Gear up for the 2020 MLB Season with new gear from Nike

Uni Watch Profiles: Bruce Burke


Last week I ran that entry about high school football teams using the logo of the NY/NJ Hitmen of the XFL. I wrapped things up by writing, “It would be interesting to know who designed the Hitmen’s logo (I’m assuming one branding firm handled all of the XFL team marks). Whoever it was, they’d probably be surprised to know that the HItmen design has had such a prolonged afterlife.”

That prompted reader Stuart Ratliff to point me toward this page, which includes the following info:

The XFL design team was a joint effort of WWE Entertainment Creative Services and Bruce Burke of Oneworld Communications, former NFL Properties vice president who founded and directed the NFL’s in-house Advertising and Design Group between 1987 and 1999, supporting all of the NFL’s marketing communications. [During] his twelve years of experience at the NFL, Bruce developed several NFL team identities, including the Carolina Panthers, Jacksonville Jaguars, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Philadelphia Eagles, Baltimore Ravens and Tennessee Titans.

A bit of Googling and a few e-mails later, I found myself talking to Bruce Burke, who graciously chatted with me for about an hour. We talked about the XFL, the NFL, and football uniforms in general. Here’s how it went:

Bruce Burke: You know, before you got in touch with me, I’d never seen your blog before. And as I looked through it, I was sort of surprised by how passionate you guys are about uniforms.

Uni Watch: Like I always say, never underestimate the power of sports geekitude.

BB: I’ll say. With a capital G.

UW: How did you end up working for the NFL, and what did you do before that?

BB: I started with the NFL in 1987. Prior to that I worked for an ad agency in San Francisco. I was brought to New York by the NFL to head up a new group they were setting up in-house to service all the advertising, branding, and design needs for the league. I did that from ’87 to 2000.

UW: So that was NFL Properties.

BB: Yeah. Prior to ’87, the league was basically a game that was played on television on Sunday. The guys who hired me wanted to brand the game and really apply some basic marketing disciplines to the game of football. Make it more than just something people watched on television. Try to attract a broader audience, including women, and make it what it’s become today.

A lot of the teams back then were a little stale, if you will, in terms of their branding. Not just the uniforms and the logos, but even the ways they communicated with their fan base. I had a good run there. It was a lot of fun.

UW: What was your title there?

BB: Creative director. I was responsible for hiring and managing a group of 26 designers, copywriters — it was basically an in-house agency. I did some of the designs, but I had a staff of people who did a lot of that work.

You know, it’s funny, I was reading some of the comments on your blog, where people were complaining about certain designs, saying they didn’t like them. But it’s a relatively small universe of people who do this stuff, and the people who did some of the designs your readers may not care for are the very same people who did some of the ones they probably do like. As a designer, you’ve gotta have thick skin, because not everyone’s gonna love everything you do.

UW: I’m curious about some of the NFL designs you oversaw. Let’s start with the Broncos. That design was pretty revolutionary when it came out in 1997. The common perception, or at least what I remember being told, is that Nike pretty much designed that uniform. In fact, it was the first time a uniform manufacturer designed a uniform for a major-level pro team, instead of just executing someone else’s design. Or at least that’s what I’ve always thought. Is that accurate?

BB: That’s fairly accurate, yeah. Pat Bowlen, who owns the Broncos, was very close with Phil Knight, and he wanted to create a new look for his team. The mark that they had — I’m sure you, being so close to uniform and logo design, you can appreciate how poorly designed that mark was. So they really needed a major upgrade. They didn’t try to hang on to any of the existing assets or equity — it was, as you say, revolutionary.

So Pat Bowlen basically asked Nike to come on board. My job was to get involved from the NFL’s side and sort of help Pat and Nike sort of navigate their way through it. There was a whole group of Nike designers who were involved with that project, and my group had to keep them on track.

UW: Because they were veering into some outlandish directions..?

BB: Oh, some of the stuff they had. Which was great, though. It’s funny — by today’s standards, it’s not so outlandish. But at the time, some of the things they were trying to do went beyond revolutionary. You have to applaud Nike for that, though. I love what they’re doing at the college level these days.

UW: We’ll get to that, but first I want to stick to the Broncos. Is it true that the pant stripe was intentionally designed to resemble a Nike swoosh?

BB: No, it’s not true at all. I remember hearing that back when it happened. Nike was trying to bring some new engineering into the uniforms. As designers back then, we were always being stifled by the manufacturers telling us, “You can’t do that.” We had some great designs on paper, and the word would come back, “We can’t manufacturer that, it’s not feasible.” With that stripe, Nike was trying to show the rest of the world that it is possible to do new and exciting things. They were basically waving that stripe in front of the Russells and the Champions of the world and saying, “Who says you can’t do a different kind of stripe pattern?” It wasn’t about the swoosh at all. But if people perceived it that way, so be it.

UW: It’s now been nearly 15 years since that design came out, and there’s still nothing else like it in the NFL. There is at the college level, of course, but not in the NFL. Are you surprised more NFL teams haven’t gone to more modern design templates?

BB: Not really. I think the NFL recognizes, more than any other league or sport, the equity that it owns, and they see it as kind of sacred. In time, though, as ideas that used to be considered extreme start becoming more acceptable, I think you’ll see more of that being integrated into the league.

UW: Now let’s talk about the Buccaneers. How did they come to be wearing that pewter tone?

BB: We wanted to create a new neutral. Silvers, blacks, and whites had always been the neutral tones, and we wanted to come up with something new. And frankly, pewter was appropriate for a team with a pirate theme. All of the colors we used for them — the red, the pewter, and the black — had to do with the research we’d done about pirate lore. That’s still one of my favorite uniforms in the NFL today.

You know, the league and I were actually sued by Al Davis over that uniform — one of many lawsuits he filed against the league.

UW: You were named as a defendant in the lawsuit?

BB: Yeah. He basically said, “Bruce Burke and his design team stole my trademark.” I had to go through several depositions. I can laugh at it today, but at the time I was very angry, because of all the time and effort that we’d made to create that Buccaneers design. He just didn’t like anything with a pirate or crossbones or crossed swords. He was offended by that.

UW: Was that suit dismissed?

BB: Oh yeah. It was one of those things that never went very far. Internally, at the NFL offices, there was a lot of eye-rolling over it. “There he goes again.”

Later on, we developed an identity for the Baltimore Ravens, and we were sued by this guy who claimed that I’d stolen his logo design, which he’d supposedly faxed in to the Baltimore Stadium Authority. He said I’d ended up with this fax and given it to my design team and that we’d ripped him off.

And it was the furthest thing from the truth — I didn’t even know there was a Baltimore Stadium Authority. We had files and files of stuff we’d been working on for the Ravens. We brought a bunch of New York lawyers down to Baltimore for a trial in front of a Baltimore jury. The NFL spent a ton of money trying to defend that case. And after months of depositions and going through the whole process, this Baltimore-loyal jury voted against us, because they just wanted to stick it to the NFL. And as a guy who was intimately involved in the design process, it spoke volumes to me about today’s legal system. It was a sad lesson.

UW: Why did you end up leaving the NFL?

BB: I’d been there 12 years. I was commuting from Connecticut and traveling a lot, so I never saw my kids. So I opened an agency where I lived, and it was tremendously successful. I ran that for four years before founding a more entrepreneurial gig, and now I’m running a beverage company. But it’s still branding and marketing.

UW: How did you end up working with the XFL?

BB: The month I left the NFL, Vince McMahon got wind of the fact that the NFL’s creative director had left the league and was working on his own in Connecticut — Vince’s back yard. So he called me up and said, “I need eight new uniforms and logos. Can you help me?” It was an incredible opportunity, but he needed them in only two months. So I really had to tap into all my relationships that I’d built up over the years. I put together a team of designers, and we cranked that work out.

You know, I hadn’t looked at the XFL work in quite some time until you got in touch with me, so I just went back and looked in the files. There was some great work in there.

UW: Were your old friends at the NFL upset with you for working with a rival league?

BB: I don’t think they are now. But at the time, Vince was pretty outspoken with his comments about the NFL. I tried to keep a distance from all of that — I didn’t want to burn any bridges. But you know, I was trying to make a living. I was asked to do this work, so I did it. And frankly, the fact that the XFL didn’t work out, if anything, gave me more egg on my face than it pissed anyone off at the NFL.

UW: Aside from the compressed time frame you just mentioned, what was the creative process like for the XFL designs? And specifically, what was it like to create designs for an entire league all at once, instead of for individual teams?

BB: That’s a great question. It was extremely refreshing to be starting with a clean slate and not dealing with some of the parameters that the NFL would sometimes impose on our work. Here you had one guy — Vince — who was the one guy who made the decisions. You weren’t talking to all these layers of people at the league, or at the teams — you were just talking to Vince. And he was a really quick study. He had immediate likes and dislikes, and it was a testament to Vince that we were able to do it all so quickly, because he was able to make decisions quickly.

Remember, the whole concept of the XFL was what Vince called “smash-mouth football.” Left on his own, Vince would’ve sent guys out there with leather helmets. Or no helmets. I’m dead serious! And frankly, if he had done that, the XFL would still be around. But what happened was, NBC had lost the TV rights to the NFL. Dick Ebersol really wanted something to replace the NFL, and he had a lot of influence on Vince in terms of the ultimate product that ended up on television. So here you had Vince, who wanted to do a throwback to the days of Bronco Nagurski, when guys just played tough football, and then you had Ebersol, who basically wanted a new NFL.

So we ended up with pretty much the same palette that I’d worked with at at the NFL, as opposed to something really novel and different. And I think that’s why the XFL failed. It wasn’t this new, exciting product — it was just a really inferior NFL.

Still, it was a great opportunity to do some interesting work. And I know some of the marks we created get laughed at today, in large part, I think, because of what happened on the field…

UW: Sort of a guilt by association?

BB: Right. But people get used to things over time. And if the XFL had endured, I think people would have come around to embracing these marks, and they would have stood the test of time.

UW: Looking back, can you name one of the XFL designs that you particularly like, and also one that you feel wasn’t as successful?

BB: One that I didn’t much care for — although Vince really loved it — was the one with the fist, the Chicago Enforcers. I didn’t get that, to be honest with you. That was a direction that Vince wanted. He felt putting a fist in a logo was what his fan base wanted. But it never did much for me.

The Las Vegas Outlaws, that one probably looked more like an NFL mark than the others. I liked that one. But the one I liked the most was the San Francisco Demons. That was an excellent mark. The person who was responsible for that was a girl named Rhonda Kim, who had worked for me at the NFL. Actually, most of these were done by NFL designers.

I think they were good marks. They were a little out there — I don’t think you’d see a design like the Memphis Maniax in the NFL, and I know some people in Orlando didn’t like the Rage mark. But if the league had survived, I guarantee you’d be seeing people all over the place wearing that logo.

Now the Hitmen logo, which is being used by all these high schools, I love that logo. I think it’s definitely one that would endure over time and get stronger, as more people saw it.

UW: Until I got in touch with you, were you aware than the Hitmen logo was being used by so many high schools around America?

BB: I’d seen it once, and I laughed. I didn’t realize it was so widespread, though.

UW: Why did you laugh?

BB: Because I wondered where they’d gotten it.

UW: What do you think of the current state of football uniform design?

BB: I especially like what Nike’s doing at the collegiate level. TCU, Oregon — they’re absolutely hittin’ it out of the ballpark in terms of pushing the envelope. I like the muted or matte helmets, too. Very cool. I don’t like what’s going on with Maryland, though.

UW: Well, that’s Under Armour, not Nike.

BB: Is that Under Armour? I think they’re pushing it too far, and it doesn’t work. They’re trying too hard. But my son, who’s a freshman in high school, liked it.

UW: I think he was more of the target market than you or I.

BB: Yeah. But to me, it doesn’t hold together.

UW: Back when you were with the NFL, college football uniforms and pro football uniforms weren’t all that different, but now the college designs are much more out there, much more youth-oriented. What do you think of that, and what impact, if any, do you think will come from Nike taking over the NFL’s uniform contract next year? Do you think the NFL will move in that direction as well?

BB: Yeah, I do. I think it’s just a matter of time, as manufacturers are able to do more with their products. And if one team does something extreme, everyone else is going to want to be like that a few years down the road. It’s just part of the process.

UW: But how does that jibe with what you said earlier about the NFL staying true to its core equities?

BB: Well, when you talk about equity, you’re really talking about the colors and the trademarks. Those are the things the fans really respond to. The things we’re talking about, that’s not the brand so much as just the subtle aesthetics — how it’s interpreted within the canvas. I mean, I don’t think you’re gonna see the New York Giants wear black. And the Packers will forever be green and gold. So I don’t think you’ll see changes to those elements.

You may see it at the college level, though. I was watching a college game last weekend, with Michigan State — I didn’t even recognize ’em. I loved what they looked like, but it didn’t look like Michigan State. It surprises me that some of the colleges are doing that. They probably shouldn’t be so open to changing the integrity of their original branding equities. You won’t see that in the NFL.


Interesting, right? And here’s the best part: Bruce says he has all sorts of developmental designs in his archives — ideas that never came to fruition, alternate logos that were rejected, early sketches, etc. It’s all in storage, but he’s promised to dig some of it up and share it with us. Can’t wait.

+ + + + +

Wondering what that “Catch of the Day” thingie in the right sidebar is? In case you missed it yesterday, there’s a full description here.

+ + + + +


Uni Watch News Ticker: New 50th-anniversary logo for Dodger Stadium (click on it for more info). Personally, I like it. Not sure yet if it’s going to be worn as a patch. … Yesterday I Ticker-linked to a photo of the purple circles on Christian Ponder’s helmet. “Those are to cover the air valves,” says Chris Willis of Athletic Decals. “We didn’t do those, but we do them for a some of the NFL guys. Most of the guys who use them just use clear ovals and have the valve caps painted at the factory. I think the only colored ones we do are for the Jags.” … Whoa, check out this amazing-looking set of Maple Leafs records. … MLB is currently conducting an all-star tour of Taiwan, with some really ugly uni patches. Additional photos here (big thanks to Morris Levin). … Also, Eric Stangel notes that the Yankees on that tour have block numerals on their batting helmet brims, instead of the Yankes’ usual rounded numerals. ”¦ I’ve been waiting my entire life for a meat vending machine and didn’t even know it (carnivorous thanks to Tris Wykes). … I’m not sure which is more interesting: that Steven Jackson was wearing a Rawlings helmet on Sunday (is he the first NFLer to go with Rawlings’ revived helmet line?) or that Rawlings got away with having their wordmark so prominently displayed on Jackson’s neck bumper. That’s still a no-no until Riddell’s current contract expires, no? (Big thanks to Bill Kellick.) … Remember those Theo Epstein Cubs jerseys? Well now forget ’em (from Matt Lindner). … This is pretty funny: If you go to the eighth photo of this gallery, you’ll see Niklas Kronwall of the Red Wings wearing a Tigers undershirt beneath his jersey (from Robbie Biederman). … Man, talk about a tale of two lower-leg styles. ”¦ I won this groovy flannel jersey yesterday (I told the seller not to bother shipping the pants). More photos once it arrives in the mail. ”¦ Pretty cool assortment of Chevy speedometer designs (thanks, Kirsten). ”¦ Susan Freeman has made a key adjustment to the Bayou Bucket logo. ”¦ Matt Eggen notes that Toledo has some pretty cool merit decal placement. ”¦ New Wisconsin-based baseball team in the Northwoods League: the Lakeshore Chinooks (from Kevin McMahon). ”¦ Minnesota hoops freshman Andre Hollins of the Minnesota hoops team is going with an NOB of “Dre Hollins” to distinguish himself from sophomore Austin Hollins (no relation), who’s using “Hollins” (big thanks to Jon Beckmann and Chris Hodge. ”¦ Saw Rum Diary yesterday, and holy shit was it bad. Like, really. Embarrassingly bad. So bad that I actually walked out, which is something I almost never do. Avoid at all costs. ”¦ Reprinted from last night’s comments: a high school baseball game with all the players wearing Halloween costumes. ”¦ Lendsey Thompson found some sensational early-1980s ads for Wilson unis, Sand-Knit unis, and New Era caps. Look at that New Era logo! ”¦ Here’s the full BFBS uni that Ohio will be wearing tonight. “Just looking at it makes me nauseous,” says Barry Quinn. ”¦ “Tuesday night’s episode of The Biggest Loser saw contestant Jessica eliminated and sent home to Pittsburgh,” says Kevin Wang. “The follow-up segment showed her continuing her weight loss with a training session with Larry Foote and Ike Taylor of the Steelers. She was wearing some Steelers-themed socks during the workout. You can also see the socks in this video segment.”

211 comments to Uni Watch Profiles: Bruce Burke

  • Shane | November 2, 2011 at 8:16 am |

    Outstanding interview, Paul. Can’t wait to see what’s in Bruce’s archives.

    • jesse | November 2, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

      one of the best interviews you’ve ever had on the site–GREAT stuff.

      • =bg= | November 2, 2011 at 7:07 pm |

        yeah i agree. excellent. now let’s see some of those Broncos designs that didn’t make it.

      • =bg= | November 2, 2011 at 7:11 pm |

        saw the jpeg of the various looks he did and wanted to comment.

        *Bucs typeface: for me, always hard to read.

        *Niners: the logo on the stripes, and the drop shadow: Nah.

        *Texans: what happened to the original (white) helmet? Always thought Texas unis were VERY blah. Not much too ’em.

        *Patriots: did they ever consider a royal rather than navy?

        • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 9:25 pm |

          Yeah… the Patriots used royal from ’93 to ’99, remember? They even lost a Superbowl in that color.

  • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 8:28 am |

    Great interview. I’m also looking forward to seeing some of the unused prototypes.

    …but, um, what’s with the 3 striped Seahawks logo on this image?

    Wasn’t that one of the logos from a contest on here?

    • Kyle Allebach #school | November 2, 2011 at 8:35 am |

      Guess they changed it for the final uniform. Either way, I think I like that logo better. If any team is allowed to be neon green, it’s Seattle.

    • M.Princip | November 2, 2011 at 9:06 am |

      Heh heh….that’s Brad McPelican’s logo from the jersey contest UniWatch had a while back:

    • Andy | November 2, 2011 at 11:05 am |

      The Seahawks’ and Texans’ logos were also created by Mark Verlander. Sort of a misleading graphic there.

      • M.Princip | November 2, 2011 at 11:52 am |

        The 2002 Seahawks logo wasn’t designed by Mark Verlander. I know this because this is what he told me. He only did the wordmark, in regards to the Seahawks. The wordmarks are all very similar; Texans, Cardinals, Seahawks, and Falcons. He did however design the logos for the Falcons, Texans, and I believe the Cards.

        The Seahawks logo was re-designed in 2001-02 by the NFL Properties Advertising & Design Group. So, maybe a carry over in work from Oneworld?

        Still very odd/interesting that the Seahawks are on Bruce’s NFL identities designed page, and McPelican’s logo ta boot.

  • Kyle Allebach #school | November 2, 2011 at 8:34 am |

    So the Bronco’s pant stripe wasn’t for making it a swoosh, huh? I’m sure it was an ulterior motive on Nike’s part. I don’t think they would have told anyone outright “Yeah, in redesigning the uniform, we want everyone to know immediately that Nike made it.”

    Anyway, great interview. It’s kinda cool to see the guy who made the Eagles who they are today (logowise).

  • Anthony Emerson | November 2, 2011 at 8:35 am |

    So Rum Diary was so bad that you walked out on it? It has average reviews on all the big websites. What was the issue with it?

  • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 8:36 am |

    BB: “It (Denver Broncos pants stripes) wasn’t about the swoosh at all. But if people perceived it that way, so be it.”

    I think I’m gonna have to call bullshit on that right out of the box. “…wasn’t about the swoosh at all.”? Not just a little bit? And no one at Nike even noticed the resemblance that millions of fans automatically did?

    • Rob S | November 2, 2011 at 10:29 am |

      I never noticed it until it was mentioned here, and I still have a hard time seeing anything but a vague resemblance.

      • Pat | November 2, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

        I’m gonna have to agree with you on this one. If people want to hate Nike they will invent ways to hate Nike, and then when told something to the contrary about what they believed to be true from a direct source will make them respond with “that’s not true, he’s lying to us or maybe he really didn’t know”. The dude was the head of one of the most important departments of a multi-billion dollar sporting enterprise, let’s give him a little more credit then that please.

      • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

        Pat, I don’t hate Nike. It just seems inconceivable to me that Nike would design football pantswith stripes that looked like Nike swooshes when the players assumed their stance. I remember when the Broncos uniforms were introduced and everyone was commenting on the Nike swooshes. And a money-making machine like Nike was oblivious that the stripes looked like Nike swooshes? I ain’t buying…

    • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 11:35 am |

      Rob, as soon as the Broncos began playing in their new uniforms it was plain to see that when the Broncos players lined up in a three point stance that the leg stripes were Nike swooshes. As I recall, there was much commentary at the time on that point.

  • DoubleJ | November 2, 2011 at 8:42 am |

    Fantastic Interview!

    Arian Foster and Andre Johnson have been wearing the Rawlings helmets so far this season, but I dont recall seeing the wordmark on them.

  • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 8:44 am |

    Anyone else between 25 and 30 immediately think of Pete & Pete when they saw the meat vending machine? I’ve been waiting for one since that episode aired in 1995.

  • Alan Saunders | November 2, 2011 at 8:44 am |

    It’s Ike Taylor… Ike Turner might help someone lose weight if he were still around but I’m sure not in a fashion that NBC would endorse.

    • Paul Lukas | November 2, 2011 at 8:52 am |

      Thanks. Now fixed.

  • Johnny O | November 2, 2011 at 8:59 am |

    This was an amazing interview! Pure gold! Can’t wait to see these prototypes.

    It’s kind of funny to think that to the average uni-nerd, the prototypes, and lost designs are something most of us crave… but to those who designed them, they generally don’t think much of them.

    • Andy | November 2, 2011 at 11:10 am |

      I would disagree with that. In most cases someone else is making the decisions for what moves on and what gets killed at each review. It might be an art/creative director or it might the team/client itself, but there are nearly always logos that end up on the cutting room floor that the designer thinks are better than the final product. At least 99% of the time.

  • walter | November 2, 2011 at 9:00 am |

    Those Chevrolet speedometers are right in my wheelhouse. Not only do I try to repurpose speedometer fonts into uniform graphics, I have a habit (developed as a kid) of trying to suss out where the turn signals go.

    • Andy | November 2, 2011 at 11:12 am |

      Agreed. The styles evolved from old-fashioned to perfect to overly-fancy to generic to overly-futuristic.

    • Dumb Guy | November 2, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

      The ’66 Nova looks a lot like the one in my parents’ ’68 Pontiac Executive–long and wide. I remember it vividly.

      Very cool.

  • Mark in Shiga | November 2, 2011 at 9:01 am |

    Reading the article about the banning of the #12 Epstein jerseys, and it’s pretty dismaying. Majestic can’t sell a jersey with the #12 and any name other than Soriano’s or the buyer’s? So if I want a Shawon Dunston jersey or Dusty Baker or even Mickey Morandini, I can’t have one, despite them also wearing #12 for the Cubs and with the same design?

    All the more reason to not have any names on jerseys at all. Let the fans have whatever number they want, and associate it with whatever player they want.

    (BTW, I’ve got a buddy named Jeremy Epstein who could make a little money ordering #12 Epstein jerseys in bulk for all who want them and then giving Majestic the finger.)

    • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 9:33 am |

      You can customize the jersey to say whatever you want. The Cubs, oddly enough, also charge $35 less for a custom blue jersey than the retailer was for the Epstein jerseys.

      • Mark in Shiga | November 2, 2011 at 10:02 am |

        Could they be lowering the price on the non-Cool Base jerseys because they want to unload inventory?

        Originally the customized “regular fabric” jerseys were $179 and the Cool Base $199. They’re lowering the price only on the non-Cool Base versions of both the white and the blue, so it probably isn’t a case of the team discontinuing a design. (For a moment, I was afraid that the price drop was because the Cubs were dumping their great-looking blue jerseys. I hope they don’t do that.)

  • pushbutton | November 2, 2011 at 9:01 am |

    I never loved the Denver Broncos pre-1997 logo more than I do this morning. So. There.

    • Chris Holder | November 2, 2011 at 9:38 am |

      Yeah, as a casual Broncos fan (I don’t watch a whole lot of NFL action), I was pretty offended by him saying that the pre-1997 logo was “poorly designed”. Whatever, dude. It may not have been created in a corporate think tank using high-dollar software by a guy with an art degree, but I thought it was pretty damn awesome when I was a kid as I pretended I was John Elway.

      • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 10:07 am |

        It was poorly designed, in that it was a D with white blotch in it that only looked like a horse if you got really close to it. It was another dated logo like Pat the Patriot which looked great on a poster or a program cover, but rather crappy on a helmet. They probably would have been better off using just a white outlined D.

        /and as a Raiders fan, f**k Elway. ;)

        • Chris Holder | November 2, 2011 at 10:32 am |

          Was it too “busy” for a helmet? Perhaps. Otherwise, the logo itself was fine, IMO. And that same logic can maybe be applied to Pat the Patriot. There’s room for both the old-school throwback logos that are designed by hand, AND the modern stuff. I just don’t care for people that immediately dismiss work done 50 years ago as a “poor design”.

          Not that I’d expect any reasonable discourse from a Raiders fan ;)

        • Craig D | November 2, 2011 at 10:33 am |

          “/and as a Raiders fan, f**k Elway. ;)”

          Ditto that for us Browns’ fans.

          Man I am really getting a lot of Browns related angst out today. Maybe because I root for a JV team that sucks, but not enough for Luck. More angst!!!!

        • David | November 2, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

          Sorry, The, but I respectfully disagree. That beautiful D with the horse in the middle, on the blue helmet … one of the best and most under-stated and under-appreciated logos in the history of the NFL. Combine that with the horse statue at the end of the stadium … way cool. I wa sborn in Denver and lived there for 11 years, and that D was all over the place. The new logo and uniform remains one of the worst in the league.

        • Bobby Fenton | November 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

          Seriously, enough of this rubbish. The Denver logo with the D and the rearing up Bronco was almost perfect, and it was 1000% better than the computer generated logo of today. I agree that those Broncos uniforms as a whole were almost perfect and that the only thing they needed was a little darker blue.

        • NickV | November 2, 2011 at 6:13 pm |

          Poor Design – Baloney. It is a GREAT design, as the very best logos combine the Team name or City Name with the team icon or “nickname” – see early/current NY Jets, or iconic Atlanta Flames Motion “A”, or Tulanes “T” with the Green Wave added.

          The pre-1997 Broncos “D” was a great combnation of team name and City name.

          Poorly designed? What is poorly designed is the current severed Horse’s head. They should use that logo for the Wolz Junior High School Khartooms ….. !!!

          By the way,the Broncos current 2012 plan to wear Orange jerseys with Navy helmets simply does not look right as a regular uniform. The current Orange jerseys are too light where compared to the too dark Navy helmets. They actually look too much like Alternates, or mismatched practice uniforms, to be worn every game. It just does not work for me.

          I believe that the Broncos uni would work better with the pre-1997 basic blue worn with current Orange jerseys and trim. Or stick with the Navy Blue jerseys, the current numeral fonts, and bring back the pre-1997 “D” logo.

          But that’s just my taste.

      • JTH | November 2, 2011 at 10:08 am |

        The only problem I see with that Broncos unis of that era is that the shade of blue on the helmets came off too light. It just didn’t work very well with orange as the dominant color.

        But I don’t think the answer was to go full-on navy blue.

        If they’d done the Rams/Giants/Chargers thing where they had helmets that were that darker royal, almost navy blue color it would have been a much better look.

      • Andy | November 2, 2011 at 11:14 am |

        I don’t think it was poorly designed, but it was poorly drawn. Make that old D logo more clean and crisp and it’s perfect.

    • Aaron | November 2, 2011 at 10:22 am |

      Could not agree more. The old Broncos mark was amazing, and I actually have always been a big fan of the Broncos old look. I keep alive some dim flame of hope they’ll come back to it someday.

      • Rob S | November 2, 2011 at 10:38 am |

        He criticizes this (though he’d have a legit claim to criticize this mess, but in the process of creating this, he also gave us THIS alternate mark.


        • Craig D | November 2, 2011 at 11:20 am |

          What…you never saw a horse doing the ol’ soft shoe?

        • Ricko | November 2, 2011 at 11:43 am |

          With you on that.

          That full length horse is easily one of the most under-thought logos in sports history. Give me 10 minutes digging in the comics I still have and I can find 50 better-looking, more dramatic horse renderings by artists like Gil Kane and Tom Gill, to name just two.

          But it does answer the question: What would Baryshnikov look like if he were a horse? Or vice versa.

        • Ricko | November 2, 2011 at 11:58 am |

          That itself is strange because the hood-ornament Bronco head (taken simply as a design unto itself) is so good.

          And then they also give that “Island of Dr. Moreau” horse. I guess they did that one after the drugs kicked in.

        • Pat | November 2, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

          I personally see what he was saying about the original D logo. I mean The horse looks cartoony and is he shooting milk out of his nostrils? Honestly old and lame looking.

    • walter | November 2, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

      I agree; to a passionate fan, that remark could seem pretty callous. It was no better or worse than the Miami Dolphins’ helmet insignia. But I would have cobbled one up so the horse was facing forward no matter which side of the helmet it was on.

  • dwight | November 2, 2011 at 9:02 am |

    re: Rawlings helmet, i know the Rawlings rep for Houston, and know that Arian Foster, Mario Williams, and Andre Johnson have worn it this year

  • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 9:05 am |

    Re-reading the interview…as I recall, the guy from Baltimore had a pretty good claim that someone had poached his idea for the Ravens logo. The two were almost identical as I recall.

    And as for the Al Davis litigation, I think, if I were Al Davis, I would have been protective of my team’s crossed swords logo. Tampa Bay simply changed the orientation of the crossed swords in their logo.

    • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 9:32 am |

      I dunno if they were really close enough to bother suing over, realistically. Crossed swords are a pretty typical part of any pirate theme. Now maybe if they’d went with silver instead of pewter, or black instead of red… even then it’s a bit iffy.

      Of course I think Al tried to sue over the Panthers colors too.

      • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 9:42 am |

        “Crossed swords are a pretty typical part of any pirate theme.”

        Then what does that say about the creativity in the design of the Bucs logo? And another team was already using crossed swords in its logo…

        • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 9:57 am |

          Considering the Bucs logo is pretty much just this: with a football stuck on it and recolored… it’s not a creative logo at all. But, that’s not really the point, is it?

          The Raiders logo is sort of implied piracy. He’s wearing an eye patch & there’s crossed swords – he must be a pirate.

          The Bucs are just blatantly YAR HAR FIDDLE-DEE DEE, WE ARE PIRATES

          They’re both using elements from a far older source. It’s pretty much the same as the Colts & Broncos both being horse teams. Suing was just Al being Al and trying to cause trouble.

        • Jim Vilk | November 2, 2011 at 11:03 am |

          …just Al being Al and trying to cause trouble.

          No wonder you’re a Raider fan. ;)

      • Craig D | November 2, 2011 at 9:49 am |

        Damn you all for posting the exact comments I made while I was making them. Now I feel redundant. Having said the same thing as you all. Over and over again. So redundant. Gah!

      • MEANS | November 2, 2011 at 1:35 pm |

        Didn’t you know that Al Davis owned Silver and Black?

    • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 9:35 am |

      The Jolly Roger is way too generic to trademark. Maybe if they’d put the skull in a football helmet he’d have a case, but he’d still probably lose.

      • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 9:44 am |

        All I said was I can understand an owner (Al Davis) being protective of his teams’ logo when another team adopts one similar.

    • Craig D | November 2, 2011 at 9:38 am |

      I think that claiming total ownership of crossed swords logos is a bit of a stretch. That’s a pretty common image for pirate lore. Since both teams are pirate themed, it is only natural that they would have some similarities. I don’t think that the Jaguars could claim the Panthers are infringing on there logo just because it’s a large cat with its teeth bared.

      I do think the Bucs were better off with Bucco Bruce simply because he had more of a Spaniard pirate feel, which was appropriate for the region. The current logo is a little too generic for me.

      • Craig D | November 2, 2011 at 9:39 am |

        “their” logo. Damn I hate misuse of their, there and they’re. More coffee please.

      • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 9:47 am |

        “That’s (crossed swords) a pretty common image for pirate lore.”

        Bingo…the marketing firm took the easy route and did, in fact, step on the toes of another team with a similar logo in the process.

    • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 9:47 am |

      It was pretty darn close, but for good reason. It was obvious to all but the jury that the dude drew his design AFTER the logo was unveiled. Mr. Burke was correct, no Baltimore jury would ever favor a bunch of NFL lawyers from New York. The NFL poked Baltimore in the eye when they expanded and there was still a lot of bitterness here at the time.

      • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 9:50 am |

        Ummmm…the jury actually heard and saw the evidence. All we got was a reporter’s account of what transpired. I have seen instances too often where news accounts of a trial bear no resemblance to what actually went on in the courtroom

        • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 10:03 am |

          Possible yes, but how do explain this? The judge ordered that no monetary compensation be paid to the “artist”. The clearly was aware of what went on during that trail. It was 10 million dollar lawsuit. He “won” but didn’t get paid. BTW… the reporting in that case was very favorable to the plaintiff.

        • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 10:39 am |

          Ron, the trial was bifurcated and in another, later trial on damages the jury was obliged to follow the judge’s ruling that the logo itself had no inherent value (yep, you read that correctly) and the plaintiff could only recover that portion of merchandising profits that he could prove was directly attributable to the logo itself. In effect, he got screwed by the judge…

        • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 10:59 am |

          Very well. I gotta tell ya though, I still can’t believe that a group of NFL designers who live for the opportunity to design a new team logo would resort to theft. I would imagine they would go in a completely different direction if they saw his design. His story was just so unbelievable. I remember at the time of the trail every designer who had worked on the project testified that they had never seen the drawing. I find it so hard to believe they all lied. In the end you are correct. The man won the case and the judge screwed him.

        • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 11:31 am |

          Ron, start reading the factual background, at page 6, here…

        • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 12:05 pm |

          The law says what you need to prove infringement is access and similarity. Because of the way design firms generally work, the facts that they didn’t return his design to him immediately and that the designs were substantially similar are almost all the proof needed that they copied it.

        • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 12:10 pm |

          Wow! Thank you. That is so interesting. I’m not trying to be contrarian here but.. Is it a tad suspect that he never showed the team the logo in question in person?
          The mini helmet design was not the disputed one. The sketch was included, Bouchat said, in the fax he sent. He didn’t retain a receipt. To me it’s a classic he said/she said. The Maryland Stadium Authority claims they never saw the design. The Ravens claim they never saw it or sent it to the NFL and the NFL claims they never received any sketches to show the artists. The jury believed Bouchat. What a vast conspiracy that was perpetrated to avoid giving the man a helmet and a thank you letter.

        • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 12:12 pm |

          The fact that there’s no proof they saw it is irrelevant, because he did send it in. Because of how similar the final product was to his design, access doesn’t mean they had to see it, only that they could have.

        • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

          Seriously? You stated, ” he did send it in”. That’s is my point exactly. There absolutely no proof whatsoever that he sent anything at all to them. If you read the entire document I agree with author. It was a terrible opinion in this case. Again, we all have opinions and my has not changed. The only person who copied anything was Bouchat. We agree to disagree here.
          **apologies for posting this below earlier**

        • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 5:29 pm |

          “Bouchat offered evidence that his shield drawing was transmitted first to Moag, who shared an office with Modell (who had a close relationship with the alleged infringers on the design project). Bouchat testified that Moag offered to forward his (Bouchat’s) drawings to the Ravens and that Bouchat sent the fax of the drawings to MSA, addressed to Moag. The jury was entitled to credit that testimony. Evidence was also introduced that the regular practice at the M.S.A. was to forward faxes for Moag to his Pratt Street office. The jury was thus entitled to conclude that the faxed drawing reached Moag at the Pratt Street office. Defendants admit that Modell and other Ravens staff shared office space with Moag in the Pratt Street building, and that Modell’s own office was within “earshot” of Moag’s office. By proving that the drawings were transmitted to Moag, and that Modell shared the same office space with Moag, Bouchat proved that Modell had “access” to Bouchat’s drawing. The chain of transmittals is far more than hypothetical-it is based on the testimony of Bouchat and the evidence regarding standard office routines at the MSA.”
          – Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens, Inc., 241 F.3d 350 (4th Circuit 2001) at page 354.

          That is the proof that Bouchat sent his drawings in to the Ravens. You can assume whatever you want about what happened, but everyone from the Maryland District Federal Court up to the Supreme Court has said that there was sufficient proof that Bouchat sent the Ravens his drawings to establish access.

      • Craig D | November 2, 2011 at 9:54 am |

        If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t that original logo similar to the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo hat that Fred Flintstone wore?
        As a Browns fan (and a petty one at that) I was thrilled when they lost that suit.

        • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 10:05 am |

          As a Ravens fan I was thrilled they lost too. It was a terrible logo!

        • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 10:23 am |

          Ron, I think you’re the first person I’ve ever seen who actually prefers their bird logo over the original winged shield. Seriously.

        • Ricko | November 2, 2011 at 10:35 am |

          Well y’know, The, I imagine there also are a number of people—even in Baltimore—who’d guess Edgar Allen Poe probably was an early AFL defensive end.

        • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 10:40 am |

          Really? I love it. I wish it were much bigger on the helmet though. Living here I get the impression that most people like it more than the original. I think you have said before that you don’t like the “B” on the birds head. That’s the best part to me!

        • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 10:44 am |

          No Ricko, Edgar Allen Podalak was a RB.

        • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 10:52 am |

          I think Eddie Poe was a fast little scatback from Grambling who played in the early days of the AFL.

          Or maybe I just made that up… ;>)

        • Ricko | November 2, 2011 at 11:06 am |

          To me, the difference(chasm?) between those logos is that the first is the original, “Gothic” Poe version of the tale.

          The successor is the Disney musical adaptation.

          One of them seems better suited to Baltimore history and to football.

        • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 11:41 am |

          I see your point. I think if I lived in Nebraska I agree with you on this one. However, living Baltimore the new logo represents good football and shield bad. Probably the same reason I like the Orioles cartoon bird. I imagine that logo might be considered a little Disney as well, but I love it. I recuse myself on this subject.

        • Ricko | November 2, 2011 at 11:52 am |

          Gotcha. Absolutely there also often is a chasm between the quality/appropriateness of a design and how it’s revered or reviled.

          And usually that’s about winning and losing.

          Similar to when someone, at a distance, says the Twins’ powder blue sets were good-looking. People who were around for those years just wince and shudder.

        • Jim Vilk | November 2, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

          These last two comments brought back memories of 25 years ago, when I saw the powder blue Twins take on the cartoon bird Orioles in my first game at Memorial Stadium. I thought it was a visual feast.

        • David | November 2, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

          I’m with Ron. The current Raven on the side of the helmet is MUCH better than the winged shield.

        • Dumb Guy | November 2, 2011 at 1:03 pm |

          The thing I don’t like about the Ravens bird head helmet logo is the fact that the left side has the “B” sort of forced into it. The right side (from the wearer’s prospective) the “B” is smei natural. the left side sucks.

      • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 12:32 pm |

        Seriously? You stated, ” he did send it in”. That’s is my point exactly. There absolutely no proof whatsoever that he sent anything at all to them. If you read the entire document I agree with author. It was a terrible opinion in this case. Again, we all have opinions and my has not changed. The only person who copied anything was Bouchat. We agree to disagree here.

        • Ron V | November 2, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

          Sorry… that was a reply to jdreyfuss above.

        • NickV | November 3, 2011 at 2:08 am |

          Hey cuz, I too prefer the Bird’s Head to the Loyal Order of the Moose Lodge “winged shield”. It simply looks better.

  • Brad | November 2, 2011 at 9:08 am |

    The Dodger Stadium 50th anniversary logo is expected to be worn as a patch and released this month.

    • JimWa | November 2, 2011 at 9:12 am |

      Something strikes me unusual about this logo – it doesn’t contain any logos! No interlocking LA, no Dodgers (new or old), I don’t know of Dodger Stadium has a marquee like Wrigley Field, but either way, it ain’t there.

      I find this neither good nor bad, but it seems unique to me.

      • Craig D | November 2, 2011 at 9:56 am |

        I’m guessing by the lack of fans in the seats and the setting of the sun, that logo depicts Dodger Stadium as it appears in the third inning of any game.

      • JTH | November 2, 2011 at 9:57 am |

        That’s why that logo is so great. Just let the structure speak for itself. None of the “one more bumper sticker” BS.

        When I saw that logo, I literally said, out loud, “ooh, that’s nice.” (Never underestimate the power of sports geekitude.)

      • Arr Scott | November 2, 2011 at 11:14 am |

        It’s so classy, I almost wonder how the Dodgers managed to produce it. Is it because the litigation has already removed McCourt from day-to-day involvement in decisions like this? Or is it that the team is in such dire condition that no stakeholders wanted their logos represented? Either way, it’s the kind of classy move I used to expect from the Dodgers but in recent years didn’t seem the norm anymore. Design-wise, the team is firing on all cylinders right now.

    • Rob S | November 2, 2011 at 11:00 am |

      The colors representing the lower deck sections just seem to be a bit too bright, or else the upper deck is not bright enough. The orange and yellow going across like that reminds me of old Activision box art.

  • JimWa | November 2, 2011 at 9:10 am |

    Hypothetical question spawned from the MLB travelling team pictures:

    You and you alone have a decision to make. In the next 30 seconds, you need to decide whether baseball will eliminate alternate jerseys for ALL TIME – nothing but grey and white (unless teams like Blue Jays or Royals go powder blue full time for one of their sets). HOWEVER, the trade-off is that there will now be ads on every MLB on-field uniform. Otherwise, uniforms will continue to be ad free, but to make up for the lost potential revenue, alternates will not only stay, but more designs – and more “revolutionary” designs – will make their way into the mix. So, what’s it going to be?

    No Alts, or No Ads?

    • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 9:17 am |

      The day they start putting garish ads on MLB uniforms, I think, is the day I need to find another way to occupy my summer.

      • =bg= | November 2, 2011 at 7:15 pm |

        One home.
        One road.
        One BP.

        One cap for home and road, and OK, a cap for BP, i can live with it.

        Peace and harmony reign.

    • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 9:17 am |

      Alts would be *far* better than ads.

      But, it’s sort of a stupid question since teams can manufacture all kinds of different alternate jerseys and hats to sell to the fans without actually wearing them on the field. I suppose wearing them increases the sales a little bit due to the die hard fans and collectors who just have to have every jersey their team wears… but you’d still get plenty of people buying the unworn jersey just because they think it looks cool.

    • Mark in Shiga | November 2, 2011 at 9:25 am |

      Absolutely no ads. Ever. I’d rather see my Cubs wear puce and teal polka dots with giant 7″ NOBs and all the jersey numbers over 50 before seeing an ad anywhere on their uniform.

      I actually like alts and prefer a little color over the sea of dull gray than began to take over in the early ’90s. My team, the Cubs, have blue as their main color, and navy blue jerseys don’t exactly look garish or ridiculous in the least. If I had my way, they’d go back to this, full time.

    • Craig D | November 2, 2011 at 9:45 am |

      No ads ever. Alts are not the problem. It’s when the teams fail to have a set rule for when to wear them that it becomes a problem. “Alts” has become a misnomer anyway. So many teams wear them more than the “standard” uni. Few teams, like the Reds, actually employ criteria for wearing the alts, which limits them and keeps them, for lack of a better word, special. Otherwise these alts are just regular parts of the uniform set.

    • scott | November 2, 2011 at 11:18 am |

      I’ve never been against alts, just softball tops. So if a team wants to wear blue jerseys, they should also wear accompanying blue pants. So a better question would be uniform ads vs. softball tops.

      • Mark in Shiga | November 2, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

        Sorry to pick on you, Scott, but this false association of non-white-and-gray with “softball” has to stop. Color has always been a part of uniforms; it’s just some bogus nostalgia for the 1930s-to-1950s era that keeps people thinking that white and gray are the only acceptable colors in baseball.

        Is it that the jersey color has to match the pants color? It’s not like jerseys and pants couldn’t be different colors even back in the 1870s.

        In fact, wildly varying combinations have always been possible. (Well, that 1882 experiment didn’t work so well, but each uniform taken on its own looks pretty good. Even the striped jerseys; I love those!)

    • Shane | November 2, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

      I can’t make up my mind here. My first thought was no alts + ads, mostly because as a soccer fan I’m used to ads on unis.

      But along the same lines, I think some alts are awesome (Oakland in yellow, for example). What would the size/location of the ad be, Jim?

  • Ben | November 2, 2011 at 9:10 am |

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a UW post over about year or so ago showcasing a random Graphic Designer’s portfolio that stated he was the sole designer of the Broncos new logo??

    • macky | November 2, 2011 at 9:20 am |

      kinda left a hint on my other comment then I saw this. His name is Rick Bakas.

    • Ben Fortney | November 2, 2011 at 10:19 am |

      Burke did say he had a team of 20+ as well the Nike design team when the Broncos rebranded, so it’s feasible Bakas was a part of one of those design groups.

    • Andy | November 2, 2011 at 11:21 am |

      Very rarely is an entire identity created by one person. Someone might have the logo in his portfolio, while someone else might have the uniform in his, and then someone else might have some program graphics or stadium signage in his, and then the creative director will have the whole shebang in his.

      • Ricko | November 2, 2011 at 12:09 pm |

        Yeah, I’ve heard a least four people claim to have written the McDonald’s “You Deserve A Break Today” jingle, one of them being Barry Manilow. Chances are that all four of them had something to do with, such things most often being a collaborative effort.

        On the other hand, we once had an art director who had gone through maybe thirty designs for a dog sled race logo that was, according to our clients, supposed to contain four disparate visual elements.

        I got an idea in the car on the way to work, sketched it into on a piece of typing paper for our artist, he rendered it out pretty much exactly the way I described it to him, and the clients loved it. Went right into production.

        To this day the logo is in that art director’s portfolio, as an example of HIS “ability to solve complex design challenges.”

  • Mark in Shiga | November 2, 2011 at 9:11 am |

    I’m looking at those Taiwan tour patches, and while the big ugly white one on the chests celebrating a certain bank is indeed hideous, the one on the helmets seems to say “I love Taichung”, which is probably a positive message of some kind rather than advertising. If you’re going to clutter up your exhibition uniforms with something, you could do worse than a shout out to the city you’re playing in.

  • macky | November 2, 2011 at 9:19 am |

    speaking of Nike and the Broncos, the Swoosh was actually on the logo in form of the nostrils. However, it was slightly altered when Reebok took over the exclusive rights to the unis. The swooshtrils may come back next year.
    And also heard from the grapevine that the new Rawlings helmet is the new “Nike” helmet for next year.

    FYI- Broncos and Oregon “O” logo was designed by the same guy.

  • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 9:23 am |

    Anybody have any idea how much money the graphic designers, who actually design team logos, earn? It strikes me that a lowly designer could come up with the all-time iconic team logo that would endure forever and, yet, only collect a meager salary for her art from the marketing company she works for.

    • Paul Lukas | November 2, 2011 at 9:32 am |

      That’s work for hire for ya. Same thing for an architect who designs an iconic building, etc. The designer is a vendor supplying a service for a client, the end.

      • Pierre | November 2, 2011 at 9:54 am |

        Architects are well paid and some even become famous for their work. But a graphic designer for a marketing firm…not so much. It is what it is…

        • JTH | November 2, 2011 at 9:59 am |

          Yeah, but how often is THE architect the sole person responsible for the design?

          Just because your house was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright doesn’t mean that he, and he alone, did all the work.

        • Connie | November 2, 2011 at 10:30 am |

          As a general proposition re architecture and auteurs, you’re probably correct, JTH. But the particular example of Frank Lloyd Wright is misplaced, I think. FLW was famous — or notorious — for doing “all the work.” It’s true that sometimes he would design a template — the Usonian houses, for examples — but generally, he sharpened his color pencils and went at by his lonesome.

          I’ve always liked “Usonioan” — Wright’s term for a person or entity from the United States.

        • JTH | November 2, 2011 at 12:33 pm |

          OK, truth be told, Wright’s name was the only one that came to mind.

          But he most certainly worked with engineers on his projects, not necessarily other architects.

    • Tom V. | November 2, 2011 at 10:45 am |

      As an architect and someone becoming increasingly involved in the marketing end of the business, the hope is that the good design will lead to more business. Teams (or other entities) say “hey who designed that logo?” Then that logo brings the firm more work, and hopefully the graphic designer who designed it gets recognized with promotions, etc. In a “work for hire” business a big part of the job is bringing in more business.

    • Andy | November 2, 2011 at 11:30 am |

      Yes. It depends on how the team goes about the design process. If the team goes to someone who owns his own studio, like Dan Simon or Todd Radom, for example, Dan or Todd is probably going to be doing much of the work himself and will probably be paid handsomely for it. It’s freelancing, more or less. If the team decides to go to adidas, Reebok, UA or Nike to have its identity created, you’re going to have an entire team of designers working on it. It’s going to go through internal reviews and cuts before the team ever sees any of the work, and the identities of the people who worked on it rarely get out to the public. These people earn a regular salary. Could be $30K a year, could be $60K a year. Going to a design agency that’s not an enormous sportswear conglomerate will likely be somewhere in between.

    • Jet | November 2, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

      I used to work alongside an oldtime signpainter who claimed, “I designed the Nathan’s logo and never got a dime for it!”


      • Jet | November 2, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

        (that’s Nathan’s Hot Dog chain for those outside the NY area)

  • interlockingtc | November 2, 2011 at 9:39 am |

    Great, insightful interview.

    I don’t like Mr. Burke’s work, to be honest, but I appreciate his discussing it with you.

    • Connie | November 2, 2011 at 10:31 am |


      • Ricko | November 2, 2011 at 10:43 am |

        Not to put Burke’s work on this individual’s level by any stretch, but let’s remember than someone also once let Ed Wood make movies.

        Now, in Burke’s defense, his XFL assignment obviously was to stay inside a certain set of parameters that were deemed appropriate for Vince’s vision.

        Funny thing is, virtually all the things Vince innovated were what eventually ruined the league. It looked like he was making fun of the NFL. Sometimes XFL telecasts (not the game itself) played like one long SNL skit.

        Too bad, too. I remember the LA Extreme passing game led by Tommy Maddox actually was fun to watch. But the crap going on around it misplaced the focus, to the league’s detriment and eventual undoing.

  • John | November 2, 2011 at 9:39 am |

    Steven Jackson is not the first to wear the new Rawlings. Arian Foster and Andre Johnson for the Texans have been wearing it all season long.

  • TOMtiger | November 2, 2011 at 10:19 am |

    frickin awesome interview

    • TOMtiger | November 2, 2011 at 10:21 am |

      i like the maniax logo (the AX, not the zombie). not a fan of the color scheme though.

      • Gusto44 | November 2, 2011 at 10:28 am |

        Good interview, although I’m surprised Burke didn’t bring up the Birmingham Bolts logo. Thought it ranked with Vegas as the best in the XFL.

  • Todd | November 2, 2011 at 10:31 am |

    Not sure if these are 100% real, but someone posted them on a forum I post on and thought they might be it. They look legit.

    • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 10:53 am |

      Well if they are, that blue hat looks stupid as hell with everything else.

      Not putting much faith in those being real though.

    • Mark in Shiga | November 2, 2011 at 10:59 am |

      I don’t think they’re real either, but I do notice that the Marlins just can’t stay away from quadruple-layer jersey numbers. They look really clunky. Pick a color (or two, or three) and stick with it.

    • Andy | November 2, 2011 at 11:32 am |

      Not legit.

    • Ben Fortney | November 2, 2011 at 11:58 am |

      Don’t think they’re real either… but the teal/blue cap with the orange fish is the best of the bunch. Don’t like the black brim though.

    • Chris Holder | November 2, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

      Just curious, what makes everyone think they’re fake? Not that there’s any evidence to assume they’re real, but they at least look plausible considering what we already know.

      I’m not a huge fan of orange being the primary color on those home unis – should be teal. For that matter, that “blue” needs to be more green. And black? Jeez… get rid of it, already.

      So yeah, I guess I’m hoping these are fakes. Of course, there’s no guarantee we won’t get something worse.

    • walter | November 2, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

      I like those fine. No traditionalist, me.

    • =bg= | November 2, 2011 at 7:18 pm |

      whoever designed an ORANGE AND YELLOW CAP should be…
      (fill in the blank.)

      the rest are fine, but ORANGE AND YELLOW? even in FLA, that’s a lot.

      Maybe just put a BLIMPIE’S logo on it, too.

  • Kevin Poss | November 2, 2011 at 10:52 am |

    Paul- is there any way you could get the new ‘COTD’ link to show up in the mobile format? I read the column every morning from my phone and I can’t seem to find the link anywhere on the mobile-friendly site. Thanks in advance!

  • Jim Vilk | November 2, 2011 at 10:53 am |

    Uni Watch: Like I always say, never underestimate the power of sports geekitude.
    BB: I’ll say. With a capital G.

    Hmm, maybe THAT’s what the G on the Packers helmet really stands for…

    A lot of the teams back then were a little stale, if you will, in terms of their branding. Not just the uniforms and the logos, but even the ways they communicated with their fan base.
    Um, I don’t know about the communicating, but I didn’t find anything “stale” about the state of uniforms and logos before 1987. I can’t think of one team off the top of my head that looked bad to me…even the teams I didn’t like back then. It was a classic era.

    But then, I didn’t watch a single down of the XFL, and one of the many reasons was that the only logo I could stomach was the Chicago Enforcers’. To each his own, I guess.

    • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 11:23 am |

      It was interesting to get his perspective on everything, but I’ll say this: how he managed to stay employed for twelve years by a league as obsessively conservative about its branding as the NFL is beyond me.

      My favorite XFL logos were always the Demons and the Outlaws. They were the only ones that didn’t look dated as soon as they were revealed.

    • Jim Vilk | November 2, 2011 at 12:09 pm |

      OK, looking back on the 87 season,
      there might have been one stale thing…too many teams in white pants. Easily fixed, though. Just make Denver’s away pants orange and San Diego’s pants French’s Mustard. OK, Buffalo’s away pants could have gone back to blue.

      Oh, and if the Oilers would have reverted to the ’72-’74 blue helmet, that would have been great with me.

      • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 12:28 pm |

        Well there’s also the fact that you had 27 of the 28 teams using essentially the same number font.

        • pflava | November 2, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

          Which was a good thing – at least to those of us who don’t see number fonts as a “design” element that needs to change. I’d rather have every team with block numbers than have to look at goofy, cartoon fonts like the Titans, italicized Steelers, Ravens, etc.

        • Mark in Shiga | November 2, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

          As a Bears fan I don’t want then to ever change their distinctive number font, which looks a lit like the one used by their Chicago brethren the Cubs. (Back in the 1940s it looked even more similar; the Cubs hadn’t yet added the hook and the base to the number 1 then).

          That database really should choose a number other than 11 for the samples. You don’t get to see if there are curves in the numbers when all the samples use a number that basically can’t have them.

          A number like 23 or 27 or 37 would offer viewers a better perspective on what the number font really looks like. At the very least, use two different digits!

      • Pat | November 2, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

        “Stale” literally means lacking freshness. When you look at those designs what was fresh about any of them? Sleeve stripes, cuff stripes, and shoulder loops were the only design elements that differed on the unis other than color. They all looked bland and not interesting. In a word they looked traditional. I’m expecting a significant amount of backlash from this comment but I really don’t care because when it comes to design it’s all a matter of opinion anyway.

        • Ricko | November 2, 2011 at 3:50 pm |

          Yes, those 1987 unis simply cried out for barely readable fonts, smaller TV numbers, more and more patches, piping meandering across the belly and under the armpits, a trampstamp or two and, of course, attention-getting stripes on the butt.

          Just givin’ you grief. ;)

    • Jet | November 2, 2011 at 3:06 pm |

      Likewise, Jim


  • Nathan R | November 2, 2011 at 11:01 am |

    According to Buffalo Bills CEO Russ Brandon, Buffalo will wear white at home this weekend for the first time in 25 years when they take on the NY Jets.

    • The Jeff | November 2, 2011 at 11:20 am |

      Why in the bloody hell would they want to do that?

      Dammit Buffalo.

      • Mark K | November 2, 2011 at 11:27 am |

        Maybe they’ll wear cutoff mesh like 25 years ago.

        • kelley | November 2, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

          The “official” reason from their website states:

          “The Bills will wear their royal blue jerseys during the next two road games at Dallas and Miami. With no Bills throwback uniform game during the 2011 season this Sunday’s game gives the Bills the opportunity to wear their white jersey in front of the home crowd.”

      • Phil Hecken | November 2, 2011 at 8:15 pm |

        “Why in the bloody hell would they want to do that?”


        anything any team can do that pisses you off can ONLY be a good thing

  • Austin Gray | November 2, 2011 at 11:55 am |

    Best Uni-Watch interview ever.

    • Matt | November 2, 2011 at 3:24 pm |


    • Todd | November 2, 2011 at 3:49 pm |

      I agree. Especially because it debunked the Broncos/Nike Swoosh myth so we don’t have to hear the conspiracy anymore.

  • Jim Vilk | November 2, 2011 at 12:01 pm |

    This makes the Tim Hortons All Star Game seem a little tame, eh?

    • CW | November 2, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

      “Grammy Award winner Cee-Lo Green will perform live on the float.”

      Puck you and puck her too?

  • Ben Fortney | November 2, 2011 at 12:04 pm |

    I’m guessing somebody at Nike was paying attention to Burke’s XFL work, particularly this secondary mark – when they decided to re-brand ASU

    • Ricko | November 2, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

      Wondered when someone would notice that.

      Although a trident is pretty generic, so it could simply be flat-out coincidence.

      And nobody notices how much the Demon face owes to Darth Maul? From a film that debuted a couple years prior to the XFL?

      I’m sure when the Eagles went to winged helmets people could have said, “Oh, you’re just ripping off the Rams’ idea.”

      • Ben Fortney | November 2, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

        Interesting that ASU’s barbs are inward, XFL’s outward and the Mariners …ahem… go both ways.

    • Tim E. O'B | November 2, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

      Yeah, I noteced that a few weeks back, but at the same time, the pitchfork is a popular theme in Tempe and was well before the rebrand.

      Combine that with the fact that Sparky on the helmet was the NCAA equivalent of Pat the Patriot and you’ve got yourself on a collision course to a trident logo.

      Convergent (design) evolution.

  • Shane | November 2, 2011 at 12:32 pm |

    Psst Paul, pretty sure there’s not a town called Toldedo.

    • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

      So I don’t get to go see the Munheds play next season?

      • Shane | November 2, 2011 at 4:39 pm |

        Oh man, dibs on Toldedo Munheds as a fantasy team name.

  • Mike V. | November 2, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

    Very interesting article/interview Paul, well done. It is nice to get the insiders perspective. That being said, I think we need new insiders. Many things that Bruce said made me wonder about the state of design and branding. It was readily apparent when he expressed his comments about the new college unis coming out lately. Coming from a marketing background, everything is always about what is next, what’s new, where can it be taken from here. Older designs are looked as just that, old. It’s old, let’s update it. Ours will be better because it will be new. ‘Does it need changed?’ doesn’t really come into play. When teams want to update themselves, the logo is probably the first thing designers think of changing. The thought process seems to be very generic and unoriginal. “Let’s take this original logo and make it meaner/tougher/edgier looking.” Give it sharper teeth, bigger muscles, cleaner lines. To me it loses it’s individuality and uniqueness and becomes colder and more generic looking.

    I never understand the argument that a design is bad because up close it may look good but from a distance it is hard to make out. Isn’t this true for every logo ever made? Is someone going to be confused watching a game because they can’t make out the helmet logos from section 512? Or they won’t buy a t-shirt because they had a hard time seeing the design from across the mall. Fact is people are loyal to the team, not the logo. They will buy team hats, t-shirts, underwear, toilet paper, socks, etc. regardless of how the logo looks, new, old, or otherwise. A logo like Pat Patriot gives a team a better identity than the Flying Elvis does. But hey, Flying Elvis and the disembodied Bronco head are sleeker and meaner looking. The best logo in sports is often considered the Blackhawks, not a simple design, just sayin’. It is beautiful because of it’s detail of designmanship (I may have just invented a word).

    I understand it’s his personal taste (he has a right to it) and he has had a lot of success, so he knows what he is talking about and is talented. It just was a little scary that it seems his preferences seem to still be the same as those who are still designing jerseys/logos/brands today. Designs are all taken in the same direction (let’s make it meaner/scarier/sleeker/BFBS/shaper/etc.). To me, it comes down to just because you can change something from how it has always been (i.e. the pants striping in the article), doesn’t mean you always should. i would like to hear his reasons why he thinks the new college designs are so great. He states you have to “applaud Nike” for their efforts to revolutionize things. One man’s revolution is another’s desecration I guess.

    I think all the newer technology and thought processes going into uni design today is like botox. It is meant to give a fresher/newer look, but all it does is end up making things look plastic and emotionless.

    • Ben Fortney | November 2, 2011 at 12:54 pm |

      On the flipside, we have the faux/throw-back movement which celebrates designs from the past. Initially this was a “cute” idea, but now it’s pretty standard for most teams/leagues – and definitely is a positive for the uni-world.

    • Chris Holder | November 2, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

      Too many people seem to use the “one rule” of Barney Stinson: New Is Always Better.

      Sometimes, yes. Definitely not always.

    • Connie | November 2, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

      Awesome, Mike V. You nailed it.

    • Christopher F. | November 2, 2011 at 5:50 pm |

      I essentially agree with you, but its not a 100% thing.

      Look at iconic brand identities in the fields of liquor, wine, and beer. More often than not they don’t mingle with what works. Minor tweaks here and there… but you’re not going to find a blinged-out Jack Daniel’s logo anytime soon.

    • interlockingtc | November 2, 2011 at 7:57 pm |

      Well put, Mike V.!

  • Kyle Allebach #school | November 2, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

    Does this eagles mascot (in 2007) look like he’s wearing the wrong pants? (

    • Tim E. O'B | November 2, 2011 at 1:53 pm |

      He’s wearing the regular home pants because they’re probably not removable from the mascot uniform, aka sewed in.

      • Kyle Allebach | November 2, 2011 at 8:49 pm |

        I figured as much. It just looked kinda weird.

  • Tim E. O'B | November 2, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

    I’ll be honest, I mostly skim the interviews here but I read every word of this one.

    I want that NFL job.

    Great insight, and brought back fond memories of Enforcer football.

    But, PAUL, you didn’t ask a question about the XFL I figured you would: “Why so much purple?”

    • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 2:34 pm |

      Here’s your answer: It was 2000. The XTREME overload of the 1990s was cresting and the league was run by a professional wrestling organization, so there was an overabundance of black, red, purple, and cartoonish logo mascots.

    • Kyle Allebach | November 2, 2011 at 8:56 pm |

      If you get that NFL job, can I be your coffee bitch?

      Also, Paul probably didn’t ask because he mentally blocked it out when the XFL came out in 2000. Too traumatic to bring up, I guess.

  • JEDI54 | November 2, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

    Glad to see Ohio wear the black hats with the all black unis. Greatness.

    • Tim E. O'B | November 2, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

      I’ve noticed you saying a lot of… unpopular… opinions around here.

      You sure you’re not a troll?

      • JEDI54 | November 2, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

        Not a troll, I have my opinions. I like what I like. You like what you like. I have always been a fan of color on color when it comes to football. I love dark colors. When the Ravens or Saints go all black..I love it. Not a fan of white hats..except Pat the Patriot and the Longhorns. Everyone else needs colored hats.

        • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 3:57 pm |

          Ah, so you’re astroturfing for The Jeff. :P

    • Jim Vilk | November 2, 2011 at 10:09 pm |

      While I may not share Mr. Jedi’s (or Bruce Burke’s) tastes, they are his and he is entitled to them. Enjoy watching the game.

      • Tim E. O'B | November 3, 2011 at 12:12 am |

        Just making sure, I didn’t say anything mean. When someone starts showing up hear hyping NPC and BFBS and all that sort of stuff, someone has to ask the tough questions.

        • JEDI54 | November 3, 2011 at 10:25 am |

          I also like the current hats SMU are wearing. What is NPC? I have always wondered why the NFL frowns on teams wearing color on color? I think its an awesome look. I got happy one monday night when the Eagles wore the green on green.

        • Jim Vilk | November 3, 2011 at 11:11 am |

          NPC = Nike Pro Combat

          And we have common ground – I like color on color as well…as long as they’re school colors…

          Y’know, if black and green were school colors, the only problem I’d have with Ohio’s uni was the green numbers. Didn’t think there was enough contrast with the jersey.

    • Andrew Seagraves | November 3, 2011 at 1:06 am |

      I’ll admit that I am one of the few which thinks the Rutgers BFBS is a nice uniform with a preference for the White R on the black helmet over the red R. On the other hand I’ll say I’m not as big of a fan of the Ohio BFBS.

      I think its the sleeves on the Ohio jersey which throw me off. Would I like it more without the sleeves? hmmmm… I might have to mock one up

    • NickV | November 3, 2011 at 2:19 am |

      Yeah, The OHIO Rainbow Warriors – wearing the least best of the past four Hawaii uniforms ….

  • JimWa | November 2, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

    I never looked closely at the old Broncos logo next to the new one, but after seeing the link posted above, I now see that the new logo pays homage much more than I ever realized, from the shape of the mouth to the “hooks” of the mane. There’s even a swoosh-ish hook on the old bronco’s snout!

  • Jet | November 2, 2011 at 3:00 pm |

    Whenever I would see an ad like those New Era ones when I was a kid… where it shows you EVERY team in the league, whether it’s a uni, a cap, whatever the sport… just seeing all those caps laid out like that… always made we want EVERY SINGLE ONE.

    Hell, I’m no longer a kid and I still want every single cap and every single uni in that ad. Okay, maybe not the Yankees but all the rest…


  • Tim E. O'B | November 2, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

    Yo-Yo Ma has a new album out with Edgar Meyer, Chris Thile and Stuart Duncan.

    It’s really fucking good.

    But there is uni noteworthiness, Chris Thile (formerly of Nickel Creek and currently of Punch Brothers) is wearing a Rangers T-shirt in this video

    Now Thile, who is the great-great-grandson of Baseball Hall of Famer Sam Thompson, often wore Cubs gear to Nickel Creek concerts because of his fandom (and whose first two solo albums had baseball themed titles, Leading Off and Stealing Second) but is from San Diego (whales vagina), so one has to question weather this is another foreign city fandom or just uni-ccessorizing.

    • Tim E. O'B | November 2, 2011 at 3:24 pm |

      It should be noted that it’s an inverted (looks inside out) NY Rangers logo.

  • IowaAnt | November 2, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

    Has anyone every seen that Seahawks logo used before?

  • mmwatkin | November 2, 2011 at 4:41 pm |

    Thank you to Mr. Burke for providing a fascinating interview. I do take issues with a few things.

    The statement about college athletics and changing their identity is a bit off. For one, using the Green Bay Packers and saying, “They will always use Green and Gold” is incorrect. They wore Blue and yellow with brown helmets the last two years, so there goes that theory. And before you say it was only for one game and was a throwback, the MSU ProCombats were also for one game. I don’t see how one hurts or changes an organization identity anymore than the other. (also add: New York Titans, Eagles throwbacks, etc.)

    Also, the statements about the Broncos/Swoosh and Ravens trademark battle didn’t really sit well with me. There is no way that the design of the Broncos didn’t have influence from Nike and the swoosh. Also, the similarities between the original Ravens logo and the original artist concept was waaaay too similar for coincidence.

  • Roger Faso | November 2, 2011 at 4:43 pm |

    Were the San Francisco Demons originally planned to be the San Jose Demons?

  • Keith S. | November 2, 2011 at 5:35 pm |

    GREAT interview Paul!

    It never occurred to me, until this interview, that a lot of what spurred the drastic uniform changes (mostly college football), was the manufacturer’s ability to make the designs. A lot of people talk about how they love the “old school” football uniforms because they weren’t as extreme, when in reality, they weren’t as extreme because they couldn’t be. If the technology had been available back in the 50s and 60s, who knows where the designs would have gone.

    Sounds like the extreme uniform changes we’re seeing are the tip of the iceberg.

    The fact that the XFL marks were made in two months is amazing to me. As a designer, I can’t imagine being charged with a task like that and such a short time frame. It has forced me to view the XFL marks in a completely different light.

    Again, what a fantastic interview.

  • KevPlank | November 2, 2011 at 6:04 pm |

    I thought Bruce Burke’s interview was perfect. I really liked the fact that he confirmed the “realities” of the marketing and business of team and league branding. That this a IS business. Big business. That owners and licensees ultimately decide the look and feel of their teams and properties. That stories such as NIke putting the swoosh into the Broncos logo us pure bullshit only the myth doesn’t die due to nerds on the UniWatch Blog.

    I really loved Mike V.’s response…. He is the poster child for “not” getting it… And he is in the large majority on this site.

    …his preferences seem to still be the same as those who are still designing jerseys /logos /brands today??? What? It’s called an opinion and probably an educated one versus a non substantiated bias one…

    The Packers will always wear green and gold…. Hey dummy, the blue and yellow with brien helmet is called… repeat after me…
    AN ALTERNATE!!!!!!!!! My God you idiots need to go back to school….

    • jdreyfuss | November 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm |

      I sincerely hope this isn’t the real Kevin Plank. I would hope the CEO of a large corporation would both be more mature than this and be able to type without looking like a 13-year-old taunting pvp opponents in WoW.

      • Paul Lukas | November 2, 2011 at 7:02 pm |

        I sincerely hope this isn’t the real Kevin Plank.

        Don’t worry, it isn’t. I know who it is, and he really needs to go back on his meds.

        • =bg= | November 2, 2011 at 7:19 pm |

          didn’t the real Kevin Plank get hit in the head a lot, being a DB and all?

  • Patrick_in_MI | November 2, 2011 at 6:59 pm |

    Damn you Ohio Bobcats! This game against Temple had the potential to be on Vilk’s top 5. Now it just may end up being on the &1 spot. A co-worker’s grandson plays for the ‘cats so I’m going to have to give her some grief tomorrow.

  • David Murphy | November 2, 2011 at 8:06 pm |

    Has there been any chatter about Georgia Tech wearing white helmets when they play Virginia Tech on Nov 10th? Sorry if I missed the talk. The Thursday night game is supposed to be a “Whiteout” – so Tech will wear white jerseys and pants.

    Knowing Tech, this won’t be the wonderful striped throwback helmet they wore several years ago with the 60’s throwbacks, but a white version of the current helmet. Sure hope I’m wrong.

    Tech is famous for taking a fad, like the Whiteout, and running it into the ground.

  • Phil Hecken | November 2, 2011 at 8:08 pm |

    Damn…was going to come on and post the same (OHIO v Temple for the &1) thought

  • Phil Hecken | November 2, 2011 at 8:23 pm |

    one thing i will say about the ohio BFBS uni that i do like…

    the matte finish for the lid…that looks sweet

    • jedi54 | November 2, 2011 at 9:55 pm |


  • Scott Cherry | November 2, 2011 at 8:30 pm |

    As an alumnus of Ohio University, I would like to apologize to the fine people of this site and the effort they put into it. To have a color dominate their uniform that is not kelly green or white is a disgrace to the university and it’s family. The worst part about it is with the love you give for Temple and Ohio’s normal uni’s, I was seeing a #1 ranking for this weeks games.

    • donnchadha | November 2, 2011 at 10:26 pm |

      As a fellow alumnus of Ohio — it’s hunter green. Kelly green is much brighter.

      The BFBS unis do look better with the black helmet. Against Marshall with the white helmet it just looked pieced together and not a complete uniform. It’s like they just forgot about the helmet for that game — or maybe they didn’t get delivered in time?

  • Jim Vilk | November 2, 2011 at 10:06 pm |

    Not to worry…a matchup that includes Temple will never make the &1. But yeah, that easily would have been the #1 had the Bobcats stuck with school colors.

    • CD | November 2, 2011 at 10:43 pm |

      You would have put it over LSU-Bama? I dont know about that.

      • Jim Vilk | November 3, 2011 at 11:12 am |

        Alas, we shall never know…

  • Luke | November 2, 2011 at 10:09 pm |

    Bruce Burke left the NFL in 2000. The entire industry has changed significantly since then. Reebok. Nike and UnderArmour dominate the design process since they control the money!

    Design firms who had specialized in team
    branding rarely get the chance to design an identity. Only exception, MLB since Majestic does not care to build an in-house team since MLB changes are typically minor.

    SME gets an occasional team identity project but those predictably (TB Lightning) are failures.

  • ME | November 2, 2011 at 11:07 pm |

    hes wearing pink socks and he has the chest wordmark as a huge patch

  • =bg= | November 2, 2011 at 11:10 pm |

    PS, when I saw this I thought ‘man he got Roger Goodell’ on here.