Tuesday, September 07, 2010

'Number' problem with new Under Armour jerseys

Question: Which BC player is that in the picture below?



It looks like 19, Isaac Johnson, but I couldn't tell and watched dozens of times on ESPN3.com trying to confirm [UPDATE: Reader John M. swears it was CJ Jones]. I wasn't the only one who had problems. This quote is from BC Athletic Director Gene DeFilippo:


Many fans have contacted us about the new football jerseys, and I agree that the numbers were very difficult to read. We have been in touch with Under Armour and we are doing everything we can to get them altered in time for Saturday’s Kent State game.


BC's italics numbers have always been hard on the eyes but UA's new piping on the numbers have made it nearly impossible to tell players apart. Not a great start for our new apparel partner. Let's hope things get fixed quickly or this could be a long season for anyone trying to ID a BC player in the stands or on TV.

Labels: , ,

26 Comments:

At 4:45 PM, Blogger Matt said...

I've made this post several times before in hopes that it would spur a discussion that would reach the higher-ups: It's time to go back to the old uniforms: block numbers, block letters, and no names on the back. In other words, we should look like the schools whose programs we would like to emulate. Can you imagine Penn State, Notre Dame, Michigan, USC, Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska, or Oklahoma ever resorting to this kind of gimmicky nonsense?

Notwithstanding the fact that we've been around for a century, most people know very little about our program and see us as a gimmicky newcomer to the mainstage. Our uniforms do nothing to dispel the conventional wisdom.

If our school wants to establish a tradition, it should try to look traditional.

 
At 4:51 PM, Blogger Raj said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 4:52 PM, Blogger Raj said...

i personally would still like the names, but am not opposed to going back to block letters. While we are at it, move the BC logo on the front to either the neck or over one of the chests, not directly in the middle.

 
At 5:10 PM, Blogger Matt said...

it could be worse, we could look like Va. Tech did last night...

 
At 6:35 PM, Blogger dixieagle said...

You're right about Va. Tech; they looked as if they were dressed for Halloween. Those shoes were hideous.

 
At 7:44 PM, Blogger eagle1331 said...

I didn't like their numbers, but I liked everything else about their uniforms, especially the helmets. I thought Boise's helmets were pretty cool too, but their uniforms looked like nike just sewed together scrap pieces of gray, white, and blue fabric.

I had higher expectations for UA with our uniforms - I was hoping for either completely retro or a whole new look. I'm hoping its like Nike's plan with UCF. Stick to the basics this year not to bother anybody with a new brand and a new look, then go bold in the 2nd year..

 
At 9:54 PM, Blogger Old Heightsonian said...

Matt, very well said. I strongly agree with all your points. The issue of the italics and the whole "NFL-wannabe" look has come up many times, and I suspect a majority of BC fans / alums feel similarly. See these two recent t-shirt design entries from BC Interruption:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4921701276_3e008155d1.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4921701306_546d78c38d.jpg

 
At 10:07 PM, Blogger Erik said...

ATL- I would have said that was LeGrande.

I also had trouble reading the numbers but don't think the unis were ugly or need any drastic change. A little more real estate in the holes of the numbers might help a lot, or even just white numbers might be clearer.

 
At 10:32 PM, Blogger Matt said...

I've told this story before, but the overall ridiculousness of the BC's italicized typeface was best reflected when looking at the jersey of our former running back Horace Dodd. Because the letters are slanted and have no serifs, you can't tell the O's from the D's.

I was watching a BC game with a bunch of non-BC friends and when Dodd came on the screen, one of my buddies asked, "Dude, who's the clown on your team named 'Ooooooooooooo!'"

And don't even get me started on the "Angry Chicken" logo...

 
At 10:33 PM, Blogger harrow said...

has anyone seen this article?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dan_shaughnessy/09/06/northeast.college.football/

 
At 8:30 AM, Blogger mod10aeagle said...

That's a story only Shank Shaughnessy could write. Who else would have the audacity to cite his own employer's failure to cover college football as only an effect and no part of a cause? He is an assclown of the highest order. I'd bet real money that he only just heard of the Herzlich story last week and has never spoken to Mark himself.

Sure, there is time-worn truth of "the sky is blue" variety in what he says about Boston being a pro sports town -- in any given year we're blessed with contenders in any three of the four major sports. But the Globe's commitment to New England college sports is about as strong as my teenager's commitment to yard work.

 
At 10:31 AM, Blogger BC Lova said...

BCs uniforms are GORGEOUS with the exception of those brutal italic letters. Color scheme is lovely, the white on whites are amazing. If we could get regular numbers, like the above poster stated..We would have some of the best unis in the nation. Heres praying that Gene makes the impossible dream come true and we get --gasp -- real numbers that don't look like something a 12 year old designed custom in madden 04.

 
At 10:56 AM, Blogger mod34b said...

Harrow & Mod10 -- BCI posted a item on SI's rip on college sports in Boston a few days ago (lots of comments on this there).

 
At 11:26 AM, Blogger mod34b said...

oops.. bad link..

try THIS LINK

 
At 4:59 PM, Blogger mod10aeagle said...

Thanks 34b. It's all the same tired BS. I just find Shaughnessy so distasteful. His reporting is lazy and unoriginal, and his writing is fraught with tired references to 70s and 80s rock. I don't think a player, college or pro, in any sport has actually spoken to Shaughnessy in years. What quotes he does use in his "features" you'll find in the news story on the same topic -- he just pulls from the pool. It's hard to have any respect for the Globe as long as they continue to waste space on him. I guess I'd rather have him write one column dumping on BC football than actually covering the program on a regular basis, so there's something to be happy about.

 
At 7:42 PM, Blogger mod34b said...

Yeah, mod 10, Shaughnessy is in the twilight of his career (actually the sun set long ago) and he should have retired in the 1990s Pathetic article. Pathetic author.

Happily, as you note, he has no audience so who cares what trash he recycles.


BCI is a a good blog. The #2 BC sports blog, I would say, and gaining ground on #1.

 
At 9:55 PM, Blogger eagleboston said...

I am thoroughly embarrassed every time I go to a game at Alumni. Absolutely embarrassed. It is a horrific college football experience. One year, I went out for the NC State game and there was absolutely no interest in the game even though it was against our former coach. I guess when you experience a game day at a Big Ten or Big 12 stadium, most other stadiums are a step down. Believe it or not, Alumni was awesome back in the mid-80's. The tailgaiting was top-notch and the stadium was packed for every game. I don't know what has happened in 25 years, but it is sad.

Anyway, I'm going out for the Maryland game as I love my Eagles, fan support or not.

 
At 10:17 PM, Blogger BCDoubleEagle said...

"Believe it or not, Alumni was awesome back in the mid-80's. The tailgaiting was top-notch and the stadium was packed for every game. I don't know what has happened in 25 years, but it is sad."

Of course it was packed -- it only held 32,000 back then. It probably didn't hurt that the program had just returned to national relevance for the first time in 40 years (literally, 1982 was first bowl game in 40 years) and the only Heisman winner in school history was under center.

 
At 10:27 PM, Blogger Big Jack Krack said...

eagleboston:

In order to expand the stadium, BC sold out to the various neighborhood groups. Now, the tailgate situation is horrible (this equates to a bad gameday experience) - and it's tough to even get to the games. No street parking is ridiculous.

I have season tickets and parking on the Brighton Campus. I can't believe we are not allowed to tailgate - even a "picnic" tailgate on the Brighton Campus. The neighbors can't even see in there.

Bottom line, it's easier to watch the game on HD TV than to fight all of the restrictions.

Here's one story from last year. We stopped by a tailgate party on the level down from the roof deck in the garage behind St. Mary's. It was buffet style, and took a lot of work to set up. The participants provided a HD TV and the generator wasn't bothering anyone, as it was in the open air. Along came a Newton Firefighter and cited the owner for emitted something undesirable into the air. He made the gentleman close down his set-up - for which he paid $2000 for the privilege to tailgate there. I'm sure the firefighter's tires were flattened at some point later on, as he enjoyed what he was doing. His badge number was duly recorded.

GDF doesn't even realize that attendance was down at least 5,000 last year. While we might care about some ACC teams, we can't even sell out for Clemson - the team we have to beat to ever get to the ACCCG.

The ND game two years ago wasn't even well attended because it was a little rainy - what does that tell you. If BC ever slides back to a 500 team, Gene will have to step down, because the stadium will be empty. Her hasn't got a clue anyway.

20 - 25 years ago you could park anywhere, drive onto Shea for free or small money and have an enjoyable tailgate. Most fans were well behaved, and there were probably no more problems then as now. Yet we harass our own fans - it's a strange world.

 
At 10:39 PM, Blogger mod34b said...

Well said BJK.

One big reason for atmosphere change: drinking age went up and enforcement of alcohol laws taken seriously. (Boston cops at game really are a major buzz kill). Plus the school selling "partying" rights ($$$$ for parking spot to tailgate at before game) also ef'd up things

 
At 10:48 PM, Blogger eagleboston said...

Last year I went out and the game was on Halloween and the stadium was half-filled. The excuse was that it was Halloween. You would never, ever hear that as an excuse in the SEC or Big Ten. I don't know, it's just not a big-time college football experience and it is too bad that one of the top teams in the ACC cannot generate more interest. I don't know what more the football team can do as they put out a good product year after year ater year.

 
At 11:45 PM, Blogger mod34b said...

Answer is deceptively simple: more beer.

True

 
At 6:25 AM, Blogger BCDoubleEagle said...

There were also far less home games on campus back then. In '83 and '85, there were only three games at Alumni, and in '84 there were four games at Alumni. Back then, a game on campus was a rare treat. Now there are seven games at Alumni every year. Supply has gone up, while demand has not.

 
At 9:34 AM, Blogger Matt said...

I'd be in favor of going back to five home games and playing two hard non-conference games on the road with big payouts.

You'll never get Texas or A&M or Oklahoma or Florida or Georgia or LSU to do a "home and home" with BC because they have no reason to come to Boston...their recruiting base is in their own backyard. But that shouldn't stop us from going there, taking the big payday, and making a name for ourselves among the 2 and 3-star recruits who follow those teams but can't make those squads.

The fact is, poll rankings mean nothing in terms of the bowl game BC plays in. If we win the ACC, the Orange Bowl is forced to take us. If we don't, we wind up at a second-tier bowl. Shooting for a ten-win season every year by playing three creampuffs at home is futile if we could be bringing in more revenue by playing better-known programs on the road and making a name for ourselves.

And if it would create more "demand" for home games in Chestnut Hill, that's just icing on the cake.

 
At 10:45 AM, Blogger mod10aeagle said...

I think we need more right-wing nut jobs in the marketing department at BC. If those guys can sell Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Rand Paul, you know they could sell BC football.

 
At 1:39 PM, Blogger Justin said...

I don't think the italics are the problem, I think the numbers and letters became illegible when Reebok gave us this new "NFL Eagles" redesign and took away the black outline. Now our numbers are gold with a white outline... there's just not enough contrast between the two colors to make them stand out. The just look smudged. The same thing happens on our pants, where the white half of the stripe bleeds into the gold of the pants and is barely visible.

Personally I would love to go back to our previous incarnation. I thought the black highlights sharpened everything up, loved the stripeless pants (very collegiate), and the full eagle logo on the shoulders. Perfect.

Why did Reebok give us an exact duplicate of the NFL Eagles... right down to ripping off their eagle head logo?? Hopefully UA will do SOMETHING different in year 2.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home