Rutgers New Football Uniforms

[thespleenenator]

...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.

Which is fine for a NFL team.

The goal of a university, however, should be to be the best centre of higher learning possible.

In fact that commercialization of NCAA football is an overall negative trend, not a positive one.

I'm not much of a capitalist. I don't like the fact that the football program gets the most money out of any department in a university.

But sitting here complaining about it is not going to change it.

Well yeah. I don't think anyone here actually believes that what we discuss here has any barring on what actually happens in the world.

Disliking a uniform because you don't like how it looks is one thing. Disliking it because it "ruins the intergrity of the game", heh, well that's just plain naive.

I never said I disliked a uniform for ruining the "integrity of the game." I think you're reading into something in my post that's not there. I dislike the current modern trend of uniforms because they're over panelled, over piped, generally over-designed messes with to much emphasis on black or whatever shades of grey Nike feels like promoting at the moment. I dislike these types of uniforms because they sacrifice individual team identities, traditions, and aesthetics to large manufacturers just so they can chase a trend. I dislike these types of uniforms because they're more about the manufacturer then the team.

Newflash: college football has never had any intergrity. You think those Oklahoma teams of the 60s were clean? You don't think they never fixed a game, or payed some players, or did illegal gambling? You think the coaches of old cared about the integrity of the game? No, they cared about winning. They would do whatever they could get away with. The only reason coaches don't do it now is because people are actually looking for that stuff (thank you SMU). People think the BCS ruined the game. It was already ruined. Now the corupption is just official. You think Adidas somehow brings more intergraty to the game by making uniforms that are "traditional"? Get real. Adidas does just as many shady deals and brings just as many "benefits" to recruits as Nike does. To think otherwise is to ignore reality.

Many people bring up Alabama, and how they've had success in traditional uniforms, and that this somehow brings them more integrity. Alabama wearing their traditional uniforms is like a hooker wearing a cross.

You can think what you want, but you have to realize that every single one of these schools is just as corrupt as the next. I'm an Oregon fan, and I would be surprised if Nike had never paid one of our players. Hell, I would be shocked. In fact, that's probabley how we got DeAnthony Thomas. Kids like new shoes. 'Bama does it with tradition and "connections" from Nick Saban, Oregon does it with "Innovation" and Nike. It's just another way to be a slimeball.

College football does not, and has never had, and sort of integraty. Stop pretending it does.

I never said it did. Again, you're reading into stuff that isn't there.

I was sort of more replying to Andrew then you. Your post just happened to be the one I replied to. Sorry about that.

[ONUV]

without nike, this site would be a lot quieter.

[IceCap]

I was sort of more replying to Andrew then you. Your post just happened to be the one I replied to. Sorry about that.

No problemo.

without nike, this site would be a lot quieter.

I don't even hate Nike. I've purchased Nike stuff before. As far as jerseys go I've always liked the "feel" of their soccer jerseys, they just seemed more "high end" to me. I'm excited to see what their NFL replicas will be like in person.

When Nike restrains themselves design wise I think they do great work. It's just that far to often they don't know when to say enough is enough. They have a great PR department that starts something, and before you know it Nike's believing their own hype and churning out these new designs in the name of "innovation."

Nike just needs to realize that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

[IceCap]

dp

[thespleenenator]

I was sort of more replying to Andrew then you. Your post just happened to be the one I replied to. Sorry about that.

No problemo.

without nike, this site would be a lot quieter.

I don't even hate Nike. I've purchased Nike stuff before. As far as jerseys go I've always liked the "feel" of their soccer jerseys, they just seemed more "high end" to me. I'm excited to see what their NFL replicas will be like in person.

When Nike restrains themselves design wise I think they do great work. It's just that far to often they don't know when to say enough is enough. They have a great PR department that starts something, and before you know it Nike's believing their own hype and churning out these new designs in the name of "innovation."

Nike just needs to realize that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

Well, that all comes down to aesthetic taste. Some people (like me) actually LIKE how the uniform looks. There is no hidden meaning. No hidden agenda. No Nike worshipping. I just like how it looks. I think Nike is just as capable of doing "horrible" work (Georgia, Oregon's pro combat [the neon hurt my eyes]), and doing "good" work (Rutgers, Missouri, Ok State, ASU). This notiong that somehow there is a right answer is untrue. What may work for you, may get jeers from another. That's why I don't like it when people say "A uniform has to look like this, this, and this, otherwise, it's terrible". That's treating your opinion as a fact. As if somehow you're the only person in the world with correct taste. I think some people seem to feel like their opinion means more somehow because they are "professional" (the proportaion of people that think that vs those who actually are is kinda of high).

I could consider my self somewhat of a "professsional" musician. I am going to be enrolling next fall for music composition. I have listened to hours, upon hours, upon hours, upon hours of music. I have played hours, and hours, and hours of music. I have composed hours, and hours, and hours, of music. If anyone were to have the "correct" opinion on what is good music or not, it would be me. And sure, sometiems, I do feel a bit entitled. But that isn't a good thing. I consider 90% of music "bad" because I can tell how hard it was to write that song, and normally, I can see how little an artist puts into their work, or how much. But I don't tell people who like Katy Perry, or The Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan that they're wrong. Because right and wrong does not exist.

It's the same here. As you can see by reading this thread, some people love these, and some hate them. None of them are right or wrong in their tastes. Sure, they can argue that it is innovative, or that it is breaking tradition, but in the end, it really comes down to whether or not you like how it looks.

I guess part of my point is that people need to stop thinking that their opinion is somehow better than everyone elses when it comes to subjective things suchs as this. You can argue all you want on whether or not it's "good for the game", but just realize that that shouldn't be a reason for people to completely change their views on a uniform, because no matter how hard you argue, people are either going to love it or hate it, and they're not going to change that.

[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. These are uniforms, and Rutgers previous plain red getup with white logos, lettering and numerals with the minimal black trim was great. It was recognizable as Rutgers and looked professional. They might as well be wearing pants that are sublimated to look like jeans or a jersey with a faux lapel that's supposed to look like a tuxedo.

I find their previous uniforms to be bland and boring. I'm sorry. As far as the functionality of the uniforms... um, there is no functionality except to give an identity. Really, that's all a uniform's job is to do. All these companies can talk about the functionality of whatever complete b.s. for new technology, but the only job of a uniform is to identify a team. Rutgers now looks like a team that has an identity, whether you like it or not.

But doesn't it undermine the concept of an 'identity' to depart from your long-held visual traditions (whether success came with them or not) and go with something that looks more like Georgia Pro Combat, New Mexico, or UNLV?

And identifying players with a legible numeral is still priority #1a for a football uniform, after establishing an identity/differentiating from an opponent.

I was sort of more replying to Andrew then you. Your post just happened to be the one I replied to. Sorry about that.

No problemo.

without nike, this site would be a lot quieter.

I don't even hate Nike. I've purchased Nike stuff before. As far as jerseys go I've always liked the "feel" of their soccer jerseys, they just seemed more "high end" to me. I'm excited to see what their NFL replicas will be like in person.

When Nike restrains themselves design wise I think they do great work. It's just that far to often they don't know when to say enough is enough. They have a great PR department that starts something, and before you know it Nike's believing their own hype and churning out these new designs in the name of "innovation."

Nike just needs to realize that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

Bingo.

[andrewharrington]

I was sort of more replying to Andrew then you. Your post just happened to be the one I replied to. Sorry about that.

No problemo.

without nike, this site would be a lot quieter.

I don't even hate Nike. I've purchased Nike stuff before. As far as jerseys go I've always liked the "feel" of their soccer jerseys, they just seemed more "high end" to me. I'm excited to see what their NFL replicas will be like in person.

When Nike restrains themselves design wise I think they do great work. It's just that far to often they don't know when to say enough is enough. They have a great PR department that starts something, and before you know it Nike's believing their own hype and churning out these new designs in the name of "innovation."

Nike just needs to realize that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

Well, that all comes down to aesthetic taste. Some people (like me) actually LIKE how the uniform looks. There is no hidden meaning. No hidden agenda. No Nike worshipping. I just like how it looks. I think Nike is just as capable of doing "horrible" work (Georgia, Oregon's pro combat [the neon hurt my eyes]), and doing "good" work (Rutgers, Missouri, Ok State, ASU). This notiong that somehow there is a right answer is untrue. What may work for you, may get jeers from another. That's why I don't like it when people say "A uniform has to look like this, this, and this, otherwise, it's terrible". That's treating your opinion as a fact. As if somehow you're the only person in the world with correct taste. I think some people seem to feel like their opinion means more somehow because they are "professional" (the proportaion of people that think that vs those who actually are is kinda of high).

I could consider my self somewhat of a "professsional" musician. I am going to be enrolling next fall for music composition. I have listened to hours, upon hours, upon hours, upon hours of music. I have played hours, and hours, and hours of music. I have composed hours, and hours, and hours, of music. If anyone were to have the "correct" opinion on what is good music or not, it would be me. And sure, sometiems, I do feel a bit entitled. But that isn't a good thing. I consider 90% of music "bad" because I can tell how hard it was to write that song, and normally, I can see how little an artist puts into their work, or how much. But I don't tell people who like Katy Perry, or The Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan that they're wrong. Because right and wrong does not exist.

It's the same here. As you can see by reading this thread, some people love these, and some hate them. None of them are right or wrong in their tastes. Sure, they can argue that it is innovative, or that it is breaking tradition, but in the end, it really comes down to whether or not you like how it looks.

I guess part of my point is that people need to stop thinking that their opinion is somehow better than everyone elses when it comes to subjective things suchs as this. You can argue all you want on whether or not it's "good for the game", but just realize that that shouldn't be a reason for people to completely change their views on a uniform, because no matter how hard you argue, people are either going to love it or hate it, and they're not going to change that.

This is all fine. I don't think anyone ever said you guys were wrong because you like this type of stuff. As much as you like how these uniforms look, some of us like how the older ones look. I love some of the ideas Nike has incorporated here, but like many, even most of their past efforts, I don't think they've put the total package together, in my professional opinion, and I don't like the potential future implications of these types of trends. To me, and I'm sure to others as well, it feels like Doritos, Taco Bell and Marlboro trying their hardest to sell us junk food and cigarettes even though they know it's bad for us individually and is contributing to our decline as a society. Great design doesn't begin and end with making a splash and getting people to talk about your work and your company.

Dieter Rams.

Innovative design is not the same thing as self-serving design. Alabama uses the same innovative technology as any other Nike team, but their brand does not serve Nike; it serves Alabama and its fans/alumni. It's a functional, vibrant brand that holds certain values above others, has a great following, and has stood/will continue to stand the test of time.

Off-topic, but what type of music do you focus on?

[nuordr]

I was sort of more replying to Andrew then you. Your post just happened to be the one I replied to. Sorry about that.

No problemo.

without nike, this site would be a lot quieter.

I don't even hate Nike. I've purchased Nike stuff before. As far as jerseys go I've always liked the "feel" of their soccer jerseys, they just seemed more "high end" to me. I'm excited to see what their NFL replicas will be like in person.

When Nike restrains themselves design wise I think they do great work. It's just that far to often they don't know when to say enough is enough. They have a great PR department that starts something, and before you know it Nike's believing their own hype and churning out these new designs in the name of "innovation."

Nike just needs to realize that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

Well, that all comes down to aesthetic taste. Some people (like me) actually LIKE how the uniform looks. There is no hidden meaning. No hidden agenda. No Nike worshipping. I just like how it looks. I think Nike is just as capable of doing "horrible" work (Georgia, Oregon's pro combat [the neon hurt my eyes]), and doing "good" work (Rutgers, Missouri, Ok State, ASU). This notiong that somehow there is a right answer is untrue. What may work for you, may get jeers from another. That's why I don't like it when people say "A uniform has to look like this, this, and this, otherwise, it's terrible". That's treating your opinion as a fact. As if somehow you're the only person in the world with correct taste. I think some people seem to feel like their opinion means more somehow because they are "professional" (the proportaion of people that think that vs those who actually are is kinda of high).

I could consider my self somewhat of a "professsional" musician. I am going to be enrolling next fall for music composition. I have listened to hours, upon hours, upon hours, upon hours of music. I have played hours, and hours, and hours of music. I have composed hours, and hours, and hours, of music. If anyone were to have the "correct" opinion on what is good music or not, it would be me. And sure, sometiems, I do feel a bit entitled. But that isn't a good thing. I consider 90% of music "bad" because I can tell how hard it was to write that song, and normally, I can see how little an artist puts into their work, or how much. But I don't tell people who like Katy Perry, or The Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan that they're wrong. Because right and wrong does not exist.

It's the same here. As you can see by reading this thread, some people love these, and some hate them. None of them are right or wrong in their tastes. Sure, they can argue that it is innovative, or that it is breaking tradition, but in the end, it really comes down to whether or not you like how it looks.

I guess part of my point is that people need to stop thinking that their opinion is somehow better than everyone elses when it comes to subjective things suchs as this. You can argue all you want on whether or not it's "good for the game", but just realize that that shouldn't be a reason for people to completely change their views on a uniform, because no matter how hard you argue, people are either going to love it or hate it, and they're not going to change that.

I could not have said it better myself!

[andrewharrington]

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.

Just to set the record straight, I complain far more about adidas in my daily life than I do about other companies, except UPS, which is the worst company on Earth to work with.

[shaydre1019]

They aren't a Nike school

Uh, yes they are.

You're right. I should've worded that better. I meant they're not one of nikes premier schools.

[WSU151]

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.

That picture was taken in a TV studio, so I wouldn't worry about the lighting, no matter how "natural" it was. The numbers are going to be plenty easy to read on the field.

[Kevin W.]

They aren't a Nike school

Uh, yes they are.

You're right. I should've worded that better. I meant they're not one of nikes premier schools.

Neither are Rutgers or Washington State.

[thespleenenator]

I was sort of more replying to Andrew then you. Your post just happened to be the one I replied to. Sorry about that.

No problemo.

without nike, this site would be a lot quieter.

I don't even hate Nike. I've purchased Nike stuff before. As far as jerseys go I've always liked the "feel" of their soccer jerseys, they just seemed more "high end" to me. I'm excited to see what their NFL replicas will be like in person.

When Nike restrains themselves design wise I think they do great work. It's just that far to often they don't know when to say enough is enough. They have a great PR department that starts something, and before you know it Nike's believing their own hype and churning out these new designs in the name of "innovation."

Nike just needs to realize that just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do it.

Well, that all comes down to aesthetic taste. Some people (like me) actually LIKE how the uniform looks. There is no hidden meaning. No hidden agenda. No Nike worshipping. I just like how it looks. I think Nike is just as capable of doing "horrible" work (Georgia, Oregon's pro combat [the neon hurt my eyes]), and doing "good" work (Rutgers, Missouri, Ok State, ASU). This notiong that somehow there is a right answer is untrue. What may work for you, may get jeers from another. That's why I don't like it when people say "A uniform has to look like this, this, and this, otherwise, it's terrible". That's treating your opinion as a fact. As if somehow you're the only person in the world with correct taste. I think some people seem to feel like their opinion means more somehow because they are "professional" (the proportaion of people that think that vs those who actually are is kinda of high).

I could consider my self somewhat of a "professsional" musician. I am going to be enrolling next fall for music composition. I have listened to hours, upon hours, upon hours, upon hours of music. I have played hours, and hours, and hours of music. I have composed hours, and hours, and hours, of music. If anyone were to have the "correct" opinion on what is good music or not, it would be me. And sure, sometiems, I do feel a bit entitled. But that isn't a good thing. I consider 90% of music "bad" because I can tell how hard it was to write that song, and normally, I can see how little an artist puts into their work, or how much. But I don't tell people who like Katy Perry, or The Rolling Stones, or Bob Dylan that they're wrong. Because right and wrong does not exist.

It's the same here. As you can see by reading this thread, some people love these, and some hate them. None of them are right or wrong in their tastes. Sure, they can argue that it is innovative, or that it is breaking tradition, but in the end, it really comes down to whether or not you like how it looks.

I guess part of my point is that people need to stop thinking that their opinion is somehow better than everyone elses when it comes to subjective things suchs as this. You can argue all you want on whether or not it's "good for the game", but just realize that that shouldn't be a reason for people to completely change their views on a uniform, because no matter how hard you argue, people are either going to love it or hate it, and they're not going to change that.

This is all fine. I don't think anyone ever said you guys were wrong because you like this type of stuff. As much as you like how these uniforms look, some of us like how the older ones look. I love some of the ideas Nike has incorporated here, but like many, even most of their past efforts, I don't think they've put the total package together, in my professional opinion, and I don't like the potential future implications of these types of trends. To me, and I'm sure to others as well, it feels like Doritos, Taco Bell and Marlboro trying their hardest to sell us junk food and cigarettes even though they know it's bad for us individually and is contributing to our decline as a society. Great design doesn't begin and end with making a splash and getting people to talk about your work and your company.

Dieter Rams.

Innovative design is not the same thing as self-serving design. Alabama uses the same innovative technology as any other Nike team, but their brand does not serve Nike; it serves Alabama and its fans/alumni. It's a functional, vibrant brand that holds certain values above others, has a great following, and has stood/will continue to stand the test of time.

Off-topic, but what type of music do you focus on?

I'm a classical composer. I listen primarily to Rachmonioff, Lizst, Alkan, Kapustin, Lyapunov, Mozart, Chopin, and Beethoven, as well as a lot of video game music (which I believe is where the most talented composers do their work). My main goal is to actually be a video game composer someday.

[shaydre1019]

They aren't a Nike school

Uh, yes they are.

You're right. I should've worded that better. I meant they're not one of nikes premier schools.

Neither are Rutgers or Washington State.

But those 2 i guess are bigger football programs and get more attention from nike and get the black alts/ alt helmets, etc. So i would consider them a tier above fresno state. And doesnt Washington have a schoolwide identity done by Nike?

[Kevin W.]

I wouldn't exactly call Washington State a top-tier program. We'll see if that changes under Mike Leach, but they're definitely not a "premier" school.

[oddball]

...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.

Which is fine for a NFL team.

The goal of a university, however, should be to be the best centre of higher learning possible.

In fact that commercialization of NCAA football is an overall negative trend, not a positive one.

I'm not much of a capitalist. I don't like the fact that the football program gets the most money out of any department in a university.

But sitting here complaining about it is not going to change it. Disliking a uniform because you don't like how it looks is one thing. Disliking it because it "ruins the intergrity of the game", heh, well that's just plain naive. Newflash: college football has never had any intergrity. You think those Oklahoma teams of the 60s were clean? You don't think they never fixed a game, or payed some players, or did illegal gambling? You think the coaches of old cared about the integrity of the game? No, they cared about winning. They would do whatever they could get away with. The only reason coaches don't do it now is because people are actually looking for that stuff (thank you SMU). People think the BCS ruined the game. It was already ruined. Now the corupption is just official. You think Adidas somehow brings more intergraty to the game by making uniforms that are "traditional"? Get real. Adidas does just as many shady deals and brings just as many "benefits" to recruits as Nike does. To think otherwise is to ignore reality.

Many people bring up Alabama, and how they've had success in traditional uniforms, and that this somehow brings them more integrity. Alabama wearing their traditional uniforms is like a hooker wearing a cross.

You can think what you want, but you have to realize that every single one of these schools is just as corrupt as the next. I'm an Oregon fan, and I would be surprised if Nike had never paid one of our players. Hell, I would be shocked. In fact, that's probabley how we got DeAnthony Thomas. Kids like new shoes. 'Bama does it with tradition and "connections" from Nick Saban, Oregon does it with "Innovation" and Nike. It's just another way to be a slimeball.

College football does not, and has never had, and sort of integraty. Stop pretending it does.

This has got to be one of the flimsiest arguments yet. You're throwing out accusations that you have absolutely no proof on and you want someone to believe you? Until you have actual proof of illegal doings, then stop making yourself look like a fool. You sit there and talk about how it's wrong that a football team gets the most money out of the department. Hello, news flash. Do you realize which department actually brings in the most money? The athletic department with the football and men's basketball teams which basically in D1 fund ALL other programs who loose money. Without football, there would be no baseball, swimming, cross-country, or if there was you would rarely see games outside of the local region. There would be no National Championships because most other sports except football and men's basketball are so far in debt it's ridiculous. I also find it quite amusing that you can't even spell the words, "integrity" and "corruption".

[WSU151]

I wouldn't exactly call Washington State a top-tier program. We'll see if that changes under Mike Leach, but they're definitely not a "premier" school.

Washington State is best in the West. At least according to the fight song.

[shaydre1019]

I wouldn't exactly call Washington State a top-tier program. We'll see if that changes under Mike Leach, but they're definitely not a "premier" school.

Yeah definitely not. There's just a select few. I actually feel like Miami's losing interest from Nike, because they're not the powerhouse they used to be.

But i will say there's a level below the oregons, UT's, and USC's, that get "The Nike treatment" I do think Ok St is getting up there.

[thespleenenator]

...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.

Which is fine for a NFL team.

The goal of a university, however, should be to be the best centre of higher learning possible.

In fact that commercialization of NCAA football is an overall negative trend, not a positive one.

I'm not much of a capitalist. I don't like the fact that the football program gets the most money out of any department in a university.

But sitting here complaining about it is not going to change it. Disliking a uniform because you don't like how it looks is one thing. Disliking it because it "ruins the intergrity of the game", heh, well that's just plain naive. Newflash: college football has never had any intergrity. You think those Oklahoma teams of the 60s were clean? You don't think they never fixed a game, or payed some players, or did illegal gambling? You think the coaches of old cared about the integrity of the game? No, they cared about winning. They would do whatever they could get away with. The only reason coaches don't do it now is because people are actually looking for that stuff (thank you SMU). People think the BCS ruined the game. It was already ruined. Now the corupption is just official. You think Adidas somehow brings more intergraty to the game by making uniforms that are "traditional"? Get real. Adidas does just as many shady deals and brings just as many "benefits" to recruits as Nike does. To think otherwise is to ignore reality.

Many people bring up Alabama, and how they've had success in traditional uniforms, and that this somehow brings them more integrity. Alabama wearing their traditional uniforms is like a hooker wearing a cross.

You can think what you want, but you have to realize that every single one of these schools is just as corrupt as the next. I'm an Oregon fan, and I would be surprised if Nike had never paid one of our players. Hell, I would be shocked. In fact, that's probabley how we got DeAnthony Thomas. Kids like new shoes. 'Bama does it with tradition and "connections" from Nick Saban, Oregon does it with "Innovation" and Nike. It's just another way to be a slimeball.

College football does not, and has never had, and sort of integraty. Stop pretending it does.

This has got to be one of the flimsiest arguments yet. You're throwing out accusations that you have absolutely no proof on and you want someone to believe you? Until you have actual proof of illegal doings, then stop making yourself look like a fool. You sit there and talk about how it's wrong that a football team gets the most money out of the department. Hello, news flash. Do you realize which department actually brings in the most money? The athletic department with the football and men's basketball teams which basically in D1 fund ALL other programs who loose money. Without football, there would be no baseball, swimming, cross-country, or if there was you would rarely see games outside of the local region. There would be no National Championships because most other sports except football and men's basketball are so far in debt it's ridiculous. I also find it quite amusing that you can't even spell the words, "integrity" and "corruption".

I honestly don't care about the sake of the other athetic sports. If the academics aren't getting the most, they should take a back seat. Of course, that's not the society we live in.

[Kevin W.]

I honestly don't care about the sake of the other athetic sports. If the academics aren't getting the most, they should take a back seat. Of course, that's not the society we live in.

I'm not aware of any universities that use academic monies to fund athletics. They get their funding from entirely different sources. That's an argument that always comes up when a new coach gets a big salary or a stadium expansion gets approved and it holds no water. Expanding athletic budgets do not infringe upon academic budgets.