Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

All 4 "experts" have us over da baaaadgers.

http://www.sportsline.com/collegefootball/expertpicks

Intersting that they used the traditional logo.

I think it will be interesting to see how the team responds to all of these expectations this year. While they have gone into many early season non-conference road games before, they have not gone in with a lot of media outlets expecting them to win. Some have selected it as the "upset special" or something like that, but this year is a little different. All four picked us to win AT Wisconsin.

The team has something to lose this year in the first game of the year. Against Oklahoma, for instance, they only had something to gain since most everyone (even the most loyal Falcon Fan) knew that they would have to play nearly the perfect game to defeat the Sooners. It was not a let down when the Falcons played well and lost. I know that I will be very dissapointed if they go into Wisconsin and play well, but lose.

I think the team will handle it well, but it is certainly a new dynamic for everyone to adjust to.

Warthog wrote:Intersting that they used the traditional logo.

No offense WH, but why is that interesting that they would use the most readily identifiable logo we have at BG that just also happens to be the logo on the side of our helmets? :shrug: Seems like an obvious choice for a logo to me.

Warthog wrote:Intersting that they used the traditional logo.

Wellll...this IS the same Sportsline that had BG men's basketball listed in the MAC East for the last three years.

rollalongFF0304 wrote:Wellll...this IS the same Sportsline that had BG men's basketball listed in the MAC East for the last three years.

They knew we'd be back eventually.

UK Peregrine wrote:

Warthog wrote:Intersting that they used the traditional logo.

No offense WH, but why is that interesting that they would use the most readily identifiable logo we have at BG that just also happens to be the logo on the side of our helmets? :shrug: Seems like an obvious choice for a logo to me.

Just thought it was interesting. Like if the University was promoting the new retail logo, they would be asking the media to use that one when referring to BGSU. Just thought some of the old-schoolers on here would appreciate that they are using the traditional logo.

Warthog wrote:Like if the University was promoting the new retail logo, they would be asking the media to use that one when referring to BGSU. Just thought some of the old-schoolers on here would appreciate that they are using the traditional logo.

The key word here is RETAIL. As I understand it, the retail logo is to be used on retail merchandise exclusively. You're not going to see it in press releases, media packets, uniforms or ANYTHING directly associated with BGSU athletic teams. It's a "Retail logo." It's meant to look interesting, different, younger, more aggressive... it's meant to look this way to sell merchandise.

Yeah, what G said. Though I am a *bit* surprised the University hasn't pushed the "new" LT look to some of these media outlets.

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:All 4 "experts" have us over da baaaadgers.

Wow. Just, wow.

I know I riled a bunch of you up about the retail logo. It would be nice, for consistency/identification's sake if there was only ONE logo being used by all the media outlets. That's one of the reasons I like moving to the new logo. WE DON'T (the University) HAVE A CONSISTENT LOGO TREATMENT. And it burns me to no end to see every other media publication/website using three, four or more Falconhead logo's.
Name one other top 25 program where you go to CBS Sportsline, CNNSI, or ESPN and see there logo treatments differently. We need to clean it up. As does the University. As an example, the one on our helmets in 2005 is different than the one used on AZZ. That is not good.

ZuluWarrior wrote:I know I riled a bunch of you up about the retail logo. It would be nice, for consistency/identification's sake if there was only ONE logo being used by all the media outlets. That's one of the reasons I like moving to the new logo. WE DON'T (the University) HAVE A CONSISTENT LOGO TREATMENT. And it burns me to no end to see every other media publication/website using three, four or more Falconhead logo's.
Name one other top 25 program where you go to CBS Sportsline, CNNSI, or ESPN and see there logo treatments differently. We need to clean it up. As does the University. As an example, the one on our helmets in 2005 is different than the one used on AZZ. That is not good.

But AZZ is not run/supported by the Univ. Therefore it falls on those running the site to up date the header (I like it) if they want it to match the new look that BG has unveiled last year. Also the helmet logo isn't that great of a comparison tool, because there have been about 15 helment designs throughout the years.

ZuluWarrior wrote:I know I riled a bunch of you up about the retail logo. It would be nice, for consistency/identification's sake if there was only ONE logo being used by all the media outlets. That's one of the reasons I like moving to the new logo. WE DON'T (the University) HAVE A CONSISTENT LOGO TREATMENT. And it burns me to no end to see every other media publication/website using three, four or more Falconhead logo's.
Name one other top 25 program where you go to CBS Sportsline, CNNSI, or ESPN and see there logo treatments differently. We need to clean it up. As does the University. As an example, the one on our helmets in 2005 is different than the one used on AZZ. That is not good.

The retail logo sucks balls and should go the way of the Dodo. Use the traditional logo for everything. Problem solved.

hammb wrote:The retail logo sucks balls and should go the way of the Dodo. Use the traditional logo for everything. Problem solved.

Many on here would say the same thing. But, we have an emotional tie to the traditional logo (the plain orange LT, not the newer one with the brown background). College football fans across the country do not have that emotional tie to Bowling Green and its logo. And I think the new retail logo is more appealing (that is, hip, cool, whatever you call it these days) to those people than the traditional one. That is why I find it interesting that, as far as national media goes, that we continue to promote the old, traditional logo and not the new retail mark.

Oh, and if we are looking to capitalize on all this publicity and generate some merchandise sales, wouldn't you promote the retail logo as much as possible? People in Georgia or New Jersey or Oklahoma or wherever who want to jump on the bandwagon will be looking for merchandise with the traditional logo (because that is what we promote and they see associated with the team) but only finding the retail logo and wondering if it is the same Bowling Green.