The 2014 Illini Nike Uniforms and Rebrand

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,376      
If I remember correctly we only wore the blue jerseys 2 times, the blue helmets 3 times, and the blue pants 2 times all of last year.

For the most pare we were white/orange.
 
#1,377      
Seems like a perfect topic to ask MT at an upcoming Illini Caravan stop
 
#1,378      
I am going to be royally pissed if we are forced to make do with nothing but orange and white for the first season after this whole giant hyped process. That would be total, utter incompetence on MT's part. That's the kind of stuff that defined his predecessor.

I agree. Why unveil the blue if it's another "wait til next year" scenario. Also, if there are other jerseys we haven't seen yet that we're supposedly using this season, why weren't those unveiled??
 
#1,379      
Agreed, if we won't get them, don't show them. Also if there was going to be an issue getting a set of uniforms why would we get a throwback or some other specialty item BEFORE getting one in one of our primary colors? "So we can only get 3 uniforms, should we go with Orange, White, and Blue? Or orange, white, and digital camo or a throwback? Yeah, lets keep blue on the back burner."
 
#1,380      
To me this stuff further backs up my theory/claim/whatever that this was a flawed process that led to a flawed result.

There is way too much settling as part of this rebrand. This was a chance to do something big and lasting, and it isn't that at all.
 
#1,381      
To me this stuff further backs up my theory/claim/whatever that this was a flawed process that led to a flawed result.

There is way too much settling as part of this rebrand. This was a chance to do something big and lasting, and it isn't that at all.

Your theory/claim/whatever was that this was going to suck a week before it came out.
 
#1,382      
Your theory/claim/whatever was that this was going to suck a week before it came out.

Right. Because of the process.

And *I* do think it sucks.

But my point wasn't to rehash my opinion, but just to criticize the lack of full commitment that went into this. How can they not do what is necessary to have one of the uniforms ready?
 
#1,383      
Right. Because of the process.

And *I* do think it sucks.

But my point wasn't to rehash my opinion, but just to criticize the lack of full commitment that went into this. How can they not do what is necessary to have one of the uniforms ready?

How/why could they didn't put you in charge of the process is the only question I have in this whole thing.
 
#1,384      
That's a good question, man. If only.
 
#1,385      
To me this stuff further backs up my theory/claim/whatever that this was a flawed process that led to a flawed result.

There is way too much settling as part of this rebrand. This was a chance to do something big and lasting, and it isn't that at all.

Whether you like it or not (can you refresh my memory on that?), it was big. We have a whole new set of uniforms across sports, new font, updated logo, tweaked color(s), new secondary emblem, and a huge majority of fans excited for the fact that our revenue-producing teams will be trotting out sharp new duds in a few months, etc. Big.

As for lasting, it's been 3 weeks. :eek:

That said, if they can't deliver everything on time, that's just amateur hour somewhere along the line that has nothing to do with the design/branding complaints you've made a time or two.
 
#1,386      
The reason I group it all together is because it shows what their real level of commitment and attention to detail was.

And yes, it's been 3 weeks, but this stuff isn't going to be lasting. It may be around in 10 years (I'm talking word marks and logos, of course—or at least presumably—the uniforms will change a few times within that span), but it will be very dated.

This wasn't a brand built to last. It was a brand built to be new. Which was a pretty infallible goal, I suppose.

You're right that it was big, though. It just wasn't what it could have been. We got a bunch of new uniforms. They told us we were getting a new and consistent brand.
 
#1,387      
The reason I group it all together is because it shows what their real level of commitment and attention to detail was.

And yes, it's been 3 weeks, but this stuff isn't going to be lasting. It may be around in 10 years (I'm talking word marks and logos, of course—or at least presumably—the uniforms will change a few times within that span), but it will be very dated.

This wasn't a brand built to last. It was a brand built to be new. Which was a pretty infallible goal, I suppose.

You're right that it was big, though. It just wasn't what it could have been. We got a bunch of new uniforms. They told us we were getting a new and consistent brand.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. How do you know it will look dated?

The Badgers have that leaning "W" and the color red. That's their brand. Was that earth shattering when it came out? It's stood the test of time quite well I'd think most UW fans would say.

And as far as the uniforms changing a few times, yes, of course. That's the spirit of the age with apparel and gear: variety, tweaks, superficial updates, etc. What's wrong with that if our helmets, block I, and shield are constants which I believe they will be?

And as far as commitment and attention to detail is concerned, it appears at this point that they were there. Stuff delivered on time, looks professionally done, positive response all around.
 
#1,388      
STL FANATIC is correct, this brand will not last because the culture of sports branding is evolving to please the masses. There will be too much pressure from within to change/adapt. I am sure he has experienced this in his past, as I have.

Personally, I always liked the slanted underline Illinois and Chief logo, outdated, yes, but still a consistent brand, that was the University of Illinois. Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. were never "forced" to change their brand like Illinois with regard to the Chief logo, which everyone across the country identified with (not just alumni). Now the University is stuck with the conundrum of "how" & "what" is the brand and obviously the University, not Nike, chose this new look.

Just like any good design, time will determine its legacy; but you CANNOT alter, fix, tinker or change aspects of the brand, that causes doubt and inconsistency. And if the university is already thinking about altering the orange color value, I have my doubts as well.
 
#1,389      
Another look at the new volleyball court-
New paint job complete. I love it, especially the shield! #GoIllini http://pic.twitter.com/pwoyCGbxKu

Bm4Je4ICYAAm1dW.jpg:large


http://twitter.com/IlliniVBHambly
 
#1,390      
Another look at the new volleyball court-

That Illinois state outline is so light it is very hard to see. Wonder what it would look like with the silver color from the secondary palette?
 
#1,391      
What was the deal with the chrome lamp again? And how did it tie in?
 
#1,392      
to bad, I really thought the state outline and Fighting Illini could be used and very unique. I know, I know Fighting Illini is part of rebrand / but basically nowhere to be found at all so far. might as well get rid of the state outline for hoops, you can not see it almost at all during the game.
 
#1,394      
Rather than break down my reasoning again, I'll just again agree to us all having different opinions. I'm probably almost as tired of saying why I don't like it as y'all are of hearing it.

But as TyinLex alludes too, I see fairly little chance this brand is still around and/or appreciated in 10 years. Either it will have changed because it's trendy and that's what happens to trendy things, or it will be around but not particularly well liked.

Just an educated guess. I've been wrong before. It's more than possible this will be one of those times.
 
#1,396      
What was the deal with the chrome lamp again? And how did it tie in?

The lamp is aluminum, not chrome. I am constantly reminded of this because I keep getting targeted advertising for it after looking it up.
 
#1,398      
Rather than break down my reasoning again, I'll just again agree to us all having different opinions. I'm probably almost as tired of saying why I don't like it as y'all are of hearing it.

But as TyinLex alludes too, I see fairly little chance this brand is still around and/or appreciated in 10 years. Either it will have changed because it's trendy and that's what happens to trendy things, or it will be around but not particularly well liked.

Just an educated guess. I've been wrong before. It's more than possible this will be one of those times.

Even though I'm generally a fan of most of the rebrand today I was finally able to realize how you feel. I was trying to explain to people just how much I hate the Big Bang Theory, but everyone else loves that pile of crud. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
 
#1,400      
At the rate we're going, it won't even be fully implemented in 10 years.

And honestly, despite all that was said by administration about what they wanted to accomplish with this process, is that a bad thing? I know we all want something timeless, but keeping up with the jones's isn't a bad way to do things. It's certainly what gets recruits and most of the fan base excited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back