Boise State can't wear all-blue at home

[thespleenenator]

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.

Ok, point taken, but they could still technically do that. And what about Utah in a red field? I'm saying that there is no practical reason why this rule has to be in place other than "it doesn't look good".

[BBTV]

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..

Cooperalls were banned primarily for safety reasons IIRC. The material didn't provide much friction on the ice and the players slid out of control when they fell.

[RyanB06]

In light of the fact that Boise has an orange alternate top (something I didn't know at the time), I have edited the title of the thread appropriately.

Carry on.

[ARTnSocal]

Cooperalls were banned primarily for safety reasons IIRC. The material didn't provide much friction on the ice and the players slid out of control when they fell.

It was for both reasons .... but I wouldn't say it was 'primarily' the safety reason. They were hated by vast majority of both hockey purists and your everyday hockey fans, and I was only using that as an example because this blue playing surface issue/ debate reminded me of the Cooperall issue from years ago. They looked even more silly than when the California Golden Seals came to the Aud in those white skates that Charlie Finley concocted.

BTW, have you seen the 'Broad Street Bullies' sports documentary on HBO? Saw it the other day, it was pretty good. It's on again tonight. The fog game in the Finals at the Aud between the Sabres & Flyers brought back memories

[hawk36]

Think this all goes to preventing Oregon from doing what we all know they would eventually do. A two tone uni that blends in with the grass in front (defense blends into grass) and is neon yellow in back (qb can see receivers a mile away as they are running routes).

[thespleenenator]

Think this all goes to preventing Oregon from doing what we all know they would eventually do. A two tone uni that blends in with the grass in front (defense blends into grass) and is neon yellow in back (qb can see receivers a mile away as they are running routes).

That's so stupid it might just work...

[lilgump]

I thought the ncaa created a rule that FBS teams are no longer allowed to have different colored turf, and that boise was grandfathered in? Thats why you havent seen it anywhere else except at lower division schools.

And Boise probably will look pretty sharp with blue on white pants, or blue on orange pants, or whatever they want to do.

Not saying I agree that the MWC did this, but a lot of teams like changing up their color combos, so boise can have fun with it!

[Guest]

I thought the ncaa created a rule that FBS teams are no longer allowed to have different colored turf, and that boise was grandfathered in? Thats why you havent seen it anywhere else except at lower division schools.

Nope, there is no such rule.

[dfwabel]

I thought the ncaa created a rule that FBS teams are no longer allowed to have different colored turf, and that boise was grandfathered in? Thats why you havent seen it anywhere else except at lower division schools.

And Boise probably will look pretty sharp with blue on white pants, or blue on orange pants, or whatever they want to do.

Not saying I agree that the MWC did this, but a lot of teams like changing up their color combos, so boise can have fun with it!

The NCAA has no rule concerning the color of the playing surface, except that all field dimension lines must be white.

[Lights Out]

Think this all goes to preventing Oregon from doing what we all know they would eventually do. A two tone uni that blends in with the grass in front (defense blends into grass) and is neon yellow in back (qb can see receivers a mile away as they are running routes).

That is absolutely brilliant. It would never be allowed, but brilliant nonetheless.

[Gothamite]

I'm saying that there is no practical reason why this rule has to be in place other than "it doesn't look good".

Which is a pretty good reason for such a rule.

If visibility is the issue, on the field or on television, then the conference has every right to require that its members adhere to basic standards.

[Gothamite]

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.

Sure does.

[Lights Out]

Like it or not, blue monochrome on the blue turf has become an iconic scene in college football, and it's been done since the mid-'90s, almost as long as the turf itself has been around. Sorry you can't accept that, but it's true.

[thespleenenator]

Like it or not, blue monochrome on the blue turf has become an iconic scene in college football, and it's been done since the mid-'90s, almost as long as the turf itself has been around. Sorry you can't accept that, but it's true.

Of all the people to be playing the tradition card, you're the guy who should do it the least.

Gothmite:

Which is a pretty good reason for such a rule.

No, that's a terrible reason for a rule. That's like a conference saying that no team can wear red because it makes player angry. Visibility is not an issue. Like I said, if this was that serious of a concern, it would have been dealt with a long time ago.

[IceCap]

Like it or not, blue monochrome on the blue turf has become an iconic scene in college football, and it's been done since the mid-'90s, almost as long as the turf itself has been around. Sorry you can't accept that, but it's true.

I find it interesting that the "blue on blue look is just as part of BSU's identity as the blue turf" argument is just coming up now. Any time the importance of the blue turf to Boise State's brand was brought up before people just mentioned the turf, and said nothing about the uniforms.

Since Mountain West is allowing Boise State to keep the blue turf it seems like the traditionally accepted centre of Boise State football's "brand" is safe. This "the blue on blue uniforms is just as important as the blue field" stuff is new to me, and it's interesting that it's come up here, in this topic.

As to Mountain West's "rights," they have the right to dictate such things as what uniforms will be worn when if they so choose. Just like the NFL has the right to dictate when alternate uniforms will be worn (which they have done or are in the process of doing). Just like the NHL had the right to mandate that whites be worn on the road and darks at home years ago. Leagues (which is what a NCAA conference is, more or less) have the authority on such matters. Considering Boise State was made aware of Mountain West's mandate before joining and agreed to it despite knowing it was coming, I see no room to complain.

[thespleenenator]

Like it or not, blue monochrome on the blue turf has become an iconic scene in college football, and it's been done since the mid-'90s, almost as long as the turf itself has been around. Sorry you can't accept that, but it's true.

I find it interesting that the "blue on blue look is just as part of BSU's identity as the blue turf" argument is just coming up now. Any time the importance of the blue turf to Boise State's brand was brought up before people just mentioned the turf, and said nothing about the uniforms.

Since Mountain West is allowing Boise State to keep the blue turf it seems like the traditionally accepted centre of Boise State football's "brand" is safe. This "the blue on blue uniforms is just as important as the blue field" stuff is new to me, and it's interesting that it's come up here, in this topic.

As to Mountain West's "rights," they have the right to dictate such things as what uniforms will be worn when if they so choose. Just like the NFL has the right to dictate when alternate uniforms will be worn (which they have done or are in the process of doing). Just like the NHL had the right to mandate that whites be worn on the road and darks at home years ago. Leagues (which is what a NCAA conference is, more or less) have the authority on such matters. Considering Boise State was made aware of Mountain West's mandate before joining and agreed to it despite knowing it was coming, I see no room to complain.

Honestly, I think this board and Boise Fans are the only people who actually care about this ruling. Is Boise upset that it has to do this? Yes. Do they think it's stupid? yes. Is it a reason not to join a conference? Hell no. And just because the MWC has the power to control what uniforms they wear, doesn't mean they should. It just seems like the rule is pointless.

[guest23]

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.

what about a rugby pitch?..all played on grass to my knowledge and the type of play is very similar...they all manage to play on grass all over the world pretty much year round.

[Gothamite]

Like it or not, blue monochrome on the blue turf has become an iconic scene in college football, and it's been done since the mid-'90s, almost as long as the turf itself has been around. Sorry you can't accept that, but it's true.

It's not about me (or whomever you were addressing this post to). It's about what the conference wants, for whatever reason. Please don't make these conversations personal.

[Lights Out]

Like it or not, blue monochrome on the blue turf has become an iconic scene in college football, and it's been done since the mid-'90s, almost as long as the turf itself has been around. Sorry you can't accept that, but it's true.

I find it interesting that the "blue on blue look is just as part of BSU's identity as the blue turf" argument is just coming up now. Any time the importance of the blue turf to Boise State's brand was brought up before people just mentioned the turf, and said nothing about the uniforms.

Since Mountain West is allowing Boise State to keep the blue turf it seems like the traditionally accepted centre of Boise State football's "brand" is safe. This "the blue on blue uniforms is just as important as the blue field" stuff is new to me, and it's interesting that it's come up here, in this topic.

Well, the monochrome uniforms weren't banned until now. They've been a part of the turf's mystique for a long time.

[NEW.ERA]

I'm surprised a bird hasn't flown right into Kellen Moore's helmet.