Sign in to follow this  
KJHillis

Worst College Logos

Recommended Posts

To me, that's not even the funniest thing about UIC's nickname history.

At the time, the school was known as UI-Chicago Circle, and "Circle" was a nickname in the same vein as "Zaga" for Gonzaga or "The Rock" for Slippery Rock... but it happened to become the default nickname for few years after they dropped their previous nickname "Chikas," as in the Chickasaw first nations tribe. They dropped that name not for PC reasons, but because it was encouraging homophobic taunts from the fans of opposing teams... if only they'd have been able to see into the not-so-distant future when they finally settled on "Flames" :D

First off, it appears you don't know what homophobic means. Anyway, calling men chicas is a childish insult calling them women, and in no way implying they are gay. But other than that, cool story, Bro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought about it, but the Nebraska logo does suck. For a traditional, storied program to have sloppy script over the letter? They could do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

buckeyes_lg.gif

All a joke. A leaf? Ooooooh, intimidating. Mascot is a walking seed? Greaaaaaat...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All bias aside, I love the Penn State logo :P . I really like the Kansas State one too.

As someone said earlier, the beauty of simple college logos is that they can be so easily replicated by anyone, even a child after their first big football game. Save the fancy logos for the pros.

I dislike these:

4241705615_7a6501cfe9.jpg

4,5,7,10,13,22,25

I'd like to throw in BYU and Pitt as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All bias aside, I love the Penn State logo :P . I really like the Kansas State one too.

As someone said earlier, the beauty of simple college logos is that they can be so easily replicated by anyone, even a child after their first big football game. Save the fancy logos for the pros.

I dislike these:

4241705615_7a6501cfe9.jpg

4,5,7,10,13,22,25

I'd like to throw in BYU and Pitt as well.

So you praise simplicity then hate on the tOSU logo? That's not their primary, but I'd say the block O is a great and simple emblem for tOSU. Maybe you just dislike the use of a nut as a mascot generally, except you don't seem to dislike the Stanford logo (basically the same concept).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of people like this one:

U-vi.png

but I think Miami ought to go with something that incorporates more than just the one aspect it shares with almost every other member of the NCAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gamecocks_logo.gif

Sadly, this South Carolina logo is absolutely horrid. I'd welcome a change in a heartbeat.

you might want to get use to that one. It's here to stay for a LONG, LONG time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, that's not even the funniest thing about UIC's nickname history.

At the time, the school was known as UI-Chicago Circle, and "Circle" was a nickname in the same vein as "Zaga" for Gonzaga or "The Rock" for Slippery Rock... but it happened to become the default nickname for few years after they dropped their previous nickname "Chikas," as in the Chickasaw first nations tribe. They dropped that name not for PC reasons, but because it was encouraging homophobic taunts from the fans of opposing teams... if only they'd have been able to see into the not-so-distant future when they finally settled on "Flames" :D

First off, it appears you don't know what homophobic means. Anyway, calling men chicas is a childish insult calling them women, and in no way implying they are gay. But other than that, cool story, Bro.

That's what I was told by a Circle alum who was around when Chikas was dropped. I didn't ask specifically what was being said, but you don't have to stretch the context of chicas too far to turn it into something anti-gay.

And I agree with Nebraska's logo sucking. The script was added in the mid-90s to make them look more modern, but now it just looks dated and tacky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if the original poster is aware of this, but both Marquette and DePaul have reputations as being stuffy old Catholic schools that are stuck in the early 20th century and only remain relevant through donations from aging alumni.

I would spend time explaining just how incorrect your statement is, but considering you have a UWM logo in your sig, I'll just assume you're a rube who wouldn't understand anyway.

Huh? I thought MU students saw us as dirty, artsy, hippie burnouts who smoked too much pot to get into Madison. And who the hell still says "rube?" Case in point ^^^ :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? I thought MU students saw us as dirty, artsy, hippie burnouts who smoked too much pot to get into Madison. And who the hell still says "rube?" Case in point ^^^ :D

There is no such thing as smoking too much pot to get into Madison. Perhaps too much to stay in Madison ... but I'd even doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 60s and 70s maybe, but nowadays Madison is so competitive that on campus you're more likely to run into a prep-school student from the east coast than someone who hung out in Eric Forman's basement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like Clemson's paw and the orange and purple scheme is unique, the little indent on the bottom of the paw annoys me to the point where I cannot stand it. Why don't they just fix it? Is there a reason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like Clemson's paw and the orange and purple scheme is unique, the little indent on the bottom of the paw annoys me to the point where I cannot stand it. Why don't they just fix it? Is there a reason?

I imagine that it's one of those things you just don't mess with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like Clemson's paw and the orange and purple scheme is unique, the little indent on the bottom of the paw annoys me to the point where I cannot stand it. Why don't they just fix it? Is there a reason?

probably to make it look different from the 3,469 elementary schools, middle schools, high schools and other colleges who use a generic paw print to represent any number of predatory cats (or bears, wolves, coyotes, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually don't mind the OSU O but anytime they incorporate the buckeye leaf or nuts into it, it just turns me off.

The Stanford S is pretty dull, I would probably throw it on my list of disliked logos as well.

When schools decide to have plant life as their mascot/logo/representation, I imagine it's pretty tough to make it look inspiring or "cool".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't like the logos that are still around that have the late 70s/early 80s look.

Some examples:

Washington State

washington-state.jpg

Iowa

DU_Iowa_logo.jpg

Kansas State

FF_38633_l.jpg

Annnnd... guess which one of those logos was originally designed in the '30s, and for that and many other reasons, does not suck??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My least favorite college logos are ones that have fearsome animals in their names and then, don't use them, at least not in their primary. I'm looking at you, UCLA and Michigan.

Up until recently, I would say the same for the Richmond Spiders (Spiders is way underutilized as a team name IMO), and their current logo, although using it, is just about as basic as you can get.

Share this post


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