Bengals in all black in 2003

[BBTV]

I've always felt that a team known as the 'Bengals' should have orange jerseys with black stripes, not the other way around.

Has anyone ever seen a black Bengal Tiger? I've seen a rare white one with black stripes, but never a black one with orange stripes.

Sorry ... I don't like them in black ... I like the orange set.

But by that logic, that means the Bills should be in brown colored uniforms. Has anyone seen a blue Seahawk?

I'm fine with the Bengals in black because at least it is a color on the actual animal. And the fact they have an orange alt works for me too

Well first of all, was Buffalo Bill brown?

Second of all, the "are there navy bears? green eagles? blue lions?" argument doesn't hold here, because bengal tigers are orange and black, and the team does use orange and black. Since they're clearly trying to resemble their mascot, it doesn't make sense for them to be black-based.

See that's where you and I differ. The fact that they used the actual colors of the animal is enough for me. I don't need them to look 100% like them. I don't need them to be orange because the Bengal tiger is orange. It'd be nice but if they went orange, that means the entire jersey needs to have stripes to match the helmet and I don't want a team to look like real tigers on the field. I like it as is

We don't really differ, I'm just showing why I understand people's arguments that they should be orange based as opposed to black. The helmet is good enough for me, as I think that their old black jerseys were just fine. I prefer orange in the current jerseys, but that's just because of the design, not because I think that they should be orange.

The Steelers keep theirs because the players have consistently pleaded with the Rooney's to keep the grass, feels it gives them an edge.

I've heard the Steelers gets beat up and isn't the best, I hadn't heard that about the Eagles. I don't see why Pitt doesn't have their own stadium to play their games in.

The Eagles field is pretty bad by mid season, and even worse by the end. It drains much better than most though, so you don't get the mud issues like Pittsburgh's, and it's sand based which I've heard that the players like because it's soft even when the grass itself looks horrible.

The LFF field certainly looks terrible by the end of the year, especially when they host Army/Navy in addition to the other events. The owner has said no to turf all along (I think there's a soccer-hosting-related reason for that, as I don't take him for a purist.) I haven't heard any negativity from players (home or away) about it, but I would certainly understand if there were complaints.

[phutmasterflex]

I've always felt that a team known as the 'Bengals' should have orange jerseys with black stripes, not the other way around.

Has anyone ever seen a black Bengal Tiger? I've seen a rare white one with black stripes, but never a black one with orange stripes.

Sorry ... I don't like them in black ... I like the orange set.

But by that logic, that means the Bills should be in brown colored uniforms. Has anyone seen a blue Seahawk?

I'm fine with the Bengals in black because at least it is a color on the actual animal. And the fact they have an orange alt works for me too

Well first of all, was Buffalo Bill brown?

Second of all, the "are there navy bears? green eagles? blue lions?" argument doesn't hold here, because bengal tigers are orange and black, and the team does use orange and black. Since they're clearly trying to resemble their mascot, it doesn't make sense for them to be black-based.

See that's where you and I differ. The fact that they used the actual colors of the animal is enough for me. I don't need them to look 100% like them. I don't need them to be orange because the Bengal tiger is orange. It'd be nice but if they went orange, that means the entire jersey needs to have stripes to match the helmet and I don't want a team to look like real tigers on the field. I like it as is

We don't really differ, I'm just showing why I understand people's arguments that they should be orange based as opposed to black. The helmet is good enough for me, as I think that their old black jerseys were just fine. I prefer orange in the current jerseys, but that's just because of the design, not because I think that they should be orange.

You're right. The current set's shoulder design is too orange and doesn't match well with black. Orange jerseys balances it out so much better

[Ark]

Here's a case of monochrome done well. The thick tiger-stripe patterns give the black just enough contrast to not be overwhelming.

IMO, the orange stripes are so large that they aren't exactly monochrome.

[slapshot]

Washington and Baltimore are only 30 miles apart, so I don't see what difference that makes for the Ravens to of done away with their original grass.

The Steelers keep theirs because the players have consistently pleaded with the Rooney's to keep the grass, feels it gives them an edge.

I've heard the Steelers gets beat up and isn't the best, I hadn't heard that about the Eagles. I don't see why Pitt doesn't have their own stadium to play their games in. As far as I'm concerned with all the profits the NFL brings in, they should have natural grass in all stadiums except the retractable domes, like the Rams who I wish would move back to LA where they belong. (sorry Rams fans in St L)

Also .... Doesn't the new stadium in AZ have a surface that is wheeled outside of the stadium where they maintain it? If that's the case, I don't see why they didn't do that same technology with all the money spent on the new Met Life and Cowboys Stadiums. College and NFL clubs shouldn't ground-share. NFL is big-business and all teams should play on grass no matter the cost. (exception NO, ATL, ST L, DET, MIN) ........ (IMO)

The big soccer leagues in Europe and England don't allow artificial surfaces, yet they make it thru the very rainy and near-freezing and at times sub-freezing temperatures during winter. So does the English 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th tiers. Some of them even house rugby matches.

I should have clarified...Washington is further south than Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc.

PItt had its own stadium until 1999...it was demolished to make room for a new arena, and student housing. As far as I know, Heinz Field was build specifically for the Steelers and the Panthers.

As far as it goes for Baltimore, maybe the developers felt the stadium could host more events and do less damage to the field if it was turf rather than grass. They don't seem too worried about soccer games, since those matches end up going to Washington anyway.

Soccer doesn't do as much damage to a field as football does...the cleats are shorter, and the players are running more than in football. Rugby would be closer and probably do similar damage to a field that football does. But I'm not an expert, so I don't know how much use English stadiums get during soccer season besides from their primary tenants.

Arizona and Texas are much different climates than New York, and with two teams sharing that field, there's no way a grass field could be maintained very well.

[whitedawg22]

The big soccer leagues in Europe and England don't allow artificial surfaces, yet they make it thru the very rainy and near-freezing and at times sub-freezing temperatures during winter. So does the English 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th tiers. Some of them even house rugby matches.

Soccer doesn't feature 10 320-lb guys digging in and pushing each other on every play. Running around on a field doesn't damage it nearly as much as line play. While rugby scrums come closer to approximating American football line play, they occur far less frequently, the players are smaller, and they occur in more widely distributed areas on the field.

[4_tattoos]

I remember seeing them wear that combo. If you added orange socks and black shoes to that set it would have looked even better.