If you're a real college football fan, you probably caught the new Univerisity of Georgia uniforms this last weekend, pictured below and to the right and almost universally panned as "sucking". More from the Birmingham News:
"When I first got to a TV set for the Georgia-Boise State game I thought the Galveston Gauchos of the Texas-Arkansas Indoor Arena Independent United League had joined the SEC. What ghastly
uniforms. Listening alternately to the pregame shows on the Georgia and the LSU networks while leaving Auburn, there was much attention devoted to the uniforms Georgia and Oregon were wearing, as well as Boise's shoes.
The radio guys didn't do them justice, how ugly they were. Especially Georgia's. Somebody said, "They'll grow on you." So does fungus if you don't scrub the tub. So many traditionalists among the Georgia financial supporters, for whom the occasional move to silver britches was a jolt, surely this wardrobe choice won't well serve Mark Richt."
Of course, what all the old people (which is to say anyone who serves as a writer, commentator, or someone with enough influence for you and to be aware that they think these uniforms suck) are missing is the following:
The uniforms aren't for the old people. The uniforms are for the young people. They're about recruiting.
Young people love stuff that old people hate - the more you hate them, old people, the better the recruiting advantage the uniforms are going to provide on the recruiting trail. If you don't hate them with a passion, the school didn't go far enough.
Recruiting 101. Think I'm joking? The University of Oregon started this trend with the help of Nike. The more shock there is, the more 5-star recruits will be attracted to your brand, regardless if you've ever won or not. More on the strategic plan of ugly uniforms at Oregon from Grantland:
"But back in Beaverton, the Nike designers did their part, using the Ducks program as part
laboratory, part showroom.
Blocky, standard letters became sleek, modern fonts. Wings on the shoulders? Diamond designs on the knees? Silver shoes worn at Southern Cal? "Nothing," Nike creative director Todd Van Horne said, "is off the table." The paint for the dark green helmets was made with glass beads and cost $2,400 a gallon. There were fall fashion shows.
"They look hatched from an alien pod," Bachman wrote in the Oregonian, "sent to Earth to seek first downs and souvenir sales."
This, Michael Smith wrote in the SportsBusiness Journal, was part of "Nike's 15-year project to build Oregon football into a national power largely on the strength of marketing and branding."
Tradition? Tradition is great where it's a sellable, marketable commodity. Alabama can sell tradition. Penn State can sell tradition. Michigan can sell tradition. At those places, tradition is the differentiation, but at the schools where it's not? They have to go in the opposite direction. And no one has done that better, or more consciously, than Nike and Oregon, which for the purposes of this conversation are essentially one and the same.
Oregon's tradition at this point is the overtly embraced lack of tradition. Change.
"We wanted to be out there, to be purposely controversial," Hatfield told Smith. "That's a part of what we do that's not very well understood. A lot of the sports writers at first hated it" — fans, too, by the way, and still do — "and that's actually what we wanted. If you're purposely trying to stir up the nest and increase visibility, you want them saying something."
Nobody cares what you think about the uniforms. If you're reading this blog, you're way too old to have an opinion that matters related to the branding of the unform of your alma mater.
You're the past. The recruits are the future. The uniforms will get uglier until we win a BCS championship.
Your job? Keep buying tickets and making donations. And shut up with your negative response to change, already...
Recent Comments