The Packers logo

[JohnnySeoul]

Why should it be "GB"? The "G" stands for greatness. :-)

[Gothamite]

Shh, Wikipedia will hear you.

[JohnnySeoul]

lmao

[Spearhead]

It's because they see the dominance of the SEC as kind of a South-will-rise-again thing more than just rooting for a school they went to or lived near. By having the most competitive college football, the former Confederate states have, in their own special way, triumphantly reinstitutionalized not paying black people for physical labor.

What an incredibly stupid misinformed comment...

You're being too kind.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, Admiral tends to soft-pedal sometimes.

[TheOldRoman]

Spearhead deleted the wrong parts, as he quoted two people. The last line calling the comment stupid is the one which he thinks is too kind.

[Gothamite]

I got that, I was just tweaking him for it.

[Island_Style]

But can I just add how ironic I think it is that the SEC has the most rabid fanbase around, yet I would hazard to guess that 9 out of 10 diehard SEC fans did not attend an SEC school, and that a good number, maybe 50% never went to college at all.

It's because they see the dominance of the SEC as kind of a South-will-rise-again thing more than just rooting for a school they went to or lived near. By having the most competitive college football, the former Confederate states have, in their own special way, triumphantly reinstitutionalized not paying black people for physical labor.

The serious answer is it took professional sports a while to get to the Southeast.

[Gothamite]

Exactly. College loyalties are entrenched, and pro teams have a hard time competing.

[Sec19Row53]

Addressing a couple of points.

1 - no one in Wisconsin puts an emphasis on GREEN bay. Both words share the emphasis. Paul Hornung doesn't count, either.

2 - I can't believe I'm going there, but I just watched a team DVD from a few years ago (Legends of Lambeau, I think) which made reference to the G standing for greatness.

[JohnnySeoul]

2 - I can't believe I'm going there, but I just watched a team DVD from a few years ago (Legends of Lambeau, I think) which made reference to the G standing for greatness.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!

[Gothamite]

That's probably where the Wikipedia editor heard it, but it should not surprise anybody that he got it wrong.

The actual quote was something like "they added a 'G' to the helmet, and it was great." A rhetorical flourish, if a somewhat clumsy one. The program never states that the logo was intended to actually stand for anything other than the first letter of the first word of the city's name.

I will second that I'm not familiar with any Wisconsin dialect that pronounces that name "Greenbay." I too have only heard equal emphasis on both words.

[illwauk]

That's probably where the Wikipedia editor heard it, but it should not surprise anybody that he got it wrong.

The actual quote was something like "they added a 'G' to the helmet, and it was great." A rhetorical flourish, if a somewhat clumsy one. The program never states that the logo was intended to actually stand for anything other than the first letter of the first word of the city's name.

I will second that I'm not familiar with any Wisconsin dialect that pronounces that name "Greenbay." I too have only heard equal emphasis on both words.

I never thought to do this until now, but I can't think of a single Wisconsin town containing two mono-syllabic words (Brown Deer, Fox Point, La Crosse, Eau Claire, etc.) where they're not given equal emphasis... pretty cool!

[Gothamite]

Hmm.

We always said "la CROSSE", but I'm with your other examples.

[The_Admiral]

I always said and heard "eau CLAIRE," like it might as well have been O'Clair. The only person I've heard say "GREENbay" is Troy Aikman, and Troy Aikman probably can't even say "Troy Aikman" anymore.

[Sterling84]

Given the nature of this board any and all criticisms are valid of course, but I think we have bigger problems (even in the logo world) than whether or not the Packers logo is "good" or not. You couldn't purchase the equity it has accrued for any sum of money. And as much as I try not to get too resistant to change overall...it's difficult to escape the bonds of fandom and nostalgia. The logo, as is, just works. You see that helmet, you think Packers and you're flooded with all the associations you're supposed to have. And that is, afterall, the goal.

I do like the theoretical discussions about "if they were branded today" but they aren't and they would never be. The entire franchise wouldn't be if the NFL were expand it would never be in Green Bay. And on the off chance they were given a team, Packers would never be the name. It's one of those serendipitous things. All the stars aligned and we have what we have. No team would be named the Yankees, Red Sox, Redskins or Whalers today either. To even propose the revisionist fantasy to try starting over with a from-scratch concept...you'd have to imagine a Winnipeg type scenario I guess where the Packers were ripped away and came back. Cause without that history and emotion behind it...the name itself isn't 2011 at all and not very compelling.

Also not a fan of the GB logo. Isn't that a Notre Dame takeoff? As for how it (the G) functions as design, especially with respect to Georgia or Grambling? Growing up Georgia's always looked "wrong" to me and the more I think about it, it isn't about legacy or repetitive viewings or regional bias...from a design perspective there is a BIG difference between the letterform "G" being the negative space (white) and the containment shape elipse being dark (green) for the Packers, while Georgia is the reverse and Grambling ( I think) lets the G be naked in space. It's color science, a little difficult to describe, but the darkest tone being the containment shape for me has always worked "better" than the reverse. Much of Georgia's choice is due specifically to how red functions visually. Red is so powerful you can set it against white and still get contrast even though red in their scheme is the midtone. (Make sense?) The Blackhawks do the same with their home sleeve striping. The athletic gold is bright, and strong to be sure, but not enough of a rich midtone to go side by side with white which means the dark green barrier between the two is just...more effective (to my eyes). And this goes toward their entire design scheme; helmet, pants and sleeve striping etc. I'm not saying Georgia's interpretation doesn't work for them...but it's undeniably very different. It's like one of those intro to design slides you get shown..black box contained in white box vs white box contained in black box. Dimensions are the same but the optics of it are very different.

Take all that for what it's worth, which ain't much. But that's how I see it.

[IceCap]

Well Sterling just won the thread.

[andrewharrington]

Well Sterling just won the thread.

If by 'won' you mean 'took all the fun out of it by slamming the interesting hypothetical tangents we had going...'

[Sterling84]

Ha! Kind of you to say. Not trying to win anything. Or squash the debate. By all means continue. I enjoy all the thoughts on it. Nothing is sacrosanct here.

When I ask myself why "G" stands for Green Bay and not Greenbay? My response is just...I dunno. Why is water wet? It just is and it just does. But maybe that's my failing.

And despite the fact that I regard the Packers brand as a settled issue, I obviously do find myself drawn to the same minutia as you guys do. Really fascinated lately with how the execution can change the effect. Not so much the marketing/merchandising point of view. But the optics of the colors like I described earlier. Similar to the ongoing Weagle debate in other thread and how the blue and red in that mark compete and (to some) how that downgrades that design.

It's a fair question posed in this thread. Why do people think the Packers logo is good (one of the best)? I'm not sure they DO to put it bluntly. Who thinks that? I don't necessarily. I don't stare at it like I do the Wild logo and just want to gush...Man! That's brilliant...wish I'd thought of it. But I do think when you take everything together it works nearly perfectly. I think we forget the temporal aspect to design. Something that was designed XX years ago automatically means that same thing can never be re-invented. And the Packers logo is just one of dozens of logos like that...timestamped into a given era. And if it can survive a few tweaks and still be here all this time later? Then so be it. I get the impression the subtext of the question is the classic "My 8 year old neice could draw that...." ergo "Why am I not a professional logo designer". I feel that way all the time and heck, I've got some work out there. Nothing wrong with looking at super simple logos out there (ahem, Cowboys) and thinking...."Dang, in another world, that could have been done by me". Truth is to some extent everything worth doing has already been done. Logos with simple letterforms or stars or (literal) icons are like lakefront property...as in, they been done got bought up years ago. It is what it is. I don't think newer teams necessarily WANT to go overly illustrative. But 1) all the good true icons are used up and 2) If you faux-retro yourself like the 'Ning you get mocked for doing so. These simple logos may not be flawlessly crafted compared to today's standards and focus group mentality. But they are like our grandparents. They deserve a certain amount of reverence for just lasting this long in the first place.

[rams80]

I think of Grambling 2nd because of the importance of that school. I'm pro-SEC, not anti. SEC is college football. But that being said, Georgia is nothing more than a tagalong in that conference. Pretty much the same as Minnesota and Northwestern in the Big Ten. Regardless, that "G" is pure Green Bay Packers.

BTW, what did tOSU have to do with anything? SEC whoops their @ss in Bowl Games....I accept that.

Shots fired.

I think of Grambling 2nd because of the importance of that school. I'm pro-SEC, not anti. SEC is college football. But that being said, Georgia is nothing more than a tagalong in that conference. Pretty much the same as Minnesota and Northwestern in the Big Ten. Regardless, that "G" is pure Green Bay Packers.

BTW, what did tOSU have to do with anything? SEC whoops their @ss in Bowl Games....I accept that.

>>>>>>

I wouldn't refer to Georgia as a tagalong, they're just on a bad run, and this is coming from a Yellow Jacket fan. If we're talking college football in the Big 10, how could you put Northwestern on the same level as Minnesota? I saw the Cats play a great season and then advance to the Rose Bowl in '95. I don't remember the Gophers ever being relevant in my lifetime...

Have you ever heard of Indiana Hoosier football, if you can call it football ... , Indiana football should be tossed out of the Big 10. They're like the old St Louis Browns in MLB. Dude what have you been drinking?

Ok, add Indiana to the list too. No biggie.

No. That is OUR team and only we can mock OUR team.