New logo

[hm101]

New logo is ATROCIOUS. Change the font and the highlighter puke ink yellow. For gods sake can we do a good thing ever? 

[puc86]

9 minutes ago, NewEnglandBull said:

Good question...I was quoting someone I know who works in the dept. It could potentially be decisions that grow the program but costs more to do it. It could also include administrative policies and hirings. But I agree with your point $20 mil loss is a problem. 

And this is why I hate the AAC and the idea of P6 so much. You can’t try to compete with P5 teams on a G5 budget, it’s just not sustainable. We need to get out of this conference, P6 needs to be more than a slogan and translate into dollars or we need to scale things back to fit our actual budget. Stuck in the middle of the NCAA is the single worst position in all of sports as we can’t even float by on luxury tax dollars.

[MikeG]

20 minutes ago, puc86 said:

And this is why I hate the AAC and the idea of P6 so much. You can’t try to compete with P5 teams on a G5 budget, it’s just not sustainable. We need to get out of this conference, P6 needs to be more than a slogan and translate into dollars or we need to scale things back to fit our actual budget. Stuck in the middle of the NCAA is the single worst position in all of sports as we can’t even float by on luxury tax dollars.

agree -- We must be still trying to operate on the old BCS/Big East budget model. That is not sustainable without more butts in the seats and stronger donation levels-- OR the tv revenues from being in a major conference.

[George_Bullnard_Shaw]

18 hours ago, JTrue said:

Jesus...my wife is a long time USF employee and her department was full on mocking this thing all day. Complete **** show. I usually give the University the benefit of the doubt, but how does this even marginally pass a focus group of any kind?

My department too and one comment was "Merril Lynch went to a rave."

[JTrue]

45 minutes ago, MikeG said:

so because you don't hear about it "on campus", I am just supposed to not have a opinion? I have had this opinion for decades-- that they gave up on a unique bull for a general idea of a bull. They did not lean into the mascot-- they pushed it aside-- maybe because they didn't like his hump or something who knows. The change happened when they went from one logo to the goat versio, as if he threw off the hump. Understand I am not saying "oh go back to that image!" - I just find it was a change forced onto the rest of us by some person in marketing just like any of these other mish mash of logos

I don't believe  said anything like that. What I said was, people under 50 have never known anything but us being the Bulls. Therefore, they don't give a **** about the fact we were once the Brahmans before they were born. Much like how in 50 years, no one at University of Hawaii will give a **** that they were once the Rainbow Warriors and now they're just the Warriors.

[Azmodi]

Be calm people. ask yourselves, is this a trash move or a brilliant one. Think about how many people are talking about this logo today and yesterday. If you want people to talk about your product and remember it, then this is sheer brilliance. 

[puc86]

22 minutes ago, MikeG said:

agree -- We must be still trying to operate on the old BCS/Big East budget model. That is not sustainable without more butts in the seats and stronger donation levels-- OR the tv revenues from being in a major conference.

Sometimes I worry that we believe you can continue to raise the athletic credit hour fee to make up any shortfalls and that doing so will not have any negative consequences. 

[MikeG]

5 minutes ago, JTrue said:

I don't believe  said anything like that. What I said was, people under 50 have never known anything but us being the Bulls. Therefore, they don't give a **** about the fact we were once the Brahmans before they were born. Much like how in 50 years, no one at University of Hawaii will give a **** that they were once the Rainbow Warriors and now they're just the Warriors.

It felt like you did come out and fire away at me because I was referring to older logos - without considering it was the basis of showing people how this has been happening from the beginning, even in the athletics side of things. At some point-- we need to pick something and stick with it for decades-- I think we have landed on that with the iconic U (at least I hope we have).

Granted this thread is mainly talking about the logo for the USF academics side of things. Seeing just how many variations are used is eye opening to the overall lack of control in this area. 

 

[MikeG]

4 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Sometimes I worry that we believe you can continue to raise the athletic credit hour fee to make up any shortfalls and that doing so will not have any negative consequences. 

It certainly impacts those people paying for school. When football was first proposed, the plan was to always operate in the black and only grow as fast as we could afford. What they might have forgotten along the way was that as you continue to build and grow the program, the swings in money become much more drastic. Throw in the loss of a top level conference affiliation and we really should be pumping the brakes but are caught in some sort of arms race to get  the attention of the power conferences eventually. Rock and a hard place. We've put in this much money/effort and at some point have to decide whether we keep pushing on to get there or accept our situation as unwinnable. Not sure how you can be expected to compete with the big boys on an if you are bleeding cash to just hang out with the "second tier" praying for some gift invite to the big time again.

now back to the logo debate : it is ugly and the wrong color

[puc86]

3 minutes ago, MikeG said:

now back to the logo debate : it is ugly and the wrong color

Is that a debate?