Oregon Ducks Football: Analysis of the Ducks New Rose Bowl Uniforms
Just when we all thought Oregon couldn't take uniforms to a whole new level, they did just that.
Earlier today Nike released several images of the new Pro Combat jerseys that the Ducks will wear in their Rose Bowl matchup against Wisconsin on January 2.
The Ducks' past two marquee matchups have seen Nike design a new Pro Combat uniform for them, first in last year's BCS Title Game, and then earlier this year for their opening weekend matchup against LSU.
Both games were losses so I'm already a little iffy on Nike doing another flashy uniform for the Ducks, especially in a Rose Bowl Game that has so much riding on it.
Now onto the uniforms.
When I first saw the uniforms it honestly took me a minute to figure out what color they were. The green seems much darker than the usual green that Oregon uses.
When I first saw the uniform earlier today I couldn't believe my eyes. Most of the time I like Oregon's flashy uniforms (even the black, yellow, black combination), but this time I just could not believe that Nike took it that far.
After not looking at them for the next several hours, I decided to give them one more shot.
So much for first impressions being key, because the new Rose Bowl uniforms eventually grew on me.
I like the new "armored wing" pattern on the shoulder. It's a subtle flash that is not as overtly flashy as the past two '"highlighter outline" combinations they wore against Auburn and LSU.
What do you think of the new Rose Bowl Uniforms?
Sadly, the helmet is where I cross the line.
The Oregon O is a cult icon in Eugene and I can't believe they replaced it with wings. It just plain sucks.
I mean, really, wings on the helmet? What was Nike thinking?
Hopefully the helmet can grow on me; if not, quite a few fans and myself will be very disappointed come New Years.
Otherwise the body of the uniform is solid enough for me to like them.
Leave your comments on your impression of the new Rose Bowl uniform.
The full gallery can be seen here.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?