Most Recent Entries
- Panini reveals details about Pinnacle basketball
- Rays pick up pitcher in minor league Rule 5 draft
- Land O’ Lakes cross country stars Travis Nichols, Tyler Stahl commit to North Florida
- Beck staying with Longhorns
- Boys Basketball:FABC/Source Hoops Florida State Poll
- No Kloss? It’s baffling
- Boys Basketball: Robinson’s Brown reaches 1,000 career points
- Bucs’ Gholston a finalist for top weekly rookie honors
- Pasco High TE/DL Bowman Archibald picks up two Division I offers
- Girls Basketball: FABC/Source Hoops State Poll
- Land O’ Lakes boys soccer coach Mark Pearson earns 300th career win
- Manuel signs deal with Panini Authentic
- Panini previews Gold Standard basketball
- Golf: All-Western Conference Teams
- Baseball: Jesuit OF Taylor selects Duke
Why It’d Be Tough To Retire No. 40
Posted Jan 24, 2008 by Aaron Knox
Updated Jan 24, 2008 at 01:19 PM
With Mike Alstott announcing his retirement Thursday, there already is rampant speculation among fans that his number (40) will be retired by the Bucs. While that might happen down the line, there are some inherent problems:
* The Bucs have retired only one number, the 63 worn by Hall of Fame defensive end Lee Roy Selmon.
* Most teams in the NFL wait until a player reaches the Hall of Fame before retiring their numbers.
* The reason NFL teams are reluctant to retire numbers is the large number of players on a team (starting with a 53-man roster, plus injured reserve and practice squad players), and the way those numbers are distributed. For instance, running backs, tight ends, linebackers and defensive backs all are allowed to wear numbers in the 40s.
That said, it would be a nice gesture by the Bucs to make sure no one else ever wears No. 40.
But then again, if they retire Alstott’s number, shouldn’t they do the same for Derrick Brooks (55) and Ronde Barber (20) when they retire?