Kazz wrote:
This thread is indeed about uniforms, but what people KEEP on missing the point is that in order to receive the Nike uniforms people KEEP referring to, UH needs to be in the caliber of Boise State in terms of success and consistency and television exposure.
Oregon… NO college team is even CLOSE to what they get because of Phil Knight's relation to the school.
As anyone looked at Idaho's Nike uniforms or Fresno State's? That is more of what we could expect at BEST from Nike back in 2008 when their renegotiation was attempted.
As for faulting the athletic department for a shortage of extra apparel and whatnot under the Nike deal, well the POINT of this whole thing is that UA supplies the football program with all they need in terms of gameday, practice, weightroom, and some casual gear. Nike couldn't even do practice jerseys or supply fans with Nike branded replica jerseys until 2007.
The point of having a business relationship with an outfitter is to see where you and the outfitter can meet in the middle that is beneficial to BOTH parties.
Nike failed UH and when it came time to re-neg after a landmark year they dropped the ball on UH.
Addidas showed no interest, those at UH did not want to sell the Russell Athletic brand, and UA came in with a swanky presentation and threw money and materials at UH in the likes that they have NEVER seen before that.
UH did the right thing for their student-athletes.
In the GRAND scheme of things, opting to cite the appearance only of UA uniforms as to why UH should go back to Nike is short-sighted to the greater needs of what our student-athletes need to function on and off the field.
It seems like you're missing the point.
People here are commenting on the style, design of the uniforms. That's all.
There's no criticism here on the benefits, support UA has given to UH, Hawaii athletics, and student-athletes.
No urging, petition to change back to Nike. Nothing inflammatory about the UH-UA deal.
I even said that UH got a fantastic deal with UA and gratitude should be given.
So you say, it's not the athletic department's fault if there were problems with a lack of apparel, support, etc. It's all Nike's fault?
It's the athletic department and the university that negotiated with Nike. So it's the athletic department and the university that has the right and responsibilty to complain, negotiate, etc. with Nike. It's the athletic department that should be fighting for and supporting whatever the student-athletes need. If there was anything bad committed to student-athletes, then it is both sides that are at fault.
You say Nike considers Hawaii at the level of Rutgers. There's nothing negative about that.
As I mentioned in my previous post, it should be a compliment since Rutgers is a winning team, with 5 consecutive bowl games won. Surely wish Hawaii had that accomplishment, instead of being embarrassed nationally the previous 3 bowl games.
But why even go into a debate about this, when this thread is all about the uniforms.
You seem to take this personally. But why? This is just all about the unis.
In your viewpoint, since UA has provided many benefits for Hawaii athletics, we shouldn't say a word. Just be content to whatever the UA designers decide to change in the unis.
Anybody has the right to criticize the unis. So if UA, decided to completely remove the Polynesian motif, like the pic in page 1, in your viewpoint, we shouldn't even criticize it since UA gave monetary benefits and lots of apparel for student-athletes. We just don't say anything to UA when they mess around with the Hawaii unis?
Hawaii's unis (2007-earlier) are still way better (Polynesian motif, unique, original, etc) than any unis from Idaho and Fresno State from 2007 to the present Nike designs. For that matter, better than most college football team unis in the mainland. IMHO
Idaho's & Fresno State's current unis are simple, cleaner but cool, not too weird or gaudy. Nothing bad at all about their designs. But we should be comparing unis from the JJ era to the present.
So what's your point that Hawaii could expect that at BEST from Nike? The Reebok then Nike unis were already awesome as it was in the JJ era. Drastic changes weren't necessary back then. Or you wanted flashier, gaudier designs being implemented by UA now.
You're saying Hawaii has to be in terms of success, consistency, and exposure as Boise State for better unis.
So top football teams have better looking uniforms?!?! Huh?!?! Look at Arizona State, they weren't successful the last few years, but the re-design to their logo and unis are awesome.
Success has nothing to do with the style, design of cool looking uniforms. It's all due to the designers. Hawaii already had awesome looking unis that UA only had to follow.
“WELCOME HOME COACH”
Go get’em Timmy 
