On Maize, And Also On Blue A Little

But this will make it much easier for Nebraska to husk us on the field.  

No need to email:

3A5E8C blue

F6D565 yellow

http://logos.umich.edu/standards.html

But, again, that's the University and not the athletic department.

Yellow #F6D565

Blue #3A5E8C

Same. I like the lighter, brighter "maize" as well. I just think it looks more modern and looks way better on tv. Then again, I think the Sounders have the best uniforms in the MLS so I'm guessing my opinion is truly the minority.

I'm with you 100%.  I don't like a mustard yellow.  I think Iowa's yellow looks cheap.  I think the contrast of the bright yellow of the wings on the helmet against the dark navy blue under a noon sun when the team comes out of the tunnel on fall Saturdays is the sexiest thing I get to see all week. 

I do think the numbers on the helmet should match the wings, and it is obviously intentional that they do not, which I don't understand at all.  But, if it were up to me, we'd go with the wings' color and not the numbers' color.

I agree with you.  I would also note it's a different issue for football versus basketball and hockey.  To my knowledge, there were no maize jerseys/sweaters in basketball and hockey prior to the late 80s or early nineties - everything was blue or white.  Sure, there was some lettering and piping but only for accents.  With the Fab Five and the rise of the hockey team, yellow "sparkle" jerseys/sweaters arrived and they were much more the yellow highlighter look rather than the old maize of the football pants.  I would submit that moving to the old maize for basketball would look terrible.  Less so for hockey but still.  If you want to be uniform for all three sports (and others) I think you almost have to lean to the brighter shade.

minority. Been following the team since I became aware of my surroundings in the 80's. Definitely like the brighter shade of "maize" when compared side by side.

I also hate Special K, rawk in the stadium, and the idea of advertising in the stadium. 

I don't post here often, but this is something I feel strongly about. The brighter version has always been something I thought was significantly better but didn't disrupt tradition. Just one man's opinion though. I live far away from Ann Arbor so never make it to games, so I like seeing those bright yellow pants on TV every Saturday.

A main reason I like the brighter maize is that there is a general trend in recruiting towards flashier colors, uniforms, etc.  High school kids want to stand out and our "brighter" maize basketball uniforms do exactly that.  The old-school maize is not as exciting.

I prefer the highlighter yellow over a yellow with an orangish tint as well, but I don't know why we can't go back to yellow of the basketball jerseys the Fab Five wore.

There's more to that comment there than you realize.  What adidas and Nike and all of the athletic suppliers are about is CONTRAST-- two colors that play against each other and create visual interest.  That jumps off the TV screen, pops in person, and all in all turns more heads.  By pushing the color value of the maize DOWN, they distance it further from the blue, which helps make the entire presentation sharper and crisper in comparison.

Nike, actually, is its own exception to the rule as well, as they've gotten so experimental with the Oregon circus that they've attempted to bring more subtle decisions into the mix.  Decisions that have less to do with TV presentation and are more avante garde, like silver NOBs and the crazy helmets, stuff like that.  These things might look amazing on a Mac HD display, but actually fabricated and draped over a football player is another thing entirely.

I'm not sanctioning or endorsing the bright yellow in any way-- but hopefully this helps elaborate on WHY adidas and others are doing this.  Personally, the gold-ish hue is much more Brady Hoke than the yellow... we know what the product is, so let's consolidate and streamline its presentation in every way.

Agreed.  When an orangy yellow is matched with dark blue, it comes off as a dingy green tint from a distance.  The orangy yellow also makes the dark blue look black from a distance.  Both of these are true in person or on TV.

Our bright yellow plays very well with our dark blue.  It has a nice "pop" that contrasts well with the dark blue but does not overwhelm it. 

I agree that some change can be bad and the tradition angle is great.  Keep in mind however that the brighter shade of yellow has been with us (to varying degrees) now for 20-25 years so it has some "tradition" of its own (all of the Moeller and Carr years, fab five, hockey titles).

there are some things, given the tradition, that should be held to a "traditional" standard. While keeping up with current culture is important, our uniforms (more home than away) are not to be "updated" color scheme wise. Michigan is maize and blue. Why aren't the uniforms that?

Your logic is irrefutable.

I think that if people had known that Braylon was going to take all of the Football Jesus talk of his junior and senior years and just run with it, the dialog would have been significantly reduced. What a clown he has become.

Whattya mean "not worth its own thread"? Are you new here?

You're missing a key point: Michigan essentially owns most traditions it's associated with, even if our claim to them is not perfect (e.g. winged helmets).

Tradition is a key part of the brand, and what Michigan should represent. If we take yellow-looking yellow, we pretty much own yellow-looking yellow. Neon yellow doesn't work that way because they didn't have neon colors in the mythological long long ago when all colors and looks were officially settled (which varies based on when the nearest baby boomer got their first color TVs).

"It looks cool" is not a strong argument for something as visible as half the football team's uniforms. Yellow-colored yellow is a prime color. It will always be cool. Whichever shade of yellow is generally accepted as the most normal shade of it (currently: a slightly gold-ish version) is always going to be a touchstone. By claiming it and sitting on it, we not only look better, but we make Minnesota and anyone else who doesn't have an athletic department operating on a budget that looks like most schools' endowments look worse for "copying" us.

I mean perception, man. Michigan's brand is such that we're the big stack, so no reason to play like we need to change the game; let's sit on the one shade that's closest to what every other school wishes they could say they've had since 18-whatever, and keep the perception going that we have that color because we can 18-whatever better than anybody.