Funky Uniforms are Here to Stay

Nov 03, 2012; Starkville, MS, USA; Mississippi State Bulldogs wide receiver Chad Bumphis (1) advances the ball during the game against the Texas A&M Aggies at Davis Wade Stadium. Texas A&M Aggies defeat the Mississippi State Bulldogs 38-13. Mandatory Credit: Spruce DerdenUSA TODAY Sports

One thing that Mississippi State has not shied away from since switching to Adidas is a flair for experimenting with the uniforms we wear. It also is a lightning rod subject for a lot of fans. You either love them or hate them. Regardless of how you feel about them, they aren’t going anywhere because the recruits love them.

One thing some people don’t understand is how the tinkering with the uniforms got started in the first place. Even though we don’t use Nike as our uniform and equipment provider any more, we can thank the founder of Nike, Phil Knight, for getting this trend started. Knight is a proud alum of the University of Oregon. Despite the recent success of the Ducks, that program has not always been the prolific football powerhouse that it currently is. Knight decided to change that in the 1990s by sinking as much money as humanly possible into the athletic department. Coaches like to use historical significance and tradition when recruiting a player to their school, but Oregon didn’t really have either. With all this new found money, the athletic department began using trendy, flashy uniforms as a way to catch the eye of recruits. It worked.

The first response I get from people on Twitter when I tweet about this topic is how about we start winning and use that as a recruiting tool instead. Good thought, but the only way we start winning at an elite level is getting higher level recruits. If using strange uniforms levels the playing field ever so slightly, then so be it.

Obviously, uniforms are a small part of why the Ducks entire athletic program took off, but it has certainly played a role. Recruits began raving about the uniforms, and other schools started to copycat the idea. Mississippi State has done the same thing. The football team has had some interesting uniforms, but nothing too outlandish throughout the season. The strangest uniform they have used throughout recent seasons would arguably be the Snow Bowl uniform from the 2012 season against Texas A&M. I liked the idea of commemorating such a unique game, but if anyone liked those uniforms, their fondness dissipated when the Bulldogs got trounced by Johnny Football and the Aggies.

And that is one of the problems with all of the special uniforms. Almost every time the Bulldogs have used a special uniform, they have lost the game or were challenged by inferior opponents in a way that we didn’t think possible (we all want the black jerseys burned). Are the uniforms that bad? Maybe they are, but it is hard to truly judge them when they are accompanied by such poor results on the field.

The one exception to this is the Egg Bowl. Mississippi State began using gold trimmed uniforms to celebrate the Egg Bowl rivalry in 2011. In the three years of doing so, the Bulldogs are 2-1. A blowout win in 2011, a blowout loss in 2012, and a thrilling fourth quarter comeback in 2013. Those are results most Mississippi State fans like, minus the 2012 loss in Oxford.

Every time a new uniform is introduced, fans talk about how awful they often are. Most people 30 and up don’t like them, and those under 30 either are okay with them or actually like them. Scott Stricklin and the rest of the Athletic Department want the opinions of fans on lots of topics and want to use those to enhance our experience. They gladly take our input on uniforms as well. Just don’t expect those to change though as long as the recruits keep talking about how awesome they think the different uniforms are.