Ask the AD, 8/15: Why not the new Falcon on the helment?

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:39 pm

http://bgsufalcons.cstv.com/genrel/081507aaa.html

Wonder if they still have the other mock-ups? It would be interesting to see the other options. (But I am happy with the interlocking BG.)

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:23 pm

I really wish they would have put the falcon head on their as well. Its too plain with just the BG!

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:08 pm

I really think it would be way too cluttered with the BG and peek-a-boo. There only real choice was BG or spaceghost. If people had a tough time telling what the old falcon head was from a distance they would have no idea what the BG-peek-a-boo would be- it would just look like a splotch of white and brown on the orange helmet.

BGSUFootballFan · Post by **BGSUFootballFan** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:27 pm

What about a white helmet w/ the Orange Falcon Head and BG?

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:30 pm

The one we have is just fine. As DD said, it's not all that cluttered, and there's no question on who we are. If the big issue with the traditional logo was that no one knew what it was or who we are from it, why would having an abstract bird logo be any different?

I'm not big on the change, but the change they made is just fine in my book.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:43 pm

...wait...didn't we have this discussion already?

TG1996 · Post by **TG1996** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:59 pm

BGDrew wrote:...wait...didn't we have this discussion already?

Twice.

No wait, eleventy-billion times. Plus one.

Bleeding Orange · Post by **Bleeding Orange** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:00 am

Thes is al gey.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:09 am

Gregg Brandon has released his comment on the issue:

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:11 am

I love the new helmet. I actually think it looks the best out of all the ones in BG football history to be honest.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:02 am

I really found this part of his answer to the second question interesting:

Other MAC schools meet the D-I requirements, although a good portion of the conference has football attendance hovering around 15K. If any school ever drops below any of the requirements, there is a probation period before the NCAA takes some set of actions. Regarding the football attendance requirement, the ultimate penalty schools face is being declared ineligible for any post-season games (conference championships or bowl games).

So let me get this straight, the ULTIMATE penalty is being declared ineliglbe for post-season play? Thought it would be more harsh - like being dropped from I-A.

As for the helmets, let's break out the spray paint again!

PGY Tiercel · Post by **PGY Tiercel** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:15 am

1987alum wrote:I really found this part of his answer to the second question interesting:

So let me get this straight, the ULTIMATE penalty is being declared ineliglbe for post-season play? Thought it would be more harsh - like being dropped from I-A.

First there is no more 1-AA. So for the penalty to exist we would drop to D-1 playoff division, thereby sexually arousing MACMAN, but without a conference to play in for awhile.

The idea that the NCAA was going to drop programs has been spread around by the masses, even though several outlets have been trying for the last year to say that it is a bowl penalty. The bowl penalty does get very harsh. The first time it is just a one year ban, then after that second attendance penalty, I am pretty sure you don't get to go to ANY bowl games until you get above the 15K mark for 2 years in a row.

I think that is as bad as dropping out of D-1Bowl series. Even though we would still be in the MAC, and could win MAC championships, because the team couldn't play in a bowl game, I think many players would be disappointed at the end of the season. Bowl games are a good way to show your talent on national TV. I also think that not being able to go to a bowl game would hurt recruiting, on top of recruits themselves being uneasy with not playing in bowls (If I was a player, I would really look forward to bowl games, they get extra time playing, missing school, fun trips and a decent amount of free stuff, i.e. clothes, electronics, food) other schools would use it against BG in recruiting efforts as well.

In short, I agree with GC in his statement.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:19 am

PGY:

No arguing with him from me.

And to clarify, I would think this penalty would actually preclude any team from winning a MAC title, since the championship game is technially a postseason game. Man, would that s**k - imagine going 10-2 and winning your division, then being told you can't play for the league title. Ouch.

JoeFalcon · Post by **JoeFalcon** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:24 am

PGY Tiercel wrote:
1987alum wrote:I really found this part of his answer to the second question interesting:

So let me get this straight, the ULTIMATE penalty is being declared ineliglbe for post-season play? Thought it would be more harsh - like being dropped from I-A.

First there is no more 1-AA. So for the penalty to exist we would drop to D-1 playoff division, thereby sexually arousing MACMAN, but without a conference to play in for awhile.

The idea that the NCAA was going to drop programs has been spread around by the masses, even though several outlets have been trying for the last year to say that it is a bowl penalty. The bowl penalty does get very harsh. The first time it is just a one year ban, then after that second attendance penalty, I am pretty sure you don't get to go to ANY bowl games until you get above the 15K mark for 2 years in a row.

I think that is as bad as dropping out of D-1Bowl series. Even though we would still be in the MAC, and could win MAC championships, because the team couldn't play in a bowl game, I think many players would be disappointed at the end of the season. Bowl games are a good way to show your talent on national TV. I also think that not being able to go to a bowl game would hurt recruiting, on top of recruits themselves being uneasy with not playing in bowls (If I was a player, I would really look forward to bowl games, they get extra time playing, missing school, fun trips and a decent amount of free stuff, i.e. clothes, electronics, food) other schools would use it against BG in recruiting efforts as well.

In short, I agree with GC in his statement.

I agree. While losing IA or "Bowl Subdivision" status is the most severe punishment technically speaking, they'd never try it. They'd get sued about 5 seconds after the ink was dry.

MACMAN · Post by **MACMAN** » Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:08 pm

BGDrew wrote:Gregg Brandon has released his comment on the issue:

quite the look...he looks like hes trying to poop....or enforce the point surrendering punt formation