Well, I did say "Syracuse isn't the Yankees", which made you bite and tell me I'm a bad fan. It's hard to be reasonable when you tell me my opinion is wrong.
But anyways... I just don't see what the SU tradition has to do with the uniforms. The new ones are more intriguing, the players love them, recruits love them. If it were 2000, maybe people would have recognized a McNabb jersey. The fact of the matter is, while SU has tradition, their tradition isn't their uniform. It doesn't have to be. Let tradition be tradition and the uniforms be uniforms. They don't depend on each other. Oregon has created an identity with their uniforms. They've been pretty crazy the last 6-7 years. Coincidentally, in the same timespan, they've had 3 conference titles and 3 divisional titles. Before that? 2001, 2000, 1994. 3 in a 14 year span.
Kind of sounds like Syracuse pre-2008. Where Oregon rebranded, they found success. Cranking up on some of the creative aspects doesn't have to hurt tradition, it can really help re-establish it. Those 44 undershirts the team had a few years ago were fantastic. They honored the tradition of SU while adding a sleek look. Don't really see the problem there. It can be an opportunity to start anew, which SU Football has had to do since Robinson was fired. Some see it as an opportunity to propel, some see it as a slap in the face. I'm sure it can be successful both ways.
Oregon became a power because of gobs and gobs of money - not because of uniforms.
Oregon was never a bona fide football power until Nike and its millions came on board.
There was no Oregon football tradition. For an outlier program like Oregon the uniform gimmick was appropriate.
The same holds true for Rutgers. That program has nothing else to offer but gimmick.
Let me give you maybe the best example of what I am describing. My undergraduate school Indiana University has gone to the funky football uniforms complete with the all-white look and the silver helmets and the rest. The IU Basketball program, however, will not be making any change to its traditional uniforms. Why?
Because there is no IU Football tradition. The program has been a bad one for years and years.
The IU BB Program however is steeped in history and success. It would defy tradition if the IU BB uniforms, complete with the candy stripe warm up pants - were jettisoned.
The notion that uniforms have nothing to do with tradition just seems very inaccurate to me.
Try to convince the Michigan fan that the winged helmet has nothing to do with tradition.
A program with a proud tradition - like the SU Football tradition or the Yankee tradition or the IU BB tradition - does not need and should not rely on gimmicks like funky uniforms - that have nothing to do with the school or its tradition.
The new uniforms in my opinion are hardly intriguing. They look like one version of the Oklahoma State uniforms and the funky uniforms of other Nike programs - like the all white IU football look.
The kids may like them - what else are they supposed to say by the way - but the kids are more concerned with playing at an elite level with a winning program that will launch them into the pros.
And what is Shafer supposed to say?
He can't say anything because the decision to make the change was well up the executive ladder.
Sorry, but for me at least Syracuse University Football is the Yankees - frankly it's much more than the Yankees.
