Arkansas State Red Wolves

[Seadragon76]

They get points for the unique nickname, but those points are lost thanks to the fact that this logo blows badly.

[BBTV]

Am I the only one who thinks that most colleges don't even need mascots? Most gear people wear (at least in my experience) has the school name anyway, and that's what people refer to when speaking about a college.

[rams80]

I think he is crying. Wouldn't you if you were the face of Arkansas State?

That was my sentiment as well. Nolan Richardson probably took one look at this logo and decided he had better things to do.

[gingerbreadmann]

Naw, they're futuristic sunglasses.

[ferrousoxide66]

Am I the only one who thinks that most colleges don't even need mascots? Most gear people wear (at least in my experience) has the school name anyway, and that's what people refer to when speaking about a college.

I don't agree with that at all.

[Varsity Blue]

[chuckymack]

Now that's a logo!

[leopard88]

Strange white lines coming out of the eyes: -3 points

Bizarre mishmash of serifed and sans serif fonts: -4 points

Total score: 3/10

[eRay]

anybody know which trustee/coaches son/accounting student drew this up?

[buckeyenut]

The PC cops made Arkansas State change from Indians to this crap! Now PETA should be all over them because someone poked out this poor wolf's eyes.

[jPHat_sports]

Bigger version (Source):

[Sodboy13]

And a third font for the school name! Double Super Anti-Bonus.

Seriously, what the hell is supposed to be going on with those eyes? I can't make heads or tails of it.

[-kj]

I guess there's something wrong with me, because I kinda like the wolf itself, even with the weird white lines.

The font issue, though... yikes.

[kmw_29]

While the laser beam eyes are puzzling, the logo actually looks better on that black background. I don't think the logo is as bad as everyone is saying it is. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LOGO IS GOOD THOUGH. My first reaction to seeing this was to vomit, cower in a small ball in the corner of a dark room, then take an Ace Ventura-style cold shower to cleanse myself. Then, I saw the logo on black, and seeing it without that awful black outline around the wolf head helped. That being said, the font is horrible and poorly handled, the laser beam eyes are still strange, and the wolf's snout doesn't seem long and narrow enough.

[Sport]

It looks like a blind person that took off their sunglasses

or

like someone covered his eyes and said "guess who!"

or

like he has lazers eminating from his eyes

also, he's grinning. It's a shame because I liked their indians logo better, however nonpc it was.

[fiasco!]

Now that's a logo!

No, that's a coaster.

[BallWonk]

While the laser beam eyes are puzzling, the logo actually looks better on that black background. I don't think the logo is as bad as everyone is saying it is. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LOGO IS GOOD THOUGH. My first reaction to seeing this was to vomit, cower in a small ball in the corner of a dark room, then take an Ace Ventura-style cold shower to cleanse myself. Then, I saw the logo on black, and seeing it without that awful black outline around the wolf head helped. That being said, the font is horrible and poorly handled, the laser beam eyes are still strange, and the wolf's snout doesn't seem long and narrow enough.

Not quoting you to pick on you specifically, but because I think you've distilled the objections to this logo.

First off, I think your widely shared visceral vomit response is not about the color of the background, it's about the first image in the thread being a poorly reproduced image with pixalation and bad lines. I can take a photocopier and make the Yankees NY logo look like crap, too. That doesn't prove anything about the quality of the logo itself.

Regarding the font, I don't understand why people haven't noticed that there is only one font in the team name, not two. It's got half-serifs on the uppercase letters, no fonts on the lowercase letters, and I've never heard anyone complain about similar semifonted caps before. (The use of a second, differently unusually serifed font for the school name, now there is a typographical problem.)

As to the snout, the word is foreshortening. I speak from personal experience when I say that when a wolf looks straight at you, his snout does not look as long or as narrow as it does when you see his head from above.

This isn't by any means a great logo, but I just don't think most of the strongest critiques of it here apply at all. Yes, when it's badly reproduced, it's ugly, but that's not a valid critique of the logo. C-minus work at worst -- and probably also at best. This is just sort of unremarkably adequate, especially given the level of the school involved.

[kmw_29]

While the laser beam eyes are puzzling, the logo actually looks better on that black background. I don't think the logo is as bad as everyone is saying it is. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LOGO IS GOOD THOUGH. My first reaction to seeing this was to vomit, cower in a small ball in the corner of a dark room, then take an Ace Ventura-style cold shower to cleanse myself. Then, I saw the logo on black, and seeing it without that awful black outline around the wolf head helped. That being said, the font is horrible and poorly handled, the laser beam eyes are still strange, and the wolf's snout doesn't seem long and narrow enough.

Not quoting you to pick on you specifically, but because I think you've distilled the objections to this logo.

First off, I think your widely shared visceral vomit response is not about the color of the background, it's about the first image in the thread being a poorly reproduced image with pixalation and bad lines. I can take a photocopier and make the Yankees NY logo look like crap, too. That doesn't prove anything about the quality of the logo itself.

Regarding the font, I don't understand why people haven't noticed that there is only one font in the team name, not two. It's got half-serifs on the uppercase letters, no fonts on the lowercase letters, and I've never heard anyone complain about similar semifonted caps before. (The use of a second, differently unusually serifed font for the school name, now there is a typographical problem.)

As to the snout, the word is foreshortening. I speak from personal experience when I say that when a wolf looks straight at you, his snout does not look as long or as narrow as it does when you see his head from above.

This isn't by any means a great logo, but I just don't think most of the strongest critiques of it here apply at all. Yes, when it's badly reproduced, it's ugly, but that's not a valid critique of the logo. C-minus work at worst -- and probably also at best. This is just sort of unremarkably adequate, especially given the level of the school involved.

While the quality of the first image certainly is less than ideal, I was not commenting on that. It is foolish to say that the logo is bad just because the first presentation of it was in poor quality. The logo looks stronger on the black background to me. I don't think that the extra layer of black outline (as seen on the version on a white background) is necessary, or, as a previous post commented on, done very well. I think that detracts from the mark.

The font just seems bland to me, like it could have been seen in an old Castle Wolfenstein game or something from the 80s. I think a much better job could have been done with treating the negative space between characters. With the multiple outlines on the letters I think it could have been improved by filling in some of those negative spaces.

And, I understand what foreshortening is. I just think that the desired result of the foreshortening might not have been optimally achieved. You see so much of the top of the wolf's skull, yet you don't seem to get the same "top" view of the snout. It looks like their point of view may be off a bit. I like his ears though!

[eRay]

Regarding the font, I don't understand why people haven't noticed that there is only one font in the team name, not two. It's got half-serifs on the uppercase letters, no fonts on the lowercase letters, and I've never heard anyone complain about similar semifonted caps before. (The use of a second, differently unusually serifed font for the school name, now there is a typographical problem.)

I think we all realized this, or i hope we did. The problem for me results when i see 3 "half-serifed" letters within the 2 word span. If the capital letterforms are that different from the lowercase letterforms, they should not have used a capital S, or should have just used a different font.

As for the wolf, I'm starting to like it. All you have to do is picture it being used without the type, and in a different situation. Maybe for some comic book super-villain's logo, or on a kids toy gun called the HowlingBlaster, something like that.

[BallWonk]

The font just seems bland to me, like it could have been seen in an old Castle Wolfenstein game or something from the 80s. I think a much better job could have been done with treating the negative space between characters. With the multiple outlines on the letters I think it could have been improved by filling in some of those negative spaces.

And, I understand what foreshortening is. I just think that the desired result of the foreshortening might not have been optimally achieved. You see so much of the top of the wolf's skull, yet you don't seem to get the same "top" view of the snout. It looks like their point of view may be off a bit. I like his ears though!

reference = post of the day in my book.

I will say on the wolf, though, that it doesn't look like too much "top of head" to me but rather the ruff of neck fur you see behind the head when any canine lowers its head in an aggressive stance.

And the left-bottom serif on the R is problematic. Needs to bend in or out, not both, to match the rest of the serifs in play here.