Bmac Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 That's right, the Vols wearing orange panrs against Florida. Just saw a highlight. https://www.behance.net/bmatukewic8043
zmspartans Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 they dont look good. i think they should go with all white instead .
dfwabel Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 That's right, the Vols wearing orange panrs against Florida. Just saw a highlight.Shocker! They wore orange pants @ UCLA last year.
Brave-Bird 08 Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 what looks better though is that they went from white belts to orange belts to go with the orange pants. i think that helps the look
TalktoChuck Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 I don't mind the orange pants. What I do mind is the name on back being black, I think it would look better as orange.
BRice16 Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 This is the new road primary for Tennessee. They wore orange pants on the road from the 70's until Fulmer took over as interim coach in 1992. Fulmer only had a team in orange pants three times. Johnny Majors convinced Kiffin to go back to the traditional look.
TFoA Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 I don't mind the orange pants. What I do mind is the name on back being black, I think it would look better as orange.I think there's some sort of NCAA mandate where they have to wear black nameplates (and a black outline of the orange numbers at that), so I don't think that UT had a choice in the matter.That said, the belt made a pretty big difference. The white belt last year looked tacky.
BRice16 Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I don't mind the orange pants. What I do mind is the name on back being black, I think it would look better as orange.I think there's some sort of NCAA mandate where they have to wear black nameplates (and a black outline of the orange numbers at that), so I don't think that UT had a choice in the matter.That said, the belt made a pretty big difference. The white belt last year looked tacky.No mandate at all for the black, it's just a choice. A couple of years back when adidas changed jersey vendors, they had some whites made up with orange numbers and no outline for a test, and they just weren't visible enough from the press box or really even on camera. The black outline remained. Ditto on the names. straight orange names don't stand out at all from any distance.
oldschoolvikings Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I don't mind the orange pants. What I do mind is the name on back being black, I think it would look better as orange.I think there's some sort of NCAA mandate where they have to wear black nameplates (and a black outline of the orange numbers at that), so I don't think that UT had a choice in the matter.That said, the belt made a pretty big difference. The white belt last year looked tacky.There isn't even a maindate from the NCAA that they have to wear nameplates AT ALL. http://dstewartpaint.blogspot.com/
elsephen Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 The pants would have been ok if they were solid, but the stripes just made them look like high school team pants.
oddball Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 The pants are classic and should be worn most of the year. Though I think once a year they should pull out the white pants on the road.
Red Wolf Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 The pants would have been ok if they were solid, but the stripes just made them look like high school team pants.I always thought of the lack of stripes on pants as being a sign of looking too much like a high school team
elsephen Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I suppose it is more common for HS'ers to have solids. I guess retro is what I was thinking. Cheap. Like they caught a deal at goodwill.
PackerBadger Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 There isn't even a mandate from the NCAA that they have to wear nameplates AT ALL.Unfortunately.
TFoA Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 No mandate at all for the black, it's just a choice. A couple of years back when adidas changed jersey vendors, they had some whites made up with orange numbers and no outline for a test, and they just weren't visible enough from the press box or really even on camera. The black outline remained. Ditto on the names. straight orange names don't stand out at all from any distance.There isn't even a maindate from the NCAA that they have to wear nameplates AT ALL.OHHHHHHHHHHH. I knew that they did it for tv visibility issues, but I thought that the NCAA threw that down, not UT themselves.
Bmac Posted September 20, 2009 Author Posted September 20, 2009 Some pics: https://www.behance.net/bmatukewic8043
tBBP Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Some pics:They need to either incorporate some black into the rest of those uniforms a la the Detroit Lions or completely remove the black from the jerseys. Orange and white...now THERE'S a one-color+white scheme you don't see very often. *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance ||
ONUV Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 i prefer all white on the road for all teams. i wish we'd use a different material so there's no sheen.
powersurge Posted September 25, 2009 Posted September 25, 2009 i prefer all white on the road for all teams. i wish we'd use a different material so there's no sheen.Just plain ugly IMO.Such an ugly shade of orange to boot. It makes the black outline around the numbers so out of place. When they wear all white the outline looks appropriate, but not here.
CheeseHusker Posted September 25, 2009 Posted September 25, 2009 I think those look great.Give them an orange facemask, and it's just about perfect to me.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.