Broncos Defy Expectations, Choose White for Super Bowl

In case you haven’t heard, the Broncos announced last night that they’ll be wearing white jerseys in the Super Bowl.

As the designated home team, the Broncos had their choice of orange or white. Yesterday I said I found it “highly unlikely” that they’d choose to wear white, so I’m very surprised they’ve chosen to go this route. For one thing, according to the Gridiron Uniform Database, the Broncos have worn white at home only 10 times in their history (and seven of those were in 1971, when they wore white at home for the entire season). Granted, a Super Bowl isn’t a normal home game — you’re not in your regular city or your regular stadium, and you don’t have your usual home crowd — but there’s also this to consider: If you include the playoffs, the Broncos have gone 7-1 wearing orange this season.

But the Broncos are famously 0-4 wearing orange jerseys in Super Bowls (they’re 1-1 in white), so maybe the team — or, more likely, owner Pat Bowlen — decided to go with the superstition. And speaking of superstitions, teams wearing white have won 10 of the past 11 Super Bowls, so there’s that. (Denver wearing white also has the bonus effect of preventing the Panthers from wearing white, which had been their preferred color throughout the postseason, if you believe in that kind of thing. But according to this Q&A item by a Panthers beat writer, the Panthers are only partial toward white when they get to choose to wear it, and they had no choice in this game because they’re the road team. Are you following all of this?)

I know Denver fans love their orange, but I also know they’re haunted by those Super Bowl losses. So for any Broncos fans out there, speak up: What do you think of this move? Do you wish they’d stuck with the orange, or are you relieved they’re going with white? (For the purposes of this discussion, please do not say, “I’d prefer that they went with the navy alternates.” Thanks.)

According to Super Bowl minutiae specialist Jay Braiman, this marks the fifth time a designated Super Bowl home team has chosen to wear white. The previous four were:

Cowboys, SB XIII (lost to Steelers)
Washington, SB XVII (defeated Dolphins)
Cowboys, SB XXVII (defeated Bills)
Steelers, SB XL (defeated Seahawks)

Dallas and Washington routinely wore white at home during those periods (and Dallas still does, of course), so there was nothing unusual about them opting to wear white in the Supe. The Steelers entry is more interesting: They had worn white on the road throughout their postseason run and decided to stick with it in the Supe. So we could say that they were the first team to choose to wear their usual white road jersey in a Super Bowl, and now the Broncos are the second.

One asterisk to all of this: The Cowboys were the designated home team for Super Bowl V and wanted to wear white, but Super Bowl home teams were required to wear colored jerseys in those days, so Dallas wore blue and lost to the Colts. This was a key building block in the legend of the Cowboys’ blue-jersey curse.

And a quasi-asterisk: The Patriots wore white at home throughout the 1985 regular season, but then they were forced to wear red on the road in two of their three playoff games (the Jets chose to wear white at home in the wild card round and the Dolphins did likewise in the conference championship), so they chose to stick with red in Super Bowl XX, which they lost to the Bears. So the Pats would be another example of a team that chose to wear its usual road jersey in the big game — but in their case the usual road jersey was colored, not white.

Meanwhile: The Panthers will wear black jerseys. That news was about five nanoseconds old before people started asking me, “Could they wear the black jersey with the black pants?” Yeah, I guess they could — there’s no rule against it. I wouldn’t even put it past them. Hell, it’s the greatest uniform in NFL history, after all. Nope — they’re wearing the silver pants.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Lindsay Jones, who’s been covering the Broncos for nearly a decade (first for The Denver Post and now for USA Today) is just amazed — amazed, I tells ya — that people care about this crazy uniform shit:

Ah, the lonely cry of the benighted souls who Don’t Get Itâ„¢ — sort of quaint, no?

• • • • •

Numbers game: The Mets announced yesterday that they will retire Mike Piazza’s No. 31 on July 30. Piazza will become the fourth Met to have his number retired (the other three are Tom Seaver, Casey Stengel, and Gil Hodges), and only the second player.

Retiring Piazza’s number was a no-brainer once he gained Hall of Fame status earlier this month, but I was hoping the Mets would do something a bit more creative. Here’s the deal: 31 is a tricky number in Mets history, because John Franco also wore it. In fact, he wore 31 longer than Piazza did, and he willingly gave up 31 so Piazza could wear it when he joined the team. Franco then switched to No. 45 — a number also strongly associated with Tug McGraw. Obviously, Franco and McGraw weren’t Hall of Famers, but they were important parts of Mets history, and Franco was the team’s captain, complete with a big honking “C” on his jersey, for several years. I was hoping the Mets would retire both numbers (31 and 45) in honor of all three players (Piazza, Franco, McGraw). I understand why they’re not doing it that way, but I think it’s a missed opportunity to spread the love around a bit more.

•  •  •  •  •

Click to enlarge

Collector’s Corner
By Brinke Guthrie

Many of us had the classic soap-on-a-rope back in the day. In my case, it was a microphone soap, which led me to “broadcast” the Reds games in the shower, which in turn led me to a career in radio. This one from Avon (never used, of course) might very well have been the impetus for someone’s football career, who knows?

Now for the rest of the week’s picks:

• Nice logos on this set of 1970s MLB belt buckles. I would guess these are for kids, given their sizes.

• Miss the old Broncos logo? You’ll find it on this 1970s duffle bag.

• Doubtful the L.A. Rams will go back to the vintage logo shown on this decal, but we can dream, right? Always liked the “Rams” with “L.A.” on top, too.

• You just can’t beat the art from this early-1970s Chargers poster.

• NHL fans will want to take this 1960s-1970s beach towel with ’em when they hit the pool.

• The listing says this Kansas City Chiefs helmet might have been game-worn, with a No. 37 written inside. Gotta like the single-bar facemask, and that is one huge KC decal on the side, too.

• “Pete Rose of the Cincinnati Reds” recommends this Wiffle Ball! New, unused, still in box!

• Nice St. Louis Cardinals art on this 1969 Rawlings football ad. Minor quibble with the art direction, though: Linemen don’t wear single digits, ever.

• This 1960s Packers bobble is in great shape — not a mark on it, just a bit of the stripe missing. Usually when they are this old, the back edge of the helmet above the shoulders has lots of wear and tear from years of bobbling.

• These last two are from reader Jim Ransdell, beginning with a very cool 1970s NFL school binder.

• You know about the Reggie bar, but did you know NFL quarterback Boomer Esiason also had his own candy bar back in the 1990s? Might be best not to eat it now, though.

Follow Brinke on Twitter: @brinkeguthrie

• • • • •

PermaRec update: A letter from a company that makes chicken coops to a company that makes brooms and brushes is the basis for the latest entry on Permanent Record.

• • • • •

LAST CALL for the Second Chance Shop: Today is the final day of operation for our Second Chance Shop, where we’re offering all of the 2015 Uni Watch T-Shirt Club designs (including a modified version of the tequila sunrise shirt, shown at right). There will be no third chance, so if you want any of these shirts, get them now.

• • • • •

The Ticker
By Mike Chamernik

Baseball News: The Red Sox’s Brock Holt gave up his No. 26 so the team can retire it for Wade Boggs. Surprising that Boston kept the number in circulation instead of unofficially retiring it (from Brinke). … The Diamondbacks announced the dates when they’ll wear their throwbacks this season (from Phil). … Bryce Harper has an “MVP” pattern in his suit jacket lining (from Tommy Turner). … Todd Radom designed a new league champions logo for the Mets (from Phil). … The 1941 Anaheim Aces’ hats were pretty darn cool (from Phil). … If the Brewers had moved from Seattle a bit sooner, instead of days before the start of the 1970 season, their colors might have been navy blue and red. … Tacoma Rainiers broadcaster Mike Curto stumbled upon a PCL mini-museum in Oakland (from Kenny Ocker). … The Frisco RoughRiders have plans for a lazy river just beyond their right field fence at their ballpark. … New uniforms for Edgewood College. … New 25th-season red jersey for the Chiba Lotte Marines (from Jeremy Brahm). … A documentary about the Expos will air tonight on the MLB Network (thanks, Brinke).

NFL News: Looks like the Lions will have an alternate jersey next year (from Phil). … Panthers TE Greg Olsen is selling a cartoony retro-inspired Super Bowl T-shirt. The money raised will go to charity (from Brinke). … Panthers RB Mike Tolbert has slices in the hem of his jersey in order to accommodate his girth. … I think we’ve seen many (all?) of these before, but here’s a gallery of NFL-NBA logo mashups (from Robert Novo). … This old photo collection contains shots of Bills cheerleaders and a Bills helmet cart. It’s always delighted me that the cheer squad is known as the Jills (from Bill Kellick). … Scott Lederer noticed that something is a little bit off about Peyton Manning’s jersey. “The 1 seems to have a noticeably bolder blue outline than the 8,” he says. “At first I thought it was just my eyes playing tricks on me, but every picture and video I see from every angle seems to show the same thing. And now that I’ve seen it, I can’t unsee it.” … Reprinted from last night’s comments: Here’s former Eagles coach Dick Vermeil talking about how he had the Eagles wear white in the 1980 NFC championship game in order to make the Cowboys wear blue (from riblet).

Hockey News: The Canucks will wear these throwbacks on Feb. 13. Here’s another look, plus a few shots of Ryan Miller’s throwback goalie gear. … Hamilton College, Phil’s alma mater, hosted a Pink the Rink game. … During the KHL all-star festivities, a player attempted a trick shot with a flaming stick.

Basketball News: The score bug on TNT NBA telecasts has changed quite a bit over the years. … For those hoop-heads who skip over the NFL section on Uni Watch: Here’s a gallery of NFL-NBA logo mashups (from Robert Novo). … Kansas and Iowa State went blue vs. gold last night. … This is odd: Bucknell is known as the Bison (singular), but the team had “Bisons” (plural) on its jerseys last night. … The girls’ team at Classen High School in Oklahoma wears jerseys with just a number on the front — no team name or school name.

Soccer News: New primary jersey for the Chicago Fire (from Phillip Foose). … The Portland Timbers, the defending MLS Cup winners, will have a championship star above their crests on their uniforms (from Phil). … Columbia, the sportswear company, will make outdoor apparel for Manchester United (from Tommy Turner). … Aston Villa is inking a new deal with Under Armour (from Patrick Thomas). … New kits for the L.A. Galaxy, NYCFC, the Urawa Red Diamonds, the Kashima Antlers, and Ethiopia (a real doozy).

Grab Bag: New uniforms for Jamestown football (from Steve Linzmeier). … Here’s a look at how the Australian Open is handling the players’ laundry. … JD Director found a picture of a very dapper curling team from the 1890s. … Bruce Strang found a 1941 photo of his father’s rugby team at the Goodacres School, Glenalmond College, in Perth, Scotland. What’s notable is that a few players have the Star of David on their chests, and a few are also wearing hats. Bruce has been trying to find out more, but to no avail. … New livery in the works for Alaska Airlines (from @thA_Pandabear).

141 comments to Broncos Defy Expectations, Choose White for Super Bowl

  • BurghFan | January 26, 2016 at 7:25 am |

    Proofreading:

    “Speaking of Los Angeles and its football team(s), the Chargers may end p”

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 7:28 am |

      Fixed.

  • Brian | January 26, 2016 at 7:25 am |

    I like that the Mets are so selective with retired numbers. Fact is, thanks to M Donald Grant, there is no “legendary career Met,” so to date they’ve retired Hall of Famers who were primarily Mets. I’d expect longevity to carry #5, though.

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 7:30 am |

      As lifelong Mets fans, Phil and I talk about this a lot.

      I also like that they’re selective. But I wish they had retired No. 7 for Ed Kranepool, who at the time of his retirement in 1979 had appeared in each of the franchise’s first 18 seasons — a very special record. Obviously, he wasn’t an upper-echelon player, but he had a special place in team history.

      • Tim | January 26, 2016 at 10:44 am |

        The Mets should retire #2 for Marv Throneberry…secondarily for Bobby Valentine :-p

      • Eltee of DC | January 26, 2016 at 10:46 am |

        Retiring numbers for attendance… holy gold stars!

        Well, the LA Angels of south of the county border retired number 50 for Jimmie Reese, Fungo hitter and coach. Additionally they retired original owner Gene Autry’s number (26 – They had to assign him a number to retire it because, well Angels).

        Good ol’ Jimmie was a good man, and the puniest strength coach MLB ever had.

        Do you think the METS will retire the Wilponzi’s name/number?

        • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 11:30 am |

          Retiring numbers for attendance… holy gold stars!

          Not “for attendance.” For being a longstanding connection to the franchise’s inception. Kranepol wasn’t just the last original Met at the time of his retirement in 1979 — he was already the last original Met by 1968 (or something like that)! Yes, that counts for something. At least to me.

      • Tim | January 27, 2016 at 1:01 am |

        I’m with ya. I think Kranepool and 7 would be a great uni retirement.

  • Phantom Dreamer | January 26, 2016 at 7:43 am |

    The new colors for the Seattle based Alaska Airlines hopefully means the Mariners can switch back to royal blue and gold again full-time. They have had a similar color scheme for about the same time.

    • DJ | January 26, 2016 at 8:07 am |

      That’s not gold on the Alaska Airlines livery; it looks more like lime green.

      • Phantom Dreamer | January 26, 2016 at 8:27 am |

        I was referring to the Mariners’ previous color scheme. Maybe with Alaska Airlines not utilizing navy and teal anymore, the Mariners would be motivated to switch back to their original color scheme. It seems they both utilized navy and teal sometime in late 1992 IIRC.

        • DJ | January 26, 2016 at 8:33 am |

          You and your blue-and-gold fixation. I’m surprised you didn’t throw in a pullover reference.

          Navy, “northwest green,” and silver have significant history with the Mariners. They’re not about to drop them to go exclusively to colors that have less success.

        • Andrew Harrington | January 26, 2016 at 10:45 am |

          Also, why would the actions of Alaska Airlines have any bearing whatsoever on a Major League Baseball team’s identity?

    • Phantom Dreamer | January 26, 2016 at 9:48 pm |

      Last time I checked the Mariners, with navy and teal, have the longest playoff drought in baseball and like I said both the Mariners and Alaska Airlines adopted navy and teal around the same time and their charter was an Alaska Airlines jet.

  • William Young | January 26, 2016 at 8:08 am |

    The Broncos decision to wear white is a very good one, but it most likely did not come from Pat Bowlen, who suffers from Alzheimer’s. It feels like an Elway thing.

    With Cam Newton having just referred to Peyton Manning as “the Sheriff” and the Panthers wearing their daunting black unis, the iconography of the game now takes on an added John Ford Western dimension. The NFL pitchmeisters will come up with a plan to coin money off of that, either subliminally, directly, or both. Need to tread carefully there so the narrative doesn’t villianize the Panthers or allow any sort of racial interpretation. There are too many people out there who would only need the slightest perceived hint of encouragement to take it into that area.

    Are Carolina’s blue uniforms now officially their alternates rather than their principal color sets?

    • DJ | January 26, 2016 at 8:24 am |

      Carolina never wore blue as a primary; only as an alternate.

      • arrScott | January 26, 2016 at 11:22 am |

        And what a shame that is. Denver in white versus Carolina in blue-over-gray would be the best possible color matchup between these teams, and a surprisingly good-looking Super Bowl considering the participants.

  • John | January 26, 2016 at 8:08 am |

    I remember the Eagles wore their green jerseys in 1981 to prevent Oakland from wearing black. That didn’t work out too well.

    • DJ | January 26, 2016 at 8:30 am |

      The Eagles were the home team in Super Bowl XV (NFL/NFC is the home team in odd-numbered Super Bowls). So it was more of a “home team wears normal home uniform thing.”

      Perhaps you’re thinking of the Eagles wearing white while hosting the earlier NFC Championship game, forcing the Cowboys into wearing blue.

  • DenverGregg | January 26, 2016 at 8:14 am |

    A few observations about the Broncos going with the white duds in February:

    1. not only is the Broncos’ SB record better in white, so is Peyton Manning’s (1-0 in white, 0-2 otherwise);

    2. the likely black over silver combo for the Panthers in a NoCal game could be a bit of a jab at the Raiders;

    3. since John Elway’s last game as a player was a SB win in white vs. an NFC team from the southeast, could this be a signal to Manning that it should be his last grasp at the ring?

    4. lots of local fans have orange jerseys, many have blue alt jerseys, very few have white – this could have been pushed by the marketing folks.

    I’m not particularly pleased about the white jersey choice. Even leaving aside the facile “team with white qb in white vs. team with black qb in black” storyline that will be beaten into the ground, the white set is just a boring look and orange is the color the fanbase generally prefers.

    • Andrew L. | January 26, 2016 at 11:30 am |

      As far as the marketing, right now NFL Shop has a number of orange and even blue jerseys with the Super Bowl patch for sale, but Manning is the only white one. Maybe they’ll add more between now and the game though.

      • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 11:33 am |

        Who cares what slop they’re selling? Let’s please keep the discussion on what the players are wearing, not the endless parade of overpriced polyester shirts. Thanks.

        • Doolin | January 27, 2016 at 6:53 am |

          Why do you care if people like and pay for what you consider to be over-priced polyester shirts? How is it any different than over-priced polyester baseball socks?

        • Paul Lukas | January 27, 2016 at 7:07 am |

          Because, as I have written many, many times before, I think jersey sales are bad for the uni-verse, for reasons that include but are not limited to the following:

          1) Jersey sales drive bad design.

          2) Jersey sales create the false impression that one must be a good consumer in order to be a good fan.

          3) Jersey sales lead to groupthink.

          4) Jersey sales lead to asinine behavior.

          5) Jersey sales tend to divide fans along generational lines (because younger fans buy jerseys while older ones do not).

          And so on.

        • Harrison Hamm | January 27, 2016 at 7:23 am |

          There is some truth to what you are saying, but don’t tell me you’ve never bought clothes for that price.

        • Paul Lukas | January 27, 2016 at 7:35 am |

          I have literally never bought a pro or college sports team jersey (or cap, for that matter).

          Why do you find that so hard to believe?

  • Dumb Guy | January 26, 2016 at 8:14 am |

    NFL school binder….

    Another example of seemingly random arrangement of logos/helmets. They are not by division (except the far left top 5), or alphabetically by city or team name.

    This always puzzles me.

    • Matthew Radican | January 26, 2016 at 9:18 am |

      I always thought they did that to spread out the white helmets.

  • Brett Pasternack | January 26, 2016 at 8:14 am |

    I dig those Anaheim Aces caps, too. But it seems most odd to me that they chose the ace of hearts and not, I don’t know, the ace of *diamonds*!

  • Dumb Guy | January 26, 2016 at 8:16 am |

    Am I the only one that thinks the guy with the ball in the Chargers poster looks like Johnny U.?

    • MEANS | January 26, 2016 at 8:48 am |

      Well he did play for them.

      • Dumb Guy | January 26, 2016 at 8:54 am |

        I understand that. It just seems an odd “model” choice for a guy running the ball as opposed to passing.

    • scottrj | January 26, 2016 at 10:31 am |

      That poster is copyrighted 1972, and the Colts didn’t trade Unitas to San Diego until January 1973. So any resemblance is purely coincidental.
      http://fs64sports.blogspot.com/2010/01/1973-colts-trade-johnny-unitas-to.html

      • Mike Engle | January 26, 2016 at 11:16 am |

        Or, maybe it was intentional in order to get around common law trademarks. I own a Habs poster that has a skater that looks so incredibly much like Serge Savard, except the number is 16 and not 18 so it’s “obviously not” Savard. Or else, Nike Basketball had an ad with “Anthony Davis” as the “subject,” but he was photoshopped to wear a brand new uniform by Nike, and modeled as a player for some school that was not Kentucky.
        Point is, that’s a San Diego Chargers poster, so you have to go a little bit out of the way to make sure you’re not making a poster of the player at the same time, because you would have needed his permission (which likely means money) to do that. For the purposes of the 70’s, putting the famous #19 out of position and in a jersey number of a completely different team that looks like it ends in a 2 will almost certainly defeat the presumption that that’s Johnny Unitas in the poster in any way. It’s a Chargers poster, and absolutely nothing more. But of course, just to be safe, you can intentionally obscure the faces to make it even more artsy.

      • Dumb Guy | January 26, 2016 at 12:24 pm |

        I guess the Colts poster from the same year has the REAL Johnny U.!

        http://fleersticker.blogspot.com/2011/10/1972-stancraft-nfl-posters-by-george.html

      • Dumb Guy | January 26, 2016 at 2:02 pm |

        The Colts poster from the same year show the REAL Johnny U.!!

        http://fleersticker.blogspot.com/2011/10/1972-stancraft-nfl-posters-by-george.html

  • Lindy | January 26, 2016 at 8:17 am |

    Why not retire Piazza’s 31 on the 31st, gah!

    • Bob | January 26, 2016 at 9:13 am |

      July 31st is a Sunday, possible that the Mets and SNY didn’t want to run the risk of ESPN stealing the game for Sunday Night Baseball.

    • Mike Engle | January 26, 2016 at 11:21 am |

      Yeah I know, I’m a sucker for symbolic numerology too. The Habs had a string where they were really good at doing that.
      Serge Savard’s #18 was retired on Nov. 18, 2006
      Ken Dryden #29 Jan. 29, 2007
      Larry Robinson #19 Nov. 19, 2007
      Bob Gainey #23 Feb. 23, 2007
      Patrick Roy #33 Nov. 22, 2008 (get it? 11+22=33)
      Then the centennial happened, so they retired two old numbers for the occasion, and finally Guy Lapointe got his day whenever the Minnesota Wild just happened to be in the building because he works for the Wild.

  • Will Hamar | January 26, 2016 at 8:18 am |

    Is that a grammatically error on the Piaza story? It says he’s the 4th met, and only the second….??? Trais off there

  • Will Hamar | January 26, 2016 at 8:19 am |

    Nevermind, must’ve been fixed before my comment went through, I see now.

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 8:22 am |

      I didn’t fix or change anything.

  • Sam T. | January 26, 2016 at 8:30 am |

    When the Mets put Piazza’s number on the outfield wall should they use the black version of it since that’s what Piazza wore during his entire career as a Met?

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 8:35 am |

      Not sure what you mean by “the black version.” Do you mean the number should have a black drop-shadow? Do you mean it should be on a black background, to look like a black jersey?

      FWIW: When Piazza joined the Mets in 1998, the home pinstriped jersey did not yet have the black drop shadow. It was added to that jersey the following year.

    • Steve D | January 26, 2016 at 9:17 am |

      Interesting question. I don’t think that detail matters to them. For years the numbers on the wall HAD black drop-shadows for 37, 14 and 41, though none of those ever wore any black element, as black is not supposed to be a Mets team color. They took the black off the wall numbers couple of years ago.

      As for Paul’s idea of retiring 45 as well, that never dawned on me. I like it for originality, but it would be “highly unlikely” and of course would open a giant can of worms as they would then seriously have to consider retiring 36 for Koosman, 8 for Carter, 17 for Hernandez, 16 for Gooden, 18 for Straw…

    • RicoRicky | January 26, 2016 at 6:58 pm |

      I am not sure how many times the Mets wore the Black Jersey when Piazza was there, or if he had a lot of big moments wearing it. For some reason, that’s the way I remember him.

  • KC | January 26, 2016 at 8:47 am |

    “Ah, the lonely cry on the benighted souls who Don’t Get Itâ„¢”

    of, instead of on, maybe?

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 8:51 am |

      Yes, thanks. Fixed.

  • Omar Jalife | January 26, 2016 at 8:50 am |

    Broncos fan here. I don’t care about superstitions but if choosing a white jersey takes one thing off from the players’ minds, I’m OK with it.
    Personally, I prefer orange given that it is the team’s primary color, even with the four losses attached to it.

  • Ferdinand Cesarano | January 26, 2016 at 8:55 am |

    Paul, please note that our local MLS team is NYCFC, not NYFC.

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 8:57 am |

      Duly noted, and fixed.

      • Chance Michaels | January 26, 2016 at 10:28 am |

        Have to get you guys out for a game at Yankee Stadium.

        Might be easier now that they’ve dropped the BFBS change kit.

  • Dumb Guy | January 26, 2016 at 8:56 am |

    I think I remember Joe Gibbs saying the reason he started the ‘Skins wearing white at home was so the fans could the other teams colors more often.

    I think it was so the Cowboys would have to wear blue against them at least once a year.

  • CAB | January 26, 2016 at 9:08 am |

    If Carolina goes black over black it would be the first time we’ve ever seen that in a Super Bowl. (Interesting given how often we see it in the NFL these days.)

    They’d be only the second team to ever wear a non-white matching pants and jersey. The other was Seattle, both at XL and XLIX

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 9:15 am |

      If Carolina goes black over black it would be the first time we’ve ever seen that in a Super Bowl. (Interesting given how often we see it in the NFL these days.)

      We “often” see black over black in the NFL these days??

      If you meant that we often see mono-colored uniforms in the NFL, yes we do. But we’ve already seen that in the Super Bowl, thanks to the Seahawks.

      • The Jeff | January 26, 2016 at 9:28 am |

        We “often” see black over black in the NFL these days??

        Saints, Bengals, Jaguars, Ravens, Panthers, Eagles, 49ers… I’d say it’s not uncommon.

        • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 9:31 am |

          Eh, fair enough. Good point!

  • Johnny Bacardi | January 26, 2016 at 9:10 am |

    Perhaps that’s the St. Louis quarterback, chasing his fumble from a botched snap, in that ad.

    • Tom | January 26, 2016 at 9:32 pm |

      That was similar to my thought. I don’t know what made him think it was a lineman with the single digit jersey.

  • Nick | January 26, 2016 at 9:34 am |

    The Steelers also opted for white as the home team for Super Bowl XLV

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 9:49 am |

      Incorrect. The Steelers didn’t opt for anything, because they were the road team for that game.

      • MTS | January 26, 2016 at 11:42 am |

        Easy rule of thumb: in odd numbered SuperBowls the NFC team has the uni option, AFC team has the choice in even numbered. Its the same for the year the game is played-this Super Bowl 50 will be played in January of 2016, 2016 is an even number so the AFC team picks. Next year, 2017, NFC champ will choose.

        • umplou | January 26, 2016 at 8:23 pm |

          It’s interesting – the first IV SBs between the two leagues, if one is to believe this, the ‘home’ teams – Packers, Raiders, Colts and Chiefs all followed form and wore their natural home tops.

          Then,in SB V, which was Colts (now an AFC team)and Cowboys, Dallas wore the dreaded blue tops and the Colts white. Certainly that was a Colts choice. Then in VI, the Cowboys wore their white tops, and the Dolphins wore aqua. After those two games, the form follows all the way down. Wonder what happened – did they decide with the merger to mix it up?

        • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 8:33 pm |

          Then,in SB V, which was Colts (now an AFC team)and Cowboys, Dallas wore the dreaded blue tops and the Colts white. Certainly that was a Colts choice.

          No, it was nobody’s choice, because no choice was permitted. As you can see if you go back and re-read the pertinent section of today’s lede, the Cowboys (who were the home team) wanted to wear white in SB V, but in those days the league mandated that the Super Bowl home team had to wear its colored jersey.

          Not positive when they changed that rule and let the home team choose.

    • Daniel | January 26, 2016 at 5:59 pm |

      Nick is partially correct. The steelers did choose to wear white at a super bowl, but it was super bowl xl and not xlv.

  • Toddro | January 26, 2016 at 9:45 am |

    The Bucknell jerseys are throwbacks to 1976

    “Bucknell’s game outfits will replicate the team’s 1976 uniforms, complete with “Bisons” across the chest, as the school’s teams were known back in that era.”

    ‘Ray Bucknell!

    http://www.bucknellbison.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=209742641

    • Toddro | January 26, 2016 at 9:46 am |

      Also, bison is both the plural and singular form of the noun.

  • Joey W | January 26, 2016 at 9:59 am |

    Kinda looks like the Cardinal in that ad was supposed to be future HOFer Larry Wilson with the jersey #8, although I can’t recall him having worn that face mask.

  • Doolin | January 26, 2016 at 10:02 am |

    I look at it the other way… Denver 0-4 in Orange and white jerseys 10-1 in the last 11 Super Bowls, the team wearing the color jerseys way OVER DUE, including Denver wearing Orange.

    BTW, could they have opted for Blue? They’re 1-0 in Blue in the Super Bowl.

  • Doolin | January 26, 2016 at 10:04 am |

    As a fan, I would have LOVED, LOVED, LOVED to have saw Denver in Orange and Carolina in the Blue. Color on Color but a NICE color on color!

    • Ketih S. | January 26, 2016 at 4:00 pm |

      If there was ever a game to do it, this would have been a perfect chance. Neither color contrasts the other. Would have been awesome!

  • Alec | January 26, 2016 at 10:16 am |

    Wade Boggs left the Sox on bad terms, as most Sox alumni do.

  • Alex | January 26, 2016 at 10:21 am |

    The NBA/NFL mashup hasn’t been updated, Still has STL with OKC instead of LA with the interesting decision of choosing LAL (the “established majority” team) or the LAC (because they’re the young team on the block again)

  • Perry | January 26, 2016 at 10:24 am |

    Pretty sure it was Elway who decided on the Broncos wearing white, possibly in consultation with Coach Kubiak and maybe even the players. Pat Bowlen is afflicted with Alzheimer’s and didn’t even make an appearance at the AFC championship game; his wife accepted the trophy.

  • Kurt | January 26, 2016 at 10:30 am |

    In 2003 Broncos ‘accidentally’ brought white to San Diego for Week 2 game, the Chargers had opted to wear white as they do for most September games, and had to scramble to wear the navy duds in Santa Ana heat. Typical Shanahan gamesmanship.

    Broncos fined and for additional ‘punishment’ Chargers got to wear home blues for November game in Mile High, Broncos kicked their butts just the same.

    • SRP91 | January 26, 2016 at 5:57 pm |

      Didn’t see this and posted the same below. If I’m not mistaken I believe they held the Chargers to just over 100 offensive yards that game.

  • Chance Michaels | January 26, 2016 at 10:30 am |

    “Doubtful the L.A. Rams will go back to the vintage logo shown on this decal, but we can dream, right? Always liked the “Rams” with “L.A.” on top, too.”

    I never liked the “skull” logo, but that LA Rams wordmark is a thing of beauty. Simple, but distinctive.

    • arrScott | January 26, 2016 at 11:26 am |

      Simple, distinctive, and it seems to me to be nicely expressive of LA. Somehow those floating letters with the thick and italic sans-serif forms just looks very SoCal to me. A nice mark.

      • Winter | January 26, 2016 at 2:09 pm |

        Between the LAX sign and the Hollywood sign, it’s a fairly common SoCal sight.

    • Mike Engle | January 26, 2016 at 11:52 am |

      Yeah…no, old logos tend to stay in the past. If an old logo proves to be popular, then leagues are not fond of letting the old logo come back, because that would cannibalize the throwbacks department. If you can squeeze enough money out of the purchasers, why not have a current logo to be “up to date” and the old logo that you might have grown up with?
      Sometimes, the business stinks.

  • Perry | January 26, 2016 at 10:33 am |

    “Nice St. Louis Cardinals art on this 1969 Rawlings football ad. Minor quibble with the art direction, though: Linemen don’t wear single digits, ever.”

    Don’t think it’s meant to be a lineman; it’s meant to be HOF-er Larry Wilson, albeit in an odd posture for a safety.

    • mild bill | January 26, 2016 at 12:30 pm |

      I agree. Is he supposed to be recovering a fumble?

      Interesting to note the Cardinal player wearing white at Busch Stadium. I recall them doing that whenever Dallas visited, just like all of the other NFC East teams.

  • JTH | January 26, 2016 at 10:41 am |

    Funny. I misread that ticker item as “a very dapper curling team from the 1980s.”

    Yeah, I wasn’t expecting to see this pic when I clicked the link.

  • marc | January 26, 2016 at 10:56 am |

    Re: The Boomer Esiason candy bar: I recalled there was a Bernie Kosar bar here in Cleveland. From the design of the wrapper design, it looks like he and Boomer shared a manufacturer:

    http://www.ebay.ca/itm/1989-Bernie-Kosar-Cleveland-Browns-Candy-Bar-Wrapper-Has-Fan-Club-Info-/221963917667?hash=item33ae149963:g:4vcAAOSwxN5WZ-hQ

    This made me wonder if more Quarterback Club members were in the candy business. Sure enough, from the same maker (apparently) there’s Jim Kelly and Dan Marino bars:

    http://history.buffalonews.com/2015/08/19/aug-19-1990-bells-markets-puts-kelly-krunch-bars-sale/

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/DAN-MARINO-VERY-RARE-REAL-CHOCOLATE-CANDY-BAR-W-EMBOSSED-SIGNATURE-/221977711212

    Another QB Club member – Randall Cunningham – had his own bar as well, but it has a different look and a likely different maker:

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/Philadelphia-Eagles-THE-RANDALL-BAR-scrambled-Cunningham-candy-bar-wrapper-/201386917891

    As for the other original Quarterback Club members, I couldn’t find any evidence in my exhaustive five minute Google research of candy bars named for John Elway, Warren Moon, Bubby Brister, Troy Aikman, Jim Everett, Phil Simms and Steve Young.

    Was wondering why Kosar, Esiason, Kelly and Marino all had similar products while the others were either dissimilar or non-existent. Perhaps the fact all four played in or were originally from the Ohio and Western PA area? Good stuff, though. Makes me wanna go down to the vending machine and grab a candy bar.

  • JTH | January 26, 2016 at 11:01 am |

    So I generally hate when football teams wear white jerseys with non-white pants that are a different color from the helmet but I would love to see the Broncos break out some orange pants for this occasion.

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 11:31 am |

      Unveiling a new uniform element for a Supe — that’d be somethin’.

      Anyone wanna do a mock-up?

      • The Jeff | January 26, 2016 at 11:50 am |

        http://imgur.com/QLhWhUG

        Did this a few years ago, so it’s the Reebok version… but close enough.

        • DanKrz | January 26, 2016 at 2:58 pm |

          I like it. Much better than the boring white look they have now.

      • Dave Mac | January 26, 2016 at 2:31 pm |

        It would look horrible. Stick with white.

        • JTH | January 26, 2016 at 6:01 pm |

          Eh, it wouldn’t be the worst and at least it would break up the black/silver/white/navy monotony.

  • Kyle | January 26, 2016 at 11:14 am |

    Bummer about the Lions’ Alt Jersey. I like that the Detroit Lions/Wings/Tigers all don’t have alts.
    Hopefully the Lion’s alt is their old throwback and not the black jerseys.

    http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/48205/oldlionsuni.jpg

  • Thomas J | January 26, 2016 at 11:15 am |

    As much as its fun to mock the Panthers’ all-black uniform as “The greatest of all time,” its still a decent set and I like it.

  • Eric B | January 26, 2016 at 11:33 am |

    Lifelong Broncos fan here, one old enough to remember the heartbreak of Super Bowl XII. I love the orange jerseys and rejoiced when the Broncos dropped navy blue as the primary home jersey number. The rational side of me knows there’s no cause-and-effect relationship between jersey color and Super Bowl performance.

    Beyond that, I personally do not like the Broncos’ away jerseys because orange is relegated to a minor role as a trim/outline color.

    All that said, my last happy Super Bowl memory of the Broncos is the white-clad triumph against Atlanta, so I do feel a small sense of relief that they’ll be avoiding the color associated with four of their biggest failures.

  • Sean Robbns | January 26, 2016 at 11:44 am |

    So, In the pic of Manning to show the thicker border, I couldn’t focus on it. I was focused on the number written in silver sharpie on the tip of the ball. I wonder if that’s a standard NFL thing, or a local team thing to keep track of the balls.

  • Kevin Zdancewicz | January 26, 2016 at 11:50 am |

    I believe the Hamilton Pink Rink item has been in three tickers in the past week. I will never forget that Phil went there!

  • Wheels | January 26, 2016 at 11:56 am |

    Cool compilation featuring the evolution of NBA on TNT score bugs. As an aside, it was much better when score bugs in all sports telecasts in general would only flash on the screen between plays rather than permanently camping out in a corner of the screen.

  • Bill S | January 26, 2016 at 11:59 am |

    With my first football memories being Rulon Jones sacking Tony Eason for a safety in the divisional round of the playoffs the week before “The Drive” and subsequently the following week watching “The Drive,” I’ve always loved the orange. I was among the many who were ecstatic that it was brought back as the primary in 2012, still hoping for a redesign that brings back some of the classic Orange Crush elements.

    With that said, I’ve never cared for the Broncos white/white look (which wasn’t helped by the fact that the first Super Bowl I was able to see them in, they lost wearing white/white) so I have mixed feelings about watching my favorite team in a combination I don’t care for. I’d love seeing them win a championship in orange. But I’d rather see them win a championship wearing tuxedos than lose in orange (badly) again.

    As bad as 39-20 was falling to the Giants, being 0-4 and getting outscored 167-38 wearing orange has been difficult to accept. And with an offense that needs to be able to score more points, avoiding the “10-point max” stigma that the orange unis seem to carry is a step in the right superstitious direction. Really, I’m all for whatever gets the job done.

  • Ben | January 26, 2016 at 12:15 pm |

    I’m 100% sure Carolina will wear black pants…

    Nike LOVES contrasting monochrome battles. I’m convinced Denver’s ‘decision’ to wear mono white is partly, if not completely, Nike influenced just so that Carolina can showcase mono black — AKA the greatest uni in NFL history.

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 12:20 pm |

      I realize conspiracy theorizing is fun, but you really attribute way too much power to Nike. They don’t get to make these types of decisions.

      • Ben | January 26, 2016 at 1:59 pm |

        Hey! I was totally wrong here!

  • Stephen | January 26, 2016 at 12:21 pm |

    Became a Broncos fan in 1997 when I was 4 years old. I must have watched and re watched the highlights from our two Super Bowls hundreds of times. When I was a kid I remembered the “blue” super bowl and the “white” team. I like the decision for white just to have some visual variety. We wore orange two years ago, let’s wear something different this year. Also, I really do not like the Broncos uniforms at all, but if I had to chose a favorite, I’d choose the whites.

  • Jakob Wolf | January 26, 2016 at 12:22 pm |

    The Broncos are superstitious cowards.

    If they’re that afraid of orange, they should just go back to their inaugural uniforms full time so they’ll never be faced with this dilemma again. #BringBackTheBrown

    • Ketih S. | January 26, 2016 at 3:57 pm |

      Hmmmm. As a Bronco fan/Denver guy, I immediately dismissed your suggestion, but then I thought back to the AFC throwback uniform, and you know, that’s not such a bad idea. Still, I’d just be happy if they brought back the old orange (and light blue).

  • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 12:26 pm |

    The Panthers just posted an Instagram photo of Cam Newton wearing black over silver:
    https://www.instagram.com/p/BBAnchVozmL/

    Make of this what you will.

  • James | January 26, 2016 at 12:35 pm |

    Not a uniform note but a word choice note. It seems to me that the use of “defending champion” to refer to the team that last won a championship is a hold over from boxing where a champion actually has to ‘defend’ a title, and if lost the challenger is now the champion.

    This does not apply to sports with seasons in which a champion is declared for that particular year or season. A more appropriate term suggested to me would be “reigning champion”. Or just “last year’s/season’s champions”.

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 12:44 pm |

      It would be interesting to know the history of the term “defending champion.” However:

      1) I think it’s a huge leap to assert/assume that the term originated with boxing.

      2) I think it’s perfectly fine for team sports.

  • Predominantly Orange | January 26, 2016 at 12:44 pm |

    Agreed the Bronco white jersey choice is a shocker, and has to be superstition. It appears that John Elway made this decision. He also decided to return the Broncos to orange as the primary jersey when he rejoined as an Executive. This in spite of the fact that as a player Elway never lost a regular or post-season game wearing a blue Bronco jersey–a 21-0 record. This makes Elway’s pattern of superstition very strange in my opinion.

    The Broncos like orange jerseys everywhere except the Super Bowl, including last Sunday obviously. Orange has been very good to them in the playoffs, they are 13-4 in the non-Super Bowl playoffs wearing orange. But they completed their best season and best Super Bowl ever wearing the current white “chest horn” style jersey in SB 33. Blue was the best playoff color ever for them as they were 6-1 in blue in the playoffs including their stunning SB 32 win. I’ll bet Elway would have considered the blue jersey had the NFL rules allowed it.

    I think Paul forgot to mention the all time Super Bowl uniform count:

    White jerseys – 31 wins
    Dark jerseys – 18 wins

    • Ketih S. | January 26, 2016 at 3:55 pm |

      Has it been reported that Elway made the call? I’m not questioning it, just hadn’t heard/seen anything locally. For some reason, I think Elway probably passed the decision down the chain. I just don’t get the feeling he gets too caught up in the uniform decisions (other than getting our primary color back on the field). I could be completely wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time).

      • Predominantly Orange | January 26, 2016 at 4:19 pm |

        It has been reported that the Bowlens don’t get involved in any on the field decisions anymore. So these kinds of football decisions are Elway’s responsibility. It may have been discussed with coaches and/or players but ultimately Elway has to approve it, or veto it if he thinks it’s a bad idea.

        He also is quoted in the article on the Broncos website: “We’ve had Super Bowl success in our white uniforms, and we’re looking forward to wearing them again in Super Bowl 50,” said Executive Vice President of Football Operations and General Manager John Elway.

  • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 12:53 pm |

    And now confirmed: Panthers NOT going mono-black:
    https://twitter.com/jjones9/status/692029165692809216

  • Jim Mellett | January 26, 2016 at 1:20 pm |

    I don’t usually catch things like this but being a Steelers fan I noticed your Super Bowl XIII image is actually an image from Super Bowl X.

    • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 1:24 pm |

      Great catch (and shame on me for not catching it myself). Now fixed.

  • John Costigan | January 26, 2016 at 1:35 pm |

    Lindsay Jones isn’t the only Denver media member blindsided by the interest in what the Broncos are wearing for SB50. listening to Denver new outlets & sports talk last night and today many reporters have stated they were shocked at all the interest in what the team would wear.

    • JTH | January 26, 2016 at 1:46 pm |

      Philistines.

  • Jason in Denver | January 26, 2016 at 1:59 pm |

    Hey Paul, regarding the white uni’s and who chose them, I hate to think it but I highly doubt Mr. Bowlen made the decision.

    Since his family announced he was suffering for Alzhiemers last summer, he passed all control of the team to Joe Ellis on the business side, and John Elway on the football side, and he hasn’t been in the offices for a solid year+.

    I wish and hope that he does/did have some involvement in it, but this was very probably an Ellis/Elway decision.

    • Ketih S. | January 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm |

      I mentioned the same thing below. I suspect it was Elway’s call, and he very probably passed the decision down to the coaches/team.

  • Gregg | January 26, 2016 at 2:08 pm |

    Just came here to drop a quick comment complimenting today’s post. That is all.

  • Scotty Danger | January 26, 2016 at 2:14 pm |

    As a Colorado native who was in elementary school when the Broncos won their first two championships, I’ve always been fond of the colored jerseys from the modern era. The problem is that the whites have always felt like an afterthought. Lots of teams’ whites hold their own against the colored, but not Denver. The whites just lack that extra oomph.

  • Craig Dodge | January 26, 2016 at 2:16 pm |

    Broncos fan in Denver, and I was legitimately disappointed that they aren’t wearing orange. It felt like turning our back on our identity, but it’s a small bummer and I’m already over it. Excited to see my boys in the Bowl, and hope it goes better than last time. Still…it’s #UnitedinOrange not #UnitedinWhite

    • Ketih S. | January 26, 2016 at 3:53 pm |

      I feel the same way Craig. It’s a bummer, but it’s a small issue in the big picture.

  • BvK1126 | January 26, 2016 at 3:31 pm |

    I can’t believe the Broncos would be so superstitious as to ditch their iconic orange home jerseys in favor of white for the Super Bowl. Don’t they know the only thing that matters is if I use my lucky shampoo on the morning of the game?

  • Ketih S. | January 26, 2016 at 3:51 pm |

    As a Denver resident and Bronco fan, I have to say I’m disappointed that the team elected to wear white. It’s not that I mind the white uniforms, it’s just that I would prefer the team color (and NOT navy).

    The only upside (to me) is that the orange the team wears now, isn’t the orange the team used to wear (or should be wearing). It’s almost a dayglow orange. I’d love nothing more than to see the old orange (and lighter blue) return to Denver.

    As an aside, I don’t think Pat Bowlen had any say in the decision. Pat suffers from Alzheimer’s, and hasn’t even made public appearances in over a year. I assume that’s because he’s at an advanced stage of the illness, and just is capable.

    I lost my dad to Alzheimer’s recently, so I want to take this chance to encourage anyone, looking to donate to charity, to contact your local chapter of the Alzheimer’s Association. There’s no cure for the illness, and more research is greatly needed. However, funding (like any other major illness) is greatly needed.

  • Predominantly Orange | January 26, 2016 at 3:57 pm |

    I picked this nickname based on Pat Bowlen’s comment that the Broncos uniforms were “predominantly orange” when they redid the look in 1997. That was really hogwash and the fans always identified with orange as the Broncos true identity. That disappointment subsided when the Broncos won their two Super Bowls in the first two years of the new unis.

    As far as the visual appeal of the Bronco white, I agree with the afterthought comment above. After the Super Bowl memories had faded, the Broncos wanted to reestablish orange as the primary team color, but the white uniform still has next to no orange. I thought a great move when the primary jersey became orange would have been to add orange pants to use with the white jersey. Now you’d have a road uniform that pops–like the Chiefs with red pants (which they superstitiously ditched after they went on a win streak this year). Another option not as good as orange pants would have been to use their existing blue pants with an orange side panel and chest horn on the jersey.

    I still believe if the NFL continues this Thursday Color Rush (Rash) that orange pants will materialize for the Broncos. Not in time for SB 50 obviously.

    I really don’t like the white unis much at all, but if they win in 2 weeks, I will bury the hatchet.

  • Perry | January 26, 2016 at 4:13 pm |

    I agree with the folks who say they like the Broncos in orange, but not necessarily THIS orange. The old reddish-orange (with the light blue trim/helmets) was terrific; the current shade of orange is, to my eyes, pretty awful. I actually prefer the navy.

  • Mario Murillo | January 26, 2016 at 4:25 pm |

    As a die hard AZ Cardinals fan I am tired of our uniforms (especially the road uni’s. Yuck.) When do teams start to announce hints of a new uniform? Have you heard any rumblings at all from the desert?

  • Anonymous | January 26, 2016 at 4:37 pm |

    Ugh, the Brewers are introducing ANOTHER alternate. And they’re basically just mixing and matching colors, logos and design elements now, although. Good news, though, in that they’re shedding two alternates (the road ‘Milwaukee’ navy AND the home puke gold) for this one, however.

    http://brewers.mlblogs.com/2016/01/26/brewers-unveil-new-alternate-logo-navy-blue-jersey-will-be-worn-most-sundays-at-home-and-on-the-road/

    • Thomas J | January 26, 2016 at 4:56 pm |

      Come on Brewers, just go with the retro gold and ball and glove already. Its so obvious you’ve even made an alternate. Just make it happen so we can all go about our lives in peace.

      And Padres, don’t think this lets you off the hook…

  • SRP91 | January 26, 2016 at 5:48 pm |

    I believe the Broncos have worn white at home 11 times not 10. The 1971 season (as you mentioned) the first 3 home games of 1983 (Elway’s rookie year), according to their website and then there was a game v San Diego in 2003 where the Broncos were forced to wear white at home because they travelled to San Diego earlier in the season with their white jerseys, forgetting (or ignoring) that San Diego wanted to wear white at home that game. As a result the Chargers were given the right to wear their navy jerseys in Denver, the Broncos wore white.

    • riblet | January 26, 2016 at 6:30 pm |

      Gridiron Uniform Database adds 2 from 1980 to your tally, for a total of 13.

      http://www.gridiron-uniforms.com/GUD/research3.shtml

      • Paul Lukas | January 26, 2016 at 7:03 pm |

        Yes, I somehow miscounted their tally (or else they’ve updated the page). I have a correction running tomorrow.

  • andewz | January 26, 2016 at 9:00 pm |

    Unrelated to the Super Bowl news, but does anyone know what the Sixers are wearing a 4 star patch on their right straps tonight? Presumably some memorial, but haven’t seen it mentioned on here or elsewhere.

  • Eltee of DC | January 27, 2016 at 12:44 am |

    Lest I forget…

    Happy Birthday Keith Olbermann. Come back to talking head land soon. Your commentary and presence is needed.

    I know it is gonna be tough commenting about your landlords political bonafides without the threat of eviction (or some other Trumpian power play) looming over your head.

  • Dan T. | January 27, 2016 at 3:42 am |

    I’ll say this much: a team choosing not to wear the color it normally would for some silly reason doesn’t sound like a confident team.