Jersey

[las224]

I really don't get the problem with the jerseys. The ones in Florida weren't that bad, and my only qualms with them were the change in font and the stripe on the shoulder. Both of these have nothing to do with the design of the jersey itself (only the way that particular one was made). If they just make the font the way the old one is and get rid of that stripe, I could care less how they feel to the players, because they'd look the same to me.

In short, I think it's much ado about nothing. The design itself isn't at all different from a spectator's perspective; it's just the way they put the letters and decorative elements on.

[Omie]

You don't have to buy anything. Seriously, get over it! The Nike representative said that this was just a test run to see if the players and teams liked the feel of the jerseys and if they did that later on they would change the design/color scheme. As for Nike executives, I highly doubt they are reading this thread; they have interns for that. They only gave the jerseys to 9 teams and said on various interviews that they were just a test to see if they players liked them, there's nto much more than that to the whole jersey saga. Why make such a huge deal over a test-run jersey?

[ftyuv]

I agree.  And as a further note, regarding the "tradition" involved... look at a picture of Hobey Baker sometime, or Bobby Orr.  Their gloves are different, their helmets are different (insofar as they didn't wear one), their skates are different -- hell, even their jerseys are different.  Looking at some quick NHL pictures from olden days (research source is google images), seems to me that jerseys used to be tighter fitting than they are now.

My offhand guess is that jerseys used to fit, like any piece of clothing does.  Then bigger pads came along and made it hard to put on a jersey unless it was a few sizes too big, so the jerseys got looser.  Now it looks like Nike's putting out something that's the best of both worlds, and as far as I'm concerned, all the power to 'em, if the players like the feel.

Let's just hope -- or be confident in the market's power to ensure -- that when these jerseys go prime-time, teams will get to choose how they look.

[quote Omni]As for Nike executives, I highly doubt they are reading this thread; they have interns for that.[/quote] Touche.  I should have said that if I were an exec, I'd have someone reading these boards.  Same difference. :-P

[Tom Lento]

[quote evilnaturedrobot]
1.  Yes I realize that: Sweden won so there is no improvement in performance is a week deduction.  It was late at night and I was a bit worked up so I will admit to being a bit flippant here.

However, the real question is: if everybody switches to these jerseys (which is what Nike and Reebok are pushing for) then doesn't it all cancel out anyway?  In the end nobody will benefit from the drag reduction and we'll have thrown away a classic look for nothing.

2.  My main issue here is that is a microcosm of the greater problem in hockey: executives from non-hockey backgrounds making decisions about a sport they don't really understand in order to market it to an American public that just doesn't care.  New jerseys, the instigator rule, shootouts, NHL expansion into southern markets...

All of these have been implemented without consulting the hard-core hockey fan (who is probably the most dedicated fan in north American sports.)  Will new jerseys kill the sport?  Of course not, but I haven't met a single hockey fan that wants them (most hate them), the only party that does are the apparel corporations that have never treated hockey as much of a priority.  

And its all just an attempt to get Joe Whatever in Phoenix to buy a Coyotes ticket when it's perfectly clear that the average American does not and will never care about hockey.[/quote]

You may be right about the rule changes and whatnot, but the jerseys have nothing to do with getting Joe Whatever to buy tickets, or even jerseys for that matter. New logos and colors sell jerseys, not new research into materials and aerodynamic designs.

Based on what I've heard from a designer at Nike, the jerseys were developed to help improve player performance. Hockey jerseys haven't had a major update in YEARS. Current jerseys may not be the old wool sweaters, which I imagine is something the players can be thankful for, but they're hardly of the technical quality of jerseys in other sports, either.

The logos and whatnot are silly looking, and maybe they should consult with the fans over that, or at least stick to traditional patterns, but the technical aspects of the jersey only really matters to one group - the players. If the players feel they restrict their movements and the material is uncomfortable, then the jersey is a flop. If they feel the jersey allows them to move freely and the tests indicate reduced drag and better wicking performance, then the jersey is a success, and whoever cares can quibble over the cosmetic aspects of the jersey design. The fans hate them because they're ugly, not because they're tapered. They complain about that because it's been pointed out and they say they hate it, but if Nike had been smarter about implementation the average fan wouldn't have even noticed the switch. I think they totally blew it with the bizarre striping and font decisions, honestly, and if they'd been smarter we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As for your first point - I can tell you from experience, playing a sport at a pretty high level, I don't care if a jersey gives me a marginal advantage over my competition or not. If a wicking jersey provides me with improved comfort and performance over cotton (and it does), I'm going to wear it, and I'm not going to suggest that everyone else in the sport switch back to cotton with me just because we all wear wicking jerseys and therefore none of us is gaining an advantage over the others. We're gaining an advantage over the cotton jerseys, and that's all that matters. That's what the marketing gimmick is all about - improved performance as a result of this jersey. It doesn't matter if everyone else upgrades or not - you should do it because it'll help you, because it's better. Touting improved performance is a marketing gimmick, but if there's truth behind it, and if it's noticeable to the wearer, everyone will eventually upgrade because the players will demand it, whether the fans like it or not.

[ftyuv]

[quote Tom Lento]I think they totally blew it with the bizarre striping and font decisions, honestly, and if they'd been smarter we wouldn't be having this discussion.[/quote]

Of course, then none of us would know what a Nike Swift jersey is.  All press is good press as long as they spell your name correctly, right?  I wouldn't be surprised if the bizarre stripes and fonts were done purposely to get people talking about how much they don't like it, so that at least when Nike rolls out the final versions, which will look more or less like what people are used to for their team jerseys, the name "Nike Swift" won't be forgotten.  Otherwise it's just another jersey, and who cares?

[Liz '05]

[quote ftyuv] I wouldn't be surprised if the bizarre stripes and fonts were done purposely to get people talking about how much they don't like it, so that at least when Nike rolls out the final versions, which will look more or less like what people are used to for their team jerseys, the name "Nike Swift" won't be forgotten.[/quote]

If true, that's messed up.  Shame on them.

[nyc94]

[quote Liz '05][quote ftyuv] I wouldn't be surprised if the bizarre stripes and fonts were done purposely to get people talking about how much they don't like it, so that at least when Nike rolls out the final versions, which will look more or less like what people are used to for their team jerseys, the name "Nike Swift" won't be forgotten.[/quote]

If true, that's messed up.  Shame on them.[/quote]

New Coke!

[cth95]

Here is an interesting article describing CCM/Reebok's plans to do the same thing in the NHL.  

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=frei_terry&id=2720009

This is an interesting remark about the change from horizontal striping:

Terry Fei-"I'm a curmudgeon about most things, but I'm going to try to keep an open mind. To me, the most potentially objectionable aspect of all this will turn out to be the discouragement of traditional horizontal designs, because anything stretching across the front of the jersey could be a problem and thus archaic."

As a side note, Frei made a pretty funny comment when ranking the NHL jerseys:

4. Blackhawks-  The PC-NCAA might not want the Blackhawks to host a regional, but this is another logo and design that stands the test of time. Maybe it's because the Wirtzes didn't want to pay anyone to come up with something new, but old works.

[redice]

[quote Liz '05][quote ftyuv] I wouldn't be surprised if the bizarre stripes and fonts were done purposely to get people talking about how much they don't like it, so that at least when Nike rolls out the final versions, which will look more or less like what people are used to for their team jerseys, the name "Nike Swift" won't be forgotten.[/quote]

If true, that's messed up.  Shame on them.[/quote]

Modern marketing practices seem to suggest a corporate attitude that, if we can annoy them, we have their attention.  Since gaining the attention of their constituents/consumers is the goal, they feel successful (while we feel annoyed).

[evilnaturedrobot]

[quote cth95]Here is an interesting article describing CCM/Reebok's plans to do the same thing in the NHL.  

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?columnist=frei_terry&id=2720009

This is an interesting remark about the change from horizontal striping:

Terry Fei-"I'm a curmudgeon about most things, but I'm going to try to keep an open mind. To me, the most potentially objectionable aspect of all this will turn out to be the discouragement of traditional horizontal designs, because anything stretching across the front of the jersey could be a problem and thus archaic."
[/quote]

why can't they just use the new wicking material and keep the loose cut and traditional designs?  why must the uniform be completely redesigned for the players to benefit from modern fabric technology?

[Tom Lento]

[quote evilnaturedrobot]why can't they just use the new wicking material and keep the loose cut and traditional designs?  why must the uniform be completely redesigned for the players to benefit from modern fabric technology?[/quote]

In most sports, that would be enough. In the case of hockey, the traditional cut increases wind drag by up to 15% over the tapered design(if you believe the marketing buzz - I suspect the on-ice effect is smaller since players won't be skating full speed at all times). Again, if I were a player, I would probably want that taper *provided* that it doesn't restrict movement.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

[quote redice][quote Liz '05][quote ftyuv] I wouldn't be surprised if the bizarre stripes and fonts were done purposely to get people talking about how much they don't like it, so that at least when Nike rolls out the final versions, which will look more or less like what people are used to for their team jerseys, the name "Nike Swift" won't be forgotten.[/quote]

If true, that's messed up.  Shame on them.[/quote]

Modern marketing practices seem to suggest a corporate attitude that, if we can annoy them, we have their attention.  Since gaining the attention of their constituents/consumers is the goal, they feel successful (while we feel annoyed).[/quote]

Head On.  Apply directly to the forehead.  Head On.  Apply directly to the forehead.  Head On.  Apply directly to the forehead.

::twak::

I remember the product name.  I remember it so well that I will NEVER EVER buy it.  ::flipc::   Is that a good thing?

[ftyuv]

[quote Jeff Hopkins '82][quote redice][quote Liz '05][quote ftyuv] I wouldn't be surprised if the bizarre stripes and fonts were done purposely to get people talking about how much they don't like it, so that at least when Nike rolls out the final versions, which will look more or less like what people are used to for their team jerseys, the name "Nike Swift" won't be forgotten.[/quote]

If true, that's messed up.  Shame on them.[/quote]

Modern marketing practices seem to suggest a corporate attitude that, if we can annoy them, we have their attention.  Since gaining the attention of their constituents/consumers is the goal, they feel successful (while we feel annoyed).[/quote]

Head On.  Apply directly to the forehead.  Head On.  Apply directly to the forehead.  Head On.  Apply directly to the forehead.

::twak::

I remember the product name.  I remember it so well that I will NEVER EVER buy it.  ::flipc::   Is that a good thing?[/quote]

I once met a marketing major (not from Cornell) who told me that overall, yes, it's a good thing.  It was before the head-on era, but back then a series of Coors commercials were pissing me off, and I asked her that exact question -- is it good if I remember the brand but in such a way as to boycott it?  She said it is.  I don't know if it's a marketing fad that they all tell themselves is true, or whether it's just that any ad that's successful in pissing off 10% of its viewers actually gets the brand name -- and not the anger -- stuck in the rest of the viewers' heads.  But there you go.

Swift on.  Apply directly to the waist.  Swift on.  Apply directly to the waist.  Swift on.  Apply decals from your soapbox car directly to the arm.

[Trotsky]

[quote ftyuv]is it good if I remember the brand but in such a way as to boycott it?  She said it is.  I don't know if it's a marketing fad that they all tell themselves is true[/quote]

The goal of marketing is not to sell product.  The goal of marketing is to secure more attention and resources for marketing.

[ugarte]

Every time I see this thread I expect it to be about Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen or Ho Ho Kus.