Sorry, I Nodded Off, Were You Saying Something Else?

Screen shot 2011-09-05 at 9.38.47 PM.png

Last night a very foolish school and a very foolish company showed just how desperate for attention they are. I’m not particularly interested in giving them that attention. Like I’ve always said, just because some idiot in a trenchcoat flashes you, that doesn’t mean you have to react. Just keep walking.

But here’s the thing: While you were all ooohing and ahhing about the costumes in question, I was receiving a package of information from the very foolish company. It arrived in my in-box precisely at 8pm — game time. And that tells you all you need to know about this desperate plea for attention. It isn’t a uniform, or even a costume; it’s just a business plan. (And a completely derivative business plan at that, since it’s pretty obvious that the very foolish school and the very foolish company sat down and said, “You know that other school, and that other company? Let’s copy every single move out of their playbook.”)

So instead of talking about the costume design, I’m going to talk about the press release — the one that showed up in my in-box. Let’s take a look at it, one bullet point at a time:

This is more than just a uniform”¦ It’s ARMOUR built with years of Maryland PRIDE and football heritage woven into its design and innovation to make the TERPS faster, lighter and ready for battle.

Hmmm. Exactly how many “years of Maryland PRIDE and football heritage” are involved, and exactly how are they incorporated into the design? And how is this particular design any more “armour”-y than any other design made by this very foolish company? Does it make the team any “faster, lighter and ready for battle” than the other costumes that the very foolish school unveiled two weeks ago?


Inspired by characteristics specific to the Maryland state flag and the University of Maryland”¦ the jersey numbers, cleats, and gloves all feature a custom Maryland flag print.

“Custom” is one of those signifiers that sound cool but don’t really mean anything. What exactly is “custom” about the Maryland flag print? Like, as opposed to all those generic Maryland flag prints?


From head-to-toe, the right and left sides of the uniform coordinate with the two patterns found on the state’s flag including a custom helmet.

Again with the “custom.” Actually, every team’s football helmet is a “custom” design (well, except for all those high schools that rip off NCAA and NFL logos, but you know what I mean). Pointless.


The PRIDE uniform pays homage to the special Terrapin football heritage and to those who have taken the field as a TERP since the beginning of the football program.

Interesting if demonstrated and articulated; meaningless when asserted. Meanwhile, why are you shouting at us with the all-caps?


The new UA COMPFIT PRIDE JERSEY”¦ tight where it needs to be with no drag, no grab and more flexibility. This jersey was built for speed!

As opposed to all those other jerseys that are built for sluggishness, right? Again, how does this jersey differ, if at all, from the one that the very foolish school unveiled two weeks ago?


UA GRABTACK PRIDE GLOVES are scientifically proven to have twice the grip!

Twice the grip of what? Of the very foolish company’s other gloves? Of some other company’s gloves? Of a pair of gardening gloves? And where is this scientific proof? Sounds like late-night TV hucksterism.

Next (and, mercifully, last):

The Terps’ custom PRIDE cleats all come down to one thing”¦ Speed! Each version was built with UA’s Micro G ® cushioning to give players more bounce so they are quick off the line for every play.

Yet again with the “custom.” (Memo to the very foolish company’s marketing staff: Try bookmarking this.) And what do they mean by “each version” of the cleats? Like, are there more “custom” designs still to come?

One other thing about this press release: It includes two player images, both of which show a player wearing a tinted visor. Because God forbid they should actually let you see the player’s face and have you think he’s a living, breathing human. No, he’s just a cyborg, a robot who’s “ready for battle,” a faceless instrument of destruction. Until he, you know, cracks a rib or something (at which point he can just be replaced by another cyborg).

So now we have two companies in a race to the bottom. Lovely — I can practically feel my brain cells dying off while writing about this crap. And frankly, I almost didn’t bother. Prepackaged pleas for attention, whether they involve a guy in a trenchcoat or corporate shenanigans, aren’t just lame; they’re tedious, sad, boring. From my perspective, something like the A’s bug-repellant patches, which I wrote about last Thursday, is far, far more interesting — and much more in keeping with what Uni Watch is all about — than a corporate stunt like the one that unfolded last night. If they had both taken place on the same evening, I know for sure which one would have had lead billing today.

+ + + + +


Collector’s Corner

By Brinke Guthrie

If there’s one retro NFL thing I wish teams would bring back, it would have to be the helmet buggy. I never knew quite why they were on the field in the first place — it’s not like you could cart a player off the field in one, right? — but I still liked them. The real ones may be long gone, but you can get a set of six mini-buggies on eBay right now.

As for the rest of this week’s picks, it’s all NFL this time around, ’cause we’re all ready for some football.

• Here’s a 1970s Vikings snap-on bike reflector. How enlightening!

• Net up: a 1970s Bengals bobblehead in really nice condition. I have the exact same guy, but mine’s a bit worse for the wear.

• Before Nike got their clutches into Jerry Jones, the Cowboys were an Apex team, and here’s an affordable game-worn jersey from that era in Dallas history.

• Why am I including this rather innocuous late-’90s NFL Pro Line Eagles T-shirt? I had a few of the Cowboys version of these, and I promise you Champion made the best NFL tees I’ve ever worn. Go for this if you’re an Iggles fan.

• Here’s an NFL promo booklet put out by Ford in 1977, with the Rams and Raiders on the cover.

• Never seen one of these — a Broncos copper wall plaque.

• Just in time for back to school: an absolutely terrific set of NFL book covers from 1965!

• Finally, this Bears T-shirt is featured for two reasons: Never seen a helmet depicted at that angle before, and check how they portrayed the season schedule on the back.

Seen something on eBay that you think would make good Collector’s Corner fodder? Send your submissions here.

+ + + + +

All that other stuff I do: There’s new material on my blog about report cards (two new posts since Friday), and also on my blog about the world’s worst baseball broadcaster (also two new posts since Friday). And in case you missed the link from yesterday, I put up a fun Labor Day message over at the blog about meat (which will probably have another new post going up later today).

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: Phil already covered a bunch of uni-notable items from Saturday’s college football action in Sunday’s post. If you missed that rundown, look here. A few additional college football items will be scattered within this Ticker, and I’ll have an FBS update in this week’s ESPN column, which will run tomorrow. ”¦ New jersey for Marquette hoops (from Joey Serge). ”¦ Reprinted from Friday’s comments: Here’s how the WinniJets’ logo looks at center ice. ”¦ Will new ownership for the Dallas Stars mean a new set of team colors? Announcer Darryl “Razor” Reaugh thinks so. ”¦ New hoops uni for Baylor (from Josh Lassiter). ”¦ Just what the world needs: Amateur Pacifism at the high school level. ”¦ The Angels wore these throwbacks, I believe for the first time, last Friday. ”¦ Has James Blake been covering up his sneaker logos with black tape? Sure looks like it (good spot by Corey Gary). ”¦ Excellent article about the tradition of wearing uniform No. 1 at Michigan (big thanks to Matt Rothman). ”¦ Good to see a high school football team going with striped socks. That’s Bishop Fenwick High in Ohio (from Jason Umberg). ”¦ Ditto for St. Ignatius Prep in San Francisco (from Mark Lum). ”¦ Here’s something you don’t often see: a promotional sponge (from Paul Stave). ”¦ Good work by researcher par excellence Trevor Williams, who found a 1975 newspaper item indicating that the Buccaneers’ color scheme was originally supposed to include green. “When the official logo and colors came out, the Bucs’ PR guy bashed the Seahawks’ green and blue, saying those colors ‘sound like a bruise rather than a uniform,'” says Trevor. “But he also said orange, red and white weren’t ‘too exciting’ until he saw them on paper.” ”¦ Georgia Tech is looking into changing the uni number design on its home jerseys, because the current numbers are difficult to read. ”¦ New football uniforms for Colgate (from Ryan Dowgin). ”¦ A USF player had a badly torn jersey on Saturday (screen shot by Mike Mattison). … Is this LSU’s Amateur Pacifist uniform for the Oct. 2 game against Auburn? Could be. Those photos were taken at a Nike store in Las Vegas. ”¦ Another day, another “best uniforms ever” feature. These things are just designed to get people talking, so talk away. ”¦ A New Zealand designer is claiming that Nike’s design for England’s rugby team ripped off his design (from Caleb Borchers). ”¦ You know the whole concept of throwbacks has gotten out of hand when someone decides to market throwback soap (thanks, Brinke). ”¦ Aaron Wiens got some good video of Cal’s Marvin Jones removing his Velcro No. 49 “jersey,” which he wears on punts. “His real number is 1 but there are two 1s on the punt return team, so he wears the Velcro jersey for punt returns,” explains Aaron. ”¦ Neil Ponzer found some photos from the 1994 Alamo Bowl. “The pants Washington State donned for that game were a bizarre (for the time) swirl of their standard crimson and silver pants,” he says. “They never saw the light of day again.” ”¦ The Browns announced earlier this summer that they’d be wearing white at home this season. But as Joe Baka points out, the Bengals’ jersey schedule shows Cincy wearing white in Cleveland for Week 1. So I double-checked with the Browns, where media relations VP Neal Gulkis confirmed, “We are wearing white jerseys (and white pants) for all eight regular season home games this season.” So the breakdown on the Bengals’ web site is wrong. That makes sense, because the Bengals page also shows them wearing their orange alts on Dec. 24, which would go against the league’s new rule restricting alternates and throwbacks to the first 10 games of the season. In short: Bengals still can’t do anything right. ”¦ Tina Charles of the Connecticut Sun lost the “C” from her NOB on Sunday. “She later left the game and got a new jersey with her full name restored,” says Stewart Small. Screen shot on the left by Ben Harris”¦ And wait, Jory Fleischauer got a video clip of the wayward “C” bouncing in place. ”¦ The Brewers dressed like cowboys for a recent road trip. “In my opinion, it’s asking for a fastball to the head,” says John Okray. ”¦ Howard Berger, a longtime NHL reporter, is posting all sorts of cool-looking programs, media guides, etc. on his blog. Some CFL stuff, too (big thanks to Jeff Anderson). ”¦ No photo, but Brian Waltz says Ohio State is now wearing “All In” on their neck bumpers. If anyone DVR’d the OSU/Akron game, maybe you could get us a screen shot..? ”¦ Ever seen a Super Bowl grounds crew jersey for sale? Me neither, until now (good find by Bruce Menard). ”¦ The revolution in Libya has led to a new kit for the country’s soccer team. Key quote: “The Libyan players wore a new white jersey with the three colors of the pre-Gadhafi flag used by the rebels. Most of Libya’s players were from Benghazi, which fell to the rebels early in the uprising that began in February” (from Morris Levin). ”¦ The current A’s program has a little feature on Josh Outman’s uniform stylings — and he even mentions Uni Watch (major props to Sam Lam). ”¦ The Islanders may not have a good team, a decent arena, or a third jersey that isn’t ugly as sin, but they do have an official tattoo shop. “You’d think the NBA would’ve thought of this first,” says Ben Fortney. ”¦ The Yankees will be on the road on Sept. 11, so they’re planning a 9/11 ceremony on Wednesday, which means they’ll probably be wearing those annoying flag caps that day. ”¦ Looks like the Coyotes are planning a 15th-anniversary logo for center-ice. “No clue as to whether it will be a patch on the jerseys,” says Kyle Stephenson. ”¦ New football uni and helmet for the Citadel. Note that the jersey has no TV numbers — I’ll have more to say about that trend, along with some interesting commentary from someone whose job is affected by it, in an upcoming ESPN column. ”¦ Logo creep, zebra-style: See that little “H” below the rear collar? “It also appears on the rear belt loop on the black pants,” says Aaron Wiens. “It’s the logo of Honigs, which supplies football referee supplies and uniforms.” ”¦ Word from Teebz is that the WinniJets will be showing off their new uniforms tomorrow at a private function. Photos will undoubtedly leak. ”¦ And never is heard a discouraging word.

529 comments to Sorry, I Nodded Off, Were You Saying Something Else?

  • Ryan | September 6, 2011 at 7:34 am |

    Hey Paul,

    The pic of the Colgate jersey you ticker linked is actually the example of the old set. I know it may seem like a step back, but the new one is the rather bland all marroon with strange gray side-panel under the armpit. Here’s a gallery of more pics


    • Tron | September 6, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

      It’s a shame there is so much backlash against the jerseys, when a majority of Maryland fans, and people with ties to the state, absolutely love them.

      For Lukas to hate on UA and the school so much means he is really missing the point: that UA did this as much for exciting MD’s fan base as for marketing. And what’s wrong with marketing anyway? Does Lukas not get pimped now by ESPN? UA did a fantastic job. God forbid somebody actually try and do something different every once and awhile.

      • Tron | September 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

        Oops, wrong reply box.

  • James | September 6, 2011 at 7:36 am |

    My wife is a Maryland alum, so I tend to tune into the Terps games when I have a chance.

    I liked the uniforms, in general. I’ll take those over the plain Penn State uniforms any day of the week.

    The one change I would have suggested would be flipping either the patterns on the helmet or the shoulders so that the view from either side of the player would give you a feeling for the whole Maryland flag as opposed to just half.

    • Glenn | September 6, 2011 at 8:19 am |

      That was my thought as well….flip the patterns on the shoulder pads so they alternate vs the helmet pattern, and lose the pattern on the compression sleeves…..also simplify the pant stripes, and the concept could have been pulled off alot better….

      • Mike | September 6, 2011 at 9:16 am |

        Yes! If they had done this it would have been more visually interesting and also correctly mimic the flag. I actually did not hate them as much as Oregon’s designs.

      • Alec | September 6, 2011 at 10:47 am |

        Agreed that the pants are a bit of a mess and agreed that the shoulders should have been reversed but otherwise I liked the overall look.

        The “regular” uni? With the exception of the tturtle print helmet, meh.

      • Mike | September 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

        Agreed Alec. If UMd made these changes, and kept these unis, they could build a strong identity. People would look at it and know it’s UMd. Their prior unis were kind of a mish-mash and nothing really stood out.

  • Rob H. | September 6, 2011 at 7:36 am |

    Re – the Bengals orange alts in December: would go against the league’s new rule restricting alternates and throwbacks to the first 10 games of the season.

    Are you sure that new NFL rule was adopted (or is it just in the “put out a memo and discuss it” phase?) Because as far as I know, the Bucs are still planning on doing the creamsicle throwback thing on Dec. 4 when they induct Jimmie Giles into the ring of honor.

    But for me the big news is what will the NFL captain patches look like for the 5th year captains, since there was only room for four stars. How many (and who were the) 4-year captains last year? And how many of those are with the same team.

    • Rob H. | September 6, 2011 at 7:40 am |

      Maybe if they can’t wear them in December, instead they’ll come out in orange this Sunday in honor of Lee Roy Selmon.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:05 am |

      Good point re: the Bucs. Will try to confirm.

      The league has declined to provide me with the new captaincy patch design. So we’ll all see what it looks like on Thursday.

  • Bluehen | September 6, 2011 at 7:38 am |

    I’ve seen enough of this uniform nonsense all weekend. Matyland’s attempt to field a team of crash test dummies last night was the breaking point.

    I encourage all alumini and fans to contact their school’s athletic director and president to inform them that any future donations will be dependent of stopping the uniform madness.

    • Nick O | September 6, 2011 at 1:13 pm |

      I actually see it the complete opposite way. I’m a maryland student, and my friend said it best: If you’re not from maryland, you don’t f****** get it. Maryland has huge state pride, which our Athletic Department is selling off of, now. EVERYONE in that stadium (minus the Miami fans, of course) were geeking out over the jerseys. I vote yes to continue these uniforms, to the point I want to buy one.

      • Will S | September 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

        Know who has a really ugly helmet? The Bengals. Know whose helmet fits the team absolutely perfectly? The Bengals. This is the exact same thing for the state of Maryland.

      • Will S | September 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

        Also, that’s been around for, what, 20 or 30 years?

      • Sack Lodge | September 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm |

        Crabcakes and Football!! That’s what Maryland does!!! (and goofy uniforms too, apparently…)

      • JA | September 6, 2011 at 5:49 pm |

        I want to buy one of those unis too.

      • -DW | September 6, 2011 at 11:07 pm |

        “Maryland has huge state pride…”

        And other states, such as Utah, South Dakota and New Hampshire somehow doesn’t?

        And dressing up like “crash test dummies”….I like that analogy.

        That ugly Maryland flag does not belong on UM’s or the Raven’s uniforms in any fashion.

  • Chuck Beech | September 6, 2011 at 7:42 am |

    Maryland unis- think two-face from batman

  • Desmond Jones | September 6, 2011 at 7:44 am |

    I know this isn’t really uniform related but it really caught my eye, so, screw it. Who is the guy on slide 15(The Washington Bullets slide) of the Best NBA Uniforms slideshow? Does anyone know?

  • Mike G. | September 6, 2011 at 7:51 am |

    I watched the Ohio State Game, and the nose bumpers had the new BIG (ten/12) logo on them. I did not see any with “All In”

  • Randy Rollyson | September 6, 2011 at 7:53 am |

    Seems like an opportune time for a uniform outfitter to come up with a uniform that incorporates all the new technology in a uniform that actually looks good.

  • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 7:57 am |

    Notice how small the numbers are on LSU’s anticipated Nike Pro Combat costumes are? They were also like that on Nike’s last LSU Pro Combat version two seasons ago. Some fans at the game complained that the numbers were harder to read. Do other Pro Combat unis have smaller numbers like this? Looks to me like a “throwback” feature…I’m sure a few readers will remember how some coaches used to order their teams’ jerseys with smaller numbers to make their players look bigger.

    • NickV | September 6, 2011 at 9:12 am |

      Why does Nike keep putting out these LSU outfits with sparing use of the feature color – Old Gold? The LSU program wore Old Gold for many years prior to adopting Athletic Gold (Yellow) in the mid-1950s. Why not Old Gold pants? that would make alot more sense than the White-over-White that they used last time Nike tinkered with the uni, and would certainly make going to all of this trouble of changing the uni worthwhile. Also, why a White helmet? It simply is not as good looking as the regular helmet, or the one-off Old Gold helmet worn against Arkansas two years ago ….

      • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 9:18 am |

        Nick, I was thinking the exact same thing…why not old gold pants. I could even live with the white helmets…but you gotta see more gold for it to be LSU.

      • Kerry P | September 6, 2011 at 10:19 am |

        I wouldn’t mind gold pants…but I LOVE the white helmets when LSU wears them. This one is a little different when looking at it closely:
        [1] The Tiger head uses old gold instead of athletic gold
        [2] There are sublimated tiger stripes on the helmet in a light gray when you look closely.

        For one game though, I can live with the white pants.

  • MRB | September 6, 2011 at 8:01 am |

    Those Maryland uniforms are blech (and the tiger print or whatever on the leg are inexcusable) but I give them credit for trying new things – it’s the only way uniform design moves forward. We can’t keep with traditional designs forever without fetishizing them, so we might as well look for “modern” looks.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:08 am |

      This is a really silly argument. All sorts of design — automotive, architectural, industrial, commercial — has “moved forward” without resorting to total bullshit along the way.

      No company has done more to advance the cause of good design in the past generation than Apple. They “tried new things” all the time. But they tried GOOD new things — things that married form and function, things that were well thought out, etc. Not things that were simply cynical marketing ploys.

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:51 am |

          Cute, but you’re missing the point. Sure, there have been creative missteps in every design field. But in college football uniform design, “outrageous” design — basically design that challenges estbalished orthodoxies but puts forward no orthodoxy of its own, other than outrageousness and maybe consumerism — is fast becoming the rule, not the exception. That’s pathetic.

        • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 8:57 am |

          That wasn’t a cynical marketing ploy so much as simply a terrible design. This was the marketing team dictating the design instead of telling the designers what they wanted and letting the designers come up with something that looks good. The uniform really could have been something that was eye-catching, memorable, and attractive, but they chose to just throw in another corporate visibility stunt.

        • Andy | September 6, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

          I think the point Paul’s trying to make is that wild-ass uniforms should be few and far between, but they are starting to outnumber the respectable uniforms. You know what they say; if everyone tries to stand out, then nobody really stands out.

          I did really like Maryland’s helmet, though. Pair that with a simple jersey and pant and you’ve got a winner with a real dash of personality. It’s different, but not so different that you can’t get used to it, so long as the rest of the uniform doesn’t look like a jester suit. I’m sure people freaked when they first saw ram horns and tiger stripe helmets, too, but they grew to become classics, as I think this helmet could.

        • corndog | September 6, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

          I’ll be honest, I thought last nights unis were pretty awful, but i’d rather see Maryland adopt them as their full time uniforms as opposed to that crap they revealed a week or 2 ago. At least the “flag” unis are somewhat unique. Those other 32 combinations looked like every single other recycled piece of crap uniform that we have seen in college football over the past 5 years.

  • Kyle@IU | September 6, 2011 at 8:02 am |

    How about if Maryland had alternated the checkerboard and the cross (a la the Flag of Maryland) …would it still be so awful to you? I thought the concept was *thisclose* to being a very cool interpretation of the state flag. Switch the sides of the helmet and make the players wear plain white compression sleeves and we’ve got something.

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:00 am |

      My problem was with the split sides in general. That would certainly have been more clever, but I think a better way to do it would have been to put one design on the helmet and the other on the jersey. It probably would have looked something like the Dallas Knights in Any Given Sunday, but it would have been a good looking design that still would have gotten the point across.

    • Smitty | September 6, 2011 at 9:03 am |

      I really like the new uniforms (minus whatever was on the back of the pants; I was at the game and haven’t seen that up close yet, but it didn’t look good), but would be curious to see how the alternated colors would look — could be better still.

      • Smitty | September 6, 2011 at 9:47 am |

        Thanks, Tim! I was hoping someone out there might take this on, and this is exactly what I (and I think Kyle?) had in mind. I like this look even better than the version unveiled last night; it really seems to better reflect the state flag. Thanks again!

      • Kyle@IU | September 6, 2011 at 11:50 am |

        Thanks much, fellow Hoosier! This is exactly what I was thinking…just didn’t have the time or photoshop skills to execute it this morning. From the sides this would look much better because I thought there was an overload of either checkers or red-and-white-cross depending on the view.

      • Marcus from Baltimore | September 6, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

        THANK YOU!!! If it was gonna be done, at least let it be done according to the pattern in the flag!

      • Mike | September 6, 2011 at 3:36 pm |

        While not traditional, I actual like that. #SMH

      • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 11:11 pm |

        That’s a definite improvement.

  • AE | September 6, 2011 at 8:03 am |

    I don’t read the blog enough to see bad mouthing on the million of Oregon Uni’s. But as some folks have said, these are geared towards 18 year old kids and not even young adults in their 30’s. Under Armour and Maryland were both trending worldwide on twitter I heard on the news this morning. So, mission accomplished I imagine.

    I doubt we’ll see the same combo again this year. How many do they have now? 32? If Lebron James hates them, you know they aren’t bad at all.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:10 am |

      I see. So “trending worldwide on twitter” is the new definition of successful design.

      • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 8:19 am |

        to 18 year olds? pretty much

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:39 am |

          Which raises the question of why any of us should watch a sport increasingly geared toward 18-yr-olds. I don’t watch any other TV programming geared toward them — why should I care about college football?

          (Actually, I don’t. But other people reading this might. And maybe they should think about this.)

        • Sean | September 6, 2011 at 12:26 pm |

          Paul I think this boils down to if it’s not plain, or very traditional, you don’t like it. Stripes seem to be the only thing you like that isn’t just plain solid color. Could you give us an example of what is creative to you? Not in words, a uni that is creative, that you like. A uni that is not plain that you like. I just get tired of reading the same shit on here any time a uni company thinks outside of the box whether it’s good or bad, you never like outside of the box. Yes, it’s all a marketing scheme to gain attention and turn profits. Isn’t this what a business is supposed to do? You’re like the old man who refuses to learn computers because you “haven’t needed em for fifty years, why should I start learning it now?” Well because the world will pass you by, that’s why. (Directed to the old man in the example, not you.)

        • AE | September 7, 2011 at 11:18 am |

          Well, if Maryland and Under Armour are using these Uni’s for a one time thing on the same night they are hosting possible hoops recruits and trying to get national attention. It worked. Right?

          They were a topic on Both PTI/Around the Horn, on CNN, and polls. The next day they got a 4-star hoops recruit to commit also.

          As far as trending worldwide, then for younger fans, possible recruits and that segment. They won also.

          Their goal was to gain attention to a football program that has zero national presence and to market Under Armour.

          It worked 100%.

        • AE | September 7, 2011 at 11:21 am |

          Oh, and let me add that I blogged about it with the title “Loving My Ugly Child” so I’m not in any dream world here. I think Wilbon said it best. They’re brilliantly ugly

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 8:13 am |

      Which begs the question…”What’s next?”

      Maryland beat Miami…but everyone is talking about their uniforms which, IMO, are the strangest football uniforms I have seen on a major college team in my life. I like both traditional uniforms and innovative ones too…but these uniforms were just bizarre. However, as pointed out, Under Armour got what it wanted out of this fiasco.

      • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:24 am |

        “They got what they wanted” is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you accept it, then it’s probably true. But if you *reject* it — if you look at the company with less respect, if it influences your consumer behavior (negatively), if it makes you reconsider certain things (like, say, watching college football) — then it is NOT true.

        The saddest thing about corporate bullshit (not just in the uniform realm) is the sense of powerlessness it creates in people. Just like in the case of our politics, we feel the fix is in, assholes are gonna do what assholes do, and all we can do is shrug and roll our eyes. This isn’t just sad — it’s really unhealthy for us as a nation, because it promotes a grudging cynicism and disaffection that leads us to accept whatever’s put in front of us.

        And that is exactly — EXACTLY — what it’s designed to do. If you feel you have no ability affect the world around you, you disengage (that can mean not voting, not being involved in any causes, etc.). And if you disengage, who does that help? Answer: The people who are already in power — corporate, political (same thing nowadays), or otherwise.

        So don’t accept it. Stay thoughtful, stay engaged, and let your actions match your thoughts.

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 8:34 am |

          Also consider this…part of what we may be witnessing is an invasion of pop culture into our hallowed sports world and its cherished traditions. While old dinosaurs like myself may feel threatened by this I, nevertheless, try to go with the flow (and if you have kids you’ll now what I mean). But that doesn’t mean I still can’t bitch about it…

          The bottom line is that corporate greed and pop culture usually win out.

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:38 am |

          Pop culture has been part of sports for a long time. What do you think walk-up music is?

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 8:46 am |

          I know…but what I mean is that pop culture has now taken a deeper intrusive step.

          Look at designer baseball caps…you can buy New Era Yankees caps in black, red, green, yellow, even brown. But do you see the Yankess wearing brown alternate uniforms? No.

          What we’re seeing here is that Under Armour took a design that may have been cool for a fan T-shirt and actually made a uniform out of it. That Maryland would go along with this is mind boggling. But that brings up another topic that I recently brought up with you in an e-mail: what kinds of deals are equipment and uniform manufacturers manufacturers giving to these schools to wear their products. Are they paying full price; are the costs being passed on to the general buying public?

        • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:08 am |

          Depending on the level of the deal, it’s usually full sponsorship where the outfitter gives the team everything for free and occasionally pays part of the coach’s salary. It allows the school to pay more for the coach without increasing overhead. At most schools the players are allowed to buy their own ancillary gear if they don’t want the contract manufacturer’s stuff. At Rice, half the team wore Cutter gloves and Reebok cleats even though we were a Nike school.

          As far as losing respect for UA, I’ve never heard anyone who wasn’t beholden to them say they were able to manufacture any high quality goods other than performance doubleknits. When I was looking at cleats last week their shoes were twice as heavy as anyone else’s and fit badly. I didn’t have any respect for UA as a manufacturer before and I’ve always seen their designs as revealing them to be a small dog with a loud bark.

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 9:24 am |

          But, basically, schools may be contractually obligated to wear these “one game” promotional costumes supplied by Nike and UA.

        • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:59 am |

          I don’t know if they’re contractually obligated, but they do feel pressured by the weight of the contract to accept the manufacturer’s outside terms, if that makes any sense.

        • Jason | September 6, 2011 at 11:23 am |

          So in his hilariously sanctimonious rant, Paul says:
          “Meanwhile, why are you shouting at us with the all-caps?”
          …before proceeding to shout, in all caps, at one of his readers while sputtering his cursewords of rage.

          That, my friends, gets an 8.5 on the scale of unintentional comedy.

        • patrick | September 6, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

          “So in his hilariously sanctimonious rant, Paul says:
          “Meanwhile, why are you shouting at us with the all-caps?”
          …before proceeding to shout, in all caps, at one of his readers while sputtering his cursewords of rage.

          That, my friends, gets an 8.5 on the scale of unintentional comedy.”

          And you get a 3.5 on your lame Bill Simmons impression.

  • DenverGregg | September 6, 2011 at 8:06 am |

    Maryland’s uni was interesting (although a tweak to include both patterns on each side would be an improvement), but the way they introduced it was beyond atrocious. Can’t say the lame press kit sent to PL at precisely 8 ET was surprising in any way.

    Now that they have a PRIDE uniform, what’s next? SLOTH? GLUTTONY? AVARICE?

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:11 am |

      Avarice. Definitely avarice. Or maybe envy.

      • Mike | September 6, 2011 at 3:50 pm |

        If Maryland is going to wear envy, their uniform will be FSU’s. Go Noles! :)

  • Flip | September 6, 2011 at 8:11 am |

    Have to admit the uniforms started growing on me by the end of the game. Still, it’s supposed to be a football game, not a fashion show – good or bad. UA upstaged the game and while that may have accomplished a corporate goal, it’s not the reason you or I tuned to it. It sabotaged the event. I should be compensated.

  • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 8:14 am |

    bele & lokai approve

    • JA | September 6, 2011 at 11:30 am |

      People are missing the point. The uniform last night WAS ABOUT MARYLAND.

      I grew up in the state of Maryland and I went to UMD, and everyone I’ve talked to locally loved the uniform. It’s our state flag – yes it’s a highly quirky flag with a weird two-tone mish-mash design, but we are proud of that flag and its history. The story behind the creation of the flag is actually a really interesting one that involves a good-will gesture of peacemaking during Civil War reconstruction, and everyone here know that. Kids down at UMD hang the flag in their room and out their dorm windows, and students have been bringing the state flag with them to football and basketball games for years. It’s a point of state PRIDE, and frankly, we don’t care if it’s ugly.

      So while you’re all going on and on about how petty corporate strategy is compared to traditional (holy) uniform design (while simultaneously mocking our flag for having a “two-face” or “bele and lokai” design), we’re telling you we don’t give a shit about uniform design. For us, it was about state pride, and the “prettiness” of the uniform is petty in comparison.

      State pride > uniform aesthetics > corporate bs

      • Nick O | September 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm |

        As I said in an earlier comment: If you’re not from Maryland, you won’t f****** get it.

      • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

        im not sure you got the reference…so let me clue you in

        it’s not “two face” — it’s simply my way of characterizing the helmet, much like bele and lokai have a face which is sorta “split” in half, much like the helmets

        but instead, you go off on a rant on ME…not the author of today’s post

        i really don’t give a fuck if maryland feels personally attacked by the comments of the author of the post — if you want to adopt an “it’s us against the world” mentality, so be it

        and paul has been far worse to nike for their one-off’s and amateur pacifist costume shenanigans — and im sure, since it was nike, you were nodding your head in agreement

        not once, however, did he make a crack about the maryland flag or the state of maryland — but if you want to equate the UA shenanigans with an attack on the entire state of maryland, then go ahead and read into something that’s simply not there

        • JA | September 6, 2011 at 6:41 pm |

          I don’t care about Oregon and Nike at all. I think some of their uniforms are damn cool. I think some are not so great.

          And I did get the reference. It’s you that missed mine. I was talking about Two-Face from Batman:

        • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 7:03 pm |

          ” I was talking about Two-Face from Batman”


          fair enough — but you were responding under my bele and lokai (from trek) reference, so i assumed it was that to which you were referring…if you’re going to change reference points in a thread this deep, you need to give me an ID’er ;)



          “I don’t care about Oregon and Nike at all”


          that’s exactly the point here — at least paul’s and mine as well

          we DO care about uniforms, whether it’s maryland, oregon or penn state

          you take paul’s opinion of the corporate culture surrounding this uni unveil (and I’m not even sure he’s given an actual opinion of the uniform’s aesthetics) and take it as an affront to maryland, your maryland, and the state, not as an affront to UMua and plank…which is what it is

          if you believe you are speaking, as a united front for the company, the university, the state and the flag, then that is your right…i find it hard to believe that every UMd student, alum, professor or even terrapin football player loves these unis, but for anyone to criticize them is to, by extension, criticize the entire old line state

          it’s like a certain someone who likes to pop in here now an again likes to point out — if the fans like it then eff everyone else — and that’s fine, but that’s NOT what this site is about — it’s not a UA fan board, or a MD fan board or anything but a uniform examination board — and that includes every facet of the uniform, including not just the aesthetics but the corporate hegemony involved in the entire process of bringing uniforms from the design stage to the wearing of them on the field

          you may not care about oregon, and that’s fine — but others of us do — and we don’t need to be alums to discuss it

          there are plenty of other message boards out there on which you can sing the high praises of UA, plank and maryland, but don’t expect this to turn into one

        • JA | September 6, 2011 at 8:15 pm |

          What I meant by “I don’t care about Oregon” is that I don’t hate them or root against them or consider them to be a rival to MD in some weird apparel war, which is what you seemed to imply about me “nodding my head in agreement.” I happen to be of the opinion that what Nike has done to the unis at Oregon has added an interesting wrinkle to the college football landscape. I gather that it’s a wrinkly you and Paul don’t particularly like, but that’s fine.

          I think what baffles people, myself included, is the seemingly random obsession with the corporate structure behind uniform manufacture and sale. I have popped in on this blog a few times over the years and seen Paul’s stuff elsewhere on the internet, and usually it’s just a cool take on uniform design by someone who knows a lot about design.

          So the complete dismissal of entire uniforms not based on their design at all is pretty confusing. I think 98% of fans see uniforms and asses them solely based on what they look like, not on who made them or why or how. Isn’t the appearance the most important thing? (Am I wrong? I guess I might be.) If that’s not the case though, and a personal distaste for Nike or UA or both is actually more important than criticism and commentary on the DESIGN, APPEARANCE, and AESTHETICS of uniforms, then I guess this blog is just writing to an extremely small audience.

          I’ve seen a lot of comments on here basically to the effect of, “Yeah Paul, we get that you hate UA and Nike, but what about the uniforms? What do you think of them?” The refusal/inability to parse the issues and to write about how the uniforms look, which is what people want to read, comes off as quirky at best, elitist and snobbish at worst. That’s what has people frustrated I think. That’s what has me frustrated.

          Sorry about the confusing Two Face reference.

        • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 8:57 pm |

          yeah…well, that’s paul’s prerogative

          two weekends ago, i tried to assess the nike amateur pacifist unis based solely on the aesthetics, or, viewed in a vacuum…maybe paul will do that with MD, maybe not

          maybe this weekend i’ll give you my take…based SOLELY as a uniform and the tweaks i think would actually make it a pretty good uni (hint, hint)

          but from day one of this blog, and before that in other media, paul has always decried the corporate corruption of uniform design…so that’s what you’re going to get…should he have ALSO critiqued the uni? maybe, but that’s not my call

          i think enough people made that point today

        • JA | September 6, 2011 at 10:08 pm |

          I did see your “in a vacuum” article from a few days back. I appreciated that, thanks.

          I thought GA’s GIGANTOR helmet stripe was kinda interesting, but the “dipped in red paint” jersey itself was pretty weird.

          i like most of oregon’s stuff. the matte black is a cool look.

          boise’s i’m not crazy about. it looks like one of those “uniform of the future” designs from the MLB from years back, with no purpose or direction but to intentionally try to be weird. plus, too white overall.

        • JA | September 6, 2011 at 10:10 pm |

          Somewhat unrelated point: Shouldn’t it be “amateur pacifism,” not “amateur pacifist”? It’s “pro combat,” not “pro combatant.”

    • Mike 2 | September 6, 2011 at 11:45 am |

      That reference would work if the offence and defence were the mirror of each other. And they played a scrimmage against each other for all eternity.

      (I got my dork cred, too)

      • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 6:56 pm |

        True enough.

        Maybe Phil should’ve gone with the In-Betweener instead? Same dichromic effect, which actually carries over to his outfit, and he’s the embodiment of the balance between Order and Chaos.

  • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 8:24 am |

    How can that Broncos plaque be from the 60s if it’s got the NFL logo, when they didn’t actually join the NFL until 1970?

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:26 am |

      Good point. I’ll revise the text.

      • Dumb Guy | September 6, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

        I’ve seen art kits where you press/hammer copper (or tin, or whatever) to raise/emboss it. I wonder if that’s what that might be.


  • Tim E. O'B | September 6, 2011 at 8:28 am |

    I’m pretty sure the WinniJets are unveiling their unis today by lunchtime.

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 8:36 am |

      Jeez, I hope there are no flags involved…

    • Daren L | September 6, 2011 at 9:36 am |

      And what’s with the ‘WinniJets’? Does the Ticker have a character limit all of a sudden?

    • Teebz | September 6, 2011 at 9:56 am |

      11 ET. Again, it’s a closed event because they are doing the unveiling in a hangar at 17 Wing (the Air Force base in Winnipeg), approximately 10 minutes from my house. I was informed that since I’m not credentialed, I will not be invited.

      • Patrick_in_MI | September 6, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

        You should have pulled a Barry Bremen.

    • walter | September 6, 2011 at 10:31 am |

      For Pete’s sake, I can get behind “The Hockey Jets” or even “Lose-ipeg” but not “The WinniJets”.

    • chuck | September 6, 2011 at 11:20 am |

      Winnipeg Free Press will be steaming the jersey unveiling at 11 am CDT:

    • DenverGregg | September 6, 2011 at 12:37 pm |


  • Bobby Beem | September 6, 2011 at 8:38 am |

    I liked the Maryland uniforms a lot (though maybe not as much as their other home kits). I thought it was pretty exciting how they were unveiled as a surprise, as well.

    I think that you can be hateful towards UnderArmour’s marketing department without having it effect your feelings about their design staff or the University of Maryland football team. At least I can.

    The only thing I didn’t like is that it didn’t contrast very well against the Miami uniforms. I don’t know how color clashing rules work in the NCAA (or if they exist at all), but can you compel the other team to wear their green pants (or whatever)?

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:42 am |

      I don’t know how color clashing rules work in the NCAA (or if they exist at all), but can you compel the other team to wear their green pants (or whatever)?

      Brilliant! “Hi, your uniform is a bit inconvenient for our corporate strategy. It would really help our share price if you’d switch your pants. Cool?”

      Sounds reasonable to me.

      • Bobby Beem | September 6, 2011 at 9:15 am |

        Well, I was wondering about the general rules. It didn’t make a big difference in this case. But what if, for example, NC State want to wear their all red pajamas and Maryland show up with a white away shirt with red pants and a red helmet. You can see the issue there, right? I assumed there must be rules in place to handle that sort of thing, but maybe not.

        • Geeman | September 6, 2011 at 9:16 am |

          That’s only happened, oh, maybe thousands of times in the history of football.

        • Bobby Beem | September 6, 2011 at 9:57 am |

          I’ve never seen a case as bad as the one I described, and I don’t know why it would be less of an issue than say, wearing blue jerseys on a blue field.

          I always don’t get why everyone seems so mad. I’m fairly new to the site, and didn’t know it was that kind of place.

        • Geeman | September 6, 2011 at 10:24 am |

          No one’s mad, except at how colleges are putting their players in costumes.

          Sorry, but the tone of exchanges seems different on e-mail and web sites than if you were having a face-to-face conversation, or even talking on the phone. That’s part of the problem with reliance on e-mails, texts, and web site posts and such.

          I was just putting out, from years of watching college football, that this happens all the time. Sorry if it seemed offensive.

        • Douglas | September 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

          Just the jerseys are under rules. I don’t see how that particular example would cause a problem. White helmets and red jerseys/pants playing a white jersey, red helmet and red pants, easy don’t throw to the guys wearing white jerseys and your guys are wearing white helmets if you for some reason can’t see the jersey.

          The home team can wear whatever dark jersey they want, however the visiting team gets first dibs on the white jerseys, meaning if the home team wants to wear white they have to get permission. In the NFL the home team chooses what they wear no permission needed. In both situations they can play color vs. color provided the 2 jerseys contrast enough. The NFL requires approval from the league, while the NCAA requires approval by both teams and the officials.

      • Smitty | September 6, 2011 at 10:12 am |

        For real. Bobby asked a legitimate question (one that I didn’t know the answer to, either) and it definitely didn’t deserve such snarky and sarcastic responses. A simple explanation of the rule (if one exists) probably wasn’t too much to ask.

  • Geeman | September 6, 2011 at 8:40 am |


    Three words to ease your pain this week: Penn State-Alabama.

    Thank God.

    • Kerry P | September 6, 2011 at 10:21 am |


    • mtjaws | September 6, 2011 at 7:31 pm |

      PSU and Bama are two uniforms I definitely dislike. One is too plain, and the other has dumb helmet numbers.

  • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:43 am |

    Ah, here is OSU’s “All In” decal. I misunderstood — it’s not on the neck bumper. It’s under the American flag:

    • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 8:46 am |

      lord knows the buckeyes need more stickers on those helmets…i guess after their 42-0 thrashing of the sister of the poor, they’ll all have about 20 pride stickers now

    • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 9:29 am |


      There’s a good name for a football player right there.

  • Nick | September 6, 2011 at 8:47 am |

    Sounds like “old man yells at cloud” to me.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:49 am |

      Yeah. But it’s a really, really annoying cloud!

      • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 8:53 am |

        it was this cloud, wasn’t it?

        • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 9:30 am |

          Is that a cloud, or a disturbed contrail?

        • Tim E. O'B | September 6, 2011 at 9:31 am |

          It’s a nike logo…

  • WFY | September 6, 2011 at 8:47 am |

    Honigs is owned and operated by Dick Honig, a former Big Ten ref who was also a Michigan alum, former coach on the baseball team and a major donor to his alma mater. Conflict of interest anyone?

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:15 am |

      The Big Ten isn’t a government agency. Unless they take bids for their referee uniforms there’s no such thing as a conflict of interest.

    • Mark K | September 6, 2011 at 9:22 am |

      FYI- Black Sharpie works great on that annoying H.

      • Zach Smith | September 6, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

        Or a seam ripper

    • Matt13 | September 6, 2011 at 6:49 pm |

      Not really. If you’re talking about on a personal level, many top-tier officials in many sports have perceived conflicts of interests. I umpired my brother when he was in college, and I also umpire in the same conference where I attended. It’s a small world in college and professional sports, so there’s a lot of these situations.

      If you are talking from a business standpoint, Honig’s is one of the largest suppliers of official’s supplies and uniforms, so it would be unusual and counterproductive for a conference to deliberately avoid them.

      P.S. I really like the Maryland uniforms, in the same way I really love old ambulances…they seem out of place, yet distinguishable and lovably inaesthetic.

  • Jklavon | September 6, 2011 at 8:54 am |

    Hi Paul, I agree with your article about the Terps uniforms and appreciate the way you shot holes through that corporate memo BS. They can SAY anything they want to justify the design mistakes and haphazard thought behind the new look….and remember ‘o’visionary designers’ Just because you can cut out a flag pattern and splash it everywhere…doesn’t mean you should-you should have thought it through, and ultimately it doesn’t translate to the field of play no matter how you wordsmith it. I have no doubt that the materials and physical properties of these uniforms are outstanding and superior, thats not the issue, however, on the field, the identity is…and will be…lost with graphics overkill. The jersey is bold enough for a new look and trendsetting style -FINE-but offset it with some football standards and please please get rid of that stupid helmet. Thanks Paul…keep up the great work

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:20 am |

      Actually the physical properties are neither outstanding nor superior. UA is a distant third in quality behind Nike and Reedidas. That just makes the graphic design failure stand out more for me.

  • Bill | September 6, 2011 at 8:56 am |

    Considering what Nike has done for so many blue chip schools for years, this just comes off as bashing UA and Maryland for doing what the “big-boys” and Nike have been doing in NCAA football for over a decade now.

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 9:02 am |

      I’d like to know who is paying for these outlandish costumes…

      Do schools pay for one-time Nike Pro Combat uniforms or the Under Armour Matyland abortion?

      Do Nike and Under Armour provide the uniforms to the schools, including an entire set of helmets, free of charge?

      Do college coaches have promotional deals with these manufacturers?

      Bottom line, I would bet that for every Nike and Under Armour product you buy, you are paying a little towards outfitting these schools.

      • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 9:12 am |

        And, BTW, I pose these questions also in the context of states presently cutting their education budgets, particularly for state universities. Louisiana, for example is slashing its education budget…but yet LSU football can afford to buy “one-time use” Nike Pro Combat uniforms, including an entire set of helmets, for just one game? That is, if LSU is actually paying for the uniforms…

        I’m not trying to sound like a crank, but (even without knowing the details) it appears to me that big corporate interests such as Nike are wagging the college sports dog.

      • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:24 am |

        I don’t think a single 1A program buys its own gear aside from possibly helmets. The coach usually has some sort of endorsement deal so that the manufacturer pays a portion of his salary to remove part of that burden from the school as well. It is a double edged sword though, because the schools give up some of their brand identity for the money.

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 9:26 am |

          And, therefore, schools are probably obligated contractually to wear these “one game” promotional outfits provided by Nike and UA.

        • Geeman | September 6, 2011 at 9:40 am |

          They are not obligated to enter into a contract that obligates them to dress the team like clowns.

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 9:49 am |

          Then why are some schools allowing Nike and UA to dress them like clowns? It’s gotta be the money…

        • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 10:00 am |

          They’re not contractually obligated per se, but the relationship creates a certain amount of pressure on the school to do what the manufacturer wants.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 9:03 am |

      Yeah, I’m just “bashing” a certain company unfairly. Because I’ve never ever ever ever had anything to say about that other company.

      Honestly, sometimes the level of “analysis” that gets posted here is embarrassing…

      • thesieve | September 6, 2011 at 10:01 am |

        I think whats annoying alot of MD fans is that you are simply saying “this is corporate BS” about the MD uniforms without offering any opinion about the merits, while you have sort of gotten over that with the Nike pro combat stuff and actually will talk about the merits of the Boise/UGa/Oregon one offs from last weekend.

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 10:16 am |

          Uh, what exactly did I have to say about the Boise and Oregon over the weekend?

          Take your time. You’ll need it.

        • thesieve | September 6, 2011 at 11:34 am |

          Must not have been you specifically, though i remember there being a post about it on Friday. You get my point.

      • bob | September 6, 2011 at 10:26 am |

        Why are you so pretentious? WHY? These are fucking UNIFORMS!

        God. I used to love this blog, but now you just bitch about corporate overlords and praise bullshit stupid vintage e-bay items for me to enjoy this shit.

        How about, instead of just complaining that something is corporate and thus won’t be covered by you, you actually analyze the uniform and then mention your distaste with the corporate aspect of it all?

        • Achowat | September 6, 2011 at 10:42 am |

          Why are you getting so angry. It’s a Uniform blog! Of course we’re going to talk about uniforms. And the current trend in college football uniforms is pertinent information. Just because that trend is towards crass commercialism at the expense of history in a tradition-laden sport doesn’t make that trend any less notable

        • bob | September 6, 2011 at 10:53 am |

          And to honestly compare what UA and Md. did last night to someone getting flashed. Seriously? Get off your high horse, I’m begging you.

        • M-DOGG | September 6, 2011 at 11:00 am |

          I agree, and news flash: College sports have been all about money for a long, long time. Even back when all the jerseys had glorious traditional designs.

          The only difference is that now its more out in the open. The NCAA is corrupt, yeah. But the constant outrage about it is laughable on a uniform site. You should consider just not writing about college sports any more if you’re so disgusted by it.

        • Will S | September 6, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

          I go to Notre Dame, who I’d argue has the second most plain football unis in the world (behind Paterno State). I can vouch for the fact that ND is all about making money with the football program, even without fancy uniform gimmicks. CAN YOU BELIEVE IT??? The nerve…

          Also, Bob, please start a competing site to uniwatch so that we all have options. I’m begging you.

        • inkracer | September 6, 2011 at 6:49 pm |

          It always kills me when I read comments like in this string, Like has already been pointed out, this is a uniform blog. It goes without saying that not all the posts are gonna be all “OMG TEH BESTEST THING EVAR!!11!!!” As others have said, Don’t like it? Don’t read, or start a competitor. But, if you are going to just stay here and bitch about today’s post, why not head over to ESPN and bitch that they are only covering sports?

  • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 9:07 am |

    New post at the Butcher’s Case:

  • Connie | September 6, 2011 at 9:08 am |

    I missed UW from Friday on, so just want to send big thanks to Caleb B for his wonderful survey of national rugby unis for the upcoming World Cup. The blackification of England and France outfits is mega-lamentable, especially given that host NZ All Blacks deserve special deference. Anyway, our household is rooting for Ireland, Italy, and Tonga, for sartorial and cultural reasons. None has the faintest chance of winning.

  • thesieve | September 6, 2011 at 9:10 am |

    Gotta disagree Paul. All the MD fans I know have been clamoring for more flag based designs for years and almost universally loved last night’s set. Let’s face it, the MD flag is the most distinctive thing we have and while garish, last night’s set was attention grabbing and loved by the fans of the team. Maybe instead of just complaining about how they incorporated the flag elements, you could offer your vision?

    • Geeman | September 6, 2011 at 9:15 am |

      Instead of dressing like clowns, they could have worn a football uniform with the flag elements incorporated into it.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 9:16 am |

      I didn’t “complain about how they incorporate the flag elements.” I didn’t have anything to say about the design. Nor will I, because I’m not in the habit of rewarding desperate pleas for attention.

      Interesting that you find the design “garish” yet somehow successful.

      • thesieve | September 6, 2011 at 9:19 am |

        I wouldn’t have done the shoulder yokes, but had been arguing for a helmet design like that for years.

        So basically you are letting your corporate antipathy get in the way of an opportunity to offer something constructive. Good to know.

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 9:24 am |

          On the contrary, I think my corporate antipathy IS constructive. If you disagree, that’s fine. But I’ll keep writing what I think. Thanks.

        • thesieve | September 6, 2011 at 9:32 am |

          No worries, we’ve disagreed about the Bengals helmets in the past as well.

    • Teamo | September 6, 2011 at 9:23 am |

      It’s not the fact that they incorporated the flag that is the problem, it’s the way they did it. The helmets are a train wreck. Why not a waving flag, similar to the Bucs pirate flag design?

      And really, what exactly is the problem with the Fridge era uniforms? OK, other than the piping.

      • thesieve | September 6, 2011 at 9:28 am |

        The problem was they looked like every other team that used red and white (like conf rival NC St for example). The waving flag was another option; the late 90s era did that, however, since the team was a chronic under achiever then, we didn’t want to throwback to bad memories.

      • UtzTheCrabChip | September 6, 2011 at 9:46 pm |

        plus, Maryland has a tradition of re-hauling the uniforms with each new coach.

    • Tim E. O'B | September 6, 2011 at 9:27 am |

      “loved by the fans of the team”

      Not what I’ve seen and I’ve been on here and Chris Creamers a LOT since 8PM yesterday. I’d say the break down of ‘maryland’ fans has been closer to 50/50 or 60/40 against than, “universally loved.”

      And a bomb is attention grabbing, but it’s also usually a bad thing. Attention for the sake of attention is why people hate Paris Hilton and Kristin Cavallari, why should that logic be changed for football uniforms?

      • thesieve | September 6, 2011 at 9:30 am |

        The MD 247 board (where i typically hangout), which is alums, season ticket holders and donors, are pretty much all in favor

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 9:49 am |

          Let’s keep in mind that any sample based on internet postings is by definition biased toward younger fans. Of course, young fans’ opinions are perfectly valid. But so are, say, the opinions of 60-year-old fans (I assume Maryland has some of those, right?), and those people are much less likely to hang around sites like this one, or to tweet, etc.

  • NickV | September 6, 2011 at 9:16 am |

    Speaking of old Gold … Georgia Tech should use Old Gold, and not “Vegas Gold” (weak Cat Piss color) as their main color – hat would solve EVERY problem with visability, etc. Also, when insisting upon Gold numerals, a heavy Black/Navy trim would also be helpful ….

    UCF is the worst culprit – their unis are simply maddening. Vegas Gold and White numerals are great conceptually, but ridiculous – Old Gold jerseys with White numerals are great in reality ….

  • Jeff Huner | September 6, 2011 at 9:20 am |

    It’s like Maryland watched “Any Given Sunday” and said we can top that!

  • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:26 am |

    Am I nuts or does it seem like a lot of people from Maryland are taking this as an insult to their flag? I love the flag and I think it makes for a good design element in the turtles hell helmet. This was a bad design, not a bad flag.

    • Geen | September 6, 2011 at 9:30 am |

      A lot of really ugly uniforms fall under “Illegal use of flag.” Like the U.S. men’s soccer team during the 1994 World Cup.

      • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

        There is no such thing as “illegal use of flag.” Breaking the flag code is unlawful, not illegal. You can’t be punished for it, just recognized for disrespect. Also, any use of the flag on sports equipment is against the flag code.

        • Nick O | September 6, 2011 at 1:19 pm |

          “Illegal use of flag”= uni metaphor.

        • George Chilvers | September 6, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

          Do you know the difference between unlawful and illegal?

          Unlawful means the performance of an act or acts which contravenes extant laws or statutes.

          Illegal is a sick big bird.

          Sorry :)

        • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 5:57 pm |

          I don’t know about the other side of the pond, but in US jurisprudence, unlawful means something that is against the law but is not criminally punishable, either because it is exclusively civilly punishable or because it has no legal punishment.

    • thesieve | September 6, 2011 at 9:58 am |

      Well part of it is that in a lot of Terps fans minds, UA is MD as well. Kevin Plank, the owner, is a MD native, former Terp football player and the company is based in Baltimore. So i’ll admit there is a little rally around the flag going on here (pardon the expression).

  • Geen | September 6, 2011 at 9:31 am |

    By the way — nobody mentioned Lord Calvert or Lord Baltimore, the crests used in the Maryland flag.

    • Achowat | September 6, 2011 at 10:48 am |

      Coats of Arms, not crests. Crests are the part of a full armorial achievement that sit on the top (or ‘crest’) of the helmet. If ‘Coat of Arms’ is too general for you (and it kinda is) Escutcheon is the term for the shield part

      • UtzTheCrabChip | September 6, 2011 at 9:50 pm |

        and the crests are for the Calvert and Crossland, not Calvert and Baltimore.

  • Adam | September 6, 2011 at 9:34 am |

    Can it not be argued mindless devotion to what came before and failure to change with the times just as pathetic? Mr. Lukas, you come across as someone who has claimed uniforms as your own fiefdom, and now that reality has changed something you’ve invested so much emotion into, will cry petulantly because now you have nothing.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 9:43 am |

      Classic straw man argument. “If you don’t like this new thing, you’re clinging to this old thing.” Sounds good, but ignores reality (i.e., all the modern uniforms I’ve liked just fine).

      I haven’t “claimed” uniforms as my “fiefdom.” Hell, go ahead and claim them as YOUR fiefdom — fine by me. I’m just a guy saying what I think. Not your cuppa? No biggie. Start your own web site and say what YOU think.

  • TOM | September 6, 2011 at 9:36 am |

    1/2 of the Maryland unis looked like the “crash test dummies”

  • Randy Miller | September 6, 2011 at 9:41 am |

    USF’s numbers were distressingly tiny at Notre Dame. The new green helmets look great (though as Paul points out — a tri-Hydra helmet scheme isn’t cost-effective), but the numbers made the players look like video-game images. Oh wait, that’s probably the idea.

  • traxel | September 6, 2011 at 9:43 am |

    In the 1975 newspaper article about the Bucs color scheme did ya read the coverage just above that the Pirates beat the Braves? Our buddy Jerry Reuss went 8 strong and picked up the victory.

  • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 9:51 am |

    This is funny, and sad: I’m now getting e-mails from people accusing me of “being paid off by Nike” and “being in Nike’s pocket.”

    Ha-ha-ha. Underlying the cluelessness, however, is this: Even really clueless people recognize that this is all about corporate entities and their marketing agendas. And that shows you how far into the cesspool this whole thing has descended.

    • Coleman | September 6, 2011 at 9:55 am |

      Don’t you work for Nike?!

      heh heh.

      • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 9:58 am |

        Yes. But I demand to be paid in Oregon jerseys, autographed by Phil K.

        • Coleman | September 6, 2011 at 10:02 am |

          HA! 9am and already a Comment of the Day nominee?

        • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 10:08 am |

          I demand a lifetime supply of digital Pro Combat templates.

  • walter | September 6, 2011 at 10:01 am |

    How’s this for analysis? I really liked Maryland’s uniforms last night, but that’s merely because I like Maryland’s flag. If it were an American flag, it would have sucked. You’ll notice all Baltimore-area teams now have the state flag tripping balls.

    • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 10:07 am |

      you must REALLY hate america

      • walter | September 6, 2011 at 10:27 am |

        I get that all the time. It ain’t perfect, but it’s the best country in the world.

  • Tom V. | September 6, 2011 at 10:03 am |

    So if Paul was digging around some archives one day and found a photo of yesterday’s Maryland uniforms on a team from say the 1940’s, who’s guessing Paul would call these uniforms beautiful?

    • Zach Smith | September 6, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

      This was my thought, too. If Maryland had this flag based design for 30+ years we’d all praise it as a cool, unique classic.

      Ultimately I think UA’s promotion of this made it more reprehensible to a lot of people, Paul included. If Maryland had just come out and worn the uniform and let it speak for itself (which it obviously would have) then I think Paul would have actually reviewed the uniform. He probably wouldn’t have liked it, but he would have actually talked about it.

      It’s unfortunate that we’ve gotten to the point that the corporate aspect of uniform design has completely gotten in the way of actually being able to talk about uniforms. It probably started with the Nike/Broncos uniform in the 90s, but this is the first time I can remember people refusing to talk about a uniform due to the corporate shenanigans involved in promoting it, and that is sad.

      Paul, I don’t blame you for being offended by the press release, because it was offensive, and you’re free to respond to that however you’d like, but I think you almost play into their hands even more by only talking about the company and not about the product. Today a company got more attention on your blog than a uniform did, and I find that disappointing.

      • Tom V. | September 6, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

        “…this is the first time I can remember people refusing to talk about a uniform due to the corporate shenanigans involved in promoting it…”

        Actually I think Paul is the only one refusing to discuss it. Sure the corporate BS was as stupid as they come, we’ve heard 100 times how some uniform will make you faster, etc and if anyone ever actually believed it, well there’s one born every minute. I think Paul just missed the boat on this one today, like it or hate it he could have discussed it. He chose to ignore it even though he headlined with it.

        And on top of it it seems like he insulted a new reader today, who keep in mind could be a naive 16 year old kid who simply doesn’t know the corporate BS that goes on, as opposed to the 40-something like Paul is.

        Paul I have plenty of respect for you and what you do, but I think this site got away from you today, it seems you viewed this whole Maryland/UnderArmor thing in a vacuum. I know to you they’re not just uniforms, but Paul, they’re just uniforms.

  • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 10:03 am |

    ‘I’m now getting e-mails from people accusing me of “being paid off by Nike” and “being in Nike’s pocket.”’


    how many of them are signed, “Kevin Plank”?

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 10:06 am |

      Here’s the thing: Plank and Knight are just flip sides of the same coin. They can pretend to be enemies (or, more accurately, we can cast them as enemies), but what’s good for one of them is generally good for the other. They’re in the same racket.

  • Fred | September 6, 2011 at 10:06 am |

    It is blatantly obvious that major sporting corporations have deep tentacles in the collegiate level. I’m realizing that it is quite futile to protest against a company’s influence over a college program. It’s so trenched that one has to go back and look at the relationship between corporation and the NCAA on a broader level. It’s a mess. Money gets in the way and everyone is seeking to make the biggest dollar. That’s fine by me, everyone has the right to make the money however they want it. Under Armor has that special relationship with Maryland because of a certain alum so a close knit relationship between the two is not so surprising.

    I personally don’t like it but UA does have the right to make money however they want it. I think instead of protesting every single change that bucks against tradition is simply wasting your energy. You should be directing it towards the NCAA and encouraging them to change the overall relationship between corporation and colleges.

    For the record, I don’t think UA is crying out for attention. EVERY company is always crying out for attention, it’s business. Every commercial on TV is crying out for attention. You’re crying out for attention every time you note that a new meat blog is up. Why? You want people to recognize Fleicher’s as THE place to buy meat. And yeah, you think you’re selling a good product. UA thinks they’re selling a good product too and they’re definitely a legitimate company now, working its way up to the Nike level.

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 10:17 am |

      Plenty of people judge commercials both by their effectiveness and aesthetic appeal. The moment a person, company, etc. places itself in the public eye it opens itself to public criticism. If the entire country is laughing at UA right now and people choose to buy Nike instead in response, they will be forced to listen and rein in their marketing department.

      These companies are not making money by giving uniforms to the schools. If a poorly designed uniform has the same effect as an ineffective commercial, then UA will lose money on the venture and change its marketing strategy.

      • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 10:38 am |

        In the meantime schools are allowing themselves to wear experimental uniform designs, some embarrassingly bad, for UA and Nike…it’s all about the money. Even colleges are whores…

  • F | September 6, 2011 at 10:07 am |

    Uni watch shows you once again – target demographic age 80-100.

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 10:09 am |

      27 year old that grew up playing Madden right here. Show of hands?

      • Coleman | September 6, 2011 at 10:11 am |

        28 next month here…

        I do FEEL 80 after this weekend though.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 10:14 am |

      And yet somehow you’re here every day.

    • Christopher F. | September 6, 2011 at 1:30 pm |

      36 here.

      • James Cr aven | September 6, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

        Um, the big 5-0.

      • Phil W | September 6, 2011 at 5:01 pm |

        21 here, though I’ve been told I act like a 75 year old.

    • inkracer | September 6, 2011 at 7:00 pm |

      25 yr old Madden player here, and I have to say, honestly, there are only a few things that Paul and I disagree on Uni-wise.

    • Kevin W. | September 7, 2011 at 3:03 am |

      I’m 21 and just graduated from a university this past May.

  • dj | September 6, 2011 at 10:10 am |

    You run a foolish blog.

    • DJ | September 6, 2011 at 11:31 am |

      So why are you here? Go away and leave those of us who don’t think it foolish to enjoy it in peace.

    • Chris | September 6, 2011 at 12:30 pm |

      So your comments fits right in, then.

    • Christopher F. | September 6, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

      You write foolish comments.

      This is becoming a very engaging and enlightening debate.

  • MC | September 6, 2011 at 10:14 am |

    Those uniforms last night were a complete joke. UA is making a complete mockery of the game just to get their names out there. Its disgusting, and a complete eyesore and an insult to everyone who watched the game.

    But then again, this is Maryland and this is Under Armour. Maryland has never shied away from being the ‘rebels’ of the ACC, the team that does their own thing, gets in your face, and doesn’t give 2 craps about what you think. If they piss you off in the process, just an added bonus. Under Armour is founded and run by 2 of the biggest Maryland alums who have completely bought into this mindset. Combine the two together and you have the perfect storm of obnoxious assholism in uniform design for the future. Mark my words, in a couple years we’ll think Nike’s Pro Combat is being restraining.

  • JEDI54 | September 6, 2011 at 10:14 am |

    I know most of yall will hate this, but Nike supplies most of the uniforms for Texas Schoolboy football. They signed a contract with the University Interscholastic League (UIL) the governing body of Texas extracurricular activities. Granted the success of Euless Trinity, I am not surprised they are one of the first high schools to wear the Pro Combat unis.

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 10:18 am |

      I did like that the coach forced the Nike spokesman to insert a line about how the uniforms are purely aesthetic and won’t do anything to help the team. Good on the reporter for putting that in the first graf, too.

  • Bernard | September 6, 2011 at 10:15 am |

    As I said last night, I can almost see the helmet working. If the rest of the uniform consisted of a plain red jersey (white numbers), white pants (perhaps with a thin black & yellow check pattern stripe), and left it at that, the helmet might actually shine as a unique design element. Instead, it’s just another gaudy element of ridiculous over-design.

    Of course, there’s no way UA would ever show that kind of “restraint”, because they’re in the business of manufacturing jerseys, and pants, and compression gear, and shoes. But not helmets.

  • Scott Gleeson Blue | September 6, 2011 at 10:19 am |


    Just wanted to weigh in on the Under Armour/Maryland front. Reaction has been delightfully strong to your words, but one thing you asserted has been consistently missed:

    From a brand positioning perspective, UA ripped off Nike. UA has been moving in this direction for awhile, and I think from a strategic standpoint it’s such a disheartening move because they had an opportunity to build something really unique, find a fresh niche or creneau for their brand that could have taken all that goodwill from their entrepreneurial start-up phase and really built something unique and lasting. The kit they sent you was an unfortunate step back and while I don’t follow them closely, it may be one of many. Certainly a number of their multi-uni designs have trended this way.

    I guess I would weigh in at that positioning level though. Who was asleep at the wheel at the senior marketing levels to let this slip through? From an agency perspective, it’s like the client (UA) is driving or there’s been some internal Kool-Aid sipped. If they decided to trot out the Medieval Times look, why not invest the money and the senior creative power to churn out something that had a really unique narrative or story – a brand strategy – consistent with the look? Combat and overstated unis got the British creamed in the mid to late 18th Century.

    For instance, instead of moving through the features and bennies of the product in the kit matched to the Terps Boomer Esiason-rich past, why didn’t they spend time on how Maryland’s state flag is a whacky thematic component of the university and even some of Maryland’s other key sports franchises (see the Ravens 50 yard line)? Why not come out with a state flag-based uniform for every school? Call it state pride? Or unity? South Carolina could have a giant Palm Tree up the back of the uni with a moon on the helmet. These are all tactical assertions though that get at your original point:

    Who does UA wanna be? Nike with a twist of APEX? Perhaps they’re the “low-cost” Nike? Maybe they make the Nike look accessible to FCS or Div. 2 and 3 schools? Over the long haul, this hurts the promise of the UA brand – campus-based, grassrootsy and doing an end-around – and Nike will exploit the me-too strategy, twitter-trending or not. The rest of us get Lord Baltimore-meets-Spaceballs with no compelling or “authentic” brand narrative. A pity.

    • Tom V. | September 6, 2011 at 10:38 am |

      “…Who was asleep at the wheel at the senior marketing levels to let this slip through?…”

      This didn’t “slip through” anything. This is exactly what Maryland wanted.

      I work in design, and designs are client driven. A client doesn’t go to a design firm and say design me a new winnepeg jets logo. The owner has something in mind, colors, what a logo might look like, font, etc. that the designers take and make work.

      This entire thing probably has very little to do with UA. If I was one of the senior athletic guys at UM I don’t say to UA “go design me a uniform!” I tell them what I have in mind and UA comes back with those designs worked onto a uniform. Now with the contract UA and UM share, there may be a little more leeway with who comes up with the designs but I assure you the ultimate decision of what gets on the field is UM’s choice. And the senior guys at UM aren’t letting anything “slip by” on a game like this.

      • Scott Gleeson Blue | September 6, 2011 at 10:43 am |

        Thanks for the insight on the design process and the creative brief 101. However, I was getting more at the corporate douchebaggery — the words and narrative UA built around the design as it took it to market.

        • Tom V. | September 6, 2011 at 11:29 am |

          @ Scott, point taken regarding the corporate crap in the forward sent to Paul. Built for speed, twice the grip…BS in my book.

          Built for speed? So you have a WR who weighs 180 wearing a jersey that weighs 6oz versus 12oz? Isn’t the other team wearing a similar jersey (even if by another manufacturer?)

        • Scott Gleeson Blue | September 6, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

          @ Tom: Absolutely! Love this Built for speed as a case in point…

      • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 11:08 am |

        More likely, someone at Maryland told UA to design a uniform incorprating elements of Maryland’s cool flag…and this is what UA came up with. I would bet that Matyland went along with the wild design primarily because of the “incentives” it was provided by UA.

        • Tom V. | September 6, 2011 at 11:23 am |

          But, if Maryland doesn’t like what UA comes up with, its back to the drawing board until UA comes up with something acceptable to Maryland.

          There were probably 15 meetings about these uniforms between UA and UM before these uniforms were ever finalized.

    • ScottyM | September 6, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

      Good point Scotty Blue.

      I find it interesting that UA basically broke a golden rule in brand positioning and brand development: differentiation.

      For that, they get an F for the Maryland uniforms … and everything else they do.

      The analysis should begin and end with the fact that UA is nothing more than a Nike wannabee. From the ground up, they replicate everything Nike does (Do they do it better? Hell, I don’t care. That’s not the point.).

      What they do do … is nothing unique, from the fabric materials to the designs to the equipment itself. A basic facsimile of Nike.

      It’s a real shame that only the “80-100 year-olds” who traffic this site are the only ones who realize we’re being duped.

      Wake up, next generation! UA is nothing more than a spoof. Their exploits are damn transparent. “The players like ’em.” “I like ’em, they’re hip.”

      Okay, whatever. Just be able to analyze why this is so maddening to a whole generation of sports enthusiasts.

      Because we can see through the corporate douchebaggery. What’s most concerning … is the notion that a generation that’s too busy “liking” everything on Facebook, with their heads in their smartphones, not paying attention to the world around them … doesn’t notice they’ve been duped. Heck, an entire university and its leadership has been duped.

      Listen. Think for yourself. Question authority.

      • UtzTheCrabChip | September 6, 2011 at 9:57 pm |

        and Pepsi ripped off Coke. Does that mean Pepsi drinkers are being “duped”

  • possum | September 6, 2011 at 10:19 am |

    I’ve tried scanning that Citadel helmet a dozen times with my phone and I can’t get anything.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 10:21 am |

      Now that’s the comment of the day!

      • Coleman | September 6, 2011 at 10:28 am |

        Pretty funny, same thing was said a bunch of times last night on ESPN about the Maryland getup!

      • possum | September 6, 2011 at 10:35 am |

        You mean things like “you run a foolish blog” don’t make the cut? I’m honored, sir, thank you.

        I’ve seen you say several times that Nike etc are just using these schools and student athletes as tools to further their agendas. I’ve often wondered how accurate that was, but this UA ploy perfectly exemplifies it. Pimps and hos, that’s all it is. Forget what the uniform itself looks like; it’s outlandish and far from the norm. UA sneaks it in on you while you’re not looking. I tuned in to that game for two reasons: 1) to watch Miami hopefully get annihilated without their starters, and 2) to see how the previously “new” Maryland jerseys looked in action. The first thing I saw was Maryland’s first TD where the WR was diving straight at the camera for the pylon, followed by an overhead shot of the sidelines. It was then that I realized UA had won this battle.

        My team, the Charlotte 49ers, take the field for the first time in 2013. I’ve already secured my season tickets. I just left messages on the team’s official FB page pleading not to go this route.

  • MC | September 6, 2011 at 10:27 am |

    Oh God… I just had a scary thought… If UA & UMd did this for a football matchup, easily the ACCs 2nd most popular sport, what on Earth are they going to do in basketball, the premier league of ACC athletics?

  • J. Addison | September 6, 2011 at 10:40 am |

    I’m confused. When did this blog stop being about aesthetics and become an analysis of the sociopolitics of corporate ethics?

    You mentioned the Oakland A’s. Are you going to talk about the child slave labor the team’s owner uses to make GAP clothing?

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 10:44 am |

      When did this blog … become an analysis of the sociopolitics of corporate ethics?

      Day One, more or less. Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention.

      I confess to being completely ignorant regarding the A’s owner. If you’d care to enlighten me, perhaps I’ll write about him.

      • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 10:47 am |

        I thought it was about meat… ;>)

      • Roger Faso | September 6, 2011 at 11:55 am |

        If we’re gonna cover the A’s ownership, I would rather learn about why they chose not wear a memorial patch for Dick Williams. He managed them to two world championships and is in the Hall of Fame. There are MLB teams out there wearing memorial patches for dead pets of front office workers (I kid,) but the A’s couldn’t even muster a ribbon.

        I have a theory that Lew Wolf just doesn’t care about Oakland’s history or heritage, but that’s because I don’t like the guy.

  • TOM | September 6, 2011 at 10:43 am |

    the Maryland jersey’s weren’t bad.

    the helmet was disgusting and offensive

    • Jim Vilk | September 6, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

      While I wouldn’t say it in the same words, you’re onto something. The jersey itself…I like. The helmet is what put it a little over the top, but my reaction to it is more “meh” than an actual dislike.

    • Bob A | September 6, 2011 at 12:51 pm |

      Yup, I feel the same way. I actually like the jerseys. I’m normally accused of being an old fart when it comes to my preference for old school traditional looks but I like the flag being incorporated into the shoulders.

      The helmet though is atrocious. Give the a whate or red one (or even a black one) with an ‘M’ or the flag and they’d really have something.

    • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 7:23 pm |

      The black and gold pattern is a difficult one at best to attempt to translate from a flat surface to a spherical one, but I think they could’ve found some way to do it better.

      Or not. *shrug*

  • Ronnie Poore | September 6, 2011 at 10:43 am |

    re: the promotional sponge. David Letterman has been doing it for years

  • Ry Co 40 | September 6, 2011 at 10:50 am |

    i don’t want that piece of shit jersey to overshadow the AWESOMENESS that is the promotional sponge!!!

    from that beautiful vintage logo, the simplistic design, the fact that it’s a freaking SPONGE of all things! it just makes me happy that that thing ever existed (and was handed out to happy fans).

    total love

  • ScottyM | September 6, 2011 at 10:52 am |

    Hey Paul,

    You wrote about it, so you must’ve deemed the Maryland nonsense as “news”?

    If it wasn’t newsworthy (as you allude to) … why give it mention at all, or at most just a brief mention in the ticker?

    As PT Barnum would say, “all PR is good PR,” for UA and Maryland, that is.

    You play right into the UA PR folks’ hands by covering it… this coming from someone who educates about the very subject.

    Seems the best way to shut off the tap of PR stunt nonsense … is to choose not to cover it.

  • Brian | September 6, 2011 at 10:53 am |

    Seems like a disservice to not say anything about the Terps’ design. The purpose of the blog is, in Paul’s own words, to “study athletics aesthetics”. Paul is clearly free to take any political/ethical stance he’d like on his blog, but to withdraw from critiquing the aesthetics of the uniform seems to deny the whole purpose of this site. Regardless of the corporate motivations behind the design, it is a design. If the goal of not examining the design is to not give UA/UM any unwarranted attention, posting a picture of the jersey at the top of the page didn’t help.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 10:55 am |

      A “disservice” to whom?

      The “purpose” of this blog is for me to write about what’s on my mind, primarily as it relates to uniforms. What was on my mind today was all the corporate bullshit that unfolded last night, so that’s what I wrote about. Simple.

  • Ryan | September 6, 2011 at 10:54 am |

    Paul, I know I’m a pain in the ass, but can you check out the first comment on the post?

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 10:57 am |

      Got it.

  • kb | September 6, 2011 at 10:57 am |

    As for the new Marquette uni: Still like the “AL,” but the Jumpman looks more like Al McQuire in heyday than it does MJ. Is that intentional or just bad embroidery? (Maybe the perspective is skewed a little?”)

    • mm | September 6, 2011 at 11:25 pm |

      The real change on the Marquette unis is the “sweat-back” image, but those were not linked in the comments.

      The fronts look similar to prior editions.

  • buttonpush | September 6, 2011 at 10:58 am |

    Here is a rep from Maryland trying to justify the Maryland uni disaster… that is was the most popular story last evening in the DC metro area… VT massacre was national news too, but that didn’t mean is was good news… Ridiculous how these schools of “higher learning” know absolutely zero when it comes to marketing or branding

    Sorry, I’ll just make one final small point then leave you fine folks alone. The most popular stories on the sports page normally consists of 5 Redskins stories (even in March). Tonight it’s:

    Most Popular

    1. Maryland unveils new football uniforms
    2. Maryland football uniforms: What do you think? (8/23)
    3. Maryland uniforms: What do you think? (9/5)
    4. After 12 long months, Stephen Strasburg is back at Nats Park
    5. Shanahan, Redskins weigh in on QB decision

    Most Popular (site wide)

    1. Chaotic Gaddafi manhunt leads to Libyan desert triangle
    2. Maryland unveils new football uniforms
    3. Rhode Island considers radical moves as pensions put state on brink
    4. Bicyclists open fire near Capitol Hill
    5. Maryland football uniforms: What do you think?

  • Connie | September 6, 2011 at 11:00 am |

    TIME OUT! [Sorry to shout.] History question. When and where was it that mainstream sports fans first evinced interest in, and opinions about, the manufacturer of uniforms? I’m not asking about when the manufacturers began to spend significant money highlighting their brand, nor when rabid fans tuned in, but rather when us ordinary schmucks started noticing, and caring about, and talking about, various brand names and their signifiers. When did I realize that the curious little logo meant UnderArmor? My uninformed guess is that footwear paved the way. Kids in the 1950s cared a lot about sneaker brands, and football players and track runners had definite ideas about this or that shoe supplier, but I can’t recall when brand-mania migrated to pants and shirts…

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 11:04 am |

      When apparel manufacturers starting putting their brand labels on the OUTSIDE of clothing instead of inside…it’s a status thing that is artifically driven by advertising and other marketing devices.

      • Connie | September 6, 2011 at 11:09 am |

        Yeah, but I’m looking for names, dates, and places.

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 11:14 am |

          It was September 12, 1983 when Texas Longhorn fan Durell Hawthorne first noticed how ugly his teams Russel Athletic jerseys fit with the extra large shoulder pads the team was using.

      • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 11:11 am |

        That started pretty early, though. The ’86 Mets wore the Rawlings script on their sleeves.

  • buttonpush | September 6, 2011 at 11:10 am |


    but I can’t recall when brand-mania migrated to pants and shirts…

    MTV caused all this…

    MTV rap and hip hops videos took sports licensed products off the playing field and into the mass market of “fashion”… Raiders hats. Teal. Alternate jerseys. Mighty Ducks. Black as fashion… that all started around 1990-91…

    And rap aslo fueled the Throwbacks sensation as well:,9171,1004626,00.html

    Nike was dead set against this “fad” of creating whacked out jerseys until they saw the enormous revenues that were being generated first by the NBA and their push to make more cutting edge jerseys…. alternates, black jerseys, sublimation and then the other leagues followed….

  • Brian | September 6, 2011 at 11:13 am |

    A disservice to readers of the blog who feel you are free to broadcast your own views on corporate bullshit, etc, but are interested in the aesthetics of the corporate bullshit. I’m not trying to tell you that you have to write about whatever I want you to, but it’s in the header of the blog, so, whatever. Perhaps I’ll just accept that this is a sore topic and come back tomorrow when the furor has died down, except I live in Baltimore and see the Maryland flag motif everywhere all the time, so I am interested in an analysis of how it works and doesn’t on a uniform by someone more knowledgable and experienced than me in design. I guess you can’t always get what you want.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 11:19 am |

      Here’s the deal, Brian: If I wasn’t true to myself, if I self-censored or adjusted my message to suit your (or anyone’s) whims, if I half-assed it and phoned it in, THEN I’d be doing you a disservice.

      Instead, I communicate what makes sense to me, and I try my best to do it honestly, straightforwardly, and passionately. If that also makes sense to you, groovy; if not, it’s a big internet out there. Simple.

      I *did* give you an analysis of the uniform — I analyzed it as a cynical marketing ploy, because I think that’s the primary storyline. Again, maybe that’s not the analysis you want, but life doesn’t always come spoon-fed to you, y’know?

      • Brian | September 6, 2011 at 11:36 am |

        I can’t imagine that you don’t have criticisms of the design independent of the corporate motivations. Chess pieces and court jesters – not the depth I was expecting. But you are absolutely right, my expectations should not define you. If commenting on the aesthetics of this particular uniform would be censoring yourself, you should not do it.

        • Anthony | September 6, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

          I’m with Brian on this one. Maybe you could change the header of the blog to add “…and what I view as the corporate BS that ineveitably goes along with any money making enterprise.”

          On the plus side, “” is probably available still.

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 12:27 pm |

          You guys don’t get it. In this case, the corporate machinations ARE the aesthetics.

          You can define Uni Watch however you like. But the way I define it will always be the guiding principle, at least on this site.

        • Anthony | September 6, 2011 at 3:50 pm |

          Paul, I think you missed my point (so it is wrong to say I don’t get it). I said “and” not “instead of”. I for one, would have liked your take on the design itself (since I find that interesting and your criticisms worth reading). If you want to add the corporate machinations as well, it is your blog after all. All I was saying is that I’m disappointed that you can’t see anything beyond the coporate angle, particularly since you’ve made that point plenty of times already.

  • James Cr aven | September 6, 2011 at 11:14 am |

    Whilst most of you were arguing with one another, Paul posted this on

  • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 11:16 am |

    Offering no opinion one way or another on Maryland last night (other than to say I appreciated the fearless wearing of bright colors instead of needing to be Stealth Ninjas)…

    If we step back…way, way back…I mean WAY back so we can see the whole board…this is starting to look like a personal contest among Phil Knight, Kevin Plank and T. Boone Pickens to see who can spend the most on, and garner the most attention for, his alma mater.

    (Keep in mind, we won’t see Oklahoma State on the field until Thursday night).

    Unfortunately, it seems to be taking on too many apsects of a trailer park competition over Who Can Have the Most Pink Flamingoes.

    • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 11:20 am |

      And may I say, it’s a good thing Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys, otherwise Arkansas probably would be involved, too.

    • Bernard | September 6, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

      FWIW, I thought OK State looked pretty good on Saturday, despite the Nike sweatboxes.

      • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

        Again, not saying anything about the unis, just what’s starting to look like three billionaires playing “Can You Top This?”

  • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 11:22 am |

    looks like the maryland boards are full of mature folks who want a full and fair discussion

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 11:28 am |

      Well, I *could* say that there’s no such thing as bad publicity and that they’re playing into my hands…..

      • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 11:50 am |

        Interesting, isn’t it, that saying something bad about a school’s uni supplier (seeing as Paul didn’t critique the graphics, color scheme or “look” at all, only the PR campaign that accompanied them) apparently is the same thing as saying something bad about the school or the team. Great umbrage shall be taken with same…because they have become one and the same.

        I ask you, what allegiance should any Maryland student or fan have to Under Armor? Oh, I forgot, “That’s MY company.”

        If someone was so resolutely devoted to, and identifying with, a particular maker of frozen pizza we’d think they were nuts.

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 11:55 am |

          It’s OK. Part of putting one’s work out in the public sphere is that it will be open to public discussion and criticism. Comes with the territory.

        • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

          Oh, for sure.

          And suppose there is a website out there where people defend DiGiorno with the same once-removed devotion.

        • Smitty | September 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm |

          So Paul didn’t lead off today’s story by calling the University of Maryland “a foolish school?” That’s not “saying something bad about the school?”

        • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

          Fine. I guess we just reinforced why turtles have shells.

          Thin skin.

          He criticized them (yes, you’re right; I was wrong) for becoming a willing partner in the UA marketing program. Didn’t say it was a bad school. Or a bad football team. Or that the Maryland flag was ugly.

          Maybe he thinks your school and others shouldn’t sell out so easily.

          Maybe you should, too.

          Bread & Circuses.
          (if you don’t get the referenece, look it up)

    • Scott Gleeson Blue | September 6, 2011 at 11:29 am |

      I believe this is who Johnny Majors referred to as the Legions of the Miserable.

    • Teamo | September 6, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

      What I find truly amusing about all the venom from UMD fans and alum is that, if say Duke had come out with such blatantly corporate crap, they would be the first in line to blast the Dukies from stem to stern.

    • Milford Cubicle | September 6, 2011 at 8:10 pm |

      Maryland fans aren’t exactly known for their tact. This is the same team that Navy suspended their series with for four decades because their fans were attacking the Midshipmen and making racist comments toward their players. The same fanbase that riots every time their basketball team wins a game. The only reason their football fans have gone under the radar is because their team has been crap for a long time. Just let them have their “Look At Me!” moment.

  • Jim BC | September 6, 2011 at 11:27 am |

    Oh man – 33 minutes until the Jets jersey unveiling. Live streaming here:|WPG|home

  • M-N | September 6, 2011 at 11:34 am |

    Who cares it’s college football!If you live north of the Mason Dixon this is a non-sport.

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

      Yes, because no one in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, California, Washington, or Oregon cares about college football.

  • Jim | September 6, 2011 at 11:50 am |

    Thought uni watch would enjoy this NOB for Arkansas. We have Brandon Mitchell, Braylon Mitchell, and Jerry Mitchell. So I assume Braylon’s NOB is Bray. Mitchell and Jerry just has J. Mitchell. I’ll post screencaps of them if I see them.

  • The Jeff | September 6, 2011 at 11:56 am |

    I liked the Maryland uniforms.


    • Jim Vilk | September 6, 2011 at 12:10 pm |

      Yeah, I *kinda* did, too. And not just because Phil disliked them…

      A little over-the-top, but I’ve seen worse.

      Anyway, I’m more interested at that SI “best uniform” list. Bobcats? BFBS Timberwolves? Raptors??? Vancouver Grizzlies? Clippers? Wow. Anyone who thinks I have no taste should find out who compiled that list.

      At least the Nuggets and Bullets were on there.

      Where were the Nets?
      Or the Knicks?
      Or at least a dozen others that were better than the ones at the top of this post?

    • M.Princip | September 6, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

      Me too. Although, I would prefer the reverse pattern on the shoulder pads, as someone here posted.

      I love the fact that we’re back to painting helmet decals/logos, very old school.

      Georgia’s unis looked like shit, good thing they lost.

      • M.Princip | September 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

        er, painting helmet graphics/logos…

  • Chris | September 6, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

    The reason the tinted visor is there is because no one wanted to be associated with this vomitous mass known as the U of Maryland uniform. They had to promise anonymity.

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 12:12 pm |

      Maybe players chose to wear tinted visors to hide the clown makeup and red rubber noses UA required them to wear with their costumes.

  • Patrick | September 6, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

    1) If Maryland’s unis were an older design, I would have liked it more. That may strike some people as inconsistent, but if Maryland chose to wear these unis in the 1950’s it would be for a different purpose and would have different motivations.

    2) I’m mostly against these uniforms because they’re a one-off. I usually dislike uniforms that are only worn once. It seems to me to lack purpose.

    3) I understand why Lukas dislikes this design. I’m sure, in part, he feels like Under Armor wants to use him to advertise themselves. If it was me, I would find that insulting. I’m probably wrong, but it seems that he’s less interested in uniforms than categorizing the minutiae relating to uniforms. Under Armor definitely picked the wrong audience for their company propaganda.

    4) I’m pretty tired of uniform criticisms that only reach for a bad analogy. I don’t think they look anything like crash test dummies, chess pieces, or court jesters. They looked like the Maryland flag. I find those other comparisons annoying.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 12:28 pm |

      Do we know they’re a one-off?

      • Nick O | September 6, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

        Yeah, these were just a one-off. It was publicized/rumored that there was going to be one uniform combo that wasn’t shown at the “fashion show” that was going to be used on game day. The players weren’t even told what they were wearing until morning of.

  • MC | September 6, 2011 at 12:09 pm |

    All you need to know about Maryland fans:

    Posted: Today 10:32 AM
    Re: Uniforms……Sweeeeeet
    sorry folks but the new unis made me want to barf…. only if i barfed; it would look like the helmets.
    i used to always say about michigan & deleware; i’m glad we don’t have dorky helmets like them.

  • Chris | September 6, 2011 at 12:09 pm |

    I could eat a pack of Crayolas and crap a better uniform design.

  • Jack | September 6, 2011 at 12:09 pm |

    I didn’t like the Maryland uniforms – they actually made Miami’s unis look good by contrast. But, here we are, talking about the University of Maryland. Twitter was trending Maryland. So the uniforms brought attention to the school and to the manufacturer. In that respect, they are a rousing success.

    • Jim Vilk | September 6, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

      Nah, Miami still looked worse.

      The ‘Canes had the better helmet, yes, but their jersey and pants stripes? Bleah.
      OK, both teams’ pants were bad. Call it a draw?

      At least both teams looked better than Oregon.

      • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

        yeah, um

        no they didn’t

        but it was the first time in my life i actually rooted for miama

        in a way, it’s too bad kellen winslow wasn’t playing for the canes last night…they wouldn’t have got beat by a rorschach blot

        • Kevin W. | September 7, 2011 at 3:18 am |

          Actually, I would argue that as atrocious as Maryland’s uniforms were, both they and Miami looked better than Oregon did against LSU because Miami and Maryland stuck to their school colors. Oregon? Not so much. Somehow I get the feeling that Phil Knight doesn’t know what the phrase “school colors” is. Arizona’s AD visited the Nike facilities last year and I shudder to think what they discussed. If I see my Wildcats wearing some BFBS bullshit, I’m marching back to Tucson (graduated earlier this year) and starting a riot. The fight song goes “Bear Down Arizona, Bear Down red and blue…” not “Bear Down Arizona, Bear Down black and gray…”

          That’s the only good thing about Maryland’s uniforms, though.

    • walter | September 6, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

      Point for the Hurricanes: It may have been mentioned on this site before, but I appreciate the way the pant stripe resembles a map of Florida; at least the one on the right does.

  • RS | September 6, 2011 at 12:12 pm |

    Too many comments about the pros and cons of covering/not covering the Maryland unis. Too few comments about just how amateur and shitty looking that press release is (if indeed that’s the actual press release).

  • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

    Jets really de-emphasized the red.

    Not bad, all things considered.

    live feed (as noted above)…

    • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 12:17 pm |

      No authentics (he emphasized “authentic”) in stores til October.
      Replicas about three weeks later.

      Good to have Winnipeg back in the NHL.

  • Jim BC | September 6, 2011 at 12:17 pm |

    No baby blue for the Jets! Sweet. Although the striping on the white one is a little suspect. Other than that – I’m o.k. with them.

    • Jim BC | September 6, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

      “Polar Night” Blue and “Aviator” Blue. Who knew?

    • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 12:18 pm |

      Yeah, stripes over the sleeve inset.

    • chuck | September 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

      No Betman bib either! :-)

      • Jim BC | September 6, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

        Thank Goodness.

        • Teebz | September 6, 2011 at 12:28 pm |

          Might have been the first Reebok jersey that I really have no issues with. Maybe the preschool kids at the Reebok idea compound actually can read this board? LOL

    • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

      I happen to like them. More red can be saved for a future third, should they decide to go that route – remember, the Red Wings and Devils have never had a permanent third, so we’ll have to wait and see how the Jets wish to proceed.

      As far as the unis themselves… not terribly crazy about angled numbers, but these look acceptable. The NOB font looks a little weird, but again, passable. I’ve never been a fan of the lace-up collar, either, especially considering that it’s completely superfluous, but if I were to get one of these, I’d simply rip the lace out of the collar.

      Overall, I’m liking the design. The double-stripes around the arms remind me of the late-1970s North Stars, while I see the dark blue down the sleeves to the cuffs on the white jersey as a nod to the original Jets’ 1979-90 uni.

      Definitely good and not stupid.

  • EddieAtari | September 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm |
  • Kyle | September 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

    I have a question regarding the Maryland uni’s that is not related to corporate motives, just a logistical one regarding their helmet.

    Is the helmet painted that way, does it have decals? If so how are the decals applied to the different sized and style helmets while still looking uniform.

    Any thoughts or knowledge would be greatly appreciated.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

      Good question. Anyone..?

      • Fred | September 6, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

        So Paul, you say you don’t think discussing the uniform is necessary and now you’re wondering about the helmet decal?

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 1:35 pm |

      I doubt if the graphics are decals. My guess is that they are either painted on or applied in the plastic in manufacturing the same high tech way other teams, such as Oregon and TCU, have applied their non traditional graphic finishes.

    • M.Princip | September 6, 2011 at 3:50 pm |

      It’s a water transfer print process. Just google that, and you will find some videos on how it’s done.

      • Kyle | September 6, 2011 at 5:40 pm |

        Thanks. Wonder why more teams don’t do that, other than cost. Wonder whether it is more or less durable over the course of the season. Would love a column on that (hint hint Paul ha)

    • =bg= | September 6, 2011 at 9:30 pm |

      I bet the Maryland equipment manager loves having to mix and match all this stuff.

  • TM | September 6, 2011 at 12:22 pm |

    No 5-and-1 today?

    • DenverGregg | September 6, 2011 at 12:47 pm |

      It ran yesterday

      • Jim Vilk | September 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

        Two days ago, actually. The list doesn’t take Sunday and Monday games into account.

        Had they played on Saturday? Yeah, it woulda contended for the &1.

        • TM | September 6, 2011 at 1:35 pm |

          Got it, sorry hadn’t checked over the weekend and figured it would wait for the games to conclude. Thanks

    • traxel | September 6, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

      It sure does feel like a Monday….

      • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

        only when you comment ;)

        • James Cr aven | September 6, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

          Yeah, but Labor Dabor was yesterday (9/5) and it always falls on the first Monday in September…

          (Note the obscure Homestar Runner refernce.)

  • Fitzyroo | September 6, 2011 at 12:33 pm |


    The only reason people have a problem with the design is because is not symetrical and it’s not simple. Did they overdo it qwith the sleeves and shoes? Yes. Does the rest scream for attention? Yes. Does it look different than anyone else? Yes!
    We aren’t! Penn State!
    We’re Maryland, and we’re proud; regardless of yours and other people’s non-professional feelings and writing. Next time go with your belly, and don’t bother. We won’t bother reading it.

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

      You’re exactly right. The problem with the uniform is that it’s asymmetrical. It’s asymmetrical to the point that it no longer serves the function of a uniform. If two players were facing each other you wouldn’t know they were on the same team. If they’d gone with one quadrant on the helmet and the other on the yoke it would have looked a lot better and I’ll bet even Paul would have been singing its praises.

      The Maryland flag is one of the best and most visually interesting flags in the union. It could be the design basis of a uniform. This was terribly executed. You should strive to look different from everyone else; that’s called a brand identity. The problem is that they strove to distinguish themselves by doing the same thing as everyone else but doing it harder.

    • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 12:45 pm |

      Let me see if I have this straight.
      Anyone who doesn’t share your view is “non-professional”?

      And Under Armor and Maryland are the same thing? To criticize one is to criticize the other?

      Tell us, do you consider yourself a student or fan of the University of Maryland or the University of Under Armor?

      There should be a difference.

      • Smitty | September 6, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

        I can’t speak for the University of Under Armour students and fans, but perhaps the students and fans of the University of Maryland took umbrage with Paul’s reference to it as “a very foolish school?”

    • Chris | September 6, 2011 at 12:57 pm |

      No, you aren’t Penn State. Penn State has a long tradition of winning. You have…vomitforms.

      • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 1:38 pm |

        I heard Penn State is considering widening its single helmet stripe from 1″ to 1 1/4″… ;>)

        • Ry Co 40 | September 6, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

          only on their combat uni…

  • ben_g | September 6, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

    Don Cherry wouldn’t wear those Maryland monstrosities. ‘Nuff said about that.

    On to more important things, namely the Winnipeg Jets. Pretty good, in my opinion. A solid B+. We’ve got a readable font, proper hem striping, sleeve stripes (even if they do look a bit odd), no Bettman piping, no pit stripes, and no garish colors or other absurd elements. There’s a lot to like here. I know they weren’t going to keep the classic logo, but had they gone with the classic blue and added a bit more red, they might be darn near perfect for the modern NHL. There’s something about the new primary that just feels off, but I can’t put my finger on what I don’t like. The secondary on the shoulders, however, is excellent. Still, a pretty good effort, and I will definitely be adding one to my collection when they become available.

    • Chris | September 6, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

      Lindsey Nelson might have.

      • Scott Gleeson Blue | September 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

        Shout out from a UT alum on the Lindsey Nelson refrence. Brillz.

    • Achowat | September 6, 2011 at 1:20 pm |

      It’s the negative space above the roundel. With a simple color and a yoke that matches the primary color, it just looks dull from sleeve-stripes up. C-

    • Ry Co 40 | September 6, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

      well, the jersey is nice enough… but slapped with that lame ass logo, it’s just another “C” jersey…

      • Ry Co 40 | September 6, 2011 at 1:56 pm |

        oops! “just another “C” uniform…” my bad, had jersey on the mind… of all places!

        • Teebz | September 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

          What logo would you have preferred, RyCo? They didn’t buy the licensing from the NHL for the old one, and they chose this one.

          We’re kind of limited in what there was to choose from since they only showed the logo they chose and not all those they considered.

        • Ry Co 40 | September 6, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

          to me it’s a lame, boring, corporate logo, lacking a ton of potential character. there are 2 or 3 way better logos on puck drawn and icethetics alone.

          what, out of the current set, would i have preferred? shoot… i would have placed the leaf with the arched “winnipeg” “jets,” with the wings coming out, and the crossed sticks behind, on a white away jersey at least.

          the new jets logo is just boring. just flat out.

        • Teebz | September 6, 2011 at 4:15 pm |

          Ok, but the Jets decided that those who posted their works on Icethetics or PuckDrawn didn’t meet the criteria they were looking for. It’s not that there aren’t other logos that could have worked. It’s just that the powers-that-be (aka TNSE) decided those logos didn’t work for their brand.

          I think A LOT of people need to let go of the Jets from 15 years ago. That logo was associated and deeply-rooted with a team that was synonymous with one-and-done playoffs. I like that TNSE is moving away from the old Jets by branding themselves in how they did.

          Toe-MAY-toe, Toe-MAH-toe, I guess.

        • Daren L | September 6, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

          Well said, Teebz. To me, the main logo works very well on the new sweaters. Very sharp and uncluttered. I am SO happy that they didn’t put a wordmark above the logo as well, like the Stars and Canucks have done.

  • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 12:47 pm |

    Going off the ESPN blurb, I actually kind of like the OSU gray unis, but they should only exist as a replacement for white. To me there just isn’t enough differentiation between gray and white to distinguish them if OSU wears them at home.

  • Mike 2 | September 6, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

    First impression – similar to Jim BC’s.

    The blue home jersey is excellent. Nailed it.

    The white road jersey, the striping is wrong. Each element is nice, the sleeve stripes and the shoulder yoke extending to the wrists (looks like the 1980’s Jets or the 1980s Leafs), but I don’t think they work together very well. One or the other would have been perfect, but not both.

  • sdb | September 6, 2011 at 1:00 pm |

    lol u mad

    • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 2:01 pm |

      now that there is the comment of the day

      anyone want to bet the author attends school in maryland?

  • David | September 6, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

    In the interest of full disclosure, I am a big fan of the Denver Nuggets’ multi-colored skyline uniforms, and I have always liked the Cincinnati Bengals helmet. Oh, and I am a Maryland resident, and I think our state flag is by far the most attractive and unique among the 50 states.

    Maryland’s uniform last night is, in my opinion, the greatest uniform in the history of ever. It is far superior to any of the combinations announced a few weeks ago, and I enjoyed seeing the arm sleeves, shoes, etc. I, too, think the shoulder yokes or sides of the helmet should be switched to give a better representation of the flag, but other than that, 100 percent win.

    Unlike other schools and teams, there is no placement of color that doesn’t belong (i.e., BFBS). Red, white, black, and gold are the Maryland state colors. Using the elements of the flag on the uniform is … genius.

    I didn’t get the UA press kit, but I did enjoy Paul’s dismantling of it. I suppose that would put me in the “Hate the kit, love the uniform” camp.

    Is it attention-grabbing? Sure. All non-traditional uniforms are (as well as more traditional uniforms). Is it corporate douochbaggery rearing its ugly head? I guess – to be honest, I am very naive of the ways of corporate douchebaggery. While I admit and understand that UA played a gigantic role in the uniform’s design, I see it as – please forgive me, all UA haters – a way to show state pride.

    It absolutely, totally works, and I do hope Maryland wears the uniform more often.

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

      You know, if the people from Maryland love this uniform then that’s all that matters…I’m happy for you.

      There are more important things to worry about than Maryland’s football uniforms. But these are still the strangest football uniforms I have ever seen and IMO a complete abomination…in addition to being a crass attention grabbing marketing device by UA, which apparently needs the attention.

    • Geeman | September 6, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

      If it’s so great, why doesn’t Maryland wear it for every game.

      • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

        I’m just trying to figure out how the players kept from laughing when looking at each other in the huddle. Can you imagine what these things were like up close? Yeeeoooow…!

    • Donald | September 6, 2011 at 4:01 pm |

      I love the number of people who think its unique to take a European heraldry tradition and apply it to a regional flag. In Ohio we have the only flag that isn’t rectangular. Doesn’t make it better, or worse just different.

      • JA | September 6, 2011 at 6:35 pm |

        Makes it cool. (I actually knew that about the Ohio flag already.) If Ohioans (Ohiites?) are proud of that flag, then good for them!

  • Brian | September 6, 2011 at 1:13 pm |

    “We’re Maryland, and we’re proud; regardless of yours and other people’s non-professional feelings and writing.”

    I’m not trying to defend this statement in its entirety, but I really think that it sums exactly why the Terps uniform turns out, in the end, to be a GREAT uniform – wearing it brings the supporters of the team together to defend themselves against all the shock and revulsion.

    And it’s not a defense of Under Armour – it’s a defense of the University of Maryland. This is a great example of the most succinct example of the importance of the uniform I’ve ever seen on this site – trade the Yankees for the Mets, player-for-player, and a Mets fan will still root for the Mets the next day. Because it’s not the individual players that make a team, it’s the history and the institution that make up a team, signified by the uniform. (Even if the Mets uniforms suck. Hoping to get back to the day or some future when they suck less is part of the institution of Met-dom that makes a team worth following.)

    today’s example:

    Sell the Terrapins football team to Under Armour, Nike, or whoever, write up a goofy press release explaining every stripe and loop as THE GREATEST INNOVATION IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL, and cover the players with a gaudy piece of garbage. And the Terps fans defend them – not because they love UA’s corporate practices, but despite of UA’s corporate practices. Not even because of the uniform, but despite of the uniform, which if nothing else has given the fan base a ‘uniform’ point of support. Because the team is not made up of the individual suppliers and boosters, it is the history and institution that make up a team. If it takes a uniform to bring that out, it is in the end a great uniform.

  • War Eagle Jeffrey | September 6, 2011 at 1:19 pm |

    Speaking of UA, what were your thoughts on the Auburn tweaks (tighter, stretchy type jerseys with small NOB; truncated stripe at the bottom of the pants; “war eagle” tramp stamp).

    I found the curtailed stripe on the pants annoying and not attractive. You can tell there’s a fabric change at the bottom of the pant that seems to require no stripe fabric there…but it doesn’t look great imo.

    otoh, Auburn appears to be the only “ua school” that hasn’t just given over all design powers to ua.

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 1:30 pm |

      As much as I like discussing the history and development of uniforms, I think it’s a bad thing when team uniforms become of more concern to people than actual football games…and we’re seeing more and more of that now. The bottom line is that Nike, UA, Addidas, et als. are in the racket to make a pile of money. They could make modern uniforms that are lighter and performance enhancing without resorting to weird aesthetics…but they’re doing that to grab attention. A great uniform should be one that you hardly notice…not a distraction.

      • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

        I agree 100% with your statement that it’s a bad thing when the uniforms are more of a concern than the actual team or game. However, I disagree that a great uniform is one you hardly notice.

        Whenever a team wears a new uniform there is going to be some negative backlash for some group of the population. Even the best uniforms are scrutinized. The reason you may not notice a uniform is because it’s become familiar.

        I remember when the Broncos changed the uniforms to their current version (i live in Denver), and I hated them. Two Super Bowl championships later, I didn’t even notice them. I wouldn’t say Denver has a great uniform, but I hardly ever notice them…the same can be true the other way around.

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 3:01 pm |

          I appreciate what you’re saying, but I’m totally familiar with the Bengals’ uniforms and still find them distractingly ugly. ;>)

        • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

          Good point Pierre. Good point.

  • Rob | September 6, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

    Paul –

    There’s something you’re missing here. Maryland has been wearing various combinations of Red/White/Black/Gold going back to the 80’s, albeit not much with the gold other than basketball. Champion made their stuff back in the 80’s. Nike made it in the 90’s, when it was pretty boring (at least on the football side of things).

    If you could possibly set aside your distaste for UA and Nike, aren’t the new uniforms (with their 32 combinations) simply a very modern evolution of what has been done before? The coat of arms of the Calvert and Crossland families have been featured for some time now; they present a unique visual identifier for an athletic program that is more or less a “tweener” (good, but not big time) and could stand to have something “visually unique” associated with it. It’s not a UA-induced revelation.

    Yes, the fashion show was a joke (although no worse than anyone’s “Midnight Madness”). Yes the press release was ridiculous and ludicrous. And yeah, the “Pride” uniform was a bit garish but if you were going to incorporate two coats of arms into a uniform, how else would you do it? I’m not arguing whether or not to do it, that ship has sailed.

    I’m just trying to determine why this is so repulsive for you, from the University’s perspective, because I think they’ve actually been pretty consistent here for quite some time, and now they’ve decided to inject something into their brand (Maryland Athletics) that sets them apart from the schools they compete and recruit against on a regular basis.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 1:30 pm |

      Boys with toys. I really can’t get past any of that.

      • Rob | September 6, 2011 at 1:44 pm |

        Fair enough. But if they had just walked out onto the field without the fashion show, without the brain-dead press release, would you have the same perspective?

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

          This is like saying, “If this didn’t suck, would it still suck?”

        • The Jeff | September 6, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

          What, you can’t separate the marketing bullshit from the actual design?

          Yeah, all of the “20% cooler” crap is just that. But the actual uniform is bold, eye-catching and creative.

    • Cort McMurray | September 6, 2011 at 1:53 pm |

      There’s a difference between evoking ancient coats of arms by using red, yellow and black as your color scheme, and dressing behemoth athletes in something that makes them look like spandex and high impact plastic – clad versions of the Swiss Guards.

      The Maryland state flag is like haggis, or polka music: a beloved cultural institution whose merits are utterly lost on outsiders. If you aren’t part of the tribe, it’s best taken in very, very small doses.

      • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

        Maryland is okay as long as it only recruits in state. ;>)

  • nfn | September 6, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

    i liked the uniforms. alright then.

  • Cory | September 6, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

    The Maryland unis were not new uniforms they were just new designs that represented the state of Maryland by emphasizing the flag. They have been marketing Operation 54K all summer wear each section of the stadium would be a different color of the Maryland flag. So to cap it all of UA and Maryland came out with uniforms that specifically represented the state. Don’t hate a winner.

    • Ry Co 40 | September 6, 2011 at 1:44 pm |

      “The Maryland unis were not new uniforms they were just new designs…”

      best thing you’ll read all afternoon!

    • JTH | September 6, 2011 at 1:47 pm |

      What makes it a winner?

      That uni design sucked because they could have done so much more with it but they actually took the safe route by limiting the design elements to the big blocks on the helmets and shoulder yokes.

      I can think of several different ways that design could have been improved upon by taking an even less conservative approach. For example, they totally dropped the ball by using generic socks.

    • Kevin W. | September 7, 2011 at 3:20 am |

      Uniforms don’t make a program a winner. Oregon in last year’s national championship (against a traditional program wearing traditional uniforms) says hi. Plus, you guys won against an extremely depleted Miami team.

  • Brad | September 6, 2011 at 1:44 pm |

    Forgotten in all the talk about the Maryland uniforms is the fact that Miami had to give its okay for the Terrapins to wear white at home, the NCAA rule. I used to enjoy Steve Spurrier’s head qames with LSU when he was coach at Florida. When they’d play LSU at Baton Rouge, he’d give his okay for the Tigers to wear the traditional white jersey at home on the condition that the Gators would wear white in Gainesville when LSU came calling, which happened.

    In 2005, Syracuse wore white at home for Greg Robinson’s first two games as head coach vs. West Virginia and Buffalo. In game three, then Virginia coach Al Groh refused SU’s request to wear white jerseys at home.

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

      Back in the day, LSU always wore white…but there were teams that f*cked with them. Miami, for example in the early sixties (think George Mira, QB) made LSU wear purple. And LSU would invariably lose or play badly whenever they wore purple…called it “purple poison”.

      • Kek | September 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

        I thought one of the cooler white-at-home occurences happened when Pat White played his last game for WVU in Morgantown.

  • RS | September 6, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

    Is no one else bothered by the Jets’ new unis incorporating SIX colors? Two shades of blue, two shades of red, and two shades of gray.

    These get a resounding “yawn” from me. Roundel logo? Check. Double blue? Check. Unnecessary collar laces? Check.

    I get WHY the zombie-Thrashers’ logo is a roundel. But all the elements together scream “we didn’t even try.”

    • Mike 2 | September 6, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

      The Black Hawks must make your head explode – yellow! orange! green! blue! red! shite! black! flesh!

      Can we distinguish between the colours on the uniform (which they’ve kept simple) and the colours on the crest?

      • RS | September 6, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

        Haha, good point. Maybe my issue should be that the logo itself contains five colors.

        Discounting the red from the actual jerseys, you still get the roundel logo on a double blue jersey with superfluous collar lacing. In a vacuum, like most of the other roundel/blue/laced jerseys, there’s nothing particularly wrong with them. But as has been stated many times before, designs aren’t made in a vacuum.

        The zombie-Thrashers brass didn’t even try and just went with what was trendy. At least that’s the vibe I get from this uniform set.

      • Mike 2 | September 6, 2011 at 2:46 pm |

        damn these hot dog fingers. white, not shite.

        • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

          no…you had it right the first time

        • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 8:31 pm |

          “Shite” is now my official name for “vintage white”.

  • Dan | September 6, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

    Oddly, when they came out of the tunnel last night, and weren’t in one of the 300? (36?) combos they unveiled last week…and I got a good look at them when a player came closer to our section, I thought…that the uniqueness and almost heraldic look was something Paul might dig. (The red side had an almost Crusader look to it).

    Paul, if they had just come out in the unis (which are likely a one-off, or a limited use uni) and didn’t pair it with the mega press-release blitz, would that have changed your opinion of the actual uni? Did the corporate ‘dbaggery’ of the moment taint a uniform you might not otherwise have loathed as much?

    That’s where I think I am on this. I actually kind of like the helmet/jersey. (I agree with the folks earlier today that PS’d it to flip the helmet, so that the jersey and helmet alternated the way the flag does). I don’t like the “Maryland Pride” video or e-mails that I’ve gotten 3 times in the last 18 hours. (I guess because I’m a season ticket holder).

    In the end, it all came back to a great game. We forgot about the unis, and enjoyed a crazy game with an awesome finish…in the rain.

    • Dan | September 6, 2011 at 2:00 pm |

      Oh…nevermind Paul. I just saw your response to a similar comment. I hadn’t caught that one when I started typing mine.

      • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 2:15 pm |

        Here’s the thing: Design (like anything else) doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Intent matters; context matters; corporate nonsense matters.

        Some reporter just interviewed me, and this was as much as I was willing to say about the design: “There are all sorts of ways to be interesting. By far the laziest way is to simply break lots of rules and be ‘outrageous,’ just for the sake of doing so.”

        • Achowat | September 6, 2011 at 2:21 pm |


        • Will S | September 6, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

          The laziest way is by thinking outside the box of triple stripe pants and shoulders/sleeves? I’m just confused about this right now, no offense intended, but why is this lazy? Seems exciting to me, whether that’s positive or negative excitement is clearly up for interpretation, but I’d hardly call this lazy. If it was lazy wouldn’t it have showed up before? I understand that they’re trending the way of Pro Combat, but this is unlike anything else in football, and that’s exciting to me, not lazy.

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 3:00 pm |

          Here’s how it works: As a designer, the best way to be interesting is to create something that’s both beautiful and functional. That is the purpose of design. If you do it well, and consistently, everyone will recognize you for the visionary you are. Like if you’re, say, Apple. And as we’ve all experienced in various realms — not just design — nothing is more interesting than quality.

          If you can’t have both beauty and function, you can try to have one or the other.

          And if you can’t have either one, you can simply make a loud mess that breaks all the established orthodoxies and hope people mistake provocation for innovation. Apparently, some chumps fall for this.

  • The Hungry Hungry Hipster | September 6, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

    These Maryland flag uniforms totally look like something I would have designed and I’m kicking myself for not doing it first. I’ve had the idea that Maryland should use their state flag in their uniforms for a while and I’m glad someone finally realized how cool of a football uniform the flag’s patterns can make.

    If you’ve been a Uni-Watch reader since 2009 you’ll remember I like to base my uniform designs on city or state flags. The attention these Maryland uniforms are getting is largely in part because of the unusual flag design Maryland just so happens to have. If the flag was simple, say with a seal in the center on a colored background, and a uniform was designed based on it, you KNOW there wouldn’t be this wild media and Twitter frenzy.

    Don’t let the unusual-looks of these uniforms overpower the fact that it is the FLAG of the state of Maryland that’s being displayed on the uniform. It’s not just a bizarre looking uniform; it’s the state flag transformed into an athletic team. These uniforms are state pride personified.

    I’m surprised state flags aren’t used more often in a state university’s sports teams uniforms, especially if a state has an interesting/unique looking flag. Arizona has a cool flag and I designed a Cardinals jersey based on it for the “Design an NFL Jersey” Uni-Watch contest last year. But now that Maryland has opened Pandora’s box I could totally see Arizona State or University of Arizona donning my flag jersey design. I’d better design the matching helmet and pants now so I can say I did it first!

    • DenverGregg | September 6, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

      Last night THE Jeff mused about making some more state flag => state U jerseys. The problem is that for most of the visually intereting state flags, there’s no corresponding state school with matching colors: no ‘zona school uses copper, no NM school uses yellow, no Indiana school wears blue/gold, no South Cackalacky school with navy/white . . .

      • The Jeff | September 6, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

        Yeah, if I actually do that, school colors are going to have to fly out the window. I’ve got a couple ideas for Ohio’s flag, but it’ll end up looking more like a New England Patriots concept than anything the Buckeyes would even think about using.

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 6:13 pm |

      The idea of using Maryland’s state flag as the basis for the uniform sounds like a great idea to me. This was terrible execution, because the function of a uniform is to quickly and easily identify the team in all situations. If the helmet had been one design and the yoke the other it would have worked. If they had had just the split helmets it would have worked. If they had somehow found a way to go the harlequin route with colored uniforms it probably would have worked decently as well. Taking a white uniform and making it so boldly asymmetrical defeated the purpose of the uniform. That makes it a bad design.

      • UtzTheCrabChip | September 6, 2011 at 10:19 pm |

        “Because the function of a uniform is to quickly and easily identify the team in all situations.”

        For people from Maryland, these uniforms did exactly that.

  • SMP | September 6, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

    Paul Lukas axioms of college uniform analysis:

    – College uniforms should not be innovative, creative, or in any way “new looking” whatsoever. The closer to Penn State, the better

    – College uniforms should not be advertised or marketed in any way. The fact that they are made by companies and have to be sold to teams is irrelevant…no marketing (aka corporate bullshit).

    – If uniforms ever ARE advertised or marketed in any way, it should not be to the young people who watch and play the games. The marketing should be geared toward middle-aged and senior men.

    – Anyone interested in wearing/buying/playing in any uniform that is not nearly identical to most of the uniforms worn in the 50s is a disgrace to the institution of college sports, loathes any concept of tradition, probably kills babies, and should be shot.

    Did I miss anything?

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

      Gray facemasks!

      • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

        Eat meat! ;>)

      • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

        No purple.

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

      Hate to nitpick, but at least according to one poster here colleges are not buying their uniforms from Nike, UA, Addidas, etc…depending on the level of sponsorship the manufacturers are supplying uniforms, cleats and other accessories to the schools free of charge, in addition to sometimes paying a portion of the co0ach’s salary. So, in effect, college football is one big marketing device for these manufacturers…and it therefore comes as no big surprise that these manufacturers may have some influence on what a school wears.

    • Mike Engle | September 6, 2011 at 2:55 pm |

      And stripes. Stripes, stripes, and more stripes. What bacon strips are to Epic Mealtime, stripes are to Uni Watch. (Hmm…bacon stripes?)

  • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

    Just out of curiosity has the UM athletic department, either before or since the game indicated how these particular uniforms were selected? Did the players vote on them? Did the head coach decide on them? Who gave UA the general design specs…if at all?

  • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

    Most comments in one day? I had a feeling this might be the case last night, when the Terps took the field.

    I liked the uniforms. Maybe it was just the helmets, or the fact that it was something different, but whatever it was, I liked them.

    Paul’s response was just about what I expected. I’m old enough to appreciate everyone’s opinions, even when they don’t fall in-line with my own.

    Paul does make a good connection between corporate greed and politics. The only difference is that in the marketplace, we vote with our dollars.

    If you don’t like what UA or Nike stands for, then don’t reward them with your money. If you don’t care what they do, then…by all means…buy away.

    For me, I try to keep football (or any sport) segregated from “real life”. It’s my outlet. I don’t play professional sports, so to me, it’s for entertainment. I may bitch about other forms of entertainment, but in the end…I still sleep good at night.

    Uniwatch never disappoints me…great job Paulie!

  • Diggerjohn111 | September 6, 2011 at 2:34 pm |

    The new Winnipeg Jets sweaters are out, and they ROCK! Traditional RCAF colours and a design that doesn’t reek of Reebok. As for the Yotes 15th anniversary design on their ice; it should say “Fifteenth and Final Season”. Move ’em to Quebec, pucks don’t go on sand!

    • Diggerjohn111 | September 6, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

      Quebec or Hartford, that is. I miss the Whale

      • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 8:38 pm |

        The WHA/NHL Jets’ swan-song 24th season featured the center-ice (and, late in the season, patch) motto “Cherished Memories”.

        For the Desert Dogs, it’d be more like, “Memories? What Memories?” Like, that time the Red Wings beat them in the 1st round? Or that other time the Red Wings beat them in the 1st round? Or how about that other, other time the Red Wings beat them in the first round?

  • Patrick | September 6, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

    I teach school and the consensus among the students is that the uniforms are awesome. Of course, these are the same students who think that MLB hats with a gigantic logo and inaccurate colors are also awesome.

    • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

      Hahaha…I dropped my son off at school this morning (middle school), and that’s the first thing I heard his friends talking about “How cool were those Maryland uniforms last night?!”.

  • Jason | September 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

    This entire thread — the overwrought anti-corpratist blather; the sputtering outrage of the uniform cognoscenti; the total refusal to acknowledge the organic desire by the university, its teams, and its fans to revel in the garish glory of a beloved state flag — is comic gold.

    As though the university hasn’t been redesigning EVERYTHING about its athletic department behind the flag motif — from its soccer team (, to its lacrosse team (; to its women’s water polo team (; to its endzones ( — to create a completely unique brand.

    As though this rebranding hasn’t been evolving for 3 years or more, as reported on this very site — — where the author gladly passed along “insider info” (without going into specifics, mind you). Probably gleaned from an UnderArmour rep in the days before the current tantrum over corporate involvement in athletics.

    This hissy fit is absolute, unbridled, high comedy.

    • patrick | September 6, 2011 at 3:50 pm |

      As is your second lame Bill Simmons impression today.

      • Jason | September 6, 2011 at 4:15 pm |

        Patrick, I am very sorry to have disagreed with your favorite bolgger. Please accept my apologies.

        Carry on.

        • patrick | September 6, 2011 at 4:22 pm |

          No apology necessarry.

          Well, maybe you should apologize for trying to sound like Simmons and failing in such an embarrassing way. That’s up to you.

          Carry on.

        • Jason | September 6, 2011 at 8:53 pm |

          Honestly, I have less than no idea WTF you’re talking about patrick. Keep up the trolling, though. Solid work, IMO!

  • Rupert | September 6, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

    Lukas, I have to say that this post is another, in a series of posts, which has led me to become very discouraged by you and your site. I have been here since day 1, always reading, rarely commenting. However, I feel the need to say something today. This holier than thou approach towards anything corporate, and this protector of something sacred in the uniform world has gone to far for my taste. Sorry man, but what I saw last night was a unique concept, which could have been done better for sure, but was unique. If you love uniforms, as we all do which is why we’re here, you have to be interested in the attempt. To act like you are too good to cover it, which you already did once, is shameful sir. At the same time, so many terp fans like it, which is very funny. I’m sorry it does not have a bunch of stripes or whatever it is that you like, but times change, uniforms change, especially at non-traditional schools. You don’t have to like it, but you should at least appreciate the effort to create new ideas, and not pound the company and school for trying to be somewhat unique.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

      If Terps fans like it, good for them. They can like what they choose, and I can like what I choose. Big world, lots of opinions, etc.

      • Gary | September 6, 2011 at 4:04 pm |

        Absolutely! You have every right to sound like a bitter curmudgeon on the wrong side of history.

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 4:21 pm |

          Yep…I’m sure one day Paul will be sorry he didn’t embrace creative football costumes and “corporate douchebaggery” as he’s cast into the ash heap of history. That damn Paul…! ;>)

    • JA | September 6, 2011 at 5:38 pm |

      Well said, Rupert.

  • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

    Mulitple shootings at an IHOP in Carson City, Nevada.

    I wonder if someone remarked that his strawberry waffle with whipped cream “looks like Maryland’s uniforms last night.”

    And, y’know, it escalated from there.

    • Smitty | September 6, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

      What a disgusting comment.

      • Kek | September 6, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

        Too soon Ricko, maybe you should dust off your 9/11 material since ten years is coming up Sunday.


    • James Cr aven | September 6, 2011 at 3:37 pm |

      Damn it, Ricko.

      Such a poor comment about the Nevada IHOP tragedy.

    • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

      Oh, for crissakes, the point was that this entire discussion is a tad too contentious and everything’s being blown out of propotion.

      I was meeting ridiculous with something equally ridiculous.

      I guess everyone has a high horse they they’ll climb aboard every now and again to give us a good “tut, tut, tut.”

      Or COURSE it’s a terrible tragedy. Got a day lately when something like that DOESN’T happen? Welcome to life.

      And I guess we should never again use the term “going postal,” either, right?

    • Attila Szendrodi | September 7, 2011 at 2:11 am |

      Funniest thing Ive read today. I look forward to the 9/11 jokes on Monday.

  • Jim BC | September 6, 2011 at 3:13 pm |

    I may have missed this in the pile of posts today but has anyone mentioned that, in addition to the horrific unis worn by Maryland last night, they actually wore different helmets in pre-game? To honor their mascot?

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 3:20 pm |

      I am so disappointed that these uniforms which creatively adopted the Maryland state flag did not also depict a flag pole planted in the players’ butts…what a missed opportunity. Maybe next time, Under Armour…?

      • Gary | September 6, 2011 at 4:01 pm |

        The only place any flagpole was shoved last night was up the collective Miami rear.

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 4:05 pm |

          And, yet, I wonder why everyone is talking about how distractingly bad most people thought their uniforms were.

  • the rob | September 6, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

    In the unis previously shown I thought the turtle shell was silly and the black too plain but the alternating black/yellow squaes on the stripe was great. It shows the state flag heritage without being overly obtrusive. It is new and creative.

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 6:18 pm |

      I like the turtle shell. To me it’s equivalent to ram’s horns or tiger stripes. The mascot is an animal with a distinctive trait and the helmet effectively exploits that trait as shorthand for the team.

  • Jordan | September 6, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

    Echoing what lots of other said, I like the uniforms because they do something very few schools can do, which is show off the state flag, which is in my opinion, very cool. it really was not designed to be universally loved, but to appeal to the potential recruits and those are proud of the state flag. If you can get just one potential high schooler to say “wow, those unis are cool, I want to play there and wear those unis.” Then it’s mission accomplished. Personally I liked it, and UA did exactly what they had in mind, minus fancy twice as sticky gloves.

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 3:46 pm |

      If I was from Maryland I would have all of my clothes made from the state flag…

  • Gary | September 6, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

    The Paul Lukas ideal uniform: uniform white, gray, or black, all seams carefully hidden or taped, no names or numbers on the front or back, and a sufficiently contrasting Apple logo on the side of the helmet. Or maybe football players in a Steve Jobs black turtleneck?

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 6:19 pm |

      You obviously haven’t been here long if you think he likes uniforms that are black or gray.

  • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 4:02 pm |

    Hey Paul, you have to have at least a small grin on your face…apparently, you ARE the final word in uniform coolness. If not, then people wouldn’t bother to leave their opinions.

    Well done sir.

    Now if you can reach the same level in the carnivore consumption world, then I would be double impressed.

  • LarryB | September 6, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

    Just got home. Saw 350 some comments. Read some from the morning and will check out others in a bit.

    It seems the in thing is the bash most of these new uniforms as ugly ugly ugly. I for one do not like this trend of having multiple uniform and helmet combos. It is not the traditional powers doing it as much. Although some have let Nike decide what to wear. I Have to say of course that Maryland’s unis were wild. Were they ugly?? That is all taste. We have 2 honchos on here who love the ugly as heck PSU unis. I have said PSU does not have an nice looking uniform.

    Do I like all of these creations? No. As many know I am a throwback guy. I would much rather see teams wear uniforms they have worn in the past. Plenty of interesting looks for almost all teams.

    Michigan is going to wear a legacy uni. Michigan never wore any uniform like it in the past. Michigan has not had a lot of big changes in the unis. Still it would be better to wear one they wore before and not this creation.

    Bottom line I wish teams stuck with their colors and basic looks. I have no idea how long this trend will continue. I do laugh like Paul did about the “reasons’ given for the new Terp unis. Bunch of hogwash. If Maryland wore those unis vs LSU and LSU wore the old fashioned wool jerseys and moleskin pants who would win?

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

      That is hilarious. Last night I almost commented that the uniforms in question would be ideally suited for roller derby…but I had already said enough nasty things and exercised restraint. I didn’t know there actually were roller derby unis…

  • Craig W. | September 6, 2011 at 4:11 pm |

    Anyone notice the 2 errors on the Bears eBay shirt?

    1) New York Giants (October 3) don’t have a city location like all the other games. And they don’t even play in NYC to begin with so you just can’t assume it.

    2) Minnesota Vikings (December 20) When did Minneapolis move to Michigan?

    • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 4:29 pm |

      re: 2) — minneapolis moved to michigan when the metrodome broke

      • JTH | September 6, 2011 at 4:57 pm |

        Man, everything’s moving to Michigan these days. I guess things are looking up for the state’s economy.

        (Damn. I knew I should have bought one of those.)

      • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 11:26 pm |

        If it had the results, I might buy that, but as it was most likely made prior to the season, then it should still say “Minneapolis, MN”.

  • Anthony | September 6, 2011 at 4:24 pm |
  • Steve Cook | September 6, 2011 at 4:29 pm |

    Seems to me to be a very polarizing subject today, the Maryland clown suits. These discussions could go on for a long time and probably will… at least until another school adopts an outrageous costume to garner attention.
    In the midst of all this, we all missed one item that can’t be disputed.
    The apostrophe catastrophe on the throwback soap package.
    Let’s get with it… this was a mistake that is indisputable!

    • chuck | September 6, 2011 at 10:54 pm |

      Clown suits; that is what those togs are. I thought I was watching a Batman tv episode from the 60’s!

  • hgmercury | September 6, 2011 at 4:29 pm |

    Please do not call the University of Maryland a very foolish school just because of one foolish decision to redesign the football uniforms! I do not like the uniforms, however, there is alot more to the University of Maryland then just redesigning the football uniforms.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 4:38 pm |

      Fair enough. Point taken.

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 5:30 pm |

      I am sure the University of Maryland is a fine place and the people of Maryland are good people. Perhaps some of us have been pretty hard making fun of your football team’s uniforms.

      I now understand better that the people of Maryland are proud of their flag (it is a cool flag) and the university has started to incorporate it in the uniforms of its athletic teams. My son (who, incidentally, also thought the football unis were the worst thing he had ever seen) has scouted Maryland’s soccer team and described their unis to me as incorporating the yellow/black checkerboard on one shoulder and sleeve. So I understand what Maryland was trying to do with the football team. Unfortunately, it was a major fail IMO.

      But I’m with Paul seeing the hand of “corporate douchebaggery” behind the wholesale glamming of football unis. Bottom line is that it’s all about Nike, UA, Addidas, et als. making piles of money by making pop culture the standard for college uniforms. Maryland’s jerseys would make a great fan t-shirt. A real jersey…? Not so much.

      I like how modern uniforms are more performance enhancing and actually don’t mind some of the newer designs. I confess that I actually like Oregon’s closetful of uniforms. But Maryland’s went way over the top IMO…I could find no redeeming value in them at all. I just hope this episode backfires on UA.

  • Muirinal | September 6, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 5:00 pm |

      forde nicely sums up what paul has been saying for the past decade…

      “The bigger question is how they played with recruits. If they like the uniforms, it might not matter who else is repulsed by them.”

      exactly — they’re designed to attract 17 year olds, and if every one else is repulsed by them (read: everyone who doesn’t live in maryland) who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks?

      well the rest of us do but apparently we shouldn’t have any say in the matter…cuz, ya know, we all just haters then

      • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 5:06 pm |

        And then there’s Penn State, still embracing the antiquated notion of “student athletes” and probably not interested in recruits who aren’t intelligent enough or mature enough to be unswayed by shiny objects.

        • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 5:08 pm |

          But the stripe on Penn State’s helmets is so skinny…

        • Jason | September 6, 2011 at 8:56 pm |

          If you think Penn State embraces the notion of “student athletes,” I have a bridge across the Schuylkill to sell you. Get over yourself.

        • Ricko | September 7, 2011 at 8:08 pm |

          So isn’t life kinda depressing, knowing that you already know everything?

          For the record, only two football programs have never been investigated by the NCAA for improprieties: Penn State and Stanford.

          Source: espn

      • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm |

        Which is a big part of why I’m not particularly interested in talking about the design. I don’t write about all the other things schools use to recruit 17-yr-olds. If that’s all this is, why should I write about that?

        • Patrick | September 6, 2011 at 8:30 pm |

          Well, you run a website about sports uniforms. That’s why people expect you to write about it.

        • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 11:08 pm |

          Ah, I see. I’m here to do what you expect of me. Fascinating.

          Have you ever given any thought to what I expect of YOU? That might prove edifying.

        • Patrick | September 7, 2011 at 12:23 am |

          No, I haven’t thought a minute about what you expect out of me. Feel free to tell me–I would find it interesting.

          I should add that I have no problem with the way you have chose to cover the Maryland unis. But, I find it disingenuous for you to be surprised that people expect you to write about it.

        • Patrick | September 7, 2011 at 12:46 am |

          Further clarification: I help write a small food blog where I live (that pretty much no one reads, but I enjoy writing it all the same). We have decided to never write about corporate chains. We’re just not interested in them, and we’re especially uninterested in writing about them.

          That being said, we’re not offended when people ask us what we think about them. Honestly, I’m flattered when anyone ever wants to hear what I think. But, I guess that doesn’t happen all that often. We’re pretty small time. It’s probably different when you’re inundated, and it probably pisses you off when some people accuse you of crazy stuff.

        • Phil Hecken | September 7, 2011 at 1:08 am |

          are you hereford or angus?

        • Patrick | September 7, 2011 at 1:16 am |


      • Jim Vilk | September 6, 2011 at 5:34 pm |

        Mr. Forde summed it up even better with this:
        “This is your fault, Oregon.”

        Another gem:
        “The Terps will incorporate 32 new uniform looks this year, hopefully not at a cost that will inhibit the softball team’s ability to eat on road trips.”

        • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 5:41 pm |

          how is it oregon’s fault? it’s every OTHER gaddam university that DIDN’T think of this that ruins it for everyone, including oregon

          you can blame nike, for they let other schools get talked into “a different uni for every game” … but don’t blame oregon for inventing the wheel

        • Jason | September 6, 2011 at 8:58 pm |

          it is completely incomprehensible how everybody just refuses to understand that the university doesn’t have to pay for these, at the expense of debt incurred to build a basketball stadium, beloved softball per diems (which I’m sure Forde really cares about), or whatever. Just an astonishing display of willful ignorance.

        • Jim Vilk | September 6, 2011 at 9:14 pm |

          Oregon took a perfectly good wheel and made it into a square. And of course it’s human nature to copy something, even if it’s not worth copying. So while they’re not solely to blame, it is so Oregon’s fault.

  • Andrew Ross | September 6, 2011 at 4:44 pm |

    Looks like those Marlyand helmets aren’t even original. The Baltimore roller derby team has been wearing similar helmets for years now:

    • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 5:03 pm |

      So much for UA’s “custom” helmets.
      Well, in all fairness, they are custom made for the Maryland football team.
      Just maybe not a custom design.

      What other roller girls helmets could teams imitate, I wonder?

      Would be quite a depature from having to be macho and intimidating, though, wouldn’t it.

      • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 5:18 pm |

        What other roller girls helmets could teams imitate, I wonder?

        Better question: Should the roller girls sue Under Armour?

        Kidding, kidding…

        • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 5:29 pm |

          Probably not heard in the Maryland locker room last night…

          “Oh, man, awewome! Just like the Charm City Roller Girls.”

        • Ricko | September 6, 2011 at 5:42 pm |

          I think maybe one student manager blurted that out and as of now he’s still taped in the locker where the UA rep stuffed him.

        • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 6:28 pm |

          Too bad that would have to stay in state court. It would probably do better in federal. I’ll bet there’s a few judges in Maryland that went to U of M and not a whole lot that played roller derby.

      • Andrew Ross | September 6, 2011 at 7:57 pm |

        Most roller derby teams don’t have a uniform helmet design. Most skaters just take a helmet and put stickers on it. Any design is going to be covered up when you put on the helmet cover for jamming or pivoting anyway…

  • MDComments | September 6, 2011 at 5:21 pm |

    Alright Paul,

    So you don’t like the unis and the leading corporations that make unis. Well, at least this corporation is organized to give you a well timed press release and corporations are starting to be daring. Every major college is watching their image and I think Maryland is awesome for doing something outside the box knowing it is going to get criticism from the likes of you. UM said damn the haters and gave us a product that lots hate and lots love. Go Terps and keep up the good work!

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 5:50 pm |

      MD, I hate to break this to you but it’s not just a case of some people hating Maryland’s football uniform…people outside of Maryland are laughing at it. That can’t be a good thing…

      Look, I’m glad people from Maryland are proud of their flag and that the university is incorporating the flag in its athletic uniforms. But this particular iteration is a major fail…comically so, some think.

      I would say Maryland should get a refund from UA…but Maryland probably never paid for them in the first place. It was just a flashy promotional gimmick for UA.

  • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 5:27 pm |

    just one last question, seeing as how everyone from the entire state of maryland seems to be defending these unis

    if we can call UO “nikegon” (i think even duck alums would agree this is pretty much true)…

    is it now time to ‘officially’ refer to the UMd the “University of UnderArmour”? … i kinda like “planktown” myself

    • JA | September 6, 2011 at 5:45 pm |

      University of Armourland.
      The Maryland Underarmour-pins

      I’m fine with it all.


      • Kevin W. | September 7, 2011 at 3:24 am |

        Make it even simpler: the University of Mouryland.

  • Kyle Allebach | September 6, 2011 at 5:39 pm |

    I saw on Wikipedia about the helmet design of the original Bengals uniform an apparently the helmet was supposed to look like today’s helmet, but it would have “yellow stripes on a torquise helmet”

    No citation. Can anyone confirm, or is this some Wikipedia lunacy?

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 6:30 pm |

      Sounds like Wikipedia lunacy. Paul Brown designed the Bengals’ original uniform to look like the Browns with the intention to piss off Art Modell.

  • Dan | September 6, 2011 at 5:42 pm |

    Hi Paul,

    I’m a Maryland fan and I’m with you in UA’s desperate and sad attempt at getting attention. But I’m a little struck by how in a few replies here you seem to say that you’re “not criticizing the jerseys/design just criticizing the corporation” for being desperate … and then other times you downright attack the unis.

    What’s odd to me is that I don’t think the unis are that ‘out there’ – except that UA and now many fans/public personas have pumped them up to be that way. The uni is almost plain white, but has the helmet and shoulder flag design. (And again, my native-to-MD bias has me kind of enjoying it.)

    Really, I think the unis they introduced two weeks ago are more “out there” and garish and sad. I really don’t want to see the Terps in a million mish-mash versions with swirling number colors, etc. (I will say, I like the helmets in all cases – but don’t know why we need three).

    So – without giving any credence or credit to ‘foolish company’ or ‘foolish school’ – can you tell me why you so hate the unis? Is it the ‘two face’ thing? Or is it just a hate for the company and the marketing ploy tinting the view? Thanks.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 5:53 pm |

      I have never once stated — nor am I stating now — that I “hate the unis.” I’m not particularly interested in the design. As many people have noted, the design is basically a recruiting appeal to 17-yr-olds. I’m sure Maryland has a nice Jacuzzi that also appeals to potential recruits, but I’m not interested in that either.

      The part I find interesting is the corporate approach. So that’s what I wrote about. All the rest is just noise.

      • Dan | September 6, 2011 at 7:43 pm |

        Fair enough. I appreciate the response. I think the unis appeal to the recruits. I also think they appeal – as Edsall said was his goal when he showed up (outside of just unis) – to a state that has had a flagship university without much state-wide support in football.

        I also get that the unis “break all the conventions” – but I don’t think they do so just for the sake of the publicity. Well, at least not ONLY for the publicity. The state flag is a semi-medieval coat of arms (two, in fact) and the unis represent that. The flag banner has been flying over the UM “M” for many years – I’m surprised people never noticed it.

        Again, thanks for the thoughts.

      • Terwilliger Jones | September 6, 2011 at 10:05 pm |

        Paul, that’s shocking dissembling for a person who always has an opinion on actual design elements!

        Disappointed cat is disappointed.

  • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 5:50 pm |

    Daily News on the brouhahaha…w/PL quotes

  • Gary | September 6, 2011 at 5:58 pm |

    Didn’t go to Maryland or Miami, don’t work for UA or Nike, played the game years ago. I’m 53 and a fan of both trad unis (BALTIMORE Colts, ST LOUIS Cardinals, LOS ANGELES Rams before the yella crept in) and completely open to new ideas. Liked what Nike did with Boise except for the clown-like orange cleats. Loved the Georgia helmets, not wild about the rest of the costume. Loved the Maryland unis because they’re FOR Maryland, its students/alums/faculty/residents. If anyone else likes them, great. If not, who cares? It’s all entertainment anyway. What’s fresh and entertaining to some is annoying to others. And almost as entertaining is the Coach Kelly-esque red-faced tirades over the UM unis…

  • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 6:24 pm |

    I just checked the new rankings and didn’t see University of Maryland anywhere.

    Suddenly I feel really stupid wasting all this energy on the uniforms of a mediocre team.

  • Jeffrey Lowery | September 6, 2011 at 6:47 pm |

    Wow. I didn’t get a chance to read today’s entry during work and now I see 1,000 comments/debate on Maryland. I guess it shows how strongly opinionated people are when it comes to uniforms.

    Keep up the swell work here and especially with the great Permanent Record Project & Butcher’s Case.

  • msquared | September 6, 2011 at 6:51 pm |

    whaa – uniforms arent the same as they were in 1981!
    whaa – socks arent cool unless they have stripes!
    whaa – a company wants to market its product and turn a profit!
    whaa – said company wants to also advertise on its product!
    whaa – everybody except old people like progress!
    whaa – nike and under armour want to make money and create jobs!
    whaa – communism only exists in three countries!
    whaa! whaa! whaa!

    • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 7:21 pm |

      Gee, I just looked four articles of Nike apparel on my rack, at random, and found they were made in China, Mexico, Viet Nam and Indonesia. Then I checked my Under Armour workout shirts and found they were made in Mexico, Peru and the Dominican Republic. Yep…Nike and Under Armour sure wanna create jobs in the U.S. of A.

      Lemme guess, you’re in favor of more tax cuts for rich people to improve our economy.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 7:21 pm |

      Whaa! The mean writer on the free web site didn’t reaffirm my shaky sense of self by repeating exactly what I think! Whaa!

      • msquared | September 6, 2011 at 7:56 pm |

        Whaa! – the writer immediately gets personal in his retort with a suspect 7th grade level psychological diagnosis!
        Whaa! – every uniform should be over-sized and look exactly like the indy colts!
        Whaa! – i hate corporate sponsorship. . . so, ignore that google tool bar that you see at the bottom of the page. . . as well as any of the countless other adverts on this site!
        Whaa! Whaa! Whaa!

    • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 7:23 pm |

      is there a mr. quared or are you unattached? you sound hot

      • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 11:20 pm |

        Maybe the best comment of the day. Nice work Phil!

  • Adam G | September 6, 2011 at 7:17 pm |

    Unique to say the least. I would go either or on the helmet/shoulder design. WOuld be nice to see different sets…ie. all checkered, all cross. The checkered reminded me of the warning area on the flightdeck of a Navy Carrier. The cross seems very gallant. Go UM roll out as many designs as you want. At least they are better than Oregons horrendous combos!

  • DenverGregg | September 6, 2011 at 7:23 pm |

    Good comments on the aesthetics of first week of CFB from Aunt Stabby at her new digs.

    • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 8:59 pm |

      Nice subtle MST3K reference in that article… and given the amount of reaction to the Maryland unis, quite apropos that the reference in particular comes from the same episode that gave us DEEP HURTING!

  • Steve | September 6, 2011 at 7:51 pm |

    Comment record?

  • mtjaws | September 6, 2011 at 8:07 pm |

    I actually thought the MD uniforms and helmets were great. But I’ve also been a long time fan of Maryland’s uniquely colorful state flag. It would have been better if they swapped the corners like on the flag, but it was still ok.

    And I know the purpose was to get attention, and for that, they succeeded. I don’t think they should wear them all season though.

    Of all the helmets in Maryland’s past, I like the 1997-2000 flagged M version best, and any version saying “Terps” as the worst.

  • Michael Emody | September 6, 2011 at 8:09 pm |

    I see Paul’s piece today as not so much a critique of the “one game” uniforms that Maryland wore, but the preposterous press release full of absurd claims and new heights of corporate doublespeak.

    Ok, someone took a chance. Actually, a corporate “team” took a chance. The need to “oversell” the thing is insane. If a salesman tells me I’ll look like Superman in a suit, ok. If he goes on about how I’ll be able to fly thru the air and bend steel… “Well, I think I’ll look around…”

  • Oakville Endive | September 6, 2011 at 8:13 pm |

    Wow, well so long lazy days of summer with Uni-watch having 100+ posts, it’s football season.

    I give the Jets jersey a B-/B. Nothing over horribly to dislike, except the striping on the white jersey,. However, nothing really overwhelms either (a bit boring) A little like an old Toronto Argos uni of the early 1990″s. If they had 15+ months, as opposed to 2+ , I wonder how different, I suspect it will get tweaked next year as a result of this short dev time.

    Note Tampa Bay originally intending to wear light green, was in a May 1976 (?) Sport Illustrated, I remember well, as Larry Robinson is on the cover.

  • PhilF | September 6, 2011 at 8:27 pm |

    uh oh…Paul isn’t gonna like this…(although i’m sure he was aware, i just wasnt until now, or i was and forgot about it)

    • Kyle Allebach | September 6, 2011 at 9:17 pm |

      It was posted before, but IDK if an actual picture was used…

  • traxel | September 6, 2011 at 8:31 pm |

    I wanted to comment on the subject of the day. I really did. But what can I bring to the conversation that 439 other comments haven’t already broached? Hmmm. Nothing. Whaaa!

    So this is my contribution to get to 500. WE CAN DO IT!

    And why hasn’t anyone told me how wonderful I am for pointing out that Jerry Reuss picked up a great win back in 1976? (see comment at 9:43 this morning) Thought that would surely quash all the douchebaggery talk of the day.

    Oh, and the Whaa guy made me chuckle. And the replies did as well. Heh heh. Good one Phil. And I for one, one very lonely one on this site, am in favor of tax cuts for the rich but we all knew that already didn’t we.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 8:55 pm |

      Quality, Ben. Not quantity.

  • StLMarty | September 6, 2011 at 8:51 pm |

    Good grief.

  • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 9:01 pm |

    Okay, so this story will probably NOT be featured on The Butcher’s Case. But still…

    • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 9:08 pm |


      i aint had dinner yet…and now i aint gonna

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:30 pm |

      At least he wasn’t caught trying to smuggle meat in his pants. Twice.

  • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 9:05 pm |

    … everything I’ve seen today about the Maryland unis… from the comments above here, to the commentary elsewhere (that actually does not involve our host here in any way)…

    … has left me feeling a lot like Vegeta in this scene.

    (Yes, I’m a dork, I know.)

    • Simply Moono | September 6, 2011 at 9:21 pm |

      You’re my new best friend. It’s a glorious day at Uni Watch when DBZ makes an appearance =)

      • Kyle Allebach | September 6, 2011 at 9:24 pm |

        Not only DBZ, but DBZ abridged (my new favorite series).

        Goddamnit Nappa…

  • Kyle Allebach | September 6, 2011 at 9:14 pm |

    I just wanna say that I think that the TERPS Maryland PRIDE uniforms are a good idea but poorly executed. It’s kinda cool to see a CUSTOM flag design put onto a jersey, but the Maryland flag is kinda a bad idea.

    PS: Can we has 500+ comments nao?

    • Kyle Allebach | September 6, 2011 at 9:18 pm |

      “kinda a bad idea”

      Sorry, I just started school again…

  • =bg= | September 6, 2011 at 9:28 pm |

    Interesting about the “All In” sticker- that’s the current Adidas brand slogan..OSU being a Swoosh team and all..

    and yeah, Maryland is HORRIBLE looking. The Maryland flag looks OK sa a patch on the O’s sleeve- but this is a moving, sweating, nightmare.

    UA must be loving all the pub, eh?

    • jdreyfuss | September 6, 2011 at 9:32 pm |

      Only if it increases sales.

  • LarryB | September 6, 2011 at 9:30 pm |

    This week wil lbe another wacky uni week. ND vs Michigan, ASU in all black. I think Oklahoma State is on. Did not see them in HD but the gray they wore was not pretty. Gray and white.

    • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 11:17 pm |

      They looked horrible. Of all the combinations they have (and, admittedly, I like), they chose gray with white..blah.

  • LarryB | September 6, 2011 at 9:34 pm |

    What if Maryland wore these throwbacks?

  • LarryB | September 6, 2011 at 9:36 pm |

    Maryland has the wild striped socks, The stripe down the butt

  • Dootie Bubble | September 6, 2011 at 9:39 pm |

    In Ghana they have a phrase to describe comments and replies like those that have been posted today. It’s called “bone 2 bone dancing.”

  • Oakville Endive | September 6, 2011 at 9:56 pm |

    Page 70 (the magazine page numbering) – second page of the article – towards the end mentions Tampa Bay’s original names, as well as other names the Seattle Seahawks considered.

    Yikes, I’m reading too much uni-watch, I find out indirectly through Uni – watch, that Toronto radio personality Howard Berger was let go from the Fan (this past June) – sorry Howard, haven’t been listening to the Fan much recently

  • Terwilliger Jones | September 6, 2011 at 9:56 pm |

    Paul, I understand that the UnderArmor part of this bugs the heck out of you.

    But did you like the unis or not? I admit tradition took a flying step backwards with MD, but the unis were bold and interesting, IMO. I’d suggest focusing more on the red/white bottony cross and less on the black and yellow diagonal checkerboard, but other than that, compared to the other crazy jerseys of the last few years, at least MD’s has character instead of just aggro testosterone.

    At least think about it, as the world’s highest authority on sports uniforms.

  • KevPlank | September 6, 2011 at 10:01 pm |

    Today was a great day for sports branding pros like myself. Since 1990 I’ve listened to hacks and dweebs languish in their envy of real talent and passion to “make a mark in sports”… watching Nike first, now Under Armour make a mockery of designing a football uniform has me beamimg from cheek to cheek.

    A company (and its designers) with the power and reputation of Nike or Under Armour has a SOCIAL and CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY to present it’s team and athletes with pride and respect!

    Crimson Tide.

    Do those proud and storied franchises need to visually whore themselves out? Well if anyone could it would be these class organizations…

    Do they? NO.

    What do I now connect the Oregon and Maryland football programs with?

    Proud football programs with ego maniacal donors and frightened Athletic Directors who have NO choice but to bend over and take it for the TEAM.

    Shame on Phil. Shame on Kevin. You are the biggest losers here.

    • The Jeff | September 6, 2011 at 10:11 pm |

      Yeah, because no one should ever change their uniforms, ever.

      • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 10:20 pm |

        not once they get it right

        • The Jeff | September 6, 2011 at 10:36 pm |

          Like that isn’t totally subjective. You know who gets to decide when a team “has it right”? The team.

          Teams aren’t losing fans in any significant amount when they change uniforms. Case in point, you hate the Mets addition of black, yet you still root for them.

    • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 11:14 pm |

      I’m just pissed off that you left out my Sooners!!!!

      • Keith S | September 6, 2011 at 11:15 pm |

        Although, they did go with a (very toned down) version of the Nike Pro Combat unis a few years back (but so did the Crimson Tide), so I still consider Oklahoma somewhat untainted.

    • Jason | September 7, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

      I just have to take a second to laugh at “KevPlank’s” rhapsody about “class organizations” like:

      ~The Pittsburgh Steelers, with their rapist star quarterback.

      ~The New York Yankees, who literally tore down the House That Ruth Built so they could charge arm-and-leg prices to luxury seats.

      And, wait for it..

      ~The Alabama Crimson Tide — which bought players so brazenly it got a two-year bowl ban, and hired a coach who screamed “Roll Tide” while he defiled a Destin hotel whore.

      But they don’t “visually” whore themselves out. OK. Meanwhile, the moderator and his followers try to draw dire connections between fashion choices, marketing, and social problems.

      It’s surreal.

  • Tom V. | September 6, 2011 at 10:02 pm |

    Paul, I think you should have come out early today and said it was the corporate side of it that really interested you. I find that part interesting in its own way, but I think so many of us were looking for some of your thoughts on the uniform.

    Aside from that, I thought the uniforms were good, really the design only touched on the helmet and shoulder yoke. The rest of the uniform was kinda tame but they should have left the garbage off the pants, etc. A nice clean white uniform with shoulder yoke and reverse helmet image would have been a classic look, and like another poster had mentioned earlier, if that had been a look they went with for years it would be a classic and instantly recognizable, and like the uniform or not we would all be used to it and take it with a grain of salt.

    And you know, before yesterday I could identify probably all of three state flags. New York and Florida (where I’ve lived) and Maryland. And I’ve spent maybe 5 days of my life in Maryland, so kudos to them for giving it a shot.

    Also, as for the corporate deuchebaggery, (sp?) I was unaware of all the hype brought on by UA before hand, yes I knew UM had those turtle helmets coming, but was unaware there was a big surprise coming last night. I guess UA didn’t reach everyone regarding this unveiling.

    • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 10:08 pm |

      I think you should have come out early today and said it was the corporate side of it that really interested you.

      Did this guy read today’s entry?

    • Patrick | September 6, 2011 at 10:19 pm |

      Would BMW be guilty of corporate deutschbaggery?

    • Tom V. | September 6, 2011 at 10:25 pm |

      Paul, it looks like I’m not the only one who was actually expecting a uniform critique from yourself, that after all is the reason most of us come here. I thought this blog was more about the study of athletic aesthitecs (you know like the header says) and not the inner workings of of how uniform companies influence their clients. I really have no interest in reading about how Nike, UA, Champion reebok ccm and whoever else I forgot run their businesses, after all they are businesses but the bottom line is that uniform was ultimately the decision of the University of Maryland to put on the field and had absolutely nothing to do with who manufactured it.

      If you want to go on for 20 paragraphs on how they claim its lighter and faster than their previous uniform go right ahead, I wouldn’t believe that crap for a second to begin with, in fact, many companies will try to sell you something based on facts we don’t give a crap about. I would have been like “lighter? faster? grippier?” whatever. I don’t know maybe you took them too seriously.

      • Paul Lukas | September 6, 2011 at 10:28 pm |

        I made it really clear within the first two grafs that I considered the costumes to be a business plan, and then I proceeded to discuss them as such. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

        If that’s not why you came here today, well, that’s how it goes sometimes. I’m sorry — honestly and truly, not sarcastically — if Uni Watch isn’t always exactly what you want it to be. It is, however, exactly what I want it to be. As always, you’re free to get on board or not, as you see fit. Either way, I’m doing what makes sense to me, as I’ve done since Day One.

        • Patrick | September 6, 2011 at 10:47 pm |

          Interesting theme today: what does an entity owe its audience? Many, including Lukas, are upset that Maryland and (especially) Under Armor are pandering to recruits. They feel like they owe their alumni a more respectful rendering of their brand and identity.

          Also, many people are upset with Lukas for refusing to engage in any dissection of the uniforms themselves, feeling that he owes his audience a more straight-forward analysis.

  • odessasteps | September 6, 2011 at 10:26 pm |

    As a 40 year old Maryland native and resident, thought they were hideous. So did a number of people I know who are also local and UMD alum.

    But, none of us are “impressionable” young kids, with disposable income and targets of the Nikes and Under Armors of the world.

    This uniform business is just another example why I personally have no taste for college athletics, especially regarding the revenue-generating sports.

    BTW, if everyone is making fun of you on Twitter and that gets you to trend, I don’t know if that’s a good thing (although Darren Rovell probably thinks so).

  • Phil Hecken | September 6, 2011 at 11:24 pm |

    5 hundy

    (now 501)


    • Rob S | September 6, 2011 at 11:29 pm |

      I know, I’m still going through the comments and I keep finding things to add on to… I probably should stop now. That little thing called work… in the morning… need sleep…

  • Jon | September 6, 2011 at 11:25 pm |

    Justin Christian batting for the Giants tonight, hits a double. Christian was just called up today. As he’s sliding into second, it’s obvious that he doesn’t have his name on his jersey. Broadcaster Mike Krukow says, “Keep swinging the bat like that and they’ll give you a name for that jersey.”

  • traxel | September 6, 2011 at 11:49 pm |

    This punt return clip is from the MO State vs. Ark game last Saturday. Watch the guy with no helmet trying to chase down the ball. He’s the long snapper, one of those friend of a friend things.

  • Pierre | September 6, 2011 at 11:49 pm |

    So…is Maryland planning to wear their flag unis in the BCS championship game or does UA have something else planned? I heard that UA is working on a new uniform that can actually make you fly. ;>)

    Good night…

  • KWest | September 6, 2011 at 11:52 pm |

    One potential positive that could come from those hideous helmets, could I would love to have a gumball version of it.

    • The Jeff | September 7, 2011 at 12:04 am |

      Yeesh. Considering how much unstickered space exists on gumball helmets… that’d just look weird. What color shell would you even use for a base?

      • KWest | September 7, 2011 at 12:27 am |

        Maybe white. I’m guessing now they might be able to make a sticker covering the whole helmet, or maybe some sort of higher end version with the logo painted on, but who the hell is going to buy a high end gumball helmet?

  • Don Merideth | September 7, 2011 at 12:14 am |
  • Tim E. O'B | September 7, 2011 at 12:15 am |

    There are at least three different shades of blue on each jet jersey and it makes me mad. They tried to get two blues (original…), fine. But the crest is in between the two blues and the number outline looks lighter than any other blue on the jersey.

  • Alan | September 7, 2011 at 1:32 am |

    It’s remarkable how much controversy and commentary the Maryland football uniforms have generated. You can say UA and U of M are following in the footsteps of Nike and Oregon… and it worked. It makes me wonder if other schools will follow suit, and try to draw attention to their football program with outrageous uniforms.

  • Hypocrite | September 8, 2011 at 11:44 am |

    Greatest Blog Ever Sold

    Pretty funny to read a pretentious blog bashing corporations trying to turn a profit, while the blog itself is filled with corporate ads designed to help its author make a profit. Isn’t this blog, this article touting a “foolish company” and “foolish school,” YOUR “foolish” attempt to profit off of the uniforms?

    Look in the mirror buddy. At least UA’s use of the flag on a state university uniform had some relationship to that university’s state. Ads all over your blog for Red Roof Inn have nothing to do with anything other than your sorry attempt to turn a profit.