Washington State Rebranding

[DrJack]

If fans ever said, "man, I already have a shirt with that Cougar head on it, what do I need another for?" then I'm sure we'd see a lot more logos changing. But that doesn't happen. Fans just buy a different shirt.

If "tradition" is a big part of your school's brand then keeping consistent jersey's matters a bit. If it isn't, then aren't jerseys the BEST way to keep up with the times? You can't change the logo every 3 years. You can't build a new stadium every 3 years. You probably shouldn't fire your coach every three years. You CAN get new uniforms.

I'm not really sure where I was going with that rant, but I think my point is that there is nothing wrong with following fads and trends. Clothes do it every season. Sports jerseys only do it every few years (at the most, some never do - Penn St.) Here on this site, we tend to think of a "brand" as logos and jerseys. I don't think that is really the case in the real world. Jerseys don't have a ton of influence on the "brand".

I'll concede it's cheaper to change jerseys than it is to change a stadium, the school's logo, or coach. Also, you're probably right that a brand is less tied to uniforms than I make it out to be. You're also right that there is nothing wrong with following fads or trends.

Personally, I'm not a trendy guy. When I buy a suit, I want it to be a classic style that won't look un-fashionable down the road. I'd love to buy a jersey and have it still be current in four years. I like to be able to immediately recognize the teams on the field.

I can't refute any of your points Stuckey, but it seems my taste in uniforms is polar opposite from yours. Agree to disagree?

Absolutely agree to disagree, and I don't think we're even that far off from agreeing. Just different tastes. When I bought my first suit I bought a simple, traditional black suit and always felt great wearing it. Since then I've purchased two other suits that are a bit more modern and trendy. I don't wear a suit very often, but when I do I usually reach for one of my two "trendy" ones. They look great and I love wearing them, but I know that in five years or so they'll probably be quite outdated. The black one won't be, and I'm very happy to have it in my closet, because I know I'll be wearing it for years! I'll never NOT buy something I like just because I'm worried that it'll look dumb in a few years, but I definitely WILL buy something just because I know I can wear it forever. Make sense?

As far as buying jerseys, I understand what you are saying about keeping them relevant. I personally buy my jerseys based on the players I like, and I do want those jerseys to be current too. As unhappy as I am with the Blazers current jerseys, I'm don't really want them to change because it will make my Roy jersey outdated. In college, the players turn over completely every four years at most. My Jonathon Stewart jersey is from the diamond plate years. My Ngata jersey is from the series before that. Now I wear my Barner jersey from the current set. Barner will be gone soon and so will the winged jerseys, so the new designs don't bother me in that regard. I actually like looking back in my closet and seeing the different eras of Oregon football represented so clearly. I've got awesome memories tied into each one of those jersey designs.

Now thats not to say that every team should change jerseys every few years, I've got a lot of respect for the traditional jerseys as well. Sticking to a consistent look for decades is admirable and a great way to show your history as well. Nothing wrong with that.

If "tradition" is a big part of your school's brand then keeping consistent jerseys matters a bit.

A bit? It matters a ton.

Ok, if you think so. My point was mainly that when "tradition" ISN'T a big part of your school's brand, consistent jerseys don't really matter. Or they matter a lot less than if you are trying to sell "tradition". But its hard to get that point across when you snip a single sentence out of the post and respond with a one-liner.

If it isn't, then aren't jerseys the BEST way to keep up with the times?

You know what's an easy way to stay "with the times" for a sports team or an athletic program? Winning. Win, and no one will care if you aren't wearing the latest line of Nike uniforms. Auburn's the national champs (had to, sorry ). You think the fact that they wear "boring" traditional uniforms will hinder their program? No. Winning the National Title will do more for them then wearing a modern Nike (or even Under Armour) uniform set would ever do. Winning gets you noticed more so then your clothing does. I hate the Raiders, but Al Davis has a point.

This has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. Yeah, winning helps keep you relevant. Duh. I'm sure Washington State is painfully aware of that fact. But to say that a school's brand is "behind the times" when they aren't winning bowl games is a flat out ridiculous statement. C'mon.

I'm not really sure where I was going with that rant, but I think my point is that there is nothing wrong with following fads and trends.

Trends are dependent on what the public thinks, and anyone who's paid attention to pop culture trends knows the public is fickle. So if your programming is going to forego the standard pattern of picking one look and building a tradition around it so that it becomes meaningful in favour of always following trends you HAVE to constantly change your look to keep up with what the public thinks is "cool" and "in." If that's the direction you want your program to go, that's cool. I'm just telling you it's going to lead to a lack of brand identity in the long run because you're always going to be changing your look.

Well my last post was all about how jerseys aren't necessarily crucial to "brand identity" in college sports, but you either missed that point or just ignored it. Ask any sports marketing worker in the country and I can guarantee you that they'll say Oregon has one of the strongest brands in all of college sports. I don't think that it can really be argued that the Ducks are one of the most recognizable teams is the country and that as a "brand", everything Oregon has done recently to promote itself has not only been incredibly unique, but also wildly successful. Changing jerseys and playing with accent colors has only added to the attention and visibility of the program. And now you are seeing other schools try to follow in Oregon's footsteps, especially the smaller schools that are tired of being outsiders in a college football world that is dominated by the big traditional powerhouses (Boise St, TCU, WSU, ASU, OkSt.)

[IceCap]

If "tradition" is a big part of your school's brand then keeping consistent jerseys matters a bit.

A bit? It matters a ton.

Ok, if you think so. My point was mainly that when "tradition" ISN'T a big part of your school's brand, consistent jerseys don't really matter. Or they matter a lot less than if you are trying to sell "tradition". But its hard to get that point across when you snip a single sentence out of the post and respond with a one-liner.

It's standard message board educate to snip the unimportant parts of a post. You said here "If 'tradition' is a big part of your school's brand...'" implying that you are talking about the traditional schools. In that context "...then keeping consistent jerseys matters a bit" is a gross understatement.

As for schools without the tradition of, say, Alabama and Notre Dame? Well those schools started their tradition at some point, yes? How are you ever going to build up your own traditions if you change your look drastically every three to five years?

If it isn't, then aren't jerseys the BEST way to keep up with the times?

You know what's an easy way to stay "with the times" for a sports team or an athletic program? Winning. Win, and no one will care if you aren't wearing the latest line of Nike uniforms. Auburn's the national champs (had to, sorry ). You think the fact that they wear "boring" traditional uniforms will hinder their program? No. Winning the National Title will do more for them then wearing a modern Nike (or even Under Armour) uniform set would ever do. Winning gets you noticed more so then your clothing does. I hate the Raiders, but Al Davis has a point.

This has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. Yeah, winning helps keep you relevant. Duh. I'm sure Washington State is painfully aware of that fact. But to say that a school's brand is "behind the times" when they aren't winning bowl games is a flat out ridiculous statement. C'mon.

I never said that. I said, and implied, that sticking to a single, solid look and a commitment to building a winning tradition will do more to grow your brand and your program's prestige then simply changing your look every time there's a change in what's considered "cool."

Well my last post was all about how jerseys aren't necessarily crucial to "brand identity" in college sports, but you either missed that point or just ignored it.

I went with the third option: I rejected it. A jersey is the centrepiece of any sports team's identity. What do fans buy the most of? Jerseys. When a team changes their look what's the first piece of new gear fans want to buy? Jerseys. When you walk into a store to buy something with your team's logo what's the centrepiece of the display? More times then not, the jersey.

Why do you think the NFL is on a throwback kick at the moment? It's because throwback jerseys are selling at the moment. The jersey, I would say, is pivotal to any team's brand. It's perhaps the only part of the official team uniform fans can both buy and wear without looking like crazy fans.

Ask any sports marketing worker in the country and I can guarantee you that they'll say Oregon has one of the strongest brands in all of college sports.

Citation needed (thanks Milo).

I don't think that it can really be argued that the Ducks are one of the most recognizable teams is the country and that as a "brand", everything Oregon has done recently to promote itself has not only been incredibly unique, but also wildly successful. Changing jerseys and playing with accent colors has only added to the attention and visibility of the program. And now you are seeing other schools try to follow in Oregon's footsteps, especially the smaller schools that are tired of being outsiders in a college football world that is dominated by the big traditional powerhouses (Boise St, TCU, WSU, ASU, OkSt.)

They're getting attention, yes. It's not all positive though. They've created an image for themselves, to be sure. It raises the question of how much longer can they keep that image up without completely delving into the realm of the ridiculous. At a certain point this will come toppling down, because there really is no brand. Just a trendy image. There's no long-term brand strategy outside of constantly changing to stay "cool." Eventually they'll jump the shark.

As for schools following Oregon's lead, I disagree. TCU flat out rejected to wear the uniforms Nike came up with for the Rose Bowl, and instead wore the black Nike shirts with purple pants and a sweet purple helmet. They looked like TCU, not like Team Nike. Their new sets prominently feature the traditional TCU black and purple. WSU and ASU certainly moved towards more modern identities, but lets look at them.

WSU now wears their unique shade of grey across sports. They've kept their traditional home and road helmets. Even their thirds are grounded in the school's athletic identity. The primary colour is WSU's unique shade of grey with crimson highlights. Even when they done their new alternates they'll look like the WSU Cougars.

ASU's home and road set utilize their school colours, and in my opinion they do so in a rather sharp manner. ASU's new look is, for the most part, modern while still retaining a sense of traditional minimalism. The two aspects of their new identity mesh well. The only thing that sticks out as even remotely Oregon-esque is their black alternate set. Even there they still at least use ASU yellow. Oregon didn't wear a single school colour in the Civil War game or the National Championship.

So in short I reject the notion that ASU, WSU, and TCU have "followed" Oregon's lead. Those three schools have embraced modern designs, yes. They still emphasis their school colours, however, and they have far less pointless combinations and "accenting" colours.

[Trident M]

Some PDF Goodness for you all:

http://www.wsucougars.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/wast/genrel/auto_pdf/WSU-Brand-Manual_single

[BrandMooreArt]

nicely put together brand guide there. id say they achieved their goals with the uniforms.

[missouri tigers]

nicely put together brand guide there. id say they achieved their goals with the uniforms.

I agree. It's an overall clean look, and an great choice of font in their logos.

[evanaho]

Some PDF Goodness for you all:

http://www.wsucougars.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/wast/genrel/auto_pdf/WSU-Brand-Manual_single

Thanks for posting this one!

Not crazy about the "leading" characters and numerals with the extra wing on the top left corner. Otherwise the font is respectable. There has been a lot of font development with recent brand overhauls (Washington and Oregon State come to mind). I wish I could get some Paint versions of the numbers and letters so when I'm tinkering with jersey designs they could come out accurately.

[tvko]

Nebraska, Notre Dame, UCLA, and Michigan are all Adidas, so blaming any of their uniform problems on Nike doesn't work.

At least not on this website.

UW blames every world problem (not just uniforms) on Nike. Or "Corporate baggery"

I hope I end up in the ticker!

[Lights Out]

Indeed. UniWatch is so full of crap, it's not even funny. They hate just about every uniform made after 1969 just for the sake of not liking it, they're obsessed with hardly-noticeable "logo creep," and God forbid baseball players actually like wearing their pants "pajama-style" and not wearing stirrups. It's like they're stuck in the '60s. They need to get over themselves.

[DeFrank]

I love UniWatch and I hate pajama pants, but my god Nike isn't Murder Inc.

[slapshot]

Indeed. UniWatch is so full of crap, it's not even funny. They hate just about every uniform made after 1969 just for the sake of not liking it, they're obsessed with hardly-noticeable "logo creep," and God forbid baseball players actually like wearing their pants "pajama-style" and not wearing stirrups. It's like they're stuck in the '60s. They need to get over themselves.

And you're the exact opposite. You seem to like everything weird just for the sake of weird, and you get defensive and insulting when people don't agree with you. It's been your history since you've joined this board.

Don't throw stones about being a broken record.

[Lights Out]

I don't only like modern or wacky uniforms. I like a lot of them but I have some more reserved favorites.

[LetsGoOakland9]

All of us are just yet to see any of those "more reserved" favorites

[Lights Out]

I've posted them on here before but I'm not going to derail this thread even further by posting them again.

[andrewharrington]

I don't only like modern or wacky uniforms. I like a lot of them but I have some more reserved favorites.

And Paul Lukas and friends don't only like old or traditional-looking uniforms. They like a lot of them but they have some less-reserved favorites.

Captain Broad Brush strikes again.

[NJTank]

At least they kept the WSU Cougar head I like that logo.

[BrandMooreArt]

Indeed. UniWatch is so full of crap, it's not even funny. They hate just about every uniform made after 1969 just for the sake of not liking it, they're obsessed with hardly-noticeable "logo creep," and God forbid baseball players actually like wearing their pants "pajama-style" and not wearing stirrups. It's like they're stuck in the '60s. They need to get over themselves.

they like nothing and like it

[TruColor]

A bunch of incorrect color matches in there regarding the Pantone Textile colors and Madeira threads...I'll need to contact someone there to fix them.