Love the ones we have now...the Nike ones were a little generic imo.

(08-27-2014 04:30 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Love the ones we have now...the Nike ones were a little generic imo.

Agreed. In my opinion the current jerseys are more unique and just exude a Bearcat image. I love the current uniforms in pretty much every combination.

(08-27-2014 04:30 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Love the ones we have now...the Nike ones were a little generic imo.

I've seen better uniforms on HS teams than that nike crap we had with the iron-on numbers.

(08-27-2014 10:19 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  That old C paw has got to be one of the ugliest logos I have ever seen. Its sloppy, uneven, and just looks like someone drew it on a napkin which they then made copies of and plastered on the helmets. To each their own I guess, but come on, its just... so... bad... The new one looks like someone took the old one and said, "Okay, thats a start, but lets take some time and put some work into it." They then made it sleek, modern, and super simple all at the same time.

I think the logos are linked to the teams of the era they are used by. I associate that old thing with a time where basketball was pretty dang good, but football was far from our thoughts. I associate the "new" logo with a time where both major programs have seen continued high levels of success. Too many people in this town still view UC as the old logo UC and treat it as such. In my opinion, the further we get away from that thing the better.

As for the uniforms, I like the new number color for this year. I didnt mind the silver numbers last year, but I thought it was kind of... wonky. To be honest though, I thought the best uni's UC has ever worn were from the 2006 to 2007 version (I think they may have even started in 05).

I still believe there is some value on the basketball side with the hanging Bearcat and the old C-PAW. I still hope UC releases those logos for use in a retro line.

The current C-PAW and wordmarks are very strong. Those logos are in the top tier of all college trademarks, modern classics. The Bearcat eyes and cat scratches say very little about the Cincinnati Bearcats and are not based on any historical representation of the University of Cincinnati. As Bearcats fans we know those logos but to most folks those eyes and scratches are just strange.

Nike hit it out of the park with the Jordan Brand but didn't really do a whole lot on the football side. I agree with the folks on this board that their designs are too generic.

(08-27-2014 05:29 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(08-27-2014 10:19 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  That old C paw has got to be one of the ugliest logos I have ever seen. Its sloppy, uneven, and just looks like someone drew it on a napkin which they then made copies of and plastered on the helmets. To each their own I guess, but come on, its just... so... bad... The new one looks like someone took the old one and said, "Okay, thats a start, but lets take some time and put some work into it." They then made it sleek, modern, and super simple all at the same time.

I think the logos are linked to the teams of the era they are used by. I associate that old thing with a time where basketball was pretty dang good, but football was far from our thoughts. I associate the "new" logo with a time where both major programs have seen continued high levels of success. Too many people in this town still view UC as the old logo UC and treat it as such. In my opinion, the further we get away from that thing the better.

As for the uniforms, I like the new number color for this year. I didnt mind the silver numbers last year, but I thought it was kind of... wonky. To be honest though, I thought the best uni's UC has ever worn were from the 2006 to 2007 version (I think they may have even started in 05).

I still believe there is some value on the basketball side with the hanging Bearcat and the old C-PAW. I still hope UC releases those logos for use in a retro line.

The current C-PAW and wordmarks are very strong. Those logos are in the top tier of all college trademarks, modern classics. The Bearcat eyes and cat scratches say very little about the Cincinnati Bearcats and are not based on any historical representation of the University of Cincinnati. As Bearcats fans we know those logos but to most folks those eyes and scratches are just strange.

Nike hit it out of the park with the Jordan Brand but didn't really do a whole lot on the football side. I agree with the folks on this board that their designs are too generic.

Unless you are a Nike Elite school what you are left with are second and third generation templates that have been introduced and popularized somewhere else and handed down to you. For example the last edition of the nike uniform was just the USC jersey template that was introduced when Pete Carroll took over, with Nike's standard pants template which was modified from Miami's look circa 2001. It was all completely derivative design wise. At least with Adidas UC is pretty consistently one of the first schools to get their new templates.

Adidas treats UC like a big time program....the icing on the cake is on the football side i like the designs which is a plus.

i will say this, the one thing i admire about Under Armor is that they are willing to go outside the box, even if it means disastrous consequences. Navy's new helmets (H/T: Darren Rovell's Twitter)

(08-28-2014 09:38 AM)eroc Wrote:  i will say this, the one thing i admire about Under Armor is that they are willing to go outside the box, even if it means disastrous consequences. Navy's new helmets (H/T: Darren Rovell's Twitter)

I don't think Under Armour makes helmets, just the uniforms.

Yeah the helmet is clearly Riddell.. look right next to the face mask.


That helmet is awful IMO.

(08-28-2014 10:00 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 09:38 AM)eroc Wrote:  i will say this, the one thing i admire about Under Armor is that they are willing to go outside the box, even if it means disastrous consequences. Navy's new helmets (H/T: Darren Rovell's Twitter)

I don't think Under Armour makes helmets, just the uniforms.

Under Armor doesn't manufacture or produce the helmets, but the logo and designs, i believe, are designed by UA, not Riddell.

Here is the whole Navy Uniform. I don't think it looks too bad. I will like them even better if they knock off the $uckeyes this weekend!

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-...54423.html

(08-28-2014 12:15 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  Here is the whole Navy Uniform. I don't think it looks too bad. I will like them even better if they knock off the $uckeyes this weekend!

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-...54423.html

Have to admit, I'd like OSU to have a solid here to help UC. Normally I'd root against them every game.

(08-28-2014 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 12:15 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  Here is the whole Navy Uniform. I don't think it looks too bad. I will like them even better if they knock off the $uckeyes this weekend!

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-...54423.html

Have to admit, I'd like OSU to have a solid here to help UC. Normally I'd root against them every game.

I get what your are saying, but I am of the opinion that all AAC teams (present or future) need to win as many OOC games as possible. I've read where some of the coaches, AD's and Aresco feel the same way. That being said...why can't we BOTH beat them this year?!

(08-28-2014 12:38 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 12:15 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  Here is the whole Navy Uniform. I don't think it looks too bad. I will like them even better if they knock off the $uckeyes this weekend!

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-...54423.html

Have to admit, I'd like OSU to have a solid here to help UC. Normally I'd root against them every game.

I get what your are saying, but I am of the opinion that all AAC teams (present or future) need to win as many OOC games as possible. I've read where some of the coaches, AD's and Aresco feel the same way. That being said...why can't we BOTH beat them this year?!

We don't play Navy this year.

We need OSU to win every other game except against us. If we beat an Ohio State team that finishes anything short of 9-10 regular season wins we will hear that we played a bad team (just like what happened when we beat Virginia Tech a couple years ago).

Heck no! Down goes Ohio State every week, baby!

(08-28-2014 12:41 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 12:38 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(08-28-2014 12:15 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  Here is the whole Navy Uniform. I don't think it looks too bad. I will like them even better if they knock off the $uckeyes this weekend!

https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-...54423.html

Have to admit, I'd like OSU to have a solid here to help UC. Normally I'd root against them every game.

I get what your are saying, but I am of the opinion that all AAC teams (present or future) need to win as many OOC games as possible. I've read where some of the coaches, AD's and Aresco feel the same way. That being said...why can't we BOTH beat them this year?!

We don't play Navy this year.

We need OSU to win every other game except against us. If we beat an Ohio State team that finishes anything short of 9-10 regular season wins we will hear that we played a bad team (just like what happened when we beat Virginia Tech a couple years ago).

O$U needs to lose 2 games. If we were the only team to beat them and they ran the table and we were undefeated, I bet we'd get left out of the playoff in favor of the Buckeyes because they struggled early due to adjusting to injury and went undefeated in an over-rated Big Ten. P5 bullcrap would hold us down (Though we still may get in over another P5 school if we were undefeated and O$U only had that one loss). But the more P5 teams with more than one loss would only help UCs cause.

I don't necessarily care if Navy wins or not. However, I wouldn't mind seeing them soften tO$U up a little with their cut blocks.