Cease Specific Uniform Panic, Revert To Vague Unease Comment Count

Brian May 26th, 2011 at 11:37 AM

ugly-ass-jerseyskitten-does-not-like

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.]

Comments

dahblue

May 26th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^

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"!

mGrowOld

May 26th, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^

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

 

duffman is thr…

May 26th, 2011 at 11:58 AM ^

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.

08mms

May 26th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^

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.

08mms

May 26th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^

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.

Bando Calrissian

May 26th, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^

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."

Sgt. Wolverine

May 26th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^

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.

Don

May 26th, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^

all the jerseys should be sent down to flood-ravaged towns along the Mississippi, filled with sand, and piled along the levees.

turtleboy

May 26th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^

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. 

Bando Calrissian

May 26th, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^

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.

fatbastard

May 26th, 2011 at 1:19 PM ^

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.

 

 

GoBlueInNYC

May 26th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

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.

matty blue

May 26th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^

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.