Bowl Mania: Uniform Edition

[thespleenenator]

Yes, many times. The main thing everyone always says is "It threw away all of Oregon's tradition!". You know what? Yes, it did. It tried to throw away decades and decades of futility and losing. Years of underachieving, empty seats and fired coaches. Bowl games? HA! We would be happy with 4 wins most years. We had Dan Fouts at QB and we still sucked. If there was any team in the country that needed to have their tradtion scrapped, it was Oregon. And you know what? It worked. Oregon has had one, I repeat, ONE losing season since 1999, and that was a 5-6 year in 2004. A 5-6 would've been considered a success in the 80s. Oregon threw out there tradtion because they barely had any to begin with. I think the first thing people thought of when they looked at our uniforms were the old Green Bay Packers, not the Oregon ducks. Now, we have an identity all our own...

Great start out of the blocks...

...Everyone always talks about "Oh look, they're copying Oregon!". No, you can try to copy Oregon, but you can't be Oregon. Nobody can. ASU? Please. Oregon uses 4 helmets, jerseys and pants halfway through the season. Wyoming? Mashing templates together and slightly recoloring helmets is no where near the same as Oregon. Oklahoma State? 3 helmets is pathetic. And they look more like Oregon State than Oklahoma State with some of their combos...

you clipped the fifth hurdle with your knee...

Oregon has an identity of it's own, and nobody, I repeat NOBODY, has a stronger identity in all of sports. No one.

and then fell flat on your face. It's a strong identity, and it's getting stronger each year, but it's in no way the strongest identity in sports. Cowboys, Yankees, Harlem Globetrotters, Manchester United, etc. These sports brands are all global (and iconic), which is what Oregon will never be. When your brand is only marketed to a domestic audience (as college football is), then your brand will never be truly global. When your brand revolves around constant change, your brand will never be iconic.

An Iconic identity is not the same as a strong identity. Take Penn State. They're uniforms are instantly recognizable as Penn State, and they have a very iconic uniform. But thats only because they've been wearing it for a very long time. If Penn State were a fairly recent university, then nobody would recognize their uniforms because their identity is very weak. Oregon's current uniforms have been in use for 3 years, and everyone still recognizes them. Oregon will never be iconic because we'll never keep the same uniform for more than 5 years, but they will have a very strong identity none the less. No other sports team in the world can say that.

Many club and national soccer teams change uniforms every couple years. They have much stronger identities than Oregon does.

It's true that an iconic identity is not the same as a strong identity, but they very often go hand in hand, and they definitely support one another. Your hypothetical theories don't work here because context and tradition are part of an identity. There is no 'if Penn State were a fairly recent university' because they are not, and their identity has been built over decades into one of the strongest and most iconic in college football. Penn State football is built upon timeless elements that transcend trendiness and speak to people of all ages. Their identity is true to the game of football and instantly recognizable as Penn State. Penn State's identity is what other identities strive to be one day, including Oregon. If the only reason Penn State has a strong identity is because they've used it for so long, then, using your logic, the only reason Oregon has a strong identity is because they've been successful since they adopted it. If they had sucked the last decade, their identity would be a failed experiment like so many others, but, these things go hand in hand.

You may have missed the part where I agreed with you that Oregon has a strong identity, but you are blinded by your bias in thinking that they have the strongest identity in all of sports, which is the only portion of your dissertation I vehemently disagreed with. The identity is about more than the uniforms, and Oregon doesn't have a whole lot of recognition value beyond that. Think of other great identities: they have more allure than just the uniforms. Michigan has the Big House and the M Club Banner. Ohio State has the Horseshoe. Notre Dame has the Golden Dome and Touchdown Jesus. Clemson has Howard's Rock. Penn State has the White Out. Oregon doesn't have that 'identity beyond the identity' that makes a good identity great. They may get there some day, but they are not there yet.

First of all, i don't think Oregon has the strongest identity in sports. I think Hawaii does. Yes, I know I originally said tha Oregon does, but after more thought, I determined that Hawaii's and Texas' are stronger.

Tradition can only help your indentity if you win with it. Remember when Idaho tried the "Throw the V" thing earlier this year? They tried to start a new tradition. A lot fo the students were excited, and it was an initial success. Then, they got slaughtered in their first game with it. What happened to that tradition? Well, I haven't heard much about it since. It didn't help their identity at all. Tradition's effect on an identity is very situational, and relies mostly on team success, not how good their uniform is representitive of their school. Had Penn State lost in their uniforms, their identity would be null. Hawaii has not nearly the amount of success that Penn State has, and yet people probabley recognize their uniforms about as equally. We are assuming that most americans know about Penn State football. They know about Penn State, but they don't know what their uniforms look like. The uniform community is much more niche than you realize, so if we really want to determine who has a better identity, we have to get rid of variables like team success and tradition, because otherwise that could skew an idneitity in a teams favor, even if their uniform identity is not a strong as the other teams. A uniform like Penn State's or Alabama's is only as good as the team wearing it. Hawaii could go 0-12 for 10 years straight and still be recognizable.

[gdu]

"Not only will the Horned Frogs be wearing their HGI Purple Frog Skin Pattern helmets against Louisiana Tech in the Poinsettia Bowl on December 21st, but the coaching staff will have new head gear as well.

HGI has teamed up with Bosch/Telex to create custom headsets with the Purple Frog Skin Pattern for the coaches to use during the Poinsettia Bowl. Assembled by Marvac, these headsets are identical in finish to the players helmets on the field. "

http://www.hydrographicsinc.com/news/tcu-poinsettia-bowl-headsets/

[Kevin W.]

First of all, i don't think Oregon has the strongest identity in sports.

Holy contradiction, Batman!

Oregon has an identity of it's own, and nobody, I repeat NOBODY, has a stronger identity in all of sports. No one.

[aawagner011]

Yes, many times. The main thing everyone always says is "It threw away all of Oregon's tradition!". You know what? Yes, it did. It tried to throw away decades and decades of futility and losing. Years of underachieving, empty seats and fired coaches. Bowl games? HA! We would be happy with 4 wins most years. We had Dan Fouts at QB and we still sucked. If there was any team in the country that needed to have their tradtion scrapped, it was Oregon. And you know what? It worked. Oregon has had one, I repeat, ONE losing season since 1999, and that was a 5-6 year in 2004. A 5-6 would've been considered a success in the 80s. Oregon threw out there tradtion because they barely had any to begin with. I think the first thing people thought of when they looked at our uniforms were the old Green Bay Packers, not the Oregon ducks. Now, we have an identity all our own...

Great start out of the blocks...

...Everyone always talks about "Oh look, they're copying Oregon!". No, you can try to copy Oregon, but you can't be Oregon. Nobody can. ASU? Please. Oregon uses 4 helmets, jerseys and pants halfway through the season. Wyoming? Mashing templates together and slightly recoloring helmets is no where near the same as Oregon. Oklahoma State? 3 helmets is pathetic. And they look more like Oregon State than Oklahoma State with some of their combos...

you clipped the fifth hurdle with your knee...

Oregon has an identity of it's own, and nobody, I repeat NOBODY, has a stronger identity in all of sports. No one.

and then fell flat on your face. It's a strong identity, and it's getting stronger each year, but it's in no way the strongest identity in sports. Cowboys, Yankees, Harlem Globetrotters, Manchester United, etc. These sports brands are all global (and iconic), which is what Oregon will never be. When your brand is only marketed to a domestic audience (as college football is), then your brand will never be truly global. When your brand revolves around constant change, your brand will never be iconic.

An Iconic identity is not the same as a strong identity. Take Penn State. They're uniforms are instantly recognizable as Penn State, and they have a very iconic uniform. But thats only because they've been wearing it for a very long time. If Penn State were a fairly recent university, then nobody would recognize their uniforms because their identity is very weak. Oregon's current uniforms have been in use for 3 years, and everyone still recognizes them. Oregon will never be iconic because we'll never keep the same uniform for more than 5 years, but they will have a very strong identity none the less. No other sports team in the world can say that.

Many club and national soccer teams change uniforms every couple years. They have much stronger identities than Oregon does.

It's true that an iconic identity is not the same as a strong identity, but they very often go hand in hand, and they definitely support one another. Your hypothetical theories don't work here because context and tradition are part of an identity. There is no 'if Penn State were a fairly recent university' because they are not, and their identity has been built over decades into one of the strongest and most iconic in college football. Penn State football is built upon timeless elements that transcend trendiness and speak to people of all ages. Their identity is true to the game of football and instantly recognizable as Penn State. Penn State's identity is what other identities strive to be one day, including Oregon. If the only reason Penn State has a strong identity is because they've used it for so long, then, using your logic, the only reason Oregon has a strong identity is because they've been successful since they adopted it. If they had sucked the last decade, their identity would be a failed experiment like so many others, but, these things go hand in hand.

You may have missed the part where I agreed with you that Oregon has a strong identity, but you are blinded by your bias in thinking that they have the strongest identity in all of sports, which is the only portion of your dissertation I vehemently disagreed with. The identity is about more than the uniforms, and Oregon doesn't have a whole lot of recognition value beyond that. Think of other great identities: they have more allure than just the uniforms. Michigan has the Big House and the M Club Banner. Ohio State has the Horseshoe. Notre Dame has the Golden Dome and Touchdown Jesus. Clemson has Howard's Rock. Penn State has the White Out. Oregon doesn't have that 'identity beyond the identity' that makes a good identity great. They may get there some day, but they are not there yet.

First of all, i don't think Oregon has the strongest identity in sports. I think Hawaii does. Yes, I know I originally said tha Oregon does, but after more thought, I determined that Hawaii's and Texas' are stronger.

Tradition can only help your indentity if you win with it. Remember when Idaho tried the "Throw the V" thing earlier this year? They tried to start a new tradition. A lot fo the students were excited, and it was an initial success. Then, they got slaughtered in their first game with it. What happened to that tradition? Well, I haven't heard much about it since. It didn't help their identity at all. Tradition's effect on an identity is very situational, and relies mostly on team success, not how good their uniform is representitive of their school. Had Penn State lost in their uniforms, their identity would be null. Hawaii has not nearly the amount of success that Penn State has, and yet people probabley recognize their uniforms about as equally. We are assuming that most americans know about Penn State football. They know about Penn State, but they don't know what their uniforms look like. The uniform community is much more niche than you realize, so if we really want to determine who has a better identity, we have to get rid of variables like team success and tradition, because otherwise that could skew an idneitity in a teams favor, even if their uniform identity is not a strong as the other teams. A uniform like Penn State's or Alabama's is only as good as the team wearing it. Hawaii could go 0-12 for 10 years straight and still be recognizable.

No.

First off, you contradict yourself by going back on your claim that Oregon so firmly "has an identity of it's own, and nobody, I repeat NOBODY, has a stronger identity in all of sports. No one." So please make up your mind. Second, neither Oregon nor Hawaii have the best, strongest identities in sports. They wear manufacturer templates that will be be non-existant in three years and look completely different. Yes, I believe Oregon has a good look that is quite recognizable. However, they do not have the continuity that other schools have relied on for decades. Come back to me in a year or two when Hawaii and Oregon BOTH have new looks and fans are once again trying to play catch up to simply recognize who the hell is on the field. Neither of those (and I reference both since you are apparently on the fence and can't decide) changing looks lead to the strongest identity in sports. A strong identity is one that is unmistakably that team in the past, today, and into the future. Alabama, Texas, USC, are all perfect examples of this. They might not have an array of 40 jerseys and may not be bringing in the extra dollars in merch sales, but they know they'll look back in 20 years and still recognize the team and they value that tradition and recognition FAR more than a few extra dollars in the wallet to follow the latest trend.

[thespleenenator]

Yes, many times. The main thing everyone always says is "It threw away all of Oregon's tradition!". You know what? Yes, it did. It tried to throw away decades and decades of futility and losing. Years of underachieving, empty seats and fired coaches. Bowl games? HA! We would be happy with 4 wins most years. We had Dan Fouts at QB and we still sucked. If there was any team in the country that needed to have their tradtion scrapped, it was Oregon. And you know what? It worked. Oregon has had one, I repeat, ONE losing season since 1999, and that was a 5-6 year in 2004. A 5-6 would've been considered a success in the 80s. Oregon threw out there tradtion because they barely had any to begin with. I think the first thing people thought of when they looked at our uniforms were the old Green Bay Packers, not the Oregon ducks. Now, we have an identity all our own...

Great start out of the blocks...

...Everyone always talks about "Oh look, they're copying Oregon!". No, you can try to copy Oregon, but you can't be Oregon. Nobody can. ASU? Please. Oregon uses 4 helmets, jerseys and pants halfway through the season. Wyoming? Mashing templates together and slightly recoloring helmets is no where near the same as Oregon. Oklahoma State? 3 helmets is pathetic. And they look more like Oregon State than Oklahoma State with some of their combos...

you clipped the fifth hurdle with your knee...

Oregon has an identity of it's own, and nobody, I repeat NOBODY, has a stronger identity in all of sports. No one.

and then fell flat on your face. It's a strong identity, and it's getting stronger each year, but it's in no way the strongest identity in sports. Cowboys, Yankees, Harlem Globetrotters, Manchester United, etc. These sports brands are all global (and iconic), which is what Oregon will never be. When your brand is only marketed to a domestic audience (as college football is), then your brand will never be truly global. When your brand revolves around constant change, your brand will never be iconic.

An Iconic identity is not the same as a strong identity. Take Penn State. They're uniforms are instantly recognizable as Penn State, and they have a very iconic uniform. But thats only because they've been wearing it for a very long time. If Penn State were a fairly recent university, then nobody would recognize their uniforms because their identity is very weak. Oregon's current uniforms have been in use for 3 years, and everyone still recognizes them. Oregon will never be iconic because we'll never keep the same uniform for more than 5 years, but they will have a very strong identity none the less. No other sports team in the world can say that.

Many club and national soccer teams change uniforms every couple years. They have much stronger identities than Oregon does.

It's true that an iconic identity is not the same as a strong identity, but they very often go hand in hand, and they definitely support one another. Your hypothetical theories don't work here because context and tradition are part of an identity. There is no 'if Penn State were a fairly recent university' because they are not, and their identity has been built over decades into one of the strongest and most iconic in college football. Penn State football is built upon timeless elements that transcend trendiness and speak to people of all ages. Their identity is true to the game of football and instantly recognizable as Penn State. Penn State's identity is what other identities strive to be one day, including Oregon. If the only reason Penn State has a strong identity is because they've used it for so long, then, using your logic, the only reason Oregon has a strong identity is because they've been successful since they adopted it. If they had sucked the last decade, their identity would be a failed experiment like so many others, but, these things go hand in hand.

You may have missed the part where I agreed with you that Oregon has a strong identity, but you are blinded by your bias in thinking that they have the strongest identity in all of sports, which is the only portion of your dissertation I vehemently disagreed with. The identity is about more than the uniforms, and Oregon doesn't have a whole lot of recognition value beyond that. Think of other great identities: they have more allure than just the uniforms. Michigan has the Big House and the M Club Banner. Ohio State has the Horseshoe. Notre Dame has the Golden Dome and Touchdown Jesus. Clemson has Howard's Rock. Penn State has the White Out. Oregon doesn't have that 'identity beyond the identity' that makes a good identity great. They may get there some day, but they are not there yet.

First of all, i don't think Oregon has the strongest identity in sports. I think Hawaii does. Yes, I know I originally said that Oregon does, but after more thought, I determined that Hawaii's and Texas' are stronger.

Tradition can only help your indentity if you win with it. Remember when Idaho tried the "Throw the V" thing earlier this year? They tried to start a new tradition. A lot fo the students were excited, and it was an initial success. Then, they got slaughtered in their first game with it. What happened to that tradition? Well, I haven't heard much about it since. It didn't help their identity at all. Tradition's effect on an identity is very situational, and relies mostly on team success, not how good their uniform is representitive of their school. Had Penn State lost in their uniforms, their identity would be null. Hawaii has not nearly the amount of success that Penn State has, and yet people probabley recognize their uniforms about as equally. We are assuming that most americans know about Penn State football. They know about Penn State, but they don't know what their uniforms look like. The uniform community is much more niche than you realize, so if we really want to determine who has a better identity, we have to get rid of variables like team success and tradition, because otherwise that could skew an idneitity in a teams favor, even if their uniform identity is not a strong as the other teams. A uniform like Penn State's or Alabama's is only as good as the team wearing it. Hawaii could go 0-12 for 10 years straight and still be recognizable.

No.

First off, you contradict yourself by going back on your claim that Oregon so firmly "has an identity of it's own, and nobody, I repeat NOBODY, has a stronger identity in all of sports. No one." So please make up your mind. Second, neither Oregon nor Hawaii have the best, strongest identities in sports. They wear manufacturer templates that will be be non-existant in three years and look completely different. Yes, I believe Oregon has a good look that is quite recognizable. However, they do not have the continuity that other schools have relied on for decades. Come back to me in a year or two when Hawaii and Oregon BOTH have new looks and fans are once again trying to play catch up to simply recognize who the hell is on the field. Neither of those (and I reference both since you are apparently on the fence and can't decide) changing looks lead to the strongest identity in sports. A strong identity is one that is unmistakably that team in the past, today, and into the future. Alabama, Texas, USC, are all perfect examples of this. They might not have an array of 40 jerseys and may not be bringing in the extra dollars in merch sales, but they know they'll look back in 20 years and still recognize the team and they value that tradition and recognition FAR more than a few extra dollars in the wallet to follow the latest trend.

As the the first bold, look at my post that I bolded on my post (yo dawg).

As for the second bold, a school's identity should not have to rely on continuity. Since we've been talking about them so much, let's look at Penn State. First off, nothing in their uniform gives off any suggestion that they're the nitanny lions. Cincinatti has the claw marks on their pants. Cal has the bear claw stripes. Oregon has the wings. Penn State has the... nothing? The colors themselves do seem "Pennsylvania", but that doesn't help when you have nothing on the uniform that indicates that you're from Pennsylvania. Putting the lion head on the helmet would greaty improve the look, and would at least give the viewer a hint of what they're mascot is.

And as I've said before, you don't have to mix and match to have a great identity. Texas has a timeless and iconic look, but they also have a very "Texas" look. The burnt orange is absolutely perfect for the rustic, hardworking Texas farmer, and it helps that their mascot is the same color as their uniforms. The longhorn logo is probabley one of the most appropriate logos in College Sports. Heck, Texas could not have a mascot, and that would not from the identity at all. UCLA is another one. The gold is perfect for a Bruin, and the light Blue is very Los Angeles, with the always blue sky shining down upon our face. The design is way too classic for a school located in Los Angeles however, and I think if they slightly modernized the look that they have now, it would be a big improvement.

[andrewharrington]

The uniform community is much more niche than you realize, so if we really want to determine who has a better identity, we have to get rid of variables like team success and tradition, because otherwise that could skew an idneitity in a teams favor, even if their uniform identity is not a strong as the other teams. A uniform like Penn State's or Alabama's is only as good as the team wearing it. Hawaii could go 0-12 for 10 years straight and still be recognizable.

If you honestly believe this, then there's little hope for you. This is so far off base I can't even begin to explain to you the reasons why because you clearly have no grasp of reality, let alone common sense or design and marketing.

If you're evaluating identities against each other, you can't exclude team success and tradition because those things are integral parts of every identity. What is Oregon's identity without a decade of success behind it? Not much. Few people would give a hoot or be able to recognize the Ducks without the BCS bowl appearances and 10-win seasons that have come with their identity change.

Hawai'i and Cincinnati have both been to BCS bowls and nobody cares or knows about them. Their identities are consistent. They're good identities, but they're not recognizable no matter how much you want them to be, and both will be dated and switched over to the next new thing in a few years unless they decide to invest in their future with a timeless identity. Of course, none of that's going to mean much if they can't sustain major success, no matter what they look like. It's a tough decision to stick to your guns and wait for the identity to mature, but the schools that have done it and combined it with success are reaping the benefits of it. The worst thing Hawai'i ever did was ditch the Rainbow motif from their look. They abandoned the most unique identity in college football and now they simply blend in. A undefeated regular season and BCS appearance in the rainbows would have been huge for them, but they squandered any hope of that when they moved to the green and black. If you're going to be a mediocre team, you need to have character to stand out. Likewise, if you're an elite team, you need continuity to be able to build that elite identity. Oregon's bucking that trend and succeeding, but I truly think they're one of a kind in that regard.

Maybe in an ideal world identities wouldn't have to rely on continuity, but like it or not, everything in life relies on continuity. Everything and everyone is shaped by a series of memories and experiences. Identities are no different, and that's why people like seeing Alabama in crimson helmets with numerals, and that's why people like seeing Penn state in plain white with blue trim.

[aawagner011]

As the the first bold, look at my post that I bolded on my post (yo dawg).

As for the second bold, a school's identity should not have to rely on continuity. Since we've been talking about them so much, let's look at Penn State. First off, nothing in their uniform gives off any suggestion that they're the nitanny lions. Cincinatti has the claw marks on their pants. Cal has the bear claw stripes. Oregon has the wings. Penn State has the... nothing? The colors themselves do seem "Pennsylvania", but that doesn't help when you have nothing on the uniform that indicates that you're from Pennsylvania. Putting the lion head on the helmet would greaty improve the look, and would at least give the viewer a hint of what they're mascot is.

And as I've said before, you don't have to mix and match to have a great identity. Texas has a timeless and iconic look, but they also have a very "Texas" look. The burnt orange is absolutely perfect for the rustic, hardworking Texas farmer, and it helps that their mascot is the same color as their uniforms. The longhorn logo is probabley one of the most appropriate logos in College Sports. Heck, Texas could not have a mascot, and that would not from the identity at all. UCLA is another one. The gold is perfect for a Bruin, and the light Blue is very Los Angeles, with the always blue sky shining down upon our face. The design is way too classic for a school located in Los Angeles however, and I think if they slightly modernized the look that they have now, it would be a big improvement.

I realize that you bolded that part of the post and changed your mind. However, I'm saying that you are unable to make a decision and its a bit jarring considering you were so absolutely positive that Oregon exclusively held the title of strongest identity in sports. As to your other points, these teams don't need to look like a first grade children's coloring book. An iconic look can (and usually) features traditional striping or graphics that transcend time and will look classic today and in 50 years. All these "examples" you reference feature silly imagery- claw marks, bear claw stripes, wings, etc. I don't think I need to put a dog collar on my Bulldogs for them to fit under your label of solid "identity". That's where you and I differ. Penn State is recognizable. Their identity is incredibly strong. I think my point has been made.

[thespleenenator]

The uniform community is much more niche than you realize, so if we really want to determine who has a better identity, we have to get rid of variables like team success and tradition, because otherwise that could skew an idneitity in a teams favor, even if their uniform identity is not a strong as the other teams. A uniform like Penn State's or Alabama's is only as good as the team wearing it. Hawaii could go 0-12 for 10 years straight and still be recognizable.

If you honestly believe this, then there's little hope for you. This is so far off base I can't even begin to explain to you the reasons why because you clearly have no grasp of reality, let alone common sense or design and marketing.

If you're evaluating identities against each other, you can't exclude team success and tradition because those things are integral parts of every identity. What is Oregon's identity without a decade of success behind it? Not much. Few people would give a hoot or be able to recognize the Ducks without the BCS bowl appearances and 10-win seasons that have come with their identity change.

Hawai'i and Cincinnati have both been to BCS bowls and nobody cares or knows about them. Their identities are consistent. They're good identities, but they're not recognizable no matter how much you want them to be, and both will be dated and switched over to the next new thing in a few years unless they decide to invest in their future with a timeless identity. Of course, none of that's going to mean much if they can't sustain major success, no matter what they look like. It's a tough decision to stick to your guns and wait for the identity to mature, but the schools that have done it and combined it with success are reaping the benefits of it. The worst thing Hawai'i ever did was ditch the Rainbow motif from their look. They abandoned the most unique identity in college football and now they simply blend in. A undefeated regular season and BCS appearance in the rainbows would have been huge for them, but they squandered any hope of that when they moved to the green and black. If you're going to be a mediocre team, you need to have character to stand out. Likewise, if you're an elite team, you need continuity to be able to build that elite identity. Oregon's bucking that trend and succeeding, but I truly think they're one of a kind in that regard.

Maybe in an ideal world identities wouldn't have to rely on continuity, but like it or not, everything in life relies on continuity. Everything and everyone is shaped by a series of memories and experiences. Identities are no different, and that's why people like seeing Alabama in crimson helmets with numerals, and that's why people like seeing Penn state in plain white with blue trim.

I think the main difference between us is that you're looking at identities from the perspective of a college sports fan. I'm looking at them from stricty a design standpoint. From a strictly design standpoint, Penn State has a horrible identity.

I wholey agree about ditching the rainbows though. I think a combination of the modern look and the rainbow look would be brilliant.

[aawagner011]

The uniform community is much more niche than you realize, so if we really want to determine who has a better identity, we have to get rid of variables like team success and tradition, because otherwise that could skew an idneitity in a teams favor, even if their uniform identity is not a strong as the other teams. A uniform like Penn State's or Alabama's is only as good as the team wearing it. Hawaii could go 0-12 for 10 years straight and still be recognizable.

If you honestly believe this, then there's little hope for you. This is so far off base I can't even begin to explain to you the reasons why because you clearly have no grasp of reality, let alone common sense or design and marketing.

If you're evaluating identities against each other, you can't exclude team success and tradition because those things are integral parts of every identity. What is Oregon's identity without a decade of success behind it? Not much. Few people would give a hoot or be able to recognize the Ducks without the BCS bowl appearances and 10-win seasons that have come with their identity change.

Hawai'i and Cincinnati have both been to BCS bowls and nobody cares or knows about them. Their identities are consistent. They're good identities, but they're not recognizable no matter how much you want them to be, and both will be dated and switched over to the next new thing in a few years unless they decide to invest in their future with a timeless identity. Of course, none of that's going to mean much if they can't sustain major success, no matter what they look like. It's a tough decision to stick to your guns and wait for the identity to mature, but the schools that have done it and combined it with success are reaping the benefits of it. The worst thing Hawai'i ever did was ditch the Rainbow motif from their look. They abandoned the most unique identity in college football and now they simply blend in. A undefeated regular season and BCS appearance in the rainbows would have been huge for them, but they squandered any hope of that when they moved to the green and black. If you're going to be a mediocre team, you need to have character to stand out. Likewise, if you're an elite team, you need continuity to be able to build that elite identity. Oregon's bucking that trend and succeeding, but I truly think they're one of a kind in that regard.

Maybe in an ideal world identities wouldn't have to rely on continuity, but like it or not, everything in life relies on continuity. Everything and everyone is shaped by a series of memories and experiences. Identities are no different, and that's why people like seeing Alabama in crimson helmets with numerals, and that's why people like seeing Penn state in plain white with blue trim.

I think the main difference between us is that you're looking at identities from the perspective of a college sports fan. I'm looking at them from stricty a design standpoint. From a strictly design standpoint, Penn State has a horrible identity.

I wholey agree about ditching the rainbows though. I think a combination of the modern look and the rainbow look would be brilliant.

----> Intended audience of Penn State football = College sports fan

[thespleenenator]

The uniform community is much more niche than you realize, so if we really want to determine who has a better identity, we have to get rid of variables like team success and tradition, because otherwise that could skew an idneitity in a teams favor, even if their uniform identity is not a strong as the other teams. A uniform like Penn State's or Alabama's is only as good as the team wearing it. Hawaii could go 0-12 for 10 years straight and still be recognizable.

If you honestly believe this, then there's little hope for you. This is so far off base I can't even begin to explain to you the reasons why because you clearly have no grasp of reality, let alone common sense or design and marketing.

If you're evaluating identities against each other, you can't exclude team success and tradition because those things are integral parts of every identity. What is Oregon's identity without a decade of success behind it? Not much. Few people would give a hoot or be able to recognize the Ducks without the BCS bowl appearances and 10-win seasons that have come with their identity change.

Hawai'i and Cincinnati have both been to BCS bowls and nobody cares or knows about them. Their identities are consistent. They're good identities, but they're not recognizable no matter how much you want them to be, and both will be dated and switched over to the next new thing in a few years unless they decide to invest in their future with a timeless identity. Of course, none of that's going to mean much if they can't sustain major success, no matter what they look like. It's a tough decision to stick to your guns and wait for the identity to mature, but the schools that have done it and combined it with success are reaping the benefits of it. The worst thing Hawai'i ever did was ditch the Rainbow motif from their look. They abandoned the most unique identity in college football and now they simply blend in. A undefeated regular season and BCS appearance in the rainbows would have been huge for them, but they squandered any hope of that when they moved to the green and black. If you're going to be a mediocre team, you need to have character to stand out. Likewise, if you're an elite team, you need continuity to be able to build that elite identity. Oregon's bucking that trend and succeeding, but I truly think they're one of a kind in that regard.

Maybe in an ideal world identities wouldn't have to rely on continuity, but like it or not, everything in life relies on continuity. Everything and everyone is shaped by a series of memories and experiences. Identities are no different, and that's why people like seeing Alabama in crimson helmets with numerals, and that's why people like seeing Penn state in plain white with blue trim.

I think the main difference between us is that you're looking at identities from the perspective of a college sports fan. I'm looking at them from stricty a design standpoint. From a strictly design standpoint, Penn State has a horrible identity.

I wholey agree about ditching the rainbows though. I think a combination of the modern look and the rainbow look would be brilliant.

----> Intended audience of Penn State football = College sports fan

So according to you, it's impossible to convert non college sports fan into college sports fans?

[aawagner011]

The uniform community is much more niche than you realize, so if we really want to determine who has a better identity, we have to get rid of variables like team success and tradition, because otherwise that could skew an idneitity in a teams favor, even if their uniform identity is not a strong as the other teams. A uniform like Penn State's or Alabama's is only as good as the team wearing it. Hawaii could go 0-12 for 10 years straight and still be recognizable.

If you honestly believe this, then there's little hope for you. This is so far off base I can't even begin to explain to you the reasons why because you clearly have no grasp of reality, let alone common sense or design and marketing.

If you're evaluating identities against each other, you can't exclude team success and tradition because those things are integral parts of every identity. What is Oregon's identity without a decade of success behind it? Not much. Few people would give a hoot or be able to recognize the Ducks without the BCS bowl appearances and 10-win seasons that have come with their identity change.

Hawai'i and Cincinnati have both been to BCS bowls and nobody cares or knows about them. Their identities are consistent. They're good identities, but they're not recognizable no matter how much you want them to be, and both will be dated and switched over to the next new thing in a few years unless they decide to invest in their future with a timeless identity. Of course, none of that's going to mean much if they can't sustain major success, no matter what they look like. It's a tough decision to stick to your guns and wait for the identity to mature, but the schools that have done it and combined it with success are reaping the benefits of it. The worst thing Hawai'i ever did was ditch the Rainbow motif from their look. They abandoned the most unique identity in college football and now they simply blend in. A undefeated regular season and BCS appearance in the rainbows would have been huge for them, but they squandered any hope of that when they moved to the green and black. If you're going to be a mediocre team, you need to have character to stand out. Likewise, if you're an elite team, you need continuity to be able to build that elite identity. Oregon's bucking that trend and succeeding, but I truly think they're one of a kind in that regard.

Maybe in an ideal world identities wouldn't have to rely on continuity, but like it or not, everything in life relies on continuity. Everything and everyone is shaped by a series of memories and experiences. Identities are no different, and that's why people like seeing Alabama in crimson helmets with numerals, and that's why people like seeing Penn state in plain white with blue trim.

I think the main difference between us is that you're looking at identities from the perspective of a college sports fan. I'm looking at them from stricty a design standpoint. From a strictly design standpoint, Penn State has a horrible identity.

I wholey agree about ditching the rainbows though. I think a combination of the modern look and the rainbow look would be brilliant.

----> Intended audience of Penn State football = College sports fan

So according to you, it's impossible to convert non college sports fan into college sports fans?

*Looking back where I said that*...I did not say that, did I? Just like any other product or service, it is primarily designed for the main audience of consumption. Key word: INTENDED. Here the intended audience of Penn State football will typically (key word: TYPICALLY) be a fan of college football.

[nuordr]

TCU would have looked 1000 times better if they wore purple pants. However that helmet is fantastic and the rest of the uniform sucks.

[PackerBadger]

Replicas for Wisconsin Rose Bowl jerseys for sale

Link

Those are really nice. I love the rose design in the numbers. Hopefulley they'll have a rose in the W on the helmet.

These are no different from their current white jerseys other than the rose logo. (And the roses within the numbers, but I didn't notice that the first time I saw them.) I still don't get why they can't wear their home reds given that whatever Oregone wears, it'll look different from red.

[gdu]

TCU would have looked 1000 times better if they wore purple pants. However that helmet is fantastic and the rest of the uniform sucks.

Superstition. TCU used to wear purple pants with white tops, but we lost to Texas Tech and SMU in them and haven't worn them together since.

[drdougfresh]

Spleen, I think you're missing the point on quite a few things here:

-Solid identity is not synonymous with what you deem as "cool". Hawai'i has a pretty lame identity. Texas is great, but the same things that make their identity great are what makes Penn State's identity great. I'm all for flashy, modern designs, don't get me wrong, but PSU has a strong identity. They own the basic navy and white category.

-Andy is not judging strictly from a fan point of view, in fact, I feel like it's quite the opposite in this case. As aawagner said: an identity is designed with an intended target market in mind. In this case, the target market is the college football fan. We wouldn't judge say, the identity of a company that makes infant toys, from the standpoint of a college freshman. It's irrelevant. The purpose of the design is to influence the target market and to attract them-- exactly the same logic behind a CFB team identity. Judging something like this in a "vacuum" addresses no real potential issues with the identity, as that removes the situational influence/environmental fit for the brand.

-Continuity is obviously going to build brand recognition, and thus, brand equity. The longer the identity is the same, the more people become familiarized with it. This isn't debatable: it's a fact. Now yes, there are some staples to UO's identity that are continuous, but there's a constant change. Recognition is obviously affected (whether you want to acknowledge that or not).

I think ultimately, you're confusing "cool" identity with "strong" identity. Even unique does not equal strong. It comes down to brand equity, IMO. If you don't have it, it's hard to say you have a totally strong/solid identity. Like it or not, success influences that-- bottom line.

[bucknut40]

O wow actual bowl uniform talk ....I saw the headsets tonight before I saw this post they looked pretty cool

"Not only will the Horned Frogs be wearing their HGI Purple Frog Skin Pattern helmets against Louisiana Tech in the Poinsettia Bowl on December 21st, but the coaching staff will have new head gear as well.

HGI has teamed up with Bosch/Telex to create custom headsets with the Purple Frog Skin Pattern for the coaches to use during the Poinsettia Bowl. Assembled by Marvac, these headsets are identical in finish to the players helmets on the field. "

http://www.hydrographicsinc.com/news/tcu-poinsettia-bowl-headsets/

[thespleenenator]

Spleen, I think you're missing the point on quite a few things here:

-Solid identity is not synonymous with what you deem as "cool". Hawai'i has a pretty lame identity. Texas is great, but the same things that make their identity great are what makes Penn State's identity great. I'm all for flashy, modern designs, don't get me wrong, but PSU has a strong identity. They own the basic navy and white category.

-Andy is not judging strictly from a fan point of view, in fact, I feel like it's quite the opposite in this case. As aawagner said: an identity is designed with an intended target market in mind. In this case, the target market is the college football fan. We wouldn't judge say, the identity of a company that makes infant toys, from the standpoint of a college freshman. It's irrelevant. The purpose of the design is to influence the target market and to attract them-- exactly the same logic behind a CFB team identity. Judging something like this in a "vacuum" addresses no real potential issues with the identity, as that removes the situational influence/environmental fit for the brand.

-Continuity is obviously going to build brand recognition, and thus, brand equity. The longer the identity is the same, the more people become familiarized with it. This isn't debatable: it's a fact. Now yes, there are some staples to UO's identity that are continuous, but there's a constant change. Recognition is obviously affected (whether you want to acknowledge that or not).

I think ultimately, you're confusing "cool" identity with "strong" identity. Even unique does not equal strong. It comes down to brand equity, IMO. If you don't have it, it's hard to say you have a totally strong/solid identity. Like it or not, success influences that-- bottom line.

Ok, I'm going to make this very brief, and very clear. Texas has a great indentity not because it's iconic, not becuase it's cool, but because it looks like something the University of TEXAS would wear. A great identity needs to incorporate your surrounding area and your university as a whole. Their colors are Texas, their mascot is Texas, and their uniforms are Texas. If you were to design an identity for a team located in Austin, Texas, then you would have a hard time coming up with something better than that.

[Jamikel]

NC State really needs to make the outside stripes/logo trim black and go with the red helmet full-time.

[ATLJ]

Spleen, I think you're missing the point on quite a few things here:

-Solid identity is not synonymous with what you deem as "cool". Hawai'i has a pretty lame identity. Texas is great, but the same things that make their identity great are what makes Penn State's identity great. I'm all for flashy, modern designs, don't get me wrong, but PSU has a strong identity. They own the basic navy and white category.

-Andy is not judging strictly from a fan point of view, in fact, I feel like it's quite the opposite in this case. As aawagner said: an identity is designed with an intended target market in mind. In this case, the target market is the college football fan. We wouldn't judge say, the identity of a company that makes infant toys, from the standpoint of a college freshman. It's irrelevant. The purpose of the design is to influence the target market and to attract them-- exactly the same logic behind a CFB team identity. Judging something like this in a "vacuum" addresses no real potential issues with the identity, as that removes the situational influence/environmental fit for the brand.

-Continuity is obviously going to build brand recognition, and thus, brand equity. The longer the identity is the same, the more people become familiarized with it. This isn't debatable: it's a fact. Now yes, there are some staples to UO's identity that are continuous, but there's a constant change. Recognition is obviously affected (whether you want to acknowledge that or not).

I think ultimately, you're confusing "cool" identity with "strong" identity. Even unique does not equal strong. It comes down to brand equity, IMO. If you don't have it, it's hard to say you have a totally strong/solid identity. Like it or not, success influences that-- bottom line.

Ok, I'm going to make this very brief, and very clear. Texas has a great indentity not because it's iconic, not becuase it's cool, but because it looks like something the University of TEXAS would wear. A great identity needs to incorporate your surrounding area and your university as a whole. Their colors are Texas, their mascot is Texas, and their uniforms are Texas. If you were to design an identity for a team located in Austin, Texas, then you would have a hard time coming up with something better than that.

Ok, I'm going to make this very brief, and very clear. Texas has a great indentity not because it's iconic, not becuase it's cool, but because it looks like something the University of TEXAS would wear.

This statement is your opinion and nothing else. There are plenty of people out there that would say Texas has a great identity because of how iconic the look is. There are plenty of other people out there that would say Texas has a great identity because the logo and uniforms look cool. Do you know why you think their uniforms look like something the University of Texas would wear? Because they've worn a similar style uniform over the past 40+ years that has become part of their brand. That look is what you have grown up with and what you identify as Texas. If they had been wearing something else (and branded differently) for the past 40 years that was equally as good as to what they have now, but slightly different, you'd be saying the same thing about that specific look.

[gdu]

Apparently Wisconsin's Rose Bowl uniforms will feature roses on the numbers (another trend started by Nike).

http://www.footballfanatics.com/COLLEGE_Wisconsin_Badgers/adidas_Wisconsin_Badgers_2012_Rose_Bowl_Bound__Number_28_Replica_Jersey_-_White