Well, I’m not sure. But Reggie Bush and the New Orleans Saints would like to bring it to you. Bush wants to wear the #5 as a running back in the NFL, and the league, of course, says this is a very bad thing. Why, I’m not sure. Peter King goes over it today in his MMQB, and I agree.
I mean, I don’t think they should be making special rules for Reggie Bush, but… I think it’s kind of a dumb rule to begin with. If the man wants to wear #5, let him wear #5. If an offensive lineman wants to wear #1, well… why the hell not? If he feels that his free-spirited, sensitive, personality is best represented by the number 17, as opposed to the clumsy, stodgy, beefy 70, I think that’s OK. Let’s not pigeonhole anyone.
It’s hard to think of any legitimate reasons that pre-specified numbers make things easier for NFL officials. The one thing I could see is that maybe it helps refs easily spot if someone’s illegally downfield, but… that seems easily solved. Just make offensive linemen wear certain numbers. Like, numbers that end in 0. Numbers within a certain range. Prime numbers. Numbers with Something. Other than that, I don’t know what the big deal is.
I could understand if the NFL had a rule against making guys change numbers every year, as that would be kinda messed-up for fans who buy jerseys. At some point, you know Paris Hilton is going to talk Matt Leinart into wearing #69, because she thinks it’s funny.
Mark
I like the idea of prime numbers, with refs trying to figure out if 83 or 91 is a prime number or not.
May 8, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Carl
If the league is really serious about RB (and all RB’s) having a number in the 20 – 49 range, then he should go with 5^2 (5 squared). Just throw a little ’2′ up on the left shoulder. Most of the people in New Orleans will still think it’s just a ’5′ so it will still be a marketing dream.
May 8, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Tom
Paul Hornung wore #5 as a back with Green Bay 40 years ago. What’s the big deal?
May 8, 2006 at 4:10 pm
theotheruw
It probably wouldn’t end the world if the NFL let him, but why can’t the NLF have arbitrary traditions? The reason he shouldn’t be able to use #5 is because it isn’t the way things work. If the number system was good enough for Barry and Emmitt and Walter, it’s good enough for him.
May 8, 2006 at 4:37 pm
BB
That’s actually Bert. So you know.
May 8, 2006 at 5:08 pm
The Big Picture
it’s also tight to see college WRs wearing numbers in the teens and LBs wearing single-digit numbers. fuck the league office for this one…is this the closest thing to the NBA’s dress code?
May 8, 2006 at 5:39 pm
Wolverines!
I like the # rules. In fact, it pisses me off when college players break them.
May 8, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Ahereeum
I believe if you allow unproven professional athletes the latitude to break long-standing rules you are opening a pandora’s box. What next? Maybe someone wants that stupid “prince” symbol instead of a number…the next thing you know it, it’s the XFL all over again…NOOOOOOOoooooo….
May 8, 2006 at 9:56 pm
dj2fly4u
I think everybody agrees it’s a stupid rule. Instead of giving Bush #5, why not just do away with the insanity of this rule. That would be the smart thing to do. What makes Bush so special that he should be the exception to the rule, even as idiotic as the rule is. Delete the rule.
May 9, 2006 at 9:51 am
Mr Furious
Three words, Reggie: Too. Fucking. Bad.
May 9, 2006 at 10:40 am
boo boo
I’m surprised no one else commented on the instatement of the original number rule. I’m pretty sure that the NFL set the number requirements for positions as a way for the referees to spot “ineligible men downfield”. So, they made linemen wear their range of numbers and it spread from there. Someone out there should be able to shed more light, so feel free.
May 9, 2006 at 1:58 pm