HOCKEY-L Archives

- Hockey-L - The College Hockey Discussion List

Hockey-L@LISTS.MAINE.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Date:
Sun, 21 Nov 1993 21:11:05 -0500
Sender:
College Hockey discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
From:
"Glenn W. Gale" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
"Glenn W. Gale" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (30 lines)
Subject: Re: Cooperall Long Pants
 
>> I think Providence had them but I'm not sure.
 
>Providence did wear them back in the mid '80s.  If I remember right, we only
>wore them for a couple of seasons.  They were okay with the home uniforms
>(black pants with white jersey) but were awesome away (black and black.)  They
>were pretty sinistar looking all in black.  The reason given for eliminating
>them, BTW, was that the full black pants hid the puck.  I never quite bought
>that explanation.  Rather, I think they just went the way of the leisure suit
>and died a quick death.
 
>I don't recall any other ECAC team wearing them (I believe it was prior to the
 
     I can vouch for the sharp and menacing appearance of Providence's road
uniforms back then since I saw them at Clarkson.  It was especially effective
with the thick stripe which ran all the way down the side of the jersey and
the leg.  (Of course, they also had some excellent players back then as I
recall).  In general, though, I didn't like the long pants.  The Flyers'
getup looked awful, IMHO.
     I recall one year Yale wore what appeared to be "stealth" Cooperalls;
long pants colored so that they looked like the usual shorts and socks.
Perhaps someone from Yale can elaborate.  I'm glad these didn't catch on.
 
-Glenn
 
 
 
>-- Ron

ATOM RSS1 RSS2