Boise State can't wear all-blue at home

[Gothamite]

If you don't watch Boise's games, then who are you to complain about a field you don't see?

If our æsthetic opinions were limited to the teams we watched regularly, these would be very quiet boards.

[slapshot]

Who says "the big boys" can't have colored turf? Silly me, I thought "big boy" status came from good coaching, smart recruiting, and winning.

A "big boy" status doesn't come from gimmicky turf or a thousand uniform combinations of colors unrelated to one's school.

It's building a tradition from years of success against other schools of the same caliber or higher.

[Lights Out]

That's exactly what I was arguing. So it's ridiculous to say that Boise State can't be "one of the big boys" unless they ditch the turf.

[slapshot]

Boise State can't be one of the "big boys" if they rely on the blue turf gimmick as one of its reasons to be considered for that status.

Up until very recently, that's all they were known for.

That, and beating up on the cupcakes in the Mountain West.

[Lights Out]

The blue turf put the school on the map - it didn't go out and win the games for them. Furthermore, they're joining the Mountain West this year - you're probably thinking of either the WAC or the Big West. Plus, Boise hardly relies on the turf... I think their 57-14 win/loss record on the road since 2000 (second only to Texas in the FBS) backs me up on this.

[DPV713]

Competitive advantage my ass. If the MWC teams can't keep up with the Broncos, they shouldn't make stupid excuses. Non-HD televisions could easily pick up where the Boise State players are. The defenders are less than a foot away from the offense, how can they not see them?

[illwauk]

that is one of the lamest comparisons that I've ever read...this has nothing to do with tradition whatsoever....

Tell that to the "Boise has to ditch the blue turf if they wanna play with the big boys" crowd. The fact is, Boise's turf is every bit as integral to their identity as the Vols' checkerboard, Notre Dame's endzone stripes and Mizzou's diamonds.

other coaches have complained that a team with 100% flat blue uniforms that plays on a flat blue playing surface may have a competitive advantage due to a slight camouflage effect making scouting game film and reading secondaries from the qb position an absolute bitch...not to mention the tv viewing experience is a visual washout (which is why I'm surprised espn or other networks haven't complained)...the best analogy would be akin to the home/clash jersey argument but instead of 2 teams looking too similar one team looks like the field.

So what WAC school did you play QB for

as for the mono green argument grass and fake turf tends to provide enough contrast against fabric green via texture, light, and multiple shades of green...along this argument I think that a visiting should have a right to protest a mono green team and if the ref agrees the team should be forced to change...what's fair is fair.

So what if Boise changed the turf to more of a sky blue to provide better contrast... you really think that would stop people from b*tching about it not being green? I doubt it.

[whitedawg22]

They wouldn't be anywhere near a top NCAA program without the blue turf. It's become somewhat of a brand for BSU - the blue turf put them on the map nationally. Great coaching and recruiting is the biggest deal, but the turf helped.

This is what blows my mind about the MWC's edict. The MWC is a conference full of teams that, regardless of their success on the field, don't exactly have a strong brand. Do you think the average football fan on the east coast would recognize New Mexico or UNLV or San Diego State if they saw them on TV at a sports bar? Boise's blue-on-blue-on-blue home games are one of the instantly recognizable scenes from college football in the last decade. Boise's games might not be as aesthetically pleasing as a Michigan-Ohio State or Alabama-LSU game, but they have impressive brand awareness for a fairly small and nouveau-riche school, and the MWC is throwing that away.

[guest23]

that is one of the lamest comparisons that I've ever read...this has nothing to do with tradition whatsoever....

Tell that to the "Boise has to ditch the blue turf if they wanna play with the big boys" crowd. The fact is, Boise's turf is every bit as integral to their identity as the Vols' checkerboard, Notre Dame's endzone stripes and Mizzou's diamonds.

other coaches have complained that a team with 100% flat blue uniforms that plays on a flat blue playing surface may have a competitive advantage due to a slight camouflage effect making scouting game film and reading secondaries from the qb position an absolute bitch...not to mention the tv viewing experience is a visual washout (which is why I'm surprised espn or other networks haven't complained)...the best analogy would be akin to the home/clash jersey argument but instead of 2 teams looking too similar one team looks like the field.

So what WAC school did you play QB for

as for the mono green argument grass and fake turf tends to provide enough contrast against fabric green via texture, light, and multiple shades of green...along this argument I think that a visiting should have a right to protest a mono green team and if the ref agrees the team should be forced to change...what's fair is fair.

So what if Boise changed the turf to more of a sky blue to provide better contrast... you really think that would stop people from b*tching about it not being green? I doubt it.

actually all of those examples you cite are end zones which are not part of the scrimmage field (meaning you can't spot the ball or start a play from within an end zone)...that is a massive difference from coloring the remaining 100 yards that 99% of the game is played within....in addition your examples are very weak...take some time to look at classic college football film closely and you'd already know that the diagonal chalk lines, checkerboard, and diamonds were very common across many schools over the decades so your integral identity argument is bunk...there are even modern examples of those designs being repeated...pitt, fresno state, and usc right off the top of my head.

didn't play qb in the wac but have seen a full season's run of scouting film...boise included...their home footage was a bitch to watch.

I have no idea if a shade of blue change would work but if it would provide more of a clash I'm all for it...contrast is all I care about...will others stop bitching?..I have no idea.

in my opinion the best solution is to require natural turf and if you can't grow grass in your town play on the dirt like they did for 80+ years.

[thespleenenator]

that is one of the lamest comparisons that I've ever read...this has nothing to do with tradition whatsoever....

Tell that to the "Boise has to ditch the blue turf if they wanna play with the big boys" crowd. The fact is, Boise's turf is every bit as integral to their identity as the Vols' checkerboard, Notre Dame's endzone stripes and Mizzou's diamonds.

other coaches have complained that a team with 100% flat blue uniforms that plays on a flat blue playing surface may have a competitive advantage due to a slight camouflage effect making scouting game film and reading secondaries from the qb position an absolute bitch...not to mention the tv viewing experience is a visual washout (which is why I'm surprised espn or other networks haven't complained)...the best analogy would be akin to the home/clash jersey argument but instead of 2 teams looking too similar one team looks like the field.

So what WAC school did you play QB for

as for the mono green argument grass and fake turf tends to provide enough contrast against fabric green via texture, light, and multiple shades of green...along this argument I think that a visiting should have a right to protest a mono green team and if the ref agrees the team should be forced to change...what's fair is fair.

So what if Boise changed the turf to more of a sky blue to provide better contrast... you really think that would stop people from b*tching about it not being green? I doubt it.

actually all of those examples you cite are end zones which are not part of the scrimmage field (meaning you can't spot the ball or start a play from within an end zone)...that is a massive difference from coloring the remaining 100 yards that 99% of the game is played within....in addition your examples are very weak...take some time to look at classic college football film closely and you'd already know that the diagonal chalk lines, checkerboard, and diamonds were very common across many schools over the decades so your integral identity argument is bunk...there are even modern examples of those designs being repeated...pitt, fresno state, and usc right off the top of my head.

didn't play qb in the wac but have seen a full season's run of scouting film...boise included...their home footage was a bitch to watch.

I have no idea if a shade of blue change would work but if it would provide more of a clash I'm all for it...contrast is all I care about...will others stop bitching?..I have no idea.

in my opinion the best solution is to require natural turf and if you can't grow grass in your town play on the dirt like they did for 80+ years.

There would be schools that would not be able to play football. The best example is Oregon. Do you know have much it rains in Oregon? The field would cost a fortune to maintain. People didn't "play on dirt" 80 years ago.

[oldschoolvikings]

Look, Boise agreed to this up front, as I understand it. What's the complaint?

[IceCap]

They wouldn't be anywhere near a top NCAA program without the blue turf. It's become somewhat of a brand for BSU - the blue turf put them on the map nationally. Great coaching and recruiting is the biggest deal, but the turf helped.

This is what blows my mind about the MWC's edict. The MWC is a conference full of teams that, regardless of their success on the field, don't exactly have a strong brand. Do you think the average football fan on the east coast would recognize New Mexico or UNLV or San Diego State if they saw them on TV at a sports bar? Boise's blue-on-blue-on-blue home games are one of the instantly recognizable scenes from college football in the last decade. Boise's games might not be as aesthetically pleasing as a Michigan-Ohio State or Alabama-LSU game, but they have impressive brand awareness for a fairly small and nouveau-riche school, and the MWC is throwing that away.

Um, Mountain West isn't telling them to get rid of the blue turf.

[thespleenenator]

Look, Boise agreed to this up front, as I understand it. What's the complaint?

I think these guys would like to have a word with you about "agreeing" to things.

[IceCap]

Look, Boise agreed to this up front, as I understand it. What's the complaint?

I think these guys would like to have a word with you about "agreeing" to things.

You just compared Boise State agreeing to wear white at home as a condition of moving to the Mountain West to natives getting screwed over by broken treaties. There's no word available to describe just how insensitive and wrong that comparison is.

[thespleenenator]

Look, Boise agreed to this up front, as I understand it. What's the complaint?

I think these guys would like to have a word with you about "agreeing" to things.

You just compared Boise State agreeing to wear white at home as a condition of moving to the Mountain West to natives getting screwed over by broken treaties. There's no word available to describe just how insensitive and wrong that comparison is.

Sorry if I used a really extreme example, but I was trying to make a point. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but it's a perfect analogy, albeit the consequences are no where near as catastrophic.

[_RH_]

[thespleenenator]

Ok I'm going to flat out apologize for comparing this to the native americans. I;m not going to try and defend myself and turn this into a jobing.com arena type thread where the things I say get dumber and dumber.

The point I was trying to make was that Boise really didn't have a choice to agree to this. The WAC is collapsing. Boise saw the writing on the wall and just abandoned ship two years early. They didn't really agree to it as much as they were forced to do it in order to survive. It's like a gas station in the middle of no where that charges 5 dollars for a kit-kat bar. Do you agree with these prices? No. But you have to pay them anyway. Otherwise, it's another 100 miles before you find food.

[aawagner011]

I fail to understand the people who look at Boise State and just see them as the "victims" here. All of this centers around their insistence to play on some god-awful blue turf that makes watching their home games near impossible, coupled with the fact that they wear solid blue uniforms upon said turf. Play on either grass or synthetic green turf, just like every other school. Just because "we can" doesn't mean "we should". Either change the turf (please, for all of America that has to tune into your games), or change your pants. It's that simple. Don't play the "victim" role just because you're the oddball of college football and no one else agrees that blue turf is a good idea. I'm honestly surprised the NCAA doesn't have a stipulation or rule that playing surfaces must be of either natural grass or specific synthetic colors.

[rams80]

as others have said the blue on blue is an absolute nightmare to watch on hdtv that runis the experience of watching an up and coming national power...in addition it must be a serious pain in the ass to review game film with the all blue and gray numbers...what a mess.

I never thought having ty eyesight was a good thing, but apparently it is, because I've never had these problems seeing Boise State games.

[Lights Out]

Look, Boise agreed to this up front, as I understand it. What's the complaint?

It was either go to the MWC, or stay in a weak conference that results in them getting screwed over every year and that might not exist in five years. Doesn't mean they deserved to have this rule forced upon them. And the school isn't even complaining - the only thing Coach Pete said is that it was "ridiculous," which is true.

All of this centers around their insistence to play on some god-awful blue turf that makes watching their home games near impossible

I've never found it "impossible." People need to either stop overrating how "hard to watch" the blue turf supposedly is or just not watch the games.

Either change the turf (please, for all of America that has to tune into your games)... no one else agrees that blue turf is a good idea.

That's funny - there's non-BSU fans in this very thread that like Boise's colored turf. So much for "all of America," huh?