Alternate Unis
November 28th, 2009 at 10:43 PM ^
It's because of Nike with their new high tech uniforms. Their trying to promote it. I think there were 10 teams in all.
Other than that, i don't know why.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:44 PM ^
Maybe Tiger Woods was rushing out to get one.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:19 PM ^
If you go to Nike.com and click on football you can check out all of the teams. Mizzouri has a pretty crazy all black uni. They look ok to me and they are supposed to be extremely light weight.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:42 PM ^
dont forget about missouri today as well. how much money are these schools spending for jerseys and helmets that they will use once? seems crazy
November 28th, 2009 at 11:28 PM ^
spending the money, its the sponsers (in this case Nike).
November 28th, 2009 at 11:52 PM ^
I personally thought that the Missouri Uniforms were awesome!
November 29th, 2009 at 12:32 AM ^
yeah i secretly liked the helmets too.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:42 PM ^
are a crime against humanity.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:42 PM ^
Decided to launch it during "Rivalry Week" Its all the big Nike Schools. Missouri's helmets were crazy.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:43 PM ^
I guess this is the big reveal week for the NIke Pro Combat line. For all the hype with the increases in performance, I bet the difference from any other uniform is negligible and they just look retarded.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:00 PM ^
I think this is one of those instances where UNACCEPTABLE is acceptable. It's not just the NCAA, it's NHL, NFL, etc., and it's getting worse. I miss the good old fashioned home and away from, um, 5 years ago. I wonder what the alternate is to shirts and skins? Anyone?
November 28th, 2009 at 11:31 PM ^
Skirts.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:13 AM ^
Game -- Blouses
November 28th, 2009 at 11:11 PM ^
All 10 of the teams that wore the new Nike Pro-Combat uniforms won the game they played in them.
Last Week:
FSU (29) vs Maryland (26)
OSU (21) vs Michigan (10)
This Week:
TCU (51) vs New Mexico (10)
LSU (33) vs Arkansas (30)
Florida (37) vs FSU (10)
Va Tech (42) vs Virginia (13)
Miami (31) vs South Florida (10)
Oklahoma (27) vs Ok. State (0)
Mizzou (41) vs Kansas (39)
Texas (49) vs Texas A&M (39)
It took me awhile to post this so my apologies if someone as beat me to it by now...
November 28th, 2009 at 11:16 PM ^
But at the same time, I think they all lost, if you know what I mean.
November 29th, 2009 at 3:45 AM ^
FSU - They nailed it on that one.
OSU - Meh.
TCU - Helmets were cool. Could take or leave the rest of it.
LSU - Gay.
Florida - Very representative of their bejorted fan base...tacky.
Va Tech - Whatever...yawn.
Miami - Boring.
OU - Ho hum.
Mizzou - I like Oregon's stealth helmet better.
Texas - Alabama already does the helmet/number thing.
I for one, am glad that Michigan missed the boat on this bullshit. I feel sorry for programs that feel the need to make a desperate attempt to excite the fanbase.
FSU is the only school that got a bad-ass new uni.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:22 PM ^
I dont mind alt jerseys from time to time. I like to see things changed up. That being said, I am not a fan of the unis that have been brought out by Nike the last few weeks. Its one thing to do a throw back and bring recognition to past greats, its another to embarrass your team.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:47 PM ^
I miss Nike. My Adidas Shoulder Blades just aren't as sharp as my Nike one's were.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:49 PM ^
Although the new jerseys may benefit Nike financially in the short term, I think this could erode fan's identification with teams over time. I don't want to see college football turn into the NFL or AFL.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:33 AM ^
College football is far less popular than the NFL. These OMG TOO MUCH LIKE THE NFL arguments are just laughable.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:52 AM ^
"College football is far less popular than the NFL."
Can't say I've ever heard this before. (Although, this may be because I laugh at and then proceed to ignore anyone that tells me they like the NFL more.) Not arguing, just curious, but do you have anything to back that statement up?
November 29th, 2009 at 1:07 AM ^
Do you trust Harris?
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=719
Sunday night football total viewers last week: 12 million
Saturday night football total viewers last week: 5 million
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/tv-ratings-nielsen-overnight…
I'm not even seriously digging here because I find it utterly absurd that you think college football is more popular than the NFL in this country. Take any metric you want... Madden outsells NCAA Football every year, more people play fantasy football than watch the average national college game, the NFL gets paid billions of dollars for TV rights. The only thing the NFL doesn't have on the NCAA is attendance, but considering the fact that 110,000 people showed up to watch an NFL game in freaking Mexico... I think it's safe to assume that that's entirely due to limited capacity to inflate demand.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:18 AM ^
Where did I say that I thought college football was more popular than NFL?
November 29th, 2009 at 1:19 AM ^
I'm unsure what other implication one could draw from the statement "Can't say I've ever heard this before. (Although, this may be because I laugh at and then proceed to ignore anyone that tells me they like the NFL more.)".
November 29th, 2009 at 1:39 AM ^
You could draw that I have never seen a comparison between the popularity of each. You could also draw that I like college football far more than the NFL, and therefore I do not pay much attention to the NFL (or its popularity).
Or, you know, you could actually read the sentence where I wrote that I wasn't arguing with you, but was simply curious.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:39 AM ^
And lest anyone think this was an aberration of some sort... the Cowboys-Packers game last Sunday attracted as many viewers as the National Championship game last January.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:46 AM ^
This isn't an argument about popularity alone. Yes the NFL is more popular and hey NASCAR probably is too. There are different audiences for each (except maybe NASCAR & SEC) and I prefer my football with less gimmicks.
Can you imagine Michigan college football on Fox with that damn robot dancing on the screen? Seriously if that ever happens, consider this my suicide note.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:52 PM ^
If only we had those "titanium D ring belt loops", which are 66% lighter than regular belt loops, we might have gotten the W in overtime against State.
DAMN YOU ADIDAS AND YOUR INFERIOR BELT BUCKLE TECHNOLOGY!!!!
November 29th, 2009 at 12:20 AM ^
Most of them were hideous but I liked LSU's. That deeper purple plus the gold as opposed to the yellow looked really sharp.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:23 AM ^
I'm for sure in the camp where I think it is getting ridiculous.
It used to be that alternative jerseys were worn every once in awhile, maybe every other season for a special occasion. Some teams have regular alternates, but the variety in the alternate jerseys now is just way too much.
It doesn't bother me that a sponsor like Nike wants to test their new material, but couldn't they just design it into a regular home/away jersey instead of trying to be creative in a new design?
Makes me glad now we made the switch when we did from Nike to Adidas. Granted I take it most of these teams volunteered or chose to wear them, if they ever tried to pull something like that with Michigan, I would hope the University would have the balls to slap the sponsor and walk away.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:27 AM ^
Supposedly, when Lloyd was still here, Nike informed us that they wanted to go in an Oregon-type direction with our uniforms. Lloyd, thankfully, said no.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:29 AM ^
Can you imagine the winged helmet design on the shoulders?
November 29th, 2009 at 1:38 AM ^
I just puked a little
November 29th, 2009 at 1:56 AM ^
Am I the only one who wishes that we were still sponsored by nike?
November 29th, 2009 at 1:56 AM ^
I don't understand - other than the jerseys, what new tech is in the whole uniform? The jerseys are now more lightweight while still as strong or stronger. The thigh pads are now included in the "girdle" the players wear. Are the knee pads integrated with the pads? What about the shoulder pads? Are they still the same (not Nike? Riddell, etc) or are the shoulder pads made out of the Pro Combat hex foam stuff?
November 29th, 2009 at 12:34 PM ^
I love how they hype up the benefits of "lightweight jerseys" (and to be fair, Adidas does the same) when the jersey itself weighs next to nothing compared to the pads/helmet.
November 29th, 2009 at 10:33 AM ^
I thought we'd be discussing String Theory.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:16 PM ^
I don't really get why Nike did this. It's not like anybody watching the game is going to go buy a full on uniform, the only teams that would get it would be their contracted teams, who would get this anyways when Nike updated. Seems like just a big waste of money.
November 29th, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^
It's simple: they want to sell more merchandise. All that gobbledygook about "pro combat pads" is just an excuse to introduce a new uniform - which, conveniently enough, is in stores right now for Christmas!
November 29th, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^
They've been advertising these new uniforms like a freakin' whole new invention. Of course, every company tries and finds ways to improve their products, and Nike is not doing anything unusual with respect to that. But again, the way they market it, you'd think the opposing teams are the Barbarians fighting against the superior Romans in shining armor. The funny thing is, when I remember my teenage years, I would often perceive stuff like this as facts. That's what they're trying to do. Not necessarily sell those uniforms, but they are trying to engrave in people's minds that their products are always better then their competitor's. But hey, that's the nature of the beast. Just like you have to spend millions and millions of dollars to become President.
November 29th, 2009 at 1:17 PM ^
Yeah that makes the most sense. I'll have to assume this is exepcted to lead to a much greater revenue overall as compared to the cost to make all that crap (Which, in perspective of the whole thing, isn't much when I think about it). Thanks for the explanation.