What makes a great/bad college hockey jersey?

[RichH]

My question is why bother making a change like this? I understand teams changing their jersey in an effort to pump up merchandise sales. But a minor adjustment like this won't do that. So why make changes like this (and then "unveil" them, as if anyone should really care all that much).

That's a question that Clarkson fans should answer.  I feel that no other school in the league does more "unveiling" events than they do.  Most teams have yearly jersey changes in the ECAC without making a big deal about it...save for the RPI "black out" charity versions, but the only team to do events where they model the new unis live in Potsdam.  Really, the most consistent teams in the league (since the '80s) as far as jerseys go have been Cornell and St. Lawrence.

I think.

[jtn27]

My question is why bother making a change like this? I understand teams changing their jersey in an effort to pump up merchandise sales. But a minor adjustment like this won't do that. So why make changes like this (and then "unveil" them, as if anyone should really care all that much).

I think you answered your own question: it's precisely to pump up merchandise sales. Sure, it may not be by a lot, but making a big deal out of unveiling new jerseys represents cheap (maybe even free) advertising. Just look at what the NFL did in the spring. They had weeks of build up and a huge event just to reveal new jerseys that looked exactly the same except for a Nike logo instead of a Reebok one. However, they got free media attention that probably led to an increase in jersey sales. Union is basically doing the same thing, except on a smaller scale.

[css228]

My question is why bother making a change like this? I understand teams changing their jersey in an effort to pump up merchandise sales. But a minor adjustment like this won't do that. So why make changes like this (and then "unveil" them, as if anyone should really care all that much).

I think you answered your own question: it's precisely to pump up merchandise sales. Sure, it may not be by a lot, but making a big deal out of unveiling new jerseys represents cheap (maybe even free) advertising. Just look at what the NFL did in the spring. They had weeks of build up and a huge event just to reveal new jerseys that looked exactly the same except for a Nike logo instead of a Reebok one. However, they got free media attention that probably led to an increase in jersey sales. Union is basically doing the same thing, except on a smaller scale.

I would almost guarantee you, that no matter what Union does, they take a loss on producing and selling their jeresys.

[RichH]

My question is why bother making a change like this? I understand teams changing their jersey in an effort to pump up merchandise sales. But a minor adjustment like this won't do that. So why make changes like this (and then "unveil" them, as if anyone should really care all that much).

I think you answered your own question: it's precisely to pump up merchandise sales. Sure, it may not be by a lot, but making a big deal out of unveiling new jerseys represents cheap (maybe even free) advertising. Just look at what the NFL did in the spring. They had weeks of build up and a huge event just to reveal new jerseys that looked exactly the same except for a Nike logo instead of a Reebok one. However, they got free media attention that probably led to an increase in jersey sales. Union is basically doing the same thing, except on a smaller scale.

Another factor is vendor costs.  As styles change in the hockey world in general, different styles probably are offered and discontinued. When the Penguins changed their logo in the mid-90s and added the pointy shoulder panels, a bunch of minor-league & college teams appeared with that style, for example. Athletic Departments probably have contracts with different vendors and probably shop around for the best deal.  Union's new sweaters only have minor changes from last year, and I don't recognize the logo of the supplier that's on the neckline.  It's probably a lowest-bidder situation, as well as a supply-demand factor in choosing the jersey blanks.  Cornell's on-ice jersey has flipped from being produced by CCM to Bauer to Nike and back again several times.

[KeithK]

My question is why bother making a change like this? I understand teams changing their jersey in an effort to pump up merchandise sales. But a minor adjustment like this won't do that. So why make changes like this (and then "unveil" them, as if anyone should really care all that much).

I think you answered your own question: it's precisely to pump up merchandise sales. Sure, it may not be by a lot, but making a big deal out of unveiling new jerseys represents cheap (maybe even free) advertising. Just look at what the NFL did in the spring. They had weeks of build up and a huge event just to reveal new jerseys that looked exactly the same except for a Nike logo instead of a Reebok one. However, they got free media attention that probably led to an increase in jersey sales. Union is basically doing the same thing, except on a smaller scale.

Another factor is vendor costs.  As styles change in the hockey world in general, different styles probably are offered and discontinued. When the Penguins changed their logo in the mid-90s and added the pointy shoulder panels, a bunch of minor-league & college teams appeared with that style, for example. Athletic Departments probably have contracts with different vendors and probably shop around for the best deal.  Union's new sweaters only have minor changes from last year, and I don't recognize the logo of the supplier that's on the neckline.  It's probably a lowest-bidder situation, as well as a supply-demand factor in choosing the jersey blanks.  Cornell's on-ice jersey has flipped from being produced by CCM to Bauer to Nike and back again several times.

OK, that makes sense. Make some minor changes because it saves you some money in ordering the next round of jerseys.

I still think the "unveiling" is dumb, even given the free advertising form media attention. I remember the Red Sox unveiled a new jersey a few years ago, which only changed the ont of the road lettering or something really minor like that. It just made them look silly.

[TimV]

I don't recognize the logo of the supplier that's on the neckline.  

Looks a lot like the EA Sports Logo

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I would almost guarantee you, that no matter what Union does, they take a loss on producing and selling their jeresys.

I doubt many people on here are as anti-Union fans as I am, but owning real jerseys is one thing to their credit. They have a small fanbase that does not travel overly well, but those who do attend away games tend to wear authentic jerseys. So, I think that assuming that they would not sell the jerseys is somewhat unsubstantiated.

I don't know why Cornell does not sell authentic jerseys at The Cornell Store. The replicas that it sells are poor substitutes. Most programs sell their authentic jerseys or good replicas at their campus stores. Cornell does neither. It is one of the main decisions surrounding the program and its marketing that is most foolish. I know that in a few weeks I will be able to buy a new NCAA Division I Penn State jersey directly from the Penn State store and authorized retailers downtown, why a student at Cornell cannot do the same readily is beyond me.

I don't recognize the logo of the supplier that's on the neckline.  

Looks a lot like the EA Sports Logo

It is the logo of Gemini. It is a small company out of Minnesota that makes jerseys for a handful of ECAC teams and programs in other conferences. They supply Yale. I believe that they might supply RPI's jerseys too. I looked it up last season when I realized that Union and Yale had the same, non-name-brand provider.

[Redscore]

This is the dumbest f'ing thing on the elynah thread.  Guys, let's end this stupidity and talk hockey. Drown his thread.  Dont respond please

[RichH]

This is the dumbest f'ing thing on the elynah thread.  Guys, let's end this stupidity and talk hockey. Drown his thread.  Dont respond please

Or..OR! you don't have to read this thread at all and start a hockey thread yourself which you can do exactly that.

[css228]

I would almost guarantee you, that no matter what Union does, they take a loss on producing and selling their jeresys.

I doubt many people on here are as anti-Union fans as I am, but owning real jerseys is one thing to their credit. They have a small fanbase that does not travel overly well, but those who do attend away games tend to wear authentic jerseys. So, I think that assuming that they would not sell the jerseys is somewhat unsubstantiated.

Its not unsubstantiated at all. You just wrote out my entire reasoning. They have a small fanbase. There is no way they produce and sell these in enough bulk to break even, let alone make money. There's simply not a big enough market.

[marty]

This is the dumbest f'ing thing on the elynah thread.  Guys, let's end this stupidity and talk hockey. Drown his thread.  Dont respond please

We've been over this before.  It's not f'ing, its Effen.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I would almost guarantee you, that no matter what Union does, they take a loss on producing and selling their jeresys.

I doubt many people on here are as anti-Union fans as I am, but owning real jerseys is one thing to their credit. They have a small fanbase that does not travel overly well, but those who do attend away games tend to wear authentic jerseys. So, I think that assuming that they would not sell the jerseys is somewhat unsubstantiated.

Its not unsubstantiated at all. You just wrote out my entire reasoning. They have a small fanbase. There is no way they produce and sell these in enough bulk to break even, let alone make money. There's simply not a big enough market.

This is devolving quickly even for a nonsense thread.

A small loyal fanbase can make production of jerseys economical if there is a guaranteed high level of market saturation of the product and low supply, so that revenues are not lost in production of jerseys that remain unsold. If they are smart about this (that's a big "if" ), they could make production of jerseys profitable. They have effectively a captive market, albeit a small one, that will buy the jerseys if they make them available. As long as there is not excessive production, they will make money considering each jersey is sold at a profit relative to production costs.

Anyways, while we are disparaging Union, let's do it regarding something more concrete:

While sharing a conference with six Ivy League schools, the Dutchmen consistently shine brighter in the classroom.

[jtn27]

Anyways, while we are disparaging Union, let's do it regarding something more concrete:

While sharing a conference with six Ivy League schools, the Dutchmen consistently shine brighter in the classroom.

Is this a classroom where they teach how make up blatant lies?

[marty]

Anyways, while we are disparaging Union, let's do it regarding something more concrete:

While sharing a conference with six Ivy League schools, the Dutchmen consistently shine brighter in the classroom.

There is certainly evidence for the claim.  Read it and weep.;-)


Union Ranked above Ivies

[TimV]

Anyways, while we are disparaging Union, let's do it regarding something more concrete:

While sharing a conference with six Ivy League schools, the Dutchmen consistently shine brighter in the classroom.

There is certainly evidence for the claim.  Read it and weep.;-)


Union Ranked above Ivies

That link sent me to a story about highest salary potential among those institutions considered "Party Schools" by the Princeton review.  So getting lit helps you shine brighter.  I get it.::drunk::      

AND they almost got beat by #2 Cal Santa Barbara.::wow::