New Pac-10 Logo

[Ry]

Arizona?s Greg Byrne on Pac-10 expansion (plus new Pac-10 logo)

[CDixonDesign]

Not bad, overall an upgrade IMO...

[BrandMooreArt]

i dig it. not loving the shape of the shield, its a bit long, but i like it overall. would be nice to see a concept where the mountain is blended into the "A" more

[Cujo]

We had a thread on the new Pac-10/12 logo a few weeks ago -- but the logo posted in this one seems a bit different that the one on there. The mountain/wave looks a little more defined in this one. Much better!

[oddball]

Downgrade. The other logo had a solid feel to it. This logo just looks weak. The use of thin letters and the tall shield, give it a very unstable and very unreliable feel to it. It does not portray strength at all and gives the viewer the feeling that the Conference is weak and on the verge of falling apart when it comes to controversy or rough times.

[andrewharrington]

Downgrade. The other logo had a solid feel to it. This logo just looks weak. The use of thin letters and the tall shield, give it a very unstable and very unreliable feel to it. It does not portray strength at all and gives the viewer the feeling that the Conference is weak and on the verge of falling apart when it comes to controversy or rough times.

Well, you know the saying: "Opinions are like @$$holes. Everyone's got one. It's just that yours stinks really bad!" All kidding aside, I think it could be better, but I don't really see any of what you're talking about for the most part.

[jrunner024]

I saw the same new logo while I saw up in Seattle for the Husky spring training game with some friends. They were resurfacing the court and I took a quick picture of it while passing, its located to the right of the key. Took it in late April.

[meetthemets]

I'm not a big fan of it either. Just looks like it was rushed.

[BrySmalls]

It is an interesting Conference logo. There was simplicity in the previous Pac-10 logo, especially with the pennants (sun rays?) above the bulbous text representing each member. With this new logo, it feels like change for the sake of change, albeit, it will only be temporary (until/unless the Conference replaces the "10" with a "12"). What really bothers me is the font choice for "PAC", more-so that the "A" itself is impersonating an additional mountain. Despite the creativity flowing through this design, the overall impression is that the logo is rather bland and they could have done better.

[Hat Boy]

I think it is an odd choice to redesign the PAC-10 logo. Why not use the current logo and then unveil the new design when you unveil the PAC-12?

[Quillz]

So, the design is supposed to be a blended wave and mountain, representing California and Utah, perhaps?

[oddball]

Downgrade. The other logo had a solid feel to it. This logo just looks weak. The use of thin letters and the tall shield, give it a very unstable and very unreliable feel to it. It does not portray strength at all and gives the viewer the feeling that the Conference is weak and on the verge of falling apart when it comes to controversy or rough times.

Well, you know the saying: "Opinions are like @$$holes. Everyone's got one. It's just that yours stinks really bad!" All kidding aside, I think it could be better, but I don't really see any of what you're talking about for the most part.

You know, for a guy who I have respect for, and who normally acts professional, you're reply disappoints me. That's the best you could come up with? The reply of a snot-nosed 12 year old punk kid who has no respect for anyone? You're reply doesn't even say anything. You don't even bring proof that I'm wrong. You're better than that. If you're going to say that I'm wrong, then at least point out where and what I'm wrong about, don't rattle off the answer of a snot-nosed 12 year old. We've got enough members of this board that act that way, be bigger than them. Rise above them.

[BrySmalls]

Seeing the new logo in different shades of blue still makes the overall result terrible.

[fonz]

Is there supposed to be a 12 in that logo because I don't see it?

[Cujo]

Is there supposed to be a 12 in that logo because I don't see it?

Umm, I would imagive the '10' will become a '12' when CU and UU officially join next summer.

[TenaciousG]

I love it. I don't get what all the fuss is about. The old logo was dated, very 90s-ish.

And, really, is there something Earth-shattering about the Big 12 and SEC logos that I'm missing?

I love the shield design, the mountain-wave, and the number font. It will look even better with a 12, and hopefully a 16 in it someday.

[AJM]

Im getting a merit badge/ forestry badge type feel from it, but it is an upgrade from what they had. I like it but I dont love it.

[tommytimp]

It looks slapdash and perfunctory, even though I'm sure it isn't.

[andrewharrington]

Downgrade. The other logo had a solid feel to it. This logo just looks weak. The use of thin letters and the tall shield, give it a very unstable and very unreliable feel to it. It does not portray strength at all and gives the viewer the feeling that the Conference is weak and on the verge of falling apart when it comes to controversy or rough times.

Well, you know the saying: "Opinions are like @$$holes. Everyone's got one. It's just that yours stinks really bad!" All kidding aside, I think it could be better, but I don't really see any of what you're talking about for the most part.

You know, for a guy who I have respect for, and who normally acts professional, you're reply disappoints me. That's the best you could come up with? The reply of a snot-nosed 12 year old punk kid who has no respect for anyone? You're reply doesn't even say anything. You don't even bring proof that I'm wrong. You're better than that. If you're going to say that I'm wrong, then at least point out where and what I'm wrong about, don't rattle off the answer of a snot-nosed 12 year old. We've got enough members of this board that act that way, be bigger than them. Rise above them.

I wasn't aware disagreeing with someone's opinion was the same as disrespecting them. There is nothing I can say to prove that you're wrong; it's your opinion and I stated with one sentence that I disagreed with your specific assessments of the logo. Not the fact that it's not perfect, of course. I can see that it's not perfect, but I don't agree that the old logo was better, I don't agree that the use of thin letters and a tall shield make it unstable and I don't get the feeling that the Conference (sic) is weak and on the verge of falling apart when it comes to controversy or rough times just because this isn't a macho sports logo with thick letters and a squat profile.

I hope you're a little more cool-headed in real life. Losing the internet 'tude would behoove you.

[andrewharrington]

So, the design is supposed to be a blended wave and mountain, representing California and Utah, perhaps?

Probably representing the shores of California and the Cascade Mountains of Washington and Oregon (he charter members of the conference were Cal, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State). Arizona, Utah and Colorado are mountainous as well.