Jump to content

College Football Uniforms 2011 SEASON


Brave-Bird 08

Recommended Posts

And in another 20 years, I guarantee you'll be saying "The players should just go back to the super tight fit jerseys. Today's jerseys look ridiculous."

Yeah, but you also recently guaranteed that soon Nike would own every team in the NCAA, and dress them all in black, so your guarantees are pretty much worthless.

Brutal pwnage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Here's Kansas' new TechFit uniforms. The KANSAS appears larger and they've also gone away from the bolded trajan font to the thinner font like the other athletic teams.

ku_fbc_media_opurum_1_t640.jpg?a6ea3ebd4438a44b86d2e9c39ecf7613005fe067

So in just 40 years we've gone from 3/4 sleeves to tanktops...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we're dredging up this same old argument for the 100th time, but I just can't let it pass. IMHO, the ultra-tight fitting jerseys today's players favor has about 5 to 10% to do with "on-field performance" and 90 to 95% to do with "Damn, check out my tats and huge arms!"

When I was a kid in the 70's Archie Grffin took the field for Ohio State in what they called at the time a "tear-away jersey". It was a flimsy piece of barely-there fabric that was designed to basically desentagrate when a defensive player touched it. It was so thin it looked pink. He went thru about a dozen each game. Now, of course, its been outlawed and no player would be caught dead in it. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do brilliantly. But it looked like crap, it was impossible to have any real graphics or design on it and players decided they didn't want to look like that anymore.

When I was in college during the 80's, players all wore those wide meshed, short, belly-baring jerseys. You could see the make of the shoulder pads, and every receiver's navel was on display. They wore them, supposedly, to stay cool... lots of breeze on all that exposed skin. But, really, it was just the style then Now, once again, no player would be seen looking like Britney Spears with his tummy hanging out. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do, kept the players from over-heating. But the players decided, rightfully, they looked like idiots.

Now we have these super tight scuba suits. And once again, everyone claims its all about "performance". Nonsense. One day, the players will look in the mirror and realize they look like rejects from the Jersey Shore, and we can all say bye bye to this look, too.

And in another 20 years, I guarantee you'll be saying "The players should just go back to the super tight fit jerseys. Today's jerseys look ridiculous."

Yeah, but you also recently guaranteed that soon Nike would own every team in the NCAA, and dress them all in black, so your guarantees are pretty much worthless.

No, I said that every team will have worn black at least once. And yes, I did overstate how much Nike will own, but they will own at least 100 D1 teams eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we're dredging up this same old argument for the 100th time, but I just can't let it pass. IMHO, the ultra-tight fitting jerseys today's players favor has about 5 to 10% to do with "on-field performance" and 90 to 95% to do with "Damn, check out my tats and huge arms!"

When I was a kid in the 70's Archie Grffin took the field for Ohio State in what they called at the time a "tear-away jersey". It was a flimsy piece of barely-there fabric that was designed to basically desentagrate when a defensive player touched it. It was so thin it looked pink. He went thru about a dozen each game. Now, of course, its been outlawed and no player would be caught dead in it. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do brilliantly. But it looked like crap, it was impossible to have any real graphics or design on it and players decided they didn't want to look like that anymore.

When I was in college during the 80's, players all wore those wide meshed, short, belly-baring jerseys. You could see the make of the shoulder pads, and every receiver's navel was on display. They wore them, supposedly, to stay cool... lots of breeze on all that exposed skin. But, really, it was just the style then Now, once again, no player would be seen looking like Britney Spears with his tummy hanging out. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do, kept the players from over-heating. But the players decided, rightfully, they looked like idiots.

Now we have these super tight scuba suits. And once again, everyone claims its all about "performance". Nonsense. One day, the players will look in the mirror and realize they look like rejects from the Jersey Shore, and we can all say bye bye to this look, too.

And in another 20 years, I guarantee you'll be saying "The players should just go back to the super tight fit jerseys. Today's jerseys look ridiculous."

Yeah, but you also recently guaranteed that soon Nike would own every team in the NCAA, and dress them all in black, so your guarantees are pretty much worthless.

No, I said that every team will have worn black at least once. And yes, I did overstate how much Nike will own, but they will own at least 100 D1 teams eventually.

What? First, not every single team in America has the same standards as the Oregon Ducks of sinking their brand to the interests of corporate athletic companies. Second, nor will Nike "own" 100 teams in the FBS. Seeing as there are only 120 FBS teams, Nike would literally have to squeeze out all the competitors: Adidas, Under Armour, Russell, New Balance, Reebok (not sure if they exist on the college level anymore)..etc. Not happening. Any lastly, Nike doesn't "own" these schools. The schools are Nike's customers (without the visibility and associated merch, Nike wouldn't hold such a stake in the college game, regardless of if they supply to the school free of charge) and Nike is the supplier. Your logic is a bit backwards all the way through on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we're dredging up this same old argument for the 100th time, but I just can't let it pass. IMHO, the ultra-tight fitting jerseys today's players favor has about 5 to 10% to do with "on-field performance" and 90 to 95% to do with "Damn, check out my tats and huge arms!"

When I was a kid in the 70's Archie Grffin took the field for Ohio State in what they called at the time a "tear-away jersey". It was a flimsy piece of barely-there fabric that was designed to basically desentagrate when a defensive player touched it. It was so thin it looked pink. He went thru about a dozen each game. Now, of course, its been outlawed and no player would be caught dead in it. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do brilliantly. But it looked like crap, it was impossible to have any real graphics or design on it and players decided they didn't want to look like that anymore.

When I was in college during the 80's, players all wore those wide meshed, short, belly-baring jerseys. You could see the make of the shoulder pads, and every receiver's navel was on display. They wore them, supposedly, to stay cool... lots of breeze on all that exposed skin. But, really, it was just the style then Now, once again, no player would be seen looking like Britney Spears with his tummy hanging out. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do, kept the players from over-heating. But the players decided, rightfully, they looked like idiots.

Now we have these super tight scuba suits. And once again, everyone claims its all about "performance". Nonsense. One day, the players will look in the mirror and realize they look like rejects from the Jersey Shore, and we can all say bye bye to this look, too.

Actually having the stomach hanging out or the shirt untucked is illegal.

Here's the rule:

Jersey. One jersey, with sleeves that completely cover the shoulder pads,

that is not altered or designed to tear and conforms with Rules 1-4-3

and 1-4-4-f. The jersey must be full-length and tucked into the pants.

I hate to break the news to all these people who think sleeves constrict movement, but they don't. They didn't constrict the movement of greats like Lance Alworth, or Mike Ditka from catching the ball. They didn't constrict the movement of Joe Montana, Johnny Unitis, Dan Marino, Steve Young, Fran Tarkenton, Roger Staubach from throwing the ball. They didn't restrict the movement of Dick Butkis, Chuck_Bednarik, Ronnie Lott, Lawrence Taylor, "Too Tall" Jones, Mike Singletary from tackling. Tighter fitting has one purpose only, and that is to prevent holding. It has nothing to do with arm movement, rather it has to do with holding and giving the opponent less jersey to hold onto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing those old Jim Brown era long sleeve unis makes me wonder why the Nike's and Under Armours of the world haven't made uniform designs with LONG sleeves as opposed to going ultra short. I can imagine that the long sleeves would be much more of a tighter fit then those from Brown's era. It would allow for the new built in padding technology that you see players wearing these days. Not to mention the fact that many players already wear long sleeved tight fit gear under their jerseys. I guess some lineman might have a problem with it but It just seems so ridiculous to see jersey sleeves completely disappear. I mean c'mon, this is football not basketball, right?

I have been saying this for a while. Make sleeves (and the shoulders) out of stretchy UnderArmour-type material and have it go mid-bicep. That would eliminate the need for players to wear longer sleeve shirts underneath. It makes me cringe every time I see a player wearing a tank top which barely (or sometimes doens't) cover his pads while he has a shirt underneath. If having your arms covered is so important, get a damn real jersey. I understand guys who want to wear full length sleeves for cold games, but is is silly to see players with mid-bicep or elbow length shirts under their jerseys. It is sloppy as hell (sloppier than tank top jerseys themselves) and should be punnishable by fine in the pros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we're dredging up this same old argument for the 100th time, but I just can't let it pass. IMHO, the ultra-tight fitting jerseys today's players favor has about 5 to 10% to do with "on-field performance" and 90 to 95% to do with "Damn, check out my tats and huge arms!"

When I was a kid in the 70's Archie Grffin took the field for Ohio State in what they called at the time a "tear-away jersey". It was a flimsy piece of barely-there fabric that was designed to basically desentagrate when a defensive player touched it. It was so thin it looked pink. He went thru about a dozen each game. Now, of course, its been outlawed and no player would be caught dead in it. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do brilliantly. But it looked like crap, it was impossible to have any real graphics or design on it and players decided they didn't want to look like that anymore.

When I was in college during the 80's, players all wore those wide meshed, short, belly-baring jerseys. You could see the make of the shoulder pads, and every receiver's navel was on display. They wore them, supposedly, to stay cool... lots of breeze on all that exposed skin. But, really, it was just the style then Now, once again, no player would be seen looking like Britney Spears with his tummy hanging out. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do, kept the players from over-heating. But the players decided, rightfully, they looked like idiots.

Now we have these super tight scuba suits. And once again, everyone claims its all about "performance". Nonsense. One day, the players will look in the mirror and realize they look like rejects from the Jersey Shore, and we can all say bye bye to this look, too.

And in another 20 years, I guarantee you'll be saying "The players should just go back to the super tight fit jerseys. Today's jerseys look ridiculous."

Yeah, but you also recently guaranteed that soon Nike would own every team in the NCAA, and dress them all in black, so your guarantees are pretty much worthless.

No, I said that every team will have worn black at least once. And yes, I did overstate how much Nike will own, but they will own at least 100 D1 teams eventually.

I don't have anything concrete to back this up, but it seems like Nike supplied more college football teams 10 years ago than they do now. Schools like Michigan, Texas A&M, UCLA, Louisville, Indiana, and Kansas have switched from Nike to Adidas in the past 10 years. Plus, Under Armour has stolen some market share in that timeframe (Maryland, Auburn, Hawaii, etc.). There certainly doesn't seem to be any trend indicating that Nike is increasing its market share among FBS teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ku_fbc_media_opurum_1_t640.jpg?a6ea3ebd4438a44b86d2e9c39ecf7613005fe067

Y'all do see the way his jersey puffs up over his shoulders, don't you? When the players are wearing pads, the jerseys really aren't that much tighter than every other jersey being worn today, so I really don't get the why the Kansas Techfit jerseys are being singled out. Now if we were talking about a team that used shoulder stripes, on the other hand...

compare_ucla.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This image illustrates how ridiculous that template is. Yes, when players wear them on the field the pads are covered (barely). However, the pad are all that is covered, and since the pads sit above the players' shoulders, we get lovely views of top of their shoulders, not to mention their armpits. These jerseys are far and away the worse template around, even amidst Nike's "lets see how many random non-functional seams we can fit in" trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have anything concrete to back this up, but it seems like Nike supplied more college football teams 10 years ago than they do now. Schools like Michigan, Texas A&M, UCLA, Louisville, Indiana, and Kansas have switched from Nike to Adidas in the past 10 years. Plus, Under Armour has stolen some market share in that timeframe (Maryland, Auburn, Hawaii, etc.). There certainly doesn't seem to be any trend indicating that Nike is increasing its market share among FBS teams.

For accuracy's sake, UCLA and Louisville have not been with Nike in the last 10 years. UCLA switched from Champion to Reebok in 1995/96, then from Reebok to adidas in 1999. Louisville football has been adidas since at least 1998.

Overall, more total schools use Nike because smaller schools that used to purchase uniforms from Russell or Sports Belle or Wilson now buy them for around the same cost from Nike, just as many high schools have started doing. But, again, it's the small schools that are buying uniforms that are making the "market share" difference, not those that Nike is paying directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we're dredging up this same old argument for the 100th time, but I just can't let it pass. IMHO, the ultra-tight fitting jerseys today's players favor has about 5 to 10% to do with "on-field performance" and 90 to 95% to do with "Damn, check out my tats and huge arms!"

When I was a kid in the 70's Archie Grffin took the field for Ohio State in what they called at the time a "tear-away jersey". It was a flimsy piece of barely-there fabric that was designed to basically desentagrate when a defensive player touched it. It was so thin it looked pink. He went thru about a dozen each game. Now, of course, its been outlawed and no player would be caught dead in it. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do brilliantly. But it looked like crap, it was impossible to have any real graphics or design on it and players decided they didn't want to look like that anymore.

When I was in college during the 80's, players all wore those wide meshed, short, belly-baring jerseys. You could see the make of the shoulder pads, and every receiver's navel was on display. They wore them, supposedly, to stay cool... lots of breeze on all that exposed skin. But, really, it was just the style then Now, once again, no player would be seen looking like Britney Spears with his tummy hanging out. Why? Not because of on-field performance. It did what it was designed to do, kept the players from over-heating. But the players decided, rightfully, they looked like idiots.

Now we have these super tight scuba suits. And once again, everyone claims its all about "performance". Nonsense. One day, the players will look in the mirror and realize they look like rejects from the Jersey Shore, and we can all say bye bye to this look, too.

Actually having the stomach hanging out or the shirt untucked is illegal.

Here's the rule:

Jersey. One jersey, with sleeves that completely cover the shoulder pads,

that is not altered or designed to tear and conforms with Rules 1-4-3

and 1-4-4-f. The jersey must be full-length and tucked into the pants.

I hate to break the news to all these people who think sleeves constrict movement, but they don't. They didn't constrict the movement of greats like Lance Alworth, or Mike Ditka from catching the ball. They didn't constrict the movement of Joe Montana, Johnny Unitis, Dan Marino, Steve Young, Fran Tarkenton, Roger Staubach from throwing the ball. They didn't restrict the movement of Dick Butkis, Chuck_Bednarik, Ronnie Lott, Lawrence Taylor, "Too Tall" Jones, Mike Singletary from tackling. Tighter fitting has one purpose only, and that is to prevent holding. It has nothing to do with arm movement, rather it has to do with holding and giving the opponent less jersey to hold onto.

Agreed, if anything the tighter jerseys actually restrict movement, as you usually see the quarterback in a looser jersey than his teammates, in order to have less restriction on his ability to throw.

Peyton+Manning+Joseph+Addai+Indianapolis+Colts+GLr-mGRMheql.jpg

83970760.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF8789215ABF3343C02EA548F194995418A3F11BC195B0E086584612778F77DE4E6AF920E30A760B0D811297

96534848_display_image.jpg?1281640278

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.