Potential NFL Trades To Shake Up The Draft
March 31, 2011Tribe Talk: Why 2008 Collapse Reset the Deck
March 31, 2011How silly of me. How dare I, a self-proclaimed uni-nerd leave out something uniform related from yesterday’s Tressel press conference. For those like me, who cheer for laundry, the Buckeyes will be wearing new helmets this year. Well, sort of.
The gray camouflage helmets will be used during the spring practices and the Spring Game only. At least that’s what Jim Tressel said. They are meant to honor the military, which is something the Buckeyes, particularly under coach Tressel do regularly. Would anyone here be surprised if they weren’t part of the next Nike ‘Pro-Combat’ look? I certainly wouldn’t.
Those who follow the site regularly probably already know my thoughts on this. First off, if it is just for the spring then fine. So be it. But no way do I want to see this look for the Michigan game. I’m done with the gimmicky looks for the most important game of the season. You want to wear something completely off the charts bizarre for the Colorado game? Knock yourselves out. Want to honor the Spielman era Buckeyes with the huge mesh jerseys? Go for it during the Indiana game.
How about we honor the legacy of all Buckeyes to ever wear the scarlet and gray against Michigan this year by wearing the actual uniform and helmet? That sounds like a novel idea to me.
(Tressel Photo by Jamie Sabau/Getty Images)
22 Comments
Those are horrendous looking.
I’m not an overly sensitive guy, in fact many would argue the opposite. But the whole, “Pro-Combat” marketing theme seems wholly inappropriate to me. It’s a football game. As long as people are dying defending this country halfway around the world, Nike might try a little tact and drop the “Pro-Combat” campaign. Or at least rename it.
I do not think that word means what they think it means.
I love them, and the sentiment; but nobody does those uniforms better than West Point.
Still, I’d be happy to see those all year – even for Michigan (but I also wake up every morning thinking I’m the current version of the reincarnation of George Patton – and this is the least of my problems).
Garryowen!
camo helmet for the tattoo 5 and camo vest for J Tress, they’ll be out there the first 5 games and no one will even be able to tell!
I hate them messing with the unis for the Michigan game. I wish they would go Scarlet for OSU, and Michigan wears their blue so nobody is in white. I think that would be a really cool look.
@ Fern
I’m just waiting for the photoshop of the picture above with the painted on mustache like what’s-his-name from the mets back in the day.
“Jim Tressel? No, I’m not Jim Tressel…you must have mistaken me for someone else.”
Also, the pro-combat campaign is offensive to me too, along the same lines as the Call of Duty commercial where all the celebrities are shooting guns in a war zone with big smiles on their faces.
The “pro combat” thing just doesn’t bother me at all. It rather makes me laugh. It’s just hyperbole.
Besides, Wellington once said that England’s wars were won “on the fields of Eton.” The combat analogy (and inspiration) for sports is as old as the Olympics. None of these guys (hello, K2)are Pat Tillman; but nobody (apart from the delusional) really thinks they are.
Just an opinion, worth its weight (i.e., zero).
I agree with a few points here. The other teams that participate in the “pro combat” series, wear the alt uni’s in early, out of conference games (VT v BSU etc)…not for their rivalry game. I would rather do it against the likes of not so big OOC games (colorado this year) and keep the standard uniforms when playing the big boys and conference games.
I also like Eric D’s idea, scUM and OSU wear their colors each year instead of either one wearing white.
@ Kevin – you mean like this, that I did a week ago?
Also, the helmets are horrendous.
Designed to “honor the military?” I doubt it. Designed to sell lots of crap? Bingo.
Garry, I’m glad you chimed in given your service. I too find the combat themes laughable but what do you think of this “honoring” idea. I get annoyed about it when its tied in to selling more stuff. Surely Nike and others can find some kind of meaningful way of honoring our military that doesn’t benefit their bottom line.
But what the hell do I know…
This university gets worse every day.
BTW, I keep forgetting. Are we Leaders or Legends?
Hey Mark.
I like the notion of it being “honoring” to service members. I believe it, especially when it comes from JT – whom I believe, despite recent events, is a truly honorable man. This isn’t the first or only measure that he has taken to honor the military – it’s just one of the more public. (And I happen to have really loved the Bronze Star emblem on last year’s Michigan game helmets. Really cool.)
There’s no way that OSU (or any major program) can do anything like this without it also being a revenue producer. The fact that it produces revenue (which the OSU athletic department frankly doesn’t need) does not eliminate the honor, which I actually believe and feel is real. Anyway, even if the intent is only “revenue,” I do feel the honor of it (if from nothing else than the comments from you and others have made, which were sparked by the helmet); so the “honor” piece, whether actually intended by OSU, is actually realized by people like me. The fact that it might make a lot of money? No problem (though I would love it if every penny they made was then donated to wounded warrior programs).
Does that make sense? Again, it’s just one guy’s opinion, and there are probably thousands of other soldiers and vets that disagree with me.
Re: changing up the unis for the spring game every year – that’s great, and if they find a way to get proceeds to go to charity (a la Stefanie Spielman), then by all means go for it. The ‘honoring the troops’ thing seems trite just to do it, but if they’d sell the game jerseys (lay off your simple-minded jokes, trolls) and give the money to the USO or something like that, that’d be fantastic.
But to do it and just say it’s a nice thing seems a bit obtuse.
@ Denny…you just gave me the next great jersey idea. Bright pink unis to benefit Stefanie Spielman’s foundation.
Imagine being a visiting player, having your cornbread taken by a 265 lb linebacker in a pink jersey…nice.
@Chris – the pro-combat theme would be distasteful even if soldiers weren’t dying overseas. Nike is just preying on our affinity for military metaphors in the US. How about pro-honor, pro-courage, pro-competition, or pro[insert platitude]? Why cynically contribute to the glorification of armed combat?
Before people jump all over me, know that my work involves dealing w/ war-related traumatic brain injuries, so have a short fuse about this BS marketing strategy.
Designed to “honor the military?” I doubt it. Designed to sell lots of crap? Bingo.
Garry, I’m glad you chimed in given your service. I too find the combat themes laughable but what do you think of this “honoring” idea. I get annoyed about it when its tied in to selling more stuff. Surely Nike and others can find some kind of meaningful way of honoring our military that doesn’t benefit their bottom line.
Spot on Mark.
As a Michigan fan, I would just like to point out we would never let Nike or Adidas or anyone change our home uniforms. Not for Spring games, not as a “tribute” to the military and especially not for the UM-OSU game.
What isn’t for sale down in Columbus?
@ Kevin – you mean the jerseys that were worn last year during the spring game, complete with pink numbers?
Also, see: Kinnick Stadium visitor’s locker room.
wow, it took me a while to figure out what Tressel was holding. That camo really works
@TSR3000 – and uniform retailers don’t want anyone to know that your defense is wearing their merchandise. people will think their stuff makes players slow and unathletic 🙂
and the camo outfits aren’t there to make money. they are there to cover up off field transgressions 🙂
@Humboldt: I fear that if we rid ourselves of military metaphors and glorification, then only our enemies will be willing to fight. Those things are unfortunately, but absolutely, necessary in a world where some passionately want to kill you and/or destroy your way of life. We are far from being the only nation/society/culture that admires warriors and glorifies combat. However ideologically admirable, I believe it would not be wise to remove ourselves from that list.
Not very postmodern or “correct” of me, but there it is – and I have experienced firsthand the truth of war, in all of its ugliness and, indeed, glory.
(By the way, thanks for your work, whatever it is. To “care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan” is one of the greatest services that someone can do.)
@ mgbode- haha, well played.