darealvelle
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 469
- Reaction score
- 622
Makes good points why number 12, 8 and 22 not being handed out, but 88 still is.
Spot on @Reality !I do not think numbers should ever be retired.
I do fully support a "not available for a set amount of time" period though for star players such as 5-10 years depending on the player's history in the franchise.
I mean do fans really care if a player wears #8, #22 or #88 now? It has been so long, I just do not see it being disrespectful.
Beyond that though, I see no reason to retiring or even protecting player numbers.
You can still feature player names and numbers on banners if you want, just do not refer to them as "retired numbers" and instead call them "Team of Fame" for example.
The problem is that position-based number ranges are being slowly fazed out so it will become less common to see running backs choosing 20s and 30s, receivers choosing 80s, etc.I agree with him. At least give #33 to a RB. Current Cowboys' player who's #33 is a LB - Damone Clark
I do not think numbers should ever be retired.
I do fully support a "not available for a set amount of time" period though for star players such as 5-10 years depending on the player's history in the franchise.
I mean do fans really care if a player wears #8, #22 or #88 now? It has been so long, I just do not see it being disrespectful.
Beyond that though, I see no reason for retiring or even protecting player numbers.
You can still feature player names and numbers on banners if you want, just do not refer to them as "retired numbers" and instead call them "Team of Fame" for example.
new era numbers are now crazy and hard to tell whose who..I agree with him. At least give #33 to a RB. Current Cowboys' player who's #33 is a LB - Damone Clark
Exactly! Let each generation have their #88 for example (such as in your avatar) and let the older fans have their extended reverence for those numbers through new players who become stars while wearing those numbers.I agree, retiring numbers are pointless.
Makes good points why number 12, 8 and 22 not being handed out, but 88 still is.
100% well saidI do not think numbers should ever be retired.
I do fully support a "not available for a set amount of time" period though for star players such as 5-10 years depending on the player's history in the franchise.
I mean do fans really care if a player wears #8, #22 or #88 now? It has been so long, I just do not see it being disrespectful.
Beyond that though, I see no reason for retiring or even protecting player numbers.
You can still feature player names and numbers on banners if you want, just do not refer to them as "retired numbers" and instead call them "Team of Fame" for example.
I do not think numbers should ever be retired.
I do fully support a "not available for a set amount of time" period though for star players such as 5-10 years depending on the player's history in the franchise.
I mean do fans really care if a player wears #8, #22 or #88 now? It has been so long, I just do not see it being disrespectful.
Beyond that though, I see no reason for retiring or even protecting player numbers.
You can still feature player names and numbers on banners if you want, just do not refer to them as "retired numbers" and instead call them "Team of Fame" for example.
Sure, just like the USS Enterprise!My solution to the numbers controversy: Use small letters to the numbers so ... 12 is retired but 12a wouldn't be. 88 would be retired but not 88a and then after all the a's are gone, go to 12b (small as in at the corner of the "2" enough to see but not intrusive."
We now give 2 to running backs defensive backs, and linebackers.I agree with him. At least give #33 to a RB. Current Cowboys' player who's #33 is a LB - Damone Clark
Love Star Trek !Sure, just like the USS Enterprise!