On Being An Old Man With A Precious Lawn

What the uniforms look like to Brian Cook:

Is there anything this fanbase won't complain about? Angelique Chengelis reported yesterday that the players liked the design, shouldn't that be important to us? Also, recruits are always eating up how Oregon has so many uniforms-those are f***** ugly-so who cares just accept it.

Things change, this is just one thing changing for 1 game

The entire idea of a night game is crazy to old timers anyway, so why not double dip with a wacked out jersey

Its not the nickname, its not the fight song, its not the helmet, its just some goofy stuff on the arms

occurred about whatever virtue Apple retains by remaining private (to work there you now have to sign a promise you won't commit suicide); ask the kids picking up cancer as they pick through piles of discarded computer parts in various parts of Africa and India; ask those of us who suffered through two bouts of rampant motherboard failure with early maclappies (why we're not mcslappies); or--hell--ask Linus Torvalds, who says that when he met Steve Jobs the guy had no interest whatever in talking computing, programming, or innovation, just sales figures (Torvalds' conclusion--he's a flapping idiot). 

This is about as cranky--and self-contradictory--as Brian gets. (Why were you happy when a corporate CEO was installed in the first place? That was the time to piss and moan, not when--predictably--he does what CEOs do.)

The Adidas design is much nicer than the utterly generic unis in the photos. Denard is gonna make it shine.

I will buy Brian on a lot of fronts but as fashion maven--not.

Michigan is supposed to be different, but all too often we are the same.  Like we need money to fuel good things, including expanding our number of varsity sports to include lacrosse.  New revenue streams, like selling special jerseys, are helpful to that end.  That means is not eggregious in and of itself.  However, in this particular case, the execution is hideous.

We will forever wish to have celebrated this event in our traditional uniforms, with perhaps a tasteful and discrete commemorative patch, a la the 100th game vs tsio.  That would have been cool.  People would buy those and wear them proudly.  If they sold jerseys with 100th game patches now, people would buy them.

Why is this not a win-win?  Why wouldn't his make the athletic dept., adidas, and the fans all happy?

Kids are welcome to run on my lawn, but not to take a dump on it!

Do you like 'em?

At least the facemasks are gray

Thanks for the shout out, Brian.  I largely agree with everything you have to say about not only the throwback jerseys, but also about some of the less then enviable workings of corporations everywhere.

I think one of the problems here is that there's a difference between a throwback uniform and a throwback jersey.  The uniform includes everything from head to toe and as Brian points out, there were some distinctive features on the mid-60s uniform that would have made it a throwback to the teams of that era.

The problem is that you can't readily sell that entire look unless there's a major market out there for white socks with block M's on them or mini-helmets with numbers on them.  The main item that Michigan, Adidas and M-Den will sell will be the jerseys and they have to look distinctive enough for the common fan (or more specifically, the demographic that buys these things) to be interested in purchasing.  Quite frankly, a simple blue jersey with number on the front and back and no name probably doesn't meet that objective.  Maybe adding a block M on the sleeves would do it, but that's evidentally not the direction the Athletic Department is going at this time. 

I think that's unfortunate because one of the major marketing points about Michigan is tradition coupled with innovation.  We certainly see that in the stadium renovations, and for those responsible for it (including David Brandon), I say congratulations--well done.  But these uniforms--which look like a composite of a late 19th century look coupled with a varsity football "M" sweater--misses on both counts.  While I will withhold final judgement until we actually see the entire "look" unveiled tomorrow, right now I have to say that they don't look very appealing.

When properly done, throwback uniforms can be pretty neat, but there's always an urge to tamper with what's classically good.  I thought it would present a pretty fun (and easily marketable) narrative for both Michigan and Notre Dame to play this first night game in Ann Arbor in replica uniforms from the 60s--certainly both team's helmets would be different looking (different wings and numbers for Michigan, shamrock for Notre Dame).  It appears to me that U-M is going in a different direction with this.

One final thought.  David Brandon did say words to the effect that the version of the uniform first provided in the Detroit Free Press was inaccurate.  In actuality, they do have a lot more in common than Brandon might have led us to think--and that's unfortunate on his part.  By and large, I've agreed with most of the things he's done during his tenure and I applaude him for the way he handled the NCAA investigation into Michigan's football program (if you want to see how not to do it, cast your eyes to Columbus, Ohio).  Later this month, he'll be publicly presenting the FY 2012 UM Athletic Department budget and he's stated in the papers that he'll be putting together a long-term strategic plan to grow Michigan athletics.  It's a big responsibility and I wish hiim well on it.  My only point is this--there's no need to get cute about some things, and that includes the throwbacks.  When all else fails, go back to what works best--that's why UM hired Brady Hoke, isn't it?

I shall buy one. Might get laid in it, too.

I'll take a #1 with Chick-Fil-A sauce over that sh-tty "throwback" jersey every day.

 P.S.  I suspect that those of you that know what I mean likely agree whole-heartedly.

I don't think the throwbacks (or retros, if you prefer) are great, but I also don't share in the wailing and gnashing of teeth over them.  Despite their apparent disconnection with Michigan history and their rugby styling, my Michigan degrees are not going to burst into flames because of them, nor are they going to cause people to point and laugh when I wear the rest of my Michigan gear.  The brand and the tradition extend far beyond what the team wears for any one game (or say, our record over the last three seasons).

If you hate the jerseys, don't buy one.  Flood DB's inbox with complaints.  That is your right as fans and alumni.  Since the concern is that DB is too corporate, do your part to make sure that the ROI on this project is underwhelming.  At the same time, if people snap up the jerseys like crazy, and the recruits love them, then maybe we have to accept that not everybody shares our sense of nostalgia.

Just out of curiosity, did any of the get off my lawn folks ever own one of those starter jackets with 15 different Michigan logos on them?

1). To those of you saying "It's just one game", I would politely counterpoint that many see "just one game" as a means of opening the pathway to a slippery slope. 

2). I was pushing for 1957, Ron Kramer-era throwbacks, where the longsleeves could come from a compression shirt, grey facemasks, and numbers on the helmets, so the 1965 look is very close to that:

And if that doesn't work for you, how about 1940 Tom Harmon style throwbacks...

And lastly, if that doesn't work, further honor Desmond and the 20th Anniversary of the catch:

And for those of you thinking this is a lot of to do about uniforms, politely, uniforms are a critical common thread that links the three men above together.  So if we're bent out of shape about it, maybe it's because symbols are imbued with meaning.