the word. It's the opposite, really. Bowing down to the almighty corporate dollar. They aren't sticking it to the man, they're being funded by the man.

so what brand archetype would fit Oregon?

[thespleenenator]

well, if you say so . . .

brand is the publics perception

I think you're over-thinking it. Oregon doesn't have an "outlaw" brand. Their "we don't do tradition," aside from being a problematic philosophy as I've explained earlier, is Nike constructed. Which is fine, if Oregon athletic teams are content to play as Team Nike. A brand so clearly driven by a corporation such as Nike (to the point where the teams are wearing Nike corporate colours over team colours) isn't "outlaw" in any sense of the word. It's the opposite, really. Bowing down to the almighty corporate dollar. They aren't sticking it to the man, they're being funded by the man.

so what brand archetype would fit Oregon?

[IceCap]

well, if you say so . . .

brand is the publics perception

I think you're over-thinking it. Oregon doesn't have an "outlaw" brand. Their "we don't do tradition," aside from being a problematic philosophy as I've explained earlier, is Nike constructed. Which is fine, if Oregon athletic teams are content to play as Team Nike. A brand so clearly driven by a corporation such as Nike (to the point where the teams are wearing Nike corporate colours over team colours) isn't "outlaw" in any sense of the word. It's the opposite, really. Bowing down to the almighty corporate dollar. They aren't sticking it to the man, they're being funded by the man.

so what brand archetype would fit Oregon?

Branding archetype? You've got me outside of my knowledge base. Rather then pretend I know what I'm talking about I'll just tell you I see/think, and let someone who's familiar with the terminology (such as yourself) figure it out.

I see Oregon's branding of "we don't do tradition" is gimmicky, nothing else. Not only is it fundamentally weak (what happens when they wear modern looks long enough? Do they break that tradition and wear throwbacks all the time?), but it doesn't even hold true. The current winged set seems to have stayed longer then any other design Oregon has had since agreeing to become Nike's testing ground. The winged design is well on its way to becoming an Oregon football tradition. This year's pro combats didn't try anything new for the brand, they're simply black and volt recolours of last year's set. A previously used template using a previously used colour scheme. That doesn't seem "cutting edge" for a brand that's supposedly about not having a set aesthetic tradition.

"We don't do tradition" doesn't even apply anymore. It doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean. Rather it just exists to justify a team's abandonment of their own identity to wear uniforms decked out in corporate stylings. It's overly trendy, it's gimmicky, it's a poor brand philosophy in and of itself. It's not out there, or cutting edge.

That's my take on it. Assign it to whatever brand archetype you want.

Look BrandMooreArt, there's no doubt that you're a very talented designer, and that your knowledge of branding is quite extensive. I just think you over think this stuff sometimes. A team not wearing its team colours doesn't come off as edgy to me, just stupid. Like I said, we've reached a very special place if "why should a team wear team colours?" is accepted as an argument. It's not an "outlaw" look, it's just silly, and in Oregon's case corporate driven (which seems as un-outlaw like you can get).

At the end of the day I'm not a professional designer. Nor am I an expert in branding. I'm just a fan of sports uniform and logo design. What I see with Nike and Oregon is the start of a dangerous trend. The trend of manufactures and designers using uniforms to promote themselves rather then the teams the uniforms are supposed to be for. As a fan of sports aesthetics it's a trend that worries me.

[thespleenenator]

well, if you say so . . .

brand is the publics perception

I think you're over-thinking it. Oregon doesn't have an "outlaw" brand. Their "we don't do tradition," aside from being a problematic philosophy as I've explained earlier, is Nike constructed. Which is fine, if Oregon athletic teams are content to play as Team Nike. A brand so clearly driven by a corporation such as Nike (to the point where the teams are wearing Nike corporate colours over team colours) isn't "outlaw" in any sense of the word. It's the opposite, really. Bowing down to the almighty corporate dollar. They aren't sticking it to the man, they're being funded by the man.

so what brand archetype would fit Oregon?

If I were to actually answer this question honestly, there is one things Oregon embraces above all: Speed. Oregon is Speed.

Hell, even the residence who don't necessarily root for the Ducks seem to embrace that.

[DPV713]

Nevin Shapiro - Miami booster that gave these guys anything they wanted (prostitutes, cars, etc.) from 2002-2010.

They old Hurricanes did heroin for breakfast, hookers for lunch, and then, after practice, they'd make it rain at the club. Then, they took that same swagger to the field. They were also completely broke, giving them more of an outlaw feel. Plus the 1980s-90s Hurricanes won. These guys? Not so much.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you there. The U of the 80s were expodentionally more swag (those three words have NEVER been said in a sentence together) than the 2001 'Canes.

[shaydre1019]

After reading everyone's arguments about Oregon using non-school colors, i feel that they have a really strong brand and identity for a few reasons, and would just like to throw my feelings out there.

1) The may use a popular Nike template but the wings are very original and easily recognizable.

2) When the non school colore they use; when used together do not immediately resemble any college team, they are pretty much unique to oregon.

3)i'm pretty certain their target demographic likes every and any look they put out there and i know that the school has gained popularity based solely on their "wacky/crazy/unique/modern/however you want to describe it" look.

So what i'm trying to say is that a lot of people may not like their new identity but in the grand scheme of things it has turned that program around. Of course Phil Knights money is part of their identity..but still, they get recognized without making a fool of themselves every week like Marylang, so i would consider it a successful identity.

[rams80]

My alma mater, Sam Houston State, wore these "camo unis" this past weekend for Homecoming vs Nicholls State. Now, before we all scream "my eyes!!!", it was for a good cause. The jerseys are to be auctioned off today with all proceeds going to the Lone Survivor Foundation. Navy SEAL, and former SHSU student Marcus Luttrell's story has been profiled on 60 Minutes and is also told in his bestselling book, "Lone Survivor". Marcus attended Sam the same years I did, and I knew of him as a friend of a friend. He's a good person his story is both heartbreaking and inspiring.

I'm bothered more by the fact that Bearkats is spelled with a "k."

It's always been that way.

/loses accreditation.

[nuordr]

I was talking about new people coming in to the forum, he said he wishing it was like the good ole days when everyone knew that Oregon's uniforms sucked. Therefore, I was talking about how younger people (new) come to the forum and eventually wipe out the old.

It's not a case of younger vs older. According to your profile you're 38 and you like modern uniforms. I'm 24 and my tastes tend to veer towards traditional uniforms (though I love it when modernity is done right).

I guess I need to be more specific on here. But as far are your comments, let's see how many uniforms I like from your list: Yankees (hate), Canadians (hate), Bears (like, their Orange jersey looks great), Celtics (I like the 3rds more than the standard set)(Favorite Team BTW), Oilers (hate), Islanders (hate), Bruins (hate), Pistons (hate).

Ok. You don't like these uniforms. Guess what? I wasn't asking for your opinions regarding them. I asked you to explain why these teams either haven't changed or have gone back to older looks when you claimed that new overtakes old and that it's as simple as evolution.

I'll save you the trouble though. You can't explain it because it's not a case of evolution. At all. New designs are not evidence of uniform evolution, they're just new designs. They aren't inherently "superior," hence there's no evolutionary progress. Traditional looks won't go away either, because they're not at any evolutionary disadvantage. Your whole argument of new overtaking old due to "evolution" is invalid.

Those teams have not changed because they haven't had too. Just like Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas - Their tradition is rich in history and they do not need to make a name for themselves. As far as my age, I have asked several college students in a graphic design class about what types of uniforms they liked the best. Out of 44 students, 33 said modern, 4 didn't care, and 7 liked the traditional look, so that is where I am basing my new-evolution argument. I like to live by facts and surveys that I have researched. I don't care if you disagree or think my argument is nullified, I just know thanks to Oregon and Nike, things will continue to change and it will be hard for some people to deal with it.

[bigwalk]

No Oregon uniform should have gray. Period. I don't care how good it looks (or how bad it looks). Schools should wear school colors, or school athletic colors. And they can't make up the colors as they go along.

Is this an all-sports policy?

I believe it should be. Colleges are known for their colors. Sometimes, the colors are even mentioned in their fight songs. It's all part of the tradition.

It should be up to the colleges, not Nike, to decide if tradition should be changed or altered. And colleges should stick with what their colors are, not just adding something willy nilly because it might look nice.

What about baseball/softball?

[guest23]

After reading everyone's arguments about Oregon using non-school colors, i feel that they have a really strong brand and identity for a few reasons, and would just like to throw my feelings out there.

1) The may use a popular Nike template but the wings are very original and easily recognizable.

2) When the non school colore they use; when used together do not immediately resemble any college team, they are pretty much unique to oregon.

3)i'm pretty certain their target demographic likes every and any look they put out there and i know that the school has gained popularity based solely on their "wacky/crazy/unique/modern/however you want to describe it" look.

So what i'm trying to say is that a lot of people may not like their new identity but in the grand scheme of things it has turned that program around. Of course Phil Knights money is part of their identity..but still, they get recognized without making a fool of themselves every week like Marylang, so i would consider it a successful identity.

unfortunately they fail at the most important qualifier of being a successful brand in the fact that they are not immediately identifiable...brand and reputation are not the same thing...what they have been successful at is generating more publicity and media coverage for themselves with the assistance of nike.

[See Red]

My alma mater, Sam Houston State, wore these "camo unis" this past weekend for Homecoming vs Nicholls State. Now, before we all scream "my eyes!!!", it was for a good cause. The jerseys are to be auctioned off today with all proceeds going to the Lone Survivor Foundation. Navy SEAL, and former SHSU student Marcus Luttrell's story has been profiled on 60 Minutes and is also told in his bestselling book, "Lone Survivor". Marcus attended Sam the same years I did, and I knew of him as a friend of a friend. He's a good person his story is both heartbreaking and inspiring.

Just to add... anybody who has never read his book, Lone Survivor, read it. It's great!

I like the jerseys and I like the cause.

[IceCap]

Those teams have not changed because they haven't had too. Just like Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas - Their tradition is rich in history and they do not need to make a name for themselves. As far as my age, I have asked several college students in a graphic design class about what types of uniforms they liked the best. Out of 44 students, 33 said modern, 4 didn't care, and 7 liked the traditional look, so that is where I am basing my new-evolution argument. I like to live by facts and surveys that I have researched. I don't care if you disagree or think my argument is nullified, I just know thanks to Oregon and Nike, things will continue to change and it will be hard for some people to deal with it.

Asking one class of 44 students hardly counts as a survey chief. In what position are you in to even ask a class this? Are you a professor? If so I bet the parents of those students would love to know that the professor of their children is wasting class time to conduct a poll in an attempt to win an internet argument.

Heck, I know I'm not the only younger person here who likes traditional uniforms.

What you have constantly failed to understand is that modern uniform design is not evolution. Evolution implies that what has come before is measurably inferior to what has come after. Modern uniform design is not measurably better then traditional uniform design. Traditional uniform design isn't measurably better then modern uniform design. It's all subjective. Things that are subjective cannot "evolve."

Like I said, you're a hypocrite. You want people to respect your opinion, but you have no problem claiming the opinions of others are less evolved. If you want people to respect your opinion, show theirs a little respect first.

As for Oregon and Nike, every fad is fleeting.

[rams80]

If uniform design was evolutionary, baseball teams would still be wearing pullovers.

[nuordr]

Those teams have not changed because they haven't had too. Just like Alabama, Oklahoma, and Texas - Their tradition is rich in history and they do not need to make a name for themselves. As far as my age, I have asked several college students in a graphic design class about what types of uniforms they liked the best. Out of 44 students, 33 said modern, 4 didn't care, and 7 liked the traditional look, so that is where I am basing my new-evolution argument. I like to live by facts and surveys that I have researched. I don't care if you disagree or think my argument is nullified, I just know thanks to Oregon and Nike, things will continue to change and it will be hard for some people to deal with it.

Asking one class of 44 students hardly counts as a survey chief. In what position are you in to even ask a class this? Are you a professor? If so I bet the parents of those students would love to know that the professor of their children is wasting class time to conduct a poll in an attempt to win an internet argument.

Heck, I know I'm not the only younger person here who likes traditional uniforms.

What you have constantly failed to understand is that modern uniform design is not evolution. Evolution implies that what has come before is measurably inferior to what has come after. Modern uniform design is not measurably better then traditional uniform design. Traditional uniform design isn't measurably better then modern uniform design. It's all subjective. Things that are subjective cannot "evolve."

Like I said, you're a hypocrite. You want people to respect your opinion, but you have no problem claiming the opinions of others are less evolved. If you want people to respect your opinion, show theirs a little respect first.

As for Oregon and Nike, every fad is fleeting.

Well, I do respect your argument and I know I am the minority on uniform designs. Therefore, just to clarify, a survey can be accomplished with 44 people or 30 people, I know for my Master's Degree I surveyed 30 managers for my Thesis and it was accepted and I earned my degree. So, the size is not what matters, it is the people who are involved with the topic. Uniform for the most part are traditional in style if you look at sports as a whole. But for the NCAA, teams that are not traditional powerhouses must do what they can to earn money, entice players to join their school and be talked about. Look at Maryland, I have never gave them a second thought until this year, why? Because of their radical uniform change. Now I am not saying every school will change, but I expect to see more modern looks in the future than teams moving back to traditional looks. But then again, I am not GOD, I do not know what is ahead.

[IceCap]

Well, I do respect your argument and I know I am the minority on uniform designs. Therefore, just to clarify, a survey can be accomplished with 44 people or 30 people, I know for my Master's Degree I surveyed 30 managers for my Thesis and it was accepted and I earned my degree. So, the size is not what matters, it is the people who are involved with the topic.

Exactly, it's the people involved. I'm sure that whatever your master's thesis was covering those 30 managers surveyed were sufficient. When trying to figure out what younger people like, you're going to need a much broader sample of 44 students in a graphic design class.

At the end of the day I don't think it's as simple as old people liking traditional uniforms and younger people like modern uniforms. You, BBTV, and CWx are all older then I am and you all like the modern stuff whereas I tend to like traditional looks.

Uniform for the most part are traditional in style if you look at sports as a whole. But for the NCAA, teams that are not traditional powerhouses must do what they can to earn money, entice players to join their school and be talked about. Look at Maryland, I have never gave them a second thought until this year, why? Because of their radical uniform change.

I'm not doubting that some out there uniforms help programs get attention. They're also not the be-all and end-all though. Sure, Maryland got a lot of press because of their flag uniforms, but they're still Maryland football, it's still a sub-par team. Sure the uniforms got some eyes looking at the program, but the fact that the program is still mediocre means that those uniforms won't translate to more recruits.

Oregon, Boise State, and TCU have all experimented with uniforms, and sure, those uniforms help to get recruits to look at the school. The fact that these are three up and coming schools dedicated to winning football games, however, means that they'll be able to turn the interest that began with the snazy new uniforms into strong recruiting numbers. That is to say that Oregon's recruitment numbers wouldn't be a strong as they are had they not played in the National Championship game last season. You need on field success to make the interest generated by new uniforms mean something in terms of recruitment.

Now I am not saying every school will change, but I expect to see more modern looks in the future than teams moving back to traditional looks. But then again, I am not GOD, I do not know what is ahead.

I think these things work like a pendulum. In the NHL you saw a lot of teams either update their looks or completely reinvent themselves using modern designs in the mid/late 90s and early 2000s. The changeover to the Edge style sweaters was the cap on this, as many teams went with more out there designs that included seemingly random splotches of colour and piping. Now we're heading in a different direction. Most uniform changes since the release of the initial Edge sweaters have seen teams go from modern looks to more traditional looks. I think we're seeing the opposite in NCAA football right now. Modern is in. Sooner or later, however, it'll play itself out and you'll see teams go back to simpler and more traditional designs as the market becomes over-saturated with teams wearing near infinite numbers of uniform combinations. Then after a while designers will start to experiment again.

[RamblinGamblinTiger]

Can we get back to uniforms and other relevant topics to the original topic? This thread got started because the other one went downhill into another Oregon tradition/color poo-slinging fest... Just like this one is sliding into.

[shaydre1019]

After reading everyone's arguments about Oregon using non-school colors, i feel that they have a really strong brand and identity for a few reasons, and would just like to throw my feelings out there.

1) The may use a popular Nike template but the wings are very original and easily recognizable.

2) When the non school colore they use; when used together do not immediately resemble any college team, they are pretty much unique to oregon.

3)i'm pretty certain their target demographic likes every and any look they put out there and i know that the school has gained popularity based solely on their "wacky/crazy/unique/modern/however you want to describe it" look.

So what i'm trying to say is that a lot of people may not like their new identity but in the grand scheme of things it has turned that program around. Of course Phil Knights money is part of their identity..but still, they get recognized without making a fool of themselves every week like Marylang, so i would consider it a successful identity.

unfortunately they fail at the most important qualifier of being a successful brand in the fact that they are not immediately identifiable...brand and reputation are not the same thing...what they have been successful at is generating more publicity and media coverage for themselves with the assistance of nike.

I see where you're coming from, but with that being said,i guess you can make that case, but now whenever i see a black/grey grey/yellow grey/green white/grey white/ black team, off the top of my head i can't really think of any other teams that use those colors. throw the wings on shoulders and i automatically think "Oregon."

[Foxxtrot44]

Wow...all the way to midseason before another Oregon-related colour/identity thread derail/meltdown...I'm actually sorta impressed sorta...