Mississippi State is going through a rebranding...

[Captain Poncho]

Nuts! Busted!

Now we're gonna get detention!

[ferrousoxide66]

And as for the Chops, it's a great logo/name. For minor league team. Which it is. And the Chops pig is probably the best logo shown in this thread so far.

[leggman01]

And as for the Chops, it's a great logo/name. For minor league team. Which it is. And the Chops pig is probably the best logo shown in this thread so far.

i guess it doesn't take much to be an aesthete (although i agree that the name is unique)...honestly, i wouldn't use that chops logo in our fantasy league

i bet you like the washington wizards logo, too

we probably agree on the bobcats logo...i actually like it

[kmw_29]

And as for the Chops, it's a great logo/name. For minor league team. Which it is. And the Chops pig is probably the best logo shown in this thread so far.

Really? Really?

I am the first to acknowledge that people have differing opinions on what "exceptional" logos are, but naming the Chops logo as great is like saying Vin Diesel is a great actor.

Perhaps the best way to settle this is for YOU to post one of your OWN logos. You're quick to challenge others' work, but is your work up to the challenge? Prove us all wrong. Please.

[RedEye]

And as for the Chops, it's a great logo/name. For minor league team. Which it is. And the Chops pig is probably the best logo shown in this thread so far.

we probably agree on the bobcats logo...i actually like it

Jamie, there is probably a very good reason the two of you would both like the Bobcats logo.

[walkerws]

Cripes it's just an opinion, regardless of the fact that it could have been phrased a little bit better, you all don't need to bring out the hangman's knot...

I have no problem with someone who has a differing opinion... it was the pompous, I know better than anyone else, and juvenile way he went about it. Joe is a respected member of this board and while he certainly doesn't need me or anyone else to stand up for him, as a designer myself I felt he didn't cross the line of decency he kicked dirt on it.

Sometimes I think people use the anonymity of the web to get jollies trashing other people's hard work and I will call them on it every time. Have an opinion... do it in a mature manner and you don't run the risk of getting called out.

Please. Would you have been so philanthropic in your defense if Bosack WASN'T a member of this board?

Call me out for my opinion. But, by attacking that, you neglect to mention WHY you think his work is worthy of anything but derision (at worst) and passing acknowledgement (at best).

Inform me why you think his work is good. And none of the platitudes about him being a hardworking member of the designer fraternity, please. All that says to me is you guys are quite cozy in your little insular community.

The thing that is upsetting for those that are actual paid guys and even us pencil and notebook guys is that you just said that the work, which I think 80% of the people here think is anywhere from A to B- work. It's good work. I don't always think that the stuff is perfect and I was critical of his MAC wordmarks which goes back to giving a client what they want. You won't get a free pass for saying a guy's work is less than an F and then walk off without giving an honest critique. I think that is what is upsetting. I must agree with them.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Please. Would you have been so philanthropic in your defense if Bosack WASN'T a member of this board?

Call me out for my opinion. But, by attacking that, you neglect to mention WHY you think his work is worthy of anything but derision (at worst) and passing acknowledgement (at best).

Inform me why you think his work is good. And none of the platitudes about him being a hardworking member of the designer fraternity, please. All that says to me is you guys are quite cozy in your little insular community.

You know, smart people can still sound smart without using SAT words at every available opportunity. Here's another way you could have phrased this post:

"Would you be as nice if Bosack weren't (N.B., the conditional tense in English uses "were," not was") a member of this board? You can call me out for my opinion, but in doing so, you haven't fully explained why you like his work. Tell me specifically why you think his work is good."

Just trying to help out.

[leggman01]

dg now - the quote you pulled from ferrousoxide66 struck me as interesting...especially the part where he says "But, by attacking that, you neglect to mention WHY you think his work is worthy of anything but derision (at worst) and passing acknowledgement (at best). Inform me why you think his work is good."

i'd like to know WHY he thinks this work is bad, because i don't see as much critique of the design as i see critique of the designer...i mean, using phrases like "boring" and "blows chunks" doesn't exactly give us much about why he thinks it's bad...

Who's responsible for these? Most of those bulldog designs are awfully-template. Zzzzzz

Just boring, awful garbage that continues to pollute the college logo landscape.

Looks like it. http://www.joebosack.com/

I hate to speak ill of anyone, but I think his work blows chunks.

No thanks. It all just offends me as a aesthete. It may sit well with your tastes, but to my palate, it offends. And it offends mightily.

Perhaps I am in the minority here. I will defer to the masses.

Just because he's got a fat portfolio doesn't mean he's churning out top quality stuff. He's playing it safe, and the school (just as complicit in this, IMO) are eating up the safe stuff.

And if you think this is exceptional work, methinks you need either a more critical eye.

At its very BEST, this could never be construed as "exceptional". Strictly yeoman fare, conservative, lukewarm - and that's if i'm being generous.

nm

And as for the Chops, it's a great logo/name. For minor league team. Which it is. And the Chops pig is probably the best logo shown in this thread so far.

[ferrousoxide66]

And as for the Chops, it's a great logo/name. For minor league team. Which it is. And the Chops pig is probably the best logo shown in this thread so far.

i guess it doesn't take much to be an aesthete (although i agree that the name is unique)...honestly, i wouldn't use that chops logo in our fantasy league

i bet you like the washington wizards logo, too

Well, no. The "DC" alt, yes!

I did love the old Bullets logo with the outstretched hands.\

To me, uniqueness is key. That's all I ask.

And I apologize to anyone I may have offended with my brusqueness in this thread.

[leggman01]

Well, no. The "DC" alt, yes!

really??? to me, if it weren't for the wizards primary logo, that particular logo might be the ugliest in all of professional sports...it looks very amatuerish...like something my 5 year old daughter might draw (in fact, some of her random doodles look much like that dc logo) - the ball looks like it's dangling from the "c" like a cheap christmas ornament that's simply been tacked on because the creator wanted to let everyone know it was a logo for a basketball team...there isn't much about that logo to me that screams "professional basketball" - the letterforms, especially the "d", are very oddly shaped to the point of being almost illegible (yeah, i get that the "c" is supposed to be a crescent moon to echo the basketball crescent in the primary)- what do i know, though, i'm clearly not an aesthete

I did love the old Bullets logo with the outstretched hands.\

To me, uniqueness is key.

that logo probably looked great in the '70's, but it's a perfect example of something that just doesn't stand the test of time, to me - is it unique...yeah...but what do outstretched hands reaching for a basketball have to do with the nickname bullets?

while a bulldog and a block M may not be "unique", i think they will certainly stand the test of time...barring significant genetic mutations, a bulldog will always look like a bulldog and block letters have certainly stood the test of time among athletic logos

That's all I ask.

but is that what the client asked for? mississippi state seems like the type of place that is looking for something traditional and classic and i think the marks that we saw have the potential to deliver exactly that...if you remember the first image, there were some logos that were obviously tossed out by the client which had a more "progressive" font and a little more "motion"...you talked earlier in this thread about these logo's following a template, but to me the current "sports logo template" seems to be trending more toward the exact type of logo that the client threw out and away from the more classic, iconic imagery...everything has to have lots of shading and motion lines and "power fonts"...and i'll freely admit that i like many examples of this type of imagery (including some of the stuff pumped out by PDW)...but i also like to see some really nice, iconic work every once in a while, as well, and i think this particular work could be exactly that

i hope that the society of aesthete's has room for differing opinions...if it doesn't, i don't ever want to belong

[ferrousoxide66]

but what do outstretched hands reaching for a basketball have to do with the nickname bullets?

i hope that the society of aesthete's has room for differing opinions...if it doesn't, i don't ever want to belong

I don't think you necessarily have to narrow your logo choices to an exact interpretation of the nickname itself. That's why I appreciate the Clippers logo in that regard only - they didn't take the easy way and go with some sort of sailing theme. I think that's what's missing in the current logo environment - too heavy an emphasis is placed on actually matching up with the nickname perfectly, as opposed to the 70s and 80s, where you had certain artistic license. Take a look at our bulldog example. Logos would be dressed up in the sense that the dog (or whatever animal) would have a cap or sweater to signify certain uniqueness. Now? None of those little touches seem to be in the newer generation of college logos, and that's what i'm little saddened by. Not necessarily a cap or sweater now, but just a little extra detail.

Iconic logos with detailed touches like the Celtics' leprechaun, the Yanks' hat and bat, or the Red Sox's socks would never, ever be created in today's logo design world. And that's what i'm railing against.

[conesbeans]

Two questions for Mr. O'Grady/Ferrousoxide66:

What "detailed touches" are in your Charlotte Bobcats logo?

And where in the Iowa Chops logo is the "dressing up" that you state makes good logos good?

[ferrousoxide66]

Two questions for Mr. O'Grady/Ferrousoxide66:

What "detailed touches" are in your Charlotte Bobcats logo?

And where in the Iowa Chops logo is the "dressing up" that you state makes good logos good?

Sorry to disappoint, and i'm sure O'Grady will eventually agree with this - but i'm not him. And I absolutely detest the Bobcats logo.

As for the Chops, the simple fact it's a freakin' pig head is wonderful and so anti everything in the modern logo environment. There's no angry, menacing pose, no italicized power fonts, just a simple, almost serene pig head. When's the last time you've seen something like that? With a hilarious name like "Chops"? Love it. That's enough for me.

Infinitely more memorable than any number of college redos over the past 5 years.

[RedEye]

So you think the execution of said disembodied pig head is actually good? You think it is a good illustration? Just wondering.

[ferrousoxide66]

So you think the execution of said disembodied pig head is actually good? You think it is a good illustration? Just wondering.

Technically, i'm sure it can be fixed, cleaned up, or made to look more "professional".

But why bother? No one ever worried that the ball lines on the old Mavericks' logo, or the current Clippers, weren't perfect. Sometimes, the little imperfections can work in favor of the logo. And I like the fact that's it's not uberprocessed or run through Illustrator a dozen times.

[leggman01]

but what do outstretched hands reaching for a basketball have to do with the nickname bullets?

i hope that the society of aesthete's has room for differing opinions...if it doesn't, i don't ever want to belong

I don't think you necessarily have to narrow your logo choices to an exact interpretation of the nickname itself. That's why I appreciate the Clippers logo in that regard only - they didn't take the easy way and go with some sort of sailing theme. I think that's what's missing in the current logo environment - too heavy an emphasis is placed on actually matching up with the nickname perfectly, as opposed to the 70s and 80s, where you had certain artistic license. Take a look at our bulldog example. Logos would be dressed up in the sense that the dog (or whatever animal) would have a cap or sweater to signify certain uniqueness. Now? None of those little touches seem to be in the newer generation of college logos, and that's what i'm little saddened by. Not necessarily a cap or sweater now, but just a little extra detail.

Iconic logos with detailed touches like the Celtics' leprechaun, the Yanks' hat and bat, or the Red Sox's socks would never, ever be created in today's logo design world. And that's what i'm railing against.

you obviously missed the bulldog that had the "M blanket" thrown over it in side profile...to me, that had a very retro feel and i think that would that qualify as one of the "little touches" that you mention, no?

i think this further drives home my point that you're railing against the designer, not the design - it's ok if you don't like everything a designer does...i'm not a huge fan of mr. bosack's norfolk state or ripon logo's...but every point you've made seems contrary to this particular design

Sometimes, the little imperfections can work in favor of the logo.

if those were little imperfections, i'd agree with you...that particular logo is one big imperfection

[RedEye]

So you think the execution of said disembodied pig head is actually good? You think it is a good illustration? Just wondering.

Technically, i'm sure it can be fixed, cleaned up, or made to look more "professional".

But why bother? No one ever worried that the ball lines on the old Mavericks' logo, or the current Clippers, weren't perfect. Sometimes, the little imperfections can work in favor of the logo. And I like the fact that's it's not uberprocessed or run through Illustrator a dozen times.

SO you prefer half-assed and remedial to professional and clean. Got it.

[ferrousoxide66]

So you think the execution of said disembodied pig head is actually good? You think it is a good illustration? Just wondering.

Technically, i'm sure it can be fixed, cleaned up, or made to look more "professional".

But why bother? No one ever worried that the ball lines on the old Mavericks' logo, or the current Clippers, weren't perfect. Sometimes, the little imperfections can work in favor of the logo. And I like the fact that's it's not uberprocessed or run through Illustrator a dozen times.

SO you prefer half-assed and remedial to professional and clean. Got it.

No, I prefer unique to boring. Understand?

[conesbeans]

If you say you're not O'Grady, I'll just have to take your word for it -- but you sure as shootin' come across like him.

There are many minor league baseball identities that feature friendly animals, because there are teams that want their logos to reflect the family-friendly entertainment that is the principal selling point of their product (much to my chagrin, baseball is unfortunately not the principal selling point).

But minor league hockey is a different animal (no pun intended). Though it is still "minor league," and the atmosphere might still be more fun than one would find in an NHL arena, we are nevertheless talking about a sport where participants slam each other into the boards and get their teeth knocked out. That is why the large majority of these identities (e.g., Lake Erie Monsters, Bridgeport Sound Tigers, Elmira Jackals) are aggressive, and you are even seeing previously-existing cartoon logos shelved in favor of tougher, more professional solutions (e.g., Charlotte Checkers, Manitoba Moose, Pensacola Ice Pilots).

So to offer up the fact that the new Iowa Chops logo is "almost serene" only serves to point out a reason why the chosen handling of that logo is neither effective nor appropriate for this particular segment of sports branding.

You also assert that the Chops not using an "italicized power font" is a positive aspect of this new identity. Instead you prefer the designer's choice of taking Copperplate (an overused font more common to, and appropriate for, a corporate identity), letterspacing it, putting bullets between the letters and outlining it twice?

I have a very good answer to your question of "When was the last time you've seen something like that?": I have never seen something like that -- at least not in any well-designed, effective, appropriate sports identity, that is.

I'll take the beautiful, clean, well-rendered icons in Joe Bosack's logos any day over the crudely-rendered, unnecessarily-detailed attempts that you prefer.

[RedEye]

So you think the execution of said disembodied pig head is actually good? You think it is a good illustration? Just wondering.

Technically, i'm sure it can be fixed, cleaned up, or made to look more "professional".

But why bother? No one ever worried that the ball lines on the old Mavericks' logo, or the current Clippers, weren't perfect. Sometimes, the little imperfections can work in favor of the logo. And I like the fact that's it's not uberprocessed or run through Illustrator a dozen times.

SO you prefer half-assed and remedial to professional and clean. Got it.

No, I prefer unique to boring. Understand?

Well... if you think a horribly rendered logo is unique and thus a success... well... that speaks volumes... personally, I think a horrendously rendered logo with extremely poor font choice and typography treatment isn't unique but rather embarrassing to an ownership group.