This is my personal pet item.  It's about uniforms.  I like sports 
uniforms.  Perhaps unhealthily so, but I do.  I like the designs and 
the colors and the originality.  I've always been big about this.  Does 
anyone else go for them in a big way?  What unis do people like?  I'm 
certainly a bit of a homeboy (my assertion that Michigan has the best 
uniform in football is certainly defensible and lots of people think 
the Wings are spiffy), but I can be impartial, too.  The Pistons are 
butt ugly.  There, I was impartial.  

10 responses total.

The title refers to my Adidas pet peeve, since they are the antithesis 
of good uniforms.  They put those stripes of theirs everywhere, in 
place of good honest tradition and originality.  Soccer is the worst, 
with only two of their uniforms (France and DC United) looking any 
good.  The rest of them are butchered.  One logo on the breast is 
fine.  Active stripes or other design features (say, if Nike replaced 
Michigan's helmet wings with swooshes) are evil.  They're attempting to 
invade college football and have already dumbed down uniforms 
(Tennessee and Nebraska, prominently) and are attempting to sue the 
NCAA for right to put those hideous stripes on them.

Uhhh about uniforms... as previously mentioned, I really like 
Michigan's.  Simple but very good.  The basketball uniforms leave 
something to be desired, though.  Other football uniforms that are good 
include LSU, Florida (used to be a lot better), Miami, Miami Dolphins, 
Tampa Bay, Denver on the road, and the Jags.

The NHL and NBA have something of a curse running through them.  It's 
the "ugly uniform" curse which involves athletic outfitters thinking up 
ridiculously garish and hideous uniforms to catch people's eyes and 
money.  Prominent offenders include the Pheonix Coyotes and the Atlanta 
Hawks.  When will people realize that nice, simple uniforms look the 
best?  The best uniforms in the NHL belong to original six teams. The 
Celtics and Lakers have the oldest uniforms in the league, and they're 
among the best as well.

Okay.  A summary of the evil:  Adidas, teal, and garishly overdone 
uniforms.

The Michigan Wolverines should be renamed the University of Nike 
Swooshes.  It is not defensible that an athletic department of a major 
public university can sell their uniform space for advertising, without 
even needing the approval of their elected Board of Regents.  It's 
widely done -- Michigan wasn't the first, nor will they be the last -- 
but it's not defensible.

   How about U of $

   That about say it all.

I'm afraid that says very little, if in fact *nothing* at all.  The athletic
dept. gets *ZERO* funding from the university.  They have to generate revenue
any ethical way they can, to support *all* the sports, major and minor, men's
and women's.  If they wanna put a little swoosh on their uniforms, and Nike
is "stupid" enough to pay they money to do it, so the hell what?! 
Indefensible?  Hah!  Go join the Ivy League if you want "true purity".

It's one small logo.  I don't really think it's very bad.  Major 
universities do not sell billboard space on their uniforms.  There are 
no sponsor signs.  Just a logo of the manufacturer.  Granted, I think 
it's a bit hypocritical to keep out advertising on principle on the 
stadium if there's a logo on the uniforms, but I still think it's nice 
not to have those silly ads in there.  Remember, Nike actually makes 
(and actively tries to improve) the equipment they supply.  

I think there are rules regulatin logo size, too.

Every time I drive by Yost Ice Arena, I see a big sign out in front with 
the Nike and Pepsi logos on it, announcing events for the U-M.

I've never said a word against the U-M making millions of dollars 
through it's football program.  I realize very well what the athletic 
department does with that money -- funds it's entire budget through it.  
That's great, it's fine with me, but they do it by promoting the U-M and 
it's activities.  

It should be out of bounds for them to also endorse corporations.  The 
U-M is a public institution.  It's purpose is education, not 
endorsements for money.  

The athletic department is a part of the university, not an independent 
company.  For it to have it's own independent endorsement deals, without 
even getting approval from the Board of Regents, is irresponsible.

UM Athletics, strictly speaking, is *not* endorsing corporations by the mere
presence of those corp's signage affixed to buildings etc.  It's called
*advertising*.  Similarly the TV show "ER" would not be endorsing a women's
hygeine company just because that company bought commercial time for the show.
Yes, it would be ideal to keep $ out of athletics, but it's just not going
to happen in *big time* college athletics.

But U-M *does* choose what advertising to accept, based on some sort of 
criteria.  We saw that when the faculty senate ordered all their 
holdings sold which had anything to do with South Africa.

Anyway, why do you think Nike gives U-M money for advertising?  They're 
creating an association between the university and the company.  This is 
what endorsements are for.

I'm not trying to pick on U-M.  Michigan State has a contract with 
Reebok.  Duke University's Mike Krzyzewski is allowed to sell the name 
of his university for his own gain; he's paid $2 million or more per 
year to choose Adidas shoes for his players.  (Yes, that's worse than 
what U-M does, although only very slightly.) 

(Of course, advertisers and investments are totally separate matters.)

Although the Athletic Department is part of the University, they are 
almost totally seperate.  The Ath. Dept. has a separate payroll, 
seperate mailing contract, and separate facilities.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss