Not a fan of the uniforms

[ChicagoGG]

If you can't see the numbers (and I had a hard time in the stands), it isn't a good situation. It's nice to be able to tell who has the ball, and from section 108, it was hard to tell since the numbers were practically invisible.
Also, the fact that the "new scoreboard" only had stats for 4 players per team at a time, when there were 5 on the court, was beyond odd. It stunk.

 

[meyers7]

If you can't see the numbers (and I had a hard time in the stands), it isn't a good situation. It's nice to be able to tell who has the ball, and from section 108, it was hard to tell since the numbers were practically invisible.
Also, the fact that the "new scoreboard" only had stats for 4 players per team at a time, when there were 5 on the court, was beyond odd. It stunk.

Not just you, but you people really can't tell who the players are without numbers??

 

[cabbie191]

Here are the football uniforms unveiled last week.

If they wear this uniform against Tulane, and play as well as they did against East Carolina, then keep them I say!

 

[ChicagoGG]

Not just you, but you people really can't tell who the players are without numbers??

Well, yes, I can to certain extent. I know the starters, of course. But sometimes when they swap out fast, it can be tricky for a minute or so. And I am old and wear glasses. (and maybe my seats weren't as good as yours on Monday....)

 

[Bigpetunia]

No disrespect, but I have to admit to a healthy dose of surprise that this topic has engendered so much (sometimes passionate) discussion. For me, personally, the uniforms themselves are a matter of utter indifference. All I care about is the talent that wearing 'em. And, as for some who complain that the players, being of the female persuasion, probably do not like for us to observe them "sweating" through their duds, although I am not of the same gender as they, I have to doubt that this is an accurate reflection of their feelings. Oh my gosh, "girls" sweat? Really?? Damn right they do, especially when they're working as hard as these young women do to achieve greatness!

 

[AndyCT]

The grey uniforms need to go into the uniform morgue with the silver ones. OTOH, that stylish (and a tad fierce) logo of The UConn Husky looks better every time I see it. GRRR!

Avery Point?

 

[DALTX]

Nope, our colors are National Flag Blue and white. The rebranding is a marketing decision as to what colors are going to be used on the uniform for marketing/branding but the school's colors remain the same. Over the years there have been a lot of variation over which blue to use, but the only "official" determination of which I am aware was a 1952 Board of Trustees meeting in which National Flag Blue was adopted. Agree 100% with you that Pantone 289 (navy blue) was most often used in team uniforms, though there seems to be a drift to a lighter shade lately.

"So, National Flag Blue it was that the Board of Trustees approved at their November 1952 meeting, when they finally adopted blue and white as the colors of the University of Connecticut."
​

I am aware of that article (http://advance.uconn.edu/2000/000313/000313hs.htm). From the same source:

Neither the committee's recommendation nor the trustees' motion included a standard for the colors, and by the late 1950s, the shades of blue used in printing, uniforms, and University souvenirs began to vary widely again.

Setting Standards
It was not until the early 1980s that the issue of standardizing the blue was again addressed. At that time, Tim Tolokan, director of athletic communications, found there was a great degree of variation in the use of colors and no "official" standard for University logos.

Tolokan's research re-discovered the trustee action of 1952 in which National Flag Blue was selected. Under modern color standards, that translated to a shade known as PANTONE© 289. A standard was set for the color - as well as for athletic logos and their use.​

This agrees with the current UConn designation of navy blue. The problem with "national flag" blue is that it's not even the official color of the USA Flag; that would be "old glory blue" (http://www.cciprinting.net/?p=3450), and it is Pantone 282.

 

[jsloanjr]

What do you want for free..........Pretty??

 

[CL82]

I am aware of that article (http://advance.uconn.edu/2000/000313/000313hs.htm). From the same source:

Neither the committee's recommendation nor the trustees' motion included a standard for the colors, and by the late 1950s, the shades of blue used in printing, uniforms, and University souvenirs began to vary widely again.

Setting Standards
It was not until the early 1980s that the issue of standardizing the blue was again addressed. At that time, Tim Tolokan, director of athletic communications, found there was a great degree of variation in the use of colors and no "official" standard for University logos.

Tolokan's research re-discovered the trustee action of 1952 in which National Flag Blue was selected. Under modern color standards, that translated to a shade known as PANTONE© 289. A standard was set for the color - as well as for athletic logos and their use.​

This agrees with the current UConn designation of navy blue. The problem with "national flag" blue is that it's not even the official color of the USA Flag; that would be "old glory blue" (http://www.cciprinting.net/?p=3450), and it is Pantone 282.

There was only one official designation of school color by the Board of Trustees and that was in 1952 and that designation with national flag blue. There has been a lot of variation in interpreting what that should look like over the years. The new lightening in the uniforms is just the most recent iteration. The school colors remain the same.

 

[DaddyChoc]

Not just you, but you people really can't tell who the players are without numbers??

cant tell Stewie from Moriah

 

[FASTEDDY]

Here are the football uniforms unveiled last week.

I ABSOLUTELY LOVE these alternate uniforms.

Wish these were our regular and standard unis.