Boise State can't wear all-blue at home

[thespleenenator]

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.

Just because a school is aesthetically displeasing to you, doesn't mean that's what everyone thinks. I know many people on this board wants to see it go, but if it were to go away, I think that it would be missed. There would be something missing. The smurf turf, while un orthodox, is like howard's rock or cowbells to Boise. Modern schools have traditions too.

[IceCap]

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.

They also got to move up in the world of NCAA football. Mountain West is higher calibre conference then the WAC. If they have to wear white at home in return for advancement in the NCAA football universe, then so be it. They knew the stipulation heading into Mountain West, and they did so anyway. No real controversy.

As for people crying foul, I don't see it. Mountain West didn't tell them to give up their blue field. They get to keep it, and I imagine they will if it's as important to their identity as some claim it is.

[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.

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.

hmm...collegiate football had been played for 97 years on natural ground before the invention of astro turf...if I also remember correctly oregon fielded a varsity squad decades before they started playing on fake grass...please tell me why going back to traditional grass that worked for almost a century would not work now?

and sorry to tell you that teams did in fact play on dirt 80 years ago and still do (chicago bears are a prime example)...they are called late season games...some teams just do a better job of upkeep come november.

[aawagner011]

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?

Of course you've never found it impossible. Everyone has different tastes, and you obviously love the modernist approach and stuff that traditionalists would consider "out there". But I am most certainly not overrating how hard it is to watch there games at home. Coaches complain about it. Nothing about it looks natural at all. I can respect that maybe Boise can't grow natural grass there year round, but come on. Nothing about blue is natural or appealing at all. And I know you might say that's my opinion, and of course it is. I just think you'll find that the majority of people will agree that football looks best on either real grass or green synthetic. Blue unis on a blue field is just plain dumb and the intent is just to be different. They're a good football program, and I'd like to watch their games, but I just can't. That is not football to me. It waters down the game, in my opinion. And I think we can agree that "NO" I did not run a poll on "all of America" and their opinion of blue turf. I'm simply referencing that I couldn't possibly count the people who share the same opinion as myself. Just because you're a Boise fan doesn't mean you need to get all jumpy at an opinion that differs from yours.

[Lights Out]

The idea of a major college program playing on dirt in this day and age is so ridiculous, I don't have an adjective to describe it. Could you imagine what recruits would say to that?

By the way, the only time coaches ever seem to complain about the turf is after losing to Boise State on it. I don't really see how anyone could take those complaints as anything more than sore loser whining.

[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.

Just because a school is aesthetically displeasing to you, doesn't mean that's what everyone thinks. I know many people on this board wants to see it go, but if it were to go away, I think that it would be missed. There would be something missing. The smurf turf, while un orthodox, is like howard's rock or cowbells to Boise. Modern schools have traditions too.

I agree there might be a portion that would be sad to see it go, but I am sure an equal or larger portion would be happy to watch their games on grass or green synthetic. I can see where you're coming from comparing it to other traditions, and I respect that. However, I would like to offer the opinion that Howard's Rock or Cowbells do not directly affect the aesthetics of the game. Just my opinion.

[rams80]

and sorry to tell you that teams did in fact play on dirt 80 years ago and still do (chicago bears are a prime example)...they are called late season games...some teams just do a better job of upkeep come november.

Just because the Chicago Park District can't be bothered to maintain its own ing taxpayer-funded property doesn't mean that it is acceptable for a multi-million dollar business to trot its product out on dirt.

[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.

hmm...collegiate football had been played for 97 years on natural ground before the invention of astro turf...if I also remember correctly oregon fielded a varsity squad decades before they started playing on fake grass...please tell me why going back to traditional grass that worked for almost a century would not work now?

and sorry to tell you that teams did in fact play on dirt 80 years ago and still do (chicago bears are a prime example)...they are called late season games...some teams just do a better job of upkeep come november.

Yes, Oregon did have natural grass many years ago. Do you know how horrible the field was? Oregon facilities were terrible. In the 60s, they tried really hard to get a domed stadium because the weather was so bad. There was a reason Oregon was terrible for the majority of the 20th century. Because no recruit wanted to go there. Turf fields save money. I prefer natural grass as well. I don't know how it is on a football field, but I hate playing on it on a baseball field. But it's just more sensible solution for some schools. And teams don't play on dirt, they play on grass which is on dirt.

[The Impaler]

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.

Nothing says they can't, they just don't. I do think it hurts their perception around the country. However, I am not in the camp that thinks it gives them a competitive advantage.

To those comparing the colored turf to endzones is rather absurd IMO. That's like saying the painted yardage lines are like BSU's colored turf.

[The Impaler]

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.

hmm...collegiate football had been played for 97 years on natural ground before the invention of astro turf...if I also remember correctly oregon fielded a varsity squad decades before they started playing on fake grass...please tell me why going back to traditional grass that worked for almost a century would not work now?

and sorry to tell you that teams did in fact play on dirt 80 years ago and still do (chicago bears are a prime example)...they are called late season games...some teams just do a better job of upkeep come november.

Yes, Oregon did have natural grass many years ago. Do you know how horrible the field was? Oregon facilities were terrible. In the 60s, they tried really hard to get a domed stadium because the weather was so bad. There was a reason Oregon was terrible for the majority of the 20th century. Because no recruit wanted to go there. Turf fields save money. I prefer natural grass as well. I don't know how it is on a football field, but I hate playing on it on a baseball field. But it's just more sensible solution for some schools. And teams don't play on dirt, they play on grass which is on dirt.

I like how Green Bay handles it, mostly real grass with a synthetic grass "woven" into the turf to help give it stability in the climate. BTW, my grass grew great when I lived in Eugene, probably wouldn't have held up too well if people played football on it though.

[bigmike]

its pretty much the exact same color.

No. It's not.

The jerseys are much darker.

1) As you know, photos are not a good indicator of actual color. He could be sweating or the lights could be reflecting off the uniforms differently

2) Why on earthy WOULDN'T they match, or at least attempt to match them? Would they ask the turf company to lighten the turf instead of matching their colors/logos exactly? That makes zero sense. I'm not saying if you lay a jersey on the field it will disappear I'm just saying they are damn close and I'm sure both Nike and the turf company were attempting to match off the same PMS number.

3) Even if you're right, and the jerseys are darker or the field lighter on purpose, its still so much closer than Green Bay's green vs. the grass. Or Texas State's green vs. grass. Or any other team's green vs. grass or turf.

Yeah that picture is a really bad example to me. The blues pretty much look the same except the helmet is darker.

I think it is a silly rule, if the NCAA will let them have a blue field then they should let them wear whatever they want on it. Besides its not like you can't see the shiny silver numbers on every player anyways.

[lucasa317]

So... what happens if it snows in Boise and they happen to be wearing white that day? I'm not talking about a thin layer, I'm talking about like a blanket that's still playable. What do they do then? They would then blend in right? What then MWC?

[raysox]

Mountain West Conference= No Fun League

[Lights Out]

What's funny is that, when Boise wore all orange on the blue turf last year, they crushed Fresno State 51-0. That should have put the stupid "competitive advantage" garbage to rest. Apparently not, though.

[The Impaler]

What's funny is that, when Boise wore all orange on the blue turf last year, they crushed Fresno State 51-0. That should have put the stupid "competitive advantage" garbage to rest. Apparently not, though.

I actually really liked those uni's. Maybe they should just make those their standard homes.

[thespleenenator]

What's funny is that, when Boise wore all orange on the blue turf last year, they crushed Fresno State 51-0. That should have put the stupid "competitive advantage" garbage to rest. Apparently not, though.

I actually really liked those uni's. Maybe they should just make those their standard homes.

I know everyone has a right to their opinion, and I respect yours. That being said: NO!!! DEAR GOD NO!!!!

[Eye]

The idea of a major college program playing on dirt in this day and age is so ridiculous, I don't have an adjective to describe it. Could you imagine what recruits would say to that?

Show me the money.

[thespleenenator]

The idea of a major college program playing on dirt in this day and age is so ridiculous, I don't have an adjective to describe it. Could you imagine what recruits would say to that?

Show me the money.

Hahahahaha great one!

[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.

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

I know, but the all-blue team on a blue field is a much stronger brand than just a team with blue jerseys playing on a blue field, in my opinion.

Plus, this just seems like weak sauce. Since when has a conference ever dictated what colors one of its teams could wear? Some people think that football teams get an advantage from blending in (the MWC in this case); others think that teams get an advantage by standing out (the Buffalo Bills switched to red helmets to help Joe Ferguson pick out receivers, since the rest of their division wore white helmets). I don't think anyone has any evidence that it affects matters one way or another. If a conference passes a dictatorial rule like this, they should have a solid reason for doing so, and that just doesn't exist here.

[guest23]

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.

I know, but the all-blue team on a blue field is a much stronger brand than just a team with blue jerseys playing on a blue field, in my opinion.

Plus, this just seems like weak sauce. Since when has a conference ever dictated what colors one of its teams could wear? Some people think that football teams get an advantage from blending in (the MWC in this case); others think that teams get an advantage by standing out (the Buffalo Bills switched to red helmets to help Joe Ferguson pick out receivers, since the rest of their division wore white helmets). I don't think anyone has any evidence that it affects matters one way or another. If a conference passes a dictatorial rule like this, they should have a solid reason for doing so, and that just doesn't exist here.

apparently individuals don't understand what the purpose of a conference is...bsu was invited to join and upon accepting said invite there are stipulations for membership...based on feedback from existing conference members the commissioner's office put a stipulation in the invite that they cannot wear the all blue on their blue turf...bsu accepted the agreement and now must abide by the conference bylaws and accept any new rulings put forward by the commissioner.

for those of you that are on your libertarian soapboxes the solution is simple...go the route of byu and notre dame and become an independent.