I’m sorry to chime in on this one but I am literally at the polar opposite end of this argument.

I believe that it is one of the best logos I have ever seen and really want it to supplant every other logo we have. I absolutely hate our double font logo we have.

When I am around town, I absolutely, positively love wearing the CA logo.

Again, sorry. But I honestly believe it’s one of the best decisions athletics has ever made.

I like the idea. The throwback idea is definitely the trend right now, but I feel like the execution was poor. I feel like I'm looking at Reds logos everywhere.

I like the "lemon" CA logo. Not as cluttered as the revised horse-head logo. (Though I like that as well.)

sorry @GoAggies I think you're outnumbered on this forum. I also love the retro style lemon CA logo. And I absolutely HATE the bush-league wanna-be Denver Broncos version of logos they came up with in the early 2000s. Those can go right into the bin.

Definitely looks like I'm in the minority here. But no one else sees Cincinnati Reds?

they copied us.

This!

History of the "Wishbone C:"
http://www.espn.com/blog/playbook/fandom/post/_/id/12724/the-uni-watch-history-of-the-wishbone-c

tl;dr: University of Chicago used it first, in 1898, and a bunch of teams/schools in all sports at all levels have used it since.

When I look at the wishbone-CA I usually see blue or gold or sometimes white, but I've never seen any red.

I like the sound of wishbone C. And of course it's not unique to us, but look at the "G" on Green Bay, Georgia and Grambling helmets. i think each of those are iconic.

How about the cap logo for the Chicago American Giants of the Negro Leagues?

Also the Chicago Bears

But with the CA I just see Davis, Cal Aggies, etc

I actually hate any name that would increase people's chances of calling us "California Davis Aggies," "Cal Davis," or the like. Therefore, I agree with GoAggies for a different reason.

I think names like "Cal Aggie Marching Band-Uh!," logos that start with a "C," or the like just adds into people's confusion.

Edit: I just read ucdavisaggie05's above post which sounds similar to mine.

Cal Aggies I’m fine with. CAMB, CAAA, that’s our heritage.

Cal-Davis lumps us into the CSU’s - yeah, that’s a ginormous NO.

I also like that the CA logo is somewhat subtle.

You can wear it around town without looking too pretentious, and for those who don’t know, they’ll think you’re just repping the state of California.

I’d say the logo goes hand in hand with being an Aggie (i.e. putting in hard work and not calling attention to oneself too much. And if there is attention, you acknowledge it gracefully).

whoa, easy there with the Band-uh!... there's tradition to uphold. :wink:

In all seriousness though, UC Davis did not have an official logo until 1999, when the C-Horse logo was introduced and the blue and gold were defined as specific hues. This was a committee project with students, staff, and a marketing company. It was consistent with the times. Photoshop and large format digital printers were becoming a thing so everyone wanted complex logos with shadows, gradients, etc.

For the 90 years or so before that, there were various iterations of CA logos, what I will call the "Block CA" with the A in the middle of the C, the "Interlocked CA" where the bottom of the C formed the cross of the A, the "Horse and Wheat CA" with a horse head and wheat stalk in the middle of the C and a small A in the open part of the C, and the "Lemon CA." The script "Davis" and "UCD" in block letters were also common. What did most of these have in common? They were easy for a non-artist to replicate by hand, whether stitching on a uniform or painting on a milk can.

Fast forward to today, logos once again need to be simple and speak for themselves without a caption, because they are seen most frequently on social media on 5" phone screens. I'm sure the powers that be realized the C-Horse was too complicated in tiny form and not widely recognized. There is also a trend among universities to brand their academics and athletics separately. So in the last few years (timing seemed to be about when Learfield got involved), athletics developed their own logo package with UC Davis in the "Invader" font (you could buy it for yourself if ya really want) as the primary mark and both the Lemon CA and C-Horse as secondary marks, although notice that athletics has modified the C-Horse to be a darker blue and less yellowy gold.

Here's several of the old logos seen together in an Enterprise photo


I'm partial to the Block CA, but I'm cool with the Lemon CA too. They have that timeless, needs no introduction look.

Cal-Davis? No.

My ego has definitely been shattered from all the opposing responses.

Thanks for that in depth response. I actually really like the block CA look. If we went that route I'd be all for it. Still don't like being called Cal-Davis.

I like that design. The C is fatter and I've always been a sucker for interlocked letters.

I don’t follow baseball one bit so I didn’t initially see the Reds similarity but I get your point and it’s a fair one.