So...the jerseys. Was it worth the freakout?

Submitted by cypress on January 2nd, 2013 at 8:08 AM

I didnt think they looked too bad at all.

Comments

Naked Bootlegger

January 2nd, 2013 at 8:51 AM ^

Was not impressed.    The fact that the numbers were unreadable was downright laughable.  

I caught the ESPN Gameday montage before kickoff that featured season highlights.   I was preparing lunch for my kids, so I was't entirely focused on the TV, but a caught a clip out of hte corner of my eye that showed a UM dude (Rawls, maybe?) getting smacked hard by a 'Bama defender.   Only it took me about 10 seconds to digest the fact that it was Michigan player.   Two highlights later, it clicked that those were *our* uniforms.   My team.   And I was sad that my synapses didn't fire quick enough for me to recognize my alma mater on the gridiron.    

 

Dutch Ferbert

January 2nd, 2013 at 8:54 AM ^

I think the jerseys would have been okay with blue numbers. The numbers were almost impossible to see unless they zoomed in on a player who happened to be standing still. If the announcers didn't say who made a play on defense, I usually had no idea who it was.

I didn't hate the helmets, but I like our normal ones better.

Also, unrelated, but my lord do I hate when they show sideline interviews during a game instead of action on the field. At one point, they were interviewing Lattimore without showing a play that happened on the field and then they never explained what happened. If I recall, it was a penalty on us. The score was 21-13 at that point fergodsakes.

User -not THAT user

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:07 AM ^

...and the sunshine washed out EVERYTHING on the Michigan uniform on TV...they looked like highlighter yellow blurs, and not in a good way.  Maybe it was better in person, but I can't imagine being able to deduce a player's numbers if you were anything beyond 10 rows from the field.

Look at all the other games that were on yesterday...only NIU wore UNI4MZ (and they probably figured they earned the gimmick since it was their first BCS game).  UGA, Nebraska, Wiscy, Stanford, Florida State...even South Carolina (believe it or not, they ALWAYS dress like that).  Classic, boring, easily identifiable, nothing distracting from the play on the field.  Seemed to work for them...can't imagine why a program with over 130 years of gridirion history feels so insecure about its place in the game to the point where it feels the need to "Oregon-ize" itself in a "look at ME" attempt to get a little more attention.  

ESPECIALLY in a second-tier game likethe Outback Bowl.  I mean, if you HAVE to design a "special" outfit for a game, couldn't you at least make sure it's a bigger game?  UTL?  Sure, okay.  BCS-level game like the Sugar Bowl?  I could see it.  BCS championship game?  If you MUST.  But an early start on New Year's Day against anothr team that didn't even compete for their conference championship (like us)?  Seems like a reach to me.  But what do I know?  I was born when Bo still coached at Miami (NTM).

maizenbluenc

January 2nd, 2013 at 11:12 AM ^

with UTL, and the Cowboy Classic usage. Sugar Bowl was OK as well. If Brandon ever does uniformz for the Rose Bowl, I will feel compelled to write and protest.

I agree however that Adidas sucks at alternate uniformz design.

Apparently their cleats suck too (or Big Jon Falk forgot to bring the grass cleats). I noticed a lot more cleat problems this year over prior seasons. I know Adidas changed to non-standard triangular studs, and it seems like there are a lot of lost shoe issues, even beyond Denard. I wonder if they have shifted too far in the direction of weigh reduction over traction, etc.

JTrain

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:18 AM ^

No. People just like to stomp their feet and piss and moan about nothing. It's a fact....changes are going to happen over time. DEAL WITH IT. The players like special uniforms to wear. The recruits like it. It makes the university money. Get over it people.

Thought the team played well about 98% of the time. Unfortunately the lapses we did have resulted in td's.

Looking fwd to what team 134 can do.

mgobleu

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:51 AM ^

Alabama doesn't need special jerseys. USC doesnt need special jerseys. Oklahoma, ohio state, florida, texas... Just sayin.

That said, has anyone in a bcs conference had more special uniformzz than michigan over the past 2 years other than oregon?

The Barwis Effect

January 2nd, 2013 at 10:14 AM ^

I think its been at least four years since they wore their standard uniform in The Game.

Also, Florida's not a particularly good example either. They have used various combos of white helmets, orange helmets, blue jerseys, orange jerseys, white pants, orange pants, blue pants, etc. over the past few years.

LB

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:23 AM ^

up close. From a distance, they were clearly a mistake. I rank this right up there with coffee pots that can't pour without spilling coffee all over the counter.

The Barwis Effect

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:25 AM ^

I liked how the blue shoulders almost paid homage to our traditional home uniform. I loved the block M on the sleeve, as well. Change the numerals to blue and you'd actually have a nice looking, functional jersey that could be used on a permanent basis.

Ali G Bomaye

January 2nd, 2013 at 4:35 PM ^

You know what else pays homage to our traditional home uniform?  Our traditional home uniform.  The one we were supposed to wear in this game.  It contains a block M as well, on the pants.

So basically what we did is wore a uniform that looks like someone jumbled up the traditional uniform in a rubix cube, made the numbers unreadable, then vomited all over it.  Pretty good homage.

WolverineHistorian

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:27 AM ^

Alternate uniforms for the Outback Bowl was beyond stupid. Not that I liked the previous alternate ones but who the hell makes a new uniform for a mediocre bowl game? I also had to roll my eyes when these things were first revealed and Dave Brandon said that we haven't had new alternates since the Bama game, like he wants credit for waiting 11 games before making the team wear new ugly. I can only imagine what he's going to make for next season's night game against ND.

My eyes were truly opened at the Air Force game back in September when I saw how many fans were wearing UTL jerseys. People must be buying these ugly ass things so I don't see it stopping any time soon.

Don

January 2nd, 2013 at 10:37 AM ^

There are also millions of Americans who've gotten hilariously stupid and horribly-executed tattoos. David Brandon knows this, and understands that he can sell anything to a certain demographic. He made his fortune in junk mail and cheap pizza, and we shouldn't be surprised at the constant re-inventing of the packaging.

go16blue

January 2nd, 2013 at 11:41 AM ^

I think that big games are actually when it's most important to use your iconic, traditional jerseys, with the bigger stage and all. A mediocre bowl game seems like the perfect situation to break out an alternate jersey, because it's a unique situation but still not one many people care all that much about. I'd much rather let Brandon have his fun with the Outback/Capital One/etc Bowl than with the Rose Bowl or a big home game.

chitownblue2

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:31 AM ^

They looked ok, but I will go on record, for the first time ever, complaining about these jerseys, and REALLY hating them.

The yellow number on white jersey scheme made the numbers almost completely invisible, especially when the sun hit the jersey - and I couldn't tell who was who the entire game. This greatly effected my viewing experience.

Young John Beilein

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:33 AM ^

If we never have a jersey with unreadable numbers again the freakout will be worth it.  Aside from that they were fine I guess.  I just dont see any need to change them ever.  Is the amount of money made from alternate jersey sales significant?  I would guess not really.

Ali G Bomaye

January 2nd, 2013 at 4:38 PM ^

I thought that too, but at least when Nike does a special jersey it's usually a reasonably well thought-out, coherent uniform that is somehow relevant to the university, either by recalling a past uniform or some feature of the school.  They don't just say "LOL here's a random shoulder yoke and some unreadable numbers, let's call it a day."

Tater

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:38 AM ^

The worst feature of the jerseys was the pseudo-luminescent tropical verison of maize numbers on the backs.  They made it impossible to see the players' numbers from the stands without looking at the TV screens.  Unfortunately, I had no such problem seeing number "7" for SC.

User -not THAT user

January 2nd, 2013 at 10:29 AM ^

Tennessee is also an Adidas school, and the relatively inoffensive pumpkin-shade of orange they normally wear has been turned up to a fluorescent level so bright that it makes the generally obnoxious electric orange of Clemson seem reasonable by comparison.

I guess the one thing to be thankful for is that Michigan isn't affiliated with Under Armour, but add me to the "Bring Back Nike" camp.

RoxyMtnHiM

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:43 AM ^

Thought that matte helmets looked good when first unveiled, liked them less in the game. They looked blacker.

Brandon has pushed this alternative uni thing almost far enough now to do a throwback uni, and one game a year we'll look like Michigan. 

megaswami

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:48 AM ^

First and foremost, I think we can all agree that Adidas has no business doing these types of jerseys, they seem to miss the mark each and every time they put one out.  Adidas should fire whoever is running that department!

I understand everyone's iconic/tradition-laced rants, but times are a changin'.  I believe Michigan has taken the right approach with having special jerseys for big games.  Now, with that said, their uniform changes have been horrible...with last night's being probably the best to date.  Even at that, if we are going to make bold changes, why not wear navy pants last night?  I'd like to see more of an approach to the uniform changes like Navy has taken.  Seems like everytime they do a special uniform it is off the charts.  

In conclusion, Adidas needs to step up their game or it's time to bring Nike back!

Don

January 2nd, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^

"Now, with that said, their uniform changes have been horrible."

This is cognitive dissonance at its purest. If the uniform changes have been horrible, it's nonsensical to say that "Michigan has taken the right approach..."

French West Indian

January 2nd, 2013 at 9:48 AM ^

The uniforms were abominable. I was so pissed off that I actually turned off the game before halftime.  Can you imagine that?  A fan turning off his own team because they look so fucking dreadful and utterly un-Michiganlike? 

Fuck Brandon and fuck all the money grubbing whores running the athletic department now.

I wish I were kidding but it's becoming more apparent that the M football that I loved is dead.  I'm living on fumes and if this shit is the inevitable future then I'm out of here.  Enough is enough.

Wolverine Devotee

January 2nd, 2013 at 10:34 AM ^

You would stop being a fan because of jerseys? And actually turned off a game because of it?

Don't hesitate. Leave now. We don't need your kind. 

You're no better than the nightcrawlers that come out from under the rocks to bitch and complain when Michigan loses, and then magically disappear when they win.

Mgoscottie

January 2nd, 2013 at 10:47 AM ^

but I share your hatred of the devolution of Michigan football into how can we make a little bit more money, I'm contemplating giving up my season tickets because it's just so expensive and I feel more and more like every time I watch it's about how I can be made to watch more commercials and spend more money.