Which uniform brand frustrates you the most?

[nuordr]

Nike.

Because they're the ones that started all this mess in the first place.

This.

Also they're the worst when it comes to putting themselves ahead of the teams when designing a uniform.

I see some errors in your whole statement. First, how are they the worst at design a uniform for teams? Arizona State went to Nike and said we need a new look, so Nike gave them a new look. Nike didn't call of the Sun Devils and stay, "oh, btw, next year your teams will look different." The only school that Nike places themselves ahead of the school by popular belief is Oregon, however, I believe if truth be known, the reason Oregon has all of these looks is because the school wanted them to help place them on the map. Phil Knight is a genius!

[bigwalk]

Adidas. Nike. UnderArmour. Russell. They all do things with uniforms that are bold, baffling or both. They all do things that infuriate us. So who is it for you?

For me, without question, it's Russell. We use the term "Arena League" as a derogatory term for postmodern uniforms but the league had some nice unis (Arizona and Tampa Bay as examples) before Russell standardized that stupid ass digital-clock-looking number font. And they use it on their college uniforms too. My Grambling Tigers look so embarrassing in Russell's uniforms. Their played-out templates and that one stupid number font are the reasons I can't stand them.

Yeah, I'm not sure these are really "postmodern"...

[tBBP]

Nike.

Because they're the ones that started all this mess in the first place.

This.

Also they're the worst when it comes to putting themselves ahead of the teams when designing a uniform.

I see some errors in your whole statement. First, how are they the worst at design a uniform for teams? Arizona State went to Nike and said we need a new look, so Nike gave them a new look. Nike didn't call of the Sun Devils and stay, "oh, btw, next year your teams will look different." The only school that Nike places themselves ahead of the school by popular belief is Oregon, however, I believe if truth be known, the reason Oregon has all of these looks is because the school wanted them to help place them on the map. Phil Knight is a genius!

Let me help you out, both with IceCap's post and in general.

We can actually leave Oregon out of all of this--we all know that's Nike's pet baby--but the minute the first specialty one-off uniforms hit a field not named Autzen, it became less about the team/institution and more, if not ALL, about NIKE. And I believe that actually started with the "Enforcer" specialty one-offs Nike came up with for the Army/Navy game three or four seasons ago--which, if memory serves me right, were the precursors to the whole Rivalry PC one-off sets. (I could've gone back further than that, to the asymmetrical-sleeve debacles Florida, Miami, VA Tech, & @ least one other school I can't remember rolled out-but I didn't.) The primary purpose of those Enforcer uniforms-which by the way I believe at the time were the same template as the original Oregon PC template wherein they first introduced the wings-was not so much to drum up extra interest in the game (the two schools can do that on their own), but to use that game's popularity, because Nike knew lots of people would be tuned in, to a/ advertise their "new innovative technology" and b/ "showcase their creativity". And that was with the service academies. (To be fair, though, the academies did allow themselves to be pimped out to the Swoosh, so there is that.)

Then, after that came the second iteration of the RPC series a.k.a. the "toilet bowl pants" sets, wherein Nike specifically colored certain pieces of the uniforms, again to advertise their "innovative new technology". It was at that point that the whole uniform branding thing jumped the shark for me. Everything that came after that--the random panels, logo-adorned gloves, unnecessary additions of six shades of gray/steel/silver/carbon/charcoal/anthracite-whatever-the-hell-they-wanna-call-it, were just more sharks to jump.

And then somewhere in there, adidas wanted some shine, so out came the TechFits (which to be fair had already existed in the NFL in the form of Reebok's shrinkwrap getups), then UnderArmour decided they not only wanted in, but also wanted to straight blitzkrieg the uniform world as well. (And all this is to say nothing of the "templating epidemic" that had long run rampid throughout the college sports uniform world by that time.) So basically what's done ended up happening in addition to all the shark-jumping, since the sports apparel market is the dog-eat-dog world that it is, is that all the manufacturers wanna now keep one-upping and/or outdoing the others).

And that's pretty much how we ended up where we are today...they just keep jumping all the sharks and eating all the dogs.

Now, having said all that, I'll also say this: I'm all for progressiveness and creativity--within the realm of tastefulness--but my whole problem with all this now, and to spotlight IceCap's point, is that all of this was/is done to spotlight the manufacturer before the team, by simple virtue of whatever template (or in the case of certain schools, "corporate colors") the team wears down on the field. That, to me, constitutes a problem...one which Nike started. Which is why I said what I said in my previous post.

[guest23]

Nike.

Because they're the ones that started all this mess in the first place.

This.

Also they're the worst when it comes to putting themselves ahead of the teams when designing a uniform.

I see some errors in your whole statement. First, how are they the worst at design a uniform for teams? Arizona State went to Nike and said we need a new look, so Nike gave them a new look. Nike didn't call of the Sun Devils and stay, "oh, btw, next year your teams will look different." The only school that Nike places themselves ahead of the school by popular belief is Oregon, however, I believe if truth be known, the reason Oregon has all of these looks is because the school wanted them to help place them on the map. Phil Knight is a genius!

Let me help you out, both with IceCap's post and in general.

We can actually leave Oregon out of all of this--we all know that's Nike's pet baby--but the minute the first specialty one-off uniforms hit a field not named Autzen, it became less about the team/institution and more, if not ALL, about NIKE. And I believe that actually started with the "Enforcer" specialty one-offs Nike came up with for the Army/Navy game three or four seasons ago--which, if memory serves me right, were the precursors to the whole Rivalry PC one-off sets. (I could've gone back further than that, to the asymmetrical-sleeve debacles Florida, Miami, VA Tech, & @ least one other school I can't remember rolled out-but I didn't.) The primary purpose of those Enforcer uniforms-which by the way I believe at the time were the same template as the original Oregon PC template wherein they first introduced the wings-was not so much to drum up extra interest in the game (the two schools can do that on their own), but to use that game's popularity, because Nike knew lots of people would be tuned in, to a/ advertise their "new innovative technology" and b/ "showcase their creativity". And that was with the service academies. (To be fair, though, the academies did allow themselves to be pimped out to the Swoosh, so there is that.)

Then, after that came the second iteration of the RPC series a.k.a. the "toilet bowl pants" sets, wherein Nike specifically colored certain pieces of the uniforms, again to advertise their "innovative new technology". It was at that point that the whole uniform branding thing jumped the shark for me. Everything that came after that--the random panels, logo-adorned gloves, unnecessary additions of six shades of gray/steel/silver/carbon/charcoal/anthracite-whatever-the-hell-they-wanna-call-it, were just more sharks to jump.

And then somewhere in there, adidas wanted some shine, so out came the TechFits (which to be fair had already existed in the NFL in the form of Reebok's shrinkwrap getups), then UnderArmour decided they not only wanted in, but also wanted to straight blitzkrieg the uniform world as well. (And all this is to say nothing of the "templating epidemic" that had long run rampid throughout the college sports uniform world by that time.) So basically what's done ended up happening in addition to all the shark-jumping, since the sports apparel market is the dog-eat-dog world that it is, is that all the manufacturers wanna now keep one-upping and/or outdoing the others).

And that's pretty much how we ended up where we are today...they just keep jumping all the sharks and eating all the dogs.

Now, having said all that, I'll also say this: I'm all for progressiveness and creativity--within the realm of tastefulness--but my whole problem with all this now, and to spotlight IceCap's point, is that all of this was/is done to spotlight the manufacturer before the team, by simple virtue of whatever template (or in the case of certain schools, "corporate colors") the team wears down on the field. That, to me, constitutes a problem...one which Nike started. Which is why I said what I said in my previous post.

anyone remember the days when russell, champion, and wilson were the big dogs and the manufacturers label was kept to a tag at the bottom of the jersey?..ah nostalgia...but honestly if it wasn't for the shoe companies I'm not sure this board would exist.

[nuordr]

Nike.

Because they're the ones that started all this mess in the first place.

This.

Also they're the worst when it comes to putting themselves ahead of the teams when designing a uniform.

I see some errors in your whole statement. First, how are they the worst at design a uniform for teams? Arizona State went to Nike and said we need a new look, so Nike gave them a new look. Nike didn't call of the Sun Devils and stay, "oh, btw, next year your teams will look different." The only school that Nike places themselves ahead of the school by popular belief is Oregon, however, I believe if truth be known, the reason Oregon has all of these looks is because the school wanted them to help place them on the map. Phil Knight is a genius!

Let me help you out, both with IceCap's post and in general.

We can actually leave Oregon out of all of this--we all know that's Nike's pet baby--but the minute the first specialty one-off uniforms hit a field not named Autzen, it became less about the team/institution and more, if not ALL, about NIKE. And I believe that actually started with the "Enforcer" specialty one-offs Nike came up with for the Army/Navy game three or four seasons ago--which, if memory serves me right, were the precursors to the whole Rivalry PC one-off sets. (I could've gone back further than that, to the asymmetrical-sleeve debacles Florida, Miami, VA Tech, & @ least one other school I can't remember rolled out-but I didn't.) The primary purpose of those Enforcer uniforms-which by the way I believe at the time were the same template as the original Oregon PC template wherein they first introduced the wings-was not so much to drum up extra interest in the game (the two schools can do that on their own), but to use that game's popularity, because Nike knew lots of people would be tuned in, to a/ advertise their "new innovative technology" and b/ "showcase their creativity". And that was with the service academies. (To be fair, though, the academies did allow themselves to be pimped out to the Swoosh, so there is that.)

Then, after that came the second iteration of the RPC series a.k.a. the "toilet bowl pants" sets, wherein Nike specifically colored certain pieces of the uniforms, again to advertise their "innovative new technology". It was at that point that the whole uniform branding thing jumped the shark for me. Everything that came after that--the random panels, logo-adorned gloves, unnecessary additions of six shades of gray/steel/silver/carbon/charcoal/anthracite-whatever-the-hell-they-wanna-call-it, were just more sharks to jump.

And then somewhere in there, adidas wanted some shine, so out came the TechFits (which to be fair had already existed in the NFL in the form of Reebok's shrinkwrap getups), then UnderArmour decided they not only wanted in, but also wanted to straight blitzkrieg the uniform world as well. (And all this is to say nothing of the "templating epidemic" that had long run rampid throughout the college sports uniform world by that time.) So basically what's done ended up happening in addition to all the shark-jumping, since the sports apparel market is the dog-eat-dog world that it is, is that all the manufacturers wanna now keep one-upping and/or outdoing the others).

And that's pretty much how we ended up where we are today...they just keep jumping all the sharks and eating all the dogs.

Now, having said all that, I'll also say this: I'm all for progressiveness and creativity--within the realm of tastefulness--but my whole problem with all this now, and to spotlight IceCap's point, is that all of this was/is done to spotlight the manufacturer before the team, by simple virtue of whatever template (or in the case of certain schools, "corporate colors") the team wears down on the field. That, to me, constitutes a problem...one which Nike started. Which is why I said what I said in my previous post.

Excellent post! My only thing is that I still don't believe it is all about the company. Take Maryland for example, they wore those hideous flag uniforms at the beginning of the year and people still talk about them whether negative or positive. Sure the companies want to make money, but Randy Edsell needed Maryland to be placed on the "map" and they were because of their uniforms...at least for this year. I do not disagree with your post, but it has to be noted that some of these schools asked for changes and they got them.

[PhlyBoy]

Sure Nike started it all, but their uniforms are lightyears away better than almost everything new Adidas, UA, Russell and all that come out with. No matter how you feel about Oregons uniforms and the different colors, you have to admit they are 90% of the time damn good looking. and they can do classic uniforms too (Alabama, Florida, FSU). yeah they do those Pro Combats every year and last year they were not very good, but still, No matter how much you hate the swoosh, you have to admit it they do pump nice uniforms. Probably the best out of any manufactures. I'm excited to see what happens with the NFL

[BigDmo]

Nike's corporate colors are orange and white last I checked, are you referring to Oklahoma St when you make that reference? Because OSU has had those colors long before Nike.

[shaydre1019]

Nike's corporate colors are orange and white last I checked, are you referring to Oklahoma St when you make that reference? Because OSU has had those colors long before Nike.

I've always thought the same thing! Sure they sometimes, especially lately with the whole Sparq Training thing, use neon greenish colors, but As far back as i can remember, every shoe box, every tag, every corner of a Nike outlet has been orange and black.

With that being said, i'll admit i have a nike bias and like most of what they produce.

UA- loved the mary flag unis, pretty much hate everything else they've done

Adidas- loved the michigan shoulder stripe unis, thought ND's were ok,like Louisville's but outside of that, not a huge fan.

Russel- uniforms look very cheap and kinda middle schoolish, tbh everytime i see a team in russel i automatically don't consider them a serious program.

those are just my college football views

[IceCap]

Nike's corporate colors are orange and white last I checked, are you referring to Oklahoma St when you make that reference? Because OSU has had those colors long before Nike.

Nike was using grey, black, and volt for their products years before they started pushing those colours on Oregon.

[guest23]

Nike's corporate colors are orange and white last I checked, are you referring to Oklahoma St when you make that reference? Because OSU has had those colors long before Nike.

Nike was using grey, black, and volt for their products years before they started pushing those colours on Oregon.

don't you mean anthracite, obsidian, and volt?

[north dakota]

Under Armour is by far the worst, what they did with Hawaii is just horrible.

[andrewharrington]

Nike.

Because they're the ones that started all this mess in the first place.

This.

Also they're the worst when it comes to putting themselves ahead of the teams when designing a uniform.

I see some errors in your whole statement. First, how are they the worst at design a uniform for teams? Arizona State went to Nike and said we need a new look, so Nike gave them a new look. Nike didn't call of the Sun Devils and stay, "oh, btw, next year your teams will look different." The only school that Nike places themselves ahead of the school by popular belief is Oregon, however, I believe if truth be known, the reason Oregon has all of these looks is because the school wanted them to help place them on the map. Phil Knight is a genius!

Let me help you out, both with IceCap's post and in general.

We can actually leave Oregon out of all of this--we all know that's Nike's pet baby--but the minute the first specialty one-off uniforms hit a field not named Autzen, it became less about the team/institution and more, if not ALL, about NIKE. And I believe that actually started with the "Enforcer" specialty one-offs Nike came up with for the Army/Navy game three or four seasons ago--which, if memory serves me right, were the precursors to the whole Rivalry PC one-off sets. (I could've gone back further than that, to the asymmetrical-sleeve debacles Florida, Miami, VA Tech, & @ least one other school I can't remember rolled out-but I didn't.) The primary purpose of those Enforcer uniforms-which by the way I believe at the time were the same template as the original Oregon PC template wherein they first introduced the wings-was not so much to drum up extra interest in the game (the two schools can do that on their own), but to use that game's popularity, because Nike knew lots of people would be tuned in, to a/ advertise their "new innovative technology" and b/ "showcase their creativity". And that was with the service academies. (To be fair, though, the academies did allow themselves to be pimped out to the Swoosh, so there is that.)

Then, after that came the second iteration of the RPC series a.k.a. the "toilet bowl pants" sets, wherein Nike specifically colored certain pieces of the uniforms, again to advertise their "innovative new technology". It was at that point that the whole uniform branding thing jumped the shark for me. Everything that came after that--the random panels, logo-adorned gloves, unnecessary additions of six shades of gray/steel/silver/carbon/charcoal/anthracite-whatever-the-hell-they-wanna-call-it, were just more sharks to jump.

And then somewhere in there, adidas wanted some shine, so out came the TechFits (which to be fair had already existed in the NFL in the form of Reebok's shrinkwrap getups), then UnderArmour decided they not only wanted in, but also wanted to straight blitzkrieg the uniform world as well. (And all this is to say nothing of the "templating epidemic" that had long run rampid throughout the college sports uniform world by that time.) So basically what's done ended up happening in addition to all the shark-jumping, since the sports apparel market is the dog-eat-dog world that it is, is that all the manufacturers wanna now keep one-upping and/or outdoing the others).

And that's pretty much how we ended up where we are today...they just keep jumping all the sharks and eating all the dogs.

Now, having said all that, I'll also say this: I'm all for progressiveness and creativity--within the realm of tastefulness--but my whole problem with all this now, and to spotlight IceCap's point, is that all of this was/is done to spotlight the manufacturer before the team, by simple virtue of whatever template (or in the case of certain schools, "corporate colors") the team wears down on the field. That, to me, constitutes a problem...one which Nike started. Which is why I said what I said in my previous post.

Excellent post! My only thing is that I still don't believe it is all about the company. Take Maryland for example, they wore those hideous flag uniforms at the beginning of the year and people still talk about them whether negative or positive. Sure the companies want to make money, but Randy Edsell needed Maryland to be placed on the "map" and they were because of their uniforms...at least for this year. I do not disagree with your post, but it has to be noted that some of these schools asked for changes and they got them.

Every media outlet that covered that uniform-firestorm mentioned Kevin Plank and Under Armour in their article, which was exactly what UA wanted, under the guise of a former player turned entrepreneur putting his alma mater 'on the map'. Maryland is just as irrelevant as it was before, but now Under Armour has turned heads as a on-field outfitter, not just as an undergarment company.

To say Nike is putting their brand above the schools' is not just about color, dudes. Nike uses dozens of different colors every season, and maybe features one or two of them throughout their product lines. What 'putting the brand before the school means' is just what Buc said: designing team uniforms to highlight Nike-specific features, colors, marketing (Pro Combat is first and foremost a line of padded football undergarments) and the like. If Nike had teams' interests on their minds, they would be creating brands, not destroying them by stripping away their beloved, decades-old logos or having them wear three different helmet, jersey and pant colors, thereby making them unrecognizable at a glance (the opposite of what a brand is supposed to build toward).

And, to top it off, Nike and UA got beat at their own game by adidas this year. The Michigan-Notre Dame game was easily as big a uniform event as there was in college football this year, and that game didn't resort to all the Nike tactics of pushing the dark, menacing neutrals and the Lite-Brite accents. You had Michigan in maize and blue, you had Notre Dame in green and gold, and you had huge buzz and positive reaction for the game and the uniforms, and it looked fooking great, as if they were showing Nike and UA, "Look, we created MORE exposure and buzz than you did, with something that actually looks good!"

But not to worry. I'm sure adidas will jump the shark soon enough.

[vmd9]

So you hate these companies but I guarantee you've bought something from all of them, right? They obviously are doing something right or else they would all be out of business, or swept under the bus like Champion or Starter. So much hate for Nike, UA, and Adidas but really just boils down to most of you not being able to deal with change and the thought that every team should look boring like Penn State and Alabama. Not to mention those of you who are designers would take a job at any of these places in a heartbeat. Could be a bit of a jealousy factor there too...

[thespleenenator]

So you hate these companies but I guarantee you've bought something from all of them, right? They obviously are doing something right or else they would all be out of business, or swept under the bus like Champion or Starter. So much hate for Nike, UA, and Adidas but really just boils down to most of you not being able to deal with change and the thought that every team should look boring like Penn State and Alabama. Not to mention those of you who are designers would take a job at any of these places in a heartbeat. Could be a bit of a jealousy factor there too...

I was kind of with you, until that. What the hell could any of us be jealous of? It's not like we're a competing company or something, we're just people commenting on a sports fashion blog.

[Lights Out]

really just boils down to most of you not being able to deal with change and the thought that every team should look boring like Penn State and Alabama.

There's a difference between "not a total abomination that takes a on all design principles" and "boring like Penn State and Alabama". A team doesn't need ugly butt striping or inexplicable piping to nowhere in order to look interesting.

[sisdog]

What I don't like is how Under Armour is making themselves a part of the universities identity. A lot of the apparel has the Under Armour logo bigger than the mascot or school logo. I can't accept the logo being a part of the shirt design and not just added on.

[BigBubba]

(Ironic how they display the team that came out the best after the Edge disaster)

[Somppi]

all of them except nike.

[IceCap]

So you hate these companies but I guarantee you've bought something from all of them, right? They obviously are doing something right or else they would all be out of business, or swept under the bus like Champion or Starter. So much hate for Nike, UA, and Adidas but really just boils down to most of you not being able to deal with change and the thought that every team should look boring like Penn State and Alabama. Not to mention those of you who are designers would take a job at any of these places in a heartbeat.

I have never bought an UA product. I never liked the feel of their stretchy material against my skin. To this day if I suit up for a pickup game I wear sweat pants and a regular long sleeve t-shirt under my gear.

Nike? I've bought shoes and skates from them before. The skates were so-so. I've gone back to CCM. I still buy Nike sneakers though, because they make great sneakers. I'm a fan of their shoes. I'm not a fan of how they've gone about being a uniform manufacturer. It's not that uncommon to support a large company like Nike in some ways but not others.

I mean I like Pepsi but I hated Pepsi Blue.

Could be a bit of a jealousy factor there too...

That's a troll comment if I ever saw one.

[andrewharrington]

What I don't like is how Under Armour is making themselves a part of the universities identity. A lot of the apparel has the Under Armour logo bigger than the mascot or school logo. I can't accept the logo being a part of the shirt design and not just added on.

That's a pretty perfect example of putting your own brand before the schools' brands; even more egregious than Nike.