knapplc

I would offer you the same advice. Don't just argue your point, but actually read what I'm saying. The players you're talking about will not think they are Blackshirts because of these gloves. They know what a Blackshirt is, and they know whether they've earned one or not. As I've said several times, the logo on these gloves is a marketing tool, not an actual Blackshirt. Putting this logo on these gloves doesn't cheapen the tradition of the Blackshirts any more than putting it on a kite does. No they don't think that, but people who are not familiar with the tradition will. Younger fans, unfamiliar fans, other people in the Big Ten. We've all heard how ridiculous some announcers are when they talk about "traditions", next thing you know Ed Cunningham or some douche is referring to all Husker defenders as Blackshirts. People bitch about having any black in the uniforms, having a b*******, adding piping or changing the uniforms in anyway, changing any traditions whatsoever, but you're a-ok with this? Honestly, while I think the N gloves are cool, I'd prefer to keep the gray gloves we've worn the last few years. I think this is gimmicky, and overall I'm not a fan of either glove as part of the uniform. But if you were to buy me a pair of those N gloves for Christmas, it's entirely possible I would wear them.

I agree that the N gloves are cooler. The defense gloves look too cluttered.

You've gotta love our situation at TE. We've got Cotton, the blue-collar bulldozing blocker, and we've got Reed, who has the wheels and hands of a WR but the body of a TE. Reed is a matchup nightmare for any DEF. I love the guy.

I would offer you the same advice. Don't just argue your point, but actually read what I'm saying. The players you're talking about will not think they are Blackshirts because of these gloves. They know what a Blackshirt is, and they know whether they've earned one or not. As I've said several times, the logo on these gloves is a marketing tool, not an actual Blackshirt. Putting this logo on these gloves doesn't cheapen the tradition of the Blackshirts any more than putting it on a kite does.

I don't either. They're just gloves.

So if we put the Blackshirt gloves on them, would that make them Blackshirts?

Brogan, you are reading way too much into this conversation. Why would I insinuate that you were stupid? That doesn't make any sense, man. I just got done doing a completely voluntary hot chick draft with you. Why would I include you in that if I thought poorly of you? Let's drop this animosity - I have none toward you, and this is nothing to get personal about. Cool?

I didn't call anyone stupid, or attack anyone's intelligence. Calm down. Again, the logo that you're talking about is a marketing tool. It represents the Blackshirts on merchandise, not on the field. On the field, the ONLY thing that represents the Blackshirts are the actual factual black jerseys in the pic I posted. But to show you that your premise is incorrect, you're saying that these are Huskers because they wear the N on the field: And that anyone wearing the N on the field is a Husker. To directly quote you, "...when you wear it on the field, you're a Husker. It's about ON THE FIELD." By that logic, these are also Huskers: These girls are "on the field," and they are wearing the N. But of course they're not Huskers, they're cheerleaders. Nobody thinks that because they are wearing an N tattoo (which the University sells licensing rights to, by the way), that they suddenly become Huskers. There is a huge difference between what the actual tradition is and what the University markets to make money.

Abso-smurfly.

OK, that's what I thought you meant. That's why I asked how you felt about the shirts, shorts, kites and other merchandise you can buy with that same logo on it. If the gloves take away from the history, don't those things? And if not, why?

That just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?

But wouldn't he open himself up to perjury charges? Maybe I'm not remembering this very well, but didn't he deny killing Nicole on the stand?

I'm aware of the title of the thread - I wrote it. So you're saying you don't think this dilutes our tradition? You're OK with these gloves? Or what are you saying?

Clearly you do have a misconception. Every defender is issued gloves right now, and has been issued gloves for decades. Whether they choose to wear them or not is their option. Those gloves have nothing to do with whether that player is a Blackshirt or not. They're just gloves. These are gloves. Not Blackshirts. The fact that they have a marketing symbol on them doesn't mean the n00bs are Blackshirts any more than the fact that they have an Adidas logo on them makes them Adidas employees.

Wow. Never thought I'd see the day. Apparently there is no statute of limitations for Murder in the state of California. Perhaps he's willing to do this because he's already been acquitted? I cannot understand why he would confess to this (if true).

For all our stars on defense last year, and for all of our lofty rankings in three of the four major defensive categories, we still left a lot to be desired. I would certainly hope that our DEF looks at last year as a "down" year, not as a continuation of the previous year's dominance. This defense has the potential to be truly great, but there are several guys who need to step up and perform like they've been hyped. You cannot rest on the laurels of your recruiting stars or positive press, nor can you think you've arrived once you've been given a Blackshirt. I think there was some complacence last year that had no place on our team. Let's hope that's gone.

Why do we care what people across the nation think of the Blackshirt tradition? It's not for them, it's for the team and the fans. And how do you think this will dilute the tradition? By turning it into a marketing ploy or something along those lines? If so, don't you feel the same about things like: THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS AND THIS? If these haven't diluted the tradition, I doubt the gloves our players wear will.

I think there's a misconception here. This is a Blackshirt: This is a symbol licensed to market the Blackshirts: They are not the same thing. Any idiot with some money can purchase that symbol, and it doesn't make them a Blackshirt. You have to earn that plain, nondescript black jersey that the actual factual Blackshirts wear. Even if you go buy a knockoff version of that practice jersey, or if you find a former Blackshirt willing to sell his old jersey to you, you're not a Blackshirt. So I don't think there's any conflict with having that symbol on the gloves. It's just a marketing promotion, not the real deal.

If liking dominatrix type clothes is wrong....

I was wondering the same thing, hopefully its just the blackshirts It will be for all defensive players. The jerseys mean a hell of a lot more than a pair of gloves that after this season you and I could drop 30-40 bucks and wear them too. Kinda kills the whole starter only thing when Husker Jen is flashing his...err....I mean her hands in the crowd. ??? Because someone couldn't wear a black jersey? I'm not saying your wrong about the whole defense wearing them, but that logic makes no sense. I think it'd be weird to have people who aren't Blackshirts wearing them though. This isn't a tradition like the Blackshirts, though. These are just gloves, like gloves that every player wears (if they want to, some don't). Every member of the defense will be issued a pair of these gloves, regardless of their Blackshirt status.

How can they be dominating us when we are up 2% on them. That's the same saying that we kicked their ass when we only win by 3 points. We had a huge lead, like 75/25, and since then they've gotten most of the votes to pull nearly even. That's the dominance he's talking about. We picked up a couple of percentage points overnight. We'll have to see how this goes. Could be a close one.

I get the impression bigg10 is saying Iowa belongs among the all-time greats. Today, yes. All-time, no. I certainly agree with you that Ferentz has your Hawkeyes looking like a worthy opponent on a yearly basis. Hopefully he's beginning to build something lasting in Iowa City. You cannot have too many good teams in your conference. I won't walk into that Black Friday game without concern. Iowa is a team that can beat anyone on its schedule. But I still expect to win that game. And I think you guys should expect that, too.

Ya kinda like Oregon, Boise St, TCU, VaTech, Texas Tech, Okla St., Wisc, BYU, Utah, GT, WV. Teams rise and fall all the time, that doesn't mean that any other school besides the all time greats can't make it to the top and stay there. With all the disadvantages that Iowa has going for them I think they do quite well for themselves. We know we are not an elite program, but we still send kids to the NFL (more than half of the teams you mentioned), compete with the best of our league, and make a lot of money doing it. We might never make it to elite status, but considering where the program has been in the past our fans have a right to be optimistic about our future. Your examples don't disprove my point. Boise St. has been a blip team. A few years of success surrounded by decades of nothing. Oregon has been as good as any other middle-tier team in a major conference over the past 50 years. VA Tech is a storied program and sits at #17 on the all-time wins list. Texas Tech was good when Leach was there, otherwise see Oregon. Every program starts somewhere, but because a team has had a few seasons of success doesn't mean they will continue to be successful. We're in a conversation discussing whether Iowa belongs among the all-time greats. Why are we comparing Iowa to Nebraska and Michigan and Ohio State? Because Nebraska, Michigan and Ohio State have all proven, over several decades, that they belong atop college football. They are part of the Ten Pillars of the sport. Iowa does not compare.

Anyone ever notice that it's the schools with no history of success that constantly claim that a history of proven success makes no difference, either "today" or in recruiting? It must be a complete accident that Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Notre Dame, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Miami, and all the other "history of winning" programs continue to be atop the ranks of sending kids to the pros, profitability, and the like. It must be an accident that these schools seem to win far more consistently than, say, Iowa. That's it. An accident.