Logo

mk455 · Post by **mk455** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:46 am

anyone have an .eps of the new falcon logo? i'm working at UT this summer in their office of marketing and communications, and i wanted to print out a giant falcon logo to put up by my desk. so if anyone has vector art of the logo, could you e-mail it to me at [email protected]?

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 8:47 pm

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.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:42 pm

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.

MACMAN,
My dad calls it a Redhawk ripoff.

mk455 · Post by **mk455** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:45 pm

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)

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:56 pm

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.

Maybe from a graphic design standpoint...but there's no way that new logo can begin to compare with the real one.

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:09 pm

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.

The Niz · Post by **The Niz** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:20 pm

I think we should take a trip back 46 years and use that logo, but that's just me...

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:20 am

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.

I'll have to disagree with you on your second statement, but I will wholeheartedly agree with your first. I have long thought that the retail logo is a fitting and well-done evolution of our "classic" logo. I really don't understand how people equate the Miami and BG logos. They're both birds, but beyond that, well...

** - at this point I was going to post a side-by-side comparison of the BG and Miami logos, but (and I think this is because of the incomprehensible aversion to the new mark) I had a hell of a time trying to find a .pdf of our logo anywhere on the web. I mean - it is non-existent in any kind of search! So, I decided to dig through this site's archives to find something, and I stumbled upon one of Schad's posts from July of 2004 that stated what I had intended to say much more clearly and succinctly than I could have ever dreamed of. So, my friends, I give - Schadenfreude (uncensored):

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.

mk455 · Post by **mk455** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:41 am

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.

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

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:13 am

Bleeding Orange wrote:

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:22 am

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.

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

Schadenfreude · Post by **Schadenfreude** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:25 am

Earlier, I implied our traditional logo is less than timeless.

Let me explain what I mean.

I think a neutral observer might be tempted to put our traditional Falcon logo in a box with things like this:

People will read this as a knock, and I don't mean it that way. The Expos logo is weirdly cool, and I owned one of those Astros jerseys when I was a kid.

And I do like our traditional logo.

But our traditional logo was conceived in the same era that the Expos and the World Football League got their start.

I think it shows just a little bit.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:30 am

I'm with Schade on this issue. The traditional logo worked well for its time. But in today's world, it looks pretty bland and dated. I don't mind the new retail logo and the revised athletic logo with two colors is much better than the traditional.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:33 am

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

Actually, the letters are not interlocked. The B overlays the G. With the 'hooked' top of the G, I think it would look much, much better if it was interlocked and not overlapped.

RobbyFalcon · Post by **RobbyFalcon** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:03 am

I started at BG in Jan. '86 and I think what is now affectionately called the "Traditional Falcon" was new. There was plenty of moanin' and groanin' and complainin' about it. I still have a classmate who regularly says, "That new logo never really grew on me. I just don't like it." He's talking about the Traditional Falcon, not the Retail Falcon.

The complaints were it tried too hard to be "downtown" or "modern" or "chic" or "post-modern" or whatever. Now that it's the traditional logo, it's slightly amusing--but wonderful-- to see the affection younger Alumni have for it.

As far as resembling Miami: excuse me if I state the obvious but peregrine falcons and red-tailed hawks look a lot alike, especially in the face. That being said, I don't think BG's retail logo looks like the Miami logo except in the broadest terms.

hawk: http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/showph ... hoto/22383

falcon: http://www.nps.gov/brca/images/na_peregrineclose.jpg

Where's Marlin Perkins when you need him?

Go Falcons!!