Jump to content

Ted Cunningham

Members
  • Posts

    1,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ted Cunningham

  1. So wait, did you take all these? Because that's a lot of travel over a season! And several of those are less than 30 minutes from where I live (compared to those down in Texas, for example; lots of topography changes throughout those pictures!)
  2. Visual aid: ReliaQuest: Fiesta: Citrus Bowl: Not a bad looking game in the bunch. Good use of school colors, good contrast.
  3. Also, Ohio State's QB is wearing 33. I have only been watching, not listening, so I'm not sure why that is.
  4. The Cotton Bowl is a color v. color game. I think it's a pretty good contrast (despite there being very few pictures of it online that I could find).
  5. I learned something new: the Vikings played without sleeve stripes on their purple jerseys for the majority of the times they wore them in 1973.
  6. Yeah, I'm not sure if they have to order them themselves (presumably so?). I do figure they (the teams' equipment personnel, specifically) are responsible for attaching them, at least. I'm not so much bothered by teams not adding patches for a bowl game, anymore. It would be one thing if modern uniforms weren't already so patch- and little detail-heavy already. For USF, for example, you'd ostensibly have an Adidas logo, the USF bull logo, and the AAC conference logo on the front in addition to a bowl patch. That's a lot of extraneous clutter. (I suppose the argument could be made the other way too: "What's one more patch if there's already so many?") I feel like bowl patches meant more when they were the only thing that was out of the ordinary on a much simpler jersey. Not to mention the designs in the past were almost invariably the same ones worn during the season for just about all teams and therefore the only thing distinguishing the uniforms in photos would have been the bowl patches. In other words, many teams now wear unique combinations every week, and so it would be easier to tell that a particular look was only worn in the bowl, even without a patch, because that was the only time the given team wore that look in their season. (I don't necessarily think that's the case for this particular game, but I feel like that's far more likely to happen now than it was 30 years ago.) All that to say a missing bowl patch doesn't bother me too much given today's uniform aesthetics.
  7. Visual aid: While I am generally not a fan of "monochrome" looks or the jersey and pants being the same color, this works as a gestalt: orange and green contrast pretty well with each other, the colors are pretty vivid/saturated and they're the schools' colors. It's not just white vs black looks that have become more commonplace. As I was typing thing, I realized that, with orange being closer to red, this might actually present some color-blindness challenges: Not as egregious as the NYJ v BUF game (because 1, Syracuse is wearing orange instead of red, and 2, USF's green is darker than the Jets' green was in that game), but still not a ton of contrast.
  8. Credit where it's due: The Dolphins were well dressed last night within the bounds of their current uniforms. Truth be told, the same could be said for the Titans.
  9. It's interesting how, in the course of a few posts on this topic, no one has advocated for a direct return to the 70s-90s look (and @MJD7 expressly refuted it), and yet the combination of posts illustrates the slippery slope right back to the throwbacks in question. "I would keep the modern look, but go with athletic gold and keep the old horn." "Yeah, and I'd also get rid of the patches and gradients." We're down to discussing the number font at this point, and that's the critique that's also leveled at the Steelers whose uniforms are otherwise essentially unchanged since the late 60s. It's like, collectively, it's not enough until the uniform just is the throwback. This isn't a criticisms of anyone expressing their opinions, to be clear. I just find it interesting that there's always a tweak or two to make, and in many cases these proposed tweaks would end up pushing a look back toward a throwback/older look.
  10. Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks. That's an interesting wrinkle. And it makes sense that they would only want one non-P4 conference champ.
  11. I generally fall into the camp of "win the games on your schedule" but college football is just too many teams playing too few games competing for too few spots to rely solely on record. (That's why, for instance, any comparison to the NFL or especially MLB doesn't work. The fields in those sports are far smaller, and the teams involved play more games, so records are more indicative of how good a given team is. Further, in the case of MLB, they play so many games that flukes and aberrations don't really exist in a team's record. [An aside: Divisions, in that case, actually work against the weight carried by wins and losses as opposed to winning certain conferences meaning more to evaluating college football teams. Yes, I'm still salty that the 2015 Pirates had to play a one-game wildcard "series" as a 98-win team.]) Now, we can say "the committee should have weighed this, the committee should have evaluated that", but the committee didn't do it in any of those ways. If the committee valued wins so highly, that's the rule they would follow. But they don't. If wins mattered most, it would result in a Michigan, Washington, Florida State, Liberty playoff, and while that would be sticking to the rule , that's almost unarguably not the best teams playing each other. There have to be other inputs because teams don't play enough games and enough opponents in common to evaluate only on wins. Next year should be an improvement as essentially you'll have the top 10 getting in (covering the Power 4 champs and the 6 at large teams) plus two lower-ranked conference champions. And I'm sure there will be arguments made about how they should just take the top 12 and how nos. 11 and 12 are better than a no. 19 Sunbelt champ and no. 24 CUSA champ. But, the criteria are clear: those last two "other champion" spots go to conference champs, not necessarily the best teams (however the latter is determined). All of this to say that if the criteria for picking the teams is clearly stated (or more clearly anyway), I can live with the results. But this system of human beings going based on vibes rooted in some vague "rules" is decidedly worse than the BCS for making selections, and I'm glad to see the back of it.
  12. Meaning they wear royal/athletic gold at home and navy/white on the road? I was just thinking about that reading through this stuff and looking at those pictures of those late 2010s uniforms. Like, if the uniforms themselves were the same design (be they either the throwback or the modern) and the only differences were that at home they were royal/gold and on the road they were navy/white, I think I could get behind that. Something like a late-90s/2000s Washington State: two different helmets depending on where they're playing. In the modern uniform context: Home: Away: I don't think that I'd advocate for this, specifically. (I think I fall somewhere between the hard-line throwback and the modern look, but consistent use of royal and athletic gold, including the helmet.) But I also wouldn't hate it, either.
  13. I was thinking about this recently: What would be the punishment if a team wore their alternates one too many times? A fine or something? Because like you said, BBTV, they're not going to cancel a game because a team is wearing the "wrong" uniform, especially if that uniform still contrasts with the team they're playing. I could see, perhaps, sanctions of some kind (stripping owner voting rights or some kind of cap-related or draft-related penalties) if a team just refused to go back to their primary look in favor of an alternate (like if the Eagles tried to just wear kelly green for the rest of the year), but one game? I thought it was wild how the Rams exposed how silly the rules about primary uniforms are when they moved back to LA by changing literally all of their uniform elements except the shirts themselves, and the league went along with it. From a merchandising standpoint, sure, the jersey is important. But from a brand standpoint, I'd argue the helmet is more important because it serves as de facto logo in many applications. And the Rams just kind of made up a new helmet design for that temporary time before their new uniforms. (Sure, it was similar to a look the franchise wore in the 60s, but it wasn't a throwback.)
  14. One other detail from the MAC championship: Miami is wearing a helmet with script Miami on one side and numbers on the other with a stripe that incorporates their design for honoring the Miami tribe of Oklahoma.
  15. I think this works well as a concept and is pretty logical. It's nice work, especially the actual stripe designs and color balance. However, I feel like this would suffer from the same "Is it white and dirty? Or just a different color?" thing that LA's bone uniforms do. Without any white, the grey reads as dingy white (because generally we're used to seeing white somewhere in football uniforms, especially away jerseys) instead of grey, a color separate from white. (I hope that doesn't come off as a strict criticism of your concept; I just don't think that eschewing white for another light color works in real life as well as it does in concept.)
  16. I'm being a little pedantic here, admittedly, but that photo has a fairly pronounced teal split-tone in the shadows. I think you're right that this photo illustrates the idea. But it is a little misleading in that the helmets (more silver than anything) still didn't really match the pants (more teal or blue or just darker than the helmets) in the 90s. They were closer than they are now, certainly. And granted, all of that doesn't speak to whatever the styleguides and official colors are/were either (which I think still differ to the color values used in reality on physical materials).
  17. Visual aids for conference championship games at noon EST (both of which are all monochrome affairs, white v. dark): Big XII: I really like OSU's emphasis on black lately. I'm usually an advocate for using the brightest colors as the primaries, but the Cowboys look good in black. And this isn't a white/orange vs. orange/white game, as a result. MAC: Still, for monochrome, not a bad look. There's just enough red on Miami's uniforms and just enough gold on Toledo's (albeit not in this picture; there weren't many good ones anywhere online) that this reads as a red/white vs. blue/gold game.
  18. Yep. That's why color vs. color rivalry games wouldn't really work like USC-UCLA does (or did, as you posit, CDCLT): one team is almost always decidedly the away team, either by actually playing in the opposing team's home stadium, or the neutral site being closer to the opposing team's campus.
  19. This is so weird and disjointed. And yet, I like it; especially the home and away looks. (The single black stripe on the white helmet is wild, for instance.) Any explanation for why you went this direction?
  20. That's B1G football* my friend! My dad once said about a particularly low-scoring Nebraska-Penn State game (while we were flipping stations on a Saturday some years back), "I tell ya, they'd run the ball underground if they could." *Admittedly, Ohio State and Michigan are not generally included in this tongue-in-cheek characterization.
  21. This got me thinking: While I like color vs. color as much as the next person (as long as there's enough contrast), USC/UCLA feel more "right" than others to be color vs. color in a major rivalry game because of the game's location. While this game was played at USC's home field, both teams call LA home. It would be odd to me if Ohio State wore red in Ann Arbor, for instance. And then on the other side of that statement, if a rivalry game were played at a neutral site every year, then by all means, both teams should wear their color/home jerseys. (Though the only consistent example of that that I can think of is Army/Navy, and there wouldn't be enough contrast there with their regular home jerseys.)
  22. Ehhhh. I can see the logic behind your reasons here, but I wouldn't say this is a "stinker" or otherwise bad-looking game: There is no monochrome at all, so that's a huge plus to start. And black is technically one of Rutgers' colors. Plus, this was played in bright sunlight, so even from far away, the difference between black and navy is pretty clear. And the red is prominent enough (logos and numbers, as opposed to just outlines or some other smaller application) to add that much more contrast. I would argue that a game like Kansas/K State looked worse because Kansas wore predominantly non-school-color monochrome uniforms (after dark). Edit: Just to be clear, I understand that this is your best-of list (and to a larger extent, all of this is opinion-based), so my response is just that: a response. That's not to dunk on your list. As a matter of fact, I appreciate the effort of including pictures!
  23. Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. The orange detailing really puts it over the top, too.
  24. Understood. Apologies I didn't see the post. Thank you!
  25. Just for the sake of posting visual aids and because I watched part of this game last night, Wyoming at UNLV was pretty solid:
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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