Purple.
It’s the color to wear this fall.
At least that’s what I’ve learned after a summer of
mixing too many self-improvement TV shows with my regular sources
of sports information.
And yet somehow I doubt I’ll be adding any plum, eggplant
or lavender to my wardrobe anytime soon.
Still, I got to thinking about how color has a lot to do with
sports.
How teams’ uniforms may have some purpose other than to
let the quarterback or point guard know it’s OK to pass the
ball to someone clear across the field or court (which
doesn’t always work, now, does it?).
Maybe something like a purpose of helping teams intimidate their
opponents.
Which, come to think of it, is sort of like making a fashion
statement.
Take Washington, for instance. The Huskies seem to be pretty
keen on the fall purple trend. So maybe their game tape sessions
include watching episodes of “What Not to Wear” and
“Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”
Yet they lose. To UCLA, at least. Like their football loss last
Saturday, their seventh loss to UCLA in eight matchups.
So I can’t help but think maybe there’s a hierarchy
of colors. Like that preschool song that went through the colors of
the rainbow. “Red, orange, yellow, green,” and the
rest.
The rest ““ I guess it’s a little important. Only
because it contains blue, the Bruins’ dominant color.
And purple. Can’t forget purple. Dead last in the
spectrum. And, well, that’s a good spot for Washington in
relation to football and UCLA.
But we have to remember how close blue is to purple. In fact,
they’re practically the same color. Might as well flood
Westwood with coffee houses and call it Seattle.
Tied for fifth place in the Pac-10 last season, the two teams
definitely aren’t close to being the favorite to take this
year’s conference title.
That distinction belongs to No. 1 USC. A red team, I should
mention.
Of course the Trojans call it something fancier, like
“ketchup.” Or maybe it’s “cardinal.”
I can’t remember.
Whatever it is, it’s red. And red tops the color list. So
by virtue of its main color, USC is guaranteed to top the Pac-10 in
football, right?
Maybe.
So there are a few anomalies. Only minor setbacks to my theory,
really.
Looking at last season’s conference rankings, the only
teams worse than UCLA were Arizona State, Stanford and Arizona
““ three red teams.
I don’t know any other way to explain this than to fall
back on my elementary school knowledge of the taste of paste and
what happens when watercolors get mixed together.
(Maybe not so much the first one.)
Maroon, Arizona State’s main color, is a reddish color.
But it’s wannabe red. Sort of like it started as purple and
hopes no one will notice.
Stanford’s cardinal Cardinal mix white in with their hue,
weakening the power of the red to a mere pink.
And Arizona had the right idea with red. But then some
overzealous Wildcat added blue as an official color. Red and blue
““ purple.
Far from purple and the bottom of last season’s standings
are USC, Washington State, Oregon, California and Oregon State.
Their colors ““ with the exception of Cal ““ all fall
above blue in the spectrum.
Cal’s toilet-bowl blue must have some hypnotic charm to
it. It distracts opponents by reminding them of that happy place we
know as the bathroom. And all that water and Gatorade has to get to
players.
UCLA’s blue, on the other hand ““ True Blue, whatever
that means ““ in recent years has been like a crystal-clear
sky: Bruin opponents have been able to see right through it to find
holes in its defense.
But with a 2-1 start and a win in its conference opener, UCLA
might find itself farther away from the purple, come the end of the
season.
And if being unfashionable is a consequence of winning, then
I’m all for it.
Looper thinks you’re a loser if you wear purple.
E-mail him at [email protected].