The ‘00-‘02 over the Adidas? Yes. But that’s not saying much because the more recent iterations just **** people off.
I may get dragged for this and that’s ok, lol. Those ‘00-‘02 jerseys have a nostalgic feel to them because we beat people’s asses while wearing them and we’ll forever love everything from that time. Outside of that, them ***** were ugly, lol. The ones right after them were a much better design
View attachment 240748
I also preferred the "bra-strap" jersey. It was cleaner and simpler than the 00-02 jerseys. I agree that people love those simply because we beat the crap out of everyone while we had them. Not because they were particularly good looking.
Uhhh… excuse you!This may be true of the "enduring" nature of people liking these jerseys in 2023, but they were pretty popular in 2000 as well, and we had just started beating the crap out of everyone back then.
Uhhh… excuse you!
They were definitely popular when they were new. I had a Green one and an Orange one. I just think the design looks dated now and I believe a lot of peoples' affinity towards them today has more to do with nostalgia for championship football. I wouldn't like to see the 2023 team wearing that style jersey if that makes any sense.This may be true of the "enduring" nature of people liking these jerseys in 2023, but they were pretty popular in 2000 as well, and we had just started beating the crap out of everyone back then.
Is the Rock sponsored by Under Armor now? I didn't think they even made shoes anymore.
the best design weve ever hadYeah, you're right, this jersey was not "this century"...or loved...and nobody was smitten...
View attachment 240728
they make currys signature shoeIs the Rock sponsored by Under Armor now? I didn't think they even made shoes anymore.
He is. His posters are plastered all over UA stores.
It feels like it’s an easier pitch in those rooms to move on from the design that the 6-6 team just wore or the 5-7 team when looking at sales. They think a new design is necessary to create a buzz and our Athletic Department feeds right into the nonsense.
I also remember reading an article where Pepsi and Coke employ people to monitor the color browns used in ads as each entity has copyrights to specific shades. I was surprised (but not really) to find out that one could “own” shades of color. I wonder if that’s why Adidas gives us this version of green because our green under Nike belongs to them?
Yes. Brands own copyrights on certain shades. It's why Michigan had to use a different shade of maize for their pants under Adidas.It feels like it’s an easier pitch in those rooms to move on from the design that the 6-6 team just wore or the 5-7 team when looking at sales. They think a new design is necessary to create a buzz and our Athletic Department feeds right into the nonsense.
I also remember reading an article where Pepsi and Coke employ people to monitor the color browns used in ads as each entity has copyrights to specific shades. I was surprised (but not really) to find out that one could “own” shades of color. I wonder if that’s why Adidas gives us this version of green because our green under Nike belongs to them?
Is the Rock sponsored by Under Armor now? I didn't think they even made shoes anymore.
This seems like a bat signal to call @Rellyrell
I told the board a while ago that due to Nike being our first exclusive apparel sponsor (And there’s quite a difference being an apparel sponsor vs. a company making jerseys like Russell Athletics did) they assumed all creative designs patents which included “shades” of colors used during that partnership.
I already knew the orange & green would be off w/ Adidas b/c they had to recreate our colors using different hues. They had to do the same with Michigan, as well.
Now that I’ve lured you in…. From your experience … Is it possible for schools to retain their colors? Or negotiate the rights to them? (I think you know where I’m going with this…)
I mean technically the patent is not on the school colors, b/c clearly Adidas is making orange, white, & green uniforms. The patent is on the hue used for said colors.
I don't think it's a patent, I think it's a registered mark.
In any event, when I worked on newspaper/yearbook at UM in the 80s/90s, we had specific guidance on colors (this was back in the early days of Mac computers), so I don't know why we couldn't have registered these things for ourselves. ****, we were told that the UM green was called BISCAYNE GREEN. So, no, I don't think Nike (or anyone) should ever be able to aces us out on our own colors or logos.
I will say, the first Nike deal was signed when Sam Jankovich was our AD, and I have no idea if those were the contractual terms at the time (remember, we were the FIRST EVER all-apparel university Nike deal). I often wonder if these onerous terms regarding colors and logos came about later, under a different AD. I find it hard to believe that Paul Dee would have missed on this, he was a lawyer and the former General Counsel for UM before becoming AD.