Super Bowl XL Uniforms *merged*

[infrared41]

Back to the thread, if the Steelers win, is there a possibility for them to become one of those white at home teams?

Sure there's a possibility...it's about as possible as The Browns running off 5 straight Super Bowl wins. In other words, it's possible but highly improbable.

This is simply The Steelers going with the "hot" uniform. It's superstition that's all. They just don't want to call it that.

Someone else mentioned that The Steelers wore Black jerseys in their other 5 Super Bowl appearances. Actually they wore white jerseys in their first Super Bowl against The Vikings in 1974.

[Zoop]

The White Jersey/Blue Pants combo is actually pretty good.

And horray for the Blue Man Group wearing all blue to the Super Bowl. That makes me happy!

[Proc]

To me the Pittsburgh Steelers conjure up the image of them in the black jersey.

However, superstition in sports is huge. Let 'em wear the whites, it hasn't hurt in the playoffs to this point.

I am still confused about the Steelers being the favorite in this one. The Seahawks had a better record, just as good of a defense and Shaun Alexander. I thought the line would open the other way around. 'Hawks will be a betting favorite.

As for Seattle, I wish they'd wear white pants. Like many, the blue blue blue thing is a bit too much.

[DJSpeedy]

I am still confused about the Steelers being the favorite in this one.

Could be because the AFC is the "home" team this year?

[leopard88]

I am still confused about the Steelers being the favorite in this one.  The Seahawks had a better record, just as good of a defense and Shaun Alexander.  I thought the line would open the other way around.  'Hawks will be a betting favorite.

The Steelers opened as the favorite because the Vegas lines are set in an effort to draw equal action on both sides, not simply to say that one team is this much better than the other. Sometimes that skews the line when one team is generally more popular than the other (because people will still bet with their heart no matter how much their brain tells them not to). The disfavored team has to get more (or give fewer) points that an neutral analysis would suggest to draw more action. It happens more in the postseason than the regular season because the action falls on fewer and fewer games and draws more attention.

This year, the line is probably skewed in favor of the Steelers because (1) they have a broad, rabid national following and (2) they have become something of a sentimental favorite (though God only knows why). In 2001, the Ravens/Giants spread was (IMO, anyway) unreasonably low (Ravens minus 5.5 or so, IIRC) despite the Ravens being the clearly better team (all biases aside ). In that case, the line was skewed because the Giants are from New York and naturally have a broader following than most other teams, particularly those thugs and murderers in the purple and black uniforms ( ), who are not well liked nationally.

BTW, this is also why you used to see 15-19 point spreads on the Super Bowl back in the 49ers/Giants/Redskins/Cowboys era of dominance. You almost never see spreads like that in the regular season, but the AFC teams would need to get ridiculous amounts of points to draw any action because the NFC teams were perceived as being so vastly superior (and often covered anyway to prove the point about their superiority -- and disprove my point about the lines being skewed, I guess).

[leopard88]

See from the above photos how good the team looks.

In case anyone forgot, this quote refers to the blue shirt/white pants combo. I wholeheartedly agree.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The whole monochrome discussioon nonwithstanding, is anyone else still having a difficult time digesting that the Seahawks are in the Super Bowl? Up until the Rams/Titans Super Bowl (the game I always considered to have Changed Everything) I was very comfortable with certain teams being bad for forever, teams like the Bengals, Patriots, Cardinals and yes, the Seahawks. Now I feel old and out of touch. Thank you very much, free agency.

That said, I do think it's fitting that the Steelers will be in white and the Seahawks, presumably, all in blue. Those are the two looks we've become accustomed to in the past few weeks, and they have both been successful for either team. While it'd be nice for the Steelers (my team of choice for this game) to have some kind of psychological edge, it's probably best for the game to have two teams play at their best. And in as much a uniform can provide the best competition, go for it.

I mean, it's not like the Bills are wearing monochromes in the Super Bowl. Then, I believe, we'd all have real reason to riot.

[griffelh]

Back to the thread, if the Steelers win, is there a possibility for them to become one of those white at home teams?

Sure there's a possibility...it's about as possible as The Browns running off 5 straight Super Bowl wins. In other words, it's possible but highly improbable.

Now much to go on, but hey, what tickles their fancy. But I tell you if the Steelers do win, they should wear white at Heinz Field one regular season game. I'd love to see it.

Just so you all know, until about 1973 the Steelers wore both White and Black jerseys at home in no particular pattern (kind of like the Mets do with their jerseys). The fans (and possibly the league) complained that they wanted a consistent look, so they then started wearing Black at home consistently. If they were to wear white once at home, it would not be unheard of.

[Intimidator85]

I think Cowher's decision turned out to be a win for almost everyone. The white uniforms have been good to Pittsburgh. The blue uniforms have been good to Seattle. The Steeler fans I've heard from so far are very happy with the decision. I actually prefer the Steelers in white and the Seahawks in blue for this particular game with these particular teams, so I like the decision very much.

As you can see, some of the people on this board will be upset if the Seahawks wear blue pants, and others will be upset if they wear white pants, so some of us here will take a loss. Everyone else wins as far as uniforms are concerned. I actually prefer blue/blue for the Seahawks and I hope they go with that, but blue/white won't kill me. Remember, white pants might work for some other teams in the NFL but that doesn't mean it's the best look for the Seahawks.

[NissanNut]

The whole monochrome discussioon nonwithstanding, is anyone else still having a difficult time digesting that the Seahawks are in the Super Bowl?  Up until the Rams/Titans Super Bowl (the game I always considered to have Changed Everything) I was very comfortable with certain teams being bad for forever, teams like the Bengals, Patriots, Cardinals and yes, the Seahawks.  Now I feel old and out of touch.  Thank you very much, free agency.

That said, I do think it's fitting that the Steelers will be in white and the Seahawks, presumably, all in blue.  Those are the two looks we've become accustomed to in the past few weeks, and they have both been successful for either team.  While it'd be nice for the Steelers (my team of choice for this game) to have some kind of psychological edge, it's probably best for the game to have two teams play at their best.  And in as much a uniform can provide the best competition, go for it.

I mean, it's not like the Bills are wearing monochromes in the Super Bowl.  Then, I believe, we'd all have real reason to riot.

Before Titans vs Rams Super Bowl:

1997 - Super Bowl XXXI

Green Bay 35 New England 21

1989 - Super Bowl XXIII

San Francisco 20 Cincinatti 16

1986 - Super Bowl XX

Chicago 46 New England 10

1982 Super Bowl XVI

San Francisco 26 Cincinatti 21

Two of teams you named actually had been to the Superbowl twice before Super Bowl XXXIV. Although, 3 of them were played in the 80s, I don't think that Super Bowl changed anything. I think it showed that it was the end of an era for the Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, and Broncos... in hindsight.

I understand what you mean, though. Teams that have done bad in the 90s (or througout their history) are now playoff and championship caliber teams in the decade. I don't think that Super Bowl XXXIV had anything to do with it. It is just the changing of the guard, which is bound to happen.

With the draft, free agency, salary cap, coaching and GM changes, and Daniel Snyder - we've just seen certain teams pass their time and have to restock, while others were already building something special (Patiriots and Eagles). Now, the Bengals are back, the Colts are now perennial powers, the Falcons thinks they are good, the Panthers are legit, the Bears are on the move, and the Seahawks finally reach the Super Bowl after being the trendy pick last year.

Instead of Super Bowl XXXIV changing everything, I think the 2000 NFL playoffs in general changed everything. How? The Buffalo Bills of course. They were so scarred by the Music City Miracle, against Super Bowl runner-ups Tennesse, that they have not returned to the playoffs and have since changed into ugliest uniforms in the NFL today. They have set the standard for hideous!

[jkrdevil]

I am still confused about the Steelers being the favorite in this one. The Seahawks had a better record, just as good of a defense and Shaun Alexander. I thought the line would open the other way around. 'Hawks will be a betting favorite.

In addition to what Leopard said, the Steelers are an AFC team. Even people who have no rooting interest are looking at the Steelers to win. The AFC was much stronger this year than the NFC was. The Steelers who were a 1 seed last year and got to AFC Championship Game were hit by injuries this year and got the 6th seed. They are not looked at as a true 6 instead they are looked at as a 1 or 2 when healthy. Plus in order to get to the Super Bowl they had to beat the Bengals, Colts, and Broncos. The Seahawks on th eothe rhand had to beat the Redskins and the Panthers.

Generally the team that comes out of the stronger conference is going to favored to win.

[Avenger]

Man, I wish the Seahawks had navy pants, to tie the sleeves in with the rest of the uniform

[-kj]

Man, I wish the Seahawks had navy pants, to tie the sleeves in with the rest of the uniform

Finally, someone else who thinks that.

[NissanNut]

Man, I wish the Seahawks had navy pants, to tie the sleeves in with the rest of the uniform

Finally, someone else who thinks that.

Isn't that navy blue on the pants to outline the green?

[Blue Falcon]

Back to the thread, if the Steelers win, is there a possibility for them to become one of those white at home teams?

Sure there's a possibility...it's about as possible as The Browns running off 5 straight Super Bowl wins. In other words, it's possible but highly improbable.

Now much to go on, but hey, what tickles their fancy. But I tell you if the Steelers do win, they should wear white at Heinz Field one regular season game. I'd love to see it.

Just so you all know, until about 1973 the Steelers wore both White and Black jerseys at home in no particular pattern (kind of like the Mets do with their jerseys). The fans (and possibly the league) complained that they wanted a consistent look, so they then started wearing Black at home consistently. If they were to wear white once at home, it would not be unheard of.

No, the last time the Stillers wore white at home was 1969, Chuck Noll's first years. They moved to the AFC the next year, and into Three Rivers Stadium, and have been wearing black at home ever since.

[Fjm]

Love them or hate them, it's fitting that Seattle will wear the blue/blue in the Super Bowl. Years later when they change uniforms, we'll always remember the monochromes and identify them with this particular team.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Before Titans vs Rams Super Bowl:

1997 - Super Bowl XXXI

Green Bay 35 New England 21

1989 - Super Bowl XXIII

San Francisco 20 Cincinatti 16

1986 - Super Bowl XX

Chicago 46 New England 10

1982 Super Bowl XVI

San Francisco 26 Cincinatti 21

Two of teams you named actually had been to the Superbowl twice before Super Bowl XXXIV. Although, 3 of them were played in the 80s, I don't think that Super Bowl changed anything. I think it showed that it was the end of an era for the Cowboys, 49ers, Packers, and Broncos... in hindsight.

Instead of Super Bowl XXXIV changing everything, I think the 2000 NFL playoffs in general changed everything. How? The Buffalo Bills of course. They were so scarred by the Music City Miracle, against Super Bowl runner-ups Tennesse, that they have not returned to the playoffs and have since changed into ugliest uniforms in the NFL today. They have set the standard for hideous!

I guess I was being to facetious. But, to be fair, from 1984 until 1997, the AFC wasn't just worse than the NFC, but typically much worse. It's like the NBA Eastern Conference from the mid to late 90s -- they had a champion play in the NBA Finals, but didn't really make them a good team, did it? The best of a bad conference isn't necessarily good.

And amen to the Bills. As a fan, I to this day hold that Frank f'n Wychek tossed a forward lateral and the play never should have stood. You ask me, it was akin to the Immaculate Reception call with the Steelers -- no way those refs in those arenas are going to overturn those calls.

And to take that further, had the Bills never dabbled in the whole Rob Johnson fiasco, Flutie would have started that game and the Bills would have won going away. So there.

[hawk36]

Love them or hate them, it's fitting that Seattle will wear the blue/blue in the Super Bowl. Years later when they change uniforms, we'll always remember the monochromes and identify them with this particular team.

It'll kind of be like other trends over the decades. We'll look at old footage and be able to tell it's from the 2000s. Like Flock of Seaguls hair, it will be ebarrasing.

[andrewharrington]

I guess I was being to facetious. But, to be fair, from 1984 until 1997, the AFC wasn't just worse than the NFC, but typically much worse. It's like the NBA Eastern Conference from the mid to late 90s -- they had a champion play in the NBA Finals, but didn't really make them a good team, did it? The best of a bad conference isn't necessarily good.

As I recall, the Chicago Bulls won three consecutive NBA Championships in the mid to late 1990s, from the Eastern Conference. And the Knicks took the Rockets to game 7 in 1994. Zing.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I guess I was being to facetious. But, to be fair, from 1984 until 1997, the AFC wasn't just worse than the NFC, but typically much worse. It's like the NBA Eastern Conference from the mid to late 90s -- they had a champion play in the NBA Finals, but didn't really make them a good team, did it? The best of a bad conference isn't necessarily good.

As I recall, the Chicago Bulls won three consecutive NBA Championships in the mid to late 1990s, from the Eastern Conference. And the Knicks took the Rockets to game 7 in 1994. Zing.

Zing graciously accepted. Perhaps I should have been more clear -- The NBA Eastern Conference from 1998/99 to 2002/03. Is that fair?

In any event -- to get this on topic -- Go Steelers!