rundown of Michigan's riser
Cease Specific Uniform Panic, Revert To Vague Unease
Filed under:
kitten does not like
David Brandon was on WTKA discussing the new(!) varsity lacrosse programs, which you know all about, when he was asked about your favorite newspaper's purported stripey Michigan night game uniform thing:
Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon was asked during an interview on WTKA-AM (1050) this morning if that was an accurate representation of U-M's uniform.
"No," Brandon said.
Brandon said Michigan's uniform would combine "elements of a couple different eras," but emphasized that the final product has not been revealed.
Before you point and laugh at the Free Press, a good source indicates the mockups everyone's gnashing their teeth about are "one of many possibilities," one that ended up "in the top two or three." The final result is not going to be like the "1960s look" Brian Kelly said Michigan was going to bust out in his press conference. That was never on the table because, as mentioned, the uniforms of the 1960s are hardly different than today's. The end result is going to be spiritually similar to the above: a throwback that attempts to go way, way back—source says "foot-ball yore"—and in doing so discards any pretense of historical accuracy.
This or something like it got so far down the pipe that the biggest holdup is the lack of a number on the front. Brian Kelly hates that because it makes it harder to track the opposition's substitutions. (As the kind of person who obsessively tracks his own team's substitutions and gets irritated at teams who don't put names on their jerseys*, I get that.) Michigan is hoping they can get away with a small number like a C or A on a hockey jersey above the block M or that numbers on the helmets will suffice.
So while it's possible the giant raspberry emitted by the public sees Michigan change direction on this specific design, the end result here is going to be an ungainly Frankenstein that no Michigan player has ever worn before. As Eleven Warriors' Ramzy said: "here, have some of our Pro Combat nightmare juice." The only thing that can rescue it is if all the players have Fielding Yost-level lip brooms by kickoff.
But… hey, new scoreboards, right?
*[Penn State excepted for reasons of tradition.]
May 26th, 2011 at 11:39 AM | 
Mixed emotions
Mixed emotions
May 26th, 2011 at 11:45 AM |
Well hey
Well hey
If you absolutely, positively have to take a leak on the Internet, it might as well be on the freep.com.
May 26th, 2011 at 11:45 AM |
When they reveal the jerseys,
When they reveal the jerseys,
When they reveal the jerseys, will they be pumping the Jock Jamz? Nothing says "Michigan Football" like a fake throwback jersey revealed to our famous fight song, "Who Let the Dogs Out"!
May 26th, 2011 at 11:50 AM |
can we get gloves with
can we get gloves with
can we get gloves with special design so that when you do the zoltan Z it makes an M or something
/kidding, i think
2013 resolution - make it onto the 2014 favorite MGoPosters post, not ironically
May 26th, 2011 at 11:51 AM |
Hope
Hope
I can only hope DB has learned from the outcry against those leaked jerseys and puts something respectable together
May 26th, 2011 at 12:00 PM |
i wouldn't be surprised if
i wouldn't be surprised if
i wouldn't be surprised if they were purposefully leaked to gague popular sentiment.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:27 PM |
And if you've ever had your sentiment gagued . . .
And if you've ever had your sentiment gagued . . .
you know how painful that can be.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:36 PM |
For sure
For sure
I mean, like, gague me with a spoon. Totally.
What? We're throwing back to the 1880's? My bad.
May 26th, 2011 at 11:57 AM |
Dear Dave:
Go with your gut
Dear Dave:
Go with your gut
Dear Dave:
Go with your gut on this one. Don't let public opinion sway you from busting out those way cool throwback's you floated up recently.
Trust me - EVERYBODY loves the old stuff.
Sincerely,
The Denver Broncos
May 26th, 2011 at 1:47 PM |
In reference to the Denver Broncos throwbacks
In reference to the Denver Broncos throwbacks
This was their original uniforms and color schemes when they entered the AFL, so as hideous as they were, it was authentic.
Using the term Wildcat to describe a direct snap to anyone other than a QB is like calling any rock band from the early 90s Grunge.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:57 PM |
I don't think those are that
I don't think those are that
I don't think those are that bad. Those uniforms are more original than what they wear now. Why did brown become an off-limits color for uniform designers?
May 26th, 2011 at 2:30 PM |
Brown is off limits for these
Brown is off limits for these
Brown is off limits for these two reasons:
2011 Totals: 3 Cracker Jack, 1 Mike & Ike, 0 Candy Corn.
May 26th, 2011 at 11:58 AM |
Whew, crisis averted. I like
Whew, crisis averted. I like
Whew, crisis averted. I like the idea of having a M or something on the front with the small numbers ala Hockey C or A, in the corner. That could be pretty slick for one game. How about some leather helmets while we're at it.
"We alway's did feel the same, we just saw it from a different point of view"
May 27th, 2011 at 7:57 AM |
Yep.
Yep.
That's the ticket!
May 26th, 2011 at 12:11 PM |
Is Notre Dame excepted for
Is Notre Dame excepted for
Is Notre Dame excepted for not having names on their uniforms? They've kind of gone back and forth with names over the course of their history.
"The trouble with quotes on the internet, is that it is often difficult to discern whether or not they are genuine" --Abraham Lincoln
May 26th, 2011 at 12:22 PM |
If the net sum looks classy,
If the net sum looks classy,
If the net sum looks classy, and you can point to all of the component parts and tell a story from which era they are copied from, I'm happy with it. If it has arm stripes that look identical to nothing previously worn and psuedo-old timey cell stiching that did not ever appear to have been used, kill it with fire.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:45 PM |
See tbmike23's picture
See tbmike23's picture
If it has arm stripes that look identical to nothing previously worn
See "1891" in the picture tbmike23 has posted in this thread.
May 26th, 2011 at 2:44 PM |
Those appear to be rugby
Those appear to be rugby
Those appear to be rugby stripes, and I wouldn't mind the incorporation of those in a uniform. The Freep model's are of a much narrower width, like bi-colored ref stripes. There were a few older uniforms that had a handful of narrow stripes on the sleeves, but never in an obnoxious pattern like that.
May 26th, 2011 at 12:23 PM |
MOAR Horace Prettyman
MOAR Horace Prettyman
I want the front of the jersey to have Horace Prettyman's junior year photo in the way cool "U of M" sweater.
the Team, the Team, the Team!
May 26th, 2011 at 12:27 PM |
If it's inevitable that...
If it's inevitable that...
the jerseys display something evoking die marke mit den drei streifen, then I propose something along the lines of what Greg at MVictors.com came up with last week. Only difference would be three stripes going in the opposite direction.
LSA '89 - MBB Natl Champions, Big 10/Rose Bowl Champions | @MGoShoe
May 26th, 2011 at 12:50 PM |
This wouldn't fly, either.
This wouldn't fly, either.
This wouldn't fly, either. Anything vaguely 3-striped to mimic the Adidas logo would violate NCAA rules over the number of manufacturer logos you can have on a jersey, as well as the size limitations of a manufacturer logo.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:59 PM |
Maybe I'm wrong, but haven't
Maybe I'm wrong, but haven't
Maybe I'm wrong, but haven't some basketball uniforms sported the three stripes on the shoulders? (I want to say Wisconsin has, but I'm not positive.)
May 26th, 2011 at 2:28 PM |
Basketball:
"...a single
Basketball:
"...a single
Basketball:
"...a single manufacturer's
logo IS permitted to appear once on the game jersey and must be located
between the apex of the neckline and the shoulder seam (per NCAA Bylaw
12.5.4). This logo cannot exceed 2 ¼ square inches."
Football:
"Uniforms and all other items of apparel (e.g., warm-ups, socks,
headbands, T-shirts, wristbands, visors, hats or gloves) may bear only
a single manufacturer’s or distributor’s normal label or trademark
(regardless of the visibility of the label or trademark) not to exceed 2-1/4
square inches in area (i.e., rectangle, square, parallelogram) including
any additional material (e.g., patch) surrounding the normal trademark
or logo."
May 26th, 2011 at 8:17 PM |
But the question remains: do
But the question remains: do
But the question remains: do three stripes, running down a sleeve (or part of it), constitute a "manufacturer's logo," or just part of the design?
May 26th, 2011 at 8:26 PM |
We could...
We could...
base it off of this
http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv348/archangel2k12_bucket/Untitled.jpg
Sorry! embed fail
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
May 26th, 2011 at 12:30 PM |
Revert to vague unease!?!
Revert to vague unease!?!
Revert to vague unease!?! Alright!!!!!
May 26th, 2011 at 12:46 PM |
As a photographer who
As a photographer who
hates softball jerseys with numbers only on the back -- which is what a number of local high school teams have -- I have to say: that rule about having numbers on both back and front is the best rule ever created.
Sportscenter.com raves: Sgt. Wolverine, "Michigan's biggest fan"!
May 26th, 2011 at 12:57 PM |
Whatever the bogus throwback design turns out to be
Whatever the bogus throwback design turns out to be
all the jerseys should be sent down to flood-ravaged towns along the Mississippi, filled with sand, and piled along the levees.
May 26th, 2011 at 12:58 PM |
you guys are acting like a
you guys are acting like a
you guys are acting like a bunch of little girls arguing about how to dress their barbies. why does it matter?
RIP my avatar, June 14, 1998 - October 26, 2012.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:01 PM |
Someone obviously doesn't
Someone obviously doesn't
Someone obviously doesn't "Get it," for those of us who read UniWatch on a daily basis...
May 26th, 2011 at 1:18 PM |
New/old long sleeves
New/old long sleeves
The long sleeves they wore once upon a time in '04 (that is 1904) closely resemble the new Nike Pro Combat sleeves. They had long sleeved blue undershirts with an off color padded elbow. I like the look of the all-maize '64 kit with numbers on the winged helmet, add the blue longsleeved undershirt with maize paded elbow, and blue socks and we're styling.
How many times have you been on the freeway and had someone fly by you at 100 mph then end up 2 cars ahead of you at the off ramp? What's the point? -Mark Harmon
May 26th, 2011 at 1:23 PM |
I don't think that 1964
I don't think that 1964
I don't think that 1964 rendering is correct. I've asked some older fans about this and no one can ever recall us wearing a maize jersey.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:34 PM |
Don't believe the older fans
Don't believe the older fans
Those folks tend to be senile and repeat themselves.
[Edit -- OK, this joke doesn't work nearly as well now that jmblue has edited his second post . . .]
May 26th, 2011 at 1:40 PM |
Re 1964 Maize Jerseys
Re 1964 Maize Jerseys
They existed, but were worn only in practice, never for a game, I've seen that in other threads here, can't quote it now though
"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"
May 26th, 2011 at 1:41 PM |
It's been debunked a million
It's been debunked a million
It's been debunked a million times. Pretty sure Jim Conley even weighed in at one point saying it was only ever used in practice.
Brian really should just throw it in the site FAQ or something, because I feel like that drawing gets brought up just about every time a uniform topic shows up.
May 27th, 2011 at 7:59 AM |
Inspiration...
Inspiration...
May 26th, 2011 at 1:28 PM |
Well, well, well, if it isn't
Well, well, well, if it isn't
Well, well, well, if it isn't our friend 504 Time-out. I've missed you, buddy!
May 26th, 2011 at 2:03 PM |
I'm gonna go out on a limb
I'm gonna go out on a limb
And say the 2004 edition isn't quite right either. I'm pretty sure no one wore #11 that year.
Obviously this was a nod to Braylon that was forced to add a second "1" to the jersey for whatever reason.
May 26th, 2011 at 2:53 PM |
1904 model FTW. Leather
1904 model FTW. Leather
1904 model FTW. Leather lace-up front. However, this should only be allowed if Hoke grows a Yost-like 'stache.
May 27th, 2011 at 1:05 AM |
Would love to see either of
Would love to see either of
Would love to see either of the ones from the 1800's, especially 1891. That's a sharp looking outfit.
Football is both an identity and a terminal illness. A rhythm and a chaos and an opiate for the mind all at once.
-Johnny Danbury (umichedme.blogspot.com)
May 26th, 2011 at 1:19 PM |
I'm not sure if we know
I'm not sure if we know
I'm not sure if we know something or not, but I noticed that Brian said:
" or that numbers on the helmets will suffice"
Which numbers are those exactly. Will the throwbacks include a helmet with the numbe on the side. We had those once. It wasn't the 1800's tho.
When did your mother let you out of the basement Mr. Rosenberg?
May 26th, 2011 at 1:21 PM |
I know I'm in the minority,
I know I'm in the minority,
I know I'm in the minority, but those designs grew on me. My first reaction was "What the hell is that?!" But the more I looked at them, the less I hated them. Now I kind of like it.
Just tossing a dissenting opinion out there, I guess.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:30 PM |
I'm not a huge fan of the
I'm not a huge fan of the
I'm not a huge fan of the stripes, but I like the jersey otherwise. The M on the front is cool. Unfortunately, I guess it's not allowable.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:35 PM |
You may be in the minority,
You may be in the minority,
but you're in my minority -- I kind of like it as well. The horrified reaction here was overwrought.
Sportscenter.com raves: Sgt. Wolverine, "Michigan's biggest fan"!
May 26th, 2011 at 2:09 PM |
Yep, throw me in too
Yep, throw me in too
I'm a retro junkie... Those stripes were all the rage back in the 1910's. All depends on how they'd look on a full uniform, I suppose.
May 26th, 2011 at 2:22 PM |
Stripes can still be awesome.
Stripes can still be awesome.
This might also be unpopular, but I loved the socks from the retro Denver Broncos uniforms pictured below.
When the actual M night game jersey is unveiled, are you going to make a Lego guy wearing it? That would be amazing.
Sportscenter.com raves: Sgt. Wolverine, "Michigan's biggest fan"!
May 26th, 2011 at 2:30 PM |
While I think the M on the
While I think the M on the
While I think the M on the front is the best part, I actually also like the stripes.
May 26th, 2011 at 1:22 PM |
doesn't matter what brian kelly thinks,
doesn't matter what brian kelly thinks,
uniform numbers front and back are an ncaa requirement. the rule is specific enough to specify minimum sizes (8" on the front, 10" on the back) and stroke width (approximately 1 1/2").
apologies if i'm misreading the post.
May 26th, 2011 at 2:01 PM |
Can't we just use the Miami
Can't we just use the Miami
Can't we just use the Miami Sharks' uniforms from Any Given Sunday. I mean, they have the same connection to reality and tradition as whatever "throwback" uniforms the group at Adidas comes up with.
May 26th, 2011 at 2:10 PM |
Butt ugly.
The kitten, that
Butt ugly.
The kitten, that
Butt ugly.
The kitten, that is.
Hooray that it's not those awful not-real-historical-mash-ups
Boo that they will be some other awful not-real-historical-mash-ups
"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"