University of the Pacific

[Cola]

I really like the work here but the "UOP" wordmark is kind of throwing me off. Most universities don't use the "O" in their names (University of Southern California = USC, University of Washington = UW, etc.) so perhaps just try "UP"? Or even make the O lowercase to indicate it stands for "of" instead of leading people to think it might be the University of Outer Pacific.

If it's a NorCal thing, and they have always been called UOP then ignore everything I said. I'll never understand NorCal.

That is how Pacific often refers to themselves. Besides, it's a tiny bit different: they are officially Univerity Of The Pacific...not University of Pacific.

[OMMF]

I really like the work here but the "UOP" wordmark is kind of throwing me off. Most universities don't use the "O" in their names (University of Southern California = USC, University of Washington = UW, etc.) so perhaps just try "UP"? Or even make the O lowercase to indicate it stands for "of" instead of leading people to think it might be the University of Outer Pacific. 

If it's a NorCal thing, and they have always been called UOP then ignore everything I said. I'll never understand NorCal.

That is how Pacific often refers to themselves. Besides, it's a tiny bit different: they are officially Univerity Of The Pacific...not University of Pacific.

So why not UotP then? If they are going to use a letter that most universities don't, why not use both of them? University of Texas at San Antonio comes to mind. UTSA, not UoTaSA.

*shrug*

Just curious that's all. I think the UP would look good.

[Cola]

I really like the work here but the "UOP" wordmark is kind of throwing me off. Most universities don't use the "O" in their names (University of Southern California = USC, University of Washington = UW, etc.) so perhaps just try "UP"? Or even make the O lowercase to indicate it stands for "of" instead of leading people to think it might be the University of Outer Pacific. 

If it's a NorCal thing, and they have always been called UOP then ignore everything I said. I'll never understand NorCal.

That is how Pacific often refers to themselves. Besides, it's a tiny bit different: they are officially Univerity Of The Pacific...not University of Pacific.

So why not UotP then? If they are going to use a letter that most universities don't, why not use both of them? University of Texas at San Antonio comes to mind. UTSA, not UoTaSA.

*shrug*

Just curious that's all. I think the UP would look good.

That still isn't the same as Univerity of THE Pacific...totally different. You are referring to satellite campuses- Univ of California AT Los Angelos. UCLA. UOP still ignores the "THE" just like everyone else. Still different and makes them unique.

[OMMF]

I really like the work here but the "UOP" wordmark is kind of throwing me off. Most universities don't use the "O" in their names (University of Southern California = USC, University of Washington = UW, etc.) so perhaps just try "UP"? Or even make the O lowercase to indicate it stands for "of" instead of leading people to think it might be the University of Outer Pacific. 

If it's a NorCal thing, and they have always been called UOP then ignore everything I said. I'll never understand NorCal.

That is how Pacific often refers to themselves. Besides, it's a tiny bit different: they are officially Univerity Of The Pacific...not University of Pacific.

So why not UotP then? If they are going to use a letter that most universities don't, why not use both of them? University of Texas at San Antonio comes to mind. UTSA, not UoTaSA.

*shrug*

Just curious that's all. I think the UP would look good.

That still isn't the same as Univerity of THE Pacific...totally different. You are referring to satellite campuses- Univ of California AT Los Angelos. UCLA. UOP still ignores the "THE" just like everyone else. Still different and makes them unique.

Then if it's that distinctive, why not UTP?

I'm not trying to start anything here but with all the great work Barnes did, it'd be nice to see them with a wordmark that made sense. UOP doesn't according to me, UP doesn't according to you, so how about UTP to empahsize the "the."

[barnesdesign]

Hey everybody I appreciate the comments. I agree that the body is inconsistent with the rest of the work, and I am planning on going back in to change that up. The font has been giving me problems as well, and I agree that the serifs can be revisited. Perhaps a new font altogether. Either way that needs work.

As far as the UOP goes, I had always heard Pacific referred to as UOP in media guides, at games, etc. I am not sure if they have anything currently in use that has a "UOP" in its style guide.

Thanks again for the comments. It helps the process

[Cola]

I really like the work here but the "UOP" wordmark is kind of throwing me off. Most universities don't use the "O" in their names (University of Southern California = USC, University of Washington = UW, etc.) so perhaps just try "UP"? Or even make the O lowercase to indicate it stands for "of" instead of leading people to think it might be the University of Outer Pacific. 

If it's a NorCal thing, and they have always been called UOP then ignore everything I said. I'll never understand NorCal.

That is how Pacific often refers to themselves. Besides, it's a tiny bit different: they are officially Univerity Of The Pacific...not University of Pacific.

So why not UotP then? If they are going to use a letter that most universities don't, why not use both of them? University of Texas at San Antonio comes to mind. UTSA, not UoTaSA.

*shrug*

Just curious that's all. I think the UP would look good.

That still isn't the same as Univerity of THE Pacific...totally different. You are referring to satellite campuses- Univ of California AT Los Angelos. UCLA. UOP still ignores the "THE" just like everyone else. Still different and makes them unique.

Then if it's that distinctive, why not UTP?

I'm not trying to start anything here but with all the great work Barnes did, it'd be nice to see them with a wordmark that made sense. UOP doesn't according to me, UP doesn't according to you, so how about UTP to empahsize the "the."

[Ron Burgundy voice]

Agree to disagree.

[/Ron Burgundy voice]

[OMMF]

[Ron Burgundy voice]

Agree to disagree.

[/Ron Burgundy voice]

Sounds good to me.

[slapshot]

As far as the UOP goes, I had always heard Pacific referred to as UOP in media guides, at games, etc. I am not sure if they have anything currently in use that has a "UOP" in its style guide.

University of the Pacific does have an athletic graphics & standards/style sheet on their website if you search for it. It's available for viewing only (no editing in Illustrator) but I think it also lists all acceptable nicknames, whether it's "UOP", "UOTP", "Pacific", etc.

[barnesdesign]

Here is a revision, with the body matching the head better and the font cleaned a bit more.

[HurricaneDavid]

I think it's weird that the two Cs in paCifiC look different. I know what you are going for by mirroring the P, but it just looks strange to me. Also, what would happen if you flipped the tiger so the head was on the left and the tail on the right? I don't think it would resemble the Ti-cats nearly as much then. Just a thought.

[cyandlux]

I dont like the update...it looks too jagiddy now.

And its UOP...always has been.....

[VitaminD]

Also, what would happen if you flipped the tiger so the head was on the left and the tail on the right? I don't think it would resemble the Ti-cats nearly as much then. Just a thought.

BB, as for the redesign: still likin' it a lot. The font looks much more regular, and I will disagree with HurricaneDavid on this one.

Most logos tend to orient themselves so that the "forward" direction is toward the right. So while the reversal would separate this logo a little more from the Hamilton Ti-Cats, it would buck the conventional trend. Furthermore, it would be seen (subconsciously if not more overtly) that going to the left is somehow "not going forward".

BB, as for the redesign:

Still liking it. The wordmark looks considerably cleaner and more organized with fewer serifs. And I am going to disagree with Hurricane David about the 2 "C"s having to look the same. Other teams have chosen style over uniformity in their wordmarks; just check out the Philadelphia Eagles' wordmark below:

The first "E" has an extra serif on the vertical bar, and different serifs hanging down from the uppermost horizontal bar. Furthermore, both "E"s, the "G" and the "L" have serifs coming from the left; the "A" has no serifs; and the "S" has a serif coming from the right to mirror the first "E". It works fine, and looks great IMO. Your wordmark does many things in the same way, and it looks balanced even if the "C"s don't match up.

[HurricaneDavid]

Furthermore, it would be seen (subconsciously if not more overtly) that going to the left is somehow "not going forward".

...

Your wordmark does many things in the same way, and it looks balanced even if the "C"s don't match up.

I hear what you're saying about "not going forward," but I'd still like to at least see it that way.

As far as the wordmark, the ONLY thing different between the two Cs is the tiny serif in the upper right. That makes it look like an error that the Cs are not the same. In the Eagles wordmark, there are obviously numerous things that differ between the Es, so it's not as if someone would think that's a mistake.

[DarthMan]

Well done- no complaints here