http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/page/QTP_170601Calnewlogo/cal-armour-kick-partnership-new-logo-designs

Including a new "Sather Stripe" design supposedly based on the Campanile (as a guy involved in marketing and design, I can only say "Typi-Cal" - both the reasoning behind it and the execution are, imo, lame).

http://www.calbears.com/news/2017/5/31/athletics-news-the-story-of-the-sather-stripe.aspx

I like the stripe.

MoragaBear;842843475 said:

---

The majority of people here seem to like most or all of the elements of the rebranding. Surely people who don't like parts of it understand that just because they don't like it, it doesn't mean it sucks, right?

I love pretty much everything about it, including the stripe and it's connection to the Campanille, the campus and tradition.

---

Well since pretty much ALL the rest of the 'rebranding' is simply 'recycled' (the Cal Script, the block C with Bear silhouette, and the script 'California') as the only 'NEW' element, I think the 'Sather Stripe' does, in fact, suck. It is uninspiring and visually weak. Just my opinion.

As 'rebranding' goes, this would get laughed out at most major companies. That it made it through the design chain at Under Armor given their debacle with the Curry shoes is no surprise.

MoragaBear;842843483 said:

---

So you're saying we're all a bunch of simpletons with unrefined taste and marketing sensibilities?

Everyone's entitled to their opinions but stating them in a way that makes the many that like the rebranding seem foolish and misguided? Not a great idea, IMO.

---

It's not 'rebranding' if it's all 'recycled.' And please don't make this a straw man argument that because I think the 'new' design is nothing new that I think people who like it are 'simpletons.' That's beneath you.

I like the traditional Cal icons too. But the Sather Stripe is simply lazy design. It's gimmicky and uninspiring.

MoragaBear;842843483 said:

---

So you're saying we're all a bunch of simpletons with unrefined taste and marketing sensibilities?

Nike's a "major company" and they did Cal laughably wrong, so there's that.

---

Well I found much of the Cal Nike branding to be very well done, while admitting some of it was unispired as well. The 'Cal Basketball Planet' design was a favorite. But I guess I'm just a 'simpleton with unrefined taste and marketing sensibilities.'

MoragaBear;842843490 said:

---

You don't think that's coming on a little strong about something that most here like?

---

You're kidding right? You give a certain poster full reign to post his ridiculousness and you're giving me guff about my opinion about a lousy stripe? Get some perspective man.

And where do you get that the 'dominant majority' of people like a design element that was just launched?

From what I've read about UA, they pretty much use stripes on all their football uniforms. I think they went looking for a reason to use it at Cal, and came up with the Campanille as the justification. Yeah, people who go/went to Cal know what the Campanille is, but the stripe has no connection to it visually imo. That element is extremely weak because it is UA imposing a stripe on Cal's uniforms really just because that's what they do everywhere. The people at Cal who agreed with the "Sather Story" did not do their homework on UA uniforms and fell for the pitch, not seeing it for what it really is. Since UA is supposedly giving us top dollar, they can have their stripe. Just call it what it really is instead of some BS story.

That said, I like enforcing the taking "Berkeley" out of all the designs because it does have a hippie/tree sitter/riot association nationally that I do think is effectively used against us in recruiting. I'm hoping he current t-shirts with "Berkeley" on them are old inventory that disappears & is not replicated.

I like bringing back the block C a lot, since I loved the 1970 team that beat U$C in LA, Furd at home. Still frustrated with the screw job by the refs against ucla. Those uniforms & helmets were stellar.

I've always preferred the white (away) / dark blue (home) top & gold pants combinations far more than any other. All white is stanfurd redux, and so I hope to never see that again. No more swooches on the pants & jerseys thank Oski.

Solid dark blue helmet with Cal on the sides is the best look by far imo, since the block C disappeared in the 70's. No stipes, swooches, or anything else on them.

And please, Oski, no clown outfits either. Too bad we can't have an iconic uniform we stick with like Alabama, Michigan, Ohio State etc. That doesn't hurt their recruiting at all. That's my $0.02 on the matter. Everyone who agrees with me are geniuses​, and everyone who disagrees are misguided & ignorant of what is right & true.

I was hoping we'd have gold, not yellow, in the retro/re-branding.

Bear19;842843512 said:

---

From what I've read about UA, they pretty much use stripes on all their football uniforms. I think they went looking for a reason to use it at Cal, and came up with the Campanille as the justification. Yeah, people who go/went to Cal know what the Campanille is, but the stripe has no connection to it visually imo. That element is extremely weak because it is UA imposing a stripe on Cal's uniforms really just because that's what they do everywhere. The people at Cal who agreed with the "Sather Story" did not do their homework on UA uniforms and fell for the pitch, not seeing it for what it really is. Since UA is supposedly giving us top dollar, they can have their stripe. Just call it what it really is instead of some BS story.

...

That's my $0.02 on the matter. Everyone who agrees with me are geniuses​, and everyone who disagrees are misguided & ignorant of what is right & true. And stay the _ _ _ k off my lawn while we're at it.

---

Hmmm...interesting criticism of the stripes and UA.

adidas' branding is literally, "DIE WELTMARKE MIT DEN DREI STREIFEN." or "The brand with the three stripes."

Show me Nike (or any other uniform maker) that doesn't include stripes on a significant portion of a school's/team's uniforms. Sure there are a couple of examples, but nowhere are stripes missing.

I applaud UA for at least trying to embrace something as iconic as the Campanile in the branding as opposed to a bear logo that was far too busy and bore no resemblance to anything associated with the university (save for the bear from the '70s bear...)

...there, now I'm off your lawn!

MoragaBear;842843483 said:

---

So you're saying we're all a bunch of simpletons with unrefined taste and marketing sensibilities?

Nike's a "major company" and they did Cal laughably wrong, so there's that.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions but stating them in a way that makes the many that like the rebranding seem foolish and misguided? Not a great idea, IMO.

---

I think you're being a bit sensitive. For example, I don't like the Rolling Stones. I find them boring. Literally millions disagree with me. I don't think they are simpletons for liking the Rolling Stones. We just have different taste.

MoragaBear;842843475 said:

---

The majority of people here seem to like most or all of the elements of the rebranding. Surely people who don't like parts of it understand that just because they don't like it, it doesn't mean it sucks, right?

I love pretty much everything about it, including the stripe and it's connection to the Campanille, the campus and tradition.

---

There is a difference between a matter of taste and stupidity. I personally can go for classic or modern depending on the design. But the bottom line is that UA is not doing this because they are lazy, unimaginative or just love classic. Boring classic is in. UA is responding to the market.

The best selling shoe in the US last year by dollar amount was the Adidas Superstar, usually in white. Basic old school Adidas 3 stripe shoe. Also, it is a relatively cheap shoe, so to be the best selling by dollar volume it had to kick ass in moving quantity.

#2 were Jordan XII's from the 90's.

#3 were Chuck Taylors.

Some quotes:
"The U.S. is in the midst of a major retro trend"

"[Nike] is clearly losing some ground to Adidas on its home turf in part because it failed to anticipate a consumer shift away from performance basketball sneakers - one of its key categories - and toward retro fashion sneakers."

I think Sneezy Bear and the font that went with him were typi-Cal not because the attempt was wrong but because the execution was awful. They were trying to be cool and missed terribly. Nothing cool about sneezy bear or block fonts with pinched corners. It felt like parents of teenagers trying to be cool by saying "yeah, man, that was really on fleek!".

But this time, it was hard to screw up. The script Cal is classic and has already become popular outside the context of Cal. The block "c" is classic, and the marching bear, being close to the state flag bear, is all over the place around California already, also outside context of Cal. Some people may find it boring, but it is hard to be more boring than white adidas with three black stripes and those are ubiquitous

MoragaBear;842843647 said:

---

I have no issues with someone saying they don't like any, all or parts of the rebrand. That's not the point I was making.

---

Yup

Bjorn91;842843526 said:

---

I was hoping we'd have gold, not yellow, in the retro/re-branding.

---

The "Real" gold which ended around 1971 was really nice. Hope the color guidelines haven't precluded future use.

I believe that most of you are simpletons and have unrefined taste... but that has nothing to do with Under Armour. Let me ponder on the marketing part.

grandmastapoop;842843625 said:

---

I think you're being a bit sensitive. For example, I don't like the Rolling Stones. I find them boring. Literally millions disagree with me. I don't think they are simpletons for liking the Rolling Stones. We just have different taste.

---

As someone who just said Moraga was being sensitive on another thread, I don't think that is a fair characterization when his post was in response to:

Quote:

---

As 'rebranding' goes, this would get laughed out at most major companies. That it made it through the design chain at Under Armor given their debacle with the Curry shoes is no surprise

---

That is not the equivalent of "I just don't like the Rolling Stones. I have different tastes." That is the equivalent of "as music goes, the Rolling Stones would get laughed out of most major record labels." The clear statement is not that it is a matter of taste but that it is so empirically bad that no major company would produce it.

It's all fashion, as far as I'm concerned. I've railed against those that basically want 1982 uniforms and nothing else will do. I liked most of the uniforms under Tedford (detested the all yellows. Didn't like the all whites. Big fan of blue pants). I absolutely get if someone doesn't like the new branding. And I know that others just like it because it brings us back close to that 1982 frame of reference they can't get past.

I personally didn't like sneezy bear and the font to me looked like just trying to be different to be different. But if people liked it - great. My issue was I didn't think people would like it. Frankly, my observation is I didn't see many people buying merchandise with those designs. At the same time, the script Cal was actually taking off WITHOUT Cal as unlicensed versions were very popular and the script "Cali" was very common. I've also seen a lot of the walking bear while Cal was not using it.

Long winded way of saying whether I like it or don't, it is on trend and would not "get laughed out of" major companies.

OaktownBear;842843701 said:

---

As someone who just said Moraga was being sensitive on another thread, I don't think that is a fair characterization when his post was in response to:



That is not the equivalent of "I just don't like the Rolling Stones. I have different tastes." That is the equivalent of "as music goes, the Rolling Stones would get laughed out of most major record labels." The clear statement is not that it is a matter of taste but that it is so empirically bad that no major company would produce it.

It's all fashion, as far as I'm concerned. I've railed against those that basically want 1982 uniforms and nothing else will do. I liked most of the uniforms under Tedford (detested the all yellows. Didn't like the all whites. Big fan of blue pants). I absolutely get if someone doesn't like the new branding. And I know that others just like it because it brings us back close to that 1982 frame of reference they can't get past.

I personally didn't like sneezy bear and the font to me looked like just trying to be different to be different. But if people liked it - great. My issue was I didn't think people would like it. Frankly, my observation is I didn't see many people buying merchandise with those designs. At the same time, the script Cal was actually taking off WITHOUT Cal as unlicensed versions were very popular and the script "Cali" was very common. I've also seen a lot of the walking bear while Cal was not using it.

Long winded way of saying whether I like it or don't, it is on trend and would not "get laughed out of" major companies.

---

But his first response was to this post:

Quote:

---

Including a new "Sather Stripe" design supposedly based on the Campanile (as a guy involved in marketing and design, I can only say "Typi-Cal" - both the reasoning behind it and the execution are, imo, lame).

---

That's pretty close to my Rolling Stones analogy. MB then said:

Quote:

---

The majority of people here seem to like most or all of the elements of the rebranding. Surely people who don't like parts of it understand that just because they don't like it, it doesn't mean it sucks, right?

I love pretty much everything about it, including the stripe and it's connection to the Campanille, the campus and tradition.

---

The guy said, in his opinion, the re-branding is lame. It's his opinion, explicitly. MB then says "Well I and others like it, so you must understand it doesn't suck." NYCB never said it sucks objectively. He said he thinks it's lame. That's it. Frankly, there was no reason to respond, especially as he's stated in multiple posts that he loves the re-branding. And I don't mean to belabor the point here - but I did feel the need to respond as to why I think he was being sensitive.

grandmastapoop;842843703 said:

---

But his first response was to this post:



That's pretty close to my Rolling Stones analogy. MB then said:



The guy said, in his opinion, the re-branding is lame. It's his opinion, explicitly. MB then says "Well I and others like it, so you must understand it doesn't suck." NYCB never said it sucks objectively. He said he thinks it's lame. That's it. Frankly, there was no reason to respond, especially as he's stated in multiple posts that he loves the re-branding. And I don't mean to belabor the point here - but I did feel the need to respond as to why I think he was being sensitive.

---

well, now I'm just arguing because it's Friday and this is more fun than work.

I probably wouldn't have responded if this was the post you called sensitive, but I still don't really see it. NYCB's post wasn't as strident as the one that Moraga responded to that you actually called sensitive, but then Moraga's response to NYCB's post wasn't as strident either.

It's still not your Rolling Stones analogy. There is a big difference between "millions of people love the Rolling Stones but they aren't my taste" and "the Rolling Stones are lame". (personally, I'm with you. I hate the Rolling Stones. But I wouldn't call them lame. The Monkees are lame. I have a feeling NYCB thinks the rebrand is the Monkees, not the Rolling Stones) I don't have a problem with NYCB's post, but I don't have a problem with Moraga's response.

NYCB: "It's lame"
Moraga: "Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's lame."

Two guys giving an opinion. Don't see it as an issue. I didn't see Moraga's response as especially harsh. His words became significantly more harsh in his response to the other post and, honestly, I think in both cases they were about on par with the posts he responded to.

And you do have to acknowledge that "Typi-Cal" is the Cal version of "Couged it". In other words, Cal blew it again.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a stripe. They want to call it inspired by the Campanile for marketing purposes, so what? (I mean, how do you really market a stripe?) When they show the pictures, I get it, but it is still just basically a stripe. (I have to say I laughed at someone's suggestion that they have the windows going up the middle because i don't think they realize that then it would just look like a depiction of a road on the DMV exam).

MoragaBear;842843705 said:

---

But this topic has been beaten into the ground already.

---

Then it must be time to turn this thread to politics.

stu;842843727 said:

---

Then it must be time to turn this thread to politics.

---

... or burritos.

NYCGOBEARS;842843730 said:

---

... or burritos.

---

Then we'll get into Rolling Stones vs. Sublime.

OaktownBear;842843723 said:

---

well, now I'm just arguing because it's Friday and this is more fun than work.

I probably wouldn't have responded if this was the post you called sensitive, but I still don't really see it. NYCB's post wasn't as strident as the one that Moraga responded to that you actually called sensitive, but then Moraga's response to NYCB's post wasn't as strident either.

It's still not your Rolling Stones analogy. There is a big difference between "millions of people love the Rolling Stones but they aren't my taste" and "the Rolling Stones are lame". (personally, I'm with you. I hate the Rolling Stones. But I wouldn't call them lame. The Monkees are lame. I have a feeling NYCB thinks the rebrand is the Monkees, not the Rolling Stones) I don't have a problem with NYCB's post, but I don't have a problem with Moraga's response.

NYCB: "It's lame"
Moraga: "Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's lame."

Two guys giving an opinion. Don't see it as an issue. I didn't see Moraga's response as especially harsh. His words became significantly more harsh in his response to the other post and, honestly, I think in both cases they were about on par with the posts he responded to.

And you do have to acknowledge that "Typi-Cal" is the Cal version of "Couged it". In other words, Cal blew it again.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a stripe. They want to call it inspired by the Campanile for marketing purposes, so what? (I mean, how do you really market a stripe?) When they show the pictures, I get it, but it is still just basically a stripe. (I have to say I laughed at someone's suggestion that they have the windows going up the middle because i don't think they realize that then it would just look like a depiction of a road on the DMV exam).

---

Look - I love the script Cal and California. The block C with the Bear silhouette? Meh. I can totally respect those who love the return to these old symbols, but they are just that - old, and there's nothing wrong with that - I'm totally with the retro thing. I love my Chuck Taylor's (even if they share a name with a former Stanford Coach and AD), my Levis 501s, and my vintage Schott leather jackets.

What I find 'lame' about the Sather Stripe is the ridiculously long explanation behind it.

http://www.calbears.com/news/2017/5/31/athletics-news-the-story-of-the-sather-stripe.aspx

The first rule of good design (and this was from my Production Design professor at Cal, Henry May) is to tell the story visually. When it takes 12 paragraphs to explain how you came up with a stripe, you've missed the mark in my opinion. And to me that stripe does not evoke Sather Tower anyway (even when amateurishly photoshopped onto the Campanile itself).

If Under Armor took 'over 1,000 pictures' and spent a whopping 2 weeks (an entire fortnight?!? and yes I mean that sarcastically) and this is what they came up with, then yes, I consider that 'lame.' It's the only new element they brought to the table and I think it should have been left on the drawing board from which it came. That's my personal opinion and it comes from sitting in countless design pitch meetings. Sorry if expressing my opinion offends you.

There are a LOT more offensive opinions than that on this board to get up in arms about.

In my opinion of course.

Only on BI would you disect the uni's in this much detail....sometimes the intelligence of the posters gets in the way of the posts...I could care less about the uni's or branding or the font of the logo....let's get some wins for Cal basketball no matter what they look like....

NewYorkCityBear;842843787 said:

---

The first rule of good design (and this was from my Production Design professor at Cal, Henry May) is to tell the story visually. When it takes 12 paragraphs to explain how you came up with a stripe, you've missed the mark in my opinion. And to me that stripe does not evoke Sather Tower anyway (even when amateurishly photoshopped onto the Campanile itself).

If Under Armor took 'over 1,000 pictures' and spent a whopping 2 weeks (an entire fortnight?!? and yes I mean that sarcastically) and this is what they came up with, then yes, I consider that 'lame.' It's the only new element they brought to the table and I think it should have been left on the drawing board from which it came. That's my personal opinion and it comes from sitting in countless design pitch meetings. Sorry if expressing my opinion offends you.

---

Don't know how much you've paid attention to this, but I'm pretty sure it's very common for outfitters to come up with excessively wordy and tortured explanations for various uniform design elements, in an attempt to make them seem connected to the school. So your claim that this kind of thing would be "laughed out" at any design firm is most likely wrong. It's pretty much the standard in college uniform design now.

Because of that, the marketing schpiel doesn't mean a whole lot to me, and the main concern is how it looks. On that level, the "Sather Stripe" is just a stripe. Looks fine, though I guess it could possibly be used badly on the uniforms. We'll have to wait and see.

sycasey;842843795 said:

---

Don't know how much you've paid attention to this, but I'm pretty sure it's very common for outfitters to come up with excessively wordy and tortured explanations for various uniform design elements, in an attempt to make them seem connected to the school. So your claim that this kind of thing would be "laughed out" at any design firm is most likely wrong. It's pretty much the standard in college uniform design now.

Because of that, the marketing schpiel doesn't mean a whole lot to me, and the main concern is how it looks. On that level, the "Sather Stripe" is just a stripe. Looks fine, though I guess it could possibly be used badly on the uniforms. We'll have to wait and see.

---

I work with apparel and sporting goods companies all the time (Rawlings is my biggest client, but have also worked with Fila, Nike, Adidas and Puma to name a few). I'm speaking from experience sitting in those very meetings.

It's one thing to write marketing schpiel (thank G_d I don't have to) it's another thing to so overly explain a design element that doesn't really evoke the very thing you name it after. I agree with the previous poster's assessment that it looks a DMV road chart and, to me, the gaps look like pot holes. Again my opinion.

NewYorkCityBear;842843799 said:

---

I work with apparel and sporting goods companies all the time (Rawlings is my biggest client, but have also worked with Fila, Nike, Adidas and Puma to name a few). I'm speaking from experience sitting in those very meetings.

It's one thing to write marketing schpiel (thank G_d I don't have to) it's another thing to so overly explain a design element that doesn't really evoke the very thing you name it after. I agree with the previous poster's assessment that it looks a DMV road chart and, to me, the gaps look like pot holes. Again my opinion.

---

Strips fine
Gaps are NOT creative genius

NewYorkCityBear;842843799 said:

---

I work with apparel and sporting goods companies all the time (Rawlings is my biggest client, but have also worked with Fila, Nike, Adidas and Puma to name a few). I'm speaking from experience sitting in those very meetings.

It's one thing to write marketing schpiel (thank G_d I don't have to) it's another thing to so overly explain a design element that doesn't really evoke the very thing you name it after. I agree with the previous poster's assessment that it looks a DMV road chart and, to me, the gaps look like pot holes. Again my opinion.

---

Am I still dead to you for liking the UA concepts? Also, although I agree with some of what you say, the Sather Stripe marketing is Fashion 101: Create a narrative that fits your design. That's it. And I'm in the business and that is exactly what I do.

I like the stripe, but not the gaps. In no way does the design remind me of the Campanile.

NewYorkCityBear;842843787 said:

---

Look - I love the script Cal and California. The block C with the Bear silhouette? Meh. I can totally respect those who love the return to these old symbols, but they are just that - old, and there's nothing wrong with that - I'm totally with the retro thing. I love my Chuck Taylor's (even if they share a name with a former Stanford Coach and AD), my Levis 501s, and my vintage Schott leather jackets.

What I find 'lame' about the Sather Stripe is the ridiculously long explanation behind it.

http://www.calbears.com/news/2017/5/31/athletics-news-the-story-of-the-sather-stripe.aspx

The first rule of good design (and this was from my Production Design professor at Cal, Henry May) is to tell the story visually. When it takes 12 paragraphs to explain how you came up with a stripe, you've missed the mark in my opinion. And to me that stripe does not evoke Sather Tower anyway (even when amateurishly photoshopped onto the Campanile itself).

If Under Armor took 'over 1,000 pictures' and spent a whopping 2 weeks (an entire fortnight?!? and yes I mean that sarcastically) and this is what they came up with, then yes, I consider that 'lame.' It's the only new element they brought to the table and I think it should have been left on the drawing board from which it came. That's my personal opinion and it comes from sitting in countless design pitch meetings. Sorry if expressing my opinion offends you.

There are a LOT more offensive opinions than that on this board to get up in arms about.

In my opinion of course.

---

Geez

Now THAT is over sensitive. No one talked about banning you or punishing you or being offended. You expressed a strong opinion and got strong opinions in response. I'm sorry if that offends you.

I think you have to understand who you are trying to sell to. Cal is not Oregon and I think Nike made that mistake. Oregon has a bunch of young fans. If I had to guess probably 60-70% of their fans are recent fans as in the last 20 years, so flashy is going to sell with them. Cal believe it or not has a much richer tradition than Oregon. Tradition is actually pretty big for Cal fans and its an older base.

I remember back in the 90s for one game the band tried out a new fight song in place of Fight for California. The whole stadium was in stunned silence. New, flashy heck even cool just doesnt work with Cal. Give us script Cal, block C. slight alterations and we're good, well most of us.