Boise State can't wear all-blue at home

[IceCap]

Like I said, that claim is new to me. I've always heard "the blue turf is part of Boise State's identity" not "the blue turf and blue monochrome uniforms are part of Boise State's identity."

Seeing as the blue turf is staying, I think people complaining about this is hurting Boise State's "brand" are overreacting. The centrepiece to the brand, the turf, is staying.

[Red Wolf]

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.

Yeah, like when Boise won the Fiesta Bowl while wearing orange pants all year.

[Mongoose]

Like I said, that claim is new to me. I've always heard "the blue turf is part of Boise State's identity" not "the blue turf and blue monochrome uniforms are part of Boise State's identity."

Seeing as the blue turf is staying, I think people complaining about this is hurting Boise State's "brand" are overreacting. The centrepiece to the brand, the turf, is staying.

The blue monochrome for Boise State isn't as big a part of their brand as the blue turf, however it is still a part of their brand seeing as they have been wearing the monochrome blue for quite a few years now. It would be kind of like if LSU was for some reason not allowed to wear yellow pants and yellow helmets with their white jersey. They would still keep the big part of their brand of wearing white jerseys at home, but they would lose their overall look that they are known for.

[Gothamite]

Like I said, that claim is new to me. I've always heard "the blue turf is part of Boise State's identity" not "the blue turf and blue monochrome uniforms are part of Boise State's identity."

Seeing as the blue turf is staying, I think people complaining about this is hurting Boise State's "brand" are overreacting. The centrepiece to the brand, the turf, is staying.

The blue monochrome for Boise State isn't as big a part of their brand as the blue turf, however it is still a part of their brand seeing as they have been wearing the monochrome blue for quite a few years now. It would be kind of like if LSU was for some reason not allowed to wear yellow pants and yellow helmets with their white jersey. They would still keep the big part of their brand of wearing white jerseys at home, but they would lose their overall look that they are known for.

And if that was important to LSU, they wouldn't give it up to join a new conference.

Obviously Boise State doesn't see the monochrome as essential to their branding.

[Red Wolf]

Like I said, that claim is new to me. I've always heard "the blue turf is part of Boise State's identity" not "the blue turf and blue monochrome uniforms are part of Boise State's identity."

Seeing as the blue turf is staying, I think people complaining about this is hurting Boise State's "brand" are overreacting. The centrepiece to the brand, the turf, is staying.

The blue monochrome for Boise State isn't as big a part of their brand as the blue turf, however it is still a part of their brand seeing as they have been wearing the monochrome blue for quite a few years now. It would be kind of like if LSU was for some reason not allowed to wear yellow pants and yellow helmets with their white jersey. They would still keep the big part of their brand of wearing white jerseys at home, but they would lose their overall look that they are known for.

Boise State wore orange pants the year they made a name for themselves winning the Fiesta Bowl. I don't think monochrome is really that big a part of their identity.

[Lights Out]

They've worn blue-on-orange a few times in the past few years, sure, but it's never looked good.

[Red Wolf]

They've worn blue-on-orange a few times in the past few years, sure, but it's never looked good.

Have they worn blue on orange since the switch to the most recent template? I know they wore orange pants with white jerseys against TCU in their reappearance in the Fiesta Bowl. But again, I don't think monochrome blue is a huge part of Boise's identity.

[Lights Out]

Unless I'm forgetting a game, they did not wear the blue/orange combo with the last template.

[Mingjai]

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.

I know many here assert that visibility is not an issue, while many others, myself included, find visibility a problem, even in HD. This was not a problem in the past with green uniforms on green surfaces is because, as I mentioned earlier, the human eye has almost twice the amount of cone cells that detect green-yellow than blue color wavelengths, allowing humans to differentiate shades of green better than any other color. While the ability to perceive shades of colors varys by individual, it's likely that there are a statistically significant amount of people who find difficulty distinguishing the blue field from the blue uniforms used by Boise State such that it creates a slight advantage to BSU. The MWC has determined that that advantage, however slight, is enough to create a rule forcing BSU to avoid the all-blue uniforms on their all-blue field.

The MWC is discriminating against Boise State because of their schools colors, but there is a physiological justification for create rules against monochrome blue uniforms on blue fields but not green uniforms on green fields. If we were using constitutional law standards of review to scrutinize the MWC's implemented rule in light of the stated goal of eliminating visibility problems and the physiological justification, I think the rule would stand up to at least intermediate scrutiny and probably strict scrutiny as well. The MWC could have outlawed the blue field, but it didn't. The MWC could have forced BSU to not any wear blue at all at home, but it didn't. Instead, the MWC only proscribed monochrome blue uniforms on the blue field, which is the less restrictive means achieving its stated goal.

[pcgd]

They've played football since 1932.

They've had blue turf since 1986.

And worn monocrome blue since what...2008? 2006? That's hardly a "brand" or "tradition."

I'll buy blue turf as part of their "brand" but monochrome uniforms are hardly engrained as "BOISE STATE FOOTBALL." The trend in general is really only been around for 10 years. It may be here for good but I kinda doubt it.

[thespleenenator]

Like I said, that claim is new to me. I've always heard "the blue turf is part of Boise State's identity" not "the blue turf and blue monochrome uniforms are part of Boise State's identity."

Seeing as the blue turf is staying, I think people complaining about this is hurting Boise State's "brand" are overreacting. The centrepiece to the brand, the turf, is staying.

The blue monochrome for Boise State isn't as big a part of their brand as the blue turf, however it is still a part of their brand seeing as they have been wearing the monochrome blue for quite a few years now. It would be kind of like if LSU was for some reason not allowed to wear yellow pants and yellow helmets with their white jersey. They would still keep the big part of their brand of wearing white jerseys at home, but they would lose their overall look that they are known for.

And if that was important to LSU, they wouldn't give it up to join a new conference.

Obviously Boise State doesn't see the monochrome as essential to their branding.

When your conference is collapsing, I don't think uniforms is that high on your priority list.

[rams80]

Like I said, that claim is new to me. I've always heard "the blue turf is part of Boise State's identity" not "the blue turf and blue monochrome uniforms are part of Boise State's identity."

Seeing as the blue turf is staying, I think people complaining about this is hurting Boise State's "brand" are overreacting. The centrepiece to the brand, the turf, is staying.

The blue monochrome for Boise State isn't as big a part of their brand as the blue turf, however it is still a part of their brand seeing as they have been wearing the monochrome blue for quite a few years now. It would be kind of like if LSU was for some reason not allowed to wear yellow pants and yellow helmets with their white jersey. They would still keep the big part of their brand of wearing white jerseys at home, but they would lose their overall look that they are known for.

And if that was important to LSU, they wouldn't give it up to join a new conference.

Obviously Boise State doesn't see the monochrome as essential to their branding.

When your conference is collapsing, I don't think uniforms is that high on your priority list.

The WAC's implosion was precipitated in large part by Boise bailing, not the other way around. Stop trotting that argument out.

[evanmaldonado]

Is it really that big of a deal? I don't think Boise really minds that they can now only wear blue with orange or white for MWC games only, and it's not like it looked good. Blue and Orange is a beautiful scheme, so why not utilize the orange more anyways?

[Lights Out]

The WAC's implosion was precipitated in large part by Boise bailing, not the other way around. Stop trotting that argument out.

No, the WAC's implosion was due to it being a weak conference overall due to Karl Benson's incompetence - too busy playing the blame game and pointing fingers to actually run a good conference. Did you honestly expect a perennial contender like Boise State to stay loyal to that :censored:hole?

[thespleenenator]

Like I said, that claim is new to me. I've always heard "the blue turf is part of Boise State's identity" not "the blue turf and blue monochrome uniforms are part of Boise State's identity."

Seeing as the blue turf is staying, I think people complaining about this is hurting Boise State's "brand" are overreacting. The centrepiece to the brand, the turf, is staying.

The blue monochrome for Boise State isn't as big a part of their brand as the blue turf, however it is still a part of their brand seeing as they have been wearing the monochrome blue for quite a few years now. It would be kind of like if LSU was for some reason not allowed to wear yellow pants and yellow helmets with their white jersey. They would still keep the big part of their brand of wearing white jerseys at home, but they would lose their overall look that they are known for.

And if that was important to LSU, they wouldn't give it up to join a new conference.

Obviously Boise State doesn't see the monochrome as essential to their branding.

When your conference is collapsing, I don't think uniforms is that high on your priority list.

The WAC's implosion was precipitated in large part by Boise bailing, not the other way around. Stop trotting that argument out.

Fresno, Nevada, and Hawaii were already considering as well. But yes, I will agree that Boise was the main reason that the WAC collapsed.

[Gothamite]

the WAC's implosion was due to it being a weak conference overall due to Karl Benson's incompetence - too busy playing the blame game and pointing fingers to actually run a good conference. Did you honestly expect a perennial contender like Boise State to stay loyal to that :censored:hole?

as a "perennial contender" with a pretty high national profile, Boise State was in a good position to negotiate a contract with their new conference. That they agreed to this tells us how important the monochrome really is to them.

[LetsGoOakland9]

The WAC's implosion was precipitated in large part by Boise bailing, not the other way around. Stop trotting that argument out.

No, the WAC's implosion was due to it being a weak conference overall due to Karl Benson's incompetence - too busy playing the blame game and pointing fingers to actually run a good conference. Did you honestly expect a perennial contender like Boise State to stay loyal to that :censored:hole?

Perennial contender for what?

[Lights Out]

The BCS - two BCS bowl wins in the past decade. Also, the media has started including them in the national championship conversation every year now. BSU had simply outgrown the WAC.

[dfwabel]

The WAC's implosion was precipitated in large part by Boise bailing, not the other way around. Stop trotting that argument out.

No, the WAC's implosion was due to it being a weak conference overall due to Karl Benson's incompetence - too busy playing the blame game and pointing fingers to actually run a good conference. Did you honestly expect a perennial contender like Boise State to stay loyal to that :censored:hole?

Benson has been the Commissioner since 1994, so he was able to expand to the 16 team conference. Benson took in Boise, and got TV contracts with ESPN. While the money is not that great, but they are a non-BCS conference.

You actually think that Craig Thompson has done better?

[LetsGoOakland9]

The BCS - two BCS bowl wins in the past decade. Also, the media has started including them in the national championship conversation every year now. BSU had simply outgrown the WAC.

the Mountain West isn't much of an upgrade, with two of the top 3 teams already gone and the other leaving next year