Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

MACMAN wrote:Use the old one...its still the offical logo I think...the new one is gay..and looks a hacked copy of Miamis dead hawk.

mk455 wrote:may look similar to miami's logo... but still, from a graphic design standpoint, the new one is much more pleasing to the eye.

mk455 wrote:may look similar to miami's logo... but still, from a graphic design standpoint, the new one is much more pleasing to the eye.

(i found the logo i was looking for by the way)

Schadenfreude wrote:

mk455 wrote:may look similar to miami's logo... but still, from a graphic design standpoint, the new one is much more pleasing to the eye.

(i found the logo i was looking for by the way)

The logos aren't really that close. Our new retail logo is a much more abstract take on a bird -- which I think keeps with the spirit of the older logo.

I think they did a whale of a job with the retail logo. It's timeless -- and I'm not sure that applies to the old logo, cherished though it is.

These are my thoughts:

First, I agree with NWLB said about the process. Krebs, J.D. and others handled this superbly.

Second, they got most of this right. They embraced our wonderfully distinctive colors rather than hiding from them. And they came up with a great new font. It is contemporary, it is bold and I think it will age well.

Now, on the new retail mark:

I LOVE it! I do. This is no small furry animal. It is astract, just like our old logo was. I'd argue this new logo is really just a three-dimensional rendering of our traditional two-dimensional logo.

Also, I disagree with those who think the retail logo somehow apes what they have at Miami. Not at all. It is pretty clear to me that we came to this independently.

Look at the differences:




Their logo is far more realistic. Look at the beak. Look at the eyes.

I like what we came up with better.

In fact... if they want to throw it on the helmets in '05... that would be fine with me.

I think most of us are going to get used to this in a hurry.

It would bother me if I thought we were tinkering with the logo just to do it -- because that would mean we might have to adjust to another logo in a couple of years.

It's hard to argue that's the case. Look at all the work that went into crafting that new logo, I'm thinking we are going to stick with what the committee came up with for a long time.

And, with that in mind, I don't mind switching. This new logo is probably better than what we have now.

Now I wouldn't argue everything is perfect.

I understand why they retooled the traditional logo, to set up an evolution to the retail logo. But, artistically, that extra blob of color takes it a step backward in my mind. I wouldn't want that extra blob of color marring up our helmets, for instance.

The only real disaster I see are these interlocking BGs I see in the .pdf file:

http://www.fansonly.com/photos/schools/ ... /logos.pdf

Those look like crap.

But most of this is very, very good stuff.

Bleeding Orange wrote:
The only real disaster I see are these interlocking BGs I see in the .pdf file:

http://www.fansonly.com/photos/schools/ ... /logos.pdf

Those look like crap.

But most of this is very, very good stuff.

Bleeding Orange wrote:

mk455 wrote:just open them up in illustrator and then change the orange color to what its supposed to be, then they come out pretty good.

Schadenfreude wrote:I just don't think that type face looks good interlocked.