Now that is true. Some of the stuff Oregon wears is hideous. However the football is exciting.
Can't Seem to Win For Losing--the New Crappy Logo
- Thread starter TheBlueMax
- Start date
True but Oregon's turnaround in football came at least partly as a result of Nike money and the branding that they received from Nike.
This is proof there needs to be a new forum... Designing Women ![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Okay, from the recruiting perspective, I am confident this discussion about the logo is meaningless. Nike's unis and the logo are not synonymous in appeal to teenage football players.
Can you imagine a recruit walking up to the stadium and saying, "ugh, where is the power K!???"
- Other that the fact that someone at Nike invented a letter (the university of space invaders)...I dont care much. Just don't buy merchandise with the new logo...and some intern at Nike with come up with an equally crappy design in a few years . Rinse/wash/repeat ad infinitum.
If the K had that kind of tradition and recognition, I think it might matter.
If uk would've had the power k across all sports since the early 70's it would be just as recognizable. The point is, there is a reason companies stick with their logos, they develop recognition. The constant changing (I don't really mind this one as I'm not a detail person and it took me forever to see the change in the k, doesn't matter that no k is ever scripted like that) has hurt uk. Should've trademarked that power k and b done with it. Tennessee power t u see today came in 1977 with johnny major. Probably trying to get it more like our k at the time.
Any graphic designer... Nah nevermind.
Helvetica actually did lose some steam an hour deep, but the point is there is NO horizontal line stroke when creating a K. None, except the freakin fools who made this ridiculous decision.
Our new logo looks like a Space Invader.
Exactly, a $10,000 dollar bet if you'll recall (that's why I picked that amount). He had the good sense of shame to hide by changing his name, I wish he just had enough shame to leave forever.
Ah...I thought that may have been where you were going and decided to join in. If it had been a coincidence then I was going to use the opportunity to refresh a bunch of peoples' memories. I couldn't remember the amount or I would have known right off. I guess the point is that ole Russ makes quite the fool of himself in his ongoing defense of all things Mitch. The infamous bet, however, will go down in UK lore.
Take it easy guys, you might make him change his name again. Btw I thought it was only $100 or $1000? Sure it was 10k?
I play golf with a guy that has all the new toys dresses the part and looks like a pro but still plays like crap.I guess my point is it's good to look good but if you polish crap it's still crap.
I'm just here to repeat that if you don't have a problem with this redesign on the logo you are blind, ignorant, or part of the team that sold this crap to UK. Never in human history have people been doing better design work and we get something that a drunk don draper would instantly toss in the trash as neither unique, forward looking, or traditional. I'm glad we will self identify with a letter that belongs in a Cyrillic alphabet.
Those may be my only options. Or, I may love UK football over an argument between hats and facinators. I will let the fancy fans have their debate and whine party. Slap an ugly jersey on a real football player and please kick some a$$. That is what I care about.
Oregon wouldn't have had the money to buy the pieces to put into place to create the team they have today without Nike money. There is a reason why they went from being nothing to a powerhouse: $.
SJjones, good point..It does not look like a K. It is dimestore and Mitch needs to change this immediately.
Fuzz are you really Messenger from about 100 other boards in another life?
Fuzz are you really Messenger from about 100 other boards in another life?
That would be a pretty stupid bet for you to make with anyone since most people don't give two hoots about sports, much less logos...add the fact that most people aren't UK fans.Exactly, a $10,000 dollar bet if you'll recall (that's why I picked that amount
I don't like the new logo either but I don't think it needs a thesis written on it.
Ummm, one problem. Mitch spent his entire life in Kansas, Ohio, Dallas, Tennessee and Kentucky outside of 5 years on the west coast. He has been in the SEC for 25 years and spent 5 years in the PAC 12.
I'm more shocked at people being upset whether the basketball team uses it or not. It's not a contest is it?
My point was that all athletics should really exist under one logo for branding purposes. Whether that's the K or the interlocking UK is less important than a unified image.
Until we go through this year's seasons for every sport I guess we really won't know.
What makes it look like that is the U is on top of the K, where as in the old logo, the K was on top of the U. Overall, I have never been a fan of the UK logo since they went with the interlocking logo awhile back. Just too generic for me. When Houston and Buffalo have the same logo, that screams generic. I don't get upset over it, just don't like it.
To me it looks like the K is still on top of the U and the K is symmetrical top to bottom. They tried to make the U fit perfectly into the recess of the K, which I'm sure the graphic designer thought was pretty clever, but the end result just looks off.
It's a subtle change. The new logo is supposed to be introduced gradually. Your UK gear won't be obsolete quite yet. Even the UK Athletics website still has the old logo.
Here's a crude animation of the old versus new logo I put together. I couldn't find the official new logo. (Copied it from a recent photo of the Memorial Coliseum floor.)
I prefer the old logo myself with the straight "K". There is also a V-shaped white space between the "U" and "K" in the old logo.
Here's a crude animation of the old versus new logo I put together. I couldn't find the official new logo. (Copied it from a recent photo of the Memorial Coliseum floor.)
I prefer the old logo myself with the straight "K". There is also a V-shaped white space between the "U" and "K" in the old logo.
I don't think the new logo looks bad. If it makes any of you feel any better just be thankful the new logo isn't near as bad as the new UL football uniforms. LOL
Everybody's entitled to their opinion but it doesn't seem like something that would become such an issue. It just doesn't look that much different from the old logo to me. The logo won't win or lose any games so I'm more concerned about the results on the field.
I saw where someone mentioned asking UK about this through the BBN First site. Well, I done just that. Here was the message I sent:
To whom it may concern:
First things first, I think BBN First is a great initiative for UK Athletics. Us fans are what makes this thing work and with our input, huge strides can be made (just look at the game day enhancements, new CWS, etc.). However, I am here to ask about the new logo.
From what I've seen, from fans and players alike, the reaction to the new interlocking UK logo has been overwhelmingly negative. I know that fan and athlete input were supposedly taken into consideration when designing this new logo, but I truly find that hard to believe considering a majority of the BBN finds it unpleasing to the eye and frankly, pretty generic. I would just like to know why the new logo has to come about when most would just assume to keep the one in place or a return to the Power K. Just figured I would ask about this because a lot of us fans are wondering what it will take to have a dignified logo that truly represents this great athletic department and the Commonwealth it stands for.
And, here was the response:
Thank you for your message. The new logo was designed in conjunction with Nike after taking into account the opinions of fans, coaches and athletes. The idea behind it is that the K is more prominent and the two letters align more seamlessly. While we do appreciate you taking the time to send in your feedback about it, it is our belief that you and other fans will come to embrace and love it as time goes on. With that said, we are always listening.
What this says to me: the athletic department was handed this piss poor design by Nike, did not have the guts to reject it, and made up the "fans/coaches/athletes" thing to fall back on when the backlash hit. Also, them saying that we would "come to love it over time" is a nice way of telling us, "Hey, we know this sucks, but we had no choice and you all are stuck with it, so get used to it."
Wins and losses are what matters, so as long as we take care of business in that department a logo is miniscule. However, it's never good to have your primary symbol be an eye-sore and I wish UK would've thought this one through better.
To whom it may concern:
First things first, I think BBN First is a great initiative for UK Athletics. Us fans are what makes this thing work and with our input, huge strides can be made (just look at the game day enhancements, new CWS, etc.). However, I am here to ask about the new logo.
From what I've seen, from fans and players alike, the reaction to the new interlocking UK logo has been overwhelmingly negative. I know that fan and athlete input were supposedly taken into consideration when designing this new logo, but I truly find that hard to believe considering a majority of the BBN finds it unpleasing to the eye and frankly, pretty generic. I would just like to know why the new logo has to come about when most would just assume to keep the one in place or a return to the Power K. Just figured I would ask about this because a lot of us fans are wondering what it will take to have a dignified logo that truly represents this great athletic department and the Commonwealth it stands for.
And, here was the response:
Thank you for your message. The new logo was designed in conjunction with Nike after taking into account the opinions of fans, coaches and athletes. The idea behind it is that the K is more prominent and the two letters align more seamlessly. While we do appreciate you taking the time to send in your feedback about it, it is our belief that you and other fans will come to embrace and love it as time goes on. With that said, we are always listening.
What this says to me: the athletic department was handed this piss poor design by Nike, did not have the guts to reject it, and made up the "fans/coaches/athletes" thing to fall back on when the backlash hit. Also, them saying that we would "come to love it over time" is a nice way of telling us, "Hey, we know this sucks, but we had no choice and you all are stuck with it, so get used to it."
Wins and losses are what matters, so as long as we take care of business in that department a logo is miniscule. However, it's never good to have your primary symbol be an eye-sore and I wish UK would've thought this one through better.
Name 1 player who has made a comment about the logo...and you accuse the athletic dept of making things up.
Name 1 player who has made a comment about the logo...and you accuse the athletic dept of making things up.
Patrick Towles, for one. He has tweeted about bringing the Power K back several times actually.
Lol, yeah, I tend to read into things more than what they really are from time to time. I guess it's a bad habit. Still, it's just hard for me to believe that someone would defend a logo that's as bad as the new one.
Personally, I don't think it's that much of a change. I can understand what they were trying to do, especially after reading the response. The way I took it, they did not want to change the interlocking logo to something else. They just wanted to redefine it so the K stood out more and the two letters fit together better. I'm fine with it. It's just not that much different or that big of a deal.
Similar threads
