The impact of laundry | The Boneyard

The impact of laundry

Jaydumo20

Jaydumo20

Joined
Nov 11, 2018
Messages
3,580
Reaction Score
19,218
What role does the jersey a team wears play into their success?

There hasn't been much diversity in the teams that have won the natty over the past few decades. There have been some really good teams (Houston, Gonzaga, Illinois, Alabama, TN, Wisconsin, etc) but when it comes to crowning a champ it's the usual suspects.
Is it coincidence that the same handfuls of teams win, despite coaching and administration and roster changes?
Does the jersey on your back have an intimidation effect on the other team and a confidence boost for the blue bloods?

A few of the podcasts and analysts following the PC game cited the idea that the team with the CT logo had the mojo regardless of how much the other team dominated.

What factor, if any, does laundry and legacy play? How much do you believe in psychological, non-statistical, factors?
 
Last edited:
laundry matters. becoming a blue blood is like becoming a tenured professor, it's hard to lose that status (IU kept showing up to class drunk and eventually got fired. been in AA ever since). but i think that NIL + portal will continue to even the playing field. BYU is the perfect example. they would never have gotten the #1 recruit without NIL or been able to surround him with a decent team without the portal.
 
bendm said:
laundry matters. becoming a blue blood is like becoming a tenured professor, it's hard to lose that status (IU kept showing up to class drunk and eventually got fired. been in AA ever since). but i think that NIL + portal will continue to even the playing field. BYU is the perfect example. they would never have gotten the #1 recruit without NIL or been able to surround him with a decent team without the portal.
Expand ...
True. Indiana football really flipped the laundry perspective on its head. Let's see if they complete it.
In this year's world series i think there was a weird forcefield around the Dodgers. Those teams were evenly matched, regardless of the Dodgers billion dollar payroll, but there was no way they weren't winning that world series. It just seemed like things were turning towards the jerseys.
 
Jaydumo20 said:
What role does the jersey a team wears play into their success?

There hasn't been much diversity in the teams that have won the natty over the past few decades. There have been some really good teams (Houston, Gonzaga, Illinois, Alabama, TN, Wisconsin, etc) but when it comes to crowning a champ it's the usual suspects.
Is it coincidence that the same handfuls of teams win, despite coaching and administration and roster changes?
Does the jersey on your back have an intimidation effect on the other team and a confidence boost for the blue bloods?

A few of the podcasts and analysts following the PC game cited the idea that the team with the CT logo had the mojo regardless of how much the other team dominated.

What factor, if any, does laundry and legacy play? How much do you believe in psychological, non-statistical, factors?
Expand ...
If the sport is basketball, then blue primary teams are prohibitive favorites (UConn, Duke, UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, Villanova). If the sport is football then red primary teams are prohibitive favorites (Bama, UGA, Ohio State, Nebraska, OU). As you move around the color where blue adjacent (green) teams are more likely to succeed in basketball (MSU, Baylor) and red adjacent (orange) teams are more likely to succeed in football (Florida, Clemson, UT, Auburn the other UT). There are relatively few exceptions here including Houston and Michigan.

Black and Gold teams rarely win except in wrestling but are occasionally good at football (Iowa, UCF, Colorado, Vandy). Where teams have blue and red primary colors in equal measure (Kansas, Arizona, Gonzaga) , the blue seems to dominate and they are basketball schools.
 
.-.
HuskyHawk said:
If the sport is basketball, then blue primary teams are prohibitive favorites (UConn, Duke, UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, Villanova). If the sport is football then red primary teams are prohibitive favorites (Bama, UGA, Ohio State, Nebraska, OU). As you move around the color where blue adjacent (green) teams are more likely to succeed in basketball (MSU, Baylor) and red adjacent (orange) teams are more likely to succeed in football (Florida, Clemson, UT, Auburn the other UT). There are relatively few exceptions here including Houston and Michigan.

Black and Gold teams rarely win except in wrestling but are occasionally good at football (Iowa, UCF, Colorado, Vandy). Where teams have blue and red primary colors in equal measure (Kansas, Arizona, Gonzaga) , the blue seems to dominate and they are basketball schools.
Expand ...
You make an eerily solid point. Especially if you consider the red bball schools who knock on the door but never close it out - Houston, ohio state, Wisconsin, San Diego state, Bama, Arkansas.... and then when a red team does win the natty they vacate it due to violations.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it really matters, at least not in the way I'm interpreting some of the responses. Put Dan Hurley or Bill Self or Kelvin Sampson at any school and I think those schools would be national championship contenders.

Good coaching trumps all, and leads to all of the other factors people mention. I'll put it this way, if we were having this conversation in 1990 nobody would talk about the mojo of the UConn jersey. But 3 successful coaching hires in a row changes that opinion pretty fast
 
navery12 said:
I don't think it really matters, at least not in the way I'm interpreting some of the responses. Put Dan Hurley or Bill Self or Kelvin Sampson at any school and I think those schools would be national championship contenders.

Good coaching trumps all, and leads to all of the other factors people mention. I'll put it this way, if we were having this conversation in 1990 nobody would talk about the mojo of the UConn jersey. But 3 successful coaching hires in a row changes that opinion pretty fast
Expand ...
Good points.
the way I initially meant it was, at least in one common scenario-"

let's say in a game between Duke and Houston in the national championship, for example, is there a subconscious thought in both teams and the fans minds that Duke is supposed to come out on top (or at least has the historical edge) and that Houston needs to overcome decades of Duke history?
In that case, I believe that this inevitably does happen. Whether it 'always' controls the outcome is not realistic but I think it does carry some weight.

Our most recent final four opponents are aware that if you are in that UConn jersey, (even though our natty teams have had different coaches and personnel) you don't lose in the title game.
 
Last edited:
bendm said:
Notre Dame?
Expand ...
Outlier, but arguably among a handful of "good at everything" schools. Michigan, Notre Dame and Florida. I'm not counting ancient history like Cal or Stanford's titles.

Also Purple, being a pure meld of blue and red seems to skew towards football (Washington, LSU) unlike those blue & red schools that skew towards hoops. It's not an exact science, but looking at Nebraska and Iowa State, I think they are out of the running in hoops.
 
FatElvis said:
Laundry is everything. If the Houston equipment manager had only used a fabric softener, Emanuel Sharp wouldn't have been so stiff on that last play against Florida. 😉
Expand ...
Fabric softener is not good for your washing machine.
 
.-.
I dig our away blue uniforms more than the dress home whites. Dunno why, just partial to blue.
 
I also read that red or orange uniforms cause more tinea cruris.
 
navery12 said:
I don't think it really matters, at least not in the way I'm interpreting some of the responses. Put Dan Hurley or Bill Self or Kelvin Sampson at any school and I think those schools would be national championship contenders.

Good coaching trumps all, and leads to all of the other factors people mention. I'll put it this way, if we were having this conversation in 1990 nobody would talk about the mojo of the UConn jersey. But 3 successful coaching hires in a row changes that opinion pretty fast
Expand ...
Hurley was at Wagner and Rhode Island and never came anywhere near a national championship at either school.
 
.-.
I think it matters a lot. When a recruit visits, a common tactic is having a jersey with their name on it so they can see and maybe feel what it’s like to be part of that history.

And I think the pro sports are losing some of that with all these gimmick jerseys for promotions or merch sales.
 
.-.
Deepster said:
I think it matters a lot. When a recruit visits, a common tactic is having a jersey with their name on it so they can see and maybe feel what it’s like to be part of that history.

And I think the pro sports are losing some of that with all these gimmick jerseys for promotions or merch sales.
Expand ...
Geno doesn’t do this. And a number of posters in the women’s forum think it’s tacky.
 
NickDanger said:
Hurley was at Wagner and Rhode Island and never came anywhere near a national championship at either school.
Expand ...
It’s because he only began at UConn to wear the same underwear until he lost. I have no clue if this is true but it fits into the laundry narrative.
 
nomar said:
The only laundry that matters is @Chief00's briefs
Expand ...
I don't know about that. Dan Hurley's dragon briefs (or whatever design he is currently sporting) are quite important. Chiefs, not so much.
 
I remember a while back, a paper was going to do a study based on a hockey team. The LA Kings were switching to all-black or mostly black uniforms and the paper hypothesized that the uniforms might make the players more aggressive and physical for the next season and wonder if it would translate into more wins for the team.
In the end, they said the wins/losses record was useless because shortly after the uniform decision announcement the Kings traded for some guy name Gretzky.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,631
Messages
4,586,737
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom