Adidas and Morgan Center Continue to Serve Up Mediocre Uniforms for a Mediocre UCLA Football Program
by Bellerophon on Sep 22, 2011 10:00 AM PDT
in Football
Email
Print
We've got some great news on the basketball front this week. The way Ben Howland has turned around our men's basketball program should provide a big wake-up to UCLA. It's amazing what happens when you hire someone from outside of Morgan Center's diseased culture of mediocrity. If UCLA could make a Ben Howland type hire for football, well, let's not delude ourselves into thinking that any of the Morgan Center sycophants "get" football.
On football, we've spent a lot of time discussing the disappointing performance against a perennial doormat in SJSU. We eviscerated Morgan Center, Dan Guerr-error, and Rick Neuheisel, as well as Gene Block for the diseased culture of mediocrity that surrounds UCLA football, following the beat-down a decidedly average Texas squad laid on the Bruins at the Rose Bowl. But this past weekend also provided a great illustration of another place where UCLA has proven itself to be woefully inadequate: the uniforms our Bruins wear when they step on to the gridiron.
Not only did the Bruins debut the 2011 version of their stretchy Adidas blue uniform, but the weekend before last also saw a pair of Adidas schools (Michigan and Notre Dame) roll out some pretty awesome throwback uniforms for the first game under the lights at the Big House. This, of course, after Maryland made national headlines with their Maryland state flag inspired Under Armour legacy uniform (which we'll come back to later).
So, since our fellow Adidas schools look sharp (both in their throwback uniforms and in their normal uniforms), it begs the question: are our pathetic Pop Warner looking cheap uniforms due to an Adidas problem or a UCLA problem?
Here at BN, we've made no secret of our displeasure at UCLA and Morgan Center's complete inability to aggressively market itself using a 21st century mindset. Often, it seems like UCLA is stuck in a 1985 mindset, which shouldn't come as a surprise since most Morgan Center bureaucrats are part of the same unimaginative core of Donahue sycophants that have us stuck in a conservative, play not to lose mindset. It's the mindset that thinks mediocre wins against bottom-feeder programs like SJSU is acceptable. It's part of the diseased culture of mediocrity that permeates everything associated with UCLA football.
And, to me, there's no better visualization of that mindset and this diseased culture than the cheap, second-rate Pop Warner looking uniforms that our football team wears on Saturday now. This is a topic we've hashed out on BN time and time and time again. UCLA used to have uniforms that were some of the best in the nation, from Gary Beban to Troy Aikman to Cade McNown to Maurice Jones-Drew. Now? UCLA doesn't even have proper UCLA stripes. How sad is that?
Let's break this down in detail after the jump.
It's painfully obvious that Morgan Center has no interest in effectively marketing UCLA football. For older generations, it sounds so superficial, and frankly, silly, but the reality is that these young kids love the "cool" uniforms that the Ducks, Terrapins, and various Nike schools have been rolling out the past few years. It's a known recruiting tool. After all, these kids are only 17 or 18 years old when they are deciding on which school to ply their athletic trade at. Did we all forget what it was like to be 17 or 18? Image is everything; being cool meant wearing the stylish clothes and being around whatever the sleek "in" thing is. Right now, that means Oregon is cool.
Look around college football. Oregon has something different on every week. Nike is rolling out some sleek uniforms for Michigan State in their upcoming rivalry game against Michigan. Stanford, Ohio State, and LSU will all soon be joining Michigan State, Georgia, and Boise State with one time Nike Pro Combat alternates. Some are ugly, but that's besides the point, for all the same reasons I mentioned above re: Oregon, "cool uniforms" and recruiting (for more on the new Nike uniforms, I encourage you check out Paul Lukas' takes here). Yes, Maryland has rolled out some, umm, interesting uniforms so far this season. But when was the last time you talked about Maryland football? In terms of raising their national exposure and profile, it sounds like mission accomplished. All thanks to their uniform.
Not convinced that this kind of stuff matters to the guys on the field? Let's see what Anthony Barr had to say on Twitter (which was re-tweeted by Dietrich Riley):
The link he has connects to a Yahoo! Sports article highlighting Nike's line of Pro Combat uniforms for Michigan State, Stanford, LSU, Ohio State, Georgia, and Boise State (and SI has a good, quick summary of Nike's Pro Combat uniform line for this season here). You're right Anthony, it would be nice to have an athletic department and apparel provider that cared about aggressively marketing UCLA football and using uniforms as a tool to build excitement around an otherwise moribund program.
Barr and Riley weren't alone. The Bruins new starting QB, Richard Brehaut, also had thoughts on Twitter about our uniform situation:
So yeah, these kids do pay attention to this kind of stuff. And at the bare minimum, from a merchandising perspective, it makes sense to do an occasion alternate uniform that you can push in store windows. Am I advocating something crazy like we've seen Nike do for Boise State and Oregon? Not in the least bit.
Yes, UCLA's uniform is a classic that doesn't need to be tweaked, but, let's not forget how popular (and totally awesome) the Gary Beban throwback uniform was before. If Morgan Center was serious about aggressively marketing UCLA football, we'd see the occasionally alternate uniform, with something cool like what Washington did with their special edition 9/11 uniform (the white helmet with gold stripe and matching pants was sleek and a very nice and classy tribute to the victims of September 11), or what we're going to see for Army and Navy's annual game (also known as a game between the greatest college kids in the United States):
So, Bruin fans, when is Morgan Center going to take marketing football seriously?
If our current uniforms are any indication, they're willing to settle for total mediocrity. Last year, I put the new stretch fit Adidas uniforms on blast for looking like cheap Pop Warner mall screen-printed rags. But, to be fair, they were just rolling out these new uniforms in the middle of the season, and so perhaps, after being told repeatedly how butt-ugly they were, Morgan Center would work with Adidas and get our uniforms properly squared away during the off-season.
Apparently not. Let's start with our iconic UCLA stripes:
Why do I keep calling them UCLA stripes? Because UCLA is the school that made the shoulder stripes iconic, when Coach Red Sanders added the shoulder stripes to create the illusion of motion in 1954. How egregious are these truncated "stripes" that Adidas has stuck us with? As the very good uniform-centric blog UniWatch explains:
My first thought was that it’s kinda sad when UCLA can’t even wear legitimate UCLA stripes.
Good job Adidas and Morgan Center: you turned our iconic stripes into a joke. It'd be like Majestic botching the Yankees' iconic pinstripes. Of course, Adidas would have us believe that the new lightweight, stretchy material makes it difficult to properly create shoulder stripes (since they also botch it on NFL uniforms for the Colts, as Reebok is an Adidas owned company). Except Nike proves that's not true with LSU's Pro Combat uniform this season:
So, this of course begs the question: if Nike can get it right, why can't Adidas? And why isn't Morgan Center being more proactive in making sure Adidas doesn't botch our iconic uniforms. It's as if the chumps at Morgan Center have zero conception of marketing and branding.
But it's not just limited to failing to preserve one of UCLA's traditional and iconic uniform elements. If that wasn't bad enough, Morgan Center has showed an absolute indifference to the football team, letting them wear uniforms that look like some pimple-faced kid at the mall screen-printer threw some names on the back of these uniforms at the last second. It's just cheap looking and it makes us look small-time:
We used to have our players' name on the back of their uniforms in matching gold with blue trim, like our uniform numbers. Now, we have screen-printed on plain white names that don't even come close to matching the uniform numbers. It looks cheap and tacky. I've seen high schools with more professional-looking uniforms than the lame outfits we have this year.
Look, I get it: relatively speaking, our cheap-looking uniforms are pretty low on the priority list for a listless program with coaches nearly in tears, players mentally checked out, all managed by an athletic department infected with a diseased culture of mediocrity. But our cheap uniforms are the perfect visual expression of what UCLA football has become: a shell of its former glory, marked by an athletic director who is too cheap to invest in turning UCLA football into a winning program and too lazy to aggressively market a formerly dominant football program in the second largest media market in the country.
It's pathetic. But exactly what we would expect from Dan Guerr-error, who was only too happy to hand Adidas our uniform and equipment contract without leveraging Under Armour's interest into a better deal for UCLA. Just another glaring example of UCLA's diseased culture of accepting mediocrity.
GO BRUINS
87 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well said!
I jokingly brought up the fact that our new uniforms have been nothing but bad luck so far (someone calculate our record with them on, and I bet it’s a losing one). This situation is pretty ridiculous, and it seems like the only real changes they did was make the pants more yellow, which…uh, wasnt really an area of concern to begin with, and got rid of the embarrassingly small TV numbers.
The throwback uniforms from the Washington game were epic good. That’s why I had to pick up one for some hefty cash when they were selling them after the game.
See, that’s one other stupid thing about these uniforms- given their nature, I dont think they can sell “game worn” ones after since they just look more like a wetsuit if you were to hang them up for display, so there goes some fundraising opportunities (makes sense why there are no auction items on the official site). Besides, who would want to buy these current embarrassments of a UCLA jerseys anyway?
Completely ridiciulous.
It Is Important
It is but more evidence of the failure of Morgan Center and this AD.
This should be easy to manage.
It’s part of creating and managing an identity.
sjh
In No Defense of Adidas...
…who is the weak link in equipment suppliers anyway….but someone in the Morgan Center or maybe even RN himself likes that uniform.
It would have been so easy to get a modernized look with the uniforms, when Adidas came calling with their concept drawings all we had to do was say “no.”
Whoever made the decision, had they simply then reached into their desk drawer and pulled out a pic of their favorite Oregon uni and said to the Adidas rep…“nope…give me something like this in our colors with the full shoulder stripe…now get your a#$ out of my office and don’t come back til you have it right…”
Instead that someone (maybe RN?!?!!!?!!!) looked up from his comic book…and said “yeah sure…whatever.”
And that, my friends, is the problem with the whole program…“yeah sure….whatever”
+ a thousand
The “half stripe” is a perfectly good metaphor for the current state of affairs with UCLA football – ridiculous, ugly, and lots missing.
And BTW, only a few colors – i.e., black, gray, etc. – look good in a matte finish. UCLA True Blue is not one of them.
raiders&bruins
by gmurraynewyork on Sep 22, 2011 10:35 AM PDT reply actions
hey
It makes sense, doesn’t it? Half Stripe for a Half-@ss program. It pains me to say this but our FB program is half-a$$ing. The product on and off the field is mediocre…our players, students and fans deserve so much more than this.
It's not even a stripe
it’s a hash mark, or maybe an equal sign.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I was thinking a gold minus sign.
I liked the uniforms of the Donahue era, even the Toledo era. I thought HC’s had some input on the uniform style. Then of course we really haven’t had an HC for awhile.
So, you're saying
we have to earn our stripes?
+1 on the matte finish
The uniforms should have a flat finish not a glossy one. I can’t think of any other team that uses a glossy finish on their uniform.
by Bruin Brander on Sep 23, 2011 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Great Post
It’s also worth mentioning that they screwed up our pants as well. I liked the shiny gold pants. Our pants now look weird…makes the players look like the pee’d all over themselves when they get sweaty.
I see two issues.
1. fix our traditional Uni’s. If LSU can keep their UCLA stipes so shoud we.
2. create alternate Uni’s for at least 1 game per year. I would bring these out for big games against Oregon or $C.
Someone called the pants Sham-Wow
I think that’s perfect. They look awful.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Sham-Wow is the best description yet...so agree
and at best looks like worn out 1920’s mohair upholstery fabric…just plain shitty.
by GemCityBruin on Sep 22, 2011 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Sham-Wow can do anything.
I wouldn’t wash my car with the “new” pants.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
The Morgan Center mistakes "different" for "cool"
When you change an iconic design so as to lose the iconicness (iconicity?), you’re not so much being avant garde as you are just crapping on cherished tradition. It’s not that hard to be both traditional and new. Anyone here could have done better.
The Morgan Center did the same with the Pauley student seating fiasco, substituting prosperous for cool in forsaking tradition, student enthusiasm, and team play. The MC desperately needs some Change Management counseling.
Here is a close-up look
Notice the name plate on Prince’s jersey (looks like it was just sewn on last minute) and how ugly the pants are.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
At least these are level
I’ve seen a couple this year that aren’t even simply horizontal.
Roses are red, violets are blue...f*** $C.
Yep
I remember that there was a shot of the back of Mascarenas during the Houston game, and the letters of his name were so much “taller” than anyone else’s, and it was obviously a patch that was put on hastily and it was crooked. Seriously, it looked like it was an iron-on.
by Westwood Wizard on Sep 22, 2011 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Rec'd
It is important. It is another symptom of the diseased Morgan Center culture. How can anyone look at these unis and get fired up about the status of this program?
Some may say it’s just a uniform, but image matters to viewers, media, and recruits. First impressions are often made on looks, and our unis make us look low budget and low class, which is the way we’ve been performing for the last several years. No fan wants to buy these unis – loss of revenue from merchandising. No TV show will feature us in promos – loss of exposure. No recruit, with everything else equal, is going to want to play in that gear – loss of incoming talent.
I don’t blame Adidas in this as much as I blame Guerreror and whomever he appointed to the “Uniform Selection Committee”. Why Morgan Center and our AD are not just accepting but deliberately choosing lesser quality that throws away tradition is impossible to understand. No successful organization would ever dream of functioning this way. Adidas, in fact, gets over in this by getting some sucker to buy that cheap crap.
Andre Agassi made a marketing windfall with the phrase “Image Is Everything”. We know there is much more to our school than image, but you have to draw attention in the first place. Damn it, Bruins, establish an identity. There should be one color of blue. There should be U.C.L.A. stripes. There should be large numbers and letters with the outline so they don’t look like iron-ons. There needs to be one style that screams U.C.L.A. Bruins when people see it, and then you can build different schemes off of it. Our current jersey is just a whimper. Like our team’s play. Like our coach’s leadership. Like our AD’s management.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
The only benefit of the uniform
is also the reason for why it looks like it was bought in the kids’ section at Old Navy. It is the stretchy material. The benefit is that if someone tries to grab your jersey, you can run almost 5 yards before they actually catch up and tackle you. It’s a total gimmick and it is about as good an idea as the Urban Sombrero.
OT: if you haven’t read Agassi’s autobiography “Open”, you should. He HATED doing that commercial. Sorry Greg, I’m on a tear giving you book recommendations ;)
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I have read it
He was an interesting personality, with a lot of chaos and insecurity behind the scenes, and sometimes out in the open – ala his on-court tiff with Sampras at that charity match with Federer and Rafa. He does a lot of good community work with his school in Vegas, though.
I love book recs. I just got Stress Analysis of a Strapless Evening Gown based on KnudsenRockne’s rec.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Even that is complete BS
I’ve seen our RB’s get grabbed and that thing streches almost 5 yards. Franklin has dragged guys a few yards down the field while they hold on to that strechy POS jersey.
But that's just it
The other jerseys don’t stretch, so the RB wouldn’t be able to go those 5 yards as often…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I looked at it differently
The way I see it is if the other jeseys don’t stretch and are worn just as tight, the defender doesn’t even have a chance to grab on to the jersey.
You're right. I remember the "tearaway" jerseys the teams wore in the '70s and 80s.
A defender would grap hold of the ball carrier’s jersey while racing by and only get a chunk of the jersey ripped off and stlll in the defender’s hand as the runner kept on going. IIRC, the jerseys were banned and teams then started to tape up the jerseys to make them less likely to be grasped by an opponant. You don’t want stretchy jerseys that can be grasped and slow down the ball carrier.
Oklahoma was famous for those
They had tailbacks who wore those mesh tearaway half jerseys. By the end ot the game, they looked like a giant moth had gnawed off the bottom halves of them.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Same with Nebraska.
Does the name I.M. Hipp ring a bell . . .
by orlandobruin on Sep 24, 2011 3:02 AM PDT up reply actions
I see what you mean
It doesn’t sound very comfortable though. And of course we want our athletes to be comfortable. Maybe they do yoga in those uniforms too.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
+1000
Been a Bruin since birth
by LongtimeBru on Sep 24, 2011 4:37 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
+1 on the thread and the sentiment
We had some of the best uniforms in the country. How anyone thinks making the numbers and names smaller and muting the colors is an improvement is baffling. The uniform should pop, the current version is a dud. UCLA needs to join to the 21st Century and also have at least one alternative uniform per year as well. The throwback was great.
+1
especially about the alternative. I don’t want to screw with our colors or anything, but maybe an all white or something
It is indicative of the Morgan Ctr. culture of ignorance
B. Spot on and the most damning of all is this gem.
our cheap uniforms are the perfect visual expression of what UCLA football has become: a shell of its former glory, marked by an athletic director who is too cheap to invest in turning UCLA football into a winning program and too lazy to aggressively market a formerly dominant football program in the second largest media market in the country.I HATE the uniforms, and I cannot see why any athlete would want to come to a program in disarray, play for a lame duck coach and play in those car wash rejects they call uniforms.
Adidas is a great soccer shoe mfg. The beyond Suck at football uniformage! Can’t some of the J.D’s on this forum draw a suit of Defamation of Character against Adidas and Morgan ctr? PLEEEEASE!!!
Not all their unis suck
They seem to do fine for Michigan, Notre Dame, Tennessee, Wisconsin. It’s our own school that just doesn’t get it.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Ours look crappy
and fit wrong. Our players constanly have their pads hanging all out. Wasn’t the jersey supposed to be stitched in a manner which would hold keep the pads in position and hold them tight?
Maybe we'd cut down on delay of game penalties if the players . . .
. . . didn’t have to re-adjust their temamates’ jerseys after every play.
by orlandobruin on Sep 24, 2011 3:04 AM PDT up reply actions
The King of Stripes Ruins Ours?
I find it hard to believe that Adidas, the company that claims “stripes” as its trade mark cannot get our stripes right.
Adidas has sued anyone and everyone who dared to use stripes — claiming mark infringement.
As much as I don’t like Adidas, the company, I can’t blame them for this.
They know how to do stripes. These stripes are our responsibility. We probably got what we asked for. The question is: Who asked for this?
sjh
by Class of 66 on Sep 22, 2011 10:54 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I was thinking this too
Particularly in well known programs with a lot of history, the companies aren’t allowed to do anything without a lot of input from the schools. I was talking to one of my friends who went to USC and he says that Nike wanted to do some ridiculous stuff for their uniforms like they do at Oregon, but SC declined saying they wanted to maintain their tradition.
I would imagine that before anything new is rolled out from Adidas there’s a strict vetting process by our athletic department. At least I would hope so?
Good Post!
It really does irk me that we have such crappy-looking uniforms right now. Simply no excuse for that.
Personally, I’ve always like our jerseys from the 70’s and 80’s but also like the true blue numerals we had just a few short years ago as well. I think it would be really cool if we could wear our throwback (Beban-era) unis along with the “UCLA” on the helmets like we normally wear when we played at the Coliseum the last time. That just looked super-sweet.
Los Angeles Rams and the UCLA Bruins!!!!!
by Minnesota Bruinfan on Sep 22, 2011 10:56 AM PDT reply actions
Mediocre - of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate
That’s the definition of mediocre. The 2011 UCLA football organization and all athletic department associations with it do not qualify as mediocre. Mediocre is the Dorrell years, constantly getting 6 wins, but never truly competing for titles. Ranking as the worst team in the conference, and among the worst in the entire nation, means we are a third-rate program.
I’m just frustrated with everyone using the term ‘mediocre’, when we’ve honestly sunk to a level far lower than that.
Good point
Mediocre would be an improvement.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
+1
The numbers don’t lie. Here are the records in the Pac-10 since 2008, not including this year:
Oregon 24-3
USC 18-9
Stanford 18-9
OSU 17-10
Arizona 15-12
Cal 14-13
ASU 10-17
UW 9-18
UCLA 8-19
WSU 2-25
Folks, we ARE the doormat of the conference. Doormat.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
How do you include them
if they don’t have a pac-10 record?
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Coaching
Not to let Adidas off the hook, certainly they have produced some ugly product for retail over the years. However, I think the uniform banter is just that, while much bigger problems compound upon Saturdays. UCLA football needs more than stripes or lipstick on a doormat.
wanting to be able we certainly wished,
... but being allowed to try we didn`t dare
I think
the overall point is that the uniforms are a reflection of bigger problems within the department. It just goes to show how little they care about football. If they really cared about the success and perception of the program these uniforms would have never been approved.
To me it is similar to the way that they fail to ensure that UCLA products are produced using only True Blue (although I suppose a case could also be made for apparel in navy blue). It is all a glaring lack of attention to detail.
That type of reasoning
is how we ended up with these uniforms in the first place.
“Oh, silly uniforms. Phillip, is it your turn to bring donuts to the meeting?”
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
No one disagrees
These uniforms are just one of the symptoms of a diseased football program.
No one is saying to just fix the unis and leave the rest alone.
Cure the disease, and these uniforms and the other issues you refer to will be resolved.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
Hear, Hear
They are tremendously ugly, and they do not fit. The fit is all on Adidas, IMHO. God only knows how much these fabric atrocities cost, and they do not look even remotely fitting on a single player. That is on Adidas.
Bellerophon has provided the most telling and enlightening of evidence: just look at how Navy and West Point’s uniforms fit, look at the LSU uniform, head to toe.
I am never purchasing or wearing another Adidas product again, until they start over and bring our team’s uniforms up to par. If they don’t, it means my Adidas-made UCLA fan attire will be in the back of my closet forever. If they can’t, then the same will happen and I’ll scream for Nike, Nike, Nike.
Love My Bruins
The crappy product is on Adidas
Accepting them, buying them, and wearing them – that’s all on the Morgan Center.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
+1
Adidas is a vendor, we are the client. In any relationship like that, if a vendor supplied an unacceptable product, the client would either reject it and ask that it be improved, or walk away…that is, if the client found it to be unacceptable. If the client is willing to accept crappy work, then that’s what they’ll get. And that’s what’s going on here.
by Westwood Wizard on Sep 22, 2011 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
But,
Who but us will tell the world about the crappy product?
We know by now that our “agent,” Morgan Center, is not acting in the best interest of the “client,” so why would we accept this or expect the agent to complain on our behalf? This is a compelled agency, how else to be heard than to boycott the product?
Love My Bruins
THis AD....
didn’t even open up the process to Nike or UnderArmour and create a competitive bidding situation. Can you imagine? Didn’t even hear what those companies had to say. Just re-upped with Adidas, a company that doesn’t even stock UCLA gear at it’s Santa Monica store, which is a mere 5 miles from campus.
"Even if God is dead, you still gotta kiss his ass" - Tony Soprano
The jerseys don't fit right
I saw a sidelines shot of Jetski, and the jersey was stretched over his shoulder pads under those crappy capped sleeves, and his body seemed dwarfed by the pads. I may not be explaining it right, but he seemed really skinny under the stretched-out sleeves and it looked really bad. The pads didn’t fit under the jersey correctly and you just saw lumpy shoulders and stretched-out fabric trying to cover the pads, and it didn’t cover smoothly.
A mistake going with adidas
All the kids nowadays wear Nike and there’s a reason why. Sticking with adidas was a huge mistake. That being said, under armour is not a good alternative either. Plain and simple, UCLA needs to go with Nike. Or needed to.
by LavinRuinedCollege on Sep 22, 2011 1:31 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
The mistake
was not having a firm grip on the process and not having bids for more leverage. Like I said, Adidas works just fine for a bunch of other big time programs.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Bring back the powderkeg blue and the buff pants.
Bring back the serpentine, too.
Let’s go back to what made us great. And a national power.
Not a national doormat.
Powderkeg Blue, Buff pants, Serpentine
All good traditions. Should always be. They worked.
Why someone decides to mess with good things is a shame.
So NOW They Decide...
to design uniforms that don’t look like s**t.
I for one, do want to "want to pluck out my eyes and throw them in a sewer" when I see the Adidas travesties on my team.
Love My Bruins
Maybe It's Time
for a woman AD.
Honest to God, crazy* Rick keeps popping off about “the little things,” and “the details,” but nobody up there seems to notice any of these details. Oh, like 12 guys on the field, jerseys that don’t fit anybody, three interceptions in about a nanosecond, the score, the play clock ticking down…
…you know, those little things.
Those little details add up to, “We don’t really care.”
* Einstein’s definition of insanity
Love My Bruins
This Is Interesting...
Women see slow progress for athletic director jobs
Part of the reason there has been such slow progress on the FBS level, particularly at BCS schools, is the lingering perception that a woman cannot run a department that largely revolves around football.
But…
There also is another factor that could help women in the future. The days of football coaches turned ADs are numbered. The new breed of athletic director has a business savvy that was not as big a part of the job 20 years ago, so it stands to reason that a business background has more advantages than a coaching background.
Love My Bruins
by Bruingirl83 on Sep 22, 2011 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Couldn't rec this dicussion more!
I’ve gone on like a broken record (record: black disc-like analog object used in the production of sound) ever since these sartorial monstrosities began. It sucks that we even had them for half of the 2010 season, but the truly unforgivable aspect of this problem, is that Morgan Center got a tremedous amount of negative feedback on the unis (I hesitate even to call them unis, maybe “recycled slip-and-slides” would be a better term) prior to the start of this season. They could have demanded change from Adidas. They could have enlarged the numbers, reverted to the outline names, returned to the old gold pants, brought back our beloved Red Sanders stripes, and the snazzy shoulder numbers as well. Instead, Morgan Center hit the snooze alarm and went right back to sleep. That’s what’s infuriating. They are impervious to feedback, unless you hit them over the head with a 50,000 signature online 2 × 4.
These unis remind me of my son’s Wii program where you make personalized, individual Mii figures. They all start out with a default face, a bland generic figure, and then you add on. Our unis are the default setting. No thought, no flair, no individualization. Adidas must have spent $1.50 on designing them, and I’d bet that was for postage. Guerrero probably signed the OK form thinking it was an expense report from Subway.
My hope is that at least one top FB recruit will publicly and loudly disparage our uniforms, maybe even hint that a change would be a factor in his decision. It would be worth it just to get the AD’s freakin’ attention.
+1
for the sentiments. And another +1 for the LOLs.
(record: black disc-like analog object used in the production of sound)… Guerrero probably signed the OK form thinking it was an expense report from Subway…. It would be worth it just to get the AD’s freakin’ attention….
So, the MC doesn’t stand up for UCLA students, not for UCLA tradition, not for women’s basketball, not for anything, as far as I can tell, other than money. It’s as though, when they inked the contract with Addidas for whatever dollar figure, they were done. No sense looking into this any further.
….if you look like a clown, you’ll play like a clown ?
Seriously, aside from fixing the problems with the basic uniform, UCLA needs to work with Adidas to come up with a few alternates – don’t have to be as silly as Oregon or Maryland, just something different….and break out the old Beban-era uniforms every few years, so all the guys who stay in the program 2+ years get to wear them at least once…..
accountability
Is there any way we can get someone from the morgan center to respond to our concerns about the uniforms. If not can we send e-mails to someone who is a decision maker. If we were able to compel the morgan center to make changes to the student seating at pauley pavilion we should be able to force changes in the uniforms. frustrated but still a life long bruin
ac, no one in Morgan Center gives a crap about football or uniforms or anything other than keeping their jobs.
And until athletic department revenue decreases significantly, their jobs are secure.
Great Article! I agree 100%
Great article. I noticed that the uniforms have changed for the worse and it definitely has an affect on the players. College kids DO care about their uniforms and we need to change them now.
Also, the new screen at the Rose Bowl looks like they dropped a huge HDTV on top. For the Rose Bowl being such a historic stadium, it’s like adding a spoiler onto a classic car. I hope they have plans for making it look better.
But, the uniform look horrible and it looks like these players are barely squeezing into them. They go along with the trend of “skinny pants,” which are already going out of style.
Nonetheless, thank you for this article. It’s a breathe of fresh air
At least give us the right colors back
Excellent, excellent post. Very well done! (I can be very critical.) Well written, love the links, etc.
I have to admit you opened my eyes about having different unis. I think the new ASU, the Georgia unis from week 1, Oregon’s, and most of these other looks are down right hideous. Unforgivable. But that’s not the point, as you eloquently say. And I can live with an alternate uni or two if it helps out image (hell, I might even grow to like a couple of them – like Boise’s alternates from week 1.)
But please, PLEASE, Morgan Center, get the colors right! I could almost forgive the stripes debacle if you JUST GOT THE COLORS RIGHT. These things we’re wearing are hideous. Both the pants and the jerseys. I’ve always thought what makes a great uniform is that you know exactly who’s playing without even being able to read the logo. Everyone knows UCLA’s colors (and they’re not the ones we’re wearing.) Take the stickers off the helmets, and Cal and West Virginia are the same. Same for SC and Minnesota. There’s many like that, but our colors stand alone. These things we wear now are an abomination. I want the powderkeg blues back.
Again, great post, Bellerophon.
That's only in the US
Sure, that’s where we are, but adidas is a global brand that has been in more sports than Nike for longer than Nike. But their marketing in the US has not been well executed. I for one have liked their products more than Nike’s in almost every department.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Agree with everything about the uniforms, except
the commentary on the Michigan throwbacks. Those were hideous.
They were hideous, but that was the original design
They executed the design well. Whether you like the design or not is a separate matter.
by Westwood Wizard on Sep 23, 2011 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Some old uniforms are meant to stay in the past.
Then again, I didn’t care for the Beban-style ones either we wore a couple years ago that a lot of people seemed to like.
An interesting look at how fired up players get over uniforms
Deadspin linked to a video from Ohio University. They surprised their players with black uniforms, something the players had been asking a long time for, apparently. They did it with a video at the end of a highlight reel before they were about to get suited up. Check out the reactions of the players.
I dislike most uniform gimmicks like black uniforms, and I personally think the Ohio U. ones are U-G-L-Y. But the reactions from the players don’t lie. Look how excited they are. It’s not hard to think that that energy translates on to the field.
by Westwood Wizard on Sep 23, 2011 10:21 AM PDT reply actions
Ohio then smashed their big rival Marshall, 44-7, in that game, too.
Something translated. The uniforms sure didn’t hurt.
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
My wife is an Ohio U alumnus.
Great academic school with very little football cache.
It is disappointing the we have to look to them as an example of what could be with respect to creating a buzz with the players and fans about the uniform, the team, the program.
Having said that, the proof is in the pudding. Those kids were jacked. And, as gbruin said, Ohio U smashed Marshall that game.
Like it or not, kids want a certain “look” these days (I think about the hoops recruit who crossed Baylor of his list because of the school colors) and UCLA is not delivering right now.
by orlandobruin on Sep 24, 2011 3:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't think the idiot who let the color of shoes dictate his educational choice is the best example
Texas does well in football recruiting, as do Alabama, LSU, Florida and the rest of the SEC. Oklahoma seems to do OK. They aren’t wearing clown uniforms.
The new silly uniforms make me think of the Raider fans who wear all the black armor with spikes who yearn to be shown on TV.
I vote for class. The uniforms of past decades were much classier than these things, in my opinion. I’m embarrassed.
I'm not saying we need to go the Oregon or Nike Pro Combat route...
…but I think the following things need to be done with our uniforms:
(1) Fix the colors. Especially the pants.
(2) Fix the UCLA stripes.
(3) Fix the nameplates
(4) Bring back the Gary Beban era alternate at least once per season
(5) Throw in an alternate jersey just for the sake of the kids, but something classy, like maybe an all-white (sort of like what Washington did with the white helmets and white pants)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
