Battle of the Bevels

Screen shot 2012-04-12 at 7.23.05 PM.png

As most you probably know, I don’t follow college sports as closely as I follow the pros, and I don’t root for any college in particular, so I’m sometimes oblivious to certain uni- and logo-related controversies about a given school. A good case in point came during my visit to Bristol on Wednesday, when one of my ESPN editors, Dave Wilson, asked if I’d seen the new U. of Houston logo. “Yeah,” I said. “Kinda heavy on the beveling.”

I didn’t realize it, but I’d stumbled upon a sensitive topic in the world of Texas collegiate sports. As Dave explained to me, many Texas A&M fans have spent the past dozen years trying to get the school to scrap the Aggies’ beveled logo, which was introduced in 1999. So when Houston unveiled its own beveled logo this week, lots of A&M fans started comparing the relative merits — or lack thereof — of the two designs.

Dave, who attended A&M himself in the early 1990s, pointed me toward a discussion thread on where this all played out. That thread is behind a paywall, so I can’t link to it, but here are some of the pertinent quotes from A&M fans regarding the new Houston logo:

• “Ours is worse. Great company we’re keeping on this, Tech and Cougar High.”

• “It makes about as much sense visually as ours does.”

• “Actually, theirs is pretty much technically correct.”

• “At least UH’s bevel makes sense. Ours does not. It drives me up a tree. It’s not that complicated.”

• “Please, please, Mr. Cook, no more bevel.”

That last quote is referring to Jason Cook, A&M’s VP for Marketing & Communications. “He actually jumps into the fray sometimes and discusses the beveling with people on the forum,” Dave explained to me. Then he pointed me toward this recent interview with Cook, where the talk turns to beveling at about the 8:30 mark. Here’s a transcript of the relevant bits:

It’s very important for us to have a consistent mark with that block “TAM” as we move to the SEC. A couple of months ago we made the decision to start phasing out the T-star mark. It really didn’t say A&M. It didn’t give a lot of context to our new conferencemates that were going there.

We’re more and more looking at the marks and making sure we have a consistent portfolio moving forward.

Of course, that brings up the conversation about bevels here. We’re not gonna bevel the A and the M. That was a mistake and we’re going to try to get to the bottom of that pretty fast.

The bevel’s been around since 1999. It was designed by Nike to give a little bit of focus to the T. We have no intentions to move away from that. I think I mentioned last time that our licensing revenues are up 27%. The whole bevel argument… I know it’s passionate to a lot of folks on TexAgs. But for us, whether the T is beveled or not beveled, it does not impact the integrity of the mark. The proportions are the same, it’s the same mark.

We understand that there is some demand for a flat “TAM” mark out there, and I think that we’ve demonstrated that we’re getting some additional product in the marketplace to suit that demand.

Faaaascinating. A&M fans getting agita over the bevel sounds a lot like Mets fans doing a slow burn over all the black uni elements (which, as it happens, were introduced at about the same time as the Aggies’ bevel). Just goes to show ya how passionate people can be about a seemingly simple change.

“For the record,” says Dave, “I have no issue with the A&M bevel, especially in the official identity. A lot of folks want to ditch the A and the M completely, especially with the move to the SEC, just to ‘claim’ Texas, like they did in the Bear Bryant days.”

Beveling, incidentally, is waaaaay easier to do on a computer than by hand, which is why we’re seeing waaaaay more beveling nowadays than we did, say, 30 years ago. It’s supposed to make the letterforms look all stately and majestic, liked they’re carved from granite or whatever, but I think it usually just looks cartoonish, at least the way it’s usually employed in contemporary sports design.

Meanwhile, Dave also pointed out a flaw in the new Houston logo. Here, take another look and see if you can spot it:

Screen shot 2012-04-12 at 8.06.49 PM.png

Do you see it? Here, see if you can spot it now.

Shouldn’t that triangle of negative space be red, like the rest of the background? And there’s sort of a reverse-field version of the logo with the same problem. Looks very odd. And now that I’ve pointed it out to you, good luck not fixating on it every time you see the Houston logo. Fortunately, I can blame Dave.

Update: A bunch of readers have quickly pointed out another flaw in the UH logo, namely that the two serifs at the top of the H are beveled inconsistently. It’s now official: No Uni Watch reader will be able to watch a UH game this fall without his or her head exploding.

+ + + + +


ESPN reminder: In case you missed it yesterday afternoon, my latest ESPN column, about uniform ads possibly (but probably not) coming to the NBA, is here.

That column prompted an e-mail from reader Reed Evans about the state of sponsorship in swimming. Now, swimming is an individual sport, not a team sport, so the things I talked about in that ESPN column don’t really apply here. I’m just presenting Reed’s note because it provides interesting info about a sport we don’t often discuss here on Uni Watch:

Since 2007, swimming’s governing body, FINA, has forced everybody at the world championships to wear caps that have the logo of one of their sponsors (Yakult, which makes a Japanese smoothie or something) printed on one side. Typically national teams have either a flag or their country’s name on the cap. So when you take a photo of the field from one side, it looks like all eight of them are swimming for the heretofore undiscovered country of Yakult.

Also: One of the conventions of the sport is the parade of finalists out to the starting blocks before the event. It used to be that the swimmers would wear warm-ups out there and start taking them off once they reached the block, but no longer. Since (I think) 2005, FINA has made it a rule that you have to have a bib (similar to those in track) on your warm-up, and you can’t remove the warmup until the camera has finished with you. Why? Because the swimming bibs don’t serve any purpose other than advertising. They have a lane number, but so what? Everybody knows who’s in what lane, because unlike track you have to stay in it! They’re purely for ad revenue.

So they made this rule that you can’t take the warm-up off until the ad has been shown, to protect the sponsors. This presents a problem for the people in the last two lanes, because they’re supposed to get their asses up on the blocks quickly once they’ve been introduced. But they have to change out of their warm-ups, obviously. So what’s developed is this unintentionally hilarious situation where sometimes the guy in lane eight will take his warm-up off but has to hold the bib up in front of him for the camera, which makes it abundantly clear what’s going on.

+ + + + +

Screen shot 2012-04-11 at 12.06.08 PM.png

Big news over on today, as Page 2 is about to be eliminated. Don’t worry, this doesn’t mean I’m out of a job — it just means my ESPN work will appear in a different section of the site.

That section, which will debut at noon on Monday, is called Playbook, and it will be produced in conjunction with ESPN the Mag (whose front of the book is also being renamed Playbook). Contributors will include some of the Page 2 writers, some of the magazine’s writers, and some new people. Playbook will consist of seven sections:

1) Fandom: Stuff about fans and stuff fans are into. This is where my material will run.

2) Visuals: Lots of video and other visual content. My content will often be cross-posted here.

3) Sounds: The intersection of sports and music.

4) Trending: Celebrity culture.

5) Tech: Mostly video games.

6) Dollars: Sports biz. The magazine folks will run this section.

7) Coordinates: International stories. The magazine folks will handle this one as well.

Each section will be formatted like a multi-contributor blog, and I’ll be providing content to Fandom on a fairly regular basis — probably about three times a week. The plan for now is to keep most of Playbook’s content on the shorter side. This may mean that I do fewer feature-length ESPN pieces and more shorter pieces, and/or it may mean that some of my longer pieces get broken up into segments (for my NFL season-preview column, for example, maybe we’ll publish my coverage of the AFC teams on one day and the NFC teams the next day). Playbook will no doubt be a work in progress for a while, so I suspect all of this may evolve a bit over time.

What does that mean for us here on the Uni Watch site? It shouldn’t mean any changes at all, although maaaaaybe there’ll be days when I take a post that would normally have run here and give it to Playbook instead (today’s “Battle of the Bevels” is a good example). In any case, I’ll post links for all my ESPN work here on this site, and will also post the links on my Twitter feed.

Onward, upward, etc.

+ + + + +

Uni Watch News Ticker: A little birdie has this to say about the new Missouri uniforms: “There will be a new color added to the color scheme: a dark gray. I can confirm that the M will be removed from the helmet and replaced by the tiger head logo. The soccer team will have three uniforms: white, black, and gray. Also, the gold has been standardized on all uniforms, which is a plus. There’s a new font, known as Mizzou bold. And Mizzou has a new equipment contract With Nike for eight years and $16 million.” Man, it’s amazing how this gray thing keeps proliferating, no? Official unveiling is tomorrow. ”¦ Speaking of little birdies, I’ve seen the Steelers’ throwbacks for the upcoming season. Can’t say what they are, but I can say a little bit about what they aren’t. Batman uni, as many had hoped? Nope. Same design as the 1994 throwbacks, as had been rumored? Double nope. And that’s all I can tell you, at least for now. ”¦ I needed some vintage milk bottle caps for a home improvement project, so I bought 10 of them from this Etsy seller, who picked 10 random caps from her stash and sent them my way. Ended up with these beauties. So, so nice. And they click against each other very satisfyingly, like poker chips. ”¦ New logo for One World Trade Center. ”¦ Fun piece about the Twins’ Dairy Queen uniforms (from Jesse Gavin). ”¦ Also from Jesse: The I-Cubs wore Iowa Oaks throwbacks the other day. Look at the size of that cap logo! ”¦ On Tuesday night, in connection with Passover, our local PBS station ran a program called Jews and Baseball,” writes Paul O. Dillon. “It was terrific! The baseball sequences were great and the pictures of uniforms were outstanding.” ”¦ Peter Cech’s headgear has apparently become so iconic that he wears it in photo shoots (from Gerry Muir). ”¦ The latest football team to play G.I. Joe is Old Dominion (from Leo Thornton). ”¦ Sandia High School in Albuquerque wears red stirrups with baby blue sannies (from Rob Montoya). ”¦ Ryan Connelly is another Uni Watcher who was lucky enough to receive one of those custom bottle stoppers from Comrade Robert Marshall. ”¦ Check this out: Carmine Marcantonio with ANOB — that’s abbreviated name on back (big thanks to Kenn Tomasch). ”¦ Reprinted from yesterday’s comments: Pretty cool slideshow of Arizona State baseball history. ”¦ Orioles infielder Robert Andino mug shot has undergone an amusing transformation over the years. ”¦ I’m not sure why anyone would want a snakeskin LeBron James jersey, but here, be my guest (from Jason Bernard). ”¦ Towson is letting its fans vote on its next football helmet design (from Nick Phillips). ”¦ Some insights into the Astros’ 2013 uniform redesign here. Sounds like they’re looking for something fairly traditional and timeless, although I think you could argue that that’s what they have right now (from Nicholas Roznovsky). ”¦ Here’s an item we missed back around the time of the Super Bowl: crystal-encrusted NFL helmets (from Jon Solomonson). ”¦ Oooh, look at this cap with a really short brim and what appears to be a logo on the squatchee! ”¦ Here’s a better shot of Santiago Casilla’s wrong jersey from Opening Day in Colorado (from Brad Dugan). ”¦ Real Madrid has dropped the Christian cross from its logo in order to have greater appeal with Muslim fans (from Camryn Brown). ”¦ Hey, look at this: The Dodgers apparently use a blue resin bag. Is that a new thing? I’ve never seen that before (and neither has Dan Cichalski). ”¦ Arizona State is reportedly considering a plan in which students would get to vote on which uniform the football team would wear for three home games this season (from Brooks Simpson). … TJ Oshie of the Blues, who wears No. 74, lost the 4 on his helmet last night (screen shot by Stan Capp).

245 comments to Battle of the Bevels

  • MEANS | April 13, 2012 at 8:59 am |

    How about the fact that the bevel is MISSING from the top of the H on the left??

    • walter | April 13, 2012 at 9:07 am |

      I saw it too! Lets form a club.

    • Oakville Endive | April 13, 2012 at 9:08 am |

      Of all the comments posted to this site, that sort of hits the bullseye (in my opinion) of the purpose of this site, noticing the finer details.

    • Arr Scott | April 13, 2012 at 9:10 am |

      That’s the error in the logo. The white triangle is not an error – it continues the white outline around the inner, red outline exactly as in the rest of the design. It may not look pretty, but it’s not a mistake.

      The missing bevel on the H’s left serif, though, that’s a mistake. Almost as bad as the A&M T, which is just about the worst beveling I’ve ever seen.

      • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 9:13 am |


      • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 10:22 am |

        I noticed that about the triangle too.

    • James | April 13, 2012 at 9:15 am |

      I noticed it too…maybe it was a test. Hooray, we passed!!

    • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 9:26 am |

      Yes. The triangle is no error, though that’s a really tricky area to execute the double outline technique and sure enough, it simply does not look as well made as the rest of the mark because of it. The letterforms should have been adjusted in some way to remedy that area (if possible) as it does look very odd. The missing bevel is a big oversight, though.

      • John M. | April 13, 2012 at 9:56 am |

        ….and I’m a half-hour late to Andy’s party. Crap.

    • John M. | April 13, 2012 at 9:55 am |

      This was more glaring than the triangle. I did a Q+D tweak, but there’s one thing that sticks out when that wedge is filled in…the outline of the ‘U’.

      Did that triangle/wedge exist to compensate for the inability to extend the ‘U’ outline, or was it just lazy?

    • MEANS | April 13, 2012 at 10:25 am |

      I don’t agree with beveling being harder to draw by hand. When working on a bevel design on the computer sometimes it is much easier to figure out a difficult area by printing out the design on paper and drawing the bevel by hand to get it right for visual reference. It might be quicker to do on the computer but it doesn’t make it wayyyyyy easier.

    • Charlie T. | April 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm |

      Another issue I see is in the lower right corner of the U. The outer edge of the U bends at a 45 degree angle (essentially) as would the raised edge in the middle of the line if it were truly carved out of stone. But on the inner, beveled edge the angle is wrong. There would be a small triangle created by the inner edge of the letter if it were truly carved.

      All in all this just makes me think that beveling a logo is difficult to execute and provides no real benefit. If you get it right, fine, I probably wont notice that you changed your logo… but if you mess it up this badly it’s a major downgrade!

      • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 2:44 pm |

        I think that was executed more to keep it visually clean than to be 100% accurate ‘as if were actually carved from stone.’ It was done to mimic the angles and the way the serifs are beveled. Better overall harmony throughout the design.

  • El Lobo | April 13, 2012 at 9:01 am |

    Dang, you beat me to it.

  • Rich | April 13, 2012 at 9:07 am |

    “Some insights into the Astros’ 2013 uniform redesign here. Sounds like they’re looking for something fairly traditional and timeless, although I think you could argue that that’s what they have right now (from Nicholas Roznovsky).”

    This Astros fan disagrees on that. What they have now looks like something generic, like it came from a piece of clip art. Furthermore, pinstripes might be traditional for some teams, but unless tradition began in 2000, it’s not traditional for the Astros.

    • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 9:15 am |

      I didn’t say that what they have now is necessarily good (or bad); I said it fits the stated description of what they’re apparently aiming for with the redesign.

    • walter | April 13, 2012 at 11:18 am |

      If the name of your team is “The Astros”, the whole traditional-&-timeless thing is off the table, as far as I can see. You’ve made a commitment to themes of astronomy and space travel, which is tough to pull off in a traditional way unless using Melies’ film “A Trip to the Moon” as a starting point.

      • Winter | April 13, 2012 at 11:23 am |

        For me, the name “Astros” screams 1960s. In many ways, the “astronaut” is a thing not of the future, but of that era, when every space launch was on live TV.

        • Jim Vilk | April 13, 2012 at 10:33 pm |

          “Astros” means “stars,” so it’s timeless. Change the unis, keep the name!

      • ScottyM | April 13, 2012 at 1:10 pm |

        No kidding. That marketing director was definitely just giving the company line statement. Either that, or she’s not very savvy.

        If all brands (teams) look the same … they won’t be brands. Hence, the term… brand. The ONE thing the Astros have always had going well until recent years: its differentiation. The name, era, facility, costumes, colors, uniforms … all wrapped up into one tidy identity that is truly a piece of American history.

        You wanna look like everyone else in baseball? Mistake, because it doesn’t jive with the brand integrity of the organization from its birth.

      • ChrisH | April 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm |

        I think the Astros (as unique a name as you’ll find is sports) are going for a general timeless and traditional look, subjective as that may be (pinstripes, cream home jerseys, Old English, NNOB, etc…), not one that is limited to the franchise history (though they should revert to the blue and orange IMO). Also, there’s plenty of tradition to be found in the American space program. Perhaps if the Astros adopted a logo evocative of the mission patches of NASA, that might be ‘stellar’!

  • Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 9:11 am |

    Means is right. I didn’t notice it until I was looking for the error Paul mentioned.

    From some reason, the UH one looks much better than the TAM one.

  • Gordon | April 13, 2012 at 9:13 am |

    Might the association of Playbook with ESPN the Mag mean that they’ll finally consult you when they do a uni-related story in the Mag?

  • birdbats | April 13, 2012 at 9:14 am |

    Yeah, the missing bevel at the top of the H on the left is a mistake. The white triangle isn’t, in my opinion — it’s just the white outline, but because of its thickness, it forms a solid triangle. It’s possible the outline is extra thick, creating the triangle, but leaving a small, red void in the middle of the triangle would be even more jolting.

    • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 9:16 am |

      How about just skipping the triangle and filling in that area completely?

      • JimWa | April 13, 2012 at 9:31 am |

        Coloring in the triangle would actual creat an inconsistency in the logo. I originally agreed, but if you follow the white outline around the rest of the lettering, but you make the white triangle red, you’ve just given that part of the letters a different treatment.

        • Ed Westfield Jr. | April 13, 2012 at 11:24 am |

          It’s not necessarily and an inconsistency if one looks at the outer red outline as encompassing the convergence of the two letters and not as outlines of the letters themselves.

      • Ry Co 40 | April 13, 2012 at 9:47 am |

        why do they need bevel + 2 outlines anyway?


    • ScottyM | April 13, 2012 at 1:11 pm |

      Yep, that Triangle isn’t ‘wrong’ or a mistake. It’s just too bad they didn’t take the time to resolve it.

  • Dumb Guy | April 13, 2012 at 9:15 am |

    Are milk caps the forerunner of Pogs? You remember Pogs, …right?

    • possum | April 13, 2012 at 11:06 am |

      That is the exact inspiration for Pogs, fellow child of the 80s/90s.

  • JamesP. | April 13, 2012 at 9:16 am |
    • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 9:33 am |

      James, I love that you post this each week. Thank you!

      • JamesP. | April 13, 2012 at 9:53 am |

        Felt someone needed to, and because I enjoy wearing them as my way of keeping a part of history alive in my own way.

        Running low on different stirrups to choose from though. :-)

        Oh, and I like Ricko’s way of guessing what team I was wearing.

    • Ricko | April 13, 2012 at 9:47 am |

      Gonna work one-handed today?

      • Phil Hecken | April 13, 2012 at 9:53 am |

        i hope that was a pete gray reference

      • JamesP. | April 13, 2012 at 9:55 am |

        No, but I am feeling a little short today…

        • JamesP. | April 13, 2012 at 11:48 am |

          Was my joke that bad?

        • Phil Hecken | April 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm |

          i got about 1/8th of a laugh

    • pflava | April 13, 2012 at 11:15 am |

      Bravo, sir! The St. Louis Browns organization thanks you.

      • JamesP. | April 13, 2012 at 11:27 am |

        The Browns need more love shown for them in this city…

  • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 9:17 am |

    Dang…. i noticed the missing bevel. I think the negative space part should still have outline but the background should have a small white triangle

  • Phil Hecken | April 13, 2012 at 9:22 am |


    never really liked “page 2” (‘page’ on the interwebs? we don’t have no stinkin’ pages on the world wide webs) … but “fandom”?

    im guessing “fanhood” narrowly lost out in the voting

    • Ry Co 40 | April 13, 2012 at 9:38 am |

      it’s Nike Fandom Technology, with Dry Fit Pixels, a Pro Combat Font, and Fly Wear Navigation Bar, 3% easier on the eyes (scientifically speaking)… duh…

      • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 9:58 am |

        …and the site refreshes faster because all the files are 10% smaller, duh

      • Arr Scott | April 13, 2012 at 10:31 am |

        RyCo for Comment of the Week is what that is right there.

        You’d think ESPN would have more pride than this. People who visit Paul’s corner of ESPN are note fandom, they’re fan-smart.

  • dgm | April 13, 2012 at 9:23 am |

    barcelona did something similar to their logo a few years back – they replaced the red cross of saint george in their badge with just a red line through a white background. not sure if that’s what they do for all shirts they sell in the middle east, or if it was just when the world club championships were taking place there. either way, kinda puts paid to the idea that barça is “more than a club.” catalunya es més que un club!

    • Camryn | April 13, 2012 at 9:56 am |

      I heard about that but couldn’t find any pictures. Very interesting. I don’t know what these guys are going to do if professional rugby tries to expand into the Middle East…

      • Omar Jalife | April 13, 2012 at 11:01 am |

        What will be funny is when a batch of shirts intended for any country that still uses the logo with a cross (which is still being used in their website) reaches middle east by mistake.

  • BrianC | April 13, 2012 at 9:24 am |

    “Oooh, look at this cap with a really short brim and what appears to be a logo on the squatchee!”

    It looks like original owner J. Tobin put his initials there.

  • Matt C. | April 13, 2012 at 9:26 am |

    Read the advertising in the NBA article on ESPN and found it interesting. Why can’t the NBA charge more to Reebok, Nike, Adidas, etc. to be the exclusive uniform providers? This way the only “ad” would be the company making the uniforms/warmups.

    • jdreyfuss | April 13, 2012 at 9:37 am |

      Because of the American Needle decision, distribution of shared profits outside the context of a mutual benefit, like the TV contracts, may implicate the league in any antitrust action. The league can specify who supplies the uniforms, but individual team revenue, like team-specific sponsorships, has to be contracted by the teams themselves.

  • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 9:26 am |

    Here’s why I think the triangle is a mistake: If you look at the logo, the white outlining doesn’t go around all contours of the letterforms — it only goes around the exterior of the full logo itself.

    Look at the areas where the U and H overlap — no white outlining on the letterforms there. The triangle area should fall under that same rule.

    • jdreyfuss | April 13, 2012 at 9:32 am |

      It really is jarring. The triangle could go away without removing the impact of the outline.

    • Dumb Guy | April 13, 2012 at 9:34 am |

      The spacing of the line around the letters is why it doesn’t appear to go around them interal of the logo. the only dead space where they can appear is where the triangle is formed. mabye some graphico can mock it up without the traingle so we can see how we like it.

      • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 9:38 am |

        This is just reposted from above, but it applies:

        “I think it looks even more odd without the triangle. Leaves a very strange, unsightly gap in the otherwise very tight monogram. If you’re going to have a double outline like they desire, the triangle is necessary (though a better option would be to redo the letterforms to avoid the one clumsy intersection that occurs there). If you take away the white outline altogether, however, including the triangle, it looks much better.”

    • Mike V. | April 13, 2012 at 9:35 am |

      You are correct sir

    • Arr Scott | April 13, 2012 at 10:37 am |

      No, it’s still not a mistake. That white outline sits consistently behind and around the whole logo. Now, we agree that it’s ugly, and it would look better to break consistency and eliminate the white triangle. But our aesthetic preference don’t make the consistent application of a design element a “mistake” or an “error,” at least not in the technical sense implicit in your presentation of the matter in the lead.

      This is a pretty common form of secondary outlining, and the UH logo applies it perfectly, little white triangle included, from a technical design perspective.

      • Arr Scott | April 13, 2012 at 10:40 am |

        I’m assuming, of course, that it’s the presence of the triangle, not its specific shape, that’s at issue when you call it a “mistake.” In case you want to retcon your argument to completely moot my objection!

    • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 11:29 am |

      Have to disagree with you, Paul. Just because it’s not contiguous to the rest of the white outline doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any white in that area. Just making it red just leaves that spot looking awkward.

      There is an issue with the triangle, though. It’s that it’s a triangle. Because it’s a triangle, it breaks the uniformity of the red outline going up the vertical stroke of the U. This is how it should look – it looks more like part of the outline than just the triangle.

      (And, yes, I added the missing bevel on both images.)

      • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 11:33 am |

        Just to add, I can understand where you’re coming from on why you think there shouldn’t be anything there, that it’s really meant to just outline the image as a whole, while the red outlines the individual letters. However, if the red is only outlining the individual letters, then that spot really shouldn’t be filled with red, because it’s not part of the defined outline area for either letter.

        That’s the way I see it, anyway.

        • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 11:35 am |

          And of course, if I’d scrolled down beyond this point before doing this, I’d see that The Jeff had beaten me to it by two hours.

      • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 2:50 pm |

        Your illustration sums it up well. I honestly don’t know why the area was simplified to a triangle. To me it looks much better when it follows the proper technical convention of how it ‘should’ look, given the outlining approach used by the designer. I don’t like the outlines to begin with, but your second illustration is how it should be done if it’s to be done at all.

  • jdreyfuss | April 13, 2012 at 9:30 am |

    U of H had a good, simple, timeless logo. So did A&M. The beveling already makes them look dated, so how are they going to look in five or ten years?

    Also, if they’re going to try to ‘claim Texas’ in the SEC by using just a T, why get rid of the T-star logo? Wouldn’t that just make this look an awful lot like this, or to stay in the SEC, this?

    • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 9:39 am |

      They do have one-color, non-bevel versions of all their logos available, which do look better, in my opinion.

      • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 9:39 am |

        (Speaking of UH)

    • Winter | April 13, 2012 at 10:20 am |

      What A&M should claim is the shape of the state of Texas. It’s pretty iconic, yes?

      As for the T star logo, it’s not as though there’s a dearth of stars incorporated into logos in Texas.

      • SWC Susan | April 13, 2012 at 4:13 pm |

        I love the star T logo and was greatly saddened that they are trying to limit it. It screams old school Texas A&M (even though it is a newer logo). And somehow, it screams the Corps. I constantly search for products with that logo on it!

        HATE HATE HATE the bevel! Hated it from the day it landed at Texas Tech – so many better looking logos out there. But fitting UH is just now updating their logo with an outdated style, Cougar High…

        • Winter | April 13, 2012 at 4:50 pm |

          Hey now. UH grad here. Ixnay on the Cougar High references.

          They’re a Tier One university now. And boy, they never get tired of telling you.

  • Tomservaux96 | April 13, 2012 at 9:35 am |

    I hate that damn bevel…

    (he says as he sets his glass down on his beveled aTm coaster, ’cause those were the only kind he could find…)

    Fightin’ Texas Aggie Class of ’96

  • Chase | April 13, 2012 at 9:37 am |

    If I’ve read correctly, I believe the Gotham Rogues’ uniforms in The Dark Knight Rises were designed by Under Armour. I doubt we see the Steelers in them any time soon.

  • Jim Mellett | April 13, 2012 at 9:44 am |

    I found the “Jews and Baseball” movie on Hulu a few weeks ago. I recommend it for all to see.

    • Travis | April 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm |

      It’s also available on Netflix streaming for anyone who might prefer to watch it there.

  • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 9:45 am |

    Actually… the triangle is wrong too, the shape between the letters isn’t exactly triangular.

    …and here’s 2 possible fixed versions:

    I think the version on the left is the better option.

    • Dumb Guy | April 13, 2012 at 10:03 am |

      Yep. Left one is best.

    • Chris Holder | April 13, 2012 at 10:31 am |

      Yep, leaving out the white triangle just looks bad. Too much negative space.

    • Phil Hecken | April 13, 2012 at 10:42 am |

      the one on the left may (admittedly) look better, but it’s wrong

      • Dumb Guy | April 13, 2012 at 11:01 am |

        Just enough space in the white blob for a little swoosh…..dontchathink?? ;^)

      • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 11:43 am |

        I actually agree with THE, and had I scrolled down this far, I’d have made my commentary here, rather than posting my own copies of the fix in the replies above.

        Basically, if the white is only supposed to outline the outer perimeter of the whole thing (as Paul suggests), but the red should only outline the letters themselves, then what the hell do you put in that gap? Red destroys the letter-outline effect, while white effectively becomes a discontiguous part of the white outline. Gray/silver is just stupid, though maybe if the whole white outline was gray instead

      • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 2:55 pm |

        It’s not wrong, Phil. Think of the logo as being a locked set of white letters with red outlines. If you sew it down to a piece of white felt, that trianglish shape would show the white layer beneath it since it’s neither part of the letter or the red outline.

    • Flip | April 13, 2012 at 2:06 pm |

      I don’t hate on beveling just because it’s beveled. But that outline is too much. Either bevel it and forget the outline, outline it and ditch the bevel or, best of all, stick with the intertwined U and H. It stands on its own.

  • Phil Hecken | April 13, 2012 at 9:52 am |

    dammit the

    here is my own fixed version

    • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 10:23 am |

      That’s capital THE to you. ;)

  • T'Challa | April 13, 2012 at 9:58 am |

    RE: Robert Andino mug shot, If you played for the Baltimore County Dept. of Corrections Baseball Team Orioles you’d get pretty peeved too.

    On the milk bottle caps, those are pretty neat. I wasn’t aware that the milk bottles had tops like that, since they were a bit before my time, I assumed that they had a screw top or no top at all. TMYK I guess

  • Andy McNeel | April 13, 2012 at 10:04 am |

    As an A&M grad myself, the beveled T annoys the living hell out of me to no end.

    With regards to the UH beveled logo…small mistakes aside, it is still an example of how to bevel correctly, because it is made to look like a monochrome (white) three-dimensional logo. The A&M beveled T looks to be maroon with a white chunk cut out of it here and there. It doesn’t make any technical sense, and it sure as hell doesn’t make it look three-dimensional. It just looks like some kind of strange stencil. Beveling is only effective if the colors you use in comprising it are just different shades of the same color, like UH’s white, to make it like a three-dimensional logo of a uniform color.

    The beveled T isn’t even properly beveled. If you are going to bevel it to create the perceived effect of lighting from the top right (as was the creator’s obvious attempt), you need to also bevel the right side of the serif of the T directly above the A, and the top halves of the bottom crossbar of the T. The bevel as it is now is incomplete.

    Now when creating a beveled effect, you can either create it to suggest that the bevels come to a sharp edge in the middle of the letter (like UH’s), or you can create the effect of a flat surface in the middle of the letters, and relegate the beveling only to the immediate edges of the letters (like in the SEC example below…

    Which of the two kinds of beveling does A&M’s beveled T have? If you look at the top crossbar and the vertical middle of the T, it would seem to suggest a sharp edge in the middle of the letter…but if you look at the white beveled portion on the right side of the bottom crossbar, the middle-facing (left) edge of it is flat…reflecting a flat surface in the middle akin to the SEC logo above. Not only is the T beveled incorrectly, the damn thing is even beveled inconsistently.

    The issue really isn’t the fact that the T is beveled, but that it isn’t beveled correctly. It looks very amateur and reflects a sloppy effort, given the combined facts that it is beveled incorrectly, beveled inconsistently, and not colored/shaded to suggest a 3D monochrome surface. If they would just bevel it correctly, and color it to make it look like it is a uniform maroon (or white) color like the letters in the SEC logo example I linked to above, it would be much more palatable. I don’t know the first thing about Photoshop or any kind of software like that, so I can’t mock up what I’m talking about (I wish I could), but just bevel a uniform maroon T like the SEC letters are beveled. (And for the love of God, if you’re going to bevel one letter, please bevel the others as well, lest you end up with a half-assed, unbalanced logo like we have now.)

    What disturbs me is that this Jason Cook character, who is unfortunately at the helm of my alma mater’s marketing and branding efforts, actually is oblivious/defiant enough to think that the beveled T logo and the non-beveled T logo that is on our helmets are considered to be consistent marks. How unfathomably asinine is that? Theyre two completely different logos for Christ’s sake! It’s like he just wants to pretend that the beveled T logo isn’t as hideous and poorly concocted as it is, and that nobody can tell (or should be able to tell) the difference between the two….probably because he doesn’t want to admit that they probably gave Nike a ton of money to create that mistake, and doesn’t have the guts to fix it. [/rant]

  • Chris Holder | April 13, 2012 at 10:06 am |

    Is anybody else, like me, sort of… on the fence about colleges and “letter” logos?

    Just thinking about major colleges off the top of my head, I would guess WELL over 50% use some sort of letter as their default logo (my favorite team included). It’s all well and good if you’re a Utah, and nobody else can claim a U (Miami’s nonsense about “da U” notwithstanding). But when you have multiple teams claiming a “T”, as we see in today’s example, it gets a bit confusing.

    On the other hand, we’ve seen a share of downright bad “cartoon” animal logos in recent years, and I don’t think I’d advocate us moving more in that direction. Though some can be well done – I think of FSU’s logo, for example.

    So yeah… I guess I don’t really have much of a point? Unless it’s just to say, there sure are a bunch of “letter” logos in major college sports.

    • Winter | April 13, 2012 at 10:24 am |

      Hard to argue with the Notre Dame ND logo, though. I like Indiana’s IU, too.

      And even though they’re getting rid of it, I’m going to miss the block M on the side of Mizzou’s helmets. I used to love it when they used it on the basketball uniforms.

      • Chris Holder | April 13, 2012 at 10:37 am |

        At least with Notre Dame, nobody will confuse an “ND” for anything else. No disrespect intended to North Dakota, but if we’re talking everything other than hockey, ND = the Fighting Irish. If you see a “T”, you better not be color blind or else you probably won’t know exactly who it’s for.

    • ChrisH | April 13, 2012 at 10:30 am |

      Speaking of “T” logos, Temple University’s is pretty good, though I prefer the owl logos (both are well-rendered IMO) and was disappointed to see the “T” replace “TEMPLE” on the football helmets.

    • Phillipwilson | April 13, 2012 at 10:36 am |

      Go OSU!

    • walter | April 13, 2012 at 12:49 pm |

      Given the proliferation of colleges and the limitations of the 26-letter alphabet, schools should try to think outside the box with their iconography. One of the things I think of when contemplating Texas is the multisided star ornament atop the San Jacinto Monument. Can anyone “claim” that? Notre Dame uses its Gold Dome as a symbol, why doesn’t Pitt use its Cathedral of Learning?

    • Keith S. | April 13, 2012 at 1:37 pm |

      I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure I agree. College teams are all about branding, so certain teams can use their lettering because it’s branded specifically to them.

      I’ll use Oklahoma as an example (as I am a grad), the logo is just about as simple as they come, yet nobody will mistake the interlocking “OU” for Oregon, etc.

      Letters as logos may be boring, but they are time tested, and brad recognized.

      • Keith S. | April 13, 2012 at 1:38 pm |


    • Rex | April 13, 2012 at 4:36 pm |

      Maybe it’s just something I’ve gotten used to, but the use of letters/logos instead of the school mascot is keeping in line with the amateur/collegiate aspect of the game. When teams put a mascot on their helmet, they have essentially passed over the institution’s identity and exposed the sport for what it really is: a commercial market.
      While a mascot logo has the ability to be stand out, a unique working of letters or abstract symbols such as Michigan or those that incorporate something into the helmet such as horns or tiger stripes seem to go even further.

  • Anthony | April 13, 2012 at 10:06 am |

    Paul, thank you for another great post to start my day! I’m definitely intrigued by the Real Madrid logo change, it sounds like a pretty good business strategy. Of course, it comes as no surprise to see the racist and xenophobia come into play from Europe simply because a change has been made to a uniform. It’s truly sad to see how the world is going.

    • Camryn | April 13, 2012 at 10:46 am |

      It is an interesting area of debate. It was quite hard to find an article to send to Paul as a link that wasn’t quite hysterical about it. It seems to me that flags often have religious symbols on them (christian crosses, stars of david, crescents) and no-one tends to take offense. They represent the culture (often, *historical culture* rather than current culture) of their point of origin. On sports uniforms, you could make the argument that they represent a cultural origin rather than a cultural present as well… but football clubs are global businesses now. It will be tough for them to market themselves to local fans as a part of the local cultural fabric and to global fans as a brand that’s generic enough to appeal to almost anyone.

      • Ben Fortney | April 13, 2012 at 11:22 am |

        If Pompey played in the US instead of the UK, I’m sure one of the cable news stations (that shall not be named) would claim it’s a subversive Muslim plot.

        • Ben Fortney | April 13, 2012 at 11:24 am |

          BTW: holy spit, this could ruin any productivity I had today. SFW but be warned.

        • James A | April 13, 2012 at 11:49 am |

          I thought the same thing the first time I saw the Portsmouth logo.

        • Ben Fortney | April 13, 2012 at 12:47 pm |

          Wow, just realized I forgot my link…

          THIS could ruin any productivity: 867 english football logos on wikipedia.

      • Anthony | April 13, 2012 at 3:57 pm |

        Thanks for your reply everyone. I know a lot of Muslims, so this kind of link that you shared with Paul did get under my skin a little bit. It just goes to show how politically correct society is getting as well.

    • walter | April 13, 2012 at 12:52 pm |

      Didn’t Milan’s football squad run into trouble for its big red cross (from the city’s coat of arms) on its jumpers?

    • Khiva Khan | April 13, 2012 at 3:09 pm |

      Just to be clear, the Real Madrid logo on the uniforms will remain exactly the same. The logo change ONLY applies to promotional items relating to their new venture in the gulf. So the title on the ticker is actually kind of misleading; they didn’t do this to appeal to people, just to appease business partners that they voluntarily entered into business with.

  • John C | April 13, 2012 at 10:09 am |

    Paul –
    Is the elimination of Page 2 due to the success of Grantland? And has Simmons asked you to contribute to the site? I feel like your stuff would fit well with what they do over there.

    • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 10:30 am |

      Is the elimination of Page 2 due to the success of Grantland?

      I’m not privy to all the thinking behind the change. No idea.

      And has Simmons asked you to contribute to the site?

      No. One of my former P2 editors now works for Grantland, so I have an ally there should I want to go that route. But I’m busy enough with my existing ESPN work.

    • jrg | April 13, 2012 at 10:46 am |

      I’d say it’s been gone for awhile. The Quickie, Uniwatch and Simmons were the major draws for me. With 2 of the 3 gone and links to Paul’s articles here, there was no reason to go there directly anymore.

  • Mark in Shiga | April 13, 2012 at 10:13 am |

    Trivia for Reed Evans:

    Since 2007, swimming’s governing body, FINA, has forced everybody at the world championships to wear caps that have the logo of one of their sponsors (Yakult, which makes a Japanese smoothie or something) printed on one side.

    Yakult makes all kinds of yogurt-based products, and their company name has an interesting history behind it.

    It in fact comes from jahurto, the word for yogurt in Esperanto (!), and that word goes into Japanese as yakuruto (ヤクルト), with an extra “u” in the middle because Japanese doesn’t handle consecutive consonants well. (Why the ‘h’ becane a ‘k’ sound, I’m not sure.)

    But company officials, not knowing how it was supposed to be spelled, made up “Yakult”, and put that on all their foreign-language material, including the uniforms of their baseball team, the Yakult Swallows.

    So now there’s a professional baseball team in Japan whose name comes from Esperanto. Who would have guessed?

    • Lee | April 13, 2012 at 4:34 pm |

      Now thats interesting… thanks!

  • interlockingtc | April 13, 2012 at 10:13 am |

    U and H just don’t look good interlocked. And the beveling really makes it worse.

    • concealed78 | April 13, 2012 at 11:22 am |

      Beveling has always bugged me. First noticed it on the star with the Texas Rangers new logo in 1994. It just seems like design overkill, clunky & added clutter, and seems like only guesswork by the designer on where it should go. On the U & H, on the vertical strokes there seems to be a undefined edge of “flat space”, which the beveling angles seem to stop short 1/8″ on both sides from the middle point – which really questions the point of the gray & white shading: is it really a peak in the middle or is it flat?

      It’s the same reason why I don’t like 3-D embroidery on caps – the logo wasn’t designed that way & looks distorted when viewed at any other angle other than straight-on – not to mention the limitations to fine sharp points in letters that just can’t reproduced three-dimensionally.

      I guess you could put beveling in the same category of block/dropshadows & gradient color shading: it just doesn’t look good or belong on a sports uniform.

    • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 2:59 pm |

      The old interlocking UH logo is great. Its this particular style of letter and the tightness of the monogram that create the ‘problem area.’

  • Winter | April 13, 2012 at 10:15 am |

    As a UH grad, I find all the wrangling over the logo somewhat lamentable. Their iconography at UH has always been somewhat generic and clipart-ish to me, something that looks most appropriate to appear on a lucite paperweight. I think the closest they got to iconic was the tall interlocking UH of the late 80s/early 90s, which is really too bad, considering the rich history of the athletic programs there. Elvin Hayes, Akeem, Drexler, Fred Couples, Carl Lewis, etc. Not to mention Guy V. Lewis (his not being in the Basketball Hall of Fame is a sore point). Even the university seal looks dated and not in a dignified way.

    As far as the Astros go, I disagree with the guy from the Ultimate Astros blog. Bring back the orange. My personal favorite Astros cap is the navy cap with a block H over an orange star. The current negative image shooting star logo always makes me think of the old NBC “the more you know” logo from Saturday morning PSA’s. This is what says Astros to me.

    • ChrisH | April 13, 2012 at 10:49 am |

      When I think of UH in the late 80’s/early ’90s, these 2 come to mind:

      I do agree that that treatment of the lettering was nice, as was their overall football look. And when I think Astros, orange is the color I see.

    • concealed78 | April 13, 2012 at 11:28 am |

      Astros broken star always reminded me of the Energy Star logo on a computer. The H-star logo was best they ever had.

    • jdreyfuss | April 13, 2012 at 11:52 am |

      I want them to bring back the H-star, but I want the blue star on orange hat. Maybe they can figure out a home/road thing with them or wear the orange hats on Sundays.

    • Cort | April 13, 2012 at 12:59 pm |

      I’m a UH grad, too, and I agree about the generic quality of our images. I’m not crazy about the bevels, but the thinner letters do reference that “classic” UH logo, and it looks OK, the aesthetes’ howling notwithstanding.

      I hate everything that Drayton McLane did to the Astros, including their boring, “brick, sand, and coal” color scheme. I hate the script “Astros” logo. I hate the pinstripe uniforms. I hate the softball tops. I don’t even like Enron Field. I hate the way the Astrodome has been allowed to fall into decrepitness, treated like one of Ron Artest pitiable dogs. I hate the revisionist history: McLane threatened to move the Astros to Virginia; no one remembers. The core of the great Astros teams — Bagwell, Biggio, Caminiti, Gonzalez — were all acquired under John McMullen’s ownership; McLane takes credit, and no one argues.

      The Astros ARE orange, navy blue, and loads of Space Age Bachelor Pad funkiness. Bring on the rainbow stripes!

      Also, there is a story that the reason the Astros dropped the blue and gold shooting star logo & color scheme is that blue is the Crips’ color, the star is the Bloods’ symbol, and the “broken star” is the symbol Crips use to represent killing Bloods. The Astros blue “shooting star” cap became a popular gang accoutrement, which caused great embarrassment to the organization. So they deliberately changed to a reddish cap with a broken star, in an attempt to devalue the brand’s street cred.

      I am as white as a boiled chicken sandwich with mayo on Wonder Bread, so I have no idea whether any of this is true or accurate, but it was a popular story in Houston about 10 years ago.

      • trevor | April 13, 2012 at 1:44 pm |

        When I worked for the Astros, I heard from other employees that Drayton McLane dropped orange soon after he bought the team because he went to Baylor and associated orange with the Longhorns.

        • Cort | April 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm |

          I heard that, too.

  • Austin Gray | April 13, 2012 at 10:20 am |

    The fact that A&M’s bevelled logo was unveiled a whopping 13 years ago (and Texas Tech’s was even before that, if I recall) seems like a good reason – for Houston or anyone else – not to bevel any more logos. Perhaps teams could consider adding teal to or garishly-patterned trim to their uniforms.

  • Austin Gray | April 13, 2012 at 10:27 am |

    And speaking of poor outlines of interlocking logos, has anyone ever noticed how poor Kentucky’s outline looks? The white outline’s vertical strokes are DRASTICALLY wider than the horizontal strokes. It looks so amateurish. It could be mitigated a little bit if the top left serif of the K perfectly aligned with the blue outlines of the interior of the U. Alas, it just looks like a mistake.

    • concealed78 | April 13, 2012 at 11:36 am |

      Like it was over-stretched/resized horizontally but not vertically. The inconsistent outline width doesn’t help things either. It does look like a computer mistake.

      • jrg | April 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm |

        Exactly. It always reminds me of a Vic-20 (44 columns/line!) display.

    • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 3:03 pm |

      The problems of Kentucky’s logo are the problems that were (mostly) corrected with the new UH logo, given that they were basically the same logo. Kentucky’s theoretically works better, though, due to the fact that the angle of the K can lock nicely with the angled corner of the U, something the H can not do. Kentucky’s logo needs the same update that Houston’s just got, and Houston’s needs to go back to their old monogram.

  • Chris M | April 13, 2012 at 10:40 am |

    UH Logo:

    The triangle was odd to me too, but not because I didn’t think it should be eliminated (I think it looks worse without it), but because it doesn’t follow the outline of the white correctly.

    There a small section at the top of the triangle that they just filled in red so the it would make a perfect triangle shape, but it doesn’t follow the outline of the white.

    This is how it should really look:

  • Charlie Holloway | April 13, 2012 at 10:51 am |

    The triangle in the middle of the UH is not an error. If you look at the rest of the logo, there is the letter in the middle, followed by a red outline, followed by a white outline. The triangle is simply what can be seen of that white outline which has not been disrupted by the red outline. If the letters had been farther apart, you would have gotten to the red dead space that you referred to.

    • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 11:21 am |

      That is incorrect.

      As I’ve already noted, the white outline only goes around the entire exterior of the logo. Look at the various spots where the U and H intersect — no white outline in those areas. Shouldn’t be one in the triangle zone either.

      • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 11:38 am |

        I feel that I should point out that it would be impossible for the letters they use to actually be interlocking if you attempted to keep the white outline at those intersections.

        • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 11:44 am |

          That doesn’t change the fact of the matter: The white outline only goes around the outside of the logo.

          I think you’ve hit upon a bigger issue, though, namely that it’s just a poor design.

        • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 11:55 am |

          It is a poor design, of course…

          But, as I assert above, the red outline should really only be outlining the letters. That creates a gap; filling that gap with red breaks the red outline scheme.

          Also, consider the inverted version. What is now a red triangle looks just as bad, if not worse.

      • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 3:10 pm |

        It’s all about how you look at it. If you look at the white outline as a caterpillar that crawls around the perimeter of the letter, then Paul, you are correct. However, if you look at the white as, say, a solid layer that the white letters with red outlines are glued down to, then the white of this bottom layer would show through the ‘window’ area where there is no letter or red outline present.

        Looking at the logo on a background color other than red helps to visualize the logo as layers, like what I’m explaining. It’s not incorrect. It just depends on how you look at it.

  • T'Challa | April 13, 2012 at 10:54 am |

    I think we can all agree that:

    Darrell Bevell > UH bevel > TAM bevel

    • jdreyfuss | April 13, 2012 at 11:57 am |

      I don’t know about that. How good was Seattle’s offense last year?

  • Ricko | April 13, 2012 at 11:00 am |
    • Ben Fortney | April 13, 2012 at 11:30 am |

      Is that a “sexy” demon on the Des Moines jersey?

      “Whatever Lola wants…”

      • Ricko | April 13, 2012 at 11:43 am |

        So the Demons should play the Purity, I guess.

        Y’know, for their souls.

        Or one long ball hitter.

    • Jet | April 13, 2012 at 3:17 pm |

      I soooo want a “Bustin’ Babes” jersey.

      Just for the double entendre possibilities…


  • Kevin P. | April 13, 2012 at 11:13 am |

    Great.. now when my wife glances at the computer history and sees “Playbo..” how am I to explain, “But honey, I swear ESPN just changed the name..”

    • Teebz | April 13, 2012 at 11:36 am |

      If you married someone who instantly flies off the handle at “Playbo…”, you’ve probably married a psychopath.

      • Phil Hecken | April 13, 2012 at 2:35 pm |

        you’ve never been married, have ya

    • jdreyfuss | April 13, 2012 at 11:58 am |

      Isn’t Playbo a fansite dedicated to Super Tecmo Bowl?

    • ChrisH | April 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm |

      Be honest…just tell her you only went there for the articles.

  • Phil W | April 13, 2012 at 11:21 am |

    “Speaking of little birdies, I’ve seen the Steelers’ throwbacks for the upcoming season. Can’t say what they are, but I can say a little bit about what they aren’t. Batman uni, as many had hoped? Nope. Same design as the 1994 throwbacks, as had been rumored? Double nope. And that’s all I can tell you, at least for now”

    Paul you’ve made this yinzer salivate! When can we learn more? Has the team decided when they are going to officially unveil them? And yes, I am a Pittsburgher who’s extremely interested in this even while the Pens are in the playoffs.

    • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 11:22 am |

      I don’t know the official unveiling date, but I’m assuming it’ll be later this month at the draft.

      • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 3:12 pm |

        It’s gotta be the one with the yellow sleeves and the black NW stripes on them.

        Or the yellow and black horizontal stripes with the numbers inside the rectangles.

  • pushbutton | April 13, 2012 at 11:27 am |

    Re: Twins ‘Dairy Queen’ unis:

    When explaining why they were mothballed, equal weight is given to both “they were ugly/gaudy” and “we got our ass kicked in them”. It bothers me that something as important as how your team looks is decided by mere fate. If they’re hideous, fine, but superstition is the worst way to pick a look (which extends to the stupid practice of allowing a pitcher to choose that day’s uni……I’m yelling at clouds, I know, but how about having management pick a look, and wear it all year?).

    • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 11:36 am |

      I have never — NEVER — understood the idea of picking/changing uniforms based on “We won a pennant in them” or “We sucked in them.” As a Mets fan, I’m grateful that nobody said, “We’ve sucked in these long enough — time for a change” at the end of 1968.

      • Graf Zeppelin | April 13, 2012 at 12:13 pm |

        By the same token, it’s probably a good thing that the Islanders didn’t win a Stanley Cup in 1996.

      • walter | April 13, 2012 at 1:14 pm |

        Recalling your S.U.C.K. formula for changing a team’s look, this wouldn’t seem to align with your “Karma” criterion.

        • Phil Hecken | April 13, 2012 at 2:33 pm |


        • Jim Vilk | April 13, 2012 at 10:24 pm |

          “Karma” criterion.

          Isn’t that a Culture Club song?

    • Ricko | April 13, 2012 at 12:36 pm |

      We enjoy looking at photos of women who dumped us, do we?

      Just sayin’.

      Is, of course, different for those who were around for certain time in a team’s history as opposed to those with no memory of it.

      • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm |

        We enjoy looking at photos of women who dumped us, do we?

        I think that depends quite a bit on just what happened before being dumped.

        /just saying

        • Ricko | April 13, 2012 at 2:00 pm |


  • Ben Fortney | April 13, 2012 at 11:29 am |

    I’m not sure whether having fans vote on the uniform their team wears is either amazing or the worst thing ever.

  • JamesP. | April 13, 2012 at 11:30 am |

    Paul, I can’t recall seeing if you addressed it already or not, but has there been any talk of you contributing to ESPN: the Mag?

    • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 11:37 am |

      I’ve done a few pieces for the Mag over the years. The various platforms at ESPN — TV, web, print — are kind of territorial, so it can be hard to jump from one to the other unless you’re a big shot.

      • JamesP. | April 13, 2012 at 11:46 am |


        Would be cool, though, to see a Uni Watch at the top of one of the articles the ESPN mag I get each month.

  • pflava | April 13, 2012 at 11:35 am |

    Man, that UH logo is just an absolute mess! So clunky and awkward – why is there an outline at all? I mean, of course beveling sucks, but the outline makes it SO much worse. That thing is going to look awful on a helmet. Look how nice and clean this was…

    And as a Texas Tech grad, I continue to be disappointed that our logo has been sullied by the bevel. Before the Raiders exclusively wore Division III level clown suits, they looked pretty damned good…

    • Dumb Guy | April 13, 2012 at 1:07 pm |

      I can’t find that font anywhere else on the UH website.
      Wonder why they are using it here.


  • Bob Sullivan | April 13, 2012 at 11:49 am |

    RE: Short bill baseball cap.

    It’s not a baseball cap. It’s a college freshman beanie, an old tradition of wearing stupid hats to identify freshmen. The 54 is probably either the current year or the future graduation year. I’d bet this belonged to freshman J. Tobin in 1951, as that would put him in the class of 1954. I agree with the other poster that it’s probably his initials on the squatchee, maybe a middle initial of A. Perhaps the last time beanies made an appearance was in “Animal House”:

    • John K | April 13, 2012 at 5:04 pm |

      You beat me to it. One of my brothers or sisters has my Dad’s, from both high school and college in the ’40s and ’50s. I forgot they had them in Animal House.

  • Phil P | April 13, 2012 at 11:50 am |

    When I see beveling I just think back to when I was learning to do photoshop back in the late 90’s-early 2000’s. That and drop shadows were definitely overused tricks that I used, so when I see it done with logos I just equate it to beginner attempts at creativity.

    • MEANS | April 13, 2012 at 1:32 pm |

      choosing a layer effect such as bevel or drop shadow in Photoshop is different than actually drawing the bevel by hand in Illustrator.

  • pflava | April 13, 2012 at 11:52 am |

    Paul – absolutely outstanding job on the uniform ads ESPN piece! It always irks the hell out of me when people discuss professional sports franchises solely as businesses, completely ignoring the civic aspect. You always do a great job articulating that.

  • Graham Jaunts | April 13, 2012 at 11:57 am |

    I think I’m the only person on this lonely planet that prefers the Astros’ mid-90’s uniforms. They just screamed THE COSMOS. That blue-almost-black night sky color, the totally-underused-in-professional-sports gold, the vaguely-futuristic shooting star logo and wordmark, the… okay, I’m out of hyphenated descriptions, but I loved those things.

    • Graham Jaunts | April 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm |

      Speaking of… can I buy one of those mid-90’s hats anywhere? Has that uniform era been totally scrubbed from their history? Seems like every piece of apparel is either orange or brick red.

    • Ben Fortney | April 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm |

      The gold star is one of my favorite caps, I wore that into the ground as a teenager.

  • Kyle Lamers | April 13, 2012 at 11:59 am |

    I have always hated bevel on logos. It just looks stupid and fake. Do they really expect people to look at it and think of it as actually popping out of the page, producing the shadows? That being said, my dad has always hated 3D numbering on uniforms because of basically the same principle, that being it’s a 2D surface and do they really expect us to believe the numbers are 3D?

    All that aside, I have never disliked 3D numbers, but the bevel annoys the piss out of me.

    With the negative space, I feel like the whole thing shouldn’t be red, but rather maybe only a tiny portion within the triangle should be red. You have the inner red outline, which is present at the point in question, and the entire logo also has the outer white outline. Therefore, the entire point in question should not be red, due to the fact that you still want the outer white outline. Not sure if someone has already mentioned this in the comments; I didn’t read them all.

  • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 12:03 pm |

    I think that, putting all the minutiae of bevels, triangles, and what is and isn’t part of an outline aside, we can all agree on one simple thing regarding the Houston Cougars rebrand:

    They goofed.

    And the sad thing is, they’ll probably find some ridiculous way to defend it (the way the Dallas Cowboys defend their hodgepodge of blues and silvers).

  • Kevin | April 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm |

    Regarding the ONE World Trade Center logo, the silhouette in the “O” kind of looks like it’s giving somebody the middle finger.

    • JimWa | April 13, 2012 at 4:10 pm |

      Or worse … when I saw it, I thought the O had a plane (a fighter jet, perhaps?) flying through the center of it.

    • ChrisH | April 13, 2012 at 4:40 pm |

      From the comments section of the the Slimes article: “Sorry but doesn’t this look a hypodermic needle?” Sure does. Is 1WTC far from Bryant(formerly ‘Needle’)Park?

  • rpm | April 13, 2012 at 12:12 pm |

    brown bagger~
    re: we won/lost in them…agreed.

    i disagree with you on the triangle, although i do like how someone fixed that here by adding the top square to it. there is nowhere in the interlock where you could add the white, the red outline supersedes the white, where both can’t live happily, there is no white. visually that does not bother me nearly as much as having that giant red splotch without the triangle, it makes the whole logo looked lassoed by the white while the red act like an outline to the UH. it makes it look lazy.

    what bothers me is the lower right of the U where the light at the top and the light at the bottom overlap, this just isn’t possible, the grey from the lower right arm of the U should be extended a touch like a backwards L to meet up with the white so there isn’t that impossible white strip.

  • Tyler M | April 13, 2012 at 12:15 pm |

    Here’s a shot of Mizzou’s away whites:

    • Chris Holder | April 13, 2012 at 12:23 pm |

      I’m sure the dark color will be black (or, ahem… gray), but that font and the basic design of the jersey gives me a bigtime West Virginia feel.

      • Tyler M | April 13, 2012 at 12:35 pm |

        That was exactly my first thought as well. They look pretty similar to West Virgina’s pro combat uniforms they wore a couple years ago.

    • Winter | April 13, 2012 at 12:30 pm |

      Small video to the right of MU players reacting to seeing their new uni’s.

      A little more sedate than the Ohio U. reaction last year, but about the same.

  • dunderbear | April 13, 2012 at 12:24 pm |

    UH has FIXED the bevel. Triangle is still there, and they haven’t updated it everywhere (see all their Facebook cover photos), but it’s fixed on the landing page & the little red UH in the top left corner when you enter the site.

    • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm |

      Apparently, we’re more influential than we think.

      • MEANS | April 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm |

        I honestly think somebody didn’t group the logo or had that part of the bevel locked when they grabbed it from the logo slick, that’s why it wasn’t there. I just can’t believe nobody would have noticed it missing throughout the creation process.

        • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm |

          Yeah, probably. But you never know… there’s plenty of currently-in-use logos out there that we look at and immediately think should be “fixed” in one way or another that seems blatantly obvious to us, but yet went unnoticed by the team.

  • Adam | April 13, 2012 at 12:26 pm |

    So Page 2 is going away over on Too bad most of the dopes on the page 2 wont go with it… ie JIM CAPLE and the others. Paul you work is great, too bad there arent more people like you in sports who talk about INTERESTING things and not make up crap that no one understands.

  • timothymcn | April 13, 2012 at 12:27 pm |

    It’s rosin bag not resin bag, right?
    By the not in it, I would like to guess that it’s a sock?

    • Ricko | April 13, 2012 at 12:32 pm |

      Probably. An on-deck circle bag basically was a sanitary sock filled and then knotted at the top.

      The one on the mound often was smaller, more the size of a tobacco pouch.

      As least back in the day. :)

      • Phil Hecken | April 13, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

        how about when most of us were alive?

  • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm |

    I agree with rpm above…

    As far as the “triangle” area goes… consider the “U” and “H” as separate letters. With the individual letters transposed over each other, the use of the white outline in that area between the letters becomes rather clear.

    Staying with the theme, here’s what it looks like using the blue from the previous logo. Filling it in with anything else ends up looking pretty poor.

    Note that I stripped the bevels out… I reduced the original image down to two colors (which did result in some artifacts on some of the edges), and then worked from there in Paint.

    • Rex | April 13, 2012 at 12:57 pm |

      You beat me to it by 20 minutes. Touche.

      • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 1:00 pm |

        I beat you to it by 3 hours, but who’s counting? ;)

        (Seriously, read all the comments before you post, there’s a few of us more obsessive types who check the site pretty early in the day)

        • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 1:12 pm |

          Yeah, THE got it first in the morning (and I did the same thing, only replying to an earlier post than the one in which THE posted his fixes – in my case, it was that I hadn’t read down far enough).

          My post here, though, is simply a further exploration of the point upon which we happen to agree.

        • Dumb Guy | April 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm |

          I think that Rob’s is the definitve example of what UH was trying to acheive (no offense THE).

        • Rob S | April 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm |

          THE and I, I think, are on the same page; it’s just that I took that next logical step by showing each letter as separate in relation to the other.

          Though I do like it with the blue outline they had on their old UH (as well as no bevels). But then, I’ve not no stake in the Cougars.

        • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 3:22 pm |

          You guys are right, but Paul’s Still Calling it Incorrect.â„¢

  • Alex Parisi | April 13, 2012 at 12:40 pm |

    I don’t know why the University of Houston would want to highlight “UH” anyways. I look at it and say, “Uhhh.” Why does the U have to be in there at all? Saying U-H out loud rolls right off the tongue and onto the floor.

    • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm |

      Well at least it’s not HU, then people would just say “who?”.

    • Winter | April 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm |

      I’d be fine if they emphasized “Houston”, but they say UH most likely because those folks up in Austin say UT.

      • Clueless Joe Jackson | April 13, 2012 at 7:21 pm |

        We say U of H for what it’s worth. Not sure if it matters one way or the other though.

        • Winter | April 14, 2012 at 9:16 am |

          Hey, I graduated from there, and it’s not consistent.

  • Rex | April 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm |

    The University of Houston logo is incorrect, but for the wrong reason. If you follow the white outline, it builds up between the bottom right of the U and the center of the H. The current logo took the easy way out, extending the diagonal of the U, which kept a triangle when there should be a little square on top of it.

    If you look at the image in the link, it shows where the outlines are prior to being united as compound shapes.

    • Dumb Guy | April 13, 2012 at 1:16 pm |

      THE Jeff denoted that in his rendition I believe.

      • Rex | April 13, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

        Yes, I just noticed those after I got all worked up and got my Illustrator fix.
        Same outcome, different methods of explanation. I look forward to a couple more takes on it.

  • ScottyM | April 13, 2012 at 1:20 pm |

    Hey TAMU marketing guy …

    “I know it’s passionate to a lot of folks on TexAgs. But for us, whether the T is beveled or not beveled, it does not impact the integrity of the mark. The proportions are the same, it’s the same mark.”

    If the bevel isn’t part of the ‘integrity’ of the mark … then what, pray tell, IS the integrity of that mark? (colors, shapes … type treatment, which includes the bevel)

    Are you saying if someone would remove the bevel, that it would be fine … and still communicate TAMU consistently across all applications?

    Your statement is absolutely, positively inaccurate.

    Your bevel IS required to sustain the integrity of your current mark.

    Arbitrarily taking out it, means you’d have ‘some other mark,’ not that TAMU mark. Yikes!

    • The Jeff | April 13, 2012 at 1:30 pm |

      Apparently, the only thing that matters is the overall shape of the mark. So… we need to flood the interwebs with different variations of the aTm logo. Fill it with plaid or a checkerboard or put flowers in it or whatever…just to see how they react.

      • ScottyM | April 13, 2012 at 3:11 pm |

        Yeah, bet they’d love that ;)

  • Dave S. | April 13, 2012 at 2:30 pm |

    This would be a beautiful shot if not for the ever-so-subtle product placement on the tarp.

  • Chris | April 13, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

    So here’s the question I have: Who’s the designer/studio/agency responsible for the design overhaul? Anyone know?

    • Andy | April 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm |

      I’ve heard Joe Bosack & Co.

  • Jet | April 13, 2012 at 3:21 pm |

    Am I the only person to comment on those wonderful milk bottle caps??!

    They make me feel happy inside. I’m going to order a bunch, JUST BECAUSE!


    • walter | April 13, 2012 at 3:24 pm |

      They are beautiful, don’t get me wrong. But we were knocked off-kilter by this sensational bevel kerfluffle.

  • SS9 | April 13, 2012 at 3:46 pm |

    Sorry if this has already been posted. Benson just bought the New Orleans Hornets and would like to possibly change the team name…

    • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 4:09 pm |

      This article:

      Has this:

      Also unclear is whether Benson might seek to rebrand the franchise to give it more of a Louisiana flavor. The Hornets were the team’s original name in Charlotte. Basketball fans in New Orleans still regularly complain on talk radio and in internet chat rooms about Utah’s refusal to give up the nickname Jazz, a reference to a genre of music born in the Big Easy and a cherished part of the city’s heritage and culture.

      Still, if not Jazz, there are other names that might speak more to the local culture than the name Hornets, and perhaps enhance the growing perception that the NBA is at last taking root in Louisiana.

      • Patrick_in_MI | April 13, 2012 at 11:02 pm |

        New Orleans Hurricanes? New Orleans Mudbugs? New Orleans Nutria(s)? New Orleans Desire?

    • pushbutton | April 13, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

      First can anyone tell me why Charlotte lost the Hornets but got another team before the moving van pulled away? I must have mislaid the sports section that day.

  • Paul Lukas | April 13, 2012 at 4:03 pm |

    Just heard from UH’s media communications guy. Regarding the inconsistency of the beveling on the serif of the H, he says:

    Your readers are absolutely correct! That beveling at the top of the “H” should be there and was there in the approved design…

    We approved the design quite some time ago and turned our attention to the new Cougar logo. Somehow when we got the files from the designer for the unveiling, the bevel at the top of the H had disappeared and we didn’t even notice it for 24 hours. The design firm isn’t even sure what happened…

    Yesterday our own graphic designer noticed the error (those guys have a keen eye for detail) and contacted the design firm to make the proper adjustments.

    As for the triangle, it should be there. It’s the outer-most stroke.

    • ScottyM | April 14, 2012 at 9:32 am |

      Sounds like another Uniwatch success. It ain’t just happenstance that the UH designer noticed it the day your column ran. Congrats.

  • Josh | April 13, 2012 at 6:19 pm |

    This image is not from today, but during today’s Cardinals game I noticed that rookie infielder Matt Carpenter of St. Louis doesn’t wear batting gloves.

  • Logan | April 13, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
    • LarryB | April 13, 2012 at 9:25 pm |

      Oh boy more black in a uniform.

      • Douglas King | April 13, 2012 at 11:01 pm |

        you’re overlooking the addition of a grey uniform, which aside from the new helmets appears to be the only new thing in that pic (unless they changed the white numbers on the other jerseys to grey, it looks that way but that could just be the lighting).

        It should be noted that it is a darker grey than what we’ve seen from Nike recently but a grey alternate nonetheless.

  • Graf Zeppelin | April 13, 2012 at 7:13 pm |

    Damn, those Mets road unis look mighty fine…

  • Phil Hecken | April 13, 2012 at 7:42 pm |

    there may not be a finer looking road uniform ever put on by the mets than the one they are wearing tonight

    • Graf Zeppelin | April 13, 2012 at 8:37 pm |

      Absolutely 100% concur.

      Apart from the sleeve patches, which return to normal next year anyway, these appear to be identical to the 1995-97 road grays, unlike the home uniforms which are both slightly different (pins are off-white, script/lettering lacks white outline, “Mets” script slightly larger/thicker).

    • Jim Vilk | April 13, 2012 at 10:02 pm |

      Where are the racing stripes?

      • Wheels | April 13, 2012 at 11:14 pm |

        I always thought the racing stripe pullovers were really cool. Dwight Gooden looked sharp in those at the start of his career.

  • Wheels | April 13, 2012 at 8:05 pm |

    The Mets look awesome!

  • Oakville Endive | April 13, 2012 at 8:09 pm |

    I don’t like the Philadelphia Flyers, but I sure love their white uni’s (by far the best looking Flyers uniform in the franchise history – in my opinion)

  • Tim E. O'B | April 13, 2012 at 8:29 pm |

    This is probably what people feared Nike would do

    Those are awesome, creative, hideous and hilarious.

    • Oakville Endive | April 13, 2012 at 8:40 pm |

      Well done, love the Jaguars.

    • Wheels | April 13, 2012 at 8:52 pm |

      The Raiders one is hilarious.

      • Jim Vilk | April 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm |

        The Jeff would wear that.

    • Mike 2 | April 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm |

      I prefer the Buffalo Bills

      “Would you fuck me? I’d fuck me.”

      • StLMarty | April 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm |

        “Wait… is she a big ol fat person?”

  • Douglas King | April 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm |

    How long have the Orioles been wearing the black friday night jerseys on the road? I didn’t think they had done it in the past (in MLB 2K12 they had it as an option but I figured that was some sort of mistake, as I couldn’t find any pics of them wearing them in the past).

    Anyways they wore the black jerseys with grey pants tonight:

  • Stephen Galvin | April 13, 2012 at 10:45 pm |

    The Texas A&M logo, the block T-AM, is a great, classic logo. The bevel on the T, to be kind, looks like crap. I am among the many Ags who refuse to buy Aggie gear that contains the bevel, and yes this often means I buy nothing at all due to limited selection.
    Also, I wish the article had not stated that “A lot of folks want to ditch the A and the M completely”, because this is simply not the case. Some want an A&M mark that contains only a block T(as seen on Bear Bryant’s cap when he coached the Texas Aggies) or makes use of the state outline, but these would be for use as secondary logos, not to fully replace the established TAM mark.

  • Patrick_in_MI | April 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm |

    You never go aTm!

  • chuck | April 13, 2012 at 11:14 pm |

    Not uni related, but I sure am missing Vin Scully calling the Dodger games.