Boise State can't wear all-blue at home

[guest23]

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.

apparently you've never seen a football field in november...nearly all of them are dirt between the hashes come november.

and yes some get resodded

[Lights Out]

Okay, but they're not playing on only dirt like you ludicrously suggested.

[thespleenenator]

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.

If the MWC had mandated that all teams had to wear pink uniforms, would you be making the same argument?

[aawagner011]

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.

If the MWC had mandated that all teams had to wear pink uniforms, would you be making the same argument?

That comparison is nowhere near the same. Whether or not they truly have a "competitive advantage" you can clearly see the rationale in the conference dictating that they not wear solid blue uniforms amongst a solid blue field. Telling schools to wear a certain color is entirely different.

[Lights Out]

I don't see the rationale behind the ruling, honestly. Firstly, they screwed themselves out of their only iconic team identity (the all blue on blue turf) in the whole conference. Secondly, they fueled the whole "OMG THEY BLEND INTO THE TURF! NOT A LEGITIMATE VICTORY!" crap which will certainly hurt Boise State's perception... and in the polls, perception is everything, since college football has such a bogus, pageant-show system. Thirdly, it only applies to BSU, so Colorado State can wear monochrome green to their heart's content - making the conference look stupid and/or biased. The whole thing's dumb.

[thespleenenator]

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.

If the MWC had mandated that all teams had to wear pink uniforms, would you be making the same argument?

That comparison is nowhere near the same. Whether or not they truly have a "competitive advantage" you can clearly see the rationale in the conference dictating that they not wear solid blue uniforms amongst a solid blue field. Telling schools to wear a certain color is entirely different.

Ummmmm, no it isn't?

[scottysprings]

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.

If the MWC had mandated that all teams had to wear pink uniforms, would you be making the same argument?

That comparison is nowhere near the same. Whether or not they truly have a "competitive advantage" you can clearly see the rationale in the conference dictating that they not wear solid blue uniforms amongst a solid blue field. Telling schools to wear a certain color is entirely different.

Ummmmm, no it isn't?

[Gothamite]

Whoa.

Whole lotta really dodgy analogies happening on this thread.

[thespleenenator]

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.

If the MWC had mandated that all teams had to wear pink uniforms, would you be making the same argument?

That comparison is nowhere near the same. Whether or not they truly have a "competitive advantage" you can clearly see the rationale in the conference dictating that they not wear solid blue uniforms amongst a solid blue field. Telling schools to wear a certain color is entirely different.

Ummmmm, no it isn't?

Ok, I have to rephrase this. Telling a school what to wear is the same concept of telling what to wear. They are both unnecessary forms of control.

[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.

If the MWC had mandated that all teams had to wear pink uniforms, would you be making the same argument?

if the conference bylaws gave the commissioner the power to do so the members would abide by that or they could opt out of the conference and pay the buyout...apparently you don't understand the concept of private organizations having the ability to set rules for its members...as I said earlier bsu opted in and agreed to this and if they don't want to abide by rules set forward by the conference they are free to go independent.

this is a very simple concept

[guest23]

I don't see the rationale behind the ruling, honestly. Firstly, they screwed themselves out of their only iconic team identity (the all blue on blue turf) in the whole conference. Secondly, they fueled the whole "OMG THEY BLEND INTO THE TURF! NOT A LEGITIMATE VICTORY!" crap which will certainly hurt Boise State's perception... and in the polls, perception is everything, since college football has such a bogus, pageant-show system. Thirdly, it only applies to BSU, so Colorado State can wear monochrome green to their heart's content - making the conference look stupid and/or biased. The whole thing's dumb.

green uniforms and green grass or fake turf provide enough contrast as opposed to flat blue on blue...at least in the mwc coaches' minds...should enough coaches take issue with csu then the same rule should be applied.

[IceCap]

Hold on. I thought Boise State's unique brand was the blue turf. Which Mountain West is letting them keep. Now I'm hearing that Boise State's unique brand is blue monochrome on the blue turf. This is news to me. Seems like a case of moving the goal posts.

[ARTnSocal]

What is all this talk about Boise having to wear 'white' at home vs MWC opponents including in the subject of this thread ...

It's already been stated by Boise State officials that when they suit up in MWC play, they'll throw on their orange uniforms.

Also, is moving from the WAC to the Mountain West really that significant of higher level of competition, especially with TCU on their way to the Big East after this coming season? I don't see it as overly significant of an upgrade.

If anything is ridiculous IMO, it's watching football on that bright blue playing surface. I'm convinced that if a nationwide poll was taken, the 'majority' of college football fans dislike a football gridiron in any color other than green.

This debate about Oregon having to play on artificial surface due to the Pacific Northwest rain is nonsense. It rains just as much if not more in Scotland and England, yet they're all playing Premier League soccer on natural grass from August thru May. Different sports I'll grant you, but the players are all wearing cleats out on the pitch where the ball is being dribbled across the playing surface non-stop. That puts a major wear & tear on pitch that requires maintenance, yet they do it. Even in the lower divisions because the English FA doesn't allow for artificial playing surfaces.

Too many NCAA teams just don't wanna spend money needed to maintain a natural playing surface.

[thespleenenator]

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.

If the MWC had mandated that all teams had to wear pink uniforms, would you be making the same argument?

if the conference bylaws gave the commissioner the power to do so the members would abide by that or they could opt out of the conference and pay the buyout...apparently you don't understand the concept of private organizations having the ability to set rules for its members...as I said earlier bsu opted in and agreed to this and if they don't want to abide by rules set forward by the conference they are free to go independent.

this is a very simple concept

Yes, but that doesn't make the rule right. So what if your eyes hurt? Who cares!? There is no reason for this law to be passed other than "I think it looks ugly" which is no reason to pass a "law" or make a regulation.

[aawagner011]

Why do I get the impression this board is flooded with 14 year olds? In what way is it wrong for a conference to tell one of its members to not wear a certain uniform combination as it tends to get lost amongst the field? Whether you think that it does blend in or not, Boise agreed to the terms at the time of joining the conference. Boise is the oddball amongst all of college football and the conference has to adjust accordingly. I don't see why it's so hard to grasp such a simple concept.

This:

does not equal this, even if they wore all green:

[ARTnSocal]

I see this blue gridiron issue to being very similar from when the Philadelphia Flyers, followed by the Hartford Whalers wore cooperalls / pants in the early 80s .... They received heavy criticism and were then banned. They looked ridiculous and the vast majority of hockey fans hated them.

The Flyers didn't break any rules because there wasn't a rule back then ... who would have foreseen something like that ever being introduced.

Boise State didn't break any rules years ago when breaking out a blue playing surface, but it's so controversial and receiving so much critical acclaim that it's just a matter of a short time before playing surfaces in any color other than green are going to be banned. I truly believe this..

[rams80]

This debate about Oregon having to play on artificial surface due to the Pacific Northwest rain is nonsense. It rains just as much if not more in Scotland and England, yet they're all playing Premier League soccer on natural grass from August thru May. Different sports I'll grant you, but the players are all wearing cleats out on the pitch where the ball is being dribbled across the playing surface non-stop. That puts a major wear & tear on pitch that requires maintenance, yet they do it. Even in the lower divisions because the English FA doesn't allow for artificial playing surfaces.

There's a whole lot of wear and tear difference between a few people running around on the grass and a gang of bulked up football linemen transferring something like half a ton of force (at the big boy level) per player from full stop directly onto the ground and relatively flimsy grass every play from scrimmage.

[rams80]

Boise State didn't break any rules years ago when breaking out a blue playing surface, but it's so controversial and receiving so much critical acclaim that it's just a matter of a short time before playing surfaces in any color other than green are going to be banned. I truly believe this..

Ummm....critical acclaim is usually seen as a reason to keep something. Not to ban it.

[thespleenenator]

Why do I get the impression this board is flooded with 14 year olds? In what way is it wrong for a conference to tell one of its members to not wear a certain uniform combination as it tends to get lost amongst the field? Whether you think that it does blend in or not, Boise agreed to the terms at the time of joining the conference. Boise is the oddball amongst all of college football and the conference has to adjust accordingly. I don't see why it's so hard to grasp such a simple concept.

This:

does not equal this, even if they wore all green:

First of all, the fact that you didn't show a picture of the Colorado State all green vs Boise all blue weakens your point ( i know you said it wouldn't matter if they wore all green anyway, but pics or it didn't happen). The reason I'm against this is because it makes no sense. The players don't get lost amongst the field. If it was really that much of a problem, the NCAA would've banned it a while ago. And if competitive edge is such a problem, then how come other schools are allowed to have better facilities than other schools? Doesn't that give those schools a competitive edge? Plus, there's no rule saying that Utah couldn't get a red field, or that Arizona State couldn't get a black field. Just because you decide not to have a colored field and wear monochrome, doesn't mean Boise can't. It's not their fault.

[Guest]

There is a rule saying that ASU can't get a black field. It's called common sense. Playing on a black field in Arizona would be no different from playing on asphalt.