meangreendork

Scrimmage? YES.

Holy crap, 20 years ago? Was it really that long ago? Looks like that can really do some ugly, long-lived things to someone's football program.

"mhmm? MM? *pause* mmhmm? MM?"

Nice uniforms. They are basically what SLC has, but actually, they look better. Awesome uniforms!

This makes sense. If the smaller, faster, and more athletic O-linemen can get the first actions and get the first and most effective leverage, then they'll probably win the shoving match.

I might not like the resemblance, but at least it looks cool. Actually, it's nicer than the SLC since the black pants on the SLC uniforms never looked quite right with their white helmets and green jerseys or white jerseys and white helmets. Well, on to the OU game now.

Oh no, I wasnt picking on you, I was trying to cover my own tail. Still, it might as well be the same uni.

Aside from the black pants, pride stickers, logo and piping and accent colors, it is the same thing. If you look,the small panels and piping are switched. I was at least hoping for a different uniform template. Yeesh.

1. Photo isn't brightness or contrast balanced. There's flash, I'm almost certain of it. 2. The fabric is reflective- you can tell simply by the white and lighter green on that uniform. Geez, chill the F out. This isn't that bad kelly green the cheap t-shirts are made of. This is UA's work and I'm sure they can do whatever green TD asks for. The all white is a little bland to me. I was hoping for white/white/green, but at least this looks better than the green/white/white away uniforms we had before. The piping looks good, if anything. I was hoping for something that didn't look exactly like what SLC has, but that's a moot point of discussion now. Wish we could see the home uniforms, but whatever. I also don't think McNabb sent someone for those photos.

Wow, I'm thinking psych evaluations need to be taken as well as 40 yard times.

Seriously. I remember when I running flag, I had to watch the JumboTron or stand at the far ends of the field. When I was in the stands for the last Spring Game, I think we moved up into the 4th or 5th row so we could see over the players. Don't worry, the Talons don't have reserved seats, it's just a matter of getting there first. But from that angle, the field view is very shallow, so it's difficult to see who's lined up at WR or DB on the other side of the field. I really think that the new field needs to be at a lower elevation than the stands by at least 8 feet and probably a deeper angle of seating as well. As much as it slightly freaks me out to be in the nosebleeds at the Rangers field, that is an awesome sight line.

That's awesome. It's about time, too.

Slightly old news? It turns out that the bridge had been structurally unsound and deficient since a report on it in sometime in the 1990's. Reportedly, there are a lot of bridges in the US in not-so-awesome condition.

Oh well, at least it's not a drug or crime arrest, right?

No shock here. It's not like he's lost his wheels or anything.

Whew, that's not a wipeout, that's an airplane crash. Still, I'm sure his safety gear played a role in him being able to walk off the ramps.

Man, that's pretty...

I didn't wonder, but if that's him...then that's sad. He had a good opportunity at UNT, even if he wasnt on scholarship.

That's what I figure as well. When you're looking for the signals, I'd bet it's a lot faster to do it when the coaches are in all white when the team is in green, and when the coaches are black-clad and the team is in white or whatever the away uniform is.

Yes. Most of Fouts is a G lot. There's a bus line or two that runs from there to the rest of campus.

I think I've seen those hats before. They're kinda blah (the SOW would look cooler than the North Texas font stuff), but the rest of the duds are awesome.

Whoa, slow down everyone. It's not gonna result in the end of humanity here. Grab a sandwich, maybe a beer (and just ONE beer) and read on when you have everything: UNT has a branding manual. It's more expansive than what you see about the spirit marks and such, this thing is a book unto itself. In that manual are the logos, marks and whatnot that are approved by the university for use in general university publications to REPRESENT (in caps so you see this) the university as a whole or its athletic department. The NT Exes mark isn't there in that listing. I've even asked about it, and I've been told to the amount of, "It's really for the Exes only as it's their mark." In short: That means the NT Exes can use it, it IS licensed for the NT Exes and probably NT as a whole...but the admin doesn't want that mark used to represent the school. Don't ask me why, I don't know, they probably don't even know. So, unless something big changes with the NT Exes and the UNT admin, don't expect to see that NT Exes mark replacing any current UNT marks. It can be changed, but you'll need to convince both sides that it's a good idea to add it to the UNT-representative branding. And with a school that won't even cough up rights to give EA our bloody fight song, I'm not expecting much. Personally, I don't think the interlock is the right thing since so many schools have it, so UNT should try to make itself standout from them, not be "just another big school". I'll try not to take Stebo's "dork" comment too seriously, here. Final word: I haven't seen it approved for use to represent all of UNT as it's something for the NT Exes only. This can change, but I don't expect it. And yeah, of course I know people in the branding committee- they taught me and some other really great people some of what we know. They taught AustinTalon as well. Now as good as they are at design and teaching, they can't convince the rest of a committee to accept something the rest of the committee doesn't want. Basically, you can be a hell of a salesperson, but if I don't want a Burberry Plaid car, I don't want it. Just like you guys already have an idea of what our new branding should have looked like, just like I had an idea on what the branding should've looked like, the rest of that committee had the same thing. Odds are, they probably "didn't know what they wanted, but know what they didn't want". Final word: They're good at what they do, but like you and I are hindered or helped by the people we work with, so were they. About my giving the new branding great reviews- I balked big time at the font when I saw it at first reveal. Just like a lot of users here, I thought the USPS eagle or SOW was pretty cool, and I still do. Just like I did at the first revealing, I still think that eagle claw is ugly. It doesn't match the style of everything else (sharp angles, etc), and it just seems really odd looking. About the only things they did right were the color and the eagle. That's two A's and maybe two D's. That means it's just okay. It's like a B or C average. I don't think I've ever said that it was all really great. As a matter of fact, I think I was in the same camp as those of you who wanted new stuff when it came out. Come to think, I remember doing mock-ups of an "NT" combination myself. It was a logo that looked a lot like the Virginia Tech logo. I though it looked really good, but I wasn't that behind it when I realized "hey, maybe this is something too close to what someone else already has". In short: I don't think I've ever said that I love all of the new branding. I couldn't have said it when my NT logo was on a petition to get more possibilities put out, and when during the first major "vote on your logos" session, I said some really bad things about that font. Final word: SOW: A, SOW Head: A, Font: D (some people actually like it for some reason), Claw: D (again, some people actually like it for some reason.) Total Grade: C On the hats: I've seen them in person. They're not that light minty green. I've seen bad product photography take something brown and make it red. Odds are, the photo is too light or the lights are too bright in the room they took that photo in. On the color of the kelly green on clothing: I'm actually with Stebo here, and I have been since I saw some of the giveaway shirts at a summer orientation session way back when. It is an awfully bright green. If the cloth vendors for the hats and clothing can find something maybe a few numbers darker, it'd still be a vivid green, but not something you can see in the dark. I'm betting the cause of this either a price or an actual dye problem...or because no one wants to go through the hassle. I think I need a beer and the start of bloody football season. I'm with you here, Evan.

Could our current stuff be better? Yes. Do I like the new font? No...heavens, no. Do I blame this on the creatives? Not as much as the admin. Frankly, I don't think some of the people there had any business in the committee. Had it been up to me, I would've asked for alumni from different decades for their input, different students, and NOT have the fiasco of the so-called "input surveys" they supposedly ran. I love the new eagle. I really dig the new color. I can't stand that font...or the claw. But seriously, let this go. I've seen the branding stuff that's for official use...that interlock ain't in there. All that's there is variations and combinations of what you've seen already.

This could be HUGE for Adrian. Still, Strahan leaves big shoes to fill in terms of his skill and leadership. I'm not a Giants fan, but it's always a little sad when someone like Strahan talks retirement.

Probably so. White with green stripes? Yeah, we had that. Off-topic: my vote for the worst UNT helmet is the 1994 clip-art eagle helmet. Not only is it clip-art, it's clip-art that wasn't supposed to be reversed out like that.