ZuluWarrior wrote:First off, for one who has knocked GC about a number of issues 'my view' is he is right on target with regard to logo and marks. To have three different logos on different uniforms is about as I-AA as you can get. Of course there will be those who don't like change and I can respect that. And my biggest gripe is that it is a knock-off of the Redskins new logo. However, along with the font it does look sharp.
On another note of support, there were many here who thought tradition meant grass, even after the deplorable and less than high school condition game agains said Redskins. However, the new field looks absolutely first class, very impressive and I think the athletic department has done a great job getting that done.
I have no problem with unifying the teams all under one logo. Although, they were all unified under one logo 5 years ago, as I recall
I disagree with him that you must get rid of the old logo and unite under one logo. It is not uncommon at all in sports to see multiple logos for teams. It's especially common to market one logo and wear a different one on the uniforms. I don't see the need to unite solely under one mark. I do love the font, though.
As for the turf, I was one of the people who most vehemently didn't want to give up on grass. I personally feel that the game is better when played on grass, I think adapting to the elements of the day should be part of the sport. I'm not going to argue that the Miami game wasn't over the top, it was. I'm also not going to say they aren't doing a good job with the turf, it looks good and they're doing a fine job of it. My problem is that it seems the drainage system was damaged by the SEBO construction, and that contributed mightily to the conditions of that Miami game. This is a field that was praised & won awards not more than 4 years ago for being an outstanding grass surface. The grass surface was in place and used for what, 40, 50 years? It seems to me that to give up completely on grass because of one ugly game is a little bit knee jerk. Oh well, I got outvoted on that one too.
I don't care for either of these decisions by our new AD, but I'll freely agree that it looks like he made a great choice with our head basketball coach.
The year we won best turf I think it was the year that college game day came. They had nothing but nice words to say because obviously the field was beautiful. About three or four weeks later those same guys were ripping the field because it was a sandlot that was painted green. When the grass was crisp everyone loved it when it became winter in BG, we were the laughing stock of college football.
I don't agree with all our decisions either, but I agree with most and I absolutely love the direction BG athletics is headed. When you look at the investment in time, energy/commitment and money at many levels- inside the dept, from donors/boosters, from the University, from just plain Falcon fans- I am very optimistic long term.
I wonder how many D 1 AD's are answering real questions posed by real fans on the school's website on a regular every few weeks basis? This to me is excellent communication. Maybe I would see more of this if I looked at more sites. But I wouldn't think Alabama's AD is operating in this manner for instance. Or even other MAC AD's. I don't see it.
I like the ask the AD feature...I wish the "in season" coaches would do the same thing. GC is giving us not only an idea of the challenges the department faces, but some insight into the decision making process and the rationale behind the final call.
The thing to remember about the grass vs field turf debate is that Sebo damage (or is that alleged Sebo damage) or not, the projected life span of the exisitng system was exceeded in about 1986. If you're going to have to rip the whole thing up to install new draiinage, you might just as well replace the field with the most cost effective option.
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
I will say ask the ad is smart. The more transparent the better. Same holds true for corporate america. As an example, I just saw a really interesting piece on mcdonald's on cnbc.
If we want to be traditional at BG then we should have installed a real cinder track southeast of the Doyt along with grass tennis courts over at the Ice Arena. This would hinder track and tennis recruiting. IMO football recruiting to a real grass facility will soon be as difficult. It is time to move on..........
Bowling Green area high schools with Field Turf:
Fremont Ross & St. Joe
Tiffin Columbian & Calvert
Toledo Whitmer
Toledo Central Catholic
Findlay
The number of schools discussing it is growing each year. Rumors have the Sylvania facility and Fostoria High & St. Wendlin getting it by next year. The kids are excited to play on it. The only complaints come from the seats and rarely a good recruit is sitting up there. Nothing better than perfectly maintained real grass IMO but my elgibility ran out before my talent was found. Best get what the recruits want.
I proudly chose to be a Falcon and a Falcon I will remain until the end.
I'll preface this by saying I still think GC is a nice kid that will do well for BGSU overall.
That said.....
I felt that the space ghost logo was a creative evolution, and was at least something I wouldn't lose sleep about. I still don't like it compared to the traditional logo. Its too trendy, to likely to lump us into the batch of MAC-level schools that can't afford real tradition, so we sell out a little tradition for some debatable marketing heft.
And I won't give GC so much credit for his answer. Because when you break it down, it is as much a "evade and ignore" manuver in the face of opposition, as any that has ever been presented.
He was skillful but ultimately ducks the core point, which is that the largest cross-section of living BGSU alumni, not the ancient farts at FC events, know and like the LT logo. He throws out comments by one of the people whom the odds are we have all seen one of at games, who is a week older than dirt. These few people mumbled that they liked the cartoon logo from between their dentures. That is supposed to be the same as the vast majority that attended BGSU after that time, who have known mostly or only the traditional logo. Sorry, doesn't work, on the raw numbers alone, and doesn't qualify the context most of those people made them in.
Curiously I know a couple of the "elders" that felt that way and still go to games. Curiously they still wear stuff they bought 30 years ago too. So forgive me if I call bullsh** on that one.
Touching on what Zulu said about the "three logos" I've heard that line before. Yes, consistency is a good thing. Ribeau launched into the last round of University-wide logo and font changes precisely because we were using a half dozen different logos and type sets. Changing the athletic logos was also part of that first attempt. It failed for several reasons. In any case, the new logos revealed a few years ago, are scattered on uniforms and signs now, because they were supposed to be "phased in" exactly as GC now says will be done with the new logos. So don't tell me we are fixing a problem. The "problem" was that they were already fixing the same problem. What was broken was known and being addressed with a generally accepted and liked version of the LT logo.
To point to the fact they themselves created the chaos with the team uniforms as the, or A reason to eliminate the designated and traditional logo is a total joke. So again, nice try, and even if it means nothing, and will change nothing, I'm not buying that line, because it is in fact bullsh**.
As for "branding," GC could have easily done that with the improved LT logo and been done with it. This interlocking BG logo, which isn't even the name of the school or mascot, is a trendy joke that will be replaced inside of ten years for yet another marketing stunt with whomever replaces GC when he leaves.
He effectively says what we suspected, that we were lied too about the logos. Period. Yes, we all are adults, and know full well they were saying one thing out of the left side of their mouths, and intending to do something else later. It still doesn't engender trust on certain levels.
The logo he is choosing to move ahead with is a joke. It is pure branding, not tradition. Of course, I've come to expect that in the last ten years from BGSU and most things in life. So what will be will be, its not as if they'd listen most of the time anyway. I'll remember that when and if I donate to anything anymore when they use "tradition" to motivate me.
Again, nothing we say is going to amount to a hill of beans and that has been generally known for a few years now. However, don't feed me lines about consistency, branding, and how this is a needed improvement. Those lines are far too easy to cut apart for what they are.
Why should any of this matter anyway. We have the "Bowling Green University" enterprise park advertised with a now faded, blank orange spot, right on I-75. Clearly "consistency" and external image are a REAL priority at BGSU. And the gray, pathetic pads of chipped rubble we have for football parking really conveys our University's focus on excellence and academics to the millions of cars that drive by each year. Sell me a new logo when the University show some pride and tears down the enterprise park sign, and either paves or properly landscapes that pathetic eye-sore of a parking lot near I-75.
If anything, this "new" logo change is a bigger waste of money than anything else presented. They were on the way to making the revised LT the standard, now we are changing again, spending more money to replace what replaced the old inconsistency, with an even more inconsistent "new" image." Way to go. Way to think deep and make a really creative and thoughtful change. Its everything I'd expect from Purdue.
Tradition, it seems, is for schools that can afford it. Evidently, we can't.
NWLB
********************************* http://www.CruiseAficionados.com - A Community for Cruise Fans. (Try the mobile app "Cruise Aficionados)
"Bowling Green" is our name. When somebody asks me where I went to school, I say "Bowling Green". What kind of dingus would say "I went to Bowling Green State University"? When we play on ESPN, they call us "Bowling Green". The "State University" portion of the name is as necessary as breasts on the Pope.
I like the idea of combining the BG elements and the Falcon head. How many Falcons, or Falconesque teams are out there? Using the BG and the Falcon head is distinctive. It separates us from Falcon wannabes like Eagles and Redhawks. The old logo was really distinctive and really simple....but it was kind of limited in it's visual appeal...it doesn't convey anything emotionally...there was no real depth to it. I liked it...but I grew up with it. I like my brother because I grew up with him...if I met him on the street....probably not so much
So far as the signs and the parking lot goes...you can't fix everything at once. I have no problem with spendig the $$ to identify the primary ID of the University before paving the lots. Hell, if you want to really be a dick about it, you could probably find problems on campus that could be used as a rationale to block spending $$ on anythig. Nothing would change, the campus would fall ito disrepair and we'd become Toledo.
No thanks....
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
Flipper wrote: I like the idea of combining the BG elements and the Falcon head. How many Falcons, or Falconesque teams are out there? Using the BG and the Falcon head is distinctive. It separates us from Falcon wannabes like Eagles and Redhawks. The old logo was really distinctive and really simple....but it was kind of limited in it's visual appeal...it doesn't convey anything emotionally...there was no real depth to it.
Yep, my thoughts exactly.
Crap, I'm agreeing with Flipper. Next thing you know, I'll be reporting on some kind of back yard accident involving explosions, sharp objects, small critters and a trip to the emergency room.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
Flipper wrote:I like the ask the AD feature...I wish the "in season" coaches would do the same thing. GC is giving us not only an idea of the challenges the department faces, but some insight into the decision making process and the rationale behind the final call.
Absolutely.
Whatever happened to the Gregg Brandon blog? The entries he had up weren't stocked with earth-shattering insight but were fairly instresting to read. Dakich also had a blog that fizzled out after a few months.
They should bring this back. I want the coaches focusing as much time on coaching and recruiting duties as possible, but taking 5 or 10 minutes to write a little blurb and connect with hundreds and possibly even thousands of fans every week is worth the investment.
