Merryl Lynch Logo is dead

[Brad]

Boys.....stop.

[MaltLiquorBull]

On 5/3/2019 at 8:35 PM, Bull Dozer said:

This is the most impressive thing. The whole university just seems diffenert with no Judy and for athletics Kelly at the helm. It seems more about connecting with its people.  Nothing against Judy, she was fantastic but if she wasn't on the way out I don't think this happens. 

My theory is that Judy was the driving force behind the new logo.  My guess is everybody on staff thought it was not necessary to change it, but at some point you have to do what the CEO says you have to do.  I’m sure having a new CEO made it easier to roll this back before it was too late.

[chrisdashley]

1 hour ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

My theory is that Judy was the driving force behind the new logo.  My guess is everybody on staff thought it was not necessary to change it, but at some point you have to do what the CEO says you have to do.  I’m sure having a new CEO made it easier to roll this back before it was too late.

My theory, as well. Unfortunately, money had been spent. Best to limit the expense now than try to fix it after everything had been completed.

[Bull Dozer]

3 hours ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

My theory is that Judy was the driving force behind the new logo.  My guess is everybody on staff thought it was not necessary to change it, but at some point you have to do what the CEO says you have to do.  I’m sure having a new CEO made it easier to roll this back before it was too late.

This is exactly what I think it was. I think she wanted this as the cherry on top for the great Academic progress she had made with the University.  Either she intimidated people into doing it anyways or she was just surrounded by yes men who wanted to give this to her out of good will or just general brown nosing.  Considering the nearly universal condemnation of the logo from anyone not involved in the process on Fowler avenue you can't convince me this was anything more than somebody's vanity project.  Now if that was Judy or someone who had her ear enough to just ram this thing through come hell or high water we'll probably never know.   All I know is there is no way in hell this thing was vetted properly before they decided to roll it out....   

[Ned A Starr RIP]

3 hours ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

My theory is that Judy was the driving force behind the new logo.  My guess is everybody on staff thought it was not necessary to change it, but at some point you have to do what the CEO says you have to do.  I’m sure having a new CEO made it easier to roll this back before it was too late.

USF won’t have a new CEO until July 1st.

[Azmodi]

1 hour ago, NAS Gone to Paradise said:

USF won’t have a new CEO until July 1st.

If you're referring to whom is in the chair at the moment, you're correct. Now if you're referring to whom will be answering the call about matters effecting the University moving forward, you'd be wrong. Look, Judy did some great things for the University. The fact is that like always, in hindsight, we all see things that could have been done or handled better. I do not knock her for that. I do question the use of funds to ram through and or bypass the vetting system a change that would and could have had long lasting effects. 

 

That was a seriously questionable act on whoever's part it was, regardless of their motivations.

[Bull Dozer]

1 hour ago, NAS Gone to Paradise said:

USF won’t have a new CEO until July 1st.

Hypothetically because this is all speculation, It's easier to push rolling this back when the person who was trying to ram it through is already confirmed gone in under 2 months.   You're more free to do what you feel is right instead of what the superior wants for selfish reasons.   That's not the case if that same superior will be there for the foreseeable future.  Judy is in the lame duck term of her presidency....  

Edited May 9, 2019 by Bull Dozer

[SpikeBull]

This seems to be quite rampant!

 

[Ned A Starr RIP]

7 hours ago, MaltLiquorBull said:

My theory is that Judy was the driving force behind the new logo.  My guess is everybody on staff thought it was not necessary to change it, but at some point you have to do what the CEO says you have to do.  I’m sure having a new CEO made it easier to roll this back before it was too late.

 So, I take it that you don’t consider $100,000,000 later, too late.  BTW, what make you think that Joe Hice did’t think it was necessary to change the logo?

[Triple B]

34 minutes ago, NAS Gone to Paradise said:

So, I take it that you don’t consider $100,000,000 later, too late.

If they really had spent $100,000,000 on changing just the academic logo, they'd be ******* idiots to totally scrap it at this junction ...