OT: Grantland Article on Oregon and Nike
Sorry if this is too far off topic for this week, but I thought it was a very interesting article. Especially when we debate the various moves Dave Brandon makes to our athletic department.
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/6909937/how-does-oregon-football-keep-winning
I think this is a key paragraph:
Tradition? Tradition is great where it's a sellable, marketable commodity. Alabama can sell tradition. Penn State can sell tradition. Michigan can sell tradition. At those places, tradition is the differentiation, but at the schools where it's not? They have to go in the opposite direction. And no one has done that better, or more consciously, than Nike and Oregon, which for the purposes of this conversation are essentially one and the same. Oregon's tradition at this point is the overtly embraced lack of tradition. Change.
The one thing about that is - how well does it sell when you're copying Oregon (like ASU) or Boise State (with colored fields popping up over the country)? Tradition is a brand, and so is "change." But "change" and "bucking the trend" works best if you're original. Otherwise you're just more noise.
It also makes me cringe a bit to hear that "Nike and Oregon are essentially one and the same." I'm happy Michigan doesn't have that relationship with, say, Ford's.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:23 PM ^
See, that's the thing. It's one thing for Nike to turn Oregon into a weird mess. At least then, "that's what Oregon does." But Nike is an evil empire for also trying to turn everyone else into Oregon.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^
Your concluding sentence -- minus the biased "evil" adjective -- is the real interesting debate. People can talk all they want about Oregon and Nike's special relationship, but the truth is, its in Nike's best interest to have a similar "special" interest with as many major athletic programs as possible, and its inevitably what's going to tear the Nike/Oregon duality apart.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^
The question is, post-Phil Knight (and he's 73 so the day is coming when he'll retire) will Nike have any more reason to have this special relationship with Oregon? I doubt it. That more than anything is what will separate the two. And unfortunately now we have this world in college football where if you're not pandering to the microwaved attention spans of ADD-addled teenagers by pimping your way around the field flashing the gang-sign-esque glove salute that's been slapped on your palms and trying to out-XFL your neighbor, you're losing. The goddamn paint on the helmets costs $2,400 per gallon and it's the coaching expenditures that are out of control? This is Nike's creation and it's awful.
(Yes, I realize that helmet paint is basically money into the program and not out of it, but still.)
September 1st, 2011 at 1:23 AM ^
This is complete hogwash. Penn State was one of the first (if not THE first) Nike school in the early '90s, and their jerseys and branding haven't changed one bit. Alabama has been a Nike school for awhile, and their jerseys haven't changed either. I can't think of one thing that has changed on Texas's football jerseys since they've been with Nike. The only thing of significance that ever changed about Michigan's jerseys under Nike was the away jersey; everything else (home jersey, pants, helmet) remained the same. (And the away jersey didn't suddenly reverse to the prior style when we switched to presumably non-evil Adidas).
That Nike is evil because they're trying to turn everyone else into Oregon is an absurd notion that is not supported by the available evidence. It's certainly a popular notion because NIke is an easy target. But the schools themselves are the responsible parties; Nike offers an alternative, but it's the schools that make the decisions.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:59 AM ^
You have given me three examples of schools that had to specifically resist the Nike-izing of their schools, one of which is a poor choice because they jumped on the Pro Combat pimp glove bandwagon along with other so-called traditional schools like Ohio State. For every example you care to give of a school that has stuck with their tradition 100% (in which Alabama, Michigan, and Ohio State can no longer be counted) I can give you four that look like clowns because of what Nike gave them. It's Nike that creates the templates. It was Nike in the article that went to Oregon and suggested the clownification of their uniforms, not the other way around. And now you have schools like Maryland trying to out-Nike Nike and out-Oregon Oregon. The common thread isn't the schools, it's Nike. And if you think Nike creates a thing like Pro Combat and then sits idly back waiting for a school to buy it you've got another think coming.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:25 PM ^
I can't wait to see Michigan's Pro Combat uni's, complete with flaming wings.
<br>
<br>/sarcasm
August 31st, 2011 at 10:35 PM ^
It seems like when your identity is simply "change", you don't really have any identity at all over time. That may be okay at a place like Oregon or Boise (insulated, quirky towns with no other sports option and a close relationship to the team), but when you start doing it at a place like Arizona State that is full of transplanted Brahs I think you kill any chance of establishing a tradition/heritage that people can embrace, get behind, and still care about decades down the line.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:03 PM ^
Wait, I thought ASU's tradition was hot, ditzy girls.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:36 PM ^
I don't understand how someone can write an article attempting to explain Oregon's on-field success without a single mention of Willie Lyles and how everything may not be on the up-and-up. This is especially true when they use a quote from LaMichael James about how much he likes the uniforms. I find it hard to believe that the uniforms were more influential than his ties to a street agent that was taking Oregon's money for "recruiting infomation."
August 31st, 2011 at 11:20 PM ^
I agree completely but at the same time you can't forget about their facilities and everything else other than the jerseys. I'm sure some kids go to Oregon because of their ridiculous shit.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:51 PM ^
Oh, no doubt. And most of Oregon's success predated the involvment of Lyles. I just think that an article with umpteen footnotes could find a place to mention the latest allegations, especially if they are going to quote LaMichael James.
Also glossed over was Oregon's tolerence of some pretty terrible behavior by their football players in recent years. I see a lot of similarities between Oregon today and Miami in the late 80's and 90's. Could make for a fun documentary as part of ESPN's 40 for 40.
September 1st, 2011 at 12:14 AM ^
Yea they could call it The U part Duex
or The Eu.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^
But I'm pretty amazed that this whole thing could be written and not a mention of their unique approach at the spread offense. They play a very innovative style of football, and I'd argue that has just as much (if not more) to do with their success than the jerseys they wear. Oregon is never at the top of the recruiting rankings, but dang do they ever know how to use talent.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^
Doesn't that illustrate a pretty big point in and of itself? More people identify Oregon with their look than their football. The same is true for Michigan in some respect, but the winged helmet would've been rendered to the garbage heap long ago without the wins. And the difference is that people only talk about the new things they do; there's nothing iconic. When your entire schtick is always being new, sooner or later someone else will do it better.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:45 PM ^
Stripes coming down from your armpits are not. Gimme a swoosh, or another benign logo, and GTFO apparel companies.
<br>
<br>KTHX
August 31st, 2011 at 11:51 PM ^
Grantland is really impressive. The college football column that was a a letter to Coach Tressel from last week was great.
September 1st, 2011 at 12:00 AM ^
No clue how close the ties are between Nike and Oregon. For goodness sakes you know Phil Knight is an Oregon Duck right?
September 1st, 2011 at 1:06 AM ^
And anytime Oregon's uniforms are mentioned, it's mentioned that he's an alum and that Nike is headquartered in Oregon. And Oregon's uniforms are mentioned pretty much anytime the mainstream media mentions their football team, which has been happening a lot more often since their recent successes. Nevertheless, it makes me cringe when it is said that an apparel company is one and the same as a school they outfit. I'm not even entirely certain there's anything wrong with that - Nike and Phil Knight have been huge in taking Oregon's program to where it is today, and having dealt with the budget on my adult, amateur football team myself, I certainly don't blame Oregon for "selling out," if that is what they're doing.
Nevertheless, I'm still very happy that Michigan isn't even mentioned as "one and the same" of any external corporation. And it makes me cringe that a dominant program from the Pac-12 is. But it's just the future, I guess.
September 1st, 2011 at 12:04 AM ^
"Alabama can sell tradition. Penn State can sell tradition. Michigan can sell tradition."
At TSIO they can sell team paraphernalia on eBay and barter at the tattoo shop.
September 1st, 2011 at 8:50 AM ^
I jest.
A lot of the stuff on Grantland isn't worth the read, but this is a good article.