Study Finds Connection between Hideous or Boring Football Uniforms and Winning

Here is another made up news story I wrote awhile ago. Enjoy! 

~~~

By Natalie Schneider

Big Blue Cow News, November 1, 2010

Football season has come upon us and the sight of grown men running into each other fills our television screens once again.  But a new study conducted by the Phil Randum Study Group may change how we view this beloved game. The study examined the football rankings for the last 20 years and came to a startling conclusion: in almost all instances, the best teams were the ones with the boring or unattractive uniforms.

“I was as skeptical as everyone else when we started this project,” Andrew Apikture, an employee at PRSG said. “I didn’t think there could possibly be a correlation, but it is true.” Apikture said that you could even see the connection when you looked at this week’s rankings.  Of the top ten teams only one does not have a uniform that is “either hideous or a complete snooze.” Apikture stated that TCU has the only decent uniform on the list and that Oregon, which is number one, had its uniform designated as the “most ugly uniform on the face of the earth.” In direct contrast is Akron, who is ranked 119, and whose uniform was “very pretty with its gold and blue.”

Some people remain skeptical about the findings of the Study. John Elway, former quarterback for the Broncos, scoffed at the alleged connection between uniforms and winning. “The idea that what a football player wears can affect his playing is ridiculous,” Elway said. “I was a great football player, and it had nothing to do with my uniform.” But not everyone is as disbelieving as Elway. Shortly after the study was released the coach of Notre Dame announced that they would change the color of their uniforms from their original blue and gold to lime green, tickle-me-pink and Clemson orange. A few hours later Army released a statement that their uniforms next year would be tie-dye with accents of aquamarine. In contrast, Florida decided to go the other route and intentionally make their uniforms boring by changing their colors to red and white. Urban Meyers said in a statement to the press, “The study found that red and white seems to bring success, as 50% of top 10 teams wear those two colors. Without Tim Tebow on the roster, we figure we have to try something. If this doesn’t work we may try recruiting talented players.”  

Not everyone is as accepting of the studies results. Two days after Virginia Tech announced that their uniforms would be modeled after the wardrobe of Ronald McDonald; angry fans swarmed the PRSG building. Police officers had to be called in, when some of the fans started throwing rotten bananas and cantaloupes at the windows. “I can’t believe idiots like this are allowed to remain in business,” on angry fan stated. “All their junk about uniforms having something to do with winning is just stupid.”   

Others expressed grave concern at the effects of this study further down the road. “It is quite possible that this study could change football as we know it,” said Economist Dr. Amelia Sheppard. “And it won’t be for the better.” Experts fear that because of the new shift towards unsightly uniforms, fans may be scared away from the game. According to Ed Stillman, an expert in all things football, most football teams have a loyal fan base that will remain with them no matter what. But a majority of the fans are the type that may decide to desert a team simply because their uniforms are hideous. “The sad truth is that a majority of American football fans are fickle people,” Stillman said. “And if more football teams follow in the footsteps of Notre Dame and Virginia Tech, it may be disastrous for college football in America and for the American economy.” College football produces roughly $756 billion dollars in revenue, which amounts to around 5% of the US GDP. “If we were to lose half of that revenue due to fans leaving, it would mean disaster for our economy,” Dr. Sheppard stated. “Our economy is still very vulnerable from the economic downturn, and even losing that small amount would be a significant blow.”

Despite all of the controversy surrounding the study, PRSG stands behind their conclusion. In a statement to the press, President John Anderson said, “All of our findings are based on sound evidence and no matter how load you shout, or how many fruits you throw at us, it will not change the facts. PRSG is very thorough in all of our studies and we will always stick with our results.”