Rutgers New Football Uniforms

[WSU151]

Not a game changer at all. Plenty of teams have had crazy helmet designs before that one and I already told you guys HGI is making new helmets for like 30 teams this year. This is just one of them.

Can you share any of the teams? Just curious because I really like the work HGI is doing.

Honestly, I don't know all the teams, but even if I did I wouldn't say anything unless I had permission. I respect the guys at HGI too much. Also, if word/pics of the helmets leak out before the contract has been signed, there is a good chance we will never see them on the field.

I'm not sure how telling us a list of schools that will get HGI treatment is disrespecting them. Telling us the details of the helmets is one thing...telling us "Toledo" is something else.

[walkdesign]

I love them a lot too. Rutgers never had a brand. The last uniforms were supposed to create a generic tradition that never existed there. I think these are great and makes Rutgers feel like a more national brand ala Utah State.

Am I the only one who loves these? Like, a lot?

[gdu]

Not a game changer at all. Plenty of teams have had crazy helmet designs before that one and I already told you guys HGI is making new helmets for like 30 teams this year. This is just one of them.

Can you share any of the teams? Just curious because I really like the work HGI is doing.

Honestly, I don't know all the teams, but even if I did I wouldn't say anything unless I had permission. I respect the guys at HGI too much. Also, if word/pics of the helmets leak out before the contract has been signed, there is a good chance we will never see them on the field.

I'm not sure how telling us a list of schools that will get HGI treatment is disrespecting them. Telling us the details of the helmets is one thing...telling us "Toledo" is something else.

Direct quote from the president of the company "almost every time something gets out ahead of the press release it kills the project." I am not going to sacrifice the hard work of the guys at HGI and the schools they are working with just so I can be the first to post something on the internet.

Some of the schools aren't "official" (i.e. HGI is working on helmets for them, but the school hasn't yet signed a contract to pay for an entire set) yet, so telling you who they are is more than I can do.

I've been the first to post plenty of stuff here, and I will continue to when I can.

[PhlyBoy]

People were talking about Maryland for at least half the season.

I'd like to see some proof of that.

How many tuned in JUST to see the black uniforms? I'm willing to be quite a few people.

That too.

I can't sum up old Sportcenter footage from the fall, but I know that at least ONCE ever College Football Final, they mentioned Marylands crazy uniforms.

The first thing people talked about when they mentioned that game wasn't the game itself, it was the uniforms.

http://arizona.sbnat...friday-osweiler (Headline is "blackout")

http://scores.espn.g...ameId=312520009 (AZ won in a blackout)

And how many people you know went up to you the next day and said "Hey, did you see those Arizona State uniforms?". Same with Maryland.

Exactly. Uniforms are college football now. Their the "cool" thing. I'm 19, and while I love an Alabama uniform as much as the next guy on these forums, all my friends think is "wow Maryland has sick uniforms" or "what's Oregon wearing this week?" it's the culture, and it's what makes momey. And I'm fine with it. Most teams do pretty cool stuff actually if you took off your traditionalist goggles

Couldn't he easily say the same thing to you. It's a matter of taste, not bias.

I love traditional Uniforms. But I also love Modern ones. Yes, there are modern designs where I am thinking "wtf is that" and while I love Nike they do screw it up sometimes. But there are modern designs that are amazing, like Oregon or even Oklahoma State or ASU. ASU's rebrand was so well done, I actually have to go and think hard about what the helmet was before the pitchfork.

Seriously? The attention span of today's youth is truly troubling.

It's not that it's attention span, though I admit youth had very little of that, it's that the pitchfork is so recongnizable and perfect for them. But sparky is an awesome logo don't get me wrong, just the fork is much better on a helmet

[evanmaldonado]

All Nike football uniforms are starting to look the same to me. Not a fan. Their old look was much better

[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.

[Lights Out]

Brilliant... Nike's not only ruining college football forever, now they're ruining society at large!

Orrrr maybe you just don't like the uniforms. I mean, seriously, the Nike-bashing has reached ridiculous levels.

[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

[IceCap]

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

He's right, regardless of who he works for.

[WSU151]

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.

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to football uniforms (my favorite era of college football uniforms is like 1985-2000), but sometimes innovation trumps weak traditions.

[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

He's right, regardless of who he works for.

But the team/school is making the ultimate decision.

Nike isn't asking the question and then answering it for the school. Rutgers has decided that getting more good recruits, winning and building the fanbase is more important than catering to the dozens of loyal Rutgers football fans that existed before 2008 or so.

Nike couldn't force Rutgers to change their uniforms any more than they could force Penn State to. Rutgers made a decision and this is the result.

[tBBP]

All Nike football uniforms are starting to look the same to me. Not a fan.

At first glance, yes. True, they all may have their inherent unique subtleties, but on the surface...this quoted post pretty well hits it on the head. At the root, it also is what's irking several around here such as Harry and myself: more and more it appears Nike (but they're not alone) is highlighting the value of their own brand image over the school athletic programs they outfit. As proof of the pudding, ask yourself this question: when you see this Rutgers set, the new Missouri set, the recent Arizona State set, Oklahoma State, or Washington State (and there's others I could include), does one see the Rutgers Scarlet Knights, Missouri Tigers, Arizona State Sun Devils, Oklahoma State Cowboys, and Washington State Cougars...or do you first see fancy new uniforms created by Nike before seeing the team? Now ask the same question of those five programs...in the mindset of someone in Nike's creative department.

What I've just done here is spotlighted the difference between brand identity and brand image. The former is what the company (in this case Nike, with or without input from the school) wants you to see in the athletic identity; the latter is how you, the viewer, perceive them. Whether or not the two match up is determined by the viewer, but that's why I posed those two questions earlier, as a self test.

And this, I believe, is at the center of the angst several of us feel in regard to some of these newfangled Nikefied treatments...sure, they'll pull certain visual cues from the existing athletic program, more than just colors in several instances (take the cleverly subtle tiger stripes in Mizzou's new set for instance), but lately it seems, more often than not, the end result ends up conveying "done by Nike" more prevalent than the program itself, be it due to the ancillary and sometimes unnecrssary inclusion of some shade of gray of silver (I'm still curious as to why Nike felt Washington State would benefit from TWO grays), or by adding in their flavor du jour at the time (which right now seems to be textured numbers).

Take the new Rutgers set for example. I don't necessarily take issue with the inclusion of the silver?it does make sense after all (and by the way, HGI did a helluva job on those helmets); what I take issue with is the overabundance of both that and the black?and the ancillary addition of gray. Again, was it even necessary? Or just to do something different "just because"? Take the new sword-number font. I understand some may not have liked the old Rockwell-ish font (and actually I still don't know why that program never bothered to adopt the font in their athletic logos; that would've been all kinds of sharp), but regardless, that identity was building. Why not take that and build upon it more, to help establish some brand continuity? Nope- instead we get what we got, the swoosh-created sword-font numbers, which probably wouldnt be so bad if they were thinned out a good bit and had a thicker outline. That kind of thing is what some are referring to when we say that Nike values its own brand above the program's.

Now before all the good little Nike parrots get all riled up (if they haven't already), let me say this: I'm all for creative expression. I'm even for the creation of new number fonts (y'all know that). There does come a point, though, where it goes too far. The trick is to see just how close you can get to the edge of that line without teetering over it. Mizzou managed to accomplish this somewhat; this here went overboard (and in doing so, came out looking like the production of one of Nike's rivals, Under Armour...which I find humorous). A fair bit of perspective would also help in regard to the program's history, to see just how futuristic a new design should go, or if it even should.

But I'll stop there...I've ranted enough. Feel free to tear that apart if you like.

[IceCap]

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

He's right, regardless of who he works for.

But the team/school is making the ultimate decision.

Nike isn't asking the question and then answering it for the school. Rutgers has decided that getting more good recruits, winning and building the fanbase is more important than catering to the dozens of loyal Rutgers football fans that existed before 2008 or so.

Nike couldn't force Rutgers to change their uniforms any more than they could force Penn State to. Rutgers made a decision and this is the result.

I doubt the uniforms will help Rutgers win. Nor do I think they'll get more recruits.

Uniforms get the spotlight in you, but you still need to win. Oregon has flashy uniforms, but the fact that they're National title contenders means they can make the most of the spotlight generated by the uniforms. Just look at Maryland. People started talking about them when they debuted their new uniforms, but after a whole people forgot about them because they're still Maryland. They couldn't take advantage of the spotlight their new flashy uniforms got them.

At the end if the day Rutgers will still be Rutgers. If they can't win, if they can't fix what's really broken with their program, then their flashy overly literal uniforms won't matter in the long run. They'll just be another irrelevant team with a generic over-designed uniforms.

[gdu]

All Nike football uniforms are starting to look the same to me. Not a fan.

At first glance, yes. True, they all may have their inherent unique subtleties, but on the surface...this quoted post pretty well hits it on the head. At the root, it also is what's irking several around here such as Harry and myself: more and more it appears Nike (but they're not alone) is highlighting the value of their own brand image over the school athletic programs they outfit. As proof of the pudding, ask yourself this question: when you see this Rutgers set, the new Missouri set, the recent Arizona State set, Oklahoma State, or Washington State (and there's others I could include), does one see the Rutgers Scarlet Knights, Missouri Tigers, Arizona State Sun Devils, Oklahoma State Cowboys, and Washington State Cougars...or do you first see fancy new uniforms created by Nike before seeing the team? Now ask the same question of those five programs...in the mindset of someone in Nike's creative department.

Assuming they see Nike first: who cares? It still gets buzz around the program (which undoubtedly helps in recruiting). It gets more fans to buy more apparel (which means more advertising for the school and money since it is all licensed). It gets more people watching the team's games. And it gets more people excited/interested about the school/program.

Win-Win-Win-Win-Win.

[tBBP]

^ EDIT: refer to what Ice_Cap posted right above you.

[IceCap]

All Nike football uniforms are starting to look the same to me. Not a fan.

At first glance, yes. True, they all may have their inherent unique subtleties, but on the surface...this quoted post pretty well hits it on the head. At the root, it also is what's irking several around here such as Harry and myself: more and more it appears Nike (but they're not alone) is highlighting the value of their own brand image over the school athletic programs they outfit. As proof of the pudding, ask yourself this question: when you see this Rutgers set, the new Missouri set, the recent Arizona State set, Oklahoma State, or Washington State (and there's others I could include), does one see the Rutgers Scarlet Knights, Missouri Tigers, Arizona State Sun Devils, Oklahoma State Cowboys, and Washington State Cougars...or do you first see fancy new uniforms created by Nike before seeing the team? Now ask the same question of those five programs...in the mindset of someone in Nike's creative department.

Assuming they see Nike first: who cares? It still gets buzz around the program (which undoubtedly helps in recruiting). It gets more fans to buy more apparel (which means more advertising for the school and money since it is all licensed). It gets more people watching the team's games. And it gets more people excited/interested about the school/program.

Win-Win-Win-Win-Win.

signed

an employee of a Nike school

See how easy (and cheap) that is?

Like Buc I take issue with Nike putting their brand before the schools' brands in their new uniform designs because I'm a fan of uniform and logo design. I don't want to see teams sacrifice their aesthetic traditions to the big manufactures just to chase fleeting trends.

[CDixonDesign]

All Nike football uniforms are starting to look the same to me. Not a fan.

At first glance, yes. True, they all may have their inherent unique subtleties, but on the surface...this quoted post pretty well hits it on the head. At the root, it also is what's irking several around here such as Harry and myself: more and more it appears Nike (but they're not alone) is highlighting the value of their own brand image over the school athletic programs they outfit. As proof of the pudding, ask yourself this question: when you see this Rutgers set, the new Missouri set, the recent Arizona State set, Oklahoma State, or Washington State (and there's others I could include), does one see the Rutgers Scarlet Knights, Missouri Tigers, Arizona State Sun Devils, Oklahoma State Cowboys, and Washington State Cougars...or do you first see fancy new uniforms created by Nike before seeing the team? Now ask the same question of those five programs...in the mindset of someone in Nike's creative department.

Assuming they see Nike first: who cares? It still gets buzz around the program (which undoubtedly helps in recruiting). It gets more fans to buy more apparel (which means more advertising for the school and money since it is all licensed). It gets more people watching the team's games. And it gets more people excited/interested about the school/program.

Win-Win-Win-Win-Win.

Because if you see Nike first, the University has failed in it's attempt to make the brand, about who it should be: The University. The landscape of College Football's uniforms are being force fed of change at Nike, Under Armor and Adidas' hands. Tradition is slowly dying, and flashy innovation has run amuck....

[ESTONES6]

To be honest... I like these. I'm not one for the chrome helmet or really anything over modernized, but I think when you have monochrome white, red, and black, with a silver helmet on each and silver numbers, you, if nothing else, have consistency between the uniforms.

Thinking out loud:

- The 2 tone collar actually looks good with the shoulder stripes.

- The shoulder stripes have been used before, but they have a little style to them to make them unique.

- I don't think the numbers are really all that great, but they are a home run for the uniforms. They aren't over done, but they fit the Knights name perfectly.

- The sublimated pattern on the shoulders are too much. I get what they were trying to do, but it takes away from the set.

- I would have seen more consistency between the pants, shoulders, and helmet stripes on each monochrome look. If you are going to have a gray stripe inside of 2 red stripes on the white uniform, make it match the shoulders and the helmet.

- I can't even count how many helmet they have. If they were going to go crazy with helmets, matte black, matte red, and matte white would have finished off the uniforms.

- If they wanted to go with 1 helmet, a chrome with the worn in, sublimated pattern would have looked nice. They could have found consistency between the R and the stripe.

- But, since they had the urge for multiple helmets (3, all chrome base)... again I would have liked to see a chrome helmet with matching pants stripes to finish off the white on white, red on red, and black on black.

All in all... I think its a solid update. The font and stripe pattern seem to actually fit with the teams' name... not just something thrown on their because it looks cool. The chrome helmet with the worn in/sublimated pattern looks awesome, but they didn't need it on the shoulders.

I was glad to see that Nike is putting more effort into these uniforms and re-brands as of late... these new Rutgers and the new Mizzou uniforms seem to fit the actual team and nickname unlike the Minnesota and TCU updates which seemed lazy.

[BrandMooreArt]

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

He's right, regardless of who he works for.

But the team/school is making the ultimate decision.

Nike isn't asking the question and then answering it for the school. Rutgers has decided that getting more good recruits, winning and building the fanbase is more important than catering to the dozens of loyal Rutgers football fans that existed before 2008 or so.

Nike couldn't force Rutgers to change their uniforms any more than they could force Penn State to. Rutgers made a decision and this is the result.

yea i think we have to blame the schools as much as anyone.

my biggest problem with the schools (and Nike shares a little blame too) is they dont really know who they are. i guess thats easy to fall into when the sad truth is, you're nobody important. so they jump on a trend to become relevant. its profitable short term but has no long term solution. im not a fan of "traditional" or "modern" design i just like things that are good, and when an identity is good it reflects the brand.

i believe what Buc was alluding to in his great post is true "brand" (if i can put some words into his mouth, lol) the reason why Texas's uniforms work for them is because they value simplicity in life and are an "old school" football program. they are a true cowboy/blue collar school. their uniforms have been described as "work clothes". they are the Every Man brand archetype, who do not fall for trends; they are afraid of standing out too much. also see Nebraska and Penn State

then you have Oregon (also see Boise State) who is truly changing the way the game is played. the way they practice and play is reflective of who they are. they want to blaze their own path. they dont care about doing things the way they've always been done they want to find a better way of doing it. that shows in their identity. thats why it works for them. plus, they always seem to get Nike's best effort.

with Rutgers, i think they have a cool helmet but thats it. wheres the emotional connection here? wheres the personality? who are they supposed to be? who do they want to be? all they are is a school riding a trend to be cool. it might have turned out all right is they got Nike's best effort like Washington State or ASU or maybe Mizzou. but its just sad to look at right now

for the record i think the best work in 2011 by far came from Adidas. not only were their designs solid, but the schools (Notre Dame and Michigan especially) know who they are and what they're about. thats when great design happens. its a combination of client and designer. both have to know what they are doing and why

[parhills3d34]

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