OrangeTarheel
It’s time to kick names and take ass
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
- Messages
- 4,899
- Like
- 8,007
No haterade for me, I like them. Could use more orange. Get rid of all the white or blue striping and replace with orange.
No haterade for me, I like them. Could use more orange. Get rid of all the white or blue striping and replace with orange.
Don't like the Block S.
Reminds me of Michigan State and Stanford.
The true identity is the plain orange with the stripes.
Eh, that "true identity" was the helmet style for, what, 23 years? The block "S" has been on them for the past 15. I know the on-field success of the eras has been wildly different, but the look you describe doesn't have a ton of tenure over the current one.
When you wear a different uniform every game (as SU has this year), you lack an identity.
Add Orange face guards!Still not enough orange
We only started the block S with doc holly. It’s not our brand.Don't like the Block S.
Reminds me of Michigan State and Stanford.
The true identity is the plain orange with the stripes.
We only started the block S with doc holly. It’s not our brand.
Excuse me Mr. Trump, I need your expert advice...”Orange face paint. Orange socks.
Eh, that "true identity" was the helmet style for, what, 23 years? The block "S" has been on them for the past 15. I know the on-field success of the eras has been wildly different, but the look you describe doesn't have a ton of tenure over the current one.
The orange helmet with stripes was the helmet for 25 years.
The S was put on the helmet by Dr. Gross I believe in 2006.
When people watch The Express they must be so confused about the numbers on the helmet.
Maybe they think it's about the 2005 season.
OK, adjust what I said by a year or two. The point remains, the look you're advocating for was essentially an 80s/90s thing. Which is fine. But it wasn't the look in the 50s or 60s. Saying its the "true identity" is entirely subjective.
OK, adjust what I said by a year or two. The point remains, the look you're advocating for was essentially an 80s/90s thing. Which is fine. But it wasn't the look in the 50s or 60s. Saying its the "true identity" is entirely subjective.
I am advocating what was a 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s look.
That look became the national brand for the program during its longest sustained period of success.
That look became familiar to fans across the US with the advent of ESPN and substantial coverage of college football.
The look was great - it was first class.
In my opinion programs that maintain the classic look - Alabama, Auburn, USC, Iowa, Penn State - convey class and gravitas - they make a statement about what they are - solid, steady and confident.
The programs that do what we now do - present a different, contrived look every week - convey a desperate effort to be relevant and almost a lack of confidence.
Gimmick uniforms do not transform programs - they cheapen programs.
I want to be Alabama and USC. I don't want to be UCF or Oklahoma State or Texas Tech or some MAC school.
That's just how I feel about it.
I am advocating what was a 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s look.
That look became the national brand for the program during its longest sustained period of success.
That look became familiar to fans across the US with the advent of ESPN and substantial coverage of college football.
The look was great - it was first class.
In my opinion programs that maintain the classic look - Alabama, Auburn, USC, Iowa, Penn State - convey class and gravitas - they make a statement about what they are - solid, steady and confident.
The programs that do what we now do - present a different, contrived look every week - convey a desperate effort to be relevant and almost a lack of confidence.
Gimmick uniforms do not transform programs - they cheapen programs.
I want to be Alabama and USC. I don't want to be UCF or Oklahoma State or Texas Tech or some MAC school.
That's just how I feel about it.
I am advocating what was a 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s look.
That look became the national brand for the program during its longest sustained period of success.
That look became familiar to fans across the US with the advent of ESPN and substantial coverage of college football.
The look was great - it was first class.
In my opinion programs that maintain the classic look - Alabama, Auburn, USC, Iowa, Penn State - convey class and gravitas - they make a statement about what they are - solid, steady and confident.
The programs that do what we now do - present a different, contrived look every week - convey a desperate effort to be relevant and almost a lack of confidence.
Gimmick uniforms do not transform programs - they cheapen programs.
I want to be Alabama and USC. I don't want to be UCF or Oklahoma State or Texas Tech or some MAC school.
That's just how I feel about it.
Needless to say, you are entitled to your feelings.
These were Penn State's helmets last weekend:
View attachment 171173
Desperate, contrived Florida, who clearly lacks for football success, wore these:
View attachment 171175
I'm going to assume you thought the dress was white and goldHaha trust me - I'm a pretty big videophile. The orange "S" on midfield looks orange. The orange backdrop where they show the score looks orange. The uniforms look closer to red than orange for some reason. And it's not just on my TV. It doesn't bug me, it was more tongue in cheek, but I know I saw a few others mention it at times so I thought I'd make one of my typical poor attempts at humor.
Needless to say, you are entitled to your feelings.
These were Penn State's helmets last weekend:
View attachment 171173
Desperate, contrived Florida, who clearly lacks for football success, wore these:
View attachment 171175
Florida, OU, tOSU have different schemes. Somehow they've survived.
At least we have the right colors, piping, etc around the uni. People are freaked out about having orange that actually looks orange.