(07-12-2016 07:10 PM)BearcatnKY Wrote:  Basketball shoes.

Bohn also mentioned fans will love the Bearcat Red initiative. Not sure what that entails.

[IMG][/IMG]

I would guess it entails having a set of red uniforms for all teams. There weren't any last year except the special red Homecoming Nippert jerseys last season.

I made a quick pass through the campus bookstore this past week and was unimpressed with the Under Armour retail product now in stock. The 2016 coaches polo shirt is about $80... with screen printed graphics one would see on a t-shirt. I would expect embroidered logos on a garment at that price point. Overall though, I didn't see any new UA clothing that I would call a "must have" from a design standpoint. And that's coming from someone who owns and wears lots of Bearcat attire.

I really hope the deal was as good for UC as was suggested when it was announced with such fanfare. I believe the last season with the Adidas contract, coaches polo shirts were about $65. The added revenue for UC may simply be a considerably higher price point on each garment. I'd rather see them innovate and customize more and really drive unit sales to push the UC brand out there in a bigger way.

UA recently had a shakeup in their management and their stock totally tanked. Ask me how I know...

(07-16-2016 01:48 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  UA recently had a shakeup in their management and their stock totally tanked. Ask me how I know...

How do you know?

(07-16-2016 01:48 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  UA recently had a shakeup in their management and their stock totally tanked. Ask me how I know...

Tanked? Since when? They did have a stock split a few months back.

(07-17-2016 07:04 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 01:48 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  UA recently had a shakeup in their management and their stock totally tanked. Ask me how I know...

Tanked? Since when? They did have a stock split a few months back.

Yup 2 for one split, issued new non voting shares that trade under different ticker. Many investors are confused. Google did substantially the same thing.

Facebook is about to do the same as well.

(07-16-2016 12:01 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I made a quick pass through the campus bookstore this past week and was unimpressed with the Under Armour retail product now in stock. The 2016 coaches polo shirt is about $80... with screen printed graphics one would see on a t-shirt. I would expect embroidered logos on a garment at that price point. Overall though, I didn't see any new UA clothing that I would call a "must have" from a design standpoint. And that's coming from someone who owns and wears lots of Bearcat attire.

I really hope the deal was as good for UC as was suggested when it was announced with such fanfare. I believe the last season with the Adidas contract, coaches polo shirts were about $65. The added revenue for UC may simply be a considerably higher price point on each garment. I'd rather see them innovate and customize more and really drive unit sales to push the UC brand out there in a bigger way.

Under Armour does have a higher price point than adidas. So far they have been a let down on the retail side. I am not sure why their charged cotton tri-blends always have a funny smell to them because they are probably the best shirt Under Armour produces outside of their regular charged cotton tee. Most of their performance gear is unwearable because the seams rub against the body which makes it very annoying to wear.

From a design standpoint the clothing lacks originality. At least Adidas made solid use of the College Vault and created so nice throwback merchandise. I am starting to see stronger designs over the last few months so maybe the second wave of UC merchandise will be better.

The UC Bookstore really lacks non-performance gear from Under Armour. I am guess since Hanes handles the retail side of Under Armour's college gear their Champion label is filling the need for regular t-shirts and lower end products.

The other issue Under Amour has from a fan standpoint is distribution. Since they are a higher end label their UC gear is not going to be found at discount or off-price stores. Campus bookstores, Rally House, Dick's, and high-end department stores tend be the places your will find Under Armour gear around town. Fanatics.com does have a nice selection of gear.

Even with the money being what it is from Under Armour, I long for the days of a return to Nike. Their retail product is fan friendly, trendy, and more reliable. Hats fit better, shirts don't smell, and performance gear doesn't rub against the skin in an annoying manner. I find myself purchasing more Cincinnati Reds gear these days because MLB has a Nike deal as well as an Under Armour deal. I can therefore pick the best from both brands. Nike is better than Under Armour but hopefully UA gets their act together and can close that gap.

(07-17-2016 10:10 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(07-16-2016 12:01 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I made a quick pass through the campus bookstore this past week and was unimpressed with the Under Armour retail product now in stock. The 2016 coaches polo shirt is about $80... with screen printed graphics one would see on a t-shirt. I would expect embroidered logos on a garment at that price point. Overall though, I didn't see any new UA clothing that I would call a "must have" from a design standpoint. And that's coming from someone who owns and wears lots of Bearcat attire.

I really hope the deal was as good for UC as was suggested when it was announced with such fanfare. I believe the last season with the Adidas contract, coaches polo shirts were about $65. The added revenue for UC may simply be a considerably higher price point on each garment. I'd rather see them innovate and customize more and really drive unit sales to push the UC brand out there in a bigger way.

Under Armour does have a higher price point than adidas. So far they have been a let down on the retail side. I am not sure why their charged cotton tri-blends always have a funny smell to them because they are probably the best shirt Under Armour produces outside of their regular charged cotton tee. Most of their performance gear is unwearable because the seams rub against the body which makes it very annoying to wear.

From a design standpoint the clothing lacks originality. At least Adidas made solid use of the College Vault and created so nice throwback merchandise. I am starting to see stronger designs over the last few months so maybe the second wave of UC merchandise will be better.

The UC Bookstore really lacks non-performance gear from Under Armour. I am guess since Hanes handles the retail side of Under Armour's college gear their Champion label is filling the need for regular t-shirts and lower end products.

The other issue Under Amour has from a fan standpoint is distribution. Since they are a higher end label their UC gear is not going to be found at discount or off-price stores. Campus bookstores, Rally House, Dick's, and high-end department stores tend be the places your will find Under Armour gear around town. Fanatics.com does have a nice selection of gear.

Even with the money being what it is from Under Armour, I long for the days of a return to Nike. Their retail product is fan friendly, trendy, and more reliable. Hats fit better, shirts don't smell, and performance gear doesn't rub against the skin in an annoying manner. I find myself purchasing more Cincinnati Reds gear these days because MLB has a Nike deal as well as an Under Armour deal. I can therefore pick the best from both brands. Nike is better than Under Armour but hopefully UA gets their act together and can close that gap.

Nike is only trendy and fan friendly if you're a perennial top 10 school or Phil Knight is an alumnus of your school.

I know that this is off topic but is anyone watching the BYU-Utah game right now? For our Red Out uniforms, I want our uniforms to look like Utah's. Simple, not a lot of flash, but a slick metallic red helmet reminiscent of our helmet one of the Belk Bowls. Why can't Under Armor give us something like this? Rant over.

(09-10-2016 07:26 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  I know that this is off topic but is anyone watching the BYU-Utah game right now? For our Red Out uniforms, I want our uniforms to look like Utah's. Simple, not a lot of flash, but a slick metallic red helmet reminiscent of our helmet one of the Belk Bowls. Why can't Under Armor give us something like this? Rant over.

I channel surfed into that game for a few minutes and had the same impression. The Utah uniforms were really sharp and I'm hoping "ArmouRed" has similar threads planned for UC.

Even the UC white uniforms and helmets looked better after a victory Saturday! But I'm more than ready to see black helmets Thursday night.

Watching that game made me want to see us rock our all reds vs Memphis, and have Memphis bring their all blues. I love color on color football! (There's a softball for anyone who wants to knock that one out of the park).

I agree with looking forward to the black helmets coming back, it's a travesty they are so rare under this staff.

Away games should mostly be black-white-black.
4 home games should be all black.
1 Ring of Red game and 1 White Out game.

Don't understand why this is a difficult formula to figure out.

I guess I am in the minority but I thought our all-whites look looked pretty sweet against Purdue.

I noticed our cheerleaders Saturday were wearing red uniforms that were in line with our red jerseys from last year. I hope that doesn't mean we are sticking with last year's uniform for the football players. I would love to see something like Utah's unis from Saturday

I don't mind the whites, but we should always wear black helmets. Maybe a red one for the ring of red. Maybe.
My favorite combo has always been black helmet, black top, red pants.

(09-12-2016 08:46 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  Watching that game made me want to see us rock our all reds vs Memphis, and have Memphis bring their all blues. I love color on color football! (There's a softball for anyone who wants to knock that one out of the park).

I agree with looking forward to the black helmets coming back, it's a travesty they are so rare under this staff.

Away games should mostly be black-white-black.
4 home games should be all black.
1 Ring of Red game and 1 White Out game.

Don't understand why this is a difficult formula to figure out.

Does the tuberville staff really have say over the uniform combos? I always figured it was the Athletic Department... In any case, I agree. We have gone far too crazy with the "different uniform combo every game" crap. I hardly recognize UC at first glance anymore.

And if I had it my way, I'd do away with every helmet except for the black (it's funny, I begged for years for a red helmet and now that we've had several... I want them gone). The black helmet is iconic and should be used as much as possible.

I would also do away with the red pants. Not that they look bad, just not necessary IMO. I would love it if the program would follow this simple formula (this is assuming we have 6 home, 6 away games):

HOME: 2 games black on black, 2 games black on white, 1 game red on black, 1 game red on white. No more whiteout game, Blackout and Ring of Red only. If for some reason we have a 7th home game, go crazy with an alternate uniform.

AWAY: 3 white on black, 3 white on white (if there's only 5 road games, flip a coin to see which combo gets the nod).

Simple stuff, and every combo available is used. We had the combos right from 2008-2010.

(09-12-2016 08:58 AM)bearcatjim Wrote:  I don't mind the whites, but we should always wear black helmets. Maybe a red one for the ring of red. Maybe.
My favorite combo has always been black helmet, black top, red pants.

I second this - black helmet, black top, red pants.. I do like black top and red pants also. Always black helmet though. Purdue looked sharp with their all blacks with the flat black helmet.

Red jerseys now available for purchase!

(09-22-2016 09:35 AM)AeroCat Wrote:  Red jerseys now available for purchase!

Ugh, that freaking cartoon character ruins it. Why, UA? Why??

This looks like it would make a good "onesie-jersey" for an imfant

It's not the best. But I see it as an opportunity to put a secondary logo in the spotlight, to potentially sell more gear primarily to kids. Kids see funny looking bearcat on bada$$ college player, he gets a jersey or hat with that goofy face on it and bam, new generation of fans already created.

How did Yogurt from Spaceballs put it? Moichendising! Moichendising!

Now, are they gonna try and capitalize on this and run a line of goofy face gear? Who knows.