This real money site caters to all players, with reviews on mobile games you can play, including slots, blackjack, and roulette.

Old School vs. Nu Skool?

steelers bills
By Phil Hecken

Uni Watch sage in the “venerable veteran” category Rick Pearson posed a semi-question/semi-statement in the comments section this past Thursday, which begat a few responses, but which really raised an excellent point or three, and perhaps something we could and should explore in greater detail. His ponderance remarked on a uniform phenomenon (both in college and the pros) whereby it seems we can readily classify most, if not all, uniforms into two distinct categories: “old school” and “new school.” Let me take you back to Ricko’s exact quote for further explanation/clarification/exploration:

I was thinking…(always a dangerous thing)…

Football unis have split decidedly into two camps
1. Traditional
2. Innovative

And that’s fine. I don’t love or hate all the unis in either category.

Maybe what we need is pick the five best looking football unis (college or pro) that DON’T have striped pants (don’t mean plain like Notre Dame, mean those with panels, piping or designs that AREN’T plain ol’ straight stripes).

Me, I think I’d vote for the Broncos home (navy jersey) version as number one. But not the navy pants. No sir, not their best look. Good colors, good design, didn’t go overboard.

A few comments followed, including some by yours truly, but we never really followed through on this idea. Nor did we ever try to rank (not that we could or should) say, the five best (and five worst) of the uniforms from each camp. While we did take a look at a very few colleges, for the purposes of this exercise, let’s focus on the NFL.

A quick look at the 32 teams in the NFL tells us that close to half fall into the category of “Old School” (or to use Ricko’s phraseology, “traditional”). We can safely list the Bears, Browns, Cowboys, Packers, Colts, Chiefs, Dolphins, Saints, Giants, Jets, Raiders, Steelers, 49ers, Eagles and Redskins in the “Old School” category. But that’s only 15 teams. And that’s only when they (some of them) don’t wear monochrome and/or leotards.

In the “New School” (or, in Ricko’s parlance, “innovative”) camp, we find eight teams (for sure): the Cardinals, Falcons, Bills, Bengals, Broncos, Panthers, Jaguars, and Vikings. One could argue that the Bills don’t really belong in the “new school” category — although they are so awful, they probably deserve a category of their own.

Anyway, that leaves us with 9 teams which I personally find somewhat difficult to place into either category. To wit, the Lions, Ravens, Texans, Patriots, Chargers, Seahawks, Rams, Buccaneers, and Titans all have some elements of a “traditional” uniform, but also some elements of an “innovative” one.

[I should note that I ran my list by Ricko, who really felt the uniforms I identified should be put into two camps: Ricko would move the Patriots, Seahawks, Rams and Titans to the “innovative” category, since
all have either non-linear helmet stripes, non-linear pants stripes, side panels or wear dark monochrome as pretty much their standard home uni…or a combination of those elements. The same could be said for the Bills. Rick would also put the Ravens, Chargers, Lions, Texans and Bucs into old school, since in his eyes, their logos and such are in standard postions, and they have normal striping or longstanding style trim (i.e. Chargers) on all of them.]

But really that’s neither here nor there — you can feel free to argue with our classifications — I don’t believe there’s any hard and fast rule that places one squarely into one category or the other, but certainly teams who have held onto (or permanently returned to) a “classic” uniform over the years, who have “standard” (linear) helmet, sleeve (what is left of them anyway) and pants striping would likely fall into the “traditional” category, while teams like the Cardinals or Falcons, who have opted to “modernize” their uniform with lots of jersey side panels, piping, striping, angles (also known as “bumperstickers”) and such fall into the “innovative” category.

Then we have teams that have elements of both. For example, the Patriots have side panels and a more “modern” helmet, but fairly traditional pants stripes, and they never opt for the “leotard” look. Likewise, the Chargers could probably just as easily be placed in the “traditional” category, yet whenever they wear their dark pants, they are always paired with dark blue socks, giving them an almost ballet dancer type of look. On the flip side of the coin, you have teams like the Saints who will, on occasion, breakout the monochrome leotards.

A good point to also ponder is what, really, does qualify for a “traditional” uniform? And can we limit our definition of “innovative” to the eight teams I have identified … should we include all 17 that don’t fall squarely into the “traditional” category? In the end, my categorizations don’t really matter, since even some of the traditional teams have sported some non-traditional uniform looks from time to time.

I’ve been criticized (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly) for hating all non-traditional uniforms — while I would say as a general rule of thumb I do prefer traditional striping and combinations, I can certainly appreciate the “innovative” uniforms in their own way. But there are also uniforms out there that are simply bad — bad design is bad design — but I will try to keep an open mind when discussing the ‘newer’ uniforms and will express my love for a few of those here, following Ricko’s lead.

Let’s see what you guys think as well. Pick any football uniform, pro or college (I limited my list to the pros because it kept the list to 32 — but the colleges have literally hundreds to choose from) that would fall into the “innovative” (or “new school” or “modern”) category and show it some love. Ricko picked the Broncos, and for the home or road, I can see how this uniform is kind of cool (though no longer unique) in its own way. I sorta blame Nike and the Broncos for leading us down this new design path, but maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

If I had to pick one of the newer designs, I think I could grow to like the Cardinals — sure, I could do without the piping and non-linear striping, but it does kinda work. And the colors are gorgeous. And I’ve always said that this version of the Titans uniform is one of my all time favorites. Yeah — the fonts are kinda funky, the helmet has weird striping, it’s got an odd yoke and that logo probably leaves something to be desired — but the colors are fantastic and it really does look great. Powder blue and navy, (with just a tiny hint of red) work well together, and the white cleats and helmets just work.

So what about you? What are some of the really GOOD new and innovative designs out there, college or pro? Let’s build a list and see if we can’t look at the nu skool unis (because they certainly aren’t going away) and see if we can’t find some new classics. What designs can we look at today that will stand the test of time in 10, 20, even 30 years? I’m sure there are more than a few out there.

~~~~~~~~~~

As many of you know, UCLA is going to be wearing throwbacks today. According to the UCLA Bruins Blog, “1967 Heisman Trophy winner (Gary Beban) was at the Morgan Center today (Friday) for a luncheon with former teammates and donors. He spoke with the Bruin football team later in the day and will be the honorary captain for Saturday’s Homecoming contest vs. Washington.

Beban brought his 1967 jersey with him. Here are a couple of pictures of Beban with his jersey and a shot of Beban’s 1967 jersey with one of the Throwback jerseys.”

Nice! Thanks to Erkki Corpuz (via Paul) for the tip.

~~~~~~~~~~

FEAR THE SPEAR! Really? How about “The U Knows”? Are these movie taglines? Catchy phrases with which to insult your friends? How about “Good Guys Wear White” or “Don’t Back Down”? Maybe they’re song titles? Nope, nope, nope and nope.

Those are all Nike generated slogans (mouse over the models for a great laugh) they’re “giving” to the 10 schools they’ll be outfitting with “Pro Combat” uniforms and gear [late edit: as of yesterday afternoon, all ten models had some form of “slogan” associated with them — but as of late last evening, only two did]. Paul already showed us some of the uniforms in yesterday’s article (if you didn’t see it, it’s a great read). Those slogans are (I’m pretty certain) going to appear on those super hero “special gloves” the players will be wearing, and it wouldn’t surprise me if it were sewn into the crotch area as well. Just so, ya know, they don’t forget who they’re playing for. This whole “super hero” mentality is just so ridiculous. As Paul said to me, “Nike seems to have no idea how to market anything except by turning it into a comic book. Aside from being silly, it’s also *soooo* generationally exclusive — like, how is any fan older than, say, 28 yrs old supposed to take slogans like Fear the Spear and The U Knows seriously?”

I’m guessing fans over the age of 28 aren’t in this Nike demographic.

~~~~~~~~~~

benchies header And you thought baseball season had ended…not for the boys from Bub’s Pub. They’re still going strong — or so they think. I guess this is to be expected when you play fall softball in some midwestern state, right? Enjoy your Saturday Benchies. Seems like the Twins may have this to look forward to come spring, eh?

~~~~~~~~~~

scoreboardGuess The Game From The Scoreboard: Gonna try something a little different today. This is likely one you’ll not find by going to Retrosheet or Baseball Almanac or any of the likely sources. In fact, you’re not likely to find it anywhere. But you can still solve it. And you can probably find a link to it too. Date and location are all we’re gonna be looking for on this one. Have fun. Guess The Game From The Scoreboard. And if you want to keep this going through the fall, please send me some new scoreboards! Drop me a line and help a fella out, k? Thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~

Guess that’s gonna do it for today. Still trying to get used to this new fangled software Johnny Ek installed here on UW (hopefully this will self-load at 7:00 am EST), and I apologize, but I was under the weather for most of the week. Lots of good college games today, plus the usual assortment of other sports as well. And make sure you give our man on the street, Jim Vilk, a hand by choosing those top college football matchups and posting pics down below.

Tomorrow I hope to begin featuring some of the MANY NFL uniform tweaks, upgrades and concepts you folks have been sending my way for the past several weeks. Plus we’ll have the finalists in the “Worst. Uni. Ever.” poll for your voting pleasure. And the usual assortment of goodies.

Enjoy your Saturday!

 

226 comments to Old School vs. Nu Skool?

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 7:10 am |

    My list is the following:

    Good new uniforms, in my estimation:

    Oregon Ducks, when the school colors are involved.

    Seattle Seahawks, blue jersey.

    Tennessee Titans, white jersey.

    Denver Broncos, all jerseys.

    Carolina Panthers, all jerseys.

    Oregon State Beavers, especially in orange.

    I’ll probably be back three or four times today with other college jerseys that I can’t remember off the top of my head. It’s kind of difficult as a Pac-10 fan… you have a bunch of fairly traditional schools, and then the Oregon schools (which I believe actually look good right now, by and large, especially when compared to some of the disgusting, vile monstrosities that hit the field in recent years).

    Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to bed.

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 7:31 am |

    For Guess The Game, hasn’t that not even taken place yet?

  • The Jeff | November 7, 2009 at 7:47 am |

    I guess I’ll throw in another vote for the Broncos and the Panthers.

    I’d also like to point out that despite all of the credit that Denver gets for starting the modern movement, the Panthers were actually the first NFL team to use non-standard stripes. It’s also the only uniform they’ve ever used so it’s already shown it has some staying power.

    Meanwhile, with the Vikings and Falcons already using throwbacks for essentially no reason, it tells me those new looks might not last as long. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see both of those teams pull a Niner (new logo on old uniform) within the next 5 or 6 years.

  • Alec | November 7, 2009 at 8:14 am |

    I like Carolina’s electric blue alts, Atlanta’s not bad but the Red jerseys with regular stripes in the 80’s was the bomb.

    Except for the Steelers and Ravens, black is played out.

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 8:23 am |

    Even though their unis hark back to their glory days, I’m going to call the 49ers a nu-skool team because of their unusual sleeve stripes.

    So they’re my clear favorites.

    Others I like:
    Broncos when they wear their orange jerseys
    Titans white jersey worn with either the white or powder blue pants. I’m not a fan of any combo of theirs that involves the navy jersey or navy pants. I’d love to see them go powder jersey/white pants for once.
    Seahawks white over white (do they ever go with blue over white or white over blue anymore? I don’t mind those.)
    Bengals orange jerseys over white pants.

    NCAA’s gonna take some consideration.

  • JohnnyO | November 7, 2009 at 8:44 am |

    *sigh* I don’t know if this has been mentioned but a sponsor has been added to the upcoming Hockey Classic being played at Camp Randall Stadium on Feb. 6th. Looks like shit… but at least it’s Culver’s. Mmmmmmmmmm butter burgers and cheese curds. *drools*

    http://www.uwbadgers...

  • JohnnyO | November 7, 2009 at 8:49 am |

    I think my link got spammed.. but here is what I said anyways. If you want to see the image go to http://www.uwbadgers... and click on the Men’s Hockey link.

    *sigh* I don’t know if this has been mentioned but a sponsor has been added to the upcoming Hockey Classic being played at Camp Randall Stadium on Feb. 6th. Looks like shit… but at least it’s Culver’s. Mmmmmmmmmm butter burgers and cheese curds. *drools*

  • JohnnyO | November 7, 2009 at 8:49 am |

    *sigh* I don’t know if this has been mentioned but a sponsor has been added to the upcoming Hockey Classic being played at Camp Randall Stadium on Feb. 6th. Looks like shit… but at least it’s Culver’s. Mmmmmmmmmm butter burgers and cheese curds. *drools*

    Go to http://www.uwbadgers... and click Men’s Hockey for the image.

  • WarDamnEagle | November 7, 2009 at 8:55 am |

    Old School jersey love: Kansas City road jersey. Dark pants and white socks with team-color stripes strike just the right balance.

    http://www.zimbio.co...

    I kinda like the Pats roadies for the same reason, but the only reason they have those 3 stripes on the white socks is b/c Adidas was the supplier when those unis were first put into use.

    http://www.nfljersey...

    http://i.cdn.turner....

    I think the Falcons could revive the black pants for road games if they were willing to bring back their rarel used alt socks. But they only wore them a few times, and then went to a unitard look with the dark pants. I don’t think they even wear the black pants anymore.

    http://www.reviewjou...

    New School jersey love:

    South Carolina. It just works. The helmet is traditional, and it keeps the innovative jersey somewhat “grounded.” So too does the “CAROLINA” across the front of the jersey. The colors work well together. They also tend to stay away from the monochrome look. They’ve done it, I think, but rarely. If Under Armour doesn’t get too trigger happy, they could build some tradition with that uni.

    http://www.palmettos...

    http://cdn3.sbnation...

  • WarDamnEagle | November 7, 2009 at 9:02 am |

    Old School:

    Chiefs, especially the road look. Perfect use of the dark pants with striped white socks. If only some of the new school teams would make the simple change to add a road sock, then we wouldn’t have the unitard look.

    http://www4.pictures...

    New School:

    South Carolina. It has a chance to an all-time great, if Under Armour leaves well-enough alone. The classic helmet and “CAROLINA” across the front of the jersey keep it grounded, so the more innovative elements don’t overload you.

    http://www.palmettos...

    http://cdn3.sbnation...

  • diggerjohn111 | November 7, 2009 at 9:27 am |

    I know it is in vogue to trash the Bills uniforms, and yes they are terrible. But look at Jacksonville’s! That tone changing helmet, the stupid striped that wrap around and the “deliver us from the 1990’s” colour scheme. The Bills at least have AWESOME throwbacks.

  • Beardface | November 7, 2009 at 10:23 am |

    I don’t agree with the Panthers jerseys being in the same crowd as Arizona, Buffalo, Atlanta, Jacksonville, etc.

    In fact, they are much closer to a traditional look than to any of the ones they were grouped with. The only reason they aren’t considered a ‘traditional’ look is that they were founded in the 90s. Block numbers, shoulder loops, and a pointed pant stripe. No piping.

  • Johnny F. | November 7, 2009 at 10:30 am |

    I think the Eagles are actually a team stuck in the “in-between”. Not a bad uni, just not old school… ever since the change in font and shade of green.

    And here’s another vote for the Falcons returning to the 70’s red with striped socks and red helmet. Fucking-a it’s a thing of beauty.

    That could be an interesting branch off of this conversation… Which team had a jersey you LOVED, just to go and screw it all up with a “new high-tech” one?

    I think the Falcons’ uni-fall-from-grace is really underrated.

    And classic uni—- How ’bout those Army Black Knights (non-camo, naturally).

  • Adam | November 7, 2009 at 10:31 am |

    Phil,

    Strictly out of curiousity, how many “Design-a-Uni” submissions are you up to? Any teasers? I would like to see if purple, black and gold has a chance of looking good…

  • Andy | November 7, 2009 at 10:42 am |

    [quote comment=”358758″]For Guess The Game, hasn’t that not even taken place yet?[/quote]
    It hasn’t. That’s the 1/1/10 NHL Winter Classic at Fenway. That’s why they don’t need a score, because there isn’t one.

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 10:45 am |

    [quote comment=”358769″]I don’t agree with the Panthers jerseys being in the same crowd as Arizona, Buffalo, Atlanta, Jacksonville, etc.

    In fact, they are much closer to a traditional look than to any of the ones they were grouped with. The only reason they aren’t considered a ‘traditional’ look is that they were founded in the 90s. Block numbers, shoulder loops, and a pointed pant stripe. No piping.[/quote]

    yeah, i’ll semi-give you that one — when i first composed the list, i had the panthers in the “middle” column (elements of both), but ricko kinda convinced me to move them to “nu skool” because of the non linear pants stripe; likewise, i originally had the lions in the “old school” column, but because of the weird new font for the letters/numbers, i put them in the “could be either” column

    point is, it seems even teams (like JTH pointed out with the 49ers) who kind of “throwback” to an old school uniform are doing so with a new school twist…only 2 teams (giants and jets) really took the “backwards” step towards more a more traditional look

    for the colleges, i’ll come up with some others later, but on thursday, i found some love for the mountaineers in their all blues — mainly because they stick with two (school) colors, blue and gold, they don’t over do it with the bumperstickers, and they wear white socks (thus, avoiding the leotard effect)

    can’t say i like this or this mix and match tho — the first because they probably should go with a white top with blue pants OR a white over gold

    and if they’re going to wear gold pants, they need to continue the wide striping down the side that is present on the jersey

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 10:50 am |

    [quote comment=”358771″]Phil,

    Strictly out of curiousity, how many “Design-a-Uni” submissions are you up to? Any teasers? I would like to see if purple, black and gold has a chance of looking good…[/quote]

    honestly, i haven’t had any chance to go through any of the submissions yet, but i’d guesstimate i’ve gotten at least 20 submissions…and i’d say any color combination has a “chance of looking good” depending upon one’s perspective — i don’t want to speak for, say, paul, but i’d be willing to bet he wouldn’t find ANY combinations he would like, whereas others might like several

    i’ll try to get those all uploaded and ready for viewing within the next two weeks

    (and no, no teasers)

  • Carl | November 7, 2009 at 10:51 am |

    [quote comment=”358772″][quote comment=”358758″]For Guess The Game, hasn’t that not even taken place yet?[/quote]
    It hasn’t. That’s the 1/1/10 NHL Winter Classic at Fenway. That’s why they don’t need a score, because there isn’t one.[/quote]

    Nice call. I was sitting here in my Saturday morning stupor avoiding raking leaves and installing storm windows pondering the possible existence of a past Flyers or Bruins in MLBs history. I’ll blame the shock of the Oregon State Seminoles “costumes” on it.

  • jdreyfuss | November 7, 2009 at 11:00 am |

    Lions are decidedly old school. They’ve pretty much ditched the black and what they have left is an effective accent for a team with two light colors as its official team colors. Funky serifs on a block font do not a new school jersey make.

  • Helmets Match Pants | November 7, 2009 at 11:04 am |

    PLEASE GET RID OF THAT DAMN CPU-HOGGING TWITTER FEED DISPLAY ON THIS WEB SITE!

    THIS SITE IS BORDERLINE UNUSABLE NOW!!!!!

  • Adam | November 7, 2009 at 11:05 am |

    [quote comment=”358775″][quote comment=”358771″]Phil,

    Strictly out of curiousity, how many “Design-a-Uni” submissions are you up to? Any teasers? I would like to see if purple, black and gold has a chance of looking good…[/quote]

    honestly, i haven’t had any chance to go through any of the submissions yet, but i’d guesstimate i’ve gotten at least 20 submissions…and i’d say any color combination has a “chance of looking good” depending upon one’s perspective — i don’t want to speak for, say, paul, but i’d be willing to bet he wouldn’t find ANY combinations he would like, whereas others might like several

    i’ll try to get those all uploaded and ready for viewing within the next two weeks

    (and no, no teasers)[/quote]

    Thanks Phil!

  • JimV19 | November 7, 2009 at 11:07 am |

    [quote comment=”358770″]And here’s another vote for the Falcons returning to the 70’s red with striped socks and red helmet. Fucking-a it’s a thing of beauty.

    That could be an interesting branch off of this conversation… Which team had a jersey you LOVED, just to go and screw it all up with a “new high-tech” one?[/quote]

    The Falcons are on my list. Darn Jerry Glanville…

    The Cardinals, too. At least I like the new unis. That makes two things where I agree with Phil in the same week, because I also love those Mountaineers unis. I think they actually look better in monochrome. Normally I don’t like dark helmets with an all-white uni, but it looks good on WVU. I like the all-yellow almost as amuch as the all-blue.

    As for the in-between teams I like the Rams and the Texans (yes, even the battle red unis!).

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 11:07 am |

    [quote comment=”358769″]I don’t agree with the Panthers jerseys being in the same crowd as Arizona, Buffalo, Atlanta, Jacksonville, etc.

    In fact, they are much closer to a traditional look than to any of the ones they were grouped with. The only reason they aren’t considered a ‘traditional’ look is that they were founded in the 90s. Block numbers, shoulder loops, and a pointed pant stripe. No piping.[/quote]

    Not about just the jersey. Panthers sorta introduced the odd helmet stripes and pointed pants stripes to the NFL. So I’d thow them in with Innovative…cuz they WERE innovators. Can’t deny that. Not like it matters, just that certain things create a tipping point. Titans having odd helmet sripes AND three different color pants, for example. That is hardly “traditional”, assuming we’re tyring to categorize looks from the TV era’s first 30 years and the styles that have come in the past 20 or so.

    Actually, the real point it that some of us really DO like some of the new unis, and we aren’t the old fuddyduddies a lot of people think we are. LOL

    (Doesn’t mean I like Boise State’s butt stripes, though; they still may rank among the dumbest uni ideas I’ve ever seen. Even FAMU’s front-back pants aren’t that stupid. Close, but not quite).

    —Ricko

  • JimV19 | November 7, 2009 at 11:10 am |

    [quote comment=”358782″][quote comment=”358770″]And here’s another vote for the Falcons returning to the 70’s red with striped socks and red helmet. Fucking-a it’s a thing of beauty.

    That could be an interesting branch off of this conversation… Which team had a jersey you LOVED, just to go and screw it all up with a “new high-tech” one?[/quote]

    The Falcons are on my list. Darn Jerry Glanville…

    The Cardinals, too. At least I like the new unis. That makes two things where I agree with Phil in the same week, because I also love those Mountaineers unis. I think they actually look better in monochrome. Normally I don’t like dark helmets with an all-white uni, but it looks good on WVU. I like the all-yellow almost as amuch as the all-blue.

    As for the in-between teams I like the Rams and the Texans (yes, even the battle red unis!).[/quote]

    Okay, Jerry didn’t give them a high-tech look, but he made the switch to black. I might have given the newest unis a little more love if they went with the red helmets and jerseys.

  • Hibbsy | November 7, 2009 at 11:16 am |

    The Patriots road uniforms are one of the worst uniforms. From head to toe, there is zero consistency.
    I hate the Falcons, Cardinals, etc. But as bad as they are, they are more consistent than that Pat uni.
    And… The helmet stripes of the Ravens, Panthers, and Titans put those teams in their own category. That category would be… “Stupid”.

  • nateisfunny | November 7, 2009 at 11:18 am |

    I am personally like the traditionals,but there are a few gems in the innovative column.
    I agree completely with Ricko’s affection for the Broncos jerseys, particularly the whites.
    The only other one I have a strong preference for is the Buccaneers set. The Pewter is so unique, looks really sharp. I think I like these two because I feel like all of the other “innovative” uni sets would be improved with a more traditional approach to striping, piping, et al. But the Bucs and Broncos would be seriously diminished by a more traditional approach- they are the only two, IMHO, where less would not be more.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 11:19 am |

    Don’t know if anyone’s linked to this previously…
    http://msn.foxsports...
    (But it doesn’t take up a ton of space to do it again.)

  • nateisfunny | November 7, 2009 at 11:19 am |

    I personally like the traditionals,but there are a few gems in the innovative column.
    I agree completely with Ricko’s affection for the Broncos jerseys, particularly the whites.
    The only other one I have a strong preference for is the Buccaneers set. The Pewter is so unique, looks really sharp. I think I like these two because I feel like all of the other “innovative” uni sets would be improved with a more traditional approach to striping, piping, et al. But the Bucs and Broncos would be seriously diminished by a more traditional approach- they are the only two, IMHO, where less would not be more.

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 11:20 am |

    [quote comment=”358783″][quote comment=”358769″]I don’t agree with the Panthers jerseys being in the same crowd as Arizona, Buffalo, Atlanta, Jacksonville, etc.

    In fact, they are much closer to a traditional look than to any of the ones they were grouped with. The only reason they aren’t considered a ‘traditional’ look is that they were founded in the 90s. Block numbers, shoulder loops, and a pointed pant stripe. No piping.[/quote]

    Not about just the jersey. Panthers sorta introduced the odd helmet stripes and pointed pants stripes to the NFL. So I’d thow them in with Innovative…cuz they WERE innovators. Can’t deny that. Not like it matters, just that certain things create a tipping point. Titans having odd helmet sripes AND three different color pants, for example. That is hardly “traditional”, assuming we’re tyring to categorize looks from the TV era’s first 30 years and the styles that have come in the past 20 or so.

    Actually, the real point it that some of us really DO like some of the new unis, and we aren’t the old fuddyduddies a lot of people think we are. LOL

    (Doesn’t mean I like Boise State’s butt stripes, though; they still may rank among the dumbest uni ideas I’ve ever seen. Even FAMU’s front-back pants aren’t that stupid. Close, but not quite).

    —Ricko[/quote]
    And I don’t think the block number font is grounds for inclusion in the old-school grouping.

    I mean is this nu-skool? How about this?

    With this in mind, I agree with Ricko and jdreyfuss that the Lions are pretty solidly old-school.

  • The Jeff | November 7, 2009 at 11:20 am |

    [quote comment=”358785″]The Patriots road uniforms are one of the worst uniforms. From head to toe, there is zero consistency.
    I hate the Falcons, Cardinals, etc. But as bad as they are, they are more consistent than that Pat uni.
    And… The helmet stripes of the Ravens, Panthers, and Titans put those teams in their own category. That category would be… “Stupid”.[/quote]

    Do the Broncos get to be part of the “stupid” group too?

    For the record I like the helmet stripes on the Ravens & Panthers. I do think the Titans would look better with helmet stripes that match the pants though.

  • nateisfunny | November 7, 2009 at 11:22 am |

    Also, I just love Benchies. Well done, Ricko. It really has become one of my favorite comic strips over these past few months. I thought some appreciation was in order. Thank you.

  • BenA | November 7, 2009 at 11:24 am |

    Two thoughts re: Nu Skool:

    1) I agree with most of the assessments of the best of the Nu Skool uniforms….with the notable exception of the Broncos. I’ve never liked these unis. Their old Orange Crush-era unis featured a terrific helmet design; the new ones are entirely meh. The current colors are uniteresting. They are far from the worst of the Nu Skool unis, but also far from the best. I also really don’t like the Pats unis. Cards, Titans, Seahawks (among the pros); South Carolina in college. Those I can live with.

    2) Unis are constantly changing in sports. Some changes are for the best, some not. The return of button-front MLB unis back in the ’80s was enormous step in the right direction; black alt MLB unis are a step backward. Big baggy shorts in basketball? Fine with me. Ridiculous 1990s NBA uniforms tops? Not so much. When we’re talking “Nu Skool” in the NFL context today, we’re describing the latest series of uni changes. And though there are certainly better and worse examples of the genre, I continue to feel that, overall, this has been a terrible set of uniform changes. Not because they are a departure from tradition. But because they are an ugly and silly departure from better uniforms that happened to have been traditional.

  • Nick J | November 7, 2009 at 11:30 am |

    For new school NCAA:
    I like Wake Forest’s white tops with gold pants.
    Mizzou’s greenish-gold jerseys
    Temple in white (are these new school?)
    Kentucky’s Blues
    Montana at home (note the white socks to offset the solid red)
    Princeton in orange (Not sure if they even wear this ever anymore, I only saw it once)
    annnd last but not least, a potentially middle-ground team
    Lehigh in Brown I am a sucker for the Brown and gold for some reason..

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 11:31 am |

    [quote comment=”358786″]I am personally like the traditionals,but there are a few gems in the innovative column.
    I agree completely with Ricko’s affection for the Broncos jerseys, particularly the whites.
    The only other one I have a strong preference for is the Buccaneers set. The Pewter is so unique, looks really sharp. I think I like these two because I feel like all of the other “innovative” uni sets would be improved with a more traditional approach to striping, piping, et al. But the Bucs and Broncos would be seriously diminished by a more traditional approach- they are the only two, IMHO, where less would not be more.[/quote]

    Yup, Buca an excellent example of how to be innovative by changing to unique, distinctive color combinatons and using them well…without having to resort to piping and trim that looks like it’s based on one of John Madden’s telestrations.

    And the best thing about the Bucs’ pewter and other colors…they actually relate to the nickname. The pewter works as plundered silver, as sabres, cannon & cannoballs; the red and orange as blood or stolen silks and provisions and, of course, the orange also is a nod to stereotypical Florida. Just a really well-conceived and nicely executed uni.

    Of course this comes up the day before they WON’T be wearing them.

    And there’s that little matter of speaking to Mr. Hovan regarding how he WEARS the damn thing…

    —Ricko

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 11:34 am |

    [quote comment=”358780″]PLEASE GET RID OF THAT DAMN CPU-HOGGING TWITTER FEED DISPLAY ON THIS WEB SITE!

    THIS SITE IS BORDERLINE UNUSABLE NOW!!!!![/quote]
    I’m finding quite the opposite. This site is loading up a hell of a lot faster for me since the upgrade. Maybe a browser issue? I’m using Firefox 3.5.4.

  • M.Princip | November 7, 2009 at 11:39 am |

    There are four(five or so actually) NFL teams that I would have to say I really have loved from old school to the new, or, innovative set. Seahawks, Chargers, Bengals, and Redskins. The Seahawks were innovative in ’76(logo) and they’re innovative now with their monochromatic blues, lazer striped neon greens, black shoes, and nice refresh of their NW Indian logo. Chargers were also quite daring back in the day with their bolt stripings, decals, and wonderful forehead decal badge they wore in ’63. I wish there were more eccentric placed decals on todays helmets; i.e. the Steelers single decal which I thought was brilliant back in the day, and brilliant now. Also, loved the Steelers yellow shoulder pads(1967) with white, not so much with the black jersey.

    Anyway, love the Redskins uniforms throughout and again they seemed to be quite innovative back in the day, with their amazing feather mohawk helmet. So, Redskins how about revisit the feather mohawk? ;o) Remember to wear the black shoes though. Finally, the Bengals colors I’ve always loved, from the BENGALS wordmark days to their crazy assed striped days of today. Simply top notch in my book. However, when I think about the eighties obssesion with the cock rock zebra striped pants I get a sick feeling in my stomach. Almost the same feeling when I look at the present day Carolina Panthers uniform and that horrible eighties cock rock band font/wordmark of theirs. Oh if I could get my hands on that team’s rebranding, I’d start by getting rid of the Panthers name, and rename it something a little more relevant to the state’s history like maybe NASCAR related ……Thunder! Fuckin’ Panthers?!?! How absolutely unoriginal.

    Just to add, I’m not a big fan of the truncated striping, shiny pants, Colts uniforms for the most part have been the most boring, however, I love the helmets with the two horseshoes at back. The black leotards are the worst thing ever, and the Ravens are the only team that can rock the purple.

    Real quick on college unis. The Oregon Ducks football uniform worn in week three against Utah; white helmet, green jersey, and matte gray pants, is the best uniform ensemble ever worn in college football. Ever!:o)

    Oh, and I love what Nike has done with the Seminoles uniform, per yesterday’s discussion. Minus the spirographs on the shoulders which I’m not diggin’. Those side feathers are rough and tough.

    Lastly(back to NFL), love the Saints uniforms, from yesterday to today. Minus the black leotards.

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 11:42 am |

    You know what, I’m going to have to amend my last statement. Yes, the site loads up faster now, but I’m watching my task manager and every time that twitter dealie updates, there’s a huge spike in CPU usage. It jumps up to like 25% every time.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Why do I have the sudden urge to go buy some cheap furniture and eat meatballs and lingonberries?

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 11:43 am |

    Y’know, an argument could be made that Michigan’s helmets and Temple’s pants are the longest-running uninterrupted unique (meaning no one else does it) uniform features in college football. Both go back at LEAST to the 60’s I believe, right?
    http://a.espncdn.com...

    (and, yes, I know Princeton had that style helmet first, but they also quit using if for, what, almost 50 years? So I don’t think they can claim they were overshelmingly proud of it. Michigan kinda made it their own during the years Princetion willingly backed away from it.)

    —Ricko

  • M.Princip | November 7, 2009 at 11:45 am |

    Just to add, I do love the vintage Viking’s purple. Just don’t think they look as good these days. I mean, how awesome were the Vikings looking on Monday Night in their throwbacks against the Pack.

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | November 7, 2009 at 11:45 am |

    [quote comment=”358795″][quote comment=”358780″]PLEASE GET RID OF THAT DAMN CPU-HOGGING TWITTER FEED DISPLAY ON THIS WEB SITE!

    THIS SITE IS BORDERLINE UNUSABLE NOW!!!!![/quote]
    I’m finding quite the opposite.

    This site is loading up a hell of a lot faster for me since the upgrade. Maybe a browser issue? I’m using Firefox 3.5.4.[/quote]

    Same here, no “slowage” at all caused by it.

  • The Jeff | November 7, 2009 at 11:50 am |

    [quote comment=”358797″]You know what, I’m going to have to amend my last statement. Yes, the site loads up faster now, but I’m watching my task manager and every time that twitter dealie updates, there’s a huge spike in CPU usage. It jumps up to like 25% every time.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Why do I have the sudden urge to go buy some cheap furniture and eat meatballs and lingonberries?[/quote]

    Yeah, if you’ve got an old system with very little RAM, that twitter thing could get annoying. If I were running the site I wouldn’t worry about it though. People need to upgrade eventually.

  • Nick J | November 7, 2009 at 11:54 am |

    [quote comment=”358798″]Y’know, an argument could be made that Michigan’s helmets and Temple’s pants are the longest-running uninterrupted unique (meaning no one else does it) uniform features in college football. Both go back at LEAST to the 60’s I believe, right?
    http://a.espncdn.com...

    (and, yes, I know Princeton had that style helmet first, but they also quit using if for, what, almost 50 years? So I don’t think they can claim they were overshelmingly proud of it. Michigan kinda made it their own during the years Princetion willingly backed away from it.)

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I had no idea those pants stripes were that old. They are by far my favourite pants stripes of any team.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 11:56 am |

    [quote comment=”358799″]Just to add, I do love the vintage Viking’s purple. Just don’t think they look as good these days. I mean, how awesome were the Vikings looking on Monday Night in their throwbacks against the Pack.[/quote]

    Did Vikings change PMS spec or is it the fabric change that makes the purple look lighter? Cuz no doubt fabric is different and color looks different.

    On TV the gold looks more muted, too. But if you put old jerseys and new jerseys side by side, the golds are the same (checked it at MOA the other day).

    —Ricko

  • Paul Lukas | November 7, 2009 at 12:01 pm |

    Aggies to wear a Fort Hood memorial decal today:
    http://www.aggieathl...

  • Vulture | November 7, 2009 at 12:05 pm |

    The uniform that the 49ers wore from 1998-2008 was simply the best uniform ever. Best. Uniform. Ever. That they went back to wearing the same %%%% they were wearing in 1969 grates on me to no end.

    Nostalgia for nostalgia’s sake is lame.

  • M.Princip | November 7, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”358803″][quote comment=”358799″]Just to add, I do love the vintage Viking’s purple. Just don’t think they look as good these days. I mean, how awesome were the Vikings looking on Monday Night in their throwbacks against the Pack.[/quote]

    Did Vikings change PMS spec or is it the fabric change that makes the purple look lighter? Cuz no doubt fabric is different and color looks different.

    On TV the gold looks more muted, too. But if you put old jerseys and new jerseys side by side, the golds are the same (checked it at MOA the other day).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I can confirm that the helmet purple, non metallic paint, w/gray facemask makes all the difference in the world. Just look at Favre and how great he looked in the Vikings uniform on MNF, as opposed to how awkward he looks in the Viking’s present day uniform.

  • =bg= | November 7, 2009 at 12:07 pm |

    [quote comment=”358756″]My list is the following:

    Good new uniforms, in my estimation:

    Oregon Ducks, when the school colors are involved.

    Seattle Seahawks, blue jersey.

    Tennessee Titans, white jersey.

    Denver Broncos, all jerseys.

    Carolina Panthers, all jerseys.

    Oregon State Beavers, especially in orange.

    I’ll probably be back three or four times today with other college jerseys that I can’t remember off the top of my head. It’s kind of difficult as a Pac-10 fan… you have a bunch of fairly traditional schools, and then the Oregon schools (which I believe actually look good right now, by and large, especially when compared to some of the disgusting, vile monstrosities that hit the field in recent years).

    Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to bed.[/quote]

    You know, just took a trip up to Oregon, and the “O” stuff was everywhere- except a plain green T-shirt, you’d be amazed at how hard to find a plain green shirt with the yellow O on it is..

    I like the Oregon look. Not much on the wings, tho.

  • M.Princip | November 7, 2009 at 12:10 pm |

    Sorry if this has already been discussed, yet, sort of a milestone for me here. I haven’t owned a pair of Nike sneaks since elementary school, yet, that will all change once I get a pair of these:

    http://www.nikeblog....

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 12:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”358803″]Did Vikings change PMS spec or is it the fabric change that makes the purple look lighter? Cuz no doubt fabric is different and color looks different.

    On TV the gold looks more muted, too. But if you put old jerseys and new jerseys side by side, the golds are the same (checked it at MOA the other day).[/quote]

    probably apples to oranges due to lighting, filters, apertures, f-stops and such, but the throwback helmet appears quite a bit darker (maybe due to metallic element in the new helmet?) and the new jersey also appears to be a lighter shade of purple…i’ve definitely noticed it appearing lighter (not just in that pic)…but ricko sees ’em every week, so if he says they’re lighter, then lighter they are

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 12:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”358802″][quote comment=”358798″]Y’know, an argument could be made that Michigan’s helmets and Temple’s pants are the longest-running uninterrupted unique (meaning no one else does it) uniform features in college football. Both go back at LEAST to the 60’s I believe, right?
    http://a.espncdn.com...

    (and, yes, I know Princeton had that style helmet first, but they also quit using if for, what, almost 50 years? So I don’t think they can claim they were overshelmingly proud of it. Michigan kinda made it their own during the years Princetion willingly backed away from it.)

    —Ricko[/quote]
    I had no idea those pants stripes were that old. They are by far my favourite pants stripes of any team.[/quote]
    It’s a great look. I’d like to see their basketball team incorporate it, similar to DePaul and Marquette.

  • mtjaws | November 7, 2009 at 12:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”358793″]For new school NCAA:
    Montana at home (note the white socks to offset the solid red)
    [/quote]

    That Montana is very sharp looking. Great pick.

    Despite being a program that debuted in 2001, Florida Atlantic went straight to the old school for their classic duds. Both home and away. I know others here are fans of them (and hopefully the team too!).

  • The Jeff | November 7, 2009 at 12:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”358809″][quote comment=”358803″]Did Vikings change PMS spec or is it the fabric change that makes the purple look lighter? Cuz no doubt fabric is different and color looks different.

    On TV the gold looks more muted, too. But if you put old jerseys and new jerseys side by side, the golds are the same (checked it at MOA the other day).[/quote]

    probably apples to oranges due to lighting, filters, apertures, f-stops and such, but the throwback helmet appears quite a bit darker (maybe due to metallic element in the new helmet?) and the new jersey also appears to be a lighter shade of purple…i’ve definitely noticed it appearing lighter (not just in that pic)…but ricko sees ’em every week, so if he says they’re lighter, then lighter they are[/quote]

    I’m pretty sure the new uniform is lighter than the previous uniform. However, the current throwback appears to be the same color, aside from the helmet being quite obviously darker. I’m basing that on the Favre picture and the Paintshop Pro color match tool.

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 12:28 pm |

    Hmmm…. apparently Temple hasn’t been wearing those pants forever.

    Something they brought back recently?

  • Pretty Boy Paulie | November 7, 2009 at 12:31 pm |

    “New School” Uni Love:

    Oregon Ducks (I just wish that yellow jersey wasn’t so neon)
    http://blog.seattlep...

    Virgina Tech Hokies (Call me crazy but I kinda dig these)

    http://3.bp.blogspot...

    San Diego Chargers (I see these as New Classics)

    http://www.sofantasy...

    http://www.listicles...

    Arizona Cardinals (I agree with Phil, I can get used to them…and they’re kinda growing on me.)

    http://z.about.com/d...

    Tennessee Titans (Another agreement with Phil, I prefer their standard home uni but their roadie with sky blue pants is real sharp too!)

    http://i183.photobuc...

    ….and that’s all I got for right now.

  • Skycat | November 7, 2009 at 12:42 pm |

    I would classify the two camps of uniforms as:
    1. Traditional
    2. Corporate/trendy

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 12:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”358813″]Hmmm…. apparently Temple hasn’t been wearing those pants forever.

    Something they brought back recently?[/quote]

    Didn’t know they’d gone away from them for a while, but they do go back a helluva long way.
    (Bill Cosby in a SERIOUS Temple throwback)…
    http://cache.daylife...

    In my defense, it ain’t like there’s a photo of Temple in the paper around here every week, or in SI. Or highlight packages on the WWL. LOL

    As to Vikings, I didn’t say purple IS lighter. Said LOOKS lighter, both on helmet and jersey, which could just be the materials (or those damn gas tank/thermos bottle sparklies). That’s why I asked if changed PMS. Cuz I don’t know the answer.

    Also, Gophers in all-maroon with high white socks today. Illini all-white. Doesn’t look bad, but gold pants on Minnesota would have brightened the overall look of the telecast considerably.

    —Ricko

  • Ed E. | November 7, 2009 at 12:52 pm |

    [quote comment=”358805″]The uniform that the 49ers wore from 1998-2008 was simply the best uniform ever. Best. Uniform. Ever. That they went back to wearing the same %%%% they were wearing in 1969 grates on me to no end.

    Nostalgia for nostalgia’s sake is lame.[/quote]

    Uhh…no.

    The whole concept behind that uniform (an Eddie D. production, though everyone blames it on the Yorks) was an exercise in nostalgia. They used the 49ers’ “original colors” (cardinal and gold), drop-shadow numbers and the 1996-97 white pants (a nod to the ’94 throwbacks) – and it just didn’t work.

    As soon as the brought back that “1969” uniform (actually 1964-95 – and they wore it in 5 Super Bowls, by the way) for two home games a year, the fans began clamoring for the old colors’ permanent return – and rightfully so. Why would you move away from a recognizable visual brand?

    Now, I’m still not sold on the sleeve stripes – I still think there’s room for three full stripes higher on the sleeve – and they could stand to put the sock stripes back, but other than that I’m satisfied with the new (old) look. (Maybe they’re a solid candidate for the striped-undershirt campaign – just make sure the colors match!)

    By the way, has anyone noticed that the Niners’ NOB are smaller than previous years’ throwbacks? In that respect, they almost look like the team’s unis from 1970-73, when they first had NOBs. I didn’t realize it until I put my custom 2009 jersey next to my 2007 throwback – letters are 2 1/2 inches tall instead of 3″. Just an observation.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 12:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”358815″]I would classify the two camps of uniforms as:
    1. Traditional
    2. Corporate/trendy[/quote]

    Hee hee. Good point (I just didn’t wanna be that inflammatory; y’know, being the resident Old Fart and all).

    —Ricko

  • The Jeff | November 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”358816″][quote comment=”358813″]Hmmm…. apparently Temple hasn’t been wearing those pants forever.

    Something they brought back recently?[/quote]

    Didn’t know they’d gone away from them for a while, but they do go back a helluva long way.
    (Bill Cosby in a SERIOUS Temple throwback)…
    http://cache.daylife...

    In my defense, it ain’t like there’s a photo of Temple in the paper around here every week, or in SI. Or highlight packages on the WWL. LOL

    As to Vikings, I didn’t say purple IS lighter. Said LOOKS lighter, both on helmet and jersey, which could just be the materials (or those damn gas tank/thermos bottle sparklies). That’s why I asked if changed PMS. Cuz I don’t know the answer.

    Also, Gophers in all-maroon with high white socks today. Illini all-white. Doesn’t look bad, but gold pants on Minnesota would have brightened the overall look of the telecast considerably.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Well, if SSUR.org can be trusted, the Vikings purple did become lighter in 2002. They show a much darker color for the previous years, with the current uniform and the 2002-2005 sharing the same colors.

  • jdreyfuss | November 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”358815″]I would classify the two camps of uniforms as:
    1. Traditional
    2. Corporate/trendy[/quote]
    How about we use terminology that doesn’t have a connotation so we can avoid the appearance of a bias? Corporate and trendy have a definite negative connotation and innovative has a positive connotation. This site in general is constantly accused of carrying a bias toward older designs, so the language used can be very important.

    These pairs have much more of a neutral connotation together.
    Traditional/Nontraditional
    Old School/New School
    Conventional/Modern (not neutral, but both positive)

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”358817″][quote comment=”358805″]The uniform that the 49ers wore from 1998-2008 was simply the best uniform ever. Best. Uniform. Ever. That they went back to wearing the same %%%% they were wearing in 1969 grates on me to no end.

    Nostalgia for nostalgia’s sake is lame.[/quote]

    Uhh…no.

    The whole concept behind that uniform (an Eddie D. production, though everyone blames it on the Yorks) was an exercise in nostalgia. They used the 49ers’ “original colors” (cardinal and gold), drop-shadow numbers and the 1996-97 white pants (a nod to the ’94 throwbacks) – and it just didn’t work.

    As soon as the brought back that “1969” uniform (actually 1964-95 – and they wore it in 5 Super Bowls, by the way) for two home games a year, the fans began clamoring for the old colors’ permanent return – and rightfully so. Why would you move away from a recognizable visual brand?

    Now, I’m still not sold on the sleeve stripes – I still think there’s room for three full stripes higher on the sleeve – and they could stand to put the sock stripes back, but other than that I’m satisfied with the new (old) look. (Maybe they’re a solid candidate for the striped-undershirt campaign – just make sure the colors match!)

    By the way, has anyone noticed that the Niners’ NOB are smaller than previous years’ throwbacks? In that respect, they almost look like the team’s unis from 1970-73, when they first had NOBs. I didn’t realize it until I put my custom 2009 jersey next to my 2007 throwback – letters are 2 1/2 inches tall instead of 3″. Just an observation.[/quote]

    I didn’t take into account alterations dictated by cut or garment pattern, cuz that’s not the design, that’s unofortunate reality (or the supplier screwing about with the design). Tiny stripes, smaller TV’s, truncated loops…all of them, sadly, fall into that category.

    btw, Nike managed to produce more traditional loops for Cornell last year…
    http://2.bp.blogspot...
    and Ohio U, too…
    http://cdn.bleacherr...
    so why can’t they do the same for LSU, and Reebok for the Colts?

    Just, y’know, asking.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:03 pm |

    My mistake. Ohio U ain’t Nike, I guess.
    But the point remains the same.

    —Ricko

  • jdreyfuss | November 7, 2009 at 1:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”358822″]My mistake. Ohio U ain’t Nike, I guess.
    But the point remains the same.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Riddell is probably a lot more open to traditional designs and its customers’ preferences in general, since it’s been making uniforms a lot longer than Nike or Reebok.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”358819″][quote comment=”358816″][quote comment=”358813″]Hmmm…. apparently Temple hasn’t been wearing those pants forever.

    Something they brought back recently?[/quote]

    Didn’t know they’d gone away from them for a while, but they do go back a helluva long way.
    (Bill Cosby in a SERIOUS Temple throwback)…
    http://cache.daylife...

    In my defense, it ain’t like there’s a photo of Temple in the paper around here every week, or in SI. Or highlight packages on the WWL. LOL

    As to Vikings, I didn’t say purple IS lighter. Said LOOKS lighter, both on helmet and jersey, which could just be the materials (or those damn gas tank/thermos bottle sparklies). That’s why I asked if changed PMS. Cuz I don’t know the answer.

    Also, Gophers in all-maroon with high white socks today. Illini all-white. Doesn’t look bad, but gold pants on Minnesota would have brightened the overall look of the telecast considerably.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Well, if SSUR.org can be trusted, the Vikings purple did become lighter in 2002. They show a much darker color for the previous years, with the current uniform and the 2002-2005 sharing the same colors.[/quote]

    There ya go. Thanks, The Jeff.

    —Ricko

  • Robert | November 7, 2009 at 1:13 pm |

    [quote comment=”358813″]Hmmm…. apparently Temple hasn’t been wearing those pants forever.

    Something they brought back recently?[/quote]

    Correct. I don’t know the years but they wore these in 70s, stopped for awhile, and went back to them within the past couple of years.

    I agree, they’re great. In fact, overall Temple looks pretty good. It’s been a sad sack program for many years so it’s great they’re playing up to their uniform!

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:15 pm |

    So far this year, Gophers have worn only the two combinations on either side of Coach Brewster…and, of course, the all-gold special for the opener at the New Brickhouse.
    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    Points for self-control, anyway. And for, like Cal and West Virginia, being smart enough to stick to white socks, never going leotard.

    —Ricko

  • Thomas Clark | November 7, 2009 at 1:19 pm |

    Hey Phil,

    Just to jump here are why I think some of the “innovative” pant designs either work…or don’t.

    Cardinals – Works – Because it establishes a flow that truncates itself at the end, but the piping finishes the pant, which I like more than the Broncos which just stops abruptly.

    Falcons – Doesn’t work – I understand the pant somewhat mimics the arm design in that the body of the uni/pant is merely piped and it expands into white at its conclusion…the jersey top looks fine, the pants just looks out of place.

    Patriots – Are they really that innovative?

    Bengals – Doesn’t work – The idea of the pants isn’t that bad really, remove the white at the top and they’re decent. The jersey also does not need white, it is useless and ruins what could be a moderately mediocre uni.

    Broncos – Works – They are one of a few teams that I think pulls off the monochrome (non-white) look. The upside is that they didn’t try to jump into a bunch of different styles (ie Bills) they took the “swoosh” style and used it. I think that’s why it works.

    Panthers – Works – I think this would work better if the shoulders matched the pants in that it was more of a shoulder style like the Patriots rather than a full circle around the shoulders.

    Jags – Doesn’t work – Only because the piping(?, striping?, lines?) extend to the back to “hold up” the number in essence. I’m not a big fan of designs that use the back of a jersey as major design. I’m fine with the pants, the striping, while innovative is minimalist and I’m fine with that.

    Vikings – Works…sort of – What I mean by sort of is that the jersey top itself is fine, the pants themselves are fine (save for the white at the top). Together they create something that isn’t great. An arbitrary starting point for the purple so that the top and bottom have a flow shows that the two shouldn’t have gone together to begin with.

    Seahawks – Doesn’t work – The Seahawks have been my favorite team since I was about 4 and saw Steve Largent play…But the new uniforms don’t work. I don’t mind the neon green accent, I don’t mind the tops, the pants, the helmets, or anything they have on their own. But this is a team that cannot pull off the monochrome look (or the all neon green look….I pray those never see the light of day again).

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:22 pm |

    oops…

    or this…
    http://www.standards...

    —Ricko

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 1:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”358826″]So far this year, Gophers have worn only the two combinations on either side of Coach Brewster…and, of course, the all-gold special for the opener at the New Brickhouse.
    http://image.cdnl3.x...

    Points for self-control, anyway. And for, like Cal and West Virginia, being smart enough to stick to white socks, never going leotard.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    They look like they’re lined up to defend a free kick.

    You sure Coach’s name is Brewster and not McGinty?

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 1:28 pm |

    So from that nike website we know that 10 schools are going to be participating in the rivalry uniform thing. Wonder who all 10 are going to be?

    So far we know:

    Virginia Tech
    TCU
    Florida State
    Ohio State
    Texas (I thought that the earlier shown jerseys were just throwbacks but it might count in this program)

    So who are the other 5? I’m guessing from the slogan ‘The U Knows’ one of them is Miami, but who are the other 4.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:38 pm |

    [quote comment=”358831″]So from that nike website we know that 10 schools are going to be participating in the rivalry uniform thing. Wonder who all 10 are going to be?

    So far we know:

    Virginia Tech
    TCU
    Florida State
    Ohio State
    Texas (I thought that the earlier shown jerseys were just throwbacks but it might count in this program)

    So who are the other 5? I’m guessing from the slogan ‘The U Knows’ one of them is Miami, but who are the other 4.[/quote]

    Okay, I’ll cop to misunderstanding something.
    FSU-Maryland on the 21st is a rivalry game?

    FSU-Maryland is a great rivalry?

    Obviously, I’m missing something because one way or another that just doesn’t compute.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:42 pm |

    One more question and I’ll shut up for awhile…
    How long has Miami claimed this “U” thing?

    I ask because my family (and just about everyone else around here) has been calling Minnesota “the U” since even before my uncle played for the Gophers in the late ’30s.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 1:44 pm |

    lest anyone thinks these new nike uniforms are just a marketing ploy…there’s some real actual science-type stuff at work here:

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform, a new system of dress (is) the lightest football uniform Nike has ever created.

    “Nike designed the Nike Pro Combat uniform to address the evolution of the game: Today’s players are stronger and faster and the collisions are more violent and explosive than ever before.

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform is 37 percent lighter than current designs (23.7 ounces vs. 37.4 ounces). Nike utilized a four-way stretch twill that does not hold sweat or water and as a result, the new uniforms are 46 percent lighter than the current designs when wet. Overall, the Nike Pro Combat uniform, when wet, is still lighter than the current … design when completely dry.

    “Designed from the inside out, the Nike Pro Combat uniform begins with the Nike Pro Combat padded base layer. Strategically placed padding zones in the Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts cover the thighs, hips and tailbone. The padding zones are composed of dual-density foam cells that absorb, deflect and disperse the impact of on-field collisions. A foam grid intersects the cells to maximize impact absorption and increase flexibility. A hard plastic shield covers the thigh padding where impact frequently occurs.

    “The Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts are made with Nike Dri-FIT technical fabric to provide superior moisture wicking, helping to keep players dry and cool.

    “With the padding incorporated into the base layer, players gain greater mobility over traditional padding and the outer uniform becomes a lightweight, breathable shell with a sleek, explosive look.”

    so there you have it…we have a new race of superheroes who simply cannot perform to the peak of their abilities without donning these new “combat fatigues”

    how ever did we enjoy football before this was invented? and once the teams wear this gear, what incentive will they ever have to wear their old duds again?

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 1:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”358832″][quote comment=”358831″]So from that nike website we know that 10 schools are going to be participating in the rivalry uniform thing. Wonder who all 10 are going to be?

    So far we know:

    Virginia Tech
    TCU
    Florida State
    Ohio State
    Texas (I thought that the earlier shown jerseys were just throwbacks but it might count in this program)

    So who are the other 5? I’m guessing from the slogan ‘The U Knows’ one of them is Miami, but who are the other 4.[/quote]

    Okay, I’ll cop to misunderstanding something.
    FSU-Maryland on the 21st is a rivalry game?

    FSU-Maryland is a great rivalry?

    Obviously, I’m missing something because one way or another that just doesn’t compute.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Perhaps Nike is just using ‘Rivalry’ as a key word for this little program that they are doing. Like when you think of college football you think of pageantry, tradition, rivalries, etc. I don’t think that it is meaning that the games the unis are being used for are the biggest rivalries around. I mean if you pick a certain date on the calendar not every school is playing a rival. I believe TCU is playing Utah for their ‘rivalry’ uniform game, for example.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:48 pm |

    Shoot. One more thing.
    Anyone getting Purdue-Michigan?
    Just saw highlight package.
    Are a number of Michigan players wearing low white crews, or is there just some white trim on the cleats that makes it look like they are?

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”358835″][quote comment=”358832″][quote comment=”358831″]So from that nike website we know that 10 schools are going to be participating in the rivalry uniform thing. Wonder who all 10 are going to be?

    So far we know:

    Virginia Tech
    TCU
    Florida State
    Ohio State
    Texas (I thought that the earlier shown jerseys were just throwbacks but it might count in this program)

    So who are the other 5? I’m guessing from the slogan ‘The U Knows’ one of them is Miami, but who are the other 4.[/quote]

    Okay, I’ll cop to misunderstanding something.
    FSU-Maryland on the 21st is a rivalry game?

    FSU-Maryland is a great rivalry?

    Obviously, I’m missing something because one way or another that just doesn’t compute.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Perhaps Nike is just using ‘Rivalry’ as a key word for this little program that they are doing. Like when you think of college football you think of pageantry, tradition, rivalries, etc. I don’t think that it is meaning that the games the unis are being used for are the biggest rivalries around. I mean if you pick a certain date on the calendar not every school is playing a rival. I believe TCU is playing Utah for their ‘rivalry’ uniform game, for example.[/quote]

    Okay, what can we learn from this?

    If you’re gonna pull a promotion out of thin air, work a little harder on what you decide to label it?

    Yeah, that be one thing for sure.

    —Ricko

  • jay w | November 7, 2009 at 1:55 pm |

    Favorite nu skool:
    – Oregon Ducks
    – Connecticut Huskies
    – Tennessee Titans (white)

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 1:56 pm |

    [quote comment=”358834″]
    “Nike designed the Nike Pro Combat uniform to address the evolution of the game: Today’s players are stronger and faster and the collisions are more violent and explosive than ever before.”[/quote]
    Yeah, those guys used to be total pansies, what with the heavy fabrics holding back their explosiveness. I’d much rather have gotten sandwiched between Ray Nitschke and Dick Butkus back in the day than between the elite athletes and true warriors Brian Urlacher and AJ Hawk.

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 1:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”358837″][quote comment=”358835″][quote comment=”358832″][quote comment=”358831″]So from that nike website we know that 10 schools are going to be participating in the rivalry uniform thing. Wonder who all 10 are going to be?

    So far we know:

    Virginia Tech
    TCU
    Florida State
    Ohio State
    Texas (I thought that the earlier shown jerseys were just throwbacks but it might count in this program)

    So who are the other 5? I’m guessing from the slogan ‘The U Knows’ one of them is Miami, but who are the other 4.[/quote]

    Okay, I’ll cop to misunderstanding something.
    FSU-Maryland on the 21st is a rivalry game?

    FSU-Maryland is a great rivalry?

    Obviously, I’m missing something because one way or another that just doesn’t compute.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Perhaps Nike is just using ‘Rivalry’ as a key word for this little program that they are doing. Like when you think of college football you think of pageantry, tradition, rivalries, etc. I don’t think that it is meaning that the games the unis are being used for are the biggest rivalries around. I mean if you pick a certain date on the calendar not every school is playing a rival. I believe TCU is playing Utah for their ‘rivalry’ uniform game, for example.[/quote]

    Okay, what can we learn from this?

    If you’re gonna pull a promotion out of thin air, work a little harder on what you decide to label it?

    Yeah, that be one thing for sure.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I wonder what it is officially called within Nike. I mean if you look at the photo gallery for Florida State they call it a limited edition rivalry uniform, but on the Nike site for the uniforms its Pro Combat uniforms. So is it just Florida State that injected rivalries into it or did Nike lead them that way?

    Also, since Nike is involved, I can’t imagine that Oregon is part of it since they just got new uniforms this year, but I bet they’ll get the accessories like the team specific undershirts and gloves. I think those gloves would be pretty cool making the Oregon O since a lot of people celebrate making an O with their hands to begin with.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 1:58 pm |

    [quote comment=”358838″]Favorite nu skool:
    – Oregon Ducks
    – Connecticut Huskies
    – Tennessee Titans (white)[/quote]

    Did we ever determine if Titans have worn white jersey with white pants more than one time?

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 2:00 pm |

    [quote comment=”358831″]So from that nike website we know that 10 schools are going to be participating in the rivalry uniform thing. Wonder who all 10 are going to be?

    So far we know:

    Virginia Tech
    TCU
    Florida State
    Ohio State
    Texas (I thought that the earlier shown jerseys were just throwbacks but it might count in this program)

    So who are the other 5? I’m guessing from the slogan ‘The U Knows’ one of them is Miami, but who are the other 4.[/quote]

    miami is definitely one of the 10…if i had to (now) guess, i’d venture both oregon schools (almost positive OSU is one, since we saw early previews of their spirograph shoulder “things”)

    nike seems NOW to be playing their 10 school pro combat thing very close to the vest…that “graphic” i linked to in the article — yesterday all 10 schools were represented when you moused over the model, but late yesterday evening it was down to just the two shown…i wish i had the foresight to have actually written down all 10 teams…but who knew they’d be pulling back on their leaks

    as far as the other 2 (or 3) … probably ‘nu skool’ teams like cal, as opposed to say, USC…

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 2:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”358840″][quote comment=”358837″][quote comment=”358835″][quote comment=”358832″][quote comment=”358831″]So from that nike website we know that 10 schools are going to be participating in the rivalry uniform thing. Wonder who all 10 are going to be?

    So far we know:

    Virginia Tech
    TCU
    Florida State
    Ohio State
    Texas (I thought that the earlier shown jerseys were just throwbacks but it might count in this program)

    So who are the other 5? I’m guessing from the slogan ‘The U Knows’ one of them is Miami, but who are the other 4.[/quote]

    Okay, I’ll cop to misunderstanding something.
    FSU-Maryland on the 21st is a rivalry game?

    FSU-Maryland is a great rivalry?

    Obviously, I’m missing something because one way or another that just doesn’t compute.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Perhaps Nike is just using ‘Rivalry’ as a key word for this little program that they are doing. Like when you think of college football you think of pageantry, tradition, rivalries, etc. I don’t think that it is meaning that the games the unis are being used for are the biggest rivalries around. I mean if you pick a certain date on the calendar not every school is playing a rival. I believe TCU is playing Utah for their ‘rivalry’ uniform game, for example.[/quote]

    Okay, what can we learn from this?

    If you’re gonna pull a promotion out of thin air, work a little harder on what you decide to label it?

    Yeah, that be one thing for sure.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I wonder what it is officially called within Nike. I mean if you look at the photo gallery for Florida State they call it a limited edition rivalry uniform, but on the Nike site for the uniforms its Pro Combat uniforms. So is it just Florida State that injected rivalries into it or did Nike lead them that way?

    Also, since Nike is involved, I can’t imagine that Oregon is part of it since they just got new uniforms this year, but I bet they’ll get the accessories like the team specific undershirts and gloves. I think those gloves would be pretty cool making the Oregon O since a lot of people celebrate making an O with their hands to begin with.[/quote]

    Not to mention a teaching tool for young receivers. Fingers up, thumbs down, focus on the point of the ball (that really works, btw) and catch the point with the “O”. A version of “make a spider web”, which is what I told kids I’ve worked with.

    Speaking of such things, I heard once that adidias postioned the three stripes where they did because it helped kids in soccer learn how to receive a pass. “Catch it on the stripes.” Anyone know anything about that?

    —Ricko

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 2:04 pm |

    [quote comment=”358842″][quote comment=”358831″]So from that nike website we know that 10 schools are going to be participating in the rivalry uniform thing. Wonder who all 10 are going to be?

    So far we know:

    Virginia Tech
    TCU
    Florida State
    Ohio State
    Texas (I thought that the earlier shown jerseys were just throwbacks but it might count in this program)

    So who are the other 5? I’m guessing from the slogan ‘The U Knows’ one of them is Miami, but who are the other 4.[/quote]

    miami is definitely one of the 10…if i had to (now) guess, i’d venture both oregon schools (almost positive OSU is one, since we saw early previews of their spirograph shoulder “things”)

    nike seems NOW to be playing their 10 school pro combat thing very close to the vest…that “graphic” i linked to in the article — yesterday all 10 schools were represented when you moused over the model, but late yesterday evening it was down to just the two shown…i wish i had the foresight to have actually written down all 10 teams…but who knew they’d be pulling back on their leaks

    as far as the other 2 (or 3) … probably ‘nu skool’ teams like cal, as opposed to say, USC…[/quote]

    Obviously the Oregon schools come to mind when Nike is involved, but at the same time their site does say 10 storied programs. Are the Oregon schools ‘storied’ programs?

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 2:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”358844″]Obviously the Oregon schools come to mind when Nike is involved, but at the same time their site does say 10 storied programs. Are the Oregon schools ‘storied’ programs?[/quote]

    this season? i’d say oregon is about as storied as it’s ever been

    and TCU? are they storied? really? perhaps being undefeated and a threat to become a BCS buster had nike’s slaves underage child labor employees working triple time to produce a warrior costume for them

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 2:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”358845″][quote comment=”358844″]Obviously the Oregon schools come to mind when Nike is involved, but at the same time their site does say 10 storied programs. Are the Oregon schools ‘storied’ programs?[/quote]

    this season? i’d say oregon is about as storied as it’s ever been

    and TCU? are they storied? really? perhaps being undefeated and a threat to become a BCS buster had nike’s slaves underage child labor employees working triple time to produce a warrior costume for them[/quote]

    TCU is more storied than the Oregon schools in the grand scheme of things if you count all of college football history. I mean the 1930s count right!!?!?

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 2:13 pm |

    I think “storied” means, “Who can we maniuplate and tell some kind of story to back it up?”

    You’ll notice, for example, that LSU and Penn State ain’t on that list, two schools Nike has had absolutely NO luck pushing around.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 2:15 pm |

    And, yes, TCU has a phenomenal football history, taken en toto. Far better than Oregon’s.

    —Ricko

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 2:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”358847″]I think “storied” means, “Who can we maniuplate and tell some kind of story to back it up?”

    You’ll notice, for example, that LSU and Penn State ain’t on that list, two schools Nike has had absolutely NO luck pushing around.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Nike has had a little luck with LSU. The yellow jersey, the white helmet and even though it was for a good cause those Katrina jerseys.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 2:18 pm |

    No one seems to remember what a powerhouse that long-gone conference was. Texas, TCU, SMU, Baylor and them…entire conference was from Texas, except Arkansas, of course. Damn, it produced some great teams.

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 2:18 pm |

    and one more thing…

    we all bemoan the truncation of shoulder loops…here’s the perfect example of why:

    check out this pic (how perfect that’s a UCLA jersey?) … manufacturers (whether it be rbk, nike, adidas, probably even russell) have the newer jersey cuts now, and they choose to simply truncate the stripe where different sections meet — i spose there’s a cost involved, but rather than actually creating a piece that continues the striping (or actually, ya know, adding an extra 2 ounces of precious weight to the jersey by actually SEWING the stripes on top of the existing pattern)…

    they simply choose to truncate the stripe

    just look how much nicer the jersey on the left looks (visually)…heaven help us if they could actully take the little extra step to KEEP the (almost full) loop…especially on a throwback

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 2:22 pm |

    [quote comment=”358849″][quote comment=”358847″]I think “storied” means, “Who can we maniuplate and tell some kind of story to back it up?”

    You’ll notice, for example, that LSU and Penn State ain’t on that list, two schools Nike has had absolutely NO luck pushing around.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Nike has had a little luck with LSU. The yellow jersey, the white helmet and even though it was for a good cause those Katrina jerseys.[/quote]

    Thank god only a little. LSU in white helmets and pants? Um, no. Just…no. Looked REALLY wrong. And gimmicky. Same for the gold jerseys.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 2:25 pm |

    [quote comment=”358851″]and one more thing…

    we all bemoan the truncation of shoulder loops…here’s the perfect example of why:

    check out this pic (how perfect that’s a UCLA jersey?) … manufacturers (whether it be rbk, nike, adidas, probably even russell) have the newer jersey cuts now, and they choose to simply truncate the stripe where different sections meet — i spose there’s a cost involved, but rather than actually creating a piece that continues the striping (or actually, ya know, adding an extra 2 ounces of precious weight to the jersey by actually SEWING the stripes on top of the existing pattern)…

    they simply choose to truncate the stripe

    just look how much nicer the jersey on the left looks (visually)…heaven help us if they could actully take the little extra step to KEEP the (almost full) loop…especially on a throwback[/quote]

    As I posted earlier today, somehow Nike managed to accomplish it for Cornell last year…
    http://2.bp.blogspot...

    So why the big difficulty in keeping a team’s longstanding and respected look?

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 2:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”358846″]
    TCU is more storied than the Oregon schools in the grand scheme of things if you count all of college football history. I mean the 1930s count right!!?!?[/quote]

    sure…i didn’t mean to take away from their 1935 and 1938 titles…i meant “storied” in the sense of say, notre dame, michigan, ohio state, penn state, etc…and yes, they’ve been playing football at tcu since 1896 or so…so compared to oregon, they’re far more historically established (and arguably, much more successful)

    sure, harvard, princeton and yale and rutgers are also “storied”…

    i was just trying to figure out how nike determined what is “storied” … cuz im sure their definition and our definition are markedly different

  • M.Princip | November 7, 2009 at 2:33 pm |

    Side link update Paul & Phil. Mickel has moved his Seattle Seahawks Uniform History site to:

    http://mickelyantz.c...

  • Paul Lukas | November 7, 2009 at 2:37 pm |

    [quote comment=”358855″]Side link update Paul & Phil. Mickel has moved his Seattle Seahawks Uniform History site to:

    http://mickelyantz.c...

    Thanks — now fixed.

    Off to go bowling in New Jersey,
    Paul

  • Robert | November 7, 2009 at 2:49 pm |

    I’m OK if Texas uniforms are the new style but look the same. If they come out against A&M in orange helmets or something I’m gonna be pissed.

    So far we don’t have much to go on as to what these things are going to look like. FSU’s–which tradition aside look great–are a pretty dramatic change while OSU’s leaked jersey isn’t a tremendous departure from their normal look.

    On another subject, UCF-Texas looks great on the field. The Knight’s white with gold trim looks really sharp, nice helmet logo, good use of minimal black.

  • asufanwithbagoverhead | November 7, 2009 at 2:50 pm |

    whats the yellow dot on the top of some of the iowa player’s helmets?
    http://sports.espn.g...

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 2:52 pm |

    From that Seahawks history page I find it interesting that their is a NFL rule to have only one helmet design, yet they have no problem with alternate uniforms. Gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with people buying jerseys to support their teams???

    I have no problem with a team wanting to wear one helmet at home and one of the road. That’s what I do with my created Madden team!!

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 2:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”358857″]I’m OK if Texas uniforms are the new style but look the same. If they come out against A&M in orange helmets or something I’m gonna be pissed.

    So far we don’t have much to go on as to what these things are going to look like. FSU’s–which tradition aside look great–are a pretty dramatic change while OSU’s leaked jersey isn’t a tremendous departure from their normal look.

    On another subject, UCF-Texas looks great on the field. The Knight’s white with gold trim looks really sharp, nice helmet logo, good use of minimal black.[/quote]

    Texas isn’t coming out in that game with orange helmets. Its a white throwback helmet with numbers on it instead of the Longhorn logo.

  • leon | November 7, 2009 at 2:54 pm |

    [quote comment=”358858″]whats the yellow dot on the top of some of the iowa player’s helmets?
    http://sports.espn.g...

    yes!

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 3:01 pm |

    [quote comment=”358858″]whats the yellow dot on the top of some of the iowa player’s helmets?
    http://sports.espn.g...

    it reads “ANF”

    stands for “Awshit…Northwestern…Fuckedourseason”

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 3:11 pm |

    ANF = America Needs Farmers

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 3:18 pm |

    [quote comment=”358863″]ANF = America Needs Farmers[/quote]

    Okay, three of the last four times for me.
    http://fryfest.com/w...

    —Ricko

  • Vulture | November 7, 2009 at 3:19 pm |

    [quote comment=\”358817\”][quote comment=\”358805\”]As soon as the brought back that \”1969\” uniform (actually 1964-95 – and they wore it in 5 Super Bowls, by the way) for two home games a year, the fans began clamoring for the old colors\’ permanent return – and rightfully so. Why would you move away from a recognizable visual brand?[/quote]

    Thank you for (unintentionally) making my point for me. Regardless of how many Super Bowls were won wearing that uniform, it\’s drab, unoriginal, and (worst of all) the gray face mask completely ruins the whole look.

    It was nostalgia, NOT the fact it was a good uniform, that brought it back.

  • Oprah Hate Me | November 7, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    Anyone else notice Tottenham Hotspur wearing a poppy on their uniforms?

  • Vulture | November 7, 2009 at 3:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”358865″][quote comment=\”358817\”][quote comment=\”358805\”]As soon as the brought back that \”1969\” uniform (actually 1964-95 – and they wore it in 5 Super Bowls, by the way) for two home games a year, the fans began clamoring for the old colors\’ permanent return – and rightfully so. Why would you move away from a recognizable visual brand?[/quote]

    Thank you for (unintentionally) making my point for me. Regardless of how many Super Bowls were won wearing that uniform, it\’s drab, unoriginal, and (worst of all) the gray face mask completely ruins the whole look.

    It was nostalgia, NOT the fact it was a good uniform, that brought it back.[/quote]

    That’s what I get for trying to condense the previous quote. *sigh*

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 3:21 pm |

    [quote comment=”358860″][quote comment=”358857″]I’m OK if Texas uniforms are the new style but look the same. If they come out against A&M in orange helmets or something I’m gonna be pissed.

    So far we don’t have much to go on as to what these things are going to look like. FSU’s–which tradition aside look great–are a pretty dramatic change while OSU’s leaked jersey isn’t a tremendous departure from their normal look.

    On another subject, UCF-Texas looks great on the field. The Knight’s white with gold trim looks really sharp, nice helmet logo, good use of minimal black.[/quote]

    Texas isn’t coming out in that game with orange helmets. Its a white throwback helmet with numbers on it instead of the Longhorn logo.[/quote]

    Think it’s a TV number above the Longhorn logo. That would be their ’60s look.

  • Alec | November 7, 2009 at 3:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”358834″]

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform, a new system of dress (is) the lightest football uniform Nike has ever created.

    “Nike designed the Nike Pro Combat uniform to address the evolution of the game: Today’s players are stronger and faster and the collisions are more violent and explosive than ever before.

    [/quote]

    So to meet the demands of a faster, more violent game, they decided to “make” it lighter/faster so it can be more violent? I’m sure the trade of of slightly less mass * slightly more velocity washes out, but the only thing that matters in football is heat management; everything else is fashion. The girdle is a plus, everything else, to quote Derrick Coleman, “Whoop-de-goddamn-do”.

  • Alec | November 7, 2009 at 3:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”358866″]Anyone else notice Tottenham Hotspur wearing a poppy on their uniforms?[/quote]

    All the teams in the prem were doing it for Veterans Day.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 3:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”358865″][quote comment=\”358817\”][quote comment=\”358805\”]As soon as the brought back that \”1969\” uniform (actually 1964-95 – and they wore it in 5 Super Bowls, by the way) for two home games a year, the fans began clamoring for the old colors\’ permanent return – and rightfully so. Why would you move away from a recognizable visual brand?[/quote]

    Thank you for (unintentionally) making my point for me. Regardless of how many Super Bowls were won wearing that uniform, it\’s drab, unoriginal, and (worst of all) the gray face mask completely ruins the whole look.

    It was nostalgia, NOT the fact it was a good uniform, that brought it back.[/quote]

    Adding extraneous gingerbread clutter (outlines, dropshadows, logos inside sleeves stripes, BFBS) and changing solid traditional red to some kind of muted jewel tone doesn’t necessarily make a uniform better. And, when you add all that gobbledygook and the team proceeds to go headfirst into the toilet, well, kinda hard to think it was a swell idea.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 3:34 pm |

    Well, see, here’s where similiarites (no matter whether traditional or innovative) get you in trouble…
    Navy-Notre Dame looks a lot like an intrasquad game.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 3:42 pm |

    Oregon in…
    green helmets,
    white jerseys, pants, socks and shoes.
    (Shoes have green trim)

    —Ricko

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 3:42 pm |

    [quote comment=”358872″]Well, see, here’s where similiarites (no matter whether traditional or innovative) get you in trouble…
    Navy-Notre Dame looks a lot like an intrasquad game.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    great point…i literally had to watch three plays before i got a closeup on the white “NAVY” player jersey before i could concisively tell which team was which…

    but…c’mon…how often (other than their own yearly matchup) do we have problems like this? when auburn plays tennessee-martin?

    maybe the irish should break out their green jerseys for games like this (kinda like how soccer uses a ‘change kit’ when two teams colors are too similar?)

    and whose uni (navy or ND) would you propose changing so we don’t have the dreaded intrasquad look ;)

    im kinda busting on ya — but it is a good point…just it’s so rare you have matchups like this that i think we can overlook it as the one or two exceptions to the rule

    ….

    that being said…it does bring up a great question…

    what two teams (college or pro) are SO SIMILAR that a matchup between the two makes it difficult to tell which team is which, just from a quick glance?

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 3:44 pm |

    Oregon looking pretty nice today

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 3:45 pm |

    Oh, man, doesn’t happen very often at all.
    That was my point, but every once in a while…

    And Navy-Notre Dame today is one of those rare times.

    —Ricko

  • Taxman | November 7, 2009 at 3:45 pm |

    Buckeyes in white roadies Nittany Lions in dark blue jerseys -on grass – is very easy on the eyes. Beautiful.

  • mako | November 7, 2009 at 3:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”358798″]Y’know, an argument could be made that Michigan’s helmets and Temple’s pants are the longest-running uninterrupted unique (meaning no one else does it) uniform features in college football. Both go back at LEAST to the 60’s I believe, right?
    http://a.espncdn.com...

    (and, yes, I know Princeton had that style helmet first, but they also quit using if for, what, almost 50 years? So I don’t think they can claim they were overshelmingly proud of it. Michigan kinda made it their own during the years Princetion willingly backed away from it.)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Re “no one else does it” – don’t the mighty Delaware Blue Hens wear the same style helmet as Michigan? And in maize (or yellow) and blue (different shade, admittedly), too?

    [quote comment=”358817″][quote comment=”358805″]The uniform that the 49ers wore from 1998-2008 was simply the best uniform ever. Best. Uniform. Ever. That they went back to wearing the same %%%% they were wearing in 1969 grates on me to no end.

    Nostalgia for nostalgia’s sake is lame.[/quote]

    Uhh…no.

    The whole concept behind that uniform (an Eddie D. production, though everyone blames it on the Yorks) was an exercise in nostalgia. They used the 49ers’ “original colors” (cardinal and gold), drop-shadow numbers and the 1996-97 white pants (a nod to the ’94 throwbacks) – and it just didn’t work.

    As soon as the brought back that “1969” uniform (actually 1964-95 – and they wore it in 5 Super Bowls, by the way) for two home games a year, the fans began clamoring for the old colors’ permanent return – and rightfully so. Why would you move away from a recognizable visual brand?

    Now, I’m still not sold on the sleeve stripes – I still think there’s room for three full stripes higher on the sleeve – and they could stand to put the sock stripes back, but other than that I’m satisfied with the new (old) look. (Maybe they’re a solid candidate for the striped-undershirt campaign – just make sure the colors match!)

    By the way, has anyone noticed that the Niners’ NOB are smaller than previous years’ throwbacks? In that respect, they almost look like the team’s unis from 1970-73, when they first had NOBs. I didn’t realize it until I put my custom 2009 jersey next to my 2007 throwback – letters are 2 1/2 inches tall instead of 3″. Just an observation.[/quote]

    I loved the old Niners’ unis, but to say “1964 to 1995” is misleading; they were MUCH better before they went with the stupid super-wide pants stripes beginning in 1976. The old ones may not have been “original” (Lions, Cowboys, Browns, Packers, Saints and even Redskins, briefly, all had more or less similar helmet and/or pants designs), but they were simple and – dare I say it? – classy. Having said that, however, I really didn’t mind the 1998-2008 unis too much, either.

  • hugh.c.mcbride | November 7, 2009 at 4:05 pm |

    Not that anyone needs another reason to heap scorn & disdain upon Nike’s latest uni travesty, but I’m a-gonna mention it anyway (& since I replaced my plastic keyboard keys with an ultra-uber-diamond/titanium blend, this post is coming to you 8.72364% faster than previous posts did):

    “Pro Combat.”

    Specifically, “Combat.”

    While Paul has rightly pointed out the depressing degree to which patriotism has come to be associated with militarism at sports-related July 4 observances, I find this “college football = military combat” to be even more ridiculous — especially at a time when this nation is fighting two real wars and many young men of college age are already on their 2nd or 3rd deployment to a real war zone.

    We all know that high-profile athletes are celebrated & fetishized far beyond the point of normalcy, but the continued effort to conflate a 60-minute game (yep, still a game) with actual life-and-death warfare would be laughable were it not so offensive.

    Spend some time reading about the thousands of families who have received that horrible knock on the door over the last decade — or educate yourself about the tens of thousands of young men & women who will be spending the rest of their lives as amputees or burn victims thanks to IEDs & other war-related atrocities — & perhaps you’ll think a bit before celebrating the fact that a titanium belt buckle will significantly lighten the load of that “heroic” running back
    who overcame a high ankle sprain.

    Pro & college athletes are capable of great things, and many have overcome myriad challenges in order to reach the highest echelons of their chosen sport.

    But they’re not soldiers (not even you, Kellen Jr.), and a sunny Saturday afternoon in the stadium should never be confused with combat.

    /climb down off soapbox
    /wipe spittle from lips
    /end rand

  • Hibbsy | November 7, 2009 at 4:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”358790″][quote comment=”358785″]The Patriots road uniforms are one of the worst uniforms. From head to toe, there is zero consistency.
    I hate the Falcons, Cardinals, etc. But as bad as they are, they are more consistent than that Pat uni.
    And… The helmet stripes of the Ravens, Panthers, and Titans put those teams in their own category. That category would be… “Stupid”.[/quote]

    Do the Broncos get to be part of the “stupid” group too?

    For the record I like the helmet stripes on the Ravens & Panthers. I do think the Titans would look better with helmet stripes that match the pants though.[/quote]
    Broncos are already in the “insane” group. Their helmet stripe is one of many problems. The Titans, Ravens, and Panthers would be acceptable if they fixed the stripes on their helmet.
    And I’ll say it again, the Patriots road uni may be the worst in the NFL.

  • hugh.c.mcbride | November 7, 2009 at 4:06 pm |

    Actually, “/end ran*t*”

  • Mike Engle | November 7, 2009 at 4:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”358876″]Oh, man, doesn’t happen very often at all.
    That was my point, but every once in a while…

    And Navy-Notre Dame today is one of those rare times.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    The biggest uniform mind-f*ck in the history of sports is Chicago Bulls in St. Patty’s green vs Boston Celtics in regular white. Even more confusing than Navy and ND. (Not watching that game, but if I were, I’d just look at the shoes and consider the game Nike vs. Adidas.)

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 4:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”358879″]Not that anyone needs another reason to heap scorn & disdain upon Nike’s latest uni travesty, but I’m a-gonna mention it anyway (& since I replaced my plastic keyboard keys with an ultra-uber-diamond/titanium blend, this post is coming to you 8.72364% faster than previous posts did):

    “Pro Combat.”

    Specifically, “Combat.”

    While Paul has rightly pointed out the depressing degree to which patriotism has come to be associated with militarism at sports-related July 4 observances, I find this “college football = military combat” to be even more ridiculous — especially at a time when this nation is fighting two real wars and many young men of college age are already on their 2nd or 3rd deployment to a real war zone.

    We all know that high-profile athletes are celebrated & fetishized far beyond the point of normalcy, but the continued effort to conflate a 60-minute game (yep, still a game) with actual life-and-death warfare would be laughable were it not so offensive.

    Spend some time reading about the thousands of families who have received that horrible knock on the door over the last decade — or educate yourself about the tens of thousands of young men & women who will be spending the rest of their lives as amputees or burn victims thanks to IEDs & other war-related atrocities — & perhaps you’ll think a bit before celebrating the fact that a titanium belt buckle will significantly lighten the load of that “heroic” running back
    who overcame a high ankle sprain.

    Pro & college athletes are capable of great things, and many have overcome myriad challenges in order to reach the highest echelons of their chosen sport.

    But they’re not soldiers (not even you, Kellen Jr.), and a sunny Saturday afternoon in the stadium should never be confused with combat.

    /climb down off soapbox
    /wipe spittle from lips
    /end rand[/quote]

    well said, hugh…EXTERMELY well said

    that point (which paul has made, i’ve tried to make, ricko has made, and others on this board have made) can’t be stressed enough

    i don’t want to cast an overly-wide stereotypical net, but lets just say the “madden generation” doesn’t and will never, get it

  • Skycat | November 7, 2009 at 4:19 pm |

    [quote comment=”358834″]lest anyone thinks these new nike uniforms are just a marketing ploy…there’s some real actual science-type stuff at work here:

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform, a new system of dress (is) the lightest football uniform Nike has ever created.

    “Nike designed the Nike Pro Combat uniform to address the evolution of the game: Today’s players are stronger and faster and the collisions are more violent and explosive than ever before.

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform is 37 percent lighter than current designs (23.7 ounces vs. 37.4 ounces). Nike utilized a four-way stretch twill that does not hold sweat or water and as a result, the new uniforms are 46 percent lighter than the current designs when wet. Overall, the Nike Pro Combat uniform, when wet, is still lighter than the current … design when completely dry.

    “Designed from the inside out, the Nike Pro Combat uniform begins with the Nike Pro Combat padded base layer. Strategically placed padding zones in the Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts cover the thighs, hips and tailbone. The padding zones are composed of dual-density foam cells that absorb, deflect and disperse the impact of on-field collisions. A foam grid intersects the cells to maximize impact absorption and increase flexibility. A hard plastic shield covers the thigh padding where impact frequently occurs.

    “The Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts are made with Nike Dri-FIT technical fabric to provide superior moisture wicking, helping to keep players dry and cool.

    “With the padding incorporated into the base layer, players gain greater mobility over traditional padding and the outer uniform becomes a lightweight, breathable shell with a sleek, explosive look.”

    so there you have it…we have a new race of superheroes who simply cannot perform to the peak of their abilities without donning these new “combat fatigues”

    how ever did we enjoy football before this was invented? and once the teams wear this gear, what incentive will they ever have to wear their old duds again?[/quote]
    I don’t see why innovative materials and a clean design have to be mutually exclusive. It seems like one can always count on Nike to gild the lily.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 4:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”358884″][quote comment=”358834″]lest anyone thinks these new nike uniforms are just a marketing ploy…there’s some real actual science-type stuff at work here:

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform, a new system of dress (is) the lightest football uniform Nike has ever created.

    “Nike designed the Nike Pro Combat uniform to address the evolution of the game: Today’s players are stronger and faster and the collisions are more violent and explosive than ever before.

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform is 37 percent lighter than current designs (23.7 ounces vs. 37.4 ounces). Nike utilized a four-way stretch twill that does not hold sweat or water and as a result, the new uniforms are 46 percent lighter than the current designs when wet. Overall, the Nike Pro Combat uniform, when wet, is still lighter than the current … design when completely dry.

    “Designed from the inside out, the Nike Pro Combat uniform begins with the Nike Pro Combat padded base layer. Strategically placed padding zones in the Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts cover the thighs, hips and tailbone. The padding zones are composed of dual-density foam cells that absorb, deflect and disperse the impact of on-field collisions. A foam grid intersects the cells to maximize impact absorption and increase flexibility. A hard plastic shield covers the thigh padding where impact frequently occurs.

    “The Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts are made with Nike Dri-FIT technical fabric to provide superior moisture wicking, helping to keep players dry and cool.

    “With the padding incorporated into the base layer, players gain greater mobility over traditional padding and the outer uniform becomes a lightweight, breathable shell with a sleek, explosive look.”

    so there you have it…we have a new race of superheroes who simply cannot perform to the peak of their abilities without donning these new “combat fatigues”

    how ever did we enjoy football before this was invented? and once the teams wear this gear, what incentive will they ever have to wear their old duds again?[/quote]
    I don’t see why innovative materials and a clean design have to be mutually exclusive. It seems like one can always count on Nike to gild the lily.[/quote]

    Nike would paint flames on a new Jaguar.

    And claim it’s “traditional”.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 4:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”358883″][quote comment=”358879″]Not that anyone needs another reason to heap scorn & disdain upon Nike’s latest uni travesty, but I’m a-gonna mention it anyway (& since I replaced my plastic keyboard keys with an ultra-uber-diamond/titanium blend, this post is coming to you 8.72364% faster than previous posts did):

    “Pro Combat.”

    Specifically, “Combat.”

    While Paul has rightly pointed out the depressing degree to which patriotism has come to be associated with militarism at sports-related July 4 observances, I find this “college football = military combat” to be even more ridiculous — especially at a time when this nation is fighting two real wars and many young men of college age are already on their 2nd or 3rd deployment to a real war zone.

    We all know that high-profile athletes are celebrated & fetishized far beyond the point of normalcy, but the continued effort to conflate a 60-minute game (yep, still a game) with actual life-and-death warfare would be laughable were it not so offensive.

    Spend some time reading about the thousands of families who have received that horrible knock on the door over the last decade — or educate yourself about the tens of thousands of young men & women who will be spending the rest of their lives as amputees or burn victims thanks to IEDs & other war-related atrocities — & perhaps you’ll think a bit before celebrating the fact that a titanium belt buckle will significantly lighten the load of that “heroic” running back
    who overcame a high ankle sprain.

    Pro & college athletes are capable of great things, and many have overcome myriad challenges in order to reach the highest echelons of their chosen sport.

    But they’re not soldiers (not even you, Kellen Jr.), and a sunny Saturday afternoon in the stadium should never be confused with combat.

    /climb down off soapbox
    /wipe spittle from lips
    /end rand[/quote]

    well said, hugh…EXTERMELY well said

    that point (which paul has made, i’ve tried to make, ricko has made, and others on this board have made) can’t be stressed enough

    i don’t want to cast an overly-wide stereotypical net, but lets just say the “madden generation” doesn’t and will never, get it[/quote]

    That’s not true (sniffle) whenever I take my two-hour break from Madden to play a couple hours of Halo3 I think the the war parts are kinda scary sometimes pass the Ding Dongs.

  • Greg B. | November 7, 2009 at 4:33 pm |

    The refs in the Oregon-Stanford game right now are wearing one light blue sleeve each. Anybody know what that’s about?

  • Jeff P | November 7, 2009 at 4:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”358834″]lest anyone thinks these new nike uniforms are just a marketing ploy…there’s some real actual science-type stuff at work here:

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform, a new system of dress (is) the lightest football uniform Nike has ever created.

    “Nike designed the Nike Pro Combat uniform to address the evolution of the game: Today’s players are stronger and faster and the collisions are more violent and explosive than ever before.

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform is 37 percent lighter than current designs (23.7 ounces vs. 37.4 ounces). Nike utilized a four-way stretch twill that does not hold sweat or water and as a result, the new uniforms are 46 percent lighter than the current designs when wet. Overall, the Nike Pro Combat uniform, when wet, is still lighter than the current … design when completely dry.

    “Designed from the inside out, the Nike Pro Combat uniform begins with the Nike Pro Combat padded base layer. Strategically placed padding zones in the Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts cover the thighs, hips and tailbone. The padding zones are composed of dual-density foam cells that absorb, deflect and disperse the impact of on-field collisions. A foam grid intersects the cells to maximize impact absorption and increase flexibility. A hard plastic shield covers the thigh padding where impact frequently occurs.

    “The Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts are made with Nike Dri-FIT technical fabric to provide superior moisture wicking, helping to keep players dry and cool.

    “With the padding incorporated into the base layer, players gain greater mobility over traditional padding and the outer uniform becomes a lightweight, breathable shell with a sleek, explosive look.”

    so there you have it…we have a new race of superheroes who simply cannot perform to the peak of their abilities without donning these new “combat fatigues”

    how ever did we enjoy football before this was invented? and once the teams wear this gear, what incentive will they ever have to wear their old duds again?[/quote]

    So padding to prevent injuries is bad, and fabric that keeps players more comfortable is bad.

    Got it.

  • Squiddie | November 7, 2009 at 4:39 pm |

    Here’s a good shot of Kris Boyd wearing the poppy for Rangers

  • DenverGregg | November 7, 2009 at 4:39 pm |

    While it pains me to say it, Mizzou has good looking contemporary unis. Fits with the mascot and colors but doesn’t go overboard. To me the worst two popular football kits are the current Atlanta Falcons and State Penn. Both go too far with the respective gimmicks.

    Oregon Duck kits that use the school colors look good (excepting the yellow helmet).

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 4:43 pm |

    the “traditional jaguar” … by rick & nike

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 4:53 pm |

    [quote comment=”358888″][quote comment=”358834″]lest anyone thinks these new nike uniforms are just a marketing ploy…there’s some real actual science-type stuff at work here:

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform, a new system of dress (is) the lightest football uniform Nike has ever created.

    “Nike designed the Nike Pro Combat uniform to address the evolution of the game: Today’s players are stronger and faster and the collisions are more violent and explosive than ever before.

    “The Nike Pro Combat uniform is 37 percent lighter than current designs (23.7 ounces vs. 37.4 ounces). Nike utilized a four-way stretch twill that does not hold sweat or water and as a result, the new uniforms are 46 percent lighter than the current designs when wet. Overall, the Nike Pro Combat uniform, when wet, is still lighter than the current … design when completely dry.

    “Designed from the inside out, the Nike Pro Combat uniform begins with the Nike Pro Combat padded base layer. Strategically placed padding zones in the Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts cover the thighs, hips and tailbone. The padding zones are composed of dual-density foam cells that absorb, deflect and disperse the impact of on-field collisions. A foam grid intersects the cells to maximize impact absorption and increase flexibility. A hard plastic shield covers the thigh padding where impact frequently occurs.

    “The Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts are made with Nike Dri-FIT technical fabric to provide superior moisture wicking, helping to keep players dry and cool.

    “With the padding incorporated into the base layer, players gain greater mobility over traditional padding and the outer uniform becomes a lightweight, breathable shell with a sleek, explosive look.”

    so there you have it…we have a new race of superheroes who simply cannot perform to the peak of their abilities without donning these new “combat fatigues”

    how ever did we enjoy football before this was invented? and once the teams wear this gear, what incentive will they ever have to wear their old duds again?[/quote]

    So padding to prevent injuries is bad, and fabric that keeps players more comfortable is bad.

    Got it.[/quote]

    [quote comment=\”358888\”][quote comment=\”358834\”]lest anyone thinks these new nike uniforms are just a marketing ploy…there\’s some real actual science-type stuff at work here:

    \”The Nike Pro Combat uniform, a new system of dress (is) the lightest football uniform Nike has ever created.

    \”Nike designed the Nike Pro Combat uniform to address the evolution of the game: Today\’s players are stronger and faster and the collisions are more violent and explosive than ever before.

    \”The Nike Pro Combat uniform is 37 percent lighter than current designs (23.7 ounces vs. 37.4 ounces). Nike utilized a four-way stretch twill that does not hold sweat or water and as a result, the new uniforms are 46 percent lighter than the current designs when wet. Overall, the Nike Pro Combat uniform, when wet, is still lighter than the current … design when completely dry.

    \”Designed from the inside out, the Nike Pro Combat uniform begins with the Nike Pro Combat padded base layer. Strategically placed padding zones in the Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts cover the thighs, hips and tailbone. The padding zones are composed of dual-density foam cells that absorb, deflect and disperse the impact of on-field collisions. A foam grid intersects the cells to maximize impact absorption and increase flexibility. A hard plastic shield covers the thigh padding where impact frequently occurs.

    \”The Nike Pro Combat Deflex shorts are made with Nike Dri-FIT technical fabric to provide superior moisture wicking, helping to keep players dry and cool.

    \”With the padding incorporated into the base layer, players gain greater mobility over traditional padding and the outer uniform becomes a lightweight, breathable shell with a sleek, explosive look.\”

    so there you have it…we have a new race of superheroes who simply cannot perform to the peak of their abilities without donning these new \”combat fatigues\”

    how ever did we enjoy football before this was invented? and once the teams wear this gear, what incentive will they ever have to wear their old duds again?[/quote]

    So padding to prevent injuries is bad, and fabric that keeps players more comfortable is bad.

    Got it.[/quote]

    I think more to the point is that Nike feels it isn’t enough to improve the function, they also feel they simply MUST radically redesign the entire “look” of the uniform—even at the cost of a school or team’s traditonal color schemes and striping, etc.—to be certian everyone KNOWS it’s the new Nike gear.

    There’s branding, and there’s usurping your customer’s branding to suit your own needs.

    Kinda like if Goodyear created the most revolutinary tire of all time and refused to supply it in any color other than day-glo orange.

    —Ricko

  • Jeff P | November 7, 2009 at 5:09 pm |

    I would agree with that part. The branding is annoying, but it’ll go away after they’re finished hyping things. Look at the System of dress in basketball. It didn’t ruin all the team colors, kept a lot of things traditional- the shorts were stupid, but you can’t have everything. UNC does not wear black and orange as highlights becuase they switched to Nike or anything like that. I doubt that these one off designs will move to a full time look. They’re a “Hey look! Now back to your regularity scheduled programming.” type deal.

    Criticizing the existence of the improvements to the fabric and equipment is what really annoys me. As someone who plays a high intensity sport, that kind of thing is very welcome. And I do it on ice. Playing football on a 100 degree day would be hell. Anything to help with that is very, very welcome in my book. Every year it seems we hear of College football players dying in practice due to heatstroke or something along those lines, and then we get people on this site complaining about Nike making the fabric lighter. Those changes are extremely welcome to the guys actually on the field. Perhaps not things like titanium belt rings (really Nike?) But the comfort of the fabric itself and the padding that doesn’t screw with your range of motion.

  • Hibbsy | November 7, 2009 at 5:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”358890″]While it pains me to say it, Mizzou has good looking contemporary unis. Fits with the mascot and colors but doesn’t go overboard. To me the worst two popular football kits are the current Atlanta Falcons and State Penn. Both go too far with the respective gimmicks.

    Oregon Duck kits that use the school colors look good (excepting the yellow helmet).[/quote]
    Mizzou has a classic helmet. It doesn’t go with the uni. Plus, they can’t even match the gold properly.
    I guess the curvy line on their pants does make a player’s ass look nice.

  • Josh | November 7, 2009 at 5:11 pm |

    I’m a traditionalist by nature. And it’s not that I dislike anything new, it’s just that with a lot of new uniforms, teams/designers/sponsors try to jam too much into a jersey, or try to be unique for unique’s sake. For example, I loved the old Vikings unis (yes, a purple fan). But I don’t totally hate the new ones. I like the updated helmet (prefer old facemask color though), the viking on the pants, and the idea of the horns on the shoulders. But could do without the jersey sidepanels and the truncated pants stripe. I really like the Broncos’ number font (especially the open 4). So its not the new/old distinction in my view, but that whole bumper sticker deal that Phil did a month or so ago.

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 5:12 pm |

    [quote comment=”358888″]So padding to prevent injuries is bad, and fabric that keeps players more comfortable is bad.

    Got it.[/quote]

    where or when (ever, not just today) did i EVER say padding to prevent injuries is bad or fabric that keeps players comfortable is bad?

    no where? right, because i’ve never said it

    my point is that it’s getting COMICAL every time one of the manufacturers keeps improving their product, and then touts those improvements as if they and the players who wear their gear are the second coming of christ

    am i for improved performance and gear? of course…but it is becoming BEYOND LAUGHABLE how every so-called improvement (and the subsequent wearing of ONLY that particular brand of gear) will turn a finely-tuned, superior athlete, into some dragon-slaying mythical warrior cyborg AND how somehow, the game (because it is still a game) has been elevated to COMBAT and WAR

    i understand it’s marketing on nike’s (or reebok, or adidas, or whomever) part, and damn, if that isn’t some pretty well-honed wordsmith…i bet whoever wrote that copy got paid pretty well, and he should — because he’s spinning a product…

    taking uniforms (or rather, their on-field look, not performance) out of the equation…i just find it funny how the newest selling points to the younger generation tout how shaving mere ounces off a uniform or “inventing” (really, i thought polyester blends have been around for decades) some new space age product will somehow turn a decent athlete into some comic book hero…but is it REALLY that much better? because if it is, my original point then stands — if these new combat uniforms are SO MUCH BETTER than the ones they are replacing, why bother even going back to what they previously wore? clearly, the current generation of unis are obsolete…why would FSU, for example, ever go back to the uniforms they wore last week?

    or, really, isn’t this just a “new and improved” spin on a product that has been the basis for marketing since even before ricko was born?

    don’t believe the hype, that’s all

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 5:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”358807″][quote comment=”358756″]My list is the following:

    Good new uniforms, in my estimation:

    Oregon Ducks, when the school colors are involved.

    Seattle Seahawks, blue jersey.

    Tennessee Titans, white jersey.

    Denver Broncos, all jerseys.

    Carolina Panthers, all jerseys.

    Oregon State Beavers, especially in orange.

    I’ll probably be back three or four times today with other college jerseys that I can’t remember off the top of my head. It’s kind of difficult as a Pac-10 fan… you have a bunch of fairly traditional schools, and then the Oregon schools (which I believe actually look good right now, by and large, especially when compared to some of the disgusting, vile monstrosities that hit the field in recent years).

    Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to bed.[/quote]

    You know, just took a trip up to Oregon, and the “O” stuff was everywhere- except a plain green T-shirt, you’d be amazed at how hard to find a plain green shirt with the yellow O on it is..

    I like the Oregon look. Not much on the wings, tho.[/quote]

    They’re easily found at the bookstore, or at least they were last time I set foot in there.

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 5:21 pm |

    Also, to those who say Oregon doesn’t have tradition, we’ve churned out lots of talent including two Hall of Fame quarterbacks and a TV personality.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 5:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”358894″]I would agree with that part. The branding is annoying, but it’ll go away after they’re finished hyping things. Look at the System of dress in basketball. It didn’t ruin all the team colors, kept a lot of things traditional- the shorts were stupid, but you can’t have everything. UNC does not wear black and orange as highlights becuase they switched to Nike or anything like that. I doubt that these one off designs will move to a full time look. They’re a “Hey look! Now back to your regularity scheduled programming.” type deal.

    Criticizing the existence of the improvements to the fabric and equipment is what really annoys me. As someone who plays a high intensity sport, that kind of thing is very welcome. And I do it on ice. Playing football on a 100 degree day would be hell. Anything to help with that is very, very welcome in my book. Every year it seems we hear of College football players dying in practice due to heatstroke or something along those lines, and then we get people on this site complaining about Nike making the fabric lighter. Those changes are extremely welcome to the guys actually on the field. Perhaps not things like titanium belt rings (really Nike?) But the comfort of the fabric itself and the padding that doesn’t screw with your range of motion.[/quote]

    No arguments about improvements from me. Or just plain comfort. The pajama look in baseball gets ripped to shreds here, but it is—as far as I’m concerned—absolutely the most comfortable way to wear a baseball uni. And I tried ’em all over some 55 years of playing baseball and softball. And pajamas didn’t drive colored strirrups out of the game, either. Ribbon stirrups over sanis had replaced colored stirrups long before the PJ look came into vogue.

    Know what else? The bicycle shorts look in football also at least FEELS like knee movement is less constricted than pants below the knee. Again, don’t know what’s fact, just know how it feels (I also was crazy enough to play in touch football leagues until in my very, very late 40s).

    As to the “one-and-done” aspect of this current Nike promotion…since when are college football teams promotional vehicles for Nike? I mean, c’mon, is Nike so hard up for ad dollars that the collegs need to give ’em a little help? There are a number of coaches and AD’s out there who need to learn that one of the most powerful words in business is…”No”.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 5:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”358899″]Also, to those who say Oregon doesn’t have tradition, we’ve churned out lots of talent including two Hall of Fame quarterbacks and a TV personality.[/quote]

    Who said didn’t have “tradition”? The discussion concerned used of the word “storied”. Not the same thing.

    University of Minnesota produced Loni Anderson, Bob Dylan and Eric Servareid. They count toward football tradition? ;)

    —Ricko

  • Kyle | November 7, 2009 at 5:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”358874″][quote comment=”358872″]Well, see, here’s where similiarites (no matter whether traditional or innovative) get you in trouble…
    Navy-Notre Dame looks a lot like an intrasquad game.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    great point…i literally had to watch three plays before i got a closeup on the white “NAVY” player jersey before i could concisively tell which team was which…

    but…c’mon…how often (other than their own yearly matchup) do we have problems like this? when auburn plays tennessee-martin?

    maybe the irish should break out their green jerseys for games like this (kinda like how soccer uses a ‘change kit’ when two teams colors are too similar?)

    and whose uni (navy or ND) would you propose changing so we don’t have the dreaded intrasquad look ;)

    im kinda busting on ya — but it is a good point…just it’s so rare you have matchups like this that i think we can overlook it as the one or two exceptions to the rule

    ….

    that being said…it does bring up a great question…

    what two teams (college or pro) are SO SIMILAR that a matchup between the two makes it difficult to tell which team is which, just from a quick glance?[/quote]

    Well you’ll have the same problem next Saturday when Notre Dame comes to Pitt. These three teams play each other very often: 11 separate games since 2005.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 5:41 pm |

    NEW SUBJECT (some might say, “Thank God”)

    Hype we love to hate.

    Earlier today, a talking head said, “Northwestern knocked off Iowa today. Is another upset in the making? Alabama right now is trailing LSU.” (didn’t give a score).

    So I switch over and it’s 7-3, LSU, with two minutes left in the first half.

    Oh, yeah, time to put that “W” up for LSU, alright. Jeez.

    —Ricko

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 5:47 pm |

    [quote][quote]As soon as the brought back that \”1969\” uniform (actually 1964-95 – and they wore it in 5 Super Bowls, by the way) for two home games a year, the fans began clamoring for the old colors\’ permanent return – and rightfully so. Why would you move away from a recognizable visual brand?[/quote]

    Thank you for (unintentionally) making my point for me. Regardless of how many Super Bowls were won wearing that uniform, it\’s drab, unoriginal, and (worst of all) the gray face mask completely ruins the whole look.

    It was nostalgia, NOT the fact it was a good uniform, that brought it back.[/quote]
    If the unis they were wearing for the previous decade or so were truly an improvement over their predecessors, do you really think the fans would have been so nostalgic?

    The Giants won a pair of Super Bowls with the block GIANTS logo on the helmets. I don’t recall hearing too many folks clamoring for their return (even before they spoiled New England’s perfect season a couple Februaries ago).

    And for the record, the Niners did not wear that Montana-era uni for all five of their Super Bowls. They wore the throwbacks in XXIX.

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 5:50 pm |

    OK, I screwed something up there with the quote tags. Unless I was actually quoting myself.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 5:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”358903″]NEW SUBJECT (some might say, “Thank God”)

    Hype we love to hate.

    Earlier today, a talking head said, “Northwestern knocked off Iowa today. Is another upset in the making? Alabama right now is trailing LSU.” (didn’t give a score).

    So I switch over and it’s 7-3, LSU, with two minutes left in the first half.

    Oh, yeah, time to put that “W” up for LSU, alright. Jeez.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I keep expecting someday to hear…
    “Is the Celtics’ winning streak coming to an end?”

    And I’ll switch to their game and find the Celtics are trailing the Lakers, 6-4 in the first quarter.

    LOL

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 5:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”358901″][quote comment=”358899″]Also, to those who say Oregon doesn’t have tradition, we’ve churned out lots of talent including two Hall of Fame quarterbacks and a TV personality.[/quote]

    Who said didn’t have “tradition”? The discussion concerned used of the word “storied”. Not the same thing.

    University of Minnesota produced Loni Anderson, Bob Dylan and Eric Servareid. They count toward football tradition? ;)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The TV personality was Bobby Moore. You might know him.

  • Kyle | November 7, 2009 at 6:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”358903″]NEW SUBJECT (some might say, “Thank God”)

    Hype we love to hate.

    Earlier today, a talking head said, “Northwestern knocked off Iowa today. Is another upset in the making? Alabama right now is trailing LSU.” (didn’t give a score).

    So I switch over and it’s 7-3, LSU, with two minutes left in the first half.

    Oh, yeah, time to put that “W” up for LSU, alright. Jeez.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Can I include the whole preseason and first three weeks of college football as Hype I love to Hate?
    Anyone remember Mississippi, Cal, and Georgia?

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 6:04 pm |

    watching oregon (“an upset in the making”) against stanford

    the officials are wearing one blue sleeve…like all of them

    anyone know what’s up with that?

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 6:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”358909″]watching oregon (“an upset in the making”) against stanford

    the officials are wearing one blue sleeve…like all of them

    anyone know what’s up with that?[/quote]

    I don’t know. I’m “CoverItLive”-ing it as a commenter on the Oregon Daily Emerald’s website though.

    It’s kind of difficult to do when you’re listening to the game on the radio. Fucking apartment complex doesn’t get FSN.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 6:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”358907″][quote comment=”358901″][quote comment=”358899″]Also, to those who say Oregon doesn’t have tradition, we’ve churned out lots of talent including two Hall of Fame quarterbacks and a TV personality.[/quote]

    Who said didn’t have “tradition”? The discussion concerned used of the word “storied”. Not the same thing.

    University of Minnesota produced Loni Anderson, Bob Dylan and Eric Servareid. They count toward football tradition? ;)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    The TV personality was Bobby Moore. You might know him.[/quote]

    Actually, I DO know him. We went up to the state prison to play softball as ringers for a local TV station one time and he opted to wear his very, very, VERY light green satin Porsche warm up suit. About the color of lettuce. “Oh, good choice in prisonwear there, Ahmad.” Although to his credit he did later give one of the great “shutdowns” of all time. One of the younger inmates strutted up to him and, posturing, said, “Hey, man, how fast you run the HUNDRED?” Rashad looked at him for a moment and calmly said, “Depends on how much money’s on it.” The kid kinda wilted and walked away, his buddies laughing.

    But that still has nothing to do with football tradition. Especially since mostly these days Rashad does basketball.

    (You DO know I’m just jerkin’ your chain, right?)

    :)

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 6:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”358910″][quote comment=”358909″]watching oregon (“an upset in the making”) against stanford

    the officials are wearing one blue sleeve…like all of them

    anyone know what’s up with that?[/quote]

    I don’t know. I’m “CoverItLive”-ing it as a commenter on the Oregon Daily Emerald’s website though.

    It’s kind of difficult to do when you’re listening to the game on the radio. Fucking apartment complex doesn’t get FSN.[/quote]

    That does suck. They couldn’t get you on the team chater? And Palo Alto is so lovely this time of year. Seriously, it is.

    Really, they ought to find a way to get you there. They can’t afford it cuz school doesn’t get enough free equipment from Nike? Jeez.

    —Ricko

  • M.Princip | November 7, 2009 at 6:15 pm |

    Well, if Oregon’s D doesn’t find a way to stop Stanford, it will be an upset. Down again by 17. If Oregon does indeed end up losing, and looking at the Ducktracker, Oregon should not wear the white top and white pants combo on the road.

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 6:18 pm |

    A) 90% of sports fans don’t know that Ahmad Rashad was one of Oregon’s best football players.

    B) Three of the ODE’s sports writers are at Stanford Stadium. I’m not a sports writer, so I don’t get to go. The ODE is independent of the school, and has been for nearly 40 years. We get some funding from the school, but it’s from student fees. We’re ad-funded.

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 6:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”358913″]Well, if Oregon’s D doesn’t find a way to stop Stanford, it will be an upset. Down again by 17. If Oregon does indeed end up losing, and looking at the Ducktracker, Oregon should not wear the white top and white pants combo on the road.[/quote]

    I think we should be like the SEC and just not go on the road at all. (And no, I don’t care that it’s a conference game)

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 6:21 pm |

    Which reminds me…

    If Oregon never gets around to wearing the “carbon” helmets, how many tutition fees could Nike have paid for Oregon students who really could use the help for what those unused helmets cost to develop, produce, maintain and store?

    I understand the supposed promotional value and all, but when does “excessive” cross the line and become “obscene” and “self-indulgent”?

    —Ricko

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm |

    [quote comment=”358916″]Which reminds me…

    If Oregon never gets around to wearing the “carbon” helmets, how many tutition fees could Nike have paid for Oregon students who really could use the help for what those unused helmets cost to develop, produce, maintain and store?

    I understand the supposed promotional value and all, but when does “excessive” cross the line and become “obscene” and “self-indulgent”?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I really think that’s irrelevant, in the end. Phil Knight paid for the library, the law school, and the new arena. I think he’s done enough for the school that he can make his frivolous donations to the athletic department.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 6:26 pm |

    [quote comment=”358914″]A) 90% of sports fans don’t know that Ahmad Rashad was one of Oregon’s best football players.

    B) Three of the ODE’s sports writers are at Stanford Stadium. I’m not a sports writer, so I don’t get to go. The ODE is independent of the school, and has been for nearly 40 years. We get some funding from the school, but it’s from student fees. We’re ad-funded.[/quote]

    If there’s three of ’em there, two have got to writing sidebars. They couldn’t do the updating for the website? Why stick you with writing it from TV or radio? (I’m on your side here).

    —Ricko

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 6:28 pm |

    [quote comment=”358918″][quote comment=”358914″]A) 90% of sports fans don’t know that Ahmad Rashad was one of Oregon’s best football players.

    B) Three of the ODE’s sports writers are at Stanford Stadium. I’m not a sports writer, so I don’t get to go. The ODE is independent of the school, and has been for nearly 40 years. We get some funding from the school, but it’s from student fees. We’re ad-funded.[/quote]

    If there’s three of ’em there, two have got to writing sidebars. They couldn’t do the updating for the website? Why stick you with writing it from TV or radio? (I’m on your side here).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It’s not sticking me with it. It’s volunteering. It’s giving me a way to talk about the game. My roommate’s at his girlfriend’s house.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 6:33 pm |

    [quote comment=”358917″][quote comment=”358916″]Which reminds me…

    If Oregon never gets around to wearing the “carbon” helmets, how many tutition fees could Nike have paid for Oregon students who really could use the help for what those unused helmets cost to develop, produce, maintain and store?

    I understand the supposed promotional value and all, but when does “excessive” cross the line and become “obscene” and “self-indulgent”?

    —Ricko[/quote]

    I really think that’s irrelevant, in the end. Phil Knight paid for the library, the law school, and the new arena. I think he’s done enough for the school that he can make his frivolous donations to the athletic department.[/quote]

    Lemme word it differently. Why develop a helmet and never wear it? If it’s just for publicity, it worked. Cuz it sure got attention.

    Wealthy people are more than entitled to waste their money. And the rest of are entitled to notice when they do…and see the excesses of it.

    And of course there’s the greater problem. As U.S. Represenative Michele Bachman of (yes) Minnesota has said, one of our problems is that “we’re running out of rich people.”

    —Ricko

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 6:34 pm |

    I really hope they never wear it. It’s even less of a school color than black. It’s even more indefensible. Just my two cents.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 6:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”358919″][quote comment=”358918″][quote comment=”358914″]A) 90% of sports fans don’t know that Ahmad Rashad was one of Oregon’s best football players.

    B) Three of the ODE’s sports writers are at Stanford Stadium. I’m not a sports writer, so I don’t get to go. The ODE is independent of the school, and has been for nearly 40 years. We get some funding from the school, but it’s from student fees. We’re ad-funded.[/quote]

    If there’s three of ’em there, two have got to writing sidebars. They couldn’t do the updating for the website? Why stick you with writing it from TV or radio? (I’m on your side here).

    —Ricko[/quote]

    It’s not sticking me with it. It’s volunteering. It’s giving me a way to talk about the game. My roommate’s at his girlfriend’s house.[/quote]

    In that case, have fun and give it your best shot.

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 6:37 pm |

    I’m not the only person doing it, just to make that clear.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 6:40 pm |

    I mean, if we’re gonna talk about rich people wasting money we can talk about paying Albert Haynesworth $100 million.

  • Skycat | November 7, 2009 at 6:43 pm |

    [quote comment=”358902″][quote comment=”358874″][quote comment=”358872″]Well, see, here’s where similiarites (no matter whether traditional or innovative) get you in trouble…
    Navy-Notre Dame looks a lot like an intrasquad game.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    great point…i literally had to watch three plays before i got a closeup on the white “NAVY” player jersey before i could concisively tell which team was which…

    but…c’mon…how often (other than their own yearly matchup) do we have problems like this? when auburn plays tennessee-martin?

    maybe the irish should break out their green jerseys for games like this (kinda like how soccer uses a ‘change kit’ when two teams colors are too similar?)

    and whose uni (navy or ND) would you propose changing so we don’t have the dreaded intrasquad look ;)

    im kinda busting on ya — but it is a good point…just it’s so rare you have matchups like this that i think we can overlook it as the one or two exceptions to the rule

    ….

    that being said…it does bring up a great question…

    what two teams (college or pro) are SO SIMILAR that a matchup between the two makes it difficult to tell which team is which, just from a quick glance?[/quote]

    Well you’ll have the same problem next Saturday when Notre Dame comes to Pitt. These three teams play each other very often: 11 separate games since 2005.[/quote]
    The intrasquad look is a blight on the football viewing experience. The solution is obvious. These rivalries must be eliminated. There are certainly enough universities with football programs that a replacement opponent can easily be found. In our world the games exist primarily to showcase opposing uniforms.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 6:47 pm |

    [quote comment=”358925″][quote comment=”358902″][quote comment=”358874″][quote comment=”358872″]Well, see, here’s where similiarites (no matter whether traditional or innovative) get you in trouble…
    Navy-Notre Dame looks a lot like an intrasquad game.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    great point…i literally had to watch three plays before i got a closeup on the white “NAVY” player jersey before i could concisively tell which team was which…

    but…c’mon…how often (other than their own yearly matchup) do we have problems like this? when auburn plays tennessee-martin?

    maybe the irish should break out their green jerseys for games like this (kinda like how soccer uses a ‘change kit’ when two teams colors are too similar?)

    and whose uni (navy or ND) would you propose changing so we don’t have the dreaded intrasquad look ;)

    im kinda busting on ya — but it is a good point…just it’s so rare you have matchups like this that i think we can overlook it as the one or two exceptions to the rule

    ….

    that being said…it does bring up a great question…

    what two teams (college or pro) are SO SIMILAR that a matchup between the two makes it difficult to tell which team is which, just from a quick glance?[/quote]

    Well you’ll have the same problem next Saturday when Notre Dame comes to Pitt. These three teams play each other very often: 11 separate games since 2005.[/quote]
    The intrasquad look is a blight on the football viewing experience. The solution is obvious. These rivalries must be eliminated. There are certainly enough universities with football programs that a replacement opponent can easily be found. In our world the games exist primarily to showcase opposing uniforms.[/quote]

    So true. ;)

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 6:50 pm |

    Damn.

  • scott | November 7, 2009 at 6:51 pm |

    [quote comment=”358785″]The Patriots road uniforms are one of the worst uniforms. From head to toe, there is zero consistency.
    [/quote]

    Well, I think the Patriots road uniforms are great. I particularly like that they wear striped socks with the set.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 6:52 pm |

    You DO I was just commenting on an oddity that happens every so often? Isn’t a big deal, just a curiosity. One of those “How ’bout that, does look like a spring game, dunit.”

    Kinda like saying the Yankees should wear navy jerseys in Detroit cuz is really dull when they play the Tigers. Umm…no.

    —Ricko

  • leon | November 7, 2009 at 6:54 pm |

    RE:Gary Beban
    I remember Beban as one of the Skins unfortunate draft picks. Was on the roster for 2 years, playing behind Sonny. I went surfing for a picture of him in Burgundy and Gold and the only thing I could find was a headshot of him buried deep within this piece (scroll down, it’s worth it):
    http://sports.espn.g...

    Considered the “official draft bust of tmq”, for what that’s worth. He was actually the Rams 1st pick but was traded to Washington for a future No.1. Coincidental to today’s discussion, the Skins own pick that year was Yazoo Smith, from…Oregon. Unfortunately, he suffered a career-ending neck injury in his rookie year.

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 7:08 pm |

    that’s it

    casey martin is so fuckin fired

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 7:11 pm |

    Fitting.

    The anti-spam word and Oregon’s title hopes are both toast.

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 7:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”358931″]that’s it

    casey martin is so fuckin fired[/quote]

    HAHAHA

    That almost made me feel better. As long as Stanford loses to Cal or USC, USC beats Arizona, and Oregon State chunks it against Cal tonight, Oregon still has a one-game cushion for the Rose Bowl. That also makes me feel better. Ahh.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 7:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”358931″]that’s it

    casey martin is so fuckin fired[/quote]

    51-42? Did Oregon go with the rarely successful 10-man defense?

    Oh, good, following the Oregon game I’m getting “Ice Fishing Today” (where’s that remote?)

    Jeremy Braham probably has something on the uniforms. Well, for Japanese ice fishing, anyway. They do “Catch & Eat”, y’know. Sort of Instant Sushi ;)

    —Ricko

  • The Hemogoblin | November 7, 2009 at 7:18 pm |

    Oregon only started three defenders that weigh more than Gerhart. (Tukuafu, Bair, Ferras)

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 7:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”358933″][quote comment=”358931″]that’s it

    casey martin is so fuckin fired[/quote]

    HAHAHA

    That almost made me feel better. As long as Stanford loses to Cal or USC, USC beats Arizona, and Oregon State chunks it against Cal tonight, Oregon still has a one-game cushion for the Rose Bowl. That also makes me feel better. Ahh.[/quote]

    Will Oregon wear special rose-colored jerseys if the make it to the Rose Bowl? It’s not one of their school colors so it qualifies. They can even make the feathers green. Like little leaves. Maybe put some thorns on ’em so the players would be painful to tackle. Like Stanford’s were today, evidently.

    —Ricko

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 7:42 pm |

    I’m just giving good-natured shit.

    The really interesting thing is that it starts to make you wonder if the days of the unbeaten national champion are numbered, doesn’t it.

    Beginning to feel like before long the end-of-season number one typically may have a loss on its record.

    More like the NFL, where an undefeated season will become quite scarce.

    With scholarships limited, teams can no longer bury talented kids on their fourth team to keep them away from other schools. Those caliber players are on now on the field playing for other teams, and there’s a kind of parity coming along with it. If not parity, then certainly the “shocking upset” is becoming more and more routine.

    —Ricko

  • rpm | November 7, 2009 at 7:47 pm |

    jth re: homestar runner etc!!
    i found the illustrator file for my one time animated etoon., for the worker bee
    http://farm3.static....
    i will give the back story, and look for the “creation myth” drawings later. and will scan them if they still exist, but we all know i don’t save shit.

    anyway, i also found a flash moving i forgot i made a looong time ago about curling. does anybody know how i can publish it. i swear it is goodish, but i don’t know how to make it go for public consumption. anybody?! please help me!!
    rpmarshall@gmail.com, i will give my phone number so you can talk me off this ledge when you email.

  • teenchy | November 7, 2009 at 8:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”358908″]Can I include the whole preseason and first three weeks of college football as Hype I love to Hate?
    Anyone remember Mississippi, Cal, and Georgia?[/quote]

    As a Georgia alum, I unfortunately do.

    I pray never to see the black helmets again and pray more they do not fall into the Nike System of Dress. Seeing the swoosh on Uga’s letter sweater even makes me retch.

    I’ve liked Georgia’s road whites the last decade or so – I even liked them in the 1980s when the pants stripe didn’t match the sleeve stripes and the numbers were solid black – but that mess last weekend was shameful. Unfortunately the current coaching staff doesn’t seem to be able to come up with anything besides unifrom gimmickry to motivate the team.

  • teenchy | November 7, 2009 at 8:11 pm |

    Last sentence, previous post should read “uniform gimmickry.” I don’t want to damage my school’s reputation with spelling errors. Pity there’s no spell check.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 8:12 pm |

    Co-mingling film, history and unis…
    THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES is just beginning on ION TV.

    You’ll learn where the term “Redlegs” comes from.

    —Ricko

  • Adam | November 7, 2009 at 8:31 pm |

    Alright, I have not heard nearly enough negative press regarding the UConn football unis. Those things are terrible…lines, lines, lines oh my (almost makes you think Buffalo Bills are clutter free)

  • rpm | November 7, 2009 at 8:33 pm |

    come on, are there no animator’s who also like aesthetics of athletics?

    jth, found the evil villain drawings for the super zero, but not the creation myth drawings yet. god bless america, maybe i gave them away, but more then likely i threw them way.

  • Adam | November 7, 2009 at 8:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”358942″]Alright, I have not heard nearly enough negative press regarding the UConn football unis. Those things are terrible…lines, lines, lines oh my (almost makes you think Buffalo Bills are clutter free)[/quote]

    Wow, Cal looks like complete and utter shit too.

  • whiteray | November 7, 2009 at 8:45 pm |

    [quote comment=”358901″][quote comment=”358899″]Also, to those who say Oregon doesn’t have tradition, we’ve churned out lots of talent including two Hall of Fame quarterbacks and a TV personality.[/quote]

    Who said didn’t have “tradition”? The discussion concerned used of the word “storied”. Not the same thing.

    University of Minnesota produced Loni Anderson, Bob Dylan and Eric Servareid. They count toward football tradition? ;)

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Well, ol’ Bobby Zimmerman was pretty good picking up the weakside blitz, but Loni never could catch in traffic . . .

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 8:48 pm |

    Bobcats wearing their gray pins tonight in Chicago (WGN).

    Actually, they’re kind of interesting. Basketball has a big more latitude to mess around with stuff like that, it seems. Probably because with shoulders, sleeves and long pants much of what they do would be a bit much.

    —Ricko

  • rpm | November 7, 2009 at 8:49 pm |

    [quote comment=”358944″][quote comment=”358942″]Alright, I have not heard nearly enough negative press regarding the UConn football unis. Those things are terrible…lines, lines, lines oh my (almost makes you think Buffalo Bills are clutter free)[/quote]

    Wow, Cal looks like complete and utter shit too.[/quote]
    smoke crack much? they are totally benign, a modern day, or innovative, alabama. they just need to loose that baby bib one the jersey, and it is super swell look. the only prollem, they’re uconn, and i have to watch them play the bear cats, and other people get to watch ou-nu.

  • Skycat | November 7, 2009 at 9:06 pm |

    [quote comment=”358947″][quote comment=”358944″][quote comment=”358942″]Alright, I have not heard nearly enough negative press regarding the UConn football unis. Those things are terrible…lines, lines, lines oh my (almost makes you think Buffalo Bills are clutter free)[/quote]

    Wow, Cal looks like complete and utter shit too.[/quote]
    smoke crack much? they are totally benign, a modern day, or innovative, alabama. they just need to loose that baby bib one the jersey, and it is super swell look. the only prollem, they’re uconn, and i have to watch them play the bear cats, and other people get to watch ou-nu.[/quote]
    Oregon State and Cal display a rarely seen white against yellow jersey match. While Oregon State’s unis are nothing to shout about, they are at least an improvement over the much maligned sports bra look of a couple of years ago. The Cal look is not a good look. Not only do the coordinates look mismatched (blue helmet, yellow jersey, white pants), the stripe placement (especially on the pants) is forced and gimmicky. Ugh!

  • rpm | November 7, 2009 at 9:16 pm |

    [quote comment=”358948″][quote comment=”358947″][quote comment=”358944″][quote comment=”358942″]Alright, I have not heard nearly enough negative press regarding the UConn football unis. Those things are terrible…lines, lines, lines oh my (almost makes you think Buffalo Bills are clutter free)[/quote]

    Wow, Cal looks like complete and utter shit too.[/quote]
    smoke crack much? they are totally benign, a modern day, or innovative, alabama. they just need to loose that baby bib one the jersey, and it is super swell look. the only prollem, they’re uconn, and i have to watch them play the bear cats, and other people get to watch ou-nu.[/quote]
    Oregon State and Cal display a rarely seen white against yellow jersey match. While Oregon State’s unis are nothing to shout about, they are at least an improvement over the much maligned sports bra look of a couple of years ago. The Cal look is not a good look. Not only do the coordinates look mismatched (blue helmet, yellow jersey, white pants), the stripe placement (especially on the pants) is forced and gimmicky. Ugh![/quote]

    oooooooooooh, yer a duck, so you defend your miserable by pointing out that other people are bad too. i dig, i would prolly do the same in your position, but fact if if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s worst ever. but i wasn’t railing the ducks, didn’t even bring them up. i was only saying uconn is meh. as for the uber light colours, something that could pass for “white”, they should be road unis. gold, yellow, ut orange, c’mon, those are white.

  • Adam | November 7, 2009 at 9:27 pm |

    [quote comment=”358947″][quote comment=”358944″][quote comment=”358942″]Alright, I have not heard nearly enough negative press regarding the UConn football unis. Those things are terrible…lines, lines, lines oh my (almost makes you think Buffalo Bills are clutter free)[/quote]

    Wow, Cal looks like complete and utter shit too.[/quote]
    smoke crack much? they are totally benign, a modern day, or innovative, alabama. they just need to loose that baby bib one the jersey, and it is super swell look. the only prollem, they’re uconn, and i have to watch them play the bear cats, and other people get to watch ou-nu.[/quote]

    In all fairness, UConn’s unis (I think about) three years ago were great (I believe they looked similar to USoCal uni except for obvious color changes). Now they are “innovative.”

  • jdreyfuss | November 7, 2009 at 9:34 pm |

    [quote comment=”358949″][quote comment=”358948″][quote comment=”358947″][quote comment=”358944″][quote comment=”358942″]Alright, I have not heard nearly enough negative press regarding the UConn football unis. Those things are terrible…lines, lines, lines oh my (almost makes you think Buffalo Bills are clutter free)[/quote]

    Wow, Cal looks like complete and utter shit too.[/quote]
    smoke crack much? they are totally benign, a modern day, or innovative, alabama. they just need to loose that baby bib one the jersey, and it is super swell look. the only prollem, they’re uconn, and i have to watch them play the bear cats, and other people get to watch ou-nu.[/quote]
    Oregon State and Cal display a rarely seen white against yellow jersey match. While Oregon State’s unis are nothing to shout about, they are at least an improvement over the much maligned sports bra look of a couple of years ago. The Cal look is not a good look. Not only do the coordinates look mismatched (blue helmet, yellow jersey, white pants), the stripe placement (especially on the pants) is forced and gimmicky. Ugh![/quote]

    oooooooooooh, yer a duck, so you defend your miserable by pointing out that other people are bad too. i dig, i would prolly do the same in your position, but fact if if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s worst ever. but i wasn’t railing the ducks, didn’t even bring them up. i was only saying uconn is meh. as for the uber light colours, something that could pass for “white”, they should be road unis. gold, yellow, ut orange, c’mon, those are white.[/quote]
    UT is burnt orange. It’s a hell of a lot darker than volunteer orange.

  • Kyle | November 7, 2009 at 9:36 pm |

    [quote comment=”358949″][quote comment=”358948″][quote comment=”358947″][quote comment=”358944″][quote comment=”358942″]Alright, I have not heard nearly enough negative press regarding the UConn football unis. Those things are terrible…lines, lines, lines oh my (almost makes you think Buffalo Bills are clutter free)[/quote]

    Wow, Cal looks like complete and utter shit too.[/quote]
    smoke crack much? they are totally benign, a modern day, or innovative, alabama. they just need to loose that baby bib one the jersey, and it is super swell look. the only prollem, they’re uconn, and i have to watch them play the bear cats, and other people get to watch ou-nu.[/quote]
    Oregon State and Cal display a rarely seen white against yellow jersey match. While Oregon State’s unis are nothing to shout about, they are at least an improvement over the much maligned sports bra look of a couple of years ago. The Cal look is not a good look. Not only do the coordinates look mismatched (blue helmet, yellow jersey, white pants), the stripe placement (especially on the pants) is forced and gimmicky. Ugh![/quote]

    oooooooooooh, yer a duck, so you defend your miserable by pointing out that other people are bad too. i dig, i would prolly do the same in your position, but fact if if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s worst ever. but i wasn’t railing the ducks, didn’t even bring them up. i was only saying uconn is meh. as for the uber light colours, something that could pass for “white”, they should be road unis. gold, yellow, ut orange, c’mon, those are white.[/quote]

    Which UT? Tennessee or Texas?

    While I think it would be fun for home teams to consider other light colors to count as “white,” I do think it ought to be at the home team’s discretion.

    But I don’t think we ought to be telling any school that their colors are too light to be used.

  • rpm | November 7, 2009 at 9:51 pm |

    here comes a run on…
    sorry tu, not ut, but neither match any colour anyone wears anyway. i am just saying they should be considered “white”. sporting light colours as colours is more of a mess then a dark on dark. speaking of is it colour or white, gold teams, rwally? gold as a colour? and how many teams have gold helmets and pants? and while i am at it, is it mandatory that notre dame schedules those teams? i feel like it is a scrimmage every week. navy, prudue, othercatholic college, pitt, whomever i forgot, and that is just this year. maybe it is just me but it seems like nd only schedules teams with gold helmets so they can get all kind of a hard~on about their special paint. screw the irish.

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 9:55 pm |

    [quote comment=”358921″]I really hope they never wear it. It’s even less of a school color than black. It’s even more indefensible. Just my two cents.[/quote]
    I thought “carbon” was just Nike’s name for the black in Oregon’s color palette.

    And “steel” is the gray/silver color.

    No?

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 10:03 pm |

    [quote comment=”358946″]Bobcats wearing their gray pins tonight in Chicago (WGN).

    Actually, they’re kind of interesting. Basketball has a big more latitude to mess around with stuff like that, it seems. Probably because with shoulders, sleeves and long pants much of what they do would be a bit much.

    —Ricko[/quote]
    They do look gray. I’m watching it on the tiny (standard def) TV right now, but they looked gray even on the HD feed I was watching earlier.

    They’re supposed to be blue.

    I think the color is off on the WGN broadcast because the stupid basketball behind the bull’s head logo in the center court circle looks more tan than orange. The red paint on the floor looks weird as well.

  • Hibbsy | November 7, 2009 at 10:03 pm |

    Duke Ellington had a great quote.
    “There are only two kinds of football uniforms, good and bad.”

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 10:05 pm |

    [quote comment=”358954″][quote comment=”358921″]I really hope they never wear it. It’s even less of a school color than black. It’s even more indefensible. Just my two cents.[/quote]
    I thought “carbon” was just Nike’s name for the black in Oregon’s color palette.

    And “steel” is the gray/silver color.

    No?[/quote]

    The gray/silver is carbon

  • rpm | November 7, 2009 at 10:08 pm |

    [quote comment=”358956″]Duke Ellington had a great quote.
    “There are only two kinds of football uniforms, good and bad.”[/quote]

    you’re still drunk from last night

  • JimV19 | November 7, 2009 at 10:11 pm |

    [quote comment=”358825″][quote comment=”358813″]Hmmm…. apparently Temple hasn’t been wearing those pants forever.

    Something they brought back recently?[/quote]

    Correct. I don’t know the years but they wore these in 70s, stopped for awhile, and went back to them within the past couple of years.

    I agree, they’re great. In fact, overall Temple looks pretty good. It’s been a sad sack program for many years so it’s great they’re playing up to their uniform![/quote]

    Actually, Temple used to wear their current helmets a few decades ago, then they went to that cool T seen above, then they went to a white helmet with the new owl logo, then back to the T and finally back to the TEMPLE. At least I believe that’s the timeline – I’ll have to double check that later ’cause I got a Top 5 to work on.

  • rpm | November 7, 2009 at 10:13 pm |

    is somebody going to help me with my flash curling animation or what?!!! there has got to be somebody. it has been too long for me, i don’t remember how it works. actually, i was looking at the actual animation, and it was all greek, i don’t know how i made it go.

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 10:14 pm |

    [quote comment=”358957″][quote comment=”358954″][quote comment=”358921″]I really hope they never wear it. It’s even less of a school color than black. It’s even more indefensible. Just my two cents.[/quote]
    I thought “carbon” was just Nike’s name for the black in Oregon’s color palette.

    And “steel” is the gray/silver color.

    No?[/quote]

    The gray/silver is carbon[/quote]
    OK, I looked it up myself. Apparently black is just called “black.”

    The silver/gray helmets are “carbon” and the silver/gray pants are “steel.” The way God intended it.

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 10:20 pm |

    [quote comment=”358960″]is somebody going to help me with my flash curling animation or what?!!! there has got to be somebody. it has been too long for me, i don’t remember how it works. actually, i was looking at the actual animation, and it was all greek, i don’t know how i made it go.[/quote]
    Maybe you should contact the Brothers Chaps.

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 10:24 pm |

    [quote comment=”358961″]Apparently black is just called “black.”[/quote]

    ok that’s it

    casey martin’s fuckin’ fired

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 10:27 pm |

    Late on a Saturday.
    No one will see this (sigh).
    Anyway, check page 26.
    http://www.htmlcomic... Comics (Miscelaneous)&Book_No=017&Page_Number=1&Alpha=F&Lookup=

    —Ricko

  • Skycat | November 7, 2009 at 10:35 pm |

    [quote comment=”358953″]here comes a run on…
    sorry tu, not ut, but neither match any colour anyone wears anyway. i am just saying they should be considered “white”. sporting light colours as colours is more of a mess then a dark on dark. speaking of is it colour or white, gold teams, rwally? gold as a colour? and how many teams have gold helmets and pants? and while i am at it, is it mandatory that notre dame schedules those teams? i feel like it is a scrimmage every week. navy, prudue, othercatholic college, pitt, whomever i forgot, and that is just this year. maybe it is just me but it seems like nd only schedules teams with gold helmets so they can get all kind of a hard~on about their special paint. screw the irish.[/quote]
    From watching a bit of the Navy-Notre Dame game, I learned that Notre Dame repaints its helmets before each game using the same paint as it uses to paint its illustrious dome. It must be pretty time-consuming to remove and reapply all the decals after the helmets are repainted (if that indeed is what the process entails). I saw at least a couple of helmet collisions and noticed where the paint had been scraped off and the helmet became discolored.

  • Kyle | November 7, 2009 at 10:48 pm |

    Why is it, an just my opinion, are \”innovative\” new school unis mostly eye sores? There cool ones, ala Seahawks and Titans, but there are too many Cardinals/Bengals/Vikings/Bills that mishmash so many different piping, funky fonts, and odd shoulder/underarm patterns and so forth. Now, not all old school unis are good either (Browns, bluch) but most are easy on the eyes.

  • JTH | November 7, 2009 at 10:50 pm |

    [quote comment=”358964″]Late on a Saturday.
    No one will see this (sigh).
    Anyway, check page 26.
    http://www.htmlcomic... Comics (Miscelaneous)&Book_No=017&Page_Number=1&Alpha=F&Lookup=

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Is this what you were linking?

  • LI Phil | November 7, 2009 at 11:08 pm |

    it’s really too bad FSU didn’t have their warrior costumes tonight

    then they would have beaten clemson

  • rpm | November 7, 2009 at 11:10 pm |

    [quote comment=”358965″][quote comment=”358953″]here comes a run on…
    sorry tu, not ut, but neither match any colour anyone wears anyway. i am just saying they should be considered “white”. sporting light colours as colours is more of a mess then a dark on dark. speaking of is it colour or white, gold teams, rwally? gold as a colour? and how many teams have gold helmets and pants? and while i am at it, is it mandatory that notre dame schedules those teams? i feel like it is a scrimmage every week. navy, prudue, othercatholic college, pitt, whomever i forgot, and that is just this year. maybe it is just me but it seems like nd only schedules teams with gold helmets so they can get all kind of a hard~on about their special paint. screw the irish.[/quote]
    From watching a bit of the Navy-Notre Dame game, I learned that Notre Dame repaints its helmets before each game using the same paint as it uses to paint its illustrious dome. It must be pretty time-consuming to remove and reapply all the decals after the helmets are repainted (if that indeed is what the process entails). I saw at least a couple of helmet collisions and noticed where the paint had been scraped off and the helmet became discolored.[/quote]

    der, they repaint their shit every week, and it is a weak ass paint evidently cause it always chips. screw march 15th, screw people who like it, screw nd. luthernas rock. mlu mlu mlu. oh wait, that would be as shit fucking ridiculous as everybody who claims to be irish rooting for the dome. is everybody in this country irish, or claim to be? is there a team called the german art fags? because i am all over them evidently.

  • Ricko | November 7, 2009 at 11:15 pm |

    [quote comment=”358967″][quote comment=”358964″]Late on a Saturday.
    No one will see this (sigh).
    Anyway, check page 26.
    http://www.htmlcomic... Comics (Miscelaneous)&Book_No=017&Page_Number=1&Alpha=F&Lookup=

    —Ricko[/quote]
    Is this what you were linking?[/quote]

    Yup, thanks.

  • JimV19 | November 7, 2009 at 11:16 pm |

    Dudes, check out Tulsa tonight:
    http://a.espncdn.com...

  • Chris | November 7, 2009 at 11:18 pm |

    If anyone has insight into Arizona State’s uniforms I’m wondering while watching the game on ABC why some players have a unique patch on their jersey while others just have the generic NCAA patch.

  • swilson160 | November 7, 2009 at 11:29 pm |

    [quote comment=”358909″]watching oregon (“an upset in the making”) against stanford

    the officials are wearing one blue sleeve…like all of them

    anyone know what’s up with that?[/quote]

    Anyone have an answer for this? Same thing in USC/ASU.

  • Jay W | November 7, 2009 at 11:29 pm |

    Guess The Game- Bench Coach Phil agrees that the answer is Fenway Park, July 15, 2009; date of the Presser for the Winter Classic to be played Jan 1, 2010.

    You can find the info on nhl.com and search for “Winter Classic”…(my favorite event)

    Cheers!

  • Nick | November 8, 2009 at 12:09 am |

    [quote comment=”358805″]The uniform that the 49ers wore from 1998-2008 was simply the best uniform ever. Best. Uniform. Ever. That they went back to wearing the same %%%% they were wearing in 1969 grates on me to no end.

    Nostalgia for nostalgia’s sake is lame.[/quote]

    You gotta be kidding.

    Had the 1998 49ers preseason game on TV at home when they first changed to those uniforms. Day game, 49ers wearing White jerseys/White pants at home.

    My 70 year old Mom looked at the TV for about five seconds, and her unfiltered impression of the 49ers new unis – with the SEVEN color numerals and drop shadows and numerous logos and Black & Gold & Red and White and dropshadowed helmet logos and Black helmet stripes and facemasks and all of it – and she immediately said “Look at those uniforms! I guess that’s what the prostitutes would wear if they had a team”

    So, I must tell you they did well to rethink that 10 year disaster.

  • Nick | November 8, 2009 at 12:31 am |

    [quote comment=”358849″][quote comment=”358847″]I think “storied” means, “Who can we maniuplate and tell some kind of story to back it up?”

    You’ll notice, for example, that LSU and Penn State ain’t on that list, two schools Nike has had absolutely NO luck pushing around.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Nike has had a little luck with LSU. The yellow jersey, the white helmet and even though it was for a good cause those Katrina jerseys.[/quote]

    I must disagree.

    The White helmets were Gerry DiNardo’s idea. the Yellow jerseys were also Gerry DiNardo’s idea, as he was forced by Vandy to wear dark jerseys at home and DiNardo did not like Purple jerseys, and designed the Yellow jersey to relace it for that one game. He then voluntarily went with the Yellow jerseys and White helmet in a color vs. color Independence Bowl vs. Notre Dame.

    The Katrina jerseys? Maybe NiKe instigated it, maybe not. That I do not know.

  • Nick | November 8, 2009 at 12:39 am |

    [quote comment=”358857″]I’m OK if Texas uniforms are the new style but look the same. If they come out against A&M in orange helmets or something I’m gonna be pissed.

    So far we don’t have much to go on as to what these things are going to look like. FSU’s–which tradition aside look great–are a pretty dramatic change while OSU’s leaked jersey isn’t a tremendous departure from their normal look.

    On another subject, UCF-Texas looks great on the field. The Knight’s white with gold trim looks really sharp, nice helmet logo, good use of minimal black.[/quote]

    I adore UCF’s uni attempt – but the shade of Gold is simply too light. Even a medium shiade darker Gold or a rich Old Gold would make those unis among the best in the NCAA – it would improve them 500%. Think of the shade of Gold from Ga. Tech’s throwback unis from 3-4 years ago.

    UCF’s unis are still better than most, but could still get much better.

  • Nick | November 8, 2009 at 12:50 am |

    [quote comment=”358915″][quote comment=”358913″]Well, if Oregon’s D doesn’t find a way to stop Stanford, it will be an upset. Down again by 17. If Oregon does indeed end up losing, and looking at the Ducktracker, Oregon should not wear the white top and white pants combo on the road.[/quote]

    I think we should be like the SEC and just not go on the road at all. (And no, I don’t care that it’s a conference game)[/quote]

    Somehow, it bothers me less if teams like Oregon wear non-school colors on the road, rather than at home.

    I really want to see the Oregon road unis with the Gray/metal helmets & pants with White jersey, gray/metal numerals – sort of the 1970s Raiders uni.

    That would have contrasted well with the Stanford Cardinal & White.

    I also think that helmet/pants combo would be a hoot with the Yellow jersey.

    Just wear some Green at home, at least.

  • Chris | November 8, 2009 at 1:21 am |

    [quote comment=”358976″][quote comment=”358849″][quote comment=”358847″]I think “storied” means, “Who can we maniuplate and tell some kind of story to back it up?”

    You’ll notice, for example, that LSU and Penn State ain’t on that list, two schools Nike has had absolutely NO luck pushing around.

    —Ricko[/quote]

    Nike has had a little luck with LSU. The yellow jersey, the white helmet and even though it was for a good cause those Katrina jerseys.[/quote]

    I must disagree.

    The White helmets were Gerry DiNardo’s idea. the Yellow jerseys were also Gerry DiNardo’s idea, as he was forced by Vandy to wear dark jerseys at home and DiNardo did not like Purple jerseys, and designed the Yellow jersey to relace it for that one game. He then voluntarily went with the Yellow jerseys and White helmet in a color vs. color Independence Bowl vs. Notre Dame.

    The Katrina jerseys? Maybe NiKe instigated it, maybe not. That I do not know.[/quote]

    They maybe a coach’s idea, but someone has to make them. I dont think he went in his basement, designed them and stitched them all up himself.

    And for the Katrina jerseys it was a Nike thing, for charity. They did it for LSU and Tulane. LSU had a special jersy as well as Tulane and they both shared a pelican symbol for the charity effort.

  • Chris | November 8, 2009 at 1:23 am |

    People discussing Oregon not wearing the carbon helmet got me thinking…you think they’ll wear it in this rivalry/Pro-Combat/tradition Nike thing?

    The design of the Oregon carbon helmet is very similar to the TCU helmet for this Nike program. Oregon has the carbon fiber design…TCU with the horned frog scale design.

  • JimV19 | November 8, 2009 at 1:28 am |

    [quote comment=”358977″][quote comment=”358857″]I’m OK if Texas uniforms are the new style but look the same. If they come out against A&M in orange helmets or something I’m gonna be pissed.

    So far we don’t have much to go on as to what these things are going to look like. FSU’s–which tradition aside look great–are a pretty dramatic change while OSU’s leaked jersey isn’t a tremendous departure from their normal look.

    On another subject, UCF-Texas looks great on the field. The Knight’s white with gold trim looks really sharp, nice helmet logo, good use of minimal black.[/quote]

    I adore UCF’s uni attempt – but the shade of Gold is simply too light. Even a medium shiade darker Gold or a rich Old Gold would make those unis among the best in the NCAA – it would improve them 500%. Think of the shade of Gold from Ga. Tech’s throwback unis from 3-4 years ago.

    UCF’s unis are still better than most, but could still get much better.[/quote]

    I agree. If that gold stood out more, the UCF/Texas game would have been a Top 5 matchup. They almost made it anyway, but there were quite a few good matchups this weekend.

  • Hibbsy | November 8, 2009 at 1:33 am |

    [quote comment=”358958″][quote comment=”358956″]Duke Ellington had a great quote.
    “There are only two kinds of football uniforms, good and bad.”[/quote]

    you’re still drunk from last night[/quote]
    I know you are, but what am I.

  • Beau A | November 8, 2009 at 1:42 am |

    http://twitpic.com/o...

    Apparently, Oklahoma is one of these 10 teams…

  • Beau A | November 8, 2009 at 1:47 am |

    And to add on to that, and hoping anybody sees this, the best I could find on the Pro Combat Gear

    http://clubhousespor...

  • Robert | November 8, 2009 at 2:06 am |

    [quote comment=”358980″]People discussing Oregon not wearing the carbon helmet got me thinking…you think they’ll wear it in this rivalry/Pro-Combat/tradition Nike thing?

    The design of the Oregon carbon helmet is very similar to the TCU helmet for this Nike program. Oregon has the carbon fiber design…TCU with the horned frog scale design.[/quote]

    Where did you see the TCU helmet? Gotta link?

  • Chris | November 8, 2009 at 4:17 am |

    [quote comment=”358985″][quote comment=”358980″]People discussing Oregon not wearing the carbon helmet got me thinking…you think they’ll wear it in this rivalry/Pro-Combat/tradition Nike thing?

    The design of the Oregon carbon helmet is very similar to the TCU helmet for this Nike program. Oregon has the carbon fiber design…TCU with the horned frog scale design.[/quote]

    Where did you see the TCU helmet? Gotta link?[/quote]

    http://4.bp.blogspot...

  • jdreyfuss | November 8, 2009 at 9:10 am |

    [quote comment=”358983″]http://twitpic.com/ojfgk

    Apparently, Oklahoma is one of these 10 teams…[/quote]
    So what graphic do they put on the pants? A Conestoga wagon?

  • brad keppler | November 9, 2009 at 8:33 am |

    i love Oregon States Uni’s. Less is more really works. and i love the number font.

    as far as the pro’s go, im not too excited about any of them. I do like the white tops powder blue bottoms for the titans but thats about it. im old school all the way. teams like Seattle, Cincy, Buffalo, and Minnesota should be fined for looking like reject power rangers