Rutgers New Football Uniforms

[thespleenenator]

Agreed. Plus, things don't evolve once. Things continue to evolve. So yes, maybe this won't be a thing 5-10 years from now. That's just how things are. Someone will come up with something better, and that will become the norm.

Remember when people said the internet was a fad? When people said video games were fad? When people said television was a fad? When the telephone was a fad (ok, nobody here is that old, but still). Remember when people said touch screens were a fad? All new things are seen as a fad. There are no exceptions.

Expecting something to change every few years is very nearly the definition of "fad".

What's wrong with the middle ground? Why can't schools keep their traditional colors while applying new styling? Why does everything need to be "we've gotta chase that next big thing NOW NOW NOW"? While it is true that there's evolution, there's also something to be said for demonstrating a solid foundation with staying power.

Because that isn't how society works. Why can't people just stick with traditional phones that work just as well as the flashy touch screen ones? Because everyone wants the latest and greatest. Now, the whole thing is fancy uniforms. With the exception of schools that are so big they don't need it (Texas, Alabama), if you don't have that, you're falling behind. Nobody wants that. Expecting schools to turn down money in favor of a small smount of tradition is to ignore the ultimate goal of the school: to make money.

[thespleenenator]

It's not like adidas doesn't mess with tradition. UCLA wore white helmets against their biggest rival last year. When's the last time UCLA wore white helmets? The USC-UCLA matchup had recently been great with the cardinal-powder blue matchup, but adidas changed all that. Where's the "OMG THEY'RE STOMPING ON TRADITION!!!!!111!!11!" outcry?

Luckily, UCLA lost by 50.

They're also responsible for these:

Need I go on? If Nike came out with these uniforms, there would be a historic meltdown.

Those Notre Dame "Under the Lights" uniforms were fresh as hell... so were the gold leaf helmets.

And those Rutgers kits are wack... regardless of who designed them.

Agreed, the Notre Dame uniforms were great. I also kind of like those ASU uniforms. They aren't as good as what they have now, but they aren't bad looking.

[-kj]

Mockba, Like I said, this trend isn't old. It started in 96/97. We have been witnessing it's growth. I don't understand how people see this as a new thing. The recent growth has made it more noticeable. Do fads last over 15 years? I don't even think it is close to it's peak. That's my POV, anywho.

I don't know that I agree, though. Is this perhaps tangentially connected to the Broncos' redesign? Maybe. Then again, the Broncos' design illustrates my point, to an extent:

The Broncos did change the shades of their colors, and they did do a bit of a different striping pattern. But in the end? It has many of the trappings of a traditional football jerseys. There are just three colors involved: navy, orange, and white. There's no gray/anthracite/black/etc, because those aren't Denver's colors. The helmet isn't pre-scuffed, patterned to look like a bronco tred over it, or any of that; it has a logo and some striping. The numbers are properly sized, legible, and contrasting.

It's middle ground between ultra-traditional and crazy-modern; and, to me, it's stood the test of time thusfar. Sure, it spawned never-ending hordes of lookalikes, but that's not their fault; theirs was the original.

It's a bit ludicrous to suggest, then, that everything "new", "fresh", and "different" be welcomed with open arms, as if to say "well, at least they tried". To some people, some things just aren't aesthetically pleasing, and no amount of berating them as being anti-change will change that. It's also ludicrous to suggest that making "progress" means leaving everything about the past behind. To wit: why don't the Cubs wear green? The answer is simply: well, because they don't.

[aawagner011]

This is good stuff. Sorry, guys. This is a revolution. Things evolve.

There's that word "evolve" again. This site needs a go-to definition of "Evolve" for every time it gets dropped in a nike thread.

By the way... back in the 70's in baseball... remember the pull-over jerseys and the elastic waistbands? Wasn't that a "revolution"? You know, more comfortable... easier movement?

I also remember the "revolution" that happened when menswear "evolved" into leasure suits, and jeans "evolved" into acid washed.

Fashion has fads. Some will enjoy a fad for a while, some will reject it from the start. Then a new fad will replace it, and the process starts over.

The reason why it is less of a fad and more evolotion is because the old wont come back. Block numbers with one srtipe are dead for the most part.

And this Revolution has been going on since the Broncos and Hurricanes. It has been awhile. Way longer than a fad. Open your eyes and accept.

Agreed. Plus, things don't evolve once. Things continue to evolve. So yes, maybe this won't be a thing 5-10 years from now. That's just how things are. Someone will come up with something better, and that will become the norm.

Remember when people said the internet was a fad? When people said video games were fad? When people said television was a fad? When the telephone was a fad (ok, nobody here is that old, but still). Remember when people said touch screens were a fad? All new things are seen as a fad. There are no exceptions.

Key difference- all of those things you listed actually have a functional advantage over the preexisting technologies used. We are talking about the visuals of a uniform, all of which add no functional value to the uniform (which is already loaded with technologies). You can still get all the same tech advances in a completely stripped down, plain Nike Speed Machine uniform as you can with a piped out, sparkly newfangled, over designed Nike Speed Machine uniform. Take the technology, but that doesn't mean you need to look like a giant bloodclot tampon, Power Ranger (as the UGA Pro Combats were called, I think it applies here, too).

[Island_Style]

It had as many stripes as a traditional but the area that stripe covered was not matched by no traditional. I see the Bronco jersey as a dinosaur and today's new jerseys as an ostrich. Different beasts but you see where they are linked.

[Kevin W.]

Key difference- all of those things you listed actually have a functional advantage over the preexisting technologies used. We are talking about the visuals of a uniform, all of which add no functional value to the uniform (which is already loaded with technologies). You can still get all the same tech advances in a completely stripped down, plain Nike Speed Machine uniform as you can with a piped out, sparkly newfangled, over designed Nike Speed Machine uniform. Take the technology, but that doesn't mean you need to look like a giant bloodclot tampon, Power Ranger (as the UGA Pro Combats were called, I think it applies here, too).

Case in point:

[-kj]

Now there is something from the past I wish would go away: the numbers on the helmet. Mind you, there would be riots were it to happen to Alabama. But it's still dumb.

[thespleenenator]

Key difference- all of those things you listed actually have a functional advantage over the preexisting technologies used. We are talking about the visuals of a uniform, all of which add no functional value to the uniform (which is already loaded with technologies). You can still get all the same tech advances in a completely stripped down, plain Nike Speed Machine uniform as you can with a piped out, sparkly newfangled, over designed Nike Speed Machine uniform. Take the technology, but that doesn't mean you need to look like a giant bloodclot tampon, Power Ranger (as the UGA Pro Combats were called, I think it applies here, too).

Case in point:

Alabama is wearing the Pro Combat cut.

[-kj]

Alabama is wearing the Pro Combat cut.

...which is exactly his point.

[Island_Style]

But those are bad examples because you are showing traditionals that make money from being the traditionals. You dont have that at Oregon or Rutgers. Thus the bells and whistle angle and how important they are. It is about selling those jerseys. Capitalism.

[thespleenenator]

Alabama is wearing the Pro Combat cut.

...which is exactly his point.

And Alabama beat LSU in the championship game. Of course, saying that that is why is stupid. But it didn't hurt.

Do you think anyone would've cared if Rutgers just swtiched to the speed machine uniforms? No. This change brings them much needed attention. Honestly, how could you expect them NOT to do something like this? Especially after what Maryland did (have a :censored:ty team that still got attention because of their uniforms), expect more and more of this.

[Brave-Bird 08]

The teams could still be making better decisions about the aesthetics of the jerseys. For instance, the weird dual-color collar design that we are seeing with the NFL, Rutgers, and Mizzou is completely unnecessary! It's not like the colors add functional value. Teams should take a look at that and say...well...let's make the whole collar one color. I think that's something right now that is bugging me the most, because it's almost like teams really aren't thinking about the decisions that are made with the uniforms.

Another example is Missouri's away jerseys. Why in the name of all things holy are the shoulders anthricate? And what is going on with the anthricate numbers on top of that?

Does anyone not think it's fishy that so many teams are going with this anthricate route? Washington State screwed their look up with it. TCU has done it now. And Missouri as well. And Rutgers' new uniforms feature anthricate on top of black.

For a long time people have been defending Nike by saying the teams are the ones that make the decisions...but everything is going into the Nike factory and coming out the same. It seems like teams are bowing down to Nike and letting them make the aesthetic decisions...it's why the NFL looks so stupid now, and why a lot of college teams are starting to look worse.

[-kj]

But those are bad examples because you are showing traditionals that make money from being the traditionals. You dont have that at Oregon or Rutgers. Thus the bells and whistle angle and how important they are. It is about selling those jerseys. Capitalism.

And... how did they become traditions? Did they just magically one day become traditions? Or did those traditions stand a test of time?

You're not entirely wrong about the money aspect, mind you. But evolution isn't chasing the next new thing every year or two; that's just a lack of direction.

Also, remember that some revolutions aren't quite so successful:

When Nike Swift debuted, we were told it would be the end of horizontal striping on hockey jerseys. A few years later and... well, it hasn't exactly gone that way, has it?

Alabama is wearing the Pro Combat cut.

...which is exactly his point.

And Alabama beat LSU in the championship game. Of course, saying that that is why is stupid. But it didn't hurt.

Do you think anyone would've cared if Rutgers just swtiched to the speed machine uniforms? No. This change brings them much needed attention. Honestly, how could you expect them NOT to do something like this? Especially after what Maryland did (have a :censored:ty team that still got attention because of their uniforms), expect more and more of this.

Unfortunately, you're not wrong about that. Everyone's figured out how to get their five minutes of fame. (Remember when that was fifteen?)

[andrewharrington]

This is a definite upgrade. Let's all be honest and say that the prior Rutgers set was bland. This is creative without being "Oregon-esque" over the top. The numbers have the handle of a sword as the edge, and the striping is the tip of a sword. There's not stupid piping showing off the seems, and it's, just clean. This is how you upgrade to a creative look. Good job Rutgers.

This is what kills me. What about the function of a uniform requires it to be creative or exciting? What a football team wears is akin to what a cop or a janitor or someone who works on a carrier deck wears. A football game is not a runway show. It's not a design showcase.

Um...I don't sit front of my TV for hours on end watching janitors clean bathrooms. Terrible analogy. Football is entertainment, and indeed is a fashion show. New uniforms and designs are why the CCSLC exists. Teams probably would not have new uniforms if people didn't participate.

You're smarter than this.

Smart enough to realize that every time something new and exciting like this hits the field in college football, the value of the schools' traditions are lessened and it makes us as a society look more and more foolish and materialistic. Nike is creating Nike traditions and putting schools who have 130 years of their own traditions in the position of, "Hey, how about you abandon all that, and enter in this cycle of redesigning every couple years, helping us make money? You'll be in the news even if you suck. What could be better!?" We're no longer putting teams in uniforms. They now wear costumes. This crud belongs at a suburban Renaissance Fair.

signed,

an adidas employee

This is not limited to Nike in any way. Under Armour does it. adidas does it. Hell, even Russell does it, and it's not okay no matter who does it. Nike created this particular uniform, which is why I labeled them in the post. If this was an adidas uniform, you can bet that I'd have the same stuff to say.

You call it a 'Win-Win-Win-Win-Win,' while others see it as a device to further pander to a largely spoiled audience of college football recruits, to reinforce an already undesirable 'look at me' attitude among many young athletes, to perpetuate an already over-the-top, look-what-we-can-do aesthetic prevalent in sports, to cater to an consumer culture that's come to expect everything they buy to have a short shelf-life, etc.

In my opinion, we as designers, as well as companies that use design as a selling point for the products they sell, should be trying to reverse these trends instead of exploiting them in the name of cash. You see it as evolution because it hasn't been seen before; I see it as devolution because of what it stands for and the motives behind it. Lack of direction, as Mockba pointed out.

[-kj]

You call it a 'Win-Win-Win-Win-Win,' while others see it as a device to further pander to a largely spoiled audience of college football recruits, to reinforce an already undesirable 'look at me' attitude among many young athletes, to perpetuate an already over-the-top, look-what-we-can-do aesthetic prevalent in sports, to cater to an consumer culture that's come to expect everything they buy to have a short shelf-life, etc.

In my opinion, we as designers, as well as companies that use design as a selling point for the products they sell, should be trying to reverse these trends instead of exploiting them in the name of cash. You see it as evolution because it hasn't been seen before; I see it as devolution because of what it stands for.

I'll admit that I don't always agree with you when it comes to design, but I can't find anything about this with which I disagree.

[Island_Style]

You already know why. I mean, it isn't because it looks good. You said so yourself. Those numbers on the helmet is stupid. Same with a plain white helmet with a blue stripe. Alabama pride and Penn State pride is why it stuck. Too good to change mentality.

And that Sioux jersey is a fish that walked out the water with three feet. It didn't work so it died off. This current beast has been running for awhile and other animals are using it's technique. All while improving current ones another animal had

P.S. Winning helps, too.

[-kj]

You already know why. I mean, it isn't because it looks good. You said so yourself. Those numbers on the helmet is stupid. Same with a plain white helmet with a blue stripe. Alabama pride and Penn State pride is why it stuck. Too good to change mentality.

And that Sioux jersey is a fish that walked out the water with three feet. It didn't work so it died off. This current beast has been running for awhile and other animals are using it's technique. All while improving current ones another animal had

I'm not buying what you're selling here at all. Sorry.

[Island_Style]

You already know why. I mean, it isn't because it looks good. You said so yourself. Those numbers on the helmet is stupid. Same with a plain white helmet with a blue stripe. Alabama pride and Penn State pride is why it stuck. Too good to change mentality.

And that Sioux jersey is a fish that walked out the water with three feet. It didn't work so it died off. This current beast has been running for awhile and other animals are using it's technique. All while improving current ones another animal had

I'm not buying what you're selling here at all. Sorry.

That's ok, I never asked for you money.

[Island_Style]

Winning brings that mentality. That is why Rutgers and Oregon is open to change. Winning brings tradition. The most traditional teams in the NFL are the Cowboys, Steelers and Pack. Not the Seahawks, Cardinals and Jaguars.

[IceCap]

Except I don't work for Nike, a Nike school or a school. He actaully does work for adidas.

First off, I'm aware he works for Adidas.

Secondly I know you work very closely with the University of Texas and TCU. Enough that you're able to share internal emails from the TCU AD and get a look at upcoming uniform changes before they happen. If you don't work for TCU, you certainly work VERY closely with them. TCU is also a Nike school. One of the top Nike schools. So if you're willing to suggest that andy's employment colours his opinion then the same could be said about you.

At the end of the day none of it matters. If you have a solid point it doesn't matter who you work for or with. So just don't take that cheap shot. Especially if it can be turned around on you.