Rutgers New Football Uniforms

[Sodboy13]

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.

...who have only been around 114 years.

[IceCap]

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.

This. A million times this.

Change for change's sake never works, and chasing fads never works when you're trying to establish a long lasting brand. This isn't evolution. Not in the slightest. If you call these designs "evolution" then you're grip on the meaning of the word "evolution" is shaky at best.

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.

Oh really?

Have you seen the new uniforms that have recently been unveiled by the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and Toronto Argonauts?

I'm really looking forward to you addressing this point, because I'm not entirely sure you can without taking a pot shot at the CFL in some fashion.

Oh, if you want an example from the NCAA the Virginia Cavaliers unveiled their current uniforms two years ago. While they did get creative with the pants, the jerseys are single colour with contrasting collars, and single outlined numbers. If the old is truly "wont come back" Virginia would have unveiled an over-designed set. Especially when you consider that, like Rutgers, Virginia's a school that could have used the spotlight flashy uniforms supposedly bring.

http://www.virginiasports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=17800&ATCLID=204925516

[Island_Style]

I can counter your CFl with the NFL. Just watch over the next few years. I can counter your UVA with a ton of other CFB teams like Mizzou and Rutgers.

As for the 114 years for the cardinals. That is my point. 114 years and they lack big time tradition compared to Dallas, Steelers and the Pack. Why? because they didnt win.

[-kj]

And your suggestion, then, is that the Cardinals should come out wearing purple because of that? I'm not sure I understand that part of your argument.

Of course, comparing pro to college is also a bit unfair. They don't generally make songs about pro teams' colors.

[rams80]

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.

This presumes that new jerseys will artificially stimulate demand. I suspect on-field success drives jersey sales far more than whether or not you have uniforms the color of non-polluting coal. I suspect the Ducks would have sold just as many jerseys if they'd been encountering their success under the traditional green and yellow.

[IceCap]

I can counter your CFl with the NFL. Just watch over the next few years. I can counter your UVA with a ton of other CFB teams like Mizzou and Rutgers.

You can't "counter" something that has happened with something that may happen. It's not even a certainty that Nike will go crazy on the NFL. Five teams downright refused to even wear their new "uniform technology."

As to your point in general, counter all you want. You said, and this is a direct quote, "[t]he reason why it is less of a fad and more evolotion is because the old wont come back." Won't come back. That's a pretty definitive statement. The mere existence of new traditionally styled uniforms amidst this wrongly named "evolution" disproves your point.

[Island_Style]

And your suggestion, then, is that the Cardinals should come out wearing purple because of that? I'm not sure I understand that part of your argument.

Of course, comparing pro to college is also a bit unfair. They don't generally make songs about pro teams' colors.

No, you said Alabama hasn't changed because they got it right. I say it is because they are in a too good to change mentality. It stims from their glory days. Rutgers and Oregon needs bells and whistles to sell because a lack of winning tradition wont allow them to get away with a boring green shirt with yellow numbers. A winning tradition like Alabama's would have made that plain green shirt with yellow number look like gold. The enveloped started it's push with the hurricanes and broncos. That is when Nike saw the potential jerseys have as a source of fashion outsde of the big fan. See what I am saying? I will try again later to try to articulate my points better. My view of evolution is a little different than yours, I guess. 15 years is a long time for a fad. Pull up jerseys stopped at pull up jersys. The Broncos breaking from the norm has snowballed unlike the baseball pullover.

[rams80]

The numbers are a lot darker and the helmets a lot shinier than the Nike produced image.

http://www.northjersey.com/sports/college_sports/Rutgers_unveils_new_uniforms_for_2012_season.html

The numbers on the reds at least look like they're going to be a b*tch and a half to read.

[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.

This presumes that new jerseys will artificially stimulate demand. I suspect on-field success drives jersey sales far more than whether or not you have uniforms the color of non-polluting coal. I suspect the Ducks would have sold just as many jerseys if they'd been encountering their success under the traditional green and yellow.

I kind of covered that in the post I just wrote. When winning cant be your gimmick, a cool look will be. Sure, Rutgers sales will drop when it is no longer new. But that is when they change again. If they win in this look it will stay for awhile longer. Look at Florida. Their current helmet is so much worse than their older ones. It sticks around because Florida football became Florida football in them.

[-kj]

To set the record straight: I never said that about Alabama. The point someone made about Alabama was that technology needn't dictate aesthetics.

My point had to do with traditions. Case in point: the Alabama helmet. I hate numbers on the sides of football helmets. But do I think Alabama should change that? Only if they want the stadium burned to the ground with the athletic department in it. Some things are, for better or worse, untouchable.

Your connection of the Broncos to the current trends of Pro Combat and other such branded "systems" is tenuous at best. If you don't think jerseys were fashion before the Broncos, you've obviously never seen Raiders jerseys worn by celebs.

[IceCap]

And your suggestion, then, is that the Cardinals should come out wearing purple because of that? I'm not sure I understand that part of your argument.

Of course, comparing pro to college is also a bit unfair. They don't generally make songs about pro teams' colors.

No, you said Alabama hasn't changed because they got it right. I say it is because they are in a too good to change mentality. It stims from their glory days. Rutgers and Oregon needs bells and whistles to sell because a lack of winning tradition wont allow them to get away with a boring green shirt with yellow numbers. A winning tradition like Alabama's would have made that plain green shirt with yellow number look like gold. The enveloped started it's push with the hurricanes and broncos. That is when Nike saw the potential jerseys have as a source of fashion outsde of the big fan. See what I am saying? I will try again later to try to articulate my points better. My view of evolution is a little different than yours, I guess. 15 years is a long time for a fad. Pull up jerseys stopped t pull up jersys. The Brancos breaking from the norm has snowballed unlike the baseball pullover.

Evolution means that something changes for the better. Alabama continuing to wear their traditional uniforms in the Nike Pro Combat cut is evolution. It's taking an existing design and changing the materials, going from one type of materials to another type because the second type offers a clear advantage. Or like how baseball uniforms used to be made out of wool, but now they're not.

Simply changing aesthetics, however, isn't evolution. It's simply subjective taste. Do you prefer modern uniform designs? Do you prefer five different kinds of grey shoved into a uniform? If so, alright. If your tastes skew modern, cool. Just don't pretend it's "evolution" because it's not. It's just a different aesthetic preference. It offers no clear functional advantage over traditionally styled uniforms. Therefore it's not evolution.

[Island_Style]

Your connection of the Broncos to the current trends of Pro Combat and other such branded "systems" is tenuous at best. If you don't think jerseys were fashion before the Broncos, you've obviously never seen Raiders jerseys worn by celebs.

That is why we have BFBS today. And like I said, I see the Broncos as the Dinosaur before it evolved in to the ostrich. Evolotion didnt start by the dinosaur. I see The Rams painting horns as the fish with feet.

[rams80]

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.

This presumes that new jerseys will artificially stimulate demand. I suspect on-field success drives jersey sales far more than whether or not you have uniforms the color of non-polluting coal. I suspect the Ducks would have sold just as many jerseys if they'd been encountering their success under the traditional green and yellow.

I kind of covered that in the post I just wrote. When winning cant be your gimmick, a cool look will be. Sure, Rutgers sales will drop when it is no longer new. But that is when they change again. If they win in this look it will stay for awhile longer. Look at Florida. Their current helmet is so much worse than their older ones. It sticks around because Florida football became Florida football in them.

And maybe some people will buy the replacements. Or maybe your fans will see through the cynical ploy and stop buying jerseys. And stop donating to the school or never start in the first place because "tradition" is one of the best tactics to prise scarce dollars out of increasingly cash-strapped alumni and awww crap we just chucked that out the window, I guess we need to cut the English department.

[aawagner011]

And your suggestion, then, is that the Cardinals should come out wearing purple because of that? I'm not sure I understand that part of your argument.

Of course, comparing pro to college is also a bit unfair. They don't generally make songs about pro teams' colors.

No, you said Alabama hasn't changed because they got it right. I say it is because they are in a too good to change mentality. It stims from their glory days. Rutgers and Oregon needs bells and whistles to sell because a lack of winning tradition wont allow them to get away with a boring green shirt with yellow numbers. A winning tradition like Alabama's would have made that plain green shirt with yellow number look like gold. The enveloped started it's push with the hurricanes and broncos. That is when Nike saw the potential jerseys have as a source of fashion outsde of the big fan. See what I am saying? I will try again later to try to articulate my points better. My view of evolution is a little different than yours, I guess. 15 years is a long time for a fad. Pull up jerseys stopped t pull up jersys. The Brancos breaking from the norm has snowballed unlike the baseball pullover.

Evolution means that something changes for the better. Alabama continuing to wear their traditional uniforms in the Nike Pro Combat cut is evolution. It's taking an existing design and changing the materials, going from one type of materials to another type because the second type offers a clear advantage. Or like how baseball uniforms used to be made out of wool, but now they're not.

Simply changing aesthetics, however, isn't evolution. It's simply subjective taste. Do you prefer modern uniform designs? Do you prefer five different kinds of grey shoved into a uniform? If so, alright. If your tastes skew modern, cool. Just don't pretend it's "evolution" because it's not. It's just a different aesthetic preference. It offers no clear functional advantage over traditionally styled uniforms. Therefore it's not evolution.

This a thousand times over. Great post. Completely agree.

[Island_Style]

And Ice, this is where the horns lock. You see evolution as performance enhancing. Well, your performance doesn't really improve because of the shirt you wear. A Jersey is to be sold. That is why they are made. They are truely evolvoing for the consumer. The plan was set in motion by Nike with the Broncos and Hurricanes and Oregon. That is why they are test dummies. To see how they sale. And that is what I mean by Revolution. Jerseys are made for different reason today.

And maybe some people will buy the replacements. Or maybe your fans will see through the cynical ploy and stop buying jerseys. And stop donating to the school or never start in the first place because "tradition" is one of the best tactics to prise scarce dollars out of increasingly cash-strapped alumni and awww crap we just chucked that out the window, I guess we need to cut the English department.

If fans could see through ploys the bowl system wouldnt have lasted this long.

[gdu]

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.

I feel the same as you about most uniforms (including these), but you are asking people to go against what is best for them (Nike - selling the most product, Rutgers - getting the best recruits, selling the most product, getting the most attention) in order to do what is best for you (have uniforms you like the look of)

[andrewharrington]

...is to ignore the ultimate goal of the school: to make money.

Case in point: if you don't think there's something wrong with that, then I'm pretty much speechless.

[Kevin W.]

I'm sorry, but things like this won't help Rutgers in recruiting. Oregon is a special case, but uniforms as a whole don't help with recruiting. If they did, Fresno State would have a top ten class this year.

[gdu]

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.

But it can't be turned around on me. I am an attorney who works with doctors and lives in Austin. I don't work closely (or at all) with TCU or Texas. I just like uniform design and have made friends with people in both athletic departments.

And I don't think it was a cheap shot. I think it is very legitimate to point out potential biases in people. Just like it was adidas-sponsored athletes claiming Nike soccer jerseys retained too much water and a Nike-employed designer dogging D.Rose for getting injured while wearing adidas.

[Island_Style]

...is to ignore the ultimate goal of the school: to make money.

Case in point: if you don't think there's something wrong with that, then I'm pretty much speechless.

It is capitalism at it's finest.