Uniform numbers that look bad

[jc...]

It took me a long time to get use to WR's in the NFL not wearing only numbers in the 80's.

[oldschoolvikings]

For the record, I don't think any of these numbers "look bad"... it's just that this thread has seemed to evolve into "players who wear numbers that are not usually associated with their position" so I thought I'd add these.

[mad43dog]

For the record, I don't think any of these numbers "look bad"... it's just that this thread has seemed to evolve into "players who wear numbers that are not usually associated with their position" so I thought I'd add these.

Black sleeve stripe on Viking guy. What's up with that?

[OffCenteredScoreboard]

not sure if this counts at all but i always confuse grabovoski and kulemin on the islanders because they are two new guys, they are best friends, signed on the same day, and WEAR SIMILAR NUMBERS!

[guest23]

It seems that no tradition is sacred, especially when it comes to numbers for college football players. It's especially weird to my eye to see big guys like linebackers and tight ends who should be wearing big numbers wear flashy numbers. I'm sure this is true with many colleges, but here are a few examples from BYU, the team I follow:

Kyle Van Noy, linebacker, wore #3:

Naufahu Tahi, a bruising fullback, also wore #3:

Dennis Pitta, tight end, wore #32 (to me a quintessential halfback number):

There's never been any structuring of numbers on the defensive side in the history of cfb. The only offensive requirements are 50-79 for ineligible receivers/5 interior linemen and that's it.

[Sport]

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was going to be more about number fonts than "this number looks weird in this sport/this position". And the Rangers were the first team I thought of. Admittedly, the NOB font is probably the real culprit here (above being the worst example).

But even just focusing on the numbers, these are way overdone: Two outlines. Dropshadow. Western-style serifs (I don't know what those are called). The use of the same on the NOB really brings out how overdone this is.

Didn't look that much better on the Red Sox either. I think Saltalamacchia just has a stupidly long name.

I don't like #39 either.

[JayMac]

For the record, I don't think any of these numbers "look bad"... it's just that this thread has seemed to evolve into "players who wear numbers that are not usually associated with their position" so I thought I'd add these.

Is that Ahmad Rashad (Bobby Moore) in the Vikings uniform?

[mjd77]

This one irritates me every time I see it. It's just wrong...I don't care what the reason for it is.

[tBBP]

^ What IS the reason for that, anyway? Mind you I don't follow Michigan but I caught a couple highlights, saw that and was all kinds of confused...

[Tigers6884]

^ What IS the reason for that, anyway? Mind you I don't follow Michigan but I caught a couple highlights, saw that and was all kinds of confused...

University of Michigan legend Tom Harmon wore #98 during his time as a Wolverines linebacker in the 1930s.

[oldschoolvikings]

^ What IS the reason for that, anyway? Mind you I don't follow Michigan but I caught a couple highlights, saw that and was all kinds of confused...

University of Michigan legend Tom Harmon wore #98 during his time as a Wolverines linebacker in the 1930s.

...and then they decided to give it to a player who, at his best, is extremely average. Good call!

[Buster]

The Dennis Pitta #32 reminded me of another TE with a low number...Chris Cooley. For some reason, despite being a TE in college at Utah State, he was assigned the position of "H-Back" and wore #47 as a TE. Probably because he was the second TE in Gibbs' offense and was never intended to be the starting TE, at least immediatey.

He wore a normal TE number of 85 at Utah State.

[Mingjai]

It seems that no tradition is sacred, especially when it comes to numbers for college football players. It's especially weird to my eye to see big guys like linebackers and tight ends who should be wearing big numbers wear flashy numbers. I'm sure this is true with many colleges, but here are a few examples from BYU, the team I follow:

Kyle Van Noy, linebacker, wore #3:

Naufahu Tahi, a bruising fullback, also wore #3:

Dennis Pitta, tight end, wore #32 (to me a quintessential halfback number):

There's never been any structuring of numbers on the defensive side in the history of cfb. The only offensive requirements are 50-79 for ineligible receivers/5 interior linemen and that's it.

Sure, but it took for the NCAA to change the rule allowing for duplicate numbers on the same team as long as the players wouldn't be on the field at the same time for this proliferation of defensive players with non-traditional numbers to accelerate.

[guest23]

It seems that no tradition is sacred, especially when it comes to numbers for college football players. It's especially weird to my eye to see big guys like linebackers and tight ends who should be wearing big numbers wear flashy numbers. I'm sure this is true with many colleges, but here are a few examples from BYU, the team I follow:

Kyle Van Noy, linebacker, wore #3:

Naufahu Tahi, a bruising fullback, also wore #3:

Dennis Pitta, tight end, wore #32 (to me a quintessential halfback number):

There's never been any structuring of numbers on the defensive side in the history of cfb. The only offensive requirements are 50-79 for ineligible receivers/5 interior linemen and that's it.

Sure, but it took for the NCAA to change the rule allowing for duplicate numbers on the same team as long as the players wouldn't be on the field at the same time for this proliferation of defensive players with non-traditional numbers to accelerate.

Duplicate #'s have been around for quite some time as well since at least the 80's I believe if not earlier. If a team is going to suit up 100 guys there's a good chance you'll have to use duplicates. To your point though shared numbers were typically not between players in the same or consecutive classes to avoid starters sharing numbers but that's changed as now you're seeing captains on both side of the ball sharing the same number which is kind of weird. The more interesting/disturbing thing is players wearing multiple numbers in a game either for positioning or deception purposes.

[JasonFromMiami]

So basically just post any strange number.

If we're talking about aesthetically unpleasing numbers, then I think 37 is up there. I don't know if it's because it's two prime numbers, or just the shapes of the numbers, or what, but I just hate it.

Also, while not really an ugly number, I also don't like 35. It just seems so static - like I can't picture a little fast running back or DB or receiver wearing it. It's a number that relief pitchers or backup goalies wear.

Agree, 37 is not a good looking number, 27 however, like Stanton and Trout has, looks great imo.......i wonder why i think that.

-

66 and 99 on a Dodgers baseball jersey don´t feel right, look great on a hockey jersey however imo

[Mingjai]

It seems that no tradition is sacred, especially when it comes to numbers for college football players. It's especially weird to my eye to see big guys like linebackers and tight ends who should be wearing big numbers wear flashy numbers. I'm sure this is true with many colleges, but here are a few examples from BYU, the team I follow:

Kyle Van Noy, linebacker, wore #3:

Naufahu Tahi, a bruising fullback, also wore #3:

Dennis Pitta, tight end, wore #32 (to me a quintessential halfback number):

There's never been any structuring of numbers on the defensive side in the history of cfb. The only offensive requirements are 50-79 for ineligible receivers/5 interior linemen and that's it.

Sure, but it took for the NCAA to change the rule allowing for duplicate numbers on the same team as long as the players wouldn't be on the field at the same time for this proliferation of defensive players with non-traditional numbers to accelerate.

Duplicate #'s have been around for quite some time as well since at least the 80's I believe if not earlier. If a team is going to suit up 100 guys there's a good chance you'll have to use duplicates. To your point though shared numbers were typically not between players in the same or consecutive classes to avoid starters sharing numbers but that's changed as now you're seeing captains on both side of the ball sharing the same number which is kind of weird. The more interesting/disturbing thing is players wearing multiple numbers in a game either for positioning or deception purposes.

Yeah, it seems to me it's gotten worse since 2000. I think some of it also goes to the fact that the way recruiting has evolved, recruits have gained more power over coaches to the extent that they will often have a number demand (understandably, too, because a number is the athlete's brand). To accommodate all these demands, coaching staffs seem to be a lot less restrictive of duplicates. I recall reading that it became such a problem at the University of Utah that the coaches had to implement what amounted to a no duplicates policy.

[TheRicSlick]

^ What IS the reason for that, anyway? Mind you I don't follow Michigan but I caught a couple highlights, saw that and was all kinds of confused...

University of Michigan legend Tom Harmon wore #98 during his time as a Wolverines linebacker in the 1930s.

...and then they decided to give it to a player who, at his best, is extremely average. Good call!

So a QB is honoring a LB... don't see that too often.

[GriffinM6]

I see no problem with college defenders using smaller numbers. I also like when WR's have single digit numbers. It makes sense and I think the NFL should expand number limits for receivers, linemen, and linebackers.

[Jungle Jim]

For the record, I don't think any of these numbers "look bad"... it's just that this thread has seemed to evolve into "players who wear numbers that are not usually associated with their position" so I thought I'd add these.

Black sleeve stripe on Viking guy. What's up with that?

As someone speculated earlier, yes, that's Ahmad Rashad. The Vikings wore black arm bands for the last four games of the 1978 season in memory of coach Jack Nelson, who passed away in November of that season.

[Sabrejeff]

Even worse, Louis Nix: