<blockquote dir="ltr"> DavidHMurray wrote:
Don't know what Bama is showing. But State staff got a chuckle this week when some fans got ahold of phone-photos taken of the mock-up proposed uniform (which I saw in January in Bryan, #85 white) that A) was a few weeks old and B) not the finished product. Pretty amusing given how many folk 'bit' on this.
The real thing comes out this Wednesday, four sizes. Believe the #s we'll see from various positions are 22, 24, 44, 79.</p>[/quote]<span style="font-weight: bold;">D@A:</span> It's pretty amusing how the phone photos were the actual uniforms despite the "chuckles" of which you speak.
<span style="font-weight: bold;">DHM:</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">Nope, not according to the equipment folk.</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">But what do they</span>
know, right?
<span style="font-weight: bold;">D@A:</span> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">Not enough to spell the names right.</span>
Unless Bo Walters changed his name to Bo Waters. Toe the party line though David. That's worth a chuckle too.
(<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">blue text</span> indicates subject of the thread; black text is text in the body of the post)