Bret and the Blood Clots

[PackerBadger]

Wisconsin's season opener featured, for the first time in a real game since the late '80s, the red-over-red look.

Saturday's road opener at Nevada-Las Vegas (which now has four sellouts in its history, all featuring UW) featured the white-over-white look.

This came from Sunday's Wisconsin State Journal:

I knew those all-red uniforms that made their debut last Saturday would get a pretty strong reaction from fans. Most of what I have heard from fans has been negative.

I went home after the game and asked my 14-year-old son, who is also my fashion consultant when it comes to shoes. He loved them. I was not surprised. Obviously, the players loved them, too. I figured, the over-under on the age of fans who liked them was about 25. I would guess the vast majority of fans who didn't like them were older than their mid-20s.

So here's my question: Why is the monochrome look so popular among the under-"about 25" set? Those of us actually interested in uniforms are probably 95 percent opposed to the monochrome look, so why is it (apparently) popular among players?

[tBBP]

Just one man's opinion...my two rusted Lincolns...methinks maybe monochromes are gaining in popularity is because it's a different look than the norm. And the younger generation is all about breaking norms and establishing their own identity. Keep in mind most of those who are over 25 are also those more likely to be steeped in existing traditions, being that's what they were raised up watching and seeing and knowing and attaching themselves to, and sometimes, that's a hard thing to break away from when that look--or in this case your favorite team's uniform--is so near and dear to the heart. Key example: the Seattle Seahawks and Buffalo Bills. Those uniforms, when they were unveiled, were introduced with the familiar "traditional" look i.e. blue shirt over white pants, and veice versa. But, once one team does something new, and it catches on, other teams will start doing it too. Case in point: the Tennessee Titans, with all thier different combos last year (including TWO dark monochrome combos).

To add to all of that and the winds of change continue to blow.

All this from the mind of a 25-year-old man.

[SouthSidePride]

I'm 18, and I do not like the monochrome look unless it is White or Black. Red on red reminds me of these puppies:

Different sport, same effect...

[axl007]

An opinion from the over 25 set. I think that 95% is shooting a little high, I like the monochrome look when it's done right. I thought Wisconsin looked good in those red on reds, but I don't know if I am a fan of Syracuse's orange on orange. I like the look of the Seahawks but I don't know if I like all of the combinations in Tennessee, and I've wanted to see the KC Chiefs in all red ever since I saw that McFarlane figure of Larry Johnson in somebody's post. My favorite uniform is probably the Dolphins (or Hurricanes) in all white, classic but monochrome.

And speaking of baseball, I remember back to the 70's and 80's when my KC Royals (among others) wore light blue uniforms-- the norm at the time but still monochrome---- bring em back!

[oz615]

I'm 28 and i like the monochrome look if used sparingly (ie Rutgers Football) ,and i despise it if used every game single game home and away (ie Seahawks,Indiana Football) which is also the primary i hate those damn Bronco stripes on the uniform.

[illwauk]

<---- 26 and LOVIN' the red-on-red look... I'M STILL YOUNG!!!

But my theory is that the younger you are, the less indoctrinated you are with ideas of how uniforms are "supposed" to look. Baseball traditionalists hate/d the powder blue look, but because the Brewers had on powder blue when I started watching baseball it looked "normal" to me. Even as I've gotten older and more aware of how baseball unis have traditionally looked, I still don't have a problem with powder blue.

My guess is that this is what's at play with this current crop of Badgers fans. They just figure "it makes us look less like Nebraska."

[TruColor]

I'm 44, and I HATE retro/traditional crapola.

So there.

[OnWis97]

I understand why people here don't like monocrhome. I am more often than not un-fond of it myself. But why does everyone love white on white? To me it's just as bad.

I'd rather see Wisconsin go white/red and red/white.

[apeman33]

I think a reason college players may go for monochrome is simply for the fact that, in a lot of cases, their high school team was monochrome. A lot of them have that look around here (SE Kansas).

Most of the time, I've noticed that if a team is only able to use one set of pants for their football uniforms, they'll more often than not get pants that match their home jersey. Fort Scott wears red pants home and road. Uniontown wears black home and road. There are even instances of teams that have third colors still using their home color for the pants rather than going with the third color (Uniontown's colors are black and orange; but the only orange in their football uniform is in the face mask).

Usually a team only goes with the third color for pants if they have gold/yellow or silver/gray as a school color. Otherwise, it's monochrome. I very seldom see white pants around here. The only teams around here that I can think of that wear white pants are Coffeyville and Labette County (each of which, ironically, does have gold as a school color).

[oz615]

I understand why people here don't like monocrhome. I am more often than not un-fond of it myself. But why does everyone love white on white? To me it's just as bad.

I'd rather see Wisconsin go white/red and red/white.

Agreed

[koizim]

I'm 25 and I enjoy long walks on the beach and candlelit dinners with white women and... oh wait, wrong forum.

[DrBear]

My one complaint about the monochrome look is it doesn't provide an easy deliniation for clipping and low block calls.

[oz615]

and while we're at it can someone please explain to what's w/ the black socks fad in College Football?

[Candyc0ded]

I'm 23 and I love monochromes. I personally like uniform variations. I began to get into uniforms and seeing games more often the solid colored pants were coming into style. No more silvers, whites, golds with stripes on the sides. We were starting to see logos on the hips of pants and to look more intimidating teams wanted to wear one solid color. For my high school, we were black and gold and we had a steelers theme to our uniforms always. Then one year we wore black pants around the early to mid 90's and soon wore only monochrome black at home. I think it depends on the era you were introduced to uniforms, my era was when teams like Virginia, and West Virginia wore navy pants in the mid 90's with no stripes, and Florida St. would wear monochrome red or crimson, whatever, Colorado would wear black monochromes in the Kordell Stewart days. Don't remember if Washington ever did, but they did have solid pants (purple) with the hip logo.

Regardless this is the trend of uniforms I grew up on and it's what I liked. Monochromes appeal to the younger crowd. Especially when they are darker colors because they are more intimidating.

[hormone]

My take is that it's the "kewl" thing to do nowadays because it's not the "norm."

If it were up to me, I wouldn't mind monochrome for one game, but not the whole set.

[Gothamite]

Regardless this is the trend of uniforms I grew up on and it's what I liked. Monochromes appeal to the younger crowd. Especially when they are darker colors because they are more intimidating.

Yep, nothing more intimidating than black on black mono.

[PackerBadger]

Or the Michelin Man look:

and while we're at it can someone please explain to what's w/ the black socks fad in College Football?

Will someone point out to the players that they look as if they're running around in black socks and wingtips?

[BallWonk]

My one complaint about the monochrome look is it doesn't provide an easy deliniation for clipping and low block calls.

That's an important consideration, and it affects uniform design in all sports. I've long suspected that in baseball, the inclusion of numbers on jersey fronts is significantly responsible for the disappearance of the above-the-belt strike. Same thing with the disappearance of the high socks, which makes it easier for umpires to call strikes below the knees, reinforcing the modern low strike zone. For the batting team, then, jersey-front numbers are a good thing, and low socks are a bad thing.

In that regard, the monochrome football uniform is a bit like a boxer wearing flesh-colored shorts: It's just inviting low blows from the opponent.

If there's even a chance that your uniform is providing the referees with subtle cues to bias their calls against you, that's probably an example of bad uniform design, no matter how pretty the uniform might look in the abstract.

[lets_go_red]

idk, i have different opinions on monochrome...in Wisconsin's case I can take the red over red once in a while...but it doesnt look nearly as good as te red over white, as for whites over reds..i hate it, i think the red pants have nothing to offset them, idk it just looks strange to me, but the white over red would look better with a red helmet IMO...but in Wisconsins case i believe the monochrome whites just look better than white over red...and red monochrome doesnt look as good as red over white.

[vicfurth]

Monochrome has more of a chance to work when it's a darker color, e.g. navy or black.

Wisconsin is the one time I've liked red/red in any sport. Heh, I've always hated the Red Wings' all-reds.

As with everything else, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.