June 21, 2005
Utah unveils new uniforms
Utah has unveiled a new uniform design from Nike and --perhaps most imporantly-- a new shade of red on their helmets. The new design was inspired by the uniforms of the Miami Hurricanes.
As we mentioned previously, Utah's curtains didn't match their rugs, so to speak. Now the uniform colors and the helmet colors will match.
The new design was inspired by the Miami Hurricanes
Two questions immediately arise:
1) Do you think Urban Meyer is colorblind, or did he just like the two shades of red look with the jerseys & helmets?
2) Has there ever been a team that rushed to the cash register faster than the Utes? Yes, you made it to a BCS bowl, but do you really have to go all cha-ching on your fan base? The new uniforms are a good look, but they're not a drastic departure from the current designs. This reeks of a team looking to cash in to me.
Hat Tip: EveryDayShouldBeSaturday
Comments:
WebMonkey said:
posted on June 22, 2005 1:26 PM — 166.2.125.208 — link — abuse?
If you're going to post a Ute blog, please do two things for me:
1. Learn how to write.
2. Try not to be so stupid.
It is not uncommon for teams to change their uniforms. Most teams do it EVERY year. They have to buy new uniforms anyway, so what's the big effing deal if they change the design while they're at it? Get a clue.
posted on June 22, 2005 1:35 PM — link — abuse?Kevin Donahue said:
Touchy, touchy. Utah merchandising revenues are way up following the BCS bowl appearance & the success in other sports. With a big boost in jersey sales & items, do you not think new uniform design is timed to continue that momentum? The Utah booster club sure does and was vocal about it this week. Even the Utes new coach isn't touching it, saying that the uniforms are more for the players than for him to have input on. If they're happy, he's happy. It's a touching sentiment, but he's sidestepping the revenue questions, too.
As you should know, many of the boosters were up in arms on the helmtet colors last year. The fact that I mention should indicate that we're not just bandwagon-ing on Utah, as some sites have done.
Finally, I challenge you to produce even one team that has changed their uniform design every year, let alone "most".
Put up or...well, you know how it goes.
posted on June 22, 2005 1:54 PM — 209.16.242.81 — link — abuse?
"Most teams do it EVERY year."
Umm... no. That's simply incorrect.
For most teams it's an event to change the designs even a little bit and, in fact, most changes are attributed to changing manufacturers... not blatant money grabs to cash in on one year of success... but hey, let's not let little things like facts get in way of a good-spirited college football debate.
Duck said:
posted on June 22, 2005 2:11 PM — 155.188.255.5 — link — abuse?
Even if changing styles isn't done that often, why does it matter if they have to buy new uniforms anyways? I'm sure you know that the uniforms aren't reused every year. Why not put in an order for a different style?
It's not like Utah has gone and built a new stadium or anything; just changed a few stripes here and there.
posted on June 22, 2005 3:08 PM — link — abuse?
Pete - you're biased because Alabama changes it's uniforms every year.
Duck - there's a significant difference between replenishing your uniform inventory (which every school does) and redesigning your uniforms. Redesigning a uniform, which costs the university quite a bit of money, isn't a simple change - it's a huge investment of time & capital.
My point was that the redesign puts the Ute fans in a tough spot because they want to support the team and 'look the part' in the replica uniforms. Now - because of one good season - they have to go out & purchase a new jersey. It's just not a good way to treat your loyal fans.
Duck said:
posted on June 22, 2005 3:20 PM — 155.188.191.5 — link — abuse?
I agree that going out and designing a uniform could be a big investment, but from the looks of it, Utah merely told Nike to make some uniforms in the same style as Miami and Oregon State. Also, Coach Whittingham told his players to choose the uniforms. I would think that Nike was the one who had some designs that Utah chose from. If you look around the country, there are many schools who have the same style, just different colors.
As for the Ute loyalists, they will now be sporting retro jerseys which I hear are in. Utah just got through a tough spot with losing it's coach. A lot of Ute fans were quite upset and probably welcome the change since Urban Meyer is the one who was responsible for the previous uniforms. With the new ones, Ute fans can start fresh in the new coaching era.
runnin'ute said:
posted on June 22, 2005 4:45 PM — 67.177.27.219 — link — abuse?
"Yes, you made it to a BCS bowl, but do you really have to go all cha-ching on your fan base? The new uniforms are a good look, but they're not a drastic departure from the current designs. This reeks of a team looking to cash in to me."
So true! Why would a athletic department try to increase revenues like that! Bad form Utah!
posted on June 22, 2005 5:53 PM — 209.16.242.81 — link — abuse?
Kevin: true... all of those drastic 'Bama uniform redesigns over the year have cost us a fortune.
Duck... if you really think a major university is going to take a single-bid "let's just make a few quick changes" contract, or if you think nike is just going to recycle an old design with new colors (at no charge for the design work), I think you're pretty much crazy.
The bottom line is that new designs cost money.
Personally, I think it's going to back-fire. One year does not a dynasty make (especially when the 'crowning success' of the year, BCS or otherwise, was beating Pitt) -- if the Utes don't have a huge showing this year, all of those fair-weather fans that the AD is trying milk are going to jump ship and be hangers-on for whatever next mid-major 'powerhouse' comes along.
Duck said:
posted on June 22, 2005 6:20 PM — 155.188.255.5 — link — abuse?
Pete . . . Explain to me why Washington State and West Virginia have virtually the same jersey (by Nike); or why Miami and Oregon State have virtually the same uniforms (also by Nike). Go on to Eastbay and look at all the jerseys that are virtually the same in style. Are you telling me that each university has spent a ton of money coming up with the same idea? I find that hard to believe. There may be some slight differences, but not enough to make much of a difference.
I'm sure that some money was spent on the new uniforms, but I really doubt that it is as big of an expenditure as you are making it out to be.
In the end, who cares? Uniforms do not make that big of deal. Utah has a strong enough base that it won't run the athletic department into bankruptcy. Maybe a few fans will complain because the jersey they bought last year is no longer the one used, but I've never heard of a fan complaining about that.
posted on June 22, 2005 6:38 PM — link — abuse?
I find it amazing that you're unable to even consider that a school you like is putting one over on its fans.
If this were Florida State, Florida, LSU, Tennessee or Oklahoma changing the uniforms the year after winning the national championship, the fans would be in an uproar over being bilked for merchandise revenues.
I guess sainted Utah is just above making money on the back of it's fans.
Jeff said:
posted on June 23, 2005 3:42 PM — 24.197.126.228 — link — abuse?
I'm pretty sure the whole inventory isn't replenished every year if nothing is changed. Otherwise the surplus auction before the spring game at Clemson would be an even bigger deal than it already is.
Utah fans aren't whiners?
Funny, that's all they seem to do on here.
posted on June 27, 2005 3:46 PM — 209.16.242.81 — link — abuse?
Duck: your eye for design needs some work.
Let's look at one of your examples... the home jerseys of Washington State versus West Virginia.
On the WVU Jersey, the vertical side stripes come to a point around the middle of the shoulder, on the WSU jersey they continue all the way into the collar.
The fonts are drastically different.
The cuffs/collar on the WVU jersey are striped with gold and white, on the WSU they're the main color.
On the WSU jersey there's a horizontal stripe on the sleeve -- nothing on the WVU jersey.
...and this is before we even start discussing what materials they're made out of and where those materials are.
Here are the smilarities:
1. They have numbers on the front and back.
2. They have the school logo on both sleeves.
3. The nickname of the school is above the number on the front.
4. They both...umm...use colors?These jerseys aren't the same, not even close, and if you think any school just says "Hey, give us Miami's uniform in a different color" you're nuts. These things are bid, options are offered, and monies are exhanged.
Also lets keep in mind that in many cases the manufacturer actually copyrights the dye color, which probably has an effect on the whole situation.
Duck said:
posted on June 29, 2005 9:27 AM — 155.188.255.5 — link — abuse?
Sorry for the bad example. Try looking at these ones: Texas Tech, West Virginia, Boise State, and Baylor.
Or, these ones look pretty similar: Iowa and Auburn.
Now if you try real hard, as it looks like you'll do, you will be able to find some differences. But for the most part, they have the same design. My guess is that there was a general design available with the option to make some MINOR changes such as how West Virginia has a logo on the sleeves rather than numbers.
Here is a link so you can do some comparisons.
I commend you on realizing that it does cost money to get uniforms. I never said that it didn't. I just think that it is not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. They are jerseys--who cares?
posted on June 29, 2005 10:31 AM — link — abuse?
It's quite clear that Duck doesn't get it. Nike, Addidas, et al don't just do uniforms out of the goodness of their hearts. Universities don't have entire offices set up for licenscing because it sounds cool. Uniforms are a big business and big revenue for schools. (Remember the whole point of this post was Utah's get rich quick scheme.)
To downplay the importance as you've done is akin to saying Meyer's offense is just "fast break".
Weak arguments like, "They are jerseys--who cares?" just don't cut it.
Duck said:
posted on June 29, 2005 2:06 PM — 155.188.191.5 — link — abuse?
I have never said that uniforms are free. Please show me where I said that. I have just argued that it is not that big of a deal to get new uniforms--a lot of schools do it. I have also argued that I don't think that the cost is as high as you have made it out to be since it looks like there are a lot of similar designs out there (you even stated above that they are styled after Miami's).
Just because it is happening this year instead of one where Utah was not very successful does not mean that the sole purpose is to cash in quickly on the past few years. Utah got a new coach this year and it is beginning a new era. BYU has done the same thing. Even if part of the reasoning behind it is to raise some revenues, that is what every single athletic department does in this country. Athletic departments aren't run by people out of the goodness of their hearts. Of all people, I would expect you to understand that.
Duck said:
posted on June 29, 2005 2:14 PM — 155.188.255.5 — link — abuse?
Kevin, I'm not sure that you get it. Where have I said that this is a free ride? I understand it costs money to change uniforms. However, I don't think that it is a complete conspiracy on the part of the athletic department to squeeze every penny out of the fans. Utah is beginning a new era with a new coach. Look down the road 40 miles from Salt Lake City and you'll notice that BYU has done the same thing. I also don't think that it is as big of an expenditure as you say. While I know it costs money, I think that it probably did not require a team of experts from all over the world to come up with a design that is very similar to Miami's. Make no mistake, Kevin, I know some money will be spent.
Even if part of the reason behind the uniform change is to increase revenues, that is what atheltic departments try to do. Yes, I'm sure your alma mater or favorite college does the same. I just think that there was probably much more to it than what you claim.
posted on June 29, 2005 6:49 PM — link — abuse?
My alma mater hasn't changed helmets in about 30 years, despite the BCS games and national championships.
As far as BYU goes, they'll cash in on the new look, but it's hard for me to fault them for going back to the old uniforms.
Some teams are about tradition, some teams are about hitting the cash register. It's nothing to be ashamed of, either way. It's just silly to try to explain it away (again & again & again).
posted on June 29, 2005 8:28 PM — 69.244.214.202 — link — abuse?
I like the new look for my alma mater. If it brings money into the athletic department, all the better. Its not like they went to Lightning Yellow or anything.
Utah has the spotlight like the never will again. Might as well bring a nice new look to match the new football atmoshpere.
Duck said:
posted on June 30, 2005 8:27 AM — 155.188.255.3 — link — abuse?
Kevin, BCS schools have the luxury of cashing in on those bowls each year. Even if your alma mater didn't go to one, it still got to share in the proceeds. Utah was fortunate enough to get into that this year, but it certainly will not be happening on a yearly basis. Therefore, other tactics might have to be used to get more revenue. I still think that it was more of a secondary goal of the athletic department, but it is sure free to find ways to get revenue. As soon as the monopoly known as the BCS is more available to others on a yearly basis, then you would have more right to criticize.
Ben- I take offense to the Lightning Yellow comment. I happen to be an alum of Oregon :). Actually, I don't find them that attractive either. I liked the older look.
posted on July 4, 2005 12:29 PM — 68.62.114.241 — link — abuse?
Duck: Auburn/Iowa is about as close as they're going to get, and it's funny because that's a jersey style that's been around pretty much as long as football has... of course styles like Alabama's and Oklahoma's came first... but that's because they're about as plain as you can get.
And here's another point to be made: a 'uniform' is more than just a Jersey. It's the full package. jersey, helmet, pants, socks, shoes.
Small changes make a big difference and, as Kevin said, those changes aren't made out of the goodness of their heart.
Duck said:
posted on July 4, 2005 6:30 PM — 24.210.45.51 — link — abuse?
Pete, explain where the cost comes from. You claim all these small changes are big deals, but if schools get new uniforms each year, then some of the cost would have come either way. I'm sure there are some extra costs associated with the new design (it does seem to be a little fancier than the previous), but where do these huge expenditures come from?
Take a close look at Boise St., Texas Tech, and West Virginia jerseys from the above link and those are virtually identical patterns of uniforms. I have a hard time believing that the Utah athletic department went out and paid huge sums of money to Nike so that it could design an "original" uniform that looks so similar to Miami.
I am sure that there were some extra costs. I just don't think that they are that big of a deal. You guys are trying create a public outcry over new uniforms when I have not heard one Utah fan complain (except for some just don't like the new look). Are you Utah fans? If not, then you have no room to criticize.
Utah is a program that is growing and trying to get more national attention. Since it will most likely not be receiving money from the BCS bowls every year, it will need to come up with ways to increase revenue and make the program grow. I still think that increased revenues was a secondary goal, if one at all. After all, the players are the ones who chose the new look.
posted on July 4, 2005 10:04 PM — link — abuse?
I don't have enough duct tape to keep my head from exploding, so I'm tempted to just say you're right, Duck, and be done with it, but I digress.
First, you're confusing repurchasing with a complete new order. Yes, re-ordering (replenishing the inventory, whatever you want to call it) has a base cost; however, the cost to re-order uniforms offers a lower total cost of ownership, as development costs were paid when the design was created.
Second, let's run down some hypothetical costs to explain in concrete terms why creating a new uniform design is "not cheap". At a minimum, the university must commission a consultant to report costs versus revenue from the change. You've got development costs for design and material research. There's legal research for infringement on your design & color preferences. Then there's the legal costs associated with trademarks to protect your design. You've got a procurement process, allocating some departmental dollars to bid procurement. Once you select a vendor, there's legal for contracting. Repeat that process for each item (home jersey, road jersey, alternate jersey, home pants, away pants, alternate pants, socks, shoes, and helmets.) Then you get to cough up the money to actually purchase the uniforms. At that point, you can start paying your attorneys to negotiate the production of replica jerseys & licensing. And this is just for a new look, forget the production of a potential new logo. I'm quite certain I'm leaving out a few dozen steps, but (hopefully) you'll start to see that there are a few more costs than just stitching up some shirts.
As much as other uniforms may look similar, you can rest assured that they are not identical. And - if by chance they do - there's a whole army of attorneys ready to pounce.
So, if it's even remotely conceivable, can we at least agree that there could be some additional costs in creating a new uniform design??
Finally, I don't buy your argument that increasing the revenues through merchandising is going to "make the program grow." In what way will this change "help the program grow"?
Duck said:
posted on July 5, 2005 8:36 AM — 155.188.255.5 — link — abuse?
I'm not confusing it. I just don't believe that all of those costs are as high as you think. You make it sound as if the university is just coming into existence and is also manufacturing the uniforms itself. You forgot to mention that the lawyers will need to go and negotiate with China to manufacture the jerseys as well as the environmental impact of the new design. Who knows, maybe they will add to the problem of global warming.
Are you telling me that none of this cost is shared by Nike? Don't you think that Nike already owns the trademark on that design? I guess that all depends on its contract with Miami, but I doubt you are that informed. I really doubt that Nike would be so dumb to blatently violate its contract with Miami. Also, I would presume that the material does not vary that much across the uniforms to need to hire a team of scientists, but I'm sure the almighty Kevin knows more than me.
As for raising revenue. It's not that merchandising itself will help the program grow, but that REVENUES will help it grow. As I said earlier, Utah doesn't have the luxury of collecting from the BCS bowls every year and will probably have to resort to other means for revenues to do whatever it needs to succeed. And I'll say it again: I don't think that revenues were the primary goal of the new uniforms. But even if they are, I'm sure you have no room to criticize.
posted on July 5, 2005 8:49 AM — link — abuse?
I kinda like the sound of "the almighty Kevin". Maybe I'll go with that from now on.
As far as Nike sharing costs, I think you might want to brush up on some pretty basic corprate economics: in order to make a profit, all costs must be accounted for in the sale of the product. Does Nike have costs? Yes, and they pass those on to the buyer. Does Nike eat some of their own costs out of the goodness of their hearts? Umm, no.
Utah does receive a BCS payout every year as a trickle down from teh $1.05 million that the Mountain West receives. I think what you intended to say is that Utah does not recieve a large BCS payout every year.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
zippy said:
posted on June 21, 2005 9:17 PM — 67.185.215.126 — link — abuse?I thought college football was a business???? Is that not why they play the games.