Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I thought this was a really interesting article.The University of Oregon got good at football because of their uniforms.
It's interesting, but it strikes me as incredibly disingenuous. The Uniforms? Really? What about the facilities? Or the billboards? Or the myriad other marketing initiatives? You know why Oregon got good? Because Phil Knight spent hundreds of millions of dollars.Sure, the uniforms were cool, but they were only a small piece of the puzzle, and titling the article "Oregon Got Good at Football Because of Their Uniforms" seems pretty misleading and irresponsible, no? Seriously? Nobody else thinks the conclusions the writer draws are, at best, misguided and negligent?I don't want to be ThatGuyAlwaysTalkingShitAboutGrantland, but this piece -- like so much awful sports writing, much of it at Grantland -- just reeks of begging the question. There are plenty of good stories out there; there's no need to invent them from whole cloth.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And you would know this how?

It seems like gender-normal white men's lives are so weighed down by the double standards placed on them that it's become pretty much impossible to get through their lives without being accused of mur

that wasn't the only issue though. THe tone of the article, the reaction to finding out she was a transexual, the use of pronouns are pretty offensive to the trans community. Also, Transvestite, is no

It's interesting, but it strikes me as incredibly disingenuous. The Uniforms? Really? What about the facilities? Or the billboards? Or the myriad other marketing initiatives? You know why Oregon got good? Because Phil Knight spent hundreds of millions of dollars.Sure, the uniforms were cool, but they were only a small piece of the puzzle, and titling the article "Oregon Got Good at Football Because of Their Uniforms" seems pretty misleading and irresponsible, no? Seriously? Nobody else thinks the conclusions the writer draws are, at best, misguided and negligent?I don't want to be ThatGuyAlwaysTalkingShitAboutGrantland, but this piece -- like so much awful sports writing, much of it at Grantland -- just reeks of begging the question. There are plenty of good stories out there; there's no need to invent them from whole cloth.
That was my title, not his. The actual title is:How Does Oregon Football Keep Winning?The answer Knight got from the coach was an indoor practice facility. The coach got that and more. Since then, Knight has spent some $300 million on stadium additions, luxury boxes, and palatial locker rooms. All of these things obviously are on the list of reasons Oregon's football team got good.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That was my title, not his. The actual title is:How Does Oregon Football Keep Winning?The answer Knight got from the coach was an indoor practice facility. The coach got that and more. Since then, Knight has spent some $300 million on stadium additions, luxury boxes, and palatial locker rooms. All of these things obviously are on the list of reasons Oregon's football team got good.
Ah, you're right. There's nothing about the uniforms in the original title: How Does Oregon Keep Winning? Is It the Uniforms?My bad. Are you really saying the article doesn't suggest that the Uniforms are the most important factor in Oregon's recent success?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, you're right. There's nothing about the uniforms in the original title: How Does Oregon Keep Winning? Is It the Uniforms?My bad.
You specifically said "titling the article 'Oregon Got Good at Football Because of Their Uniforms' seems pretty misleading and irresponsible, no?"I just wanted to make sure you realized that was my title and not the real title. I titled it that way because it's a seemingly ridiculous assertion that might make people curious. But I don't think my link titles should be held to the same standards as real headlines.To the real question:
Are you really saying the article doesn't suggest that the Uniforms are the most important factor in Oregon's recent success?
I think if you were to make a list of factors, number 1 would be, as you say, "Because Phil Knight spent hundreds of millions of dollars." Number 2 would be: other.But the point is what do you do with those dollars, right? Nike made Oregon football a brand. The most visible aspect is the uniforms. It all starts with the uniforms. Get people talking about you, get your brand out there. Once people are aware of you, then you hit them with "oh by the way, look at all of our amazing facilities because remember: Nike."That's what I took out of the article.
Wang, you're banned from this thread.
Dude, what are you doing?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You specifically said "titling the article 'Oregon Got Good at Football Because of Their Uniforms' seems pretty misleading and irresponsible, no?"I just wanted to make sure you realized that was my title and not the real title. I titled it that way because it's a seemingly ridiculous assertion that might make people curious. But I don't think my link titles should be held to the same standards as real headlines.
Yeah, that was me crashing and burning, mostly. JoeyJoJo: 1 Wang: 0 Grantland: 0
To the real question:I think if you were to make a list of factors, number 1 would be, as you say, "Because Phil Knight spent hundreds of millions of dollars." Number 2 would be: other.
Really? You took "Phil Knight is the reason Oregon football is so good" from that article? Okay. I can believe that, actually, because you're a smart and curious guy. A few other questions:- Do you believe the "PHIL KNIGHT!!" conclusion was the one readers were meant to draw? - If so, why did you title the link "Oregon wins because their uniforms are awesome?"
But the point is what do you do with those dollars, right? Nike made Oregon football a brand. The most visible aspect is the uniforms. It all starts with the uniforms. Get people talking about you, get your brand out there. Once people are aware of you, then you hit them with "oh by the way, look at all of our amazing facilities because remember: Nike."That's what I took out of the article.
My question is: what would the difference be if Oregon had normal-looking football uniforms, but were still (a) basically sponsored by Nike Chairman Phil Knight and (b) spending hundreds of millions on upgrades to Autzen stadium and © spending all sorts of other cash on billboards and (d) paying to air their games on the YES network (That last one is my favorite. Oregon BOUGHT AIR TIME -- as in gave their money to, as opposed to received money from -- a television network to show games. Uniforms? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! They had a big enough budget to pay to get their games on TV on the opposite coast. Fuuuuuuck. Uniforms. For real. Of course, this information was in the footnotes.)Well, to the author's credit, he gave credit where credit was due. He mentioned Chip Kelly -- the same Chip Kelly widely considered to be one of the best offensive minds in football, the same Chip Kelly who set a school record for total offense his first year at the school, the same Chip Kelly who has won the Pac 10 outright his only two years as head coach -- no fewer than 11 times in the body of the article. Wait. That's not right. Chip Kelly's name comes up once. In the footnotes.
Dude, what are you doing?
It will be worth it if Brv caves to my demand.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the author found it interesting that their uniforms were noted by a few specific people as one of the main reasons for Oregon's success, and decided to use that as his hook, and expand on it from there. I think the article suggests that the uniforms contributed to the success of the team in a much larger way than you would normally expect a team's uniforms to do so, and I don't think it is wrong in that assertion. I don't think the article draws any hard conclusions, it was more a series of interesting observations and anecdotes that centered around something seemingly abstract.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? You took "Phil Knight is the reason Oregon football is so good" from that article? Okay. I can believe that, actually, because you're a smart and curious guy. A few other questions:- Do you believe the "PHIL KNIGHT!!" conclusion was the one readers were meant to draw? - If so, why did you title the link "Oregon wins because their uniforms are awesome?"
No, I didn't necessarily take that from the article. I don't think many discussions about Oregon football go by without mentioning Nike money. I think Knight/Nike/uniforms are all part of the same bucket. Can teams have new uniform designs for every single game without a whole lot of money?Anyway, I titled it that because I thought people would read it and say, "What? Let me read this..."
My question is: what would the difference be if Oregon had normal-looking football uniforms, but were still (a) basically sponsored by Nike Chairman Phil Knight and (b) spending hundreds of millions on upgrades to Autzen stadium and © spending all sorts of other cash on billboards and (d) paying to air their games on the YES network (That last one is my favorite. Oregon BOUGHT AIR TIME -- as in gave their money to, as opposed to received money from -- a television network to show games. Uniforms? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! They had a big enough budget to pay to get their games on TV on the opposite coast. Fuuuuuuck. Uniforms. For real. Of course, this information was in the footnotes.)
I think if Oregon had normal-looking football uniforms, a/b/c/d go mostly unnoticed. Oregon uniforms are such a widely discussed talking point that it sometimes gets its own line item on PTI.1 That's the point of the Attention Economy, right? There are hundreds of college football games on TV these days and I doubt Oregon gets noticed without the shiny object that is their uniforms.
Well, to the author's credit, he gave credit where credit was due. He mentioned Chip Kelly -- the same Chip Kelly widely considered to be one of the best offensive minds in football, the same Chip Kelly who set a school record for total offense his first year at the school, the same Chip Kelly who has won the Pac 10 outright his only two years as head coach -- no fewer than 11 times in the body of the article. Wait. That's not right. Chip Kelly's name comes up once. In the footnotes.
So then my question to you is: does "Chip Kelly" belong in category 1 (Phil Knight money) or 2 (other)? Does one of the hottest football coaches in the country end up at Oregon if they aren't known nationally? And besides, Kelly has only been with Oregon for 4 or 5 years. He might have put them over the top, but they were on the way up long before he got there.1I totally made that up, but I bet it's true.Edit: Also what Dubey said.
Link to post
Share on other sites

FixedEDIT: This was originally a 1500 word post, but the formatting was terrible, and I accidentally deleted about half the content. Now I have to go hang out with my girlfriend of 8+ months and resist the urge to break up with her. I'll post something worth of you all late tonight or tomorrow. Please note: I emailed myself the original, so it won't take very long. Please also note: I am wearing jeans and my warm-up top that says "SPORTS" on it. So I am awesome.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude, what are you doing?
Making a hilarious joke?
It will be worth it if Brv caves to my demand.
I don't negotiate with terrorists.
Can teams have new uniform designs for every single game without a whole lot of money?
Wait, what?
I am awesome.
I think we can all agree on this.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Please also note: I am wearing jeans and my warm-up top that says "SPORTS" on it. So I am awesome.
You should know that my girlfriend of 9+ months owns a shirt that says "Go SPORTS!" on it (with the 'SPORTS' inside the outline of a megaphone). She wore it when I took her to a Red Sox game. I was, like, super proud, even though to her it's ironic. To me it's quite, quite secksy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know what you're questioning.
Do they seriously wear different uniforms for every single game? Even new helmet design? I'm kind-of confused, because that doesn't seem possible. How long has that been happening and how long will it continue?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Do they seriously wear different uniforms for every single game? Even new helmet design? I'm kind-of confused, because that doesn't seem possible. How long has that been happening and how long will it continue?
Last yearIt's not 12 different jerseys and 12 different pants and 12 different helmets. It's a handful of each that they wear in different combinations.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

It's sad that George Kimball died before the interview. Side-note: I don't really understand turning an interview like that down. I honestly don't care if it's a local paper, I'm going to do an interview if I'm just lying in my bed. Unless I'm screaming in pain constantly or something weird like that, I'm going to do the interview. I would fully understand a -- no pictures -- request or something like that... but no interview? That doesn't make sense. He was conscious enough to say, "use my book", why not more?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Simmon's article was great. I love it when he heavily talks movies. This was my favorite part:"Damn, we could have just turned this into an All-Hanks mailbag. I can't believe how many dog lovers emailed me about this mistake. In general, I can't believe how many dog lovers are out there: In 10-plus years writing for Grantland and ESPN.com, the most-read column I ever wrote wasn't about sports, but about the Dooze, my beloved golden retriever who passed away in 2009. Even 2 ½ years later, I still get emails asking me how Rufus (our other dog) is doing.6 I'm amazed that a 2012 presidential candidate hasn't taken advantage of that, filmed a series of dog-loving commercials and pushed for things like "more dog beaches" and "better veterinarian health care benefits" as part of their platform. Dog lovers are totally irrational. I include myself. If Obama wants to improve his approval rating, he should rescue a mutt every six weeks and keep, like, 10 or 12 dogs in the White House — he'd have dog-lover voters saying, "Even if I'm let down by the last four years, I gotta be honest … it was pretty neat how Obama kept rescuing those dogs."Dog owners are to rational like female Asian's are to driving.ps. In his picks column this week he says, "Since he's back for this week, I'm laying the seven more because I dislike the more Giants than because I like the Eagles. " Am I reading this wrongly, or is this just the 10,000,000th example that they don't actually have editors at Grantland?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I thought this was interesting:Origin of the 7-game series.Also interesting is that apparently moving from 7 games to 5 games or 9 games would only change the probability that a particular team would win by about 1.5%. So the idea that the underdog has a better chance in a short series is just barely true. To determine the better team with 95 percent statistical accuracy, according to John J. Kinney's A Probability and Statistics Companion, would require a 257-game series.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually stopped fast forwarding a playback of a NFL game yesterday to watch a grantland commercial. It won't make me read the articles but that was a damned fine advertisement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Bill James is writing for Grantland now."You can get an objective answer to any question if you can accept the fact that somebody else may have a different objective answer that's just as good as yours. Those of you who wish to point out that I don't quite understand the definition of "objective" are now instructed to leave the room.""My list of the 100 best pitchers' duels of 2011 is better than your list, for one reason and one reason only.You don't have any list."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...