Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="NJCuse97, post: 1393132, member: 5058"] I think McNabb is looking at this through the lense of one person who wore it. I think he sees Ernie Davis on the same plain as Jackie Robinson. The number 42 has been retired baseball wide. I think to an extent there are honors that can be paid by MLB, like having that number in every stadium, or having everyone on both sides wear the number for a game in honor, that allow the significance of Jackie Robinson and that number to be remembered. That said, Mariano Rivera was not made to give it up until he was done playing, and that just happened. In addition, he is overlooking SU doesn't have the attention to cause that national retrospective honoring Davis the way MLB does, and you can't have everyone wear the number in honor either. All we have outside of letting it collect cobwebs in the corner of the Dome is to have someone wear it, to home and AWAY games and force the media to pay heed by having to talk about it. The biggest misstep in what I believe to be his thoughts (assuming thoughts in his head, not that fair of me) is the implication that only one person wore it. The mystique of the number is that it is bigger than the person wearing it. It has been worn by several great players. If we stopped after the first great, Ernie Davis would never have worn it because SU would have shelved it after Brown. Little, and Owens would not have worn it. His own teammate, Konrad might not have been his teammate. To me it is more like the Olympic flame. It is enduring and a link for all the games. It represents something, and is symbolically held and passed to each subsequent venue. The olympic flame was not forever doused after Jesse Owens exhibited his greatness under it. Others have made statements and had great performances under that flame. Ben Johnson didn't prevent or destroy the legacy of Roger Bannister, Usain Bolt, or Michael Johnson [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?