T1B

What is up with all the bullshit uni changes at the end ot the season the last few years? It all started a few years back with the one arm a different color than the other worn by VaTech and Florida. It seems there was a ton of fucked up uni's this week and last.

OSU-Throwbacks?
Florida- The pants looked like they were wearing chaps and what was the faggy embroidery on the shoulders.
Mizzou- I thought there was something wrong with the television.
Texas-Have they always had the numbers on the helmets?...I didn't mind this one though.
Oregon-whatever.
FSU-had the all black shit last week.

There were others but I cannot remember off the top of my head. What is this...test marketing for the apparel companies?

Yeah I remember during the UM/OSU game they were saying that the new pants and thigh pads were 8 ounces lighter, that should help them when they play the SEC teams. Still doesn't make sense to wear the awful colors and patterns just because they have some new fabric.

Other thread....hadn't noticed, but rock on!!!!


edit....oh yeah...East Oregon...got it now. :doh:

One great thing about Michigan switching to Adidas...no goofy ass experimental uniforms. I can deal with the yellow piping on the road uniforms because you can barely see it anyway on the white jerseys.

Of all those uniforms, the white Florida and Virginia Tech helmets looked cool...you can keep the rest. Nike went crazy with the two-toned gradient fill on the numerals on a couple uniforms, the two-toned black Mizzou helmets were hideous and that goofy spirograph wing design on the shoulders on the majority of the jerseys...total eye sores.

The unis for Buckeyes made them almost unrecognizable. The good thing is that it looked like Michigan was getting shanked by a different team. Props to Tressel for wearing the "government-issued gear".

Sudden Sam wrote:I think Phil Knight just wanted to see what fucked up shit he could get the schools to accept.

Missouri wins for being the most fucked over.

Nike paid Mizzou $100 grand to wear those uni's, and they won, so who got fucked over?

They were hideous, though. If they had lost, Tigerboard would've had a conniption blaming it on that.

mvscal wrote:

WolverineSteve wrote: Texas-Have they always had the numbers on the helmets?...I didn't mind this one though.

Nope. I didn't really care for it, but it wasn't a huge deal.

From photos I have seen they did it in the 60's when Royal was winning those titles. Then they put a 100 on all the helmets to celebrate the 100th anniversary season also in the '60s.

Also they did the numbers on the helmets at least for the first game in 2005 and maybe for more.

Shoalzie wrote:One great thing about Michigan switching to Adidas...

Is it still benefits my local shoe companies.


Ease up folks -- at least Phil didn't deck you out in sports bras, like a certain Oregon rival that's about to be slaughtered in a couple of days.

The best thing was that it was the most money ever paid for an apparel deal. But as long as the U&L thinks they got over...coolio.

WolverineSteve wrote:The best thing was that it was the most money ever paid for an apparel deal.

Uhm...


Uhm...

Uhm...



Last I checked, Oregon has netted well over one hundred fucking million dollars for "an apparel deal."

So Nike is paying Oregon to wear Nike? When UM was Nike, it was the largest deal ever at the time, and when the switch was made to Addidas it re-took the title from I think ND. UM also recieved a 6.5 mil. signing bonus in the addidas deal, the first ever bonus in college sports.


http://blog.mlive.com/jim_carty/2007/07 ... _part.html

some interesting points. UM gave Nike the opportunity to match any offers....they declined. There is a favored program clause in the deal whereby no addidas team will ever get more than UM. The contract has two addidas reps on campus full time one for women's athletics and one for men's.

a quote from the article...

Martin:The other thing I felt was important - and Nike did agree to this in the end - I wanted control of the sideline design apparel for football. If you turn on the TV, forget the colors, you can tell if one of the schools is a Nike school because of the swatch of color they have down from under the armpit, right? That's Nike's way of branding every school a Nike school. We didn't want to be like everyone else. We wanted our own design.

Rack Martin, Rack Michigan. Nobody messes with the gear, not Phil and Nike...nobody. You guys can let nike dress your boys up in these clown suits, but that doesn't work in AA.

WolverineSteve wrote:So Nike is paying Oregon to wear Nike?

Gee, YA'THINK?

I'm not sure which part of "over one hundred million" you're struggling with?

Or do you think Phil would be doing the same thing if Oregon were an Adidas school?


Did you have a big heaping bowl of Dumbass Chex for breakfast or what?

Oregon had just lost its endorsement deal with Disney about the time Phil came into his millions.

Light coming on yet?

They still retained Fighting Donald Duck as the mascot...


living up to his name (sup Rumps) --


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY0B8qtUF8o

Dinsdale wrote:

WolverineSteve wrote:So Nike is paying Oregon to wear Nike?

Gee, YA'THINK?

I'm not sure which part of "over one hundred million" you're struggling with?

Or do you think Phil would be doing the same thing if Oregon were an Adidas school?


Did you have a big heaping bowl of Dumbass Chex for breakfast or what?

No, I just thought he used Oregon as a test ground for new designs. The fact remains that UM had the highest contract ever given by Nike and it was nowhere near 100 mil. A link would be appreciated.

In a nutshell, you're essentailly claiming UM is/was paid more handsomely than U of O to wear Nike...

patently absurd contention, and your claims of BODE are nothing short of laughable.


But please let me know when you crack 9 figures, m'kay?

a bit of van going on in this thread. let's see: michigan has the biggest official endorsement deal on the books. oregon doesn't because they get booster money from phil knight just so long as they keep wearing their nike clothes. an endorsement deal that dwarfs michigan's, just not as far as contracts are concerned.

i'll second screw's rack for bill martin telling nike to gfy. of course, that's because adidas was on the other line, not to mention the more times you schedule delaware state the more integrity you get to claim when some shoe company asks to design "tradition" for you.

No. I remember the raised block M's they wore on their shoulder pads for a year or two. 96 or something? Am I missing something?

I was going to say teams get saddled with patches for bowl games, but then again, Wazzu seems to have had neglected that particular atrocity.

The raised block M's I'm talking about were navy blue and not very visible. I think this was right when Michigan signed on with Nike. They looked pretty g'eh.

yeah, UM had a lot of bowl game jersey "adjustments". Usually a patch with the Bowl Game logo on it. Not sure if it still happens as it's been a while .

Mclub beat me to it. I recall some teams adding stuff to their helmets. I think Purdue added a rose to the helmet in the Brees years.

Screw_Michigan wrote:This?

no, they were blue block m's on their home jerseys, on the tops of their shoulder pads, where the 1 on terrell's jersey is. i looked for a picture but haven't had much luck.