Jump to content

Your uniform-related beliefs


johnnysama

Recommended Posts

I think the NFL should loosen numbering conventions slightly, and I think the NCAA should tighten theirs slightly. Perhaps they could be designed to compliment each other somehow. I think backs and receivers should be allowed to wear teens and single digits if they want to, and linebackers should be allowed numbers in the 40s. I remember the kerfuffle with Reggie Bush asking for #5 and being rejected. He's a running back.... nobody's going to confuse him with a tackle. Eventually it is going to be necessary anyway.... the Packers and other teams are already giving out single digits to receivers during preseason because they've run out of "proper" ones.

I'm in favor of keeping strict rules for guards, tackles, linebackers though. Obviously tackle-eligibility rules rely on these, so there's a place for them... but I don't see the harm in letting a wideout wear #6 instead of #16 if he wants to.

Conversely, I think in college it's too loose. I hate seeing a single digit number on a linebacker and #96 on a kicker.

Also, colleges should not be allowed to retire numbers, as there are often 100+ players on a roster and there should be as few duplicates as possible.

I like the Canadian Football League's numbering restrictions. Not too strict, not too loose.

Agreed. It also allows for pro teams to have more flexibility with retired numbers (colleges still should not retire numbers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Orioles skipper Buck Showalter wearing baseball pants close to the ideal length.

Bn8FrvzCAAA1VZ3.jpg

This is a throwback game. Does it really count?

I like seeing stirrups. But if it were the norm, it would be like matte helmets, fake laces, or white panels on the front of caps*: you see them too much to be that cool anymore unless you see an example that's absolutely perfect. I have no idea how this crusade against solid-colored and concealed socks would be better for the aesthetics of baseball.

*They seem to be popular in the high school ranks.

- Minnesota Twins - Minnesota Golden Gophers - Dallas Stars - Dallas Mavericks - Norwich City FC -

- Texas Tech Red Raiders - FC Dallas - Minnesota Vikings - Borussia Dortmund -

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the NFL should loosen numbering conventions slightly, and I think the NCAA should tighten theirs slightly. Perhaps they could be designed to compliment each other somehow. I think backs and receivers should be allowed to wear teens and single digits if they want to, and linebackers should be allowed numbers in the 40s. I remember the kerfuffle with Reggie Bush asking for #5 and being rejected. He's a running back.... nobody's going to confuse him with a tackle. Eventually it is going to be necessary anyway.... the Packers and other teams are already giving out single digits to receivers during preseason because they've run out of "proper" ones.

I'm in favor of keeping strict rules for guards, tackles, linebackers though. Obviously tackle-eligibility rules rely on these, so there's a place for them... but I don't see the harm in letting a wideout wear #6 instead of #16 if he wants to.

Conversely, I think in college it's too loose. I hate seeing a single digit number on a linebacker and #96 on a kicker.

Also, colleges should not be allowed to retire numbers, as there are often 100+ players on a roster and there should be as few duplicates as possible.

I like the Canadian Football League's numbering restrictions. Not too strict, not too loose.

I believe it's #1-19 and #70-89 for receivers, #1-49 for running backs, #40-69 for O-line (You can have up to two O-line between #50-69 line up as eligible players, but you have to check in with a ref first. Lots of goal line plays have been throws to an eligible o-lineman who sneaks into the endzone untouched) QB's are #1-19 as well but have gone into the 20's sometime.

I'm not sure if there's any specific rules on defence. DB's are usually #1-49, LB's are usually #1-59 and D-line is usually #40-99 but Charleston Hughes of the Stamps wears #39.

Kickers and punters are usually the same as QB's but they have been higher into the 20's and 30's.

IEI5Tg1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sports world needs contrast. Modern with classic.

If everyone in the NFL looks like the Packers, the prestige of the green & gold is lost.

If everyone in the NFL looks like the Jaguars, it's XFL Version 2.0

ccslcbanner_zps5eda8538.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a practical sense, pullover jerseys in baseball make sense; the belted pants/pullover jersey combo is a nice compromise between tradition and modern.

What about pullover jerseys and belted pants that look like sansabelt pants? The Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks, during the 2014 Osaka Classic opened a door that definitely needs to be explored. Majestic, Rawlings, Adidas and Nike, take note, a lot of potential here.

BoFv6o-IUAAJ3QR.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the sansbelt look is that it just looks unprofessional. Cheap, kiddie, however you want to describe it, it just looks like something a team in the Majors should be above. You add the look of elastic sans belt pants with the elastic of pullover cuffs and you get cheap elastic overload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sports world needs contrast. Modern with classic.

If everyone in the NFL looks like the Packers, the prestige of the green & gold is lost.

If everyone in the NFL looks like the Jaguars, it's XFL Version 2.0

Regarding the second one: The same can apply to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers new unis.

On another note, while I'm not adamant about it as Phantom_Dreamer is, pullover jerseys in baseball are OK; I mean, even though it would look rather silly today (with how baseball wear their uniforms so loose), a few teams can pull off the look alright.

UBwef0L.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think pullovers look great when done right. There, I said it.

Rock on, Dreamer.

The problem is that the instances of when it was "done right" can be counted on one hand.

The Pirates' pullovers looked good:

MannySanguillen.jpg.w180h223.jpg

The rounded collars were a nice touch. (Though the pants should have been belted.)

The one team which achieved its best-ever look in pullovers was the A's.

reggie-14.jpg

This is the only team that looked good with beltless pants. This uniform violates every one of my beliefs: I don't like pullovers; I don't like coloured jerseys; I don't like beltless pants; I don't like white on the road. Yet it's one of my very favourite uniforms. This shows that no rule can be without exceptions.

I'll throw in an honourable mention to the White Sox' late-70s jerseys.

219399d1308349196-gambo-t_wil1-photopack

Despite its dark colour, it appeals to me. The only flaw is the faux collar; the collar should have gone all the way around the jersey.

Other than these cases, every team that wore a pullover improved that jersey by converting it to button-down and changing to belted pants (except the Mets, who word belted pants even with their pullovers).

So many teams went from pullover to button-down, while changing nothing else in their design: the Mets, Cubs, Pirates, Cardinals, Astros, Padres, Blue Jays, Angels, Royals. (Maybe I am missing a few.)

There is a reason for this. The reason is that pullovers are inherently ugly. Apart from the three extraordinary cases mentioned above, no team has ever pulled it off successfully. In other words, this:

133-17TFr.jpg

is better than this:

21.jpg

logo-diamonds-for-CC-no-photo-sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has never been an instance in MLB where a pullover/sansabelt uniform was better looking than even the worst of the button-up uniforms.

What a broad and unreasonable statement.

Not a big fan of a sansbelt and defenitely feel those are better left for throwback uniforms, I think a modern MLB team could bring back the pullover look. Or a few more, to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See? Several did it RIGHT. Not everyone looked good in pullovers, but as someone posted earlier in this thread, Yeah, the Reds looked great in them, IMO.

Oh, and for the record, not a fan of stirrups, either. Not even striped ones. Put stripes on your regular socks and call it a day.

 

CCSLC sig 2016.jpg

20kujjp.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See? Several did it RIGHT. Not everyone looked good in pullovers, but as someone posted earlier in this thread, Yeah, the Reds looked great in them, IMO.

Yes, some pullover jerseys were nice. Yet every one of the nice pullover designs worked just as well, if not better, on tradition buttoned up jerseys. So I still don't see the point of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the Canadian Football League's numbering restrictions. Not too strict, not too loose.

I believe it's #1-19 and #70-89 for receivers, #1-49 for running backs, #40-69 for O-line (You can have up to two O-line between #50-69 line up as eligible players, but you have to check in with a ref first. Lots of goal line plays have been throws to an eligible o-lineman who sneaks into the endzone untouched) QB's are #1-19 as well but have gone into the 20's sometime.

I'm not sure if there's any specific rules on defence. DB's are usually #1-49, LB's are usually #1-59 and D-line is usually #40-99 but Charleston Hughes of the Stamps wears #39.

Kickers and punters are usually the same as QB's but they have been higher into the 20's and 30's.

The rule in the CFL is that ineligible receivers (offensive linemen) must wear 50-69, and any other player may wear whatever they want (including 0 and 00). And yes, there is a rule that up to two players wearing an ineligible receiver number may be declared eligible if they clear it with the refs before scrimmage.

Rules in amateur Canadian football (CIS, CJFL) are similar: ineligible receivers must wear 40-69, and any other player can wear anything else (not including 0 and 00).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.