Jump to content

Under Armour vs Nike vs Adidas


AUEngineer2016

Recommended Posts

I was on social media today and discovered that the Nike uniform reveal for Tennessee is in a couple of days, and that got me thinking: What do the good people of AUFamily believe is the best uniform manufacturer? I will include in this segment the big 3 of uniforms, Nike, Under Armour, and Adidas.

First, let's start with what I believe is the weak link: Adidas.

Adidas seems to be the least desirable of the three companies due to their history of ruining classic uniforms, for example Nebraska.

Before Adidas:

gallery_50011_110_62910.jpg

After Adidas:

gallery_50011_110_71280.jpg

gallery_50011_110_23308.jpg

Now, they aren't all as bad as those two, but it does show how bad their uniforms can be. Not only do they have a habit of introducing incredibly bad alts, they also have a base pattern to their jerseys that is just busy and unnecessary. It can be clearly seen on Tennessee's uniforms from last year:

gallery_50011_110_211130.jpg

Seriously. Their uniform is literally two colors, and the helmet colors never change. How did they make that seem complicated?

Would I like to see Auburn switch to Adidas? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... oh wait, that was serious? Heck no. Not in a million years.

Next up: Under Armour

Now, I believe that we have some of the best looking uniforms in the nation. Our home jerseys are classic, and our white jerseys exhume minimalistic beauty. Let's not forget, however, the "tramp stamp" that UA decided to add in 2011:

gallery_50011_110_3295.jpg

In this analysis, I will focus on what has been the poster-child for Under Armour apparel in College Football: Maryland. Some examples:

gallery_50011_110_55465.jpg

gallery_50011_110_54550.jpg

gallery_50011_110_22102.jpg

Again, they aren't all that bad, but when you make bad uniforms, people remember them. One look for Maryland I actually quite like is their all white look:

gallery_50011_110_60576.jpg

But on the whole, Under Armours uniforms still seem too busy for me. I also personally don't like the way that the uniforms fit the player. If you notice on the picture of number 93, the jersey seems to hike up and bunch up near the bottom of his shoulder pads, which looks pretty horrible IMO. Now, I do prefer them to Adidas simply because they seem to be able to at least not destroy good looking uniforms, but they are still not my favorite.

Now the math majors here will have realized that I have 1 more review to do, and that since my favorite wasn't UA or Adidas, then it must be Nike. And they'd be right.

NIKE!

When most people think of Nike uniforms, they think of Oregon. Flashy, loud, 99999999 color combinations and counting, Oregon. But there is more to Nike than that - they are actually really good at making uniforms and put in a lot of the details. An example of the details are Wake Forest's uniforms for 2015:

Here are some others that I'm really digging. The emphasis of all of these uniforms is a simple look, a great fit, and something that encompases the history of the uniform and the university while also adding some new elements.

gallery_50011_110_27681.jpg

gallery_50011_110_62788.jpg

gallery_50011_110_64604.jpg

gallery_50011_110_203155.jpg

This uniform has the Boom Seal of Approval TM

Notice in the Oregon and the UF pictures how the jersey fits the bigger guys (UO #62, UF #94). The jersey is evenly distributed along the entire torso, it doesn't hike up on either of them. One cause of this is the way that Nike cuts their jerseys as opposed to Under Armour and Adidas.

Now obviously, Nike has made bad uniforms before. See the Georgia-Boise State game a few years ago. I do think, however, that Nike has a better "Hit to Miss" ratio than either of the other two "big 3" companies.

gallery_50011_110_50345.jpg

Not only do I think that Nike's jerseys look better, but I would also argue that they are better at making cleats due to their long history in that business.

Would I like to see Auburn make the switch to Nike? Yes. Oh dear lord, yes. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What exactly do you purpose to change about Auburn's uniforms? I think they are fine just the way they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I love really like our AU under Armour jersey's, I love UA gear ( ie. Underwear, compression shirts, cold gear and Polo Shirts) Nike uniforms are nice looking. TCU,Baylor and yes even some Oregon uni's are cool looking. So I agree.... Nike would be fine by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep UnderArmour. Our jerseys are sleek. No point in just having them switch the UA logo to a Nike swoosh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nike> Under Armour

The uniforms are made better, they have far better shoes, accessories(socks, gloves etc.) are better and their design team is vastly superior to anyone else. Their fan gear is also better looking, better made and cheaper.

AU wears Under Armour because they pay more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nike> Under Armour

The uniforms are made better, they have far better shoes, accessories(socks, gloves etc.) are better and their design team is vastly superior to anyone else. Their fan gear is also better looking, better made and cheaper.

AU wears Under Armour because they pay more.

Cheaper is the only thing correct you said about Nike. Under Armour is infinitely stronger and more reliable than Nike when it comes to apparel. As for the shoes, I have never used UA football cleats, but I have used nike's football and soccer and both fell apart entirely too easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"that pays the most......right now that's UA"

That has been well known for decades. The bahr started that tradition and it is still flourishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nike> Under Armour

The uniforms are made better, they have far better shoes, accessories(socks, gloves etc.) are better and their design team is vastly superior to anyone else. Their fan gear is also better looking, better made and cheaper.

AU wears Under Armour because they pay more.

Cheaper is the only thing correct you said about Nike. Under Armour is infinitely stronger and more reliable than Nike when it comes to apparel. As for the shoes, I have never used UA football cleats, but I have used nike's football and soccer and both fell apart entirely too easy.

Agree to disagree. I workout 6 days a week in both Nike and Under Armour and coach multiple teams year 'round who use equipment from both companies. Under Armour certainly does some things better than Nike but, as a whole, give me Nike any day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Armour has better apparel. Nike has better shoes.

And Auburn has better uniforms ... than anyone else.

Since you can read my mind, did you remember to pick up the milk like I was supposed to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Armour has better apparel. Nike has better shoes.

And Auburn has better uniforms ... than anyone else.

Since you can read my mind, did you remember to pick up the milk like I was supposed to?

Sorry, Sugar. I plum forgot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't buy Nike shoes anymore. The shoes are cheaply made and poor quality, they are uncomfortable as hell.

I had a pair (in school) that within a couple months the whole sole came lose and was barely attached at the tip of the shoe. I had to tie my shoe laces completely around my shoe twice to keep the soles on. They still sounded like flip flops when I walked, smh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Armour has better apparel. Nike has better shoes.

And Auburn has better uniforms ... than anyone else.

Since you can read my mind, did you remember to pick up the milk like I was supposed to?

Sorry, Sugar. I plum forgot.

fiddlesticks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NIKE. NIKE. NIKE. Always worn Nike shoes and apparel and always will. I don't hate other brands (although I dislike UA shoes and cleats) I just have always played every sport in Nike gear and love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nike jersey bunches up in the shoulders and torso...just a bad fit all around. Although busy the adidas has a nice tight fit that reminds me of the russell athletic jerseys we used to wear years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like those weird sweat panels on Nike football jerseys. It makes teams look like they are wearing multiple shades of the same color. It's just ugly. I also don't like how Nike thumbs its nose at tradition. USA Women's Soccer in black and white; the US Men's and Women's national teams with the multi-shaded blue that made us look more like France. Oregon in silver, neon, whatever. I just don't get it.

ETA: I just surfed up on this article addressing Oregon's branding.

Excerpt:

The [lghtning yellow] uniform couldn't possibly have been made in the hopes of finding widespread appeal. They were intentionally weird. Ugly, even. The goal was to get attention, not impress everyone.

This was about divorcing the program from college football's most important cultural signifier at the time: Tradition. The goal, yes, was to thumb their noses at traditionalists.

Now, Nike wants to do the same thing to US soccer, or to another team near you. Of course, if everyone's doing it ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you that I've seen more than a few players in recent years wear nike shoes and tape up over the UA logo. (It's a big no no to wear any other brands inside the athletic facility for the players.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...