Sign in to follow this  
ilovenj

Best NCAA Logos

Recommended Posts

I always thought this was a very unique logo.

9ru6ujcdibakxn9gfege.gif

Excellent post, I love love love that logo. A damn shame it's not used anymore, esp. since what they do use (the gator head in oval) is horribly generic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Early '90s FIU Golden Panthers

lanuf9atfo9osskd9xsq.gif

Point Loma Nazarene Sea Lions

Sea%20Lion%20Logo.jpg

old Stony Brook Seawolves

2646.gif

Oi, those epitomize everything I dislike about the current college logo milieu. Action italic font, snarling profile, gaaaah. zzzzzzzz

I even noticed a touch of beveling in the last logo. BEVELING????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
186527329_o.jpg

Eww, I think that may be one of the worst logos I have ever seen. What is wrong with his face? To each his own but that is just horrible to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
186527329_o.jpg

Eww, I think that may be one of the worst logos I have ever seen. What is wrong with his face? To each his own but that is just horrible to me.

What's wrong with your eyes? That's a GREAT logo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best classic logo: Texas

Best modern logo: Florida (the Gator head in the oval)

Best letter logo: Hawaii

Best logo that won't be used much longer: Sadly, the University of North Dakota Sioux logo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Love Chief Illiniwek.

Also, love North Dakota.

NorthDakotaFightingSioux.gif

Couldn't agree more!

Boo, those racist Native American logos have no business being mentioned among the best.

Call me a homer, but what about one of the cleanest, sexiest, and most recognizable logos in the NCAA:

175px-OregonDucks.png

The Chief Illiniwek logo represents the decoration, symbolism, and importance of a Chief in Native American Culture, not the person. (I graduated from there.)

The North Dakota Logo is a simple, non-cartoon profile of a human being. Regardless of past discrimination, Notre Dame's Leprachaun, Wake Forest's Demon Deacon, and Purdue Pete are much more "racist" by the "stereotype" or derogatory depiction argument since they are cartoons. Just because there is historically frequent discrimination against a particular heritage does not automatically make any outside representation of it "racist". I'm not saying it doesn't happen cleveland indians but in these cases- no.

Best Logo- Bevo.

You can say that Chief Illiniwek represents those things (and I would expect nothing less from an alum who takes pride in that symbol), but being a graduate of Illinois does not qualify you to tell me or others what to feel when they see the Chief. Your explanation of the the Chief is a very recent explanation of the symbology behind him. He was chosen in the 1920's when attitudes towards Native Americans were very different than what they are now. He was NOT chosen to "represent the importance of a Chief" but for qualities that university officials believed would would strike fear into and intimidate opponents (tendencies toward war/violence, "savage nature", war paint, etc.) As soon as people began to question those reasons the "honor" excuse popped up. It is not "honorable", especially when the people it supposedly "honors" are hurt use of the logo and customs associated with its use.

The issue in the case of the Chief and the North Dakota logo is not with the actual graphic representation of a Native American in the logo, but with the use of a Native American as a mascot at all. It trivializes and demeans a very large group of Americans who have already been subjected to copious amounts of prejudice and discrimination in their history.

The difference between these logos and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish are very obvious. The history of discrimination and prejudice is incomparable, the population sizes of the groups of people that these symbols "represent" are extremely unbalanced, but what I see as the most telling difference is the fact that the "Fighting Irish" and subsequent leprechaun logo were self-appointed. In other words, they were chosen by the people of Notre Dame, an Irish-Catholic university consisting almost entirely of an Irish-Catholic student base and faculty at the time. The name and logo were chosen by the people at Notre Dame to represent their OWN heritage. The same CAN NOT be said for Chief Illiniwek or the North Dakota logo, or most other Native American logos and names.

There are so many layers to the discussion of why Native American logos and nicknames need to be retired that it is impossible for me to get to right now, but I hope this sheds a little light on where we're coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can say that Chief Illiniwek represents those things (and I would expect nothing less from an alum who takes pride in that symbol), but being a graduate of Illinois does not qualify you to tell me or others what to feel when they see the Chief. Your explanation of the the Chief is a very recent explanation of the symbology behind him. He was chosen in the 1920's when attitudes towards Native Americans were very different than what they are now. He was NOT chosen to "represent the importance of a Chief" but for qualities that university officials believed would would strike fear into and intimidate opponents (tendencies toward war/violence, "savage nature", war paint, etc.) As soon as people began to question those reasons the "honor" excuse popped up. It is not "honorable", especially when the people it supposedly "honors" are hurt use of the logo and customs associated with its use.

The issue in the case of the Chief and the North Dakota logo is not with the actual graphic representation of a Native American in the logo, but with the use of a Native American as a mascot at all. It trivializes and demeans a very large group of Americans who have already been subjected to copious amounts of prejudice and discrimination in their history.

The difference between these logos and the Notre Dame Fighting Irish are very obvious. The history of discrimination and prejudice is incomparable, the population sizes of the groups of people that these symbols "represent" are extremely unbalanced, but what I see as the most telling difference is the fact that the "Fighting Irish" and subsequent leprechaun logo were self-appointed. In other words, they were chosen by the people of Notre Dame, an Irish-Catholic university consisting almost entirely of an Irish-Catholic student base and faculty at the time. The name and logo were chosen by the people at Notre Dame to represent their OWN heritage. The same CAN NOT be said for Chief Illiniwek or the North Dakota logo, or most other Native American logos and names.

There are so many layers to the discussion of why Native American logos and nicknames need to be retired that it is impossible for me to get to right now, but I hope this sheds a little light on where we're coming from.

What qualifies you and others to erase these kinds of mascots from existence? And how does banning them through force bring "justice" to these people? As far as trivializing and demeaning them, no, these representations do not do that any more than calling a team Oilers trivializes and demeans people who work in the oil industry. Most people understand that. This petulant attitude about mascots is simply a way for you to impose your political stamp where you see fit and exercize a mean-spirited intolerence of opposing views, no more, no less. Frankly, this is a question of free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can say that Chief Illiniwek represents those things (and I would expect nothing less from an alum who takes pride in that symbol), but being a graduate of Illinois does not qualify you to tell me or others what to feel when they see the Chief. Your explanation of the the Chief is a very recent explanation of the symbology behind him. He was chosen in the 1920's when attitudes towards Native Americans were very different than what they are now. He was NOT chosen to "represent the importance of a Chief" but for qualities that university officials believed would would strike fear into and intimidate opponents (tendencies toward war/violence, "savage nature", war paint, etc.) As soon as people began to question those reasons the "honor" excuse popped up. It is not "honorable", especially when the people it supposedly "honors" are hurt use of the logo and customs associated with its use.

There are several inaccuracies in your post, but I will only address a few. Luckily, a few of the prominent posters on here are Illini, so I am sure they will add in. The Chief was originally chosen to represent our heritage as a state. Penn brought a student dressed as a quaker, and asked Illinois' coach if they could think of someone to represent the state. The Chief didn't wear war paint. The paint was a secular paint scheme used in celebrations. It is fine that you think it is not honorable (and I love how you put it in quotes to emphasize your point), but the matter of the fact is, Native Americans are NOT offended by most uses of Indian names and imagery in sports. If you are going to argue that Illinois' logo is the same as Chief Wahoo, go right ahead. The descent has always been a vocal minority. Leadership goes after schools using Native names/logos because that is what gets them money. They aren't given money by white men so they can feed their people. They are given money so they can further a political cause. The people who are outraged for the Indians couldn't care less about them. Fighting the establishment and taking on a big money school is a sexy issue, but solving real problems isn't. And now that the battle is done, the relevant tribes who were paid to be outraged aren't getting that money flowing in anymore. While anti-Chiefers told us having the Chief as our symbol was akin to the trail of tears, eliminating it did nothing to help these people. I went to U of I and seen it first hand. If you would like me to go into greater detail, I will. For now, I will leave you with something the anti-Chief group told the Board of Trustees "We realize it isn't a big issue with Native Americans. We realize that most of them aren't offended by it. Well, we know better than them. They should be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biased submission:

2524.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What qualifies you and others to erase these kinds of mascots from existence? And how does banning them through force bring "justice" to these people? As far as trivializing and demeaning them, no, these representations do not do that any more than calling a team Oilers trivializes and demeans people who work in the oil industry. Most people understand that. This petulant attitude about mascots is simply a way for you to impose your political stamp where you see fit and exercize a mean-spirited intolerence of opposing views, no more, no less. Frankly, this is a question of free speech.

I never said these mascots should be erased from existence, I said they should no longer be used. There is a ton of tradition and history behind the use of Native American and they should not be forgotten. They should be used as a teaching tool for the future. And these are way more demeaning to a group of people than the use of the name "Oilers" for the simple reason that people in the oil industry have chosen that line of work, and no one can "choose" their heritage. I don't see how I am being "mean-spirited", I'm a huge supporter of free speech, and you have no idea what my "political stamp" is. I do NOT think that any school should be forced to change their mascot. What I find disappointing is that despite the pleas and petitions from thousands across the country, our universities will not voluntarily change their ways. It is the kind thing to do. It is the humane thing to do. It is what our children are being taught to do. And yet our university presidents (some of the most respected minds in the country) can't.

There are several inaccuracies in your post, but I will only address a few. Luckily, a few of the prominent posters on here are Illini, so I am sure they will add in. The Chief was originally chosen to represent our heritage as a state. Penn brought a student dressed as a quaker, and asked Illinois' coach if they could think of someone to represent the state. The Chief didn't wear war paint. The paint was a secular paint scheme used in celebrations. It is fine that you think it is not honorable (and I love how you put it in quotes to emphasize your point), but the matter of the fact is, Native Americans are NOT offended by most uses of Indian names and imagery in sports. If you are going to argue that Illinois' logo is the same as Chief Wahoo, go right ahead. The descent has always been a vocal minority. Leadership goes after schools using Native names/logos because that is what gets them money. They aren't given money by white men so they can feed their people. They are given money so they can further a political cause. The people who are outraged for the Indians couldn't care less about them. Fighting the establishment and taking on a big money school is a sexy issue, but solving real problems isn't. And now that the battle is done, the relevant tribes who were paid to be outraged aren't getting that money flowing in anymore. While anti-Chiefers told us having the Chief as our symbol was akin to the trail of tears, eliminating it did nothing to help these people. I went to U of I and seen it first hand. If you would like me to go into greater detail, I will. For now, I will leave you with something the anti-Chief group told the Board of Trustees "We realize it isn't a big issue with Native Americans. We realize that most of them aren't offended by it. Well, we know better than them. They should be."

I'd love to know where you drew that conclusion....

And of course the descent will be coming from a vocal minority, that is because Native Americans make up only 2% of the population in our country. I don't know what else you would expect. What it comes down to is a simple respect for your fellow Americans. Your mascot is hurtful. So change it. Don't change it because you have to. Don't change it so that you can play in March Madness or so that you can receive federal funding or whatever. Change it because you were asked to by the very people that you are trying to honor. That is the real honorable thing to do.

I used to see the issue from the other side, the side you are on. My high school used to go by the "Indians" (years before I ever went there), and they were told to change to something else (they decided on the "Warriors"). However there was a student led underground movement to keep the "Indians" name alive, and that continued when I went there. I participated and was proud to. I got our school's version of Chief Wahoo on my letterman's jacket. I designed sweatshirts for our varsity soccer team that had a Native American head on the front and read "Tribe Soccer" (the tribe was the nickname that our soccer team has always gone by). Then I went to college and took a few classes on race relations in the US. One of them had a segment on sports nicknames and it opened my eyes a little. I chose to do the topic for a big end of term paper and did a ton of my own research. I went into the paper pretty set in my head that it wasn't a big deal, that it was "political correctness run amok," but its not. It affects real people every day. With a little research and an open mind it is easy to see how big this problem is and even more importantly HOW EASY IT IS TO FIX. Just stop with the Native American nicknames and logos. Find something else. Say sorry and change. How hard is that? You'll find a new image to rally around, the Illinois basketball team will still be a Big 10 power, the North Dakota football team will still do whatever it is they do.

A great documentary that shaped a lot of my opinions on the topic is "In Whose Honor" by Jay Rosenstein. If anyone is interested, check it out. It is very well done and very informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I went into the paper pretty set in my head that it wasn't a big deal, that it was "political correctness run amok," but its not. It affects real people every day. With a little research and an open mind it is easy to see how big this problem is and even more importantly HOW EASY IT IS TO FIX.

A great documentary that shaped a lot of my opinions on the topic is "In Whose Honor" by Jay Rosenstein. If anyone is interested, check it out. It is very well done and very informative.

I'm sure there are some people who don't like it, but how does it actually affect people every single day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What qualifies you and others to erase these kinds of mascots from existence? And how does banning them through force bring "justice" to these people? As far as trivializing and demeaning them, no, these representations do not do that any more than calling a team Oilers trivializes and demeans people who work in the oil industry. Most people understand that. This petulant attitude about mascots is simply a way for you to impose your political stamp where you see fit and exercize a mean-spirited intolerence of opposing views, no more, no less. Frankly, this is a question of free speech.

I never said these mascots should be erased from existence, I said they should no longer be used. There is a ton of tradition and history behind the use of Native American and they should not be forgotten. They should be used as a teaching tool for the future. And these are way more demeaning to a group of people than the use of the name "Oilers" for the simple reason that people in the oil industry have chosen that line of work, and no one can "choose" their heritage. I don't see how I am being "mean-spirited", I'm a huge supporter of free speech, and you have no idea what my "political stamp" is. I do NOT think that any school should be forced to change their mascot. What I find disappointing is that despite the pleas and petitions from thousands across the country, our universities will not voluntarily change their ways. It is the kind thing to do. It is the humane thing to do. It is what our children are being taught to do. And yet our university presidents (some of the most respected minds in the country) can't.

There are several inaccuracies in your post, but I will only address a few. Luckily, a few of the prominent posters on here are Illini, so I am sure they will add in. The Chief was originally chosen to represent our heritage as a state. Penn brought a student dressed as a quaker, and asked Illinois' coach if they could think of someone to represent the state. The Chief didn't wear war paint. The paint was a secular paint scheme used in celebrations. It is fine that you think it is not honorable (and I love how you put it in quotes to emphasize your point), but the matter of the fact is, Native Americans are NOT offended by most uses of Indian names and imagery in sports. If you are going to argue that Illinois' logo is the same as Chief Wahoo, go right ahead. The descent has always been a vocal minority. Leadership goes after schools using Native names/logos because that is what gets them money. They aren't given money by white men so they can feed their people. They are given money so they can further a political cause. The people who are outraged for the Indians couldn't care less about them. Fighting the establishment and taking on a big money school is a sexy issue, but solving real problems isn't. And now that the battle is done, the relevant tribes who were paid to be outraged aren't getting that money flowing in anymore. While anti-Chiefers told us having the Chief as our symbol was akin to the trail of tears, eliminating it did nothing to help these people. I went to U of I and seen it first hand. If you would like me to go into greater detail, I will. For now, I will leave you with something the anti-Chief group told the Board of Trustees "We realize it isn't a big issue with Native Americans. We realize that most of them aren't offended by it. Well, we know better than them. They should be."

I'd love to know where you drew that conclusion....

And of course the descent will be coming from a vocal minority, that is because Native Americans make up only 2% of the population in our country. I don't know what else you would expect. What it comes down to is a simple respect for your fellow Americans. Your mascot is hurtful. So change it. Don't change it because you have to. Don't change it so that you can play in March Madness or so that you can receive federal funding or whatever. Change it because you were asked to by the very people that you are trying to honor. That is the real honorable thing to do.

I used to see the issue from the other side, the side you are on. My high school used to go by the "Indians" (years before I ever went there), and they were told to change to something else (they decided on the "Warriors"). However there was a student led underground movement to keep the "Indians" name alive, and that continued when I went there. I participated and was proud to. I got our school's version of Chief Wahoo on my letterman's jacket. I designed sweatshirts for our varsity soccer team that had a Native American head on the front and read "Tribe Soccer" (the tribe was the nickname that our soccer team has always gone by). Then I went to college and took a few classes on race relations in the US. One of them had a segment on sports nicknames and it opened my eyes a little. I chose to do the topic for a big end of term paper and did a ton of my own research. I went into the paper pretty set in my head that it wasn't a big deal, that it was "political correctness run amok," but its not. It affects real people every day. With a little research and an open mind it is easy to see how big this problem is and even more importantly HOW EASY IT IS TO FIX. Just stop with the Native American nicknames and logos. Find something else. Say sorry and change. How hard is that? You'll find a new image to rally around, the Illinois basketball team will still be a Big 10 power, the North Dakota football team will still do whatever it is they do.

A great documentary that shaped a lot of my opinions on the topic is "In Whose Honor" by Jay Rosenstein. If anyone is interested, check it out. It is very well done and very informative.

Where'd you draw the conclusion that native americans want the names change? I'm currently in a history of native americans class and the teacher brought this subject up on the first day being that she was a teacher of American Indians and she's a die-hard Washington Redskins fan. The term "indian" is not politically incorrect, it is what scholars use when writing about them and in some ways is less offensive to actual Indians than what we view as PC in "native americans". It is the accepted method of referral in the academic community. Nobody's had it harder on this land than the first peoples, but the nicknames aren't "Oklahoma State Cherokee Reservationsists" or "San Diego State forced into Missions against their will by Spanish Conquistadors". If the tribes aren't offended then I don't think anyone else needs to be for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where'd you draw the conclusion that native americans want the names change? I'm currently in a history of native americans class and the teacher brought this subject up on the first day being that she was a teacher of American Indians and she's a die-hard Washington Redskins fan. The term "indian" is not politically incorrect, it is what scholars use when writing about them and in some ways is less offensive to actual Indians than what we view as PC in "native americans". It is the accepted method of referral in the academic community. Nobody's had it harder on this land than the first peoples, but the nicknames aren't "Oklahoma State Cherokee Reservationsists" or "San Diego State forced into Missions against their will by Spanish Conquistadors". If the tribes aren't offended then I don't think anyone else needs to be for them.

First off, I'm fully aware that not every single Native American cares about the use of their likenesses and heritage as mascots and team names. But a great many do. Hundreds of thousands have spoken out against it and that is enough for me to change my mind. I'm surprised that isn't enough for other people.

As for your teacher, I say "Your point is . . ." If your point is that since your Native American teacher likes the Redskins so it must not be a big deal, then you are sorely mistaken. The opinion of one "academic" should not have any more weight than the opinion of hundreds of thousands on Native American citizens. I would ask her though, if she would like the Redskins any more or less if they went by a different name. My guess, if she is as die-hard as you say, would be no.

Lastly, your point about the political correctness of the term "indian" is irrelevant to the points I made and makes me think that I'm really not being understood. The issue doesn't lie with the terms used or the images portrayed, that is only a part of the problem. The discussion isn't Redskins vs. Indians vs. Native Americans vs. Cherokee Reservationists. It is about what it means to people when their heritage is painted on jerseys, helmets, merchandise, and stadiums across the country.

I'm sure there are some people who don't like it, but how does it actually affect people every single day?

It affects students at those schools who walk to class every day and see things like "Pow Wow Rally - Tonight @ 7:00 - Go Indians!" on signs, or show up to a football game and see their classmates painting war paint on their cheeks and sticking feathers in their hair, or see opposing fans holding signs that say "Scalp 'em!" It affects the parents who try to teach their young children the importance of their heritage and culture only to turn on the tv on a Sunday and see those very values being mocked (however unintentionally) and used in activities as trivial as football. It all takes a psychological toll that is very real but can not be quantified easily.

I know full well that I'm fighting a losing battle right now and I do not expect to change the minds of anyone. Perhaps you need to see the issue first hand, instead of hearing it from me, they way I did to actually change your mind. But what irks me the most is the fact that people expressing their hurt and asking for change aren't enough to actually cause that change. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have said, in plain English, "We don't like this, we are not honored by it, we are hurt by it, and we would appreciate if the use of our heritage would not be used for your football teams." To which they get this response;

"Prove it," or "It doesn't matter how you interpret it, we are trying to honor you so you should be grateful," or "My teacher said its not a huge deal, and she is an Indian."

Their is absolutely NO REASON why the response shouldn't be, "We're sorry, we didn't know, we'll change it. Our bad." That is the respectful and humane response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said these mascots should be erased from existence, I said they should no longer be used.

If you don't use it, you lose it, hence, it is erased.

As far as these images being trivializing and demeaning, the only evidence we have is your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My biased submission:

2524.gif

Biased or not that is a solid logo.

I'm in total agreement. Stellar logo -- but not a fan of the crimson/navy color combo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the Arizona State Sun Devils logo. Also, the Michigan State spartan logo is nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what's going to happen: The University of North Dakota will be forced to drop its Sioux nickname and logo.

Consequently, UND will drop its American Indian studies program (note: American Indian, not Native American) or at least diminish it. Not so much out of spite, but because of a feeling of a lack of support from American Indians.

So what's more important here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel it's so hard to say what is better as far as college logos--you have hundreds of years of tradition at some places which is so iconic, but there are also the newer/modern logos which are pretty awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue in the case of the Chief and the North Dakota logo is not with the actual graphic representation of a Native American in the logo, but with the use of a Native American as a mascot at all. It trivializes and demeans a very large group of Americans who have already been subjected to copious amounts of prejudice and discrimination in their history.

So your solution is to further eliminate them from the national conscious. Good call! Thank you for continuing the cultural genocide into the 21st Century!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this