The difference is the maroon on the outside and the Texas being maroon. It was just a darker color on last year's floor.

thanks

Pretty vanilla, but no complaints here

Method Man said:

---

what did old one look like?

---

here's a shot from a game last year. Differences I noticed:
-OOB now maroon
-paint area now same as rest of floor
-midcourt logo colors inverted

I always thought the maroon sidelines/boundaries looked good when we had them in the last couple years of the parquet floor.

It's about 4 seasons overdo.

No matter what the court looks like, still gotta play ball on it...

Quote:

---

Texas isn't big enough IMO

---

I agree. Should stretch el paso out to the 3 point arc

BUT DID THAT SHOT GO IN??!!??

Tobias Funke said:

---

BUT DID THAT SHOT GO IN??!!??

---

Dislike

Tobias Funke said:

---

BUT DID THAT SHOT GO IN??!!??

---

doesn't matter, got buzz

I like it. Best design I recall.

It's got a more modern feel. I think the parquet floor was by far our most interesting. But it's branding was NOT fixable and the visual artifacts when streaming were awful.

I liked the "inlaid" Texas outline in our just previous court but it was too subtle. I do not like huge painted areas because paint is usually more slippery. The one at mid-court and the areas around the court on the new design need to be carefully painted to avoid that. A stain would be better imho.

Which paint color is most slippery? Its yellow, right?

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

Which paint color is most slippery? Its yellow, right?

---

burnt orange

Quote:

---

I think the parquet floor was by far our most interesting. But it's branding was NOT fixable and the visual artifacts when streaming were awful.

---

Can you clarify what is meant by parquet "branding isnt fixable"?
I assume "visual artifacts" actually means something like "viewing experience" ?

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

Quote:

---

I think the parquet floor was by far our most interesting. But it's branding was NOT fixable and the visual artifacts when streaming were awful.

---

Can you clarify what is meant by parquet "branding isnt fixable"?
I assume "visual artifacts" actually means something like "viewing experience" ?

---

I'm think the "unfixable branding" he was upset about is the T-star?

My expectation is because of the T-star size being able to replace it without leaving shadows of the previous logo would be difficult.

The compression particularly in the mid-to-late 2000s made the floor look muddy because of how compression works. The change to the new court cleaned that up a lot so it seemed by design if not actually recommended.

I'm not a fan of the bevel. But not interested in discussing that.

I'll take Bob's word. Something was different I played on them. Might have just been my head.

The visual artifacts thing is a really good point about that floor. It looked like crap on TV because were in that transitional technology era where some games were in HD, some weren't. The floor would look better now that people have much better cameras/tvs/etc than we did back then.

Parquet or GTFO.

I hope it actually looks maroon in color and not an off shade of red.

I my #1 beef about A&M marketing...even more so than the bevel...is the fact we cannot find a consistent shade/tint of maroon from one item/product to the next. I probably have 5 A&M caps in my closet and they are all different shades of maroon. Same with my shirts.

I think that's gotten like 1000000% better in the last few years at least.

bobinator said:

---

I think that's gotten like 1000000% better in the last few years at least.

---

Yes, absolutely. The 47 and adidas stuff are all the same color, which I would call a darker maroon, much more purple than red.

Agreed

This is the brand guide. But those colors are easier to keep consistent when printed on various paper stocks than getting cloth right.

Back in the day (I matriculated in the fall of '79) there was zero brand consistency. When schools began the push for registering their own marks was mostly when that started.

Note the RGB value of 500000 is pure, unsaturated RED (50 on a hexadecimal scale of 00 to FF is roughly 31.4% saturated red hence that dark hue.). There is no purple on screen.

Print processing uses CMYK four color and to achieve the same color and saturation it combines cyan (c), magenta (m), yellow (y), and black (k).

RGB works with light and is additive and FFFFFF is full intensity white because each color of each pixel (red, blue, green) is at full intensity. Blacks are much harder on a monitor because either the pixels leak backlight while printing a black ink can be fully saturated because it's a subtractive color palette. More color make it darker.

Also note the branding guidelines and licenses to use the marks are administered by the Office of Business Development. It's perfectly fine to contact them about licensed gear that you believe fails to follow the branding guide. Just keep in mind colors on cloth are much more difficult.

https://brandguide.tamu.edu/visual-style/brand-colors.html