Hey is it time to talk Uni's

[Whiskey_Clear]

Athlon: Ranking the ACC’s 2017 Football Uniforms

Ok I think we need to list our favorite, not counting our own here, from this list. I'll go with Clemson, and the less purple the better...keep it simple stupid.

I tend to like the more conservative unis despite which company makes them. All can and do have conservative examples I like; all can and do have more flashy and busier offerings I like less.

 

[CuseJacket]

Sugiura: ACC coaches, players evaluate Tech’s apparel choices

Louisville cornerback Jaire Alexander acknowledged that what shoe company schools were aligned with was “a little bit” of a factor in his selecting Louisville, as Under Armour “isn’t really my thing.” Alexander has been wearing Adidas since high school, and Louisville is an Adidas school.

Should Tech go with Adidas, it might be a more important property to the company than it would be for Nike, as Adidas provides apparel for far fewer power-conference schools than Nike. The Yellow Jackets might receive more attention with special uniforms than they might with Nike, as N.C. State has.

“It helps you in recruiting,” Doeren said. “Kids care about gear. They do.”

 

[RyanS12]

I'm hoping for Adidas but with Stansburys past dealing with Nike, Pastner being a Nike guy and PJ being one as well you'd have to think that's going to be hard for Adidas to beat, unless they throw some major $$$$ at us.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Obviously we are going to a new supplier. But I hope when whatever goes down happens, some things might be remembered for some perspective.

Back when we got our R deal, there were quite a few saying we had an advantage being the biggest fish in the R pond. And it will be interesting to see, with all adjustments included, how we eventually make out $ wise.

Also, many have said they are not that keen on some S/A picking GT based on our uni supplier. Almost intimating our recruits would be above that.

In the end, I think it will work out regardless of any misplaced emphasis.

 

[Ibeeballin]

Obviously we are going to a new supplier. But I hope when whatever goes down happens, some things might be remembered for some perspective.

Back when we got our R deal, there were quite a few saying we had an advantage being the biggest fish in the R pond. And it will be interesting to see, with all adjustments included, how we eventually make out $ wise.

Also, many have said they are not that keen on some S/A picking GT based on our uni supplier. Almost intimating our recruits would be above that.

In the end, I think it will work out regardless of any misplaced emphasis.

Who said that? Lol. We've been in a coy fish pond while everyone else has been relaxing in the ocean

 

[DH9387]

Obviously we are going to a new supplier. But I hope when whatever goes down happens, some things might be remembered for some perspective.

Back when we got our R deal, there were quite a few saying we had an advantage being the biggest fish in the R pond. And it will be interesting to see, with all adjustments included, how we eventually make out $ wise.

Also, many have said they are not that keen on some S/A picking GT based on our uni supplier. Almost intimating our recruits would be above that.

In the end, I think it will work out regardless of any misplaced emphasis.

In terms of perspective on the last Russell deal when it was signed 10 years ago, it actually made us one of the highest, and I actually believe the highest for a short time, paid schools in the ACC for apparel. The scary thing is that according to this AJC article, without one of the apparel companies really gunning for us, we might not be in line for any more money than we were already getting from Russell:

With a smaller fan base and football and basketball teams that aren’t consistently playing in national-spotlight games, Tech won’t command the deal that powerhouses like Clemson ($2.9 million annually) or Georgia ($4.1 million) have, both with Nike.

Jensen and his colleagues at the Center for Research in Intercollegiate Athletics at UNC developed a predictive model for the value of apparel contracts that incorporated the number of athletes in an athletic department, its average football attendance and total number of NCAA Tournament appearances by the men’s basketball team. By that formula, Tech’s value for the 2016-17 year was $2.1 million, ranking 47th nationally. That’s in line with Tech’s contract with Russell. The contract for this past academic year paid Tech $2.3 million ($1.35 million in cash, $950,000 in gear).

Interestingly, of the top 10 schools that Jensen’s model deemed the most overpaid, eight were contracted with either Adidas or Under Armour. Meanwhile, the 20 most underpaid schools were all aligned with Nike.

http://www.myajc.com/sports/college/what-companies-pay-for-apparel-contract/24fts3hQPYUbcEX8v09waN/

I used to be gung-ho for Nike, but I do not believe they will offer much, if any, more than what Russell is already paying us. They tend to rely on the fact that they are the BMOC to get schools to sign up for them for far less money than they could potentially get. Here's hoping that the smoke behind the rumors that Adidas is making us a priority is true and that it will lead to us getting a much better than market value deal.

 

[ilovetheoption]

I know you guys love the 2 tone color scheme/always wear white/traditional thing, but from a newish fans perspective....it doesn't pop. Maybe it's me being colorblind or not growing up on it, but white and gold are too similar to not have a 3rd color. Texas can pull it off. Penn State can pull it off. GT...doesn't (in the same way that LSU doesn't. LSU has boring, lame uniforms). Especially given the fact that you wear the same duds home and away (which, i get it, it's your thing, it's just not something that somebody with an outside perspective, who wants to be wearing the slickest uniforms is going to necessarily dig).

I understand that you're always going to wear white, home and away, and I understand that you guys are going to have white and gold as your colors, but to attract people who don't have 40 years invested in GT (like, recruits, for example) you might need to accept that there is going to be some pop/razzledazzle/SOMETHING that isn't bland and (to some) lame.

 

[tech_wreck47]

Honestly I'm fine with any of the companies. Nike does worry me though, if they don't make us much of a priority (which I doubt they would). There is the factor that someone high up at Nike is a GT grad if I'm not mistaken, so that could actually help make us a priority? Addidas is better known for their cleats than UA and as far as uniforms go they would give us some pretty classic looks I believe. AU on the other hand is growing in popularity, so any of the companies I will be ok with as long as they prioritize us and work on our "brand".

 

[CTJacket]

I know you guys love the 2 tone color scheme/always wear white/traditional thing, but from a newish fans perspective....it doesn't pop. Maybe it's me being colorblind or not growing up on it, but white and gold are too similar to not have a 3rd color. Texas can pull it off. Penn State can pull it off. GT...doesn't (in the same way that LSU doesn't. LSU has boring, lame uniforms). Especially given the fact that you wear the same duds home and away (which, i get it, it's your thing, it's just not something that somebody with an outside perspective, who wants to be wearing the slickest uniforms is going to necessarily dig).

I understand that you're always going to wear white, home and away, and I understand that you guys are going to have white and gold as your colors, but to attract people who don't have 40 years invested in GT (like, recruits, for example) you might need to accept that there is going to be some pop/razzledazzle/SOMETHING that isn't bland and (to some) lame.

I think there's some real truth to this but I also believe it can be done without looking like Maryland (not saying that's what you're saying, I'm just talking out loud here). I'm definitely not creative enough to think of these things but I'm sure all three of those outfits have people who can.

Yes, I love the Gold/White/Gold that is our base uniform but truthfully I don't care what we wear as long as the team wins. If changing it up brings in the recruits we need (without sacrificing the quality SAs we have) then fine.

 

[CuseJacket]

As an avid sports fan growing up, I had no idea GT wore only white until I went to GT. Even then it took me a couple years to recognize it.

Fwiw, I also didn't recognize that LSU did the same.

Having played basketball, I always recognized brand which was way more important to me, for whatever reason. I guess Nike marketers did their job.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I know you guys love the 2 tone color scheme/always wear white/traditional thing, but from a newish fans perspective....it doesn't pop. Maybe it's me being colorblind or not growing up on it, but white and gold are too similar to not have a 3rd color. Texas can pull it off. Penn State can pull it off. GT...doesn't (in the same way that LSU doesn't. LSU has boring, lame uniforms). Especially given the fact that you wear the same duds home and away (which, i get it, it's your thing, it's just not something that somebody with an outside perspective, who wants to be wearing the slickest uniforms is going to necessarily dig).

I understand that you're always going to wear white, home and away, and I understand that you guys are going to have white and gold as your colors, but to attract people who don't have 40 years invested in GT (like, recruits, for example) you might need to accept that there is going to be some pop/razzledazzle/SOMETHING that isn't bland and (to some) lame.

Perm blocked/ignored!

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

In terms of perspective on the last Russell deal when it was signed 10 years ago, it actually made us one of the highest, and I actually believe the highest for a short time, paid schools in the ACC for apparel. The scary thing is that according to this AJC article, without one of the apparel companies really gunning for us, we might not be in line for any more money than we were already getting from Russell:

http://www.myajc.com/sports/college/what-companies-pay-for-apparel-contract/24fts3hQPYUbcEX8v09waN/

I used to be gung-ho for Nike, but I do not believe they will offer much, if any, more than what Russell is already paying us. They tend to rely on the fact that they are the BMOC to get schools to sign up for them for far less money than they could potentially get. Here's hoping that the smoke behind the rumors that Adidas is making us a priority is true and that it will lead to us getting a much better than market value deal.

Good thoughts.

Now I am reading Adidas is going heavy PC on teams with nicknames associated with "Indians", and variations thereof.

So A may end up hurting their own brand or perhaps making themselves more desired by some folks, perhaps youngsters. IDK

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Seriously? More social justice pc bs from an apparel/ equipment provider? If this bs continues i may end up pining for "the good old Russell days."

Are Nike and UA in this SjW mode also?

 

[Ibeeballin]

Seriously? More social justice pc bs from an apparel/ equipment provider? If this bs continues i may end up pining for "the good old Russell days."

Are Nike and UA in this SjW mode also?

https://www.nike.com/us/en_us/e/go/equality

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Seriously? More social justice pc bs from an apparel/ equipment provider? If this bs continues i may end up pining for "the good old Russell days."

Are Nike and UA in this SjW mode also?

You're going to find it a hard time to avoid that PC BS for the rest of your life.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

You're going to find it a hard time to avoid that PC BS for the rest of your life.

Maybe. I know an awful lot of people fed up with it though. Time will tell.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

https://www.nike.com/us/en_us/e/go/equality

This Nike message doesn't bother me. Unless and until it advocates for boys, "identifying as girls", to compete in girls events. This is shamefully already happening and something that is neither equal nor fair.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

 

[Sideways]

Athlon: Ranking the ACC’s 2017 Football Uniforms

Well, personally I prefer less clutter and a more classic look. I liked the old Virginia Tech purple with the Chicago maroon trim but then they had to tinker with it. Psst! You want to start some trouble on Tiger Rag or some other Clemson website? Just mention the purple uniforms and watch out. You will get some excitement in a hurry like kicking over a fire ant nest.

 

[Sideways]

I know you guys love the 2 tone color scheme/always wear white/traditional thing, but from a newish fans perspective....it doesn't pop. Maybe it's me being colorblind or not growing up on it, but white and gold are too similar to not have a 3rd color. Texas can pull it off. Penn State can pull it off. GT...doesn't (in the same way that LSU doesn't. LSU has boring, lame uniforms). Especially given the fact that you wear the same duds home and away (which, i get it, it's your thing, it's just not something that somebody with an outside perspective, who wants to be wearing the slickest uniforms is going to necessarily dig).

I understand that you're always going to wear white, home and away, and I understand that you guys are going to have white and gold as your colors, but to attract people who don't have 40 years invested in GT (like, recruits, for example) you might need to accept that there is going to be some pop/razzledazzle/SOMETHING that isn't bland and (to some) lame.

An interesting perspective. Have you seen the uniforms from 2006? They had a little more "pop/razzle dazzle" as it were. How about the blue tops uniforms from 1990? I prefer the ones with the white pants but others prefer the gold. I know you have good intentions but uniform razzle dazzle is not going to go over well with the west stand alumni crowd. Just the way it is.