New Minnesota Golden Gophers Helmet/Uniform

[andrewharrington]

I'm not saying they're doing anything one way or another. I'm just explaining to you why some people see this as a potential rehash of ASU's look. Same manufacturer, same colours, same style elements, and, if the latest round of Pro Combat sets are any indication, Nike's running on fumes creatively.

Now I have a question. Do you work for or with Nike? I'm honestly curious, I'm not trying to be snarky. It seems you take it kind of personally when someone states they dislike something about how they go about their uniform designs.

Then I'd hate to see what you think about all the other mfgs, since all they do is copy what Nike does (logos on gloves, special uniform templates, designs on socks, stripes that don't go all the way, matter helemts, numbers/logos on undershirt sleeves, etc..).

THIS.

The 'Under the Lights' game showed that you don't have to copy Nike's ideas to make a statement, and look great while doing it.

[tBBP]

Now you know the Swoosh Fanboys are going to rebut that post by saying it was Nike's idea to do special one-off uniforms in the first place, right? Your point still stands, though.

And also...I somehow don't get the feeling Nike's going to jazz up Minnesota all that much if at all. It ain't like Minnesota's a "big name" program (these days--now had this been the '30s or '40s, it'd be a totally different story). If anything, they may go the route with Minny that they did with Virginia--better materials, but overall barebones simplistic, which may not be a bad thing. As some have previously mentioned, for ever wacked-out, tricked-out design Nike has produced, they've also put out some tame and yet still classy looking designs--look no further than Iowa State.

[IceCap]

I'm not saying they're doing anything one way or another. I'm just explaining to you why some people see this as a potential rehash of ASU's look. Same manufacturer, same colours, same style elements, and, if the latest round of Pro Combat sets are any indication, Nike's running on fumes creatively.

Now I have a question. Do you work for or with Nike? I'm honestly curious, I'm not trying to be snarky. It seems you take it kind of personally when someone states they dislike something about how they go about their uniform designs.

Then I'd hate to see what you think about all the other mfgs, since all they do is copy what Nike does (logos on gloves, special uniform templates, designs on socks, stripes that don't go all the way, matter helemts, numbers/logos on undershirt sleeves, etc..).

THIS.

The 'Under the Lights' game showed that you don't have to copy Nike's ideas to make a statement, and look great while doing it.

THIS

[gdu]

I'm not saying they're doing anything one way or another. I'm just explaining to you why some people see this as a potential rehash of ASU's look. Same manufacturer, same colours, same style elements, and, if the latest round of Pro Combat sets are any indication, Nike's running on fumes creatively.

Now I have a question. Do you work for or with Nike? I'm honestly curious, I'm not trying to be snarky. It seems you take it kind of personally when someone states they dislike something about how they go about their uniform designs.

Then I'd hate to see what you think about all the other mfgs, since all they do is copy what Nike does (logos on gloves, special uniform templates, designs on socks, stripes that don't go all the way, matter helemts, numbers/logos on undershirt sleeves, etc..).

THIS.

The 'Under the Lights' game showed that you don't have to copy Nike's ideas to make a statement, and look great while doing it.

How is the Under The Lights stuff different from Oregon State's pro combat rivlary uniforms?

[slapshot]

Now you know the Swoosh Fanboys are going to rebut that post by saying it was Nike's idea to do special one-off uniforms in the first place, right? Your point still stands, though.

And also...I somehow don't get the feeling Nike's going to jazz up Minnesota all that much if at all. It ain't like Minnesota's a "big name" program (these days--now had this been the '30s or '40s, it'd be a totally different story). If anything, they may go the route with Minny that they did with Virginia--better materials, but overall barebones simplistic, which may not be a bad thing. As some have previously mentioned, for ever wacked-out, tricked-out design Nike has produced, they've also put out some tame and yet still classy looking designs--look no further than Iowa State.

Nike has set up some schools with a clean look at first. And if they kept to the school's primary color scheme, many would still be good looks.

Oregon. Get rid of the diamond plate and/or duck wings on the shoulders, and stick with a helmet not containing carbon fiber, and this can be a striking modern look. Limit to green and yellow, and if you HAVE to use black or silver, limit to trim. The green jerseys with yellow numbers and silver trim is a powerful look, and still respects tradition.

Washington State. Limit the scheme to maroon and silver (or gray) and this is a very clean look.

Virginia Tech. The current "retro" style uniforms are some of the best in the country.

But for every one of these clean looks, Nike follows the "just because we can" philosophy, and adds other colors and elements that ruin these clean looks. Adding black, darker gray, arbitrary piping, colored sleeves, truncated striping, etc. Then you have a mish mash of stuff which dilutes the brand.

What if Nike decided to send Oregon or TCU on the field dressed head to toe in red? Would you be able to recognize them? Even if there was some story behind the significance of red to the schools' histories? Considering how much they try to push the envelope with the addition of color and styles, is this really a far-fetched idea?

If you were to turn on a game that had no identifying graphics (like the score, for example), and it takes you more than a few seconds to be able to identify the teams, then the look is no longer iconic or strong.

[tBBP]

I'm not saying they're doing anything one way or another. I'm just explaining to you why some people see this as a potential rehash of ASU's look. Same manufacturer, same colours, same style elements, and, if the latest round of Pro Combat sets are any indication, Nike's running on fumes creatively.

Now I have a question. Do you work for or with Nike? I'm honestly curious, I'm not trying to be snarky. It seems you take it kind of personally when someone states they dislike something about how they go about their uniform designs.

Then I'd hate to see what you think about all the other mfgs, since all they do is copy what Nike does (logos on gloves, special uniform templates, designs on socks, stripes that don't go all the way, matter helemts, numbers/logos on undershirt sleeves, etc..).

THIS.

The 'Under the Lights' game showed that you don't have to copy Nike's ideas to make a statement, and look great while doing it.

How is the Under The Lights stuff different from Oregon State's pro combat rivlary uniforms?

From just three or four posts upthread...

Now you know the Swoosh Fanboys are going to rebut that post by saying it was Nike's idea to do special one-off uniforms in the first place, right?

When you're right, you're right.

[andrewharrington]

I'm not saying they're doing anything one way or another. I'm just explaining to you why some people see this as a potential rehash of ASU's look. Same manufacturer, same colours, same style elements, and, if the latest round of Pro Combat sets are any indication, Nike's running on fumes creatively.

Now I have a question. Do you work for or with Nike? I'm honestly curious, I'm not trying to be snarky. It seems you take it kind of personally when someone states they dislike something about how they go about their uniform designs.

Then I'd hate to see what you think about all the other mfgs, since all they do is copy what Nike does (logos on gloves, special uniform templates, designs on socks, stripes that don't go all the way, matter helemts, numbers/logos on undershirt sleeves, etc..).

THIS.

The 'Under the Lights' game showed that you don't have to copy Nike's ideas to make a statement, and look great while doing it.

How is the Under The Lights stuff different from Oregon State's pro combat rivlary uniforms?

Oregon State's uniform was a true throwback. adidas used throwback elements to create the most visually appealing game it could. Nike underhyped Oregon State, knowing it was going against its favorite son and knowing it was going to be overshadowed by Oregon in that game, while adidas pimped out its two biggest assets in great-looking gear and created an unbelievable atmosphere for what was the first-ever night game in the history of Michigan Stadium. I think you have to look no further than this: While the Civil War that year was just another blowout/roadblock on the way to the BCS for Oregon, the football gods rewarded adidas' hard work by giving us one of the best games ever in the Notre Dame/Michigan rivalry. Karma.

[gdu]

I'm not saying they're doing anything one way or another. I'm just explaining to you why some people see this as a potential rehash of ASU's look. Same manufacturer, same colours, same style elements, and, if the latest round of Pro Combat sets are any indication, Nike's running on fumes creatively.

Now I have a question. Do you work for or with Nike? I'm honestly curious, I'm not trying to be snarky. It seems you take it kind of personally when someone states they dislike something about how they go about their uniform designs.

Then I'd hate to see what you think about all the other mfgs, since all they do is copy what Nike does (logos on gloves, special uniform templates, designs on socks, stripes that don't go all the way, matter helemts, numbers/logos on undershirt sleeves, etc..).

THIS.

The 'Under the Lights' game showed that you don't have to copy Nike's ideas to make a statement, and look great while doing it.

How is the Under The Lights stuff different from Oregon State's pro combat rivlary uniforms?

Oregon State's uniform was a true throwback. adidas used throwback elements to create the most visually appealing game it could. Nike underhyped Oregon State, knowing it was going against its favorite son and knowing it was going to be overshadowed by Oregon in that game, while adidas pimped out its two biggest assets in great-looking gear and created an unbelievable atmosphere for what was the first-ever night game in the history of Michigan Stadium. I think you have to look no further than this: While the Civil War that year was just another blowout/roadblock on the way to the BCS for Oregon, the football gods rewarded adidas' hard work by giving us one of the best games ever in the Notre Dame/Michigan rivalry. Karma.

not sure if serious.

[guest23]

I'm not saying they're doing anything one way or another. I'm just explaining to you why some people see this as a potential rehash of ASU's look. Same manufacturer, same colours, same style elements, and, if the latest round of Pro Combat sets are any indication, Nike's running on fumes creatively.

Now I have a question. Do you work for or with Nike? I'm honestly curious, I'm not trying to be snarky. It seems you take it kind of personally when someone states they dislike something about how they go about their uniform designs.

Then I'd hate to see what you think about all the other mfgs, since all they do is copy what Nike does (logos on gloves, special uniform templates, designs on socks, stripes that don't go all the way, matter helemts, numbers/logos on undershirt sleeves, etc..).

THIS.

The 'Under the Lights' game showed that you don't have to copy Nike's ideas to make a statement, and look great while doing it.

How is the Under The Lights stuff different from Oregon State's pro combat rivlary uniforms?

it's not...nike didn't invent throwbacks or fauxbacks they just decided to make a marketing event out of them then adidas followed suit to appease their contracted schools into feeling like they were getting "cutting edge designs"

[guest23]

I'm not saying they're doing anything one way or another. I'm just explaining to you why some people see this as a potential rehash of ASU's look. Same manufacturer, same colours, same style elements, and, if the latest round of Pro Combat sets are any indication, Nike's running on fumes creatively.

Now I have a question. Do you work for or with Nike? I'm honestly curious, I'm not trying to be snarky. It seems you take it kind of personally when someone states they dislike something about how they go about their uniform designs.

Then I'd hate to see what you think about all the other mfgs, since all they do is copy what Nike does (logos on gloves, special uniform templates, designs on socks, stripes that don't go all the way, matter helemts, numbers/logos on undershirt sleeves, etc..).

THIS.

The 'Under the Lights' game showed that you don't have to copy Nike's ideas to make a statement, and look great while doing it.

How is the Under The Lights stuff different from Oregon State's pro combat rivlary uniforms?

it's not...nike didn't invent throwbacks or fauxbacks they just decided to make a marketing event out of them then adidas followed suit to appease their contracted schools into feeling like they were getting "cutting edge designs"

[BigDmo]

Black was already considered a color for Minnesota anyway, according to their logo sheet. It's in all the Goldy Gopher marks, for example. This look appears to just be giving it more prominence.

Shhhhh...you're not supposed to check the official school colors before you bitch about Nike adding colors. You're just supposed to whine!

[TheOldRoman]

Black was already considered a color for Minnesota anyway, according to their logo sheet. It's in all the Goldy Gopher marks, for example. This look appears to just be giving it more prominence.

People need to stop making this arguement. It's sometimes okay for colors outside of actual team colors to appear in logos. ACTUAL team colors are what appears on jerseys. Outside of the black trim on the Apex set, black hasn't appeared on any Minnesota uniforms, to my knowledge. Black is no more a color appropriate for Minnesota use than brown is for the Redskins and royal blue and green are for the Blackhawks.

[deliver2david]

Black was already considered a color for Minnesota anyway, according to their logo sheet. It's in all the Goldy Gopher marks, for example. This look appears to just be giving it more prominence.

People need to stop making this arguement. It's sometimes okay for colors outside of actual team colors to appear in logos. ACTUAL team colors are what appears on jerseys. Outside of the black trim on the Apex set, black hasn't appeared on any Minnesota uniforms, to my knowledge. Black is no more a color appropriate for Minnesota use than brown is for the Redskins and royal blue and green are for the Blackhawks.

They used to have a black outline on the "M" on the football helmet at one point.

Also the hockey team, arguably Minnesota's most popular sport, has used black in various jerseys throughout the years.

[IceCap]

Awesome. Black works as a trim colour. If Nike keeps it as a trim colour on the football team's new uniform set I'm sure it'll look nice. If they give us black jerseys or pants, however, it'll look terrible.

[Billy B]

Now you know the Swoosh Fanboys are going to rebut that post by saying it was Nike's idea to do special one-off uniforms in the first place, right? Your point still stands, though.

And also...I somehow don't get the feeling Nike's going to jazz up Minnesota all that much if at all. It ain't like Minnesota's a "big name" program (these days--now had this been the '30s or '40s, it'd be a totally different story). If anything, they may go the route with Minny that they did with Virginia--better materials, but overall barebones simplistic, which may not be a bad thing. As some have previously mentioned, for ever wacked-out, tricked-out design Nike has produced, they've also put out some tame and yet still classy looking designs--look no further than Iowa State.

I definitely think the Minnesota uniforms are going to look more like the Washington State/ASU redesigns than what they did with Virginia. If I remember correctly, Nike didn't really hype up the Virginia uniforms, they just released them like any other team. Seeing the way the Minnesota change is being advertised, I'd be surprised if it was a Virginia-type change. Now when you think about it, neither the ASU nor Washington State uniform designs are very crazy, so it probably won't be a jersey with piping everywhere and colored side panels.

[IceCap]

ASU and WSU have very nice, sleek yet traditional designs...for the most part.

Things fall apart for both sets when you start talking about the multiple helmets, combos, and unnecessary number gradients. Nike can't help but muddle an identity with unnececsry gimmickry, even with fairly restrained designs like ASU and WSU's new looks.

[TruColor]

Black was already considered a color for Minnesota anyway, according to their logo sheet. It's in all the Goldy Gopher marks, for example. This look appears to just be giving it more prominence.

Shhhhh...you're not supposed to check the official school colors before you bitch about Nike adding colors. You're just supposed to whine!

Yep...here they are (ignore the '1851 through present'...pretty sure they haven't used these that long!):

[Cody21]

Black was already considered a color for Minnesota anyway, according to their logo sheet. It's in all the Goldy Gopher marks, for example. This look appears to just be giving it more prominence.

Shhhhh...you're not supposed to check the official school colors before you bitch about Nike adding colors. You're just supposed to whine!

Yep...here they are (ignore the '1851 through present'...pretty sure they haven't used these that long!):

not the logo but yes. the colors have always been the same.

[MNTwins]

New uniforms, via 1500 ESPN:

[bigbean24]

Video: