I am checking many blogs from since morning in search of unique information i have got some of my related info on your blog its really good.
<a href="http://www.mysocceruniform.com">Football Uniforms</a>
For those Missouri — and SEC — fans scared to death that Nike is about to Oregon-up Mizzou’s uniforms, you probably won’t like what you’re about to read. In today’s St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missouri recruiting coordinator David Yost is quoted as saying, “Everyone kind of wants to grab a little piece of what Oregon has done.”
As we told you last month, Mizzou officials are letting Nike give the school a makeover. Judging by a blurry screengrab, it looks like that makeover can best be described as West Virginia-meets-Oregon… as opposed to the classy, traditional, old gold and black uniforms the Tigers have sported in recent years.
More worrisome from a fashion perspective, MU equipment manager Don Barnes said, “All the recruits this year have seen these new uniforms, and they love this stuff.” That’ll likely be good for recruiting, but bad for the eyes. Remember, it’s 18-year-olds who love Oregon’s flashy, bizarro football unis and Baylor’s highlighter-green hoops get-ups.
Barnes continued: “… do I please you, the fan who’s been watching for 30 years, or do I go after and do everything I can to make that 18-to-21-year-old kid love it? Love it so much that they want to wear it. And now you get that 6-star recruit. And the more of those guys you get, the more you win, the happier you are.”
And if you’re Oregon, the uglier you are.
It’s good business to tailor a school’s uniforms to the desires of recruits, but where’s the limit? How long before some team starts wearing pants so low-hanging that players must keep one hand on them at all times in order just to hold them up?
Missouri will have 24 — yes, 24 — different uniform combinations available this fall. Sorry, but that’s not a selling point around MrSEC.com.
There are 12 fanbases in the SEC that scratched their collective noggins when Mizzou was invited into the league. Will they fit, many asked. Personally, I’m not sure the Tigers will be doing themselves any favors on that front by entering the nation’s most tradition-rich league while wearing uniforms that — from what it sounds like — could have been worn by Gil Gerard in his circa-1980 “Buck Rogers” television show.
Georgia went with a Power Rangers uni for one game this past season and were darn near laughed out of the league for it.
Missouri will unveil their new collection of uniforms at halftime of Saturday’s spring game. Here’s hoping they won’t be as bad as feared.
I am checking many blogs from since morning in search of unique information i have got some of my related info on your blog its really good.
<a href="http://www.mysocceruniform.com">Football Uniforms</a>
I think it is Mizzou seizing the opportunity and timing was perfect being that they will be entering a new conference this year. The tiger logo and name change is a move in the right direction as they now have something unique, and something to build upon for brand recognition. The rest of the uniform change is not that dramatic. The colors are not any different than what they've used in the past. The all-gold uniforms and large tiger head helmet will only be worn on special occasions, like Georgia's power ranger unis last year. And to clarify, the color is definitely "Old Gold", not the darker, greenish color gold that many of you are confusing it with.
Thought Mizzou did a nice job with their new uniforms, which are drawing a 70% approval rating in the Kansas City Star. As Witherspoon was overheard saying: "all you need to know is Dorial Beckham-Green saw them during his recruiting trip, loved them and committed. That's what it's all about." They did a great job of reaching out to the 18 year olds and recruits with a more updated look, maintained some of the traditional aspects in the black on gold home uniform, while accentuating the marketability of the MIZZOU and Tigerhead logo branding. Well done.
And from people who do this for a living, the uni's are grading out pretty good. Enough said, move along please.
Since there's no way provided to edit a post, I'd also like to add that I've been keeping up with your site long before Mizzou made the jump and I will continue to do so, but c'mon man, you write about the premier league in college football and you devoted (ie: wasted) an article on Mizzou's uniforms before you ever knew what they were going to look like? Again, they're nowhere NEAR as bad as Oregon's past tragedies. Just stick to football, not fashion. These uniforms are just fine.
Lighten up. Francis! I am a Mizzou fan and you need to know are coming off like a whiny KU Chickenhawk! Just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view doesn't mean they aren't a "smartass" or need to "get their panties out of a bunch". Are you a real MU fan or someone else trying to make us look bad?
No one said everyone needs to agree on whether the uniforms are cool or not. Really makes no difference. I like the new MU ones, I like a lot of Oregon's combos, I like Bama's, but hate PSU's. The best uniforms in all of football IMO are the baby blue S.D. Chargers throwback that they wear. And I hate SD being a KC Chiefs fan. it really doesn't matter. All that matters is MU comes into the SEC and proves to be a solid, productive member of the league and helps to contribute to future successes. I think we will.
And to address your post further below, find me a picture where they actually wore "gold" anytime in the last 20 years. Their new uniforms are just fine and look awesome, just not as bad as you apparently hoped so that you'd have something more to write about after you posted that crap above. Just settle down and get your panties out of a bunch.
Alright smartass, the new uni's are unveiled and they're nowhere near Ducks' or Bears' ugliness. Gonna write anything about that or let this POS article stand alone?
The tiger head in the oval logo on the helmet is great -- and the hint of stripes that remain are good, too. It pops. And it can;t be confused with Michigan, Marshall or some other "M" place. The painted on tiger head version does look a bit cheap (even though it's more expensive to do). For a "special helmet, I'd prefer a bigger departure ...like the Oregon chrome. And I actually like the white uniforms. You have to have a white jersey anyway and the grayish on the shoulders looks good.
Most important, the players (and recruits like them). Most fans do, too. And merchandise sales are going to go through the roof.
Totally disagree about any notion that this is yellow. Iowa is yellow. West Virginia is yellow. It's clearly gold -- based on the logo. The hue on the logo is bright vs what's on fabric and thus the fabric looks more gold, tho. "Old gold" is actually a pretty broad spectrum, and I for one, don;t think it should be on the brown side.
Mr. SEC: The helmet is the real change. Moreover, the uniforms are only a small part of the consistent branding makeover. The consistent and vaunted use of MIZZOU vs. MISSOURI is really a bigger change (although it's been evolving to that for years).
For anyone who thinks Alabama's numbers or Penn State's nothing on the helmets is traditional, and thus, "better," then any change is gonna be tough. Yet not everyone things that way. Frankly, I think Bama's and Penn State's helmets are just wasted opportunities. Lucky for both, they win a lot. It reminds me of some dive restaurants people used to recommend in Nashville where bad service and bad food was mistaken for "charm." I don't think Penn State and Alabama helmets are charming. If anything, I think they need to catch up to the greatness of their programs (not hating on the Tide, BTW, I just don;t like their helmets). And PSU, especially, could use a new coat of paint right now.
Well aware of the brand makeover. Wrote of it, understand it. But if you can look at the big Tiger head on the black helmet and tell me that's not yellow, well, I think you're seeing whatcha wanna see.
Just my take. Thanks for reading,
The Bama uniforms(helmets included) haven't changed a great deal in 60 years or so. The same basic concepts behind the uniform go back even further than that. It's simple, but it looks good. It's hard to screw up a simple design that looks good and it helps that its reminiscent of a bygone era. I wouldn't have it any other way. Tradition is a running theme in Tuscaloosa and I'm sure you'll become more familiar with that. Personally, I tend towards less flash on pretty much everything and the vast majority of Bama fans would agree. There are some schools out there that appreciate a different approach and like to shake things up at least once every 10 years and that's fine, but it's not for us. I assume the folks at PSU look at it pretty much the same way. Bama and PSU fans alike constantly rank their 2 schools uniforms as the best looking in college football. And I pretty much fall into that category as well.
When did this become a fashion contest? Why do SEC fans (not players or former players, mind you) feel entitled to explain football like the rest of us haven't a clue about how the sport is played? Pretty sure all that matters is what the product is on the field. Get over yourselves, and get ready for steady ass whoopins from the apparent red-headed stepchild of the league.
Who is explaining football? We gave our opinion on a uniform, said we understood the rationale behind it, and then said that everyone would have their own opinion.
And I'm sure everyone in the SEC will now get ready for "steady ass whoopins."
Good to see the children in Missouri have internet connections.
I like them overall. The black jerseys are good all around. The white ones with gray shoulders look bizarre to me....never understood that type of contrast. Looking at the back of that jersey, it would look better with solid white than the mix and match. The gold jerseys are good, but the tiger image they stuck on the helmet looks too funky. They need to stick with the circle tiger emblem on everything.
Ugh. Not as bad as they could have been, but still not a classic, quality look. Personallly... I like the Oval Tiger helmet but DETEST the all-black, bright yellow Tiger version. It looks cheap. Ditto the versions of the unis that are very West Virginia-esque and feature no "off color." WVU is blue and yellow with no white trim... looks like they couldn't afford a third color. I feel the same about the black/yellow/no-third-color Mizzou unis, too.
The name/number font is good, however.
Last note regarding my personal taste... gold should be gold. Like the actual color of a gold bar, metallic. Not mustard, not yellow. Missouri is now black and yellow. That's a disappointment to me.
But again, this could have been worse.
Just my take and I realize everyone will have their own views. I also realize that the idea is to appeal to 18-year-olds, not 41-year-olds.
But I like the old Mizzou unis better than these.
Thanks for reading,
@John at MrSEC As a Mizzou fan, I respect your opinion. I however, detested the "third color" you mention above. That look, which we had until now, looks "totally" 1980's - outdated, not classic like Bama. And we are a similar age btw.
The uniforms were unveiled today. Just like the title of the William Shakespeare comedy, this is much ado about nothing. The road uniforms look similar to the Pro Combat worn in 2009 at the Border War game. The home unis are fairly traditional, nothing crazy like Oregon's. A little fashion forward but still cool. I love the gold alternate jersey. Not crazy about the tiger on the helmet, but it's not too bad. Overall, this is a nice coordinated step forward into the SEC. New branding, facilities, top recruits, uniforms, conference. Nice work, Mizzou!
I just found a link to the new uniforms. They're not the crazy Oregon type. I hate those too.
These are great! I love the ones with gold especially! Here's the link.
The block M obviously needs to be replaced (I'm tired of explaining to my Ohio neighbors that it's black and gold, not blue and gold). And I've long since given up on the battle between "Missouri" and "Mizzou," because it's pretty clear that the latter has more currency around the country. From the information that's out there so far about the new uniforms, I don't think we'll see anything like Oregon... more like Oklahoma State or maybe Arizona State at worst. We'll know later today of course, but here's a peek: http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1040110/AqVPOCRCIAI3sof_medium.jpg.
This is terrible news. Anyone wanting to look like Oregon's uni's needs to have their head examined.
I'm still waiting on the fashion shows in the spring to go along with the spring games.. Just wait, in a few years half time will include a runway and spring fashion uni's. When did a mans sport become more about what you wear than how you hit. I understand marketing to a desired audience, but 5,10,20 years ago a kid looked at a school because they won, academic programs, hell, number of girls vs boys even. Now, it seams it's Nike vs UA. The problem is encuraged with programing on ESiPN and sports shows that talk about who is wearing what this season. I guess I enjoy some tradition.. KEEP IT MAROON AND WHITE.. gig'em!
From the teaser images that have been released, I don't think the new uniforms will be that wild. They will have a unique image, which is what Mizzou wants. If you look at all of the current SEC teams (even Vandy), and other well branded teams (Mich, OSU, USCw, UCLA, you know within a few second of watching a game who is playing and where they are playing. That is not the case with Mizzou. I watched a couple of games last year and while the uniforms look nice and professional, you could easily flip past the channel and not realize that it was Mizzou playing. Nothing really stood out about their last image. I support this move by the school. It will just help Mizzou and the SEC long term. It could be worse - they don't look like UGA's alt uniforms that they wore last year. Those were ugly. That drag queen lipstick red stripe down the face mask was just wrong on so many levels.
Let's not get carried away here...they aren't going to be as crazy or out there as Oregon. Hell I bet Florida has just as many uniform options out there. They will have white, black and gold jeresey's and pant and from what I'm hearing 2 helmets...that right there puts you at 18 combinations. Throw in another pant color from what I'm hearing (gray) and that gets you to 24 combinations. I'm sure some of those comnbinations will never be used but still out there. This is simply a "re-branding" by Missouri. The block M is not brand specific and marketable...Minnesota, Michigan, Miami, Ohio, Marshall, all have basically the same block M. The Tiger head is what most people associate with Missouri now so look for that to be more prevelant. Also going to all be the same gold...Missouri has always had this issue as to which gold was which...always different shades. Now all will the exact same gold which Nike will call Mizzou gold...kind of like the Texas burnt orange. Some of the traditionalists may not like it but it's what is coming in college sports and the kids love it which is all that really matters. Some schools don't have to worry about maketing as much since they have such great history's....Penn State, Alabama, Nebraska, etc...but even Nebraska is going to wear a different uniform for a home game this year. It's what is coming down the line so people might as well deal with it.
OK. Let's try this once more. Comments such as, "Just don't get mad at the rest of the SEC for laughing at you every week for looking ridiculous," will be settled on the field and not in fashion magazines. Those of you/us who live in Big 12 Country surely realize that teams such as Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas, in their heyday, were certainly of SEC-calibre. My point really was the constant barrage that Mizzou is the equivalent of a Vanderbilt or MSU. We have a whole 2012 season to "show them" (a play on "show me" ) that they are wrong. Insofar as criticism of the uni's is concerned, I am fine with reading the criticism but I understand the necessity of re-branding for marketing purposes.
Missouri is trying to establish it's own brand. The block M is too generic. Between Michigan, Minnesota, Miami (Ohio), Marshall, Missouri, etc., it's Michigan that wins the block M brand. Missouri is also dropping, "Missouri", in favor of "Mizzou". The football field will get new turf with the endzones changing from "MISSOURI" to "MIZZOU".
I think "Statesman" said it perfectly that Mizzou does not need legacy SEC fans/schools approval. When Mr.SEC mentions the 12 fan bases that collectively scratched their noggins when the expansion was announced and Mizzou was one of the teams, it is time now to just say to all our SEC brothers and sisters: Deal with it. Move on. We're going to play in an elite college league and we are ready! No, of course we don't expect to be world-beaters right out of the gate but within two years we will certainly be more competitive than in our first year. if my memory is correct, when South Carolina and Arkansas were both welcomed into the SEC in 1992 there was this same type of head scratching going on.
Mizzou is an awesome addition to the SEC and I don't believe that I'm alone in this feeling. I also believe MU will surprise many SEC teams this fall. Unfortunately some in the SEC don't realize that the B12 was second only to the SEC in conference strength this last year. Welcome Mizzou I look forward to our future rivalry
@BCarrTotally agree. last time I checked we were voted in by a majority of those 12 member schools, so the head-scratching being done is irelevant at this point. I am a traditionalist, but I understand that things change. i hope the uniform changes in ways that are tasteful, but we will see.
Mizzou's addition to the SEC benefits the SEC as well as it benefits Mizzou. Slive has mentioned that adding Mizzou & A&M means a bigger tv contract and more money for each SEC school. In other words Mizzou is not coming in with the head tucked between their legs and as a liability, but as an asset. The school has made changes and sacrificed some tradition by joining the SEC and will continue to expand & explore the Mizzou brand, even if some such as Mr.SEC are offended. Mizzou will not look for your approval nor will project ourselves as the new kid at school that needs to fit in. One thing Mizzou knows is that you can't please everyone and some SEC folks minds are still in the 19th century..
M I Z........................ZOU
@Statesman It's not so much that people are offended or even mad about you guys changing your color schemes. It's your school. Do what you want. Just don't get mad at the rest of the SEC for laughing at you every week for looking ridiculous. This isn't the Big 12 where everyone is nice to you because you only have one real rival and football isn't life or death. (I live in the heart of Big 12 country. Not speaking out of my butt here.) If you want to run with the big boys then you need to learn to take some criticism.
Obviously you're unaware of the fact that his site has been more pro-Missouri than any other SEC-related site on the web. You also must not realize that way back in 2010 this site did a lengthy piece breaking down all possible expansion partners and listed Missouri as a potential target LONG before anyone else even mentioned them as a candidate for SEC expansion. We were laughed off the internet for even making such a claim.
You might want to get thicker skin.
@John at MrSEC Ironic, seems that you need to grow the thicker skin John!
John, I am very aware of you stating that Mizzou was a potential target. You were ahead of the crowd. However as stated below that does not mean you were or have been pro-Mizzou, nor does it matter. Mizzou fans can handle the critics and give back criticisim. We will on occassion respond to unwarranted condescension, such as above. However there will be times when I will ignore the unnecessary condescension such as when the students created the rap video and your response was "this is not SEC-worthy". Mizzou is different from Bama, just as Bama differs from LSU.
John my skin is thick. I will continue to defend my school until the end, or at least until football season starts and Mizzou realizes that even Vandy ain't Vandy anymore, and this thing called SEC football is played at a much higher level. Until that time I have my guns loaded. (lol).
We have defended the SEC's inclusion of Missouri a blue million times on this site. And that does constitute being pro-Missouri in terms of their inclusion into the league.
But you've hit on something in your comment: "I will continue to defend my school." What needs defending? They're going to Nike'd up uniforms and many Mizzou fans fear the worst. This site is no fan of Nike's outlandish uniforms... even though that company was kind enough to fly us up to New York two years ago for the unveiling of their latest "Pro Combat" unis. So we said "ugh" at the thought of what Mizzou might do and we also poked fun -- as everyone in the SEC did -- at Georgia's Power Ranger unis from a year ago.
We're talking about uniforms. We're fair -- we said it makes sense to please recruits -- and we're consistent -- because we always rip Nike's space-age get-ups.
But way too many fans today -- hell, maybe all of them -- come to websites and EXPECT that the people at that site will be out to get their school. So they feel the need to DEFEND their school against any and all perceived slights.
If I say "ugh" to Mizzou's uniforms -- 24 combinations is ridiculous -- that somehow means this site is hating on Missouri and looking down at Missouri, blah, blah.
No, we're hating on what Nike's done to uniforms. And in this case, it's Missouri getting it done to them.
If people always have their "guns loaded" expecting to find insults, they'll see insults all over the place, even when they're not really insults. Or -- as in the case -- when they're insults aimed at a dadgum uniform.
@John at MrSEC Listing Mizzou as a potential target is not indicative of being "pro-Missouri." It simply means that you guys understood the forces behind conference expansion, rather than focusing on "cultural fit." I will say I enjoy this site, however. When do Missouri and TAMU get a tab at the top?
The block M helmets date back the worst decade in Mizzou football history, the 1970's. Before that we had numbers on the helmets. I honestly think these are being hyped up to be crazier than they actually are. Gary Pinkle is very conservative and old school, he isn't going to go nuts with the uniforms. Watching the video of the equipment manager he said on a scale of 1 to 10, with Oregon's uniforms being a 10, the new uniforms would be at around a 6. He also considered our past uniforms to be at around a 3. People will definitely be upset, but it's hard to stick to the old traditional route when you uproot after over 100 years in a conference to join another. A change in conference has provided an excellent opportunity to rebrand the program. That kind of opportunity rarely comes along in a program's history. I am glad that Mizzou is taking the steps to capitalize on it.
@MizSec1911 The 70's were not the worst decade in Mizzou Football history. The bad years are from 1983-1996. During that time Mizzou didn't go to a bowl game or even have a 6 win season. From 1958-1970 the numbers were on the helmet and then in 1971 Al Onofrio put the M on the helmet that mimicked the likes of Nebraska. By the way it's Coach Gary Pinkel.
I do agree that people will be upset but you are right that now is the time to change if you going to, but they aren't re-branding the program. We have had the Oval Tiger head thing since 1996 and we have been using Mizzou as a name for some time. This is a chance to solidify the gold color that Mizzou uses and to get every sports team in to the Nike camp. Before softball and baseball were with a different company and we have had nearly 16 shades of gold in our uniforms.
Tradition or simply old? I love my block M hat, but I may pick up a new one at the Spring Game. All the recruits and some former players (Maclin, Weatherspoon, Alexander) were very positive about the look.
There are plenty of Mizzou alumni that are not happy with the uniform changes either. Twenty four combinations on black and gold - how can that be possible?
Looking at that video posted in the other article, it doesn't appear the color scheme is too wild. And that's what has always turned me off with the Oregon uniforms...the colors and design patterns look unearthly. As long as Mizzou's patterns aren't crazy then I don't see it being that big a deal. I didn't think the uniforms they've been using in recent years looked that great anyway.