Why Notre Dame Alums Don't Like the Special Uniforms

Considerable schadenfreude has erupted throughout the Twitterverse/Blogosphere/ Webscape since the unveiling of the uniforms Notre Dame will don vs. the University of Miami this October.

Many have enjoyed the very public gnashing of teeth displayed by Notre Dame alums about the uniforms.

Most of the discussion has centered on the design of the uniforms. But I would suggest that what has twisted the knickers of Notre Dame alums has nothing to do with the design that adidas came up with, and the University approved.

There are three main reasons why we don’t like the uniforms: 

1) Lack of Originality

This isn’t the first time the Notre Dame football program has veered from tradition, including scheduling neutral site games the past three seasons in Texas, New York and Washington, DC (and future games in Chicago and Dallas). 

One of the reasons why Notre Dame alums haven’t been up in arms about the “Shamrock Series” of games is that it was our idea. Astute followers of college football history know that after Notre Dame was denied entrance into the Big Ten Conference (and many of its schools, including Michigan, refused to schedule them), it was forced to schedule games outside the Midwest. Knute Rockne relished the attention and "us against them" mentality the schedule created. The 1929 team won the national championship playing all of its games on the road during the construction of Notre Dame Stadium (a feat that will certainly never be equaled). The team was even nicknamed the “Ramblers” due to its wayward scheduling. 

But wearing different uniforms for one game a year is not a new idea, and their product life cycle is arguably in decline. We don’t like playing follow the leader, and certainly not in the footsteps of schools such as Oregon, Maryland and Oklahoma State (number of consensus national championships among them: 0), whose uniform manufacturers (Nike and Under Armour) started the trend that adidas is merely copying.

2) Too Much Commercialism

There’s a reason why sponsors of Notre Dame, such as Team Notre Dame members McDonald’s, Comcast, Gatorade, Sprint, et al. don’t have signage at Notre Dame stadium. Notre Dame alums donate so much money to the school that it makes the amount provided by each corporate sponsor (in the neighborhood of $1-$2 million per year) look like couch change. If but a few of those donors (I unfortunately am not among them) felt the inclusion of corporate signage at the stadium meant that their donations weren’t needed, there would be one less building built on campus next year.

So when adidas designs special uniforms and parades them out on Media Day, it reeks of just a bit too much commercialism for these donors. Unlike companies like Russell Athletic and Nike, who make football uniforms for a living and supply them to hundreds of high schools and universities, adidas outfits teams like Notre Dame, UCLA and Michigan for brand building, and the halo effect of associating the brand with the winningest college programs in history. 

But that doesn't mean that alums have to like them making such a public display of their association with the University.

3) A Matter of Necessity? 

Others have argued that Notre Dame alumni and fans should not get worked up about the uniforms since they are not designed for them. They are intended to pique the interest of 12-17-year-old high schoolers. And that’s fine.

What bothers us is that we need it. No one can argue with the fact that Notre Dame football, despite ranking second all-time in winning percentage, is not among the top 10 of that list since 1950. Or, as esteemed ND alum John Walters pointed out, that ND is 32-32 over its past 64 games.

But with graduation rates for student-athletes (and African-American football players in particular) ranking among the best in the country, fantastic facilities, an unmatched academic support system and all games on live television, Notre Dame shouldn’t have to resort to uniforms to impress recruits.

The feeling among most alums is that if Notre Dame has to spruce up its uniforms to impress a recruit, he's probably not someone Brian Kelly would call a RKG "Right Kind of Guy."

And last I remember, Alabama’s uniforms didn't change a wink while they won two of the past three national championships. 

SEC Approaches Expansion, Network Differently than Big Ten

Our friend Clay Travis, attorney, author of "Dixieland Delight" and a veritable expert on the SEC, had an interesting take on the SEC's expansion to 14 teams on his website Outkick the Coverage this week.

His article, entitled "What's the SEC Network Worth? Try a Billion Dollars a Year" attempts to quantify the additions of Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC based on the additional TV homes that the states will add to their network's footprint. In short, a regional sports network can charge a higher rate to cable customers in states that feature schools in the conference than those that do not, based on the increased interest level.

His take got me thinking more about the Big Ten's approach to expansion. Many (including me) speculated at the time that the Big Ten was likely to look to expand its geographic footprint and the number of TV homes within the conference's footprint by targeting a school in a heavily populated state such as Rutgers or Missouri.

New Jersey boasts 3.74 million TV homes (2.67 million cable TV homes, ranking eighth among all states), and using Travis' conservative estimate of $2 per month per HH could have potentially added more than $64.3 million in direct revenue for the Big Ten Network (now BTN). The state of Missouri includes 2.38 TV homes (including more than 1.1 million with cable) and would have also expanded the conference's geographic footprint into a neighboring state. (Source: The Nielsen Company, Media Related Universe Estimates: May 2011).

However, the Big Ten took the opposite approach, selecting the best athletic program available, Nebraska. Nebraska ranks 4th in all-time football wins, along with Big Ten counterparts Michigan (1st), Ohio State (5th) and Penn State (6th), and ranks ninth in all-time winning percentage.

The conference's rationale was that match-ups between Nebraska and Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio State, for example, were much more enticing for both viewers and potential sponsors than Rutgers vs. Wisconsin or Missouri vs. Ohio State.

The conference also figured that although Nebraska's paltry 707,000 TV homes (less than 500,000 with cable) wouldn't provide much direct revenue for the network, it was the right long-term decision.

Without faulting the SEC's approach, it is likely that the Big Ten will find that both their brand and the value of their biggest asset, BTN, will continue to rise based on that decision and long-term approach.

Now if we can just get them to fix the awkward divisional alignment and names...