TCU to unveil new graphic identity

[WSU151]

Naw, It's clearly a horned toad. Just look at how the ridges above the eyes match up perfectly or just the positioning of the eyes for that matter.

besides, you can't tell me that this is a horned frog too.

Who are you arguing with?

[JQK]

Am I the only one that saw this & thought of the hypno toad?

Nope...

[rvrdgsfn]

Am I the only one that saw this & thought of the hypno toad?

Nope...

Good to know...

[Spearhead]

This should be interesting. I've seen TCU go through a lot of logos and looks and I hope this will be one of the good ones.

A sample of some Horned Frog logos over the decades:

1930s:

1935:

1950s:

[479gooch]

As an Arkansas fan, anything TCU does to delete their "old" identity is a negative move.

Your apex was the rose in the frog's mouth last year. Don't take my second-favorite "unique mascot" and streamline it into something horrible.

Please, please don't be giving into Nike.

[missouri tigers]

Naw, It's clearly a horned toad. Just look at how the ridges above the eyes match up perfectly or just the positioning of the eyes for that matter.

besides, you can't tell me that this is a horned frog too.

Who are you arguing with?

I must have misread Nash's post... Oops.

[BrandMooreArt]

I was doing some research about horned frogs, and discovered that the TCU logo is in fact, a horned toad

Horned Frog

Am I the only one that saw this & thought of the hypno toad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZmvkOR0oTQ

ALL GLORY TO TCU!!!!

instantly thought the same thing

[29texan]

This should be interesting. I've seen TCU go through a lot of logos and looks and I hope this will be one of the good ones.

A sample of some Horned Frog logos over the decades:

1930s:

... if they made an updated, alternate version of this football only logo, that may look pretty sweet.

Still, the frog we have now shouldn't be changed. But apparently it is.

[29texan]

As an Arkansas fan, anything TCU does to delete their "old" identity is a negative move.

Your apex was the rose in the frog's mouth last year. Don't take my second-favorite "unique mascot" and streamline it into something horrible.

Please, please don't be giving into Nike.

.... kinda late on that one.

[dfwabel]

As an Arkansas fan, anything TCU does to delete their "old" identity is a negative move.

Your apex was the rose in the frog's mouth last year. Don't take my second-favorite "unique mascot" and streamline it into something horrible.

Please, please don't be giving into Nike.

Sorry, Nike was in charge of the design. I had a few txt messages with those within the university, specifically Communications and New Media. Nike designed it, but those who saw it did not give me any information, but that it would be out on April 2 and Nike did the design. I give them credit for keeping their mouths shut.

[Davidson]

You are wrong. It's not the other frog.

Who are you talking to?

Sorry the guy who said he thought it would be the top down version of the frog.

[nash61]

You are wrong. It's not the other frog.

Who are you talking to?

Sorry the guy who said he thought it would be the top down version of the frog.

Was TCU one of the college teams tht you hinted about earlier, Davidson?

[Deion.Blackwell8]

Will TCU make any uniform changes this year?

[tBBP]

Here's an intelligent question for whoever might know, the answer of which will go a long way toward helping me solve a hypothesis of mine.

Off the top, Oregon, Connecticut, and Florida State have all had either their entire identity or pieces of their identity (read: logos) designed by Nike (in the case of Florida State, both the "unconquered" and alternate Armdad-ish fonts as well as the alternate spear logo). My question is this: does Nike turn the rights to this stuff over to the institutions they design it for, or does Nike still own it? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that although Nike designed that "O" logo for Oregon, the school itself can't produce or sell any of its own merchandise with that logo on it since Nike still owns the copyright. (I'm farly certain the same situation applies to FSU and that alternate spear in that only Nike can produce & sell merch with that logo on it, and that all revenue off that goes back to Nike.) Anyone know anything more about this?

Here's why I'm asking all this: if it is n fact true, then it pretty much only further proves a point several of us Creamerites have been arguing, that being that all these new visual identities that keep popping up are more (if not ALL) about marketing the manufacturer--in this case, Nike--than the schools/teams themselves. ( And I used the word "marketing" for a very good reason.)

[gdu]

Here's an intelligent question for whoever might know, the answer of which will go a long way toward helping me solve a hypothesis of mine.

Off the top, Oregon, Connecticut, and Florida State have all had either their entire identity or pieces of their identity (read: logos) designed by Nike (in the case of Florida State, both the "unconquered" and alternate Armdad-ish fonts as well as the alternate spear logo). My question is this: does Nike turn the rights to this stuff over to the institutions they design it for, or does Nike still own it? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that although Nike designed that "O" logo for Oregon, the school itself can't produce or sell any of its own merchandise with that logo on it since Nike still owns the copyright. (I'm farly certain the same situation applies to FSU and that alternate spear in that only Nike can produce & sell merch with that logo on it, and that all revenue off that goes back to Nike.) Anyone know anything more about this?

Here's why I'm asking all this: if it is n fact true, then it pretty much only further proves a point several of us Creamerites have been arguing, that being that all these new visual identities that keep popping up are more (if not ALL) about marketing the manufacturer--in this case, Nike--than the schools/teams themselves. ( And I used the word "marketing" for a very good reason.)

I don't know the answer for certain, but I have heard that sometimes in lieu of payment for the work Nike will do it for free but have the rights to the logo for a certain period of time.

[gdu]

Will TCU make any uniform changes this year?

The plan was to have new uniforms for all sports at TCU using a new darker (and specific to TCU purple). The 2011 football uniforms were supposed to be a 1 year phase in so that the other changes weren't as drastic.

However, once TCU went 3-2 wearing just the arched TCU logo on the helmet, Patterson's superstitions kicked in and the team returned to the previous helmet logo with the arched TCU and the frog. The team never lost another game and is now on a 30-game winning streak when that logo is on the helmet. I heard that threw a wrench into the branding redesign and haven't heard what the solution is yet. Then I yesterday that the redesign will be unveiled on April 2nd, so I guess we'll see then.

The font at the top of the new scoreboard will be used. The plan was to use it in the endzones and then have either an arched TCU or the new frog logo at midfield.

[tBBP]

Here's an intelligent question for whoever might know, the answer of which will go a long way toward helping me solve a hypothesis of mine.

Off the top, Oregon, Connecticut, and Florida State have all had either their entire identity or pieces of their identity (read: logos) designed by Nike (in the case of Florida State, both the "unconquered" and alternate Armdad-ish fonts as well as the alternate spear logo). My question is this: does Nike turn the rights to this stuff over to the institutions they design it for, or does Nike still own it? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that although Nike designed that "O" logo for Oregon, the school itself can't produce or sell any of its own merchandise with that logo on it since Nike still owns the copyright. (I'm farly certain the same situation applies to FSU and that alternate spear in that only Nike can produce & sell merch with that logo on it, and that all revenue off that goes back to Nike.) Anyone know anything more about this?

Here's why I'm asking all this: if it is n fact true, then it pretty much only further proves a point several of us Creamerites have been arguing, that being that all these new visual identities that keep popping up are more (if not ALL) about marketing the manufacturer--in this case, Nike--than the schools/teams themselves. ( And I used the word "marketing" for a very good reason.)

I don't know the answer for certain, but I have heard that sometimes in lieu of payment for the work Nike will do it for free but have the rights to the logo for a certain period of time.

"For free"? Now that part I did not realize...I guess in that case, then it makes perfect business sense for Nike (or anyone who does free design work, for that matter) to retain the royalties to/for/of their work.

Doesn't change the opinion I voiced previously, but it does make more sense in my mind now.

[andrewharrington]

Here's an intelligent question for whoever might know, the answer of which will go a long way toward helping me solve a hypothesis of mine.

Off the top, Oregon, Connecticut, and Florida State have all had either their entire identity or pieces of their identity (read: logos) designed by Nike (in the case of Florida State, both the "unconquered" and alternate Armdad-ish fonts as well as the alternate spear logo). My question is this: does Nike turn the rights to this stuff over to the institutions they design it for, or does Nike still own it? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that although Nike designed that "O" logo for Oregon, the school itself can't produce or sell any of its own merchandise with that logo on it since Nike still owns the copyright. (I'm farly certain the same situation applies to FSU and that alternate spear in that only Nike can produce & sell merch with that logo on it, and that all revenue off that goes back to Nike.) Anyone know anything more about this?

Here's why I'm asking all this: if it is n fact true, then it pretty much only further proves a point several of us Creamerites have been arguing, that being that all these new visual identities that keep popping up are more (if not ALL) about marketing the manufacturer--in this case, Nike--than the schools/teams themselves. ( And I used the word "marketing" for a very good reason.)

I don't know the answer for certain, but I have heard that sometimes in lieu of payment for the work Nike will do it for free but have the rights to the logo for a certain period of time.

"For free"? Now that part I did not realize...I guess in that case, then it makes perfect business sense for Nike (or anyone who does free design work, for that matter) to retain the royalties to/for/of their work.

Doesn't change the opinion I voiced previously, but it does make more sense in my mind now.

To give some examples, other companies are not allowed to produce Oregon merch with the O logo, which is why the adidas bowl shirts used a generic block UO. The recent Arizona State logo is Nike-exclusive for the first year, so other companies won't be able to use it on merch until April or a year after whenever it came out.

I think it's pretty common for the sportswear companies to do free design work under their contracts, but I don't know how common it is to retain the copyright to the logo created for the teams. adidas doesn't do many full-scale rebrands of colleges, so I'm not sure how they've handled it. Trademarks created for pro teams, for example, I believe are generally retained by the league right away. I know of one future case, though, in which there will most likely be a few logos in a pro team's set that will be exclusive to the licensee.

Basically what I'm saying is that every license is different. The only rule is that there are no rules.

[29texan]

Will TCU make any uniform changes this year?

The plan was to have new uniforms for all sports at TCU using a new darker (and specific to TCU purple). The 2011 football uniforms were supposed to be a 1 year phase in so that the other changes weren't as drastic.

However, once TCU went 3-2 wearing just the arched TCU logo on the helmet, Patterson's superstitions kicked in and the team returned to the previous helmet logo with the arched TCU and the frog. The team never lost another game and is now on a 30-game winning streak when that logo is on the helmet. I heard that threw a wrench into the branding redesign and haven't heard what the solution is yet. Then I yesterday that the redesign will be unveiled on April 2nd, so I guess we'll see then.

The font at the top of the new scoreboard will be used. The plan was to use it in the endzones and then have either an arched TCU or the new frog logo at midfield.

I knew it. Ya just HAVE to use that font. It's much better than the generic lettering used.

[Davidson]

Will TCU make any uniform changes this year?

The plan was to have new uniforms for all sports at TCU using a new darker (and specific to TCU purple). The 2011 football uniforms were supposed to be a 1 year phase in so that the other changes weren't as drastic.

However, once TCU went 3-2 wearing just the arched TCU logo on the helmet, Patterson's superstitions kicked in and the team returned to the previous helmet logo with the arched TCU and the frog. The team never lost another game and is now on a 30-game winning streak when that logo is on the helmet. I heard that threw a wrench into the branding redesign and haven't heard what the solution is yet. Then I yesterday that the redesign will be unveiled on April 2nd, so I guess we'll see then.

The font at the top of the new scoreboard will be used. The plan was to use it in the endzones and then have either an arched TCU or the new frog logo at midfield.

I knew it. Ya just HAVE to use that font. It's much better than the generic lettering used.

that is the new font.