ARMY WEEK: LET’S TALK UNIFORMS

I assume that by now you’ve all seen what Navy will be wearing at Saturday’s Army-Navy game. If not, then point your face at these glorious images and bask in their warm glow of excellence.

These are the home version of last year’s equally fantastic Nike uniforms, and I sort of wish that this was our permanent setup. It’s modern, yet still restrained, and undeniably Navy. I know some of you don’t like the look, and it’s understandable. You can’t be blamed for your horrible taste. What one could be blamed for, however, is saying that you don’t want something new because of “tradition.” Navy’s only uniform tradition is one of constant change. Sometimes it’s evolutionary, sometimes it’s revolutionary, but it’s always changing. The uniform that Navy wears now is different from the one from ten years ago, which was different from the one from ten years before that. Designs have changed, colors have changed, helmets have changed. We’ve seen all manner of combinations of blue, gold, and white between shirts and pants, complete with various stripes and shoulder hoops and patches and whatever else you can think of. Then there’s the helmets, which have had anchors (awesome, awesome anchors), numbers, and stripes at times over the years. And all that is before you factor in what Navy has worn for the Army-Navy game, which has had all kinds of bonkers stuff. And that’s Navy’s uniform tradition: to have fun with them. Despite what the “down in front” sourpuss that sits behind you at NMCMS and leaves at halftime says, football should be fun.

When people say “tradition,” what they’re really saying is that they want Navy to be plain. That’s fine if that’s your taste, but it’s not the same as tradition. Did Navy fans of the ’40s complain that uniforms didn’t look like this anymore? I don’t know, but if they did I’m glad that nobody listened to them. Navy isn’t Alabama or Penn State, where the traditional football uniform is part of the brand image of the program (and the school for that matter). Navy’s brand is defined by other things. That doesn’t mean that any change is great simply because it’s new; there’s a certain classiness that we want to convey, and nobody wants to look at a jumbled mess. But if something sharp comes along that helps showcase the Navy team, I say go for it. If you don’t like it, don’t worry. It’ll probably change in a few years anyway.

(Seriously, though. Anchors.)

About these ads

13 Responses

  1. Somewhere, there’s a happy medium between being stuck with the 1926 uniform and becoming the White Sox of college football.

    ….but the anchors–we can all agree on that! (Why did it take so long for anchors to show up on jerseys and helmets?)

  2. am i the only one? i think those 1926 jerseys are pretty cool.

    • You’re the only one.

    • If Navy can win a National Championship again like in 1926 wearing them then I’m all for it.

  3. I like these uniforms a lot and those from last year & I usually don’t say that about “special” uniforms. These are far and away the best we’ve had for our Army/Bowl uniforms.

    I am just too much of a traditionalist to want them to be our regular uniforms. If we were to switch & I had to just live with it, I’d be ok with these though.

    • Clicked before I finished my thought: By traditionalist, I mean the general theme of gold helmets, blue/white jerseys, gold pants. I LOVED the 50 year throwbacks. I liked adding the Eagle/Globe/Anchor. I like the anchor on the chest above “NAVY”, although I liked having “NAVY” in larger letters, but there’s only so much space.

      I just don’t want to start going all gaudy (Oregon) or worse (Maryland) or terrible (that vo-tech school out west).

      BEAT ARMY!!!

  4. Jersey OK. Don’t like the white trousers. What’s wrong with Navy Blue (Jerseys) & Gold (trousers).

    I liked the Gold jerseys & Gold trousers with blue numerals
    of Staubach era.

    Loved throw-back uniforms we wore against NE Louisiana couple years ago. Same unis Navy wore my plebe year.

    Of course, if we were losing, would be talking about this stuff? Doubt it.

  5. How about the uni’s from 1904-1908? 45 wins can’t be wrong! (Although, we were 1-3 against……. wait for it….. SWARTHMORE!)

  6. These A-N jerseys would be great with the gold pants. But the helmets absolutely rock, and I want one.

    • I agree the helmet is great and should be standard issue..

  7. Whatever we do stay “NAVY”. Don’t even think “Annapolis”.
    What is with the “WEST POINT” guys?…or jerseys with “SERVICE” et al.

  8. Looking forward to seeing the uniforms on TV. I still like gold pants or at least some more gold; trim arounf the numbers or a stripe on the leg or something. My favorite is also the Staubach era uniform with shoulder stripes. That being said, it’s pretty hard to argue against the look for Saturday.

  9. I’m OK with the uni design (love the undershirt!), but I will confess that I’ll always prefer the solid gold helmet (though gold chrome wouldn’t bother me–just not the metallic glitter gold that ND wore 1 or 2 years ago). It may be because that’s all I remember seeing when I was growing up and during my Severn tenure (I’m not old enough to remember the Staubach-era helmets), but the gold helmet is so iconic to me that it just doesn’t feel the same to see the team in anything else (and no, I didn’t care for the anchor helmets, though I will admit they were vastly better than ND’s ridiculous shamrock helmets).

    OK, enough of Fashion Week. Let’s play some football. BEAT ARMY!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 105 other followers

%d bloggers like this: