New USF Uniforms

[JoeB]

I believe all three of those teams originally had grey facemasks.  USC tinkered with theirs and went to that garnett color for a few years, and UCLA went to a dark blue for a time period, but I believe they all went back to the original grey.

Why?  Tradition!

While I'm not a fan of Spurrier or the Gators, he brought back blue jerseys and grass turf based on the past, so he earned a little bit of respect.    

[BullGrad95]

Hit the link.  Looks like the mini's are on the market with black gear already.

http://www.scorehere.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=602

Compare it to this.  

http://www.scorehere.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2268

[BULLfreak]

Really can’t tell the difference the only changes I see is that the new one has more of a gold color (not the right color) and the logo is bigger

[DawgPound]

It looks more gold cause black reflects more of the color its mixed with(in this case gold).  The larger logo helps make it more noticable.

[Velcro]

if you want to get technical... black doesn't reflect color, but rather absorbs all light (and colors).

If you don't,  

[DawgPound]

If you want to be technical, you could ask why a Knight would be here critiquing USF's new helmet.  Either way, I'm going to give you a    simply for the fun of giving    to people.

[Velcro]

;D ;D

[GarySJ]

Allow me to explain why this new "black" thing is completely misguided.

And let me preface it by saying that it has nothing to do with my personal sensibilities.

Remember when the "Iconic U" was unveiled two years ago? Well, one of the reasons we switched logos was to standardize the look of sports teams across the athletic department. Individual teams at USF were using different colors, different fonts, and whatnot. The Iconic U and the other new symbols were supposed to stop all that. Colors and graphics were to be standard for all USF teams. The phrase "branding program" was frequently used.

Well, barely two years have passed, and guess what? We're back to being non-standard. It won't be long before other teams at USF start deviating in their own ways, and we'll be back to the hodgepodge that the new branding program was specifically designed to eliminate.

This is why USF marketing is constantly going in circles. We decided to do things one way with the Iconic U branding program. Two years later, that program is being ignored. I'm sure that in 6-7 years the Iconic U will be thrown out, and a new branding program will emerge. Then then that'll fall by the wayside, and then we'll need another new approach...  repeat ad nauseum.

Remember the "USF, not South Florida" thing? Gee, that didn't last long, did it? It's good that it didn't, because it was a bad idea, but why can't athletics marketing stick to any of the decisions they make?

This is why USF has no enduring symbols. Our competitors are instantly recognizable with their timeless symbols like the Seminole head, the script "Gators", and the interlocking WV in the shape of West Virginia. Meanwhile, we're going through a random cycle of crying cows and psycho goats and curvy S'es and non-curvy S'es and Iconic U's and god knows what's next, in every tint of green and yellow from Forest to Vegas. An endless parade of emblems that have nothing in common with each other, except that they'll all be mildewing in a storage locker, forgotten, within a decade of their unveiling.

All I'm asking from USF athletics is, PICK SOMETHING AND STICK TO IT.

[lotsofbull99]

Sami Al Arian says "Jihad agains the black heretic helmets!"

[Guest S.  Bien]

Allow me to explain why this new "black" thing is completely misguided.

And let me preface it by saying that it has nothing to do with my personal sensibilities.

Remember when the "Iconic U" was unveiled two years ago? Well, one of the reasons we switched logos was to standardize the look of sports teams across the athletic department. Individual teams at USF were using different colors, different fonts, and whatnot. The Iconic U and the other new symbols were supposed to stop all that. Colors and graphics were to be standard for all USF teams. The phrase "branding program" was frequently used.

Well, barely two years have passed, and guess what? We're back to being non-standard. It won't be long before other teams at USF start deviating in their own ways, and we'll be back to the hodgepodge that the new branding program was specifically designed to eliminate.

This is why USF marketing is constantly going in circles. We decided to do things one way with the Iconic U branding program. Two years later, that program is being ignored. I'm sure that in 6-7 years the Iconic U will be thrown out, and a new branding program will emerge. Then then that'll fall by the wayside, and then we'll need another new approach...  repeat ad nauseum.

Remember the "USF, not South Florida" thing? Gee, that didn't last long, did it? It's good that it didn't, because it was a bad idea, but why can't athletics marketing stick to any of the decisions they make?

This is why USF has no enduring symbols. Our competitors are instantly recognizable with their timeless symbols like the Seminole head, the script "Gators", and the interlocking WV in the shape of West Virginia. Meanwhile, we're going through a random cycle of crying cows and psycho goats and curvy S'es and non-curvy S'es and Iconic U's and god knows what's next, in every tint of green and yellow from Forest to Vegas. An endless parade of emblems that have nothing in common with each other, except that they'll all be mildewing in a storage locker, forgotten, within a decade of their unveiling.

All I'm asking from USF athletics is, PICK SOMETHING AND STICK TO IT.

Gee, I didn't realize that we had suddenly abandon the green on our logos?  Our new Sports Lettermen's Club is giving jackets to all the players that are all black with a giant green iconic bull on the chest.  Are they suppose to change from the black?  Even the jersey's have a subtle black stripe around the sleeve.

I don't see how something so subtle is abandoning a brand identity.  We haven't changed the color of the logo, and we currently haven't changed anything material, we're simply using a color that subtly is difficult to differentiate to the naked eye.  I can hardly find fault with the athletic department for simply trying to stylistically improve the asthetic appearance of the overall uniform.  I don't see where that's abandoning the branding indentity particularly when virtually everything else meaningful is in green.