Opinion BY Armin

Angry Spartans

Perhaps I have said this far too many times but, man, you don’t want to redesign university identities. And perhaps an even more thankless job, or a more dangerous one, is redesigning a university’s athletic identity. Last month, the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University filed for a trademark application for the redesigned icon of the Spartans, the athletic teams of Michigan State University. Last week, the blog Gang Green Red Cedar Message Board at SpartanTailgate.com uncovered the registration and exposed the perhaps imminent change. Students got pissed.

Rather swiftly, message boards rallied to boycott the proposed logo in various ways, including chanting “Keep our logo — clap-clap — Keep our logo — clap-clap — Keep our logo — clap-clap” at upcoming home games and the obligatory Facebook group, named The Old Spartan Logo, now has more than 31,000 fans. Shortly after havoc began to wreak MSU Athletics Director Mark Hollis issued a statement:

“The Spartan logo, posted on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Web site, is a single element of a comprehensive brand and identity project that will be unveiled in April by Michigan State athletics,” Hollis said in the statement. “As in all branding, the power of a single symbol cannot be appreciated or measured outside the context of the total presentation.”

And UniWatch reports on a memo distributed to staff:

This logo is just a single element of a new comprehensive brand and graphic identity project undertaken by the Department of Athletics. They will be unveiling all elements of the new program in April. The new logo, and the other elements in the program, are the result of a two-year collaboration between MSU Athletics and a team of top designers from Nike.

So is all this complaining and sensitivity really worth it? Is the proposed Spartans icon really that different from the old one that people are so enraged by it? It’s not like they are taking away the Spartan helmet and replacing it with a birthday hat. I bet that if you asked any of the 31,000-plus Facebook fans to draw the logo from memory they would be as close to the old one as to the new one, mainly because all the significant elements are consistent. One thing is for sure though, both the old and new have their own flaws so it really is a toss-up between which one is better: The eyes of the old one like it’s ready for a nap, the new one is more menacing; the helmet shape of the old one looks more aerodynamic, the new one looks like it slammed against a wall; and, honestly, neither resolves the top brush-like appendix that I’m sure has an official name. On fear of enraging more than 31,000 logo opposers, all I can say is, “Relax, this too shall pass.”

Thanks to Cameron Roberson for first tip.

Iulian’s comment is:

Oh my, another mob of students who feel their (inexistent, regarding this matter) rights have been trampled. Maybe they were having a slow and boring January and thought this might just hit the spot.

Like you said, Armin, if you asked the 31.000 “fans” to draw the logo, they’d show how little reason there is for this protest.

So, anyone been watching the Australian Open?

On Jan.25.2010 at 07:16 AM

AL’s comment is:

Full identity aside, I think new one is quite badly drawn. It’s heavy and the helmet is weird.

On Jan.25.2010 at 07:16 AM

AL’s comment is:

Sorry but what asking students to draw the logo has to do with ‘top Nike designers’ actually doing their job properly?

On Jan.25.2010 at 07:20 AM

Andrew Sabatier’s comment is:

Reactionary brand-ludditism…

A.

On Jan.25.2010 at 07:29 AM

Christian’s comment is:

As I write this, the vote is an even 2-2 on the “On Better Option”-part of the poll. I think that’s rather telling as far as execution is concerned.

Subjectivity aside, I’ll offer this observation: From a viewpoint of graphic discourse the old logo appears to be done in a more classisistic style. It looks like what you’d find in British Museum’s permanent classic display. The new logo, however, seems to tap into a very contemporary action figure (e.g. Gormiti/LEGO Bionicle)-discourse. The classisistic option seems to be more in line with an academic pedigree than the update. This, on the other hand, seems to be more representative of current graphic solutions in professional sports. Exaggerated. Dynamic. Menacing. In the end, the question is: What would you emphasize? Your origin as varsity (sissy?) or the fact that you’re plain old agile, mobile and hostile?

Heck, I think the old one has more class.

On Jan.25.2010 at 07:31 AM

Nick Irwin’s comment is:

the new spartan needs anger management…with all this NCAA focus on sportsmanship this guy looks like he would be fouled out ten minutes into the first half and a double technical for throwing chairs on the sideline

On Jan.25.2010 at 07:36 AM

Jwo’s comment is:

Nike has been involved with other redesigns, including Syracuse University’s a few years back. I believed they debuted it during the Men’s LAX championships a few years back.

I understand the strategy to change it to drive merchandise sales, and University’s usually need some grooming in the corporate ID department, but what has irked me most about just about any university ID is they are notoriously inconsistent in their implementation.

The logo Nike designed for SU was designed for their Varsity uniforms, and pretty much stayed there. It never really was used anywhere else, and is now really hard to find any trace of it. If you go to the SU sports page, it’s a big old orange block “S” - the Nike SU logo is/was made up of more angular and interlocking letters and has all but vanished from public use.

Actually, I found just found this after many unsuccessful google searches:
http://www.fanblogs.com/big_east/003835.php

Hard to determine the victim here, Nike knows how to design things, but not run a university. University’s generally don’t give corporate identity (based on their outcomes) much time-o-day. I’m guessing based on how the MSU’s redesign has begun, it’ll be messy, and won’t just blow over. Just my $0.02.

On Jan.25.2010 at 07:41 AM

Benny’s comment is:

@ Armin

Why is it so bad to redesign university identities?

-Benny

On Jan.25.2010 at 07:52 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

Could we please get a Nike designer to ‘ball-up’ and post here?

Why is it that their designs are so darn incompetent? That MSU helmet is way out of balance. Their hoops uniform “System of Dress” designs are, in a word, ubiquitous (not just as in, ‘everyone’s wearing them,’ but more like ‘they look virtually the same’.

Nike pays lip-service to schools’ heritage … and then proceeds with its scorched-earth policy of total redesign (featuring junior high quality creativity).

They succeeded with the U of Oregon (sort of). But the company continues to push absolutely awful fashion and graphic designs on college athletics.

Would love to have some inside scoop on why the ubiquity …

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:05 AM

Dusty’s comment is:

I like the new logo. It’s not as if it’s a drastic change in the logo, just more refined. I’d tell the students to eat it. Go Bucks!

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:06 AM

Sean’s comment is:

I provided a tip last week on this, guess I was beat out.

The student body, from what I can tell, is in an uproar over this change. Tradition?

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:10 AM

Matthew G.’s comment is:

As a recent graduate of Michigan State University’s Studio Art program I think I can shed some light on why MSU fans are so frustrated with the new identity. The new identity is reminiscent of the Spartan characters from the movie 300. Over the past few years, the university has been trying to weave some parts of the movie into the athletic culture at MSU. The season after the movie came out, a lot of the athletic department’s promotional material had a 300 theme. At games it is mostly a movie clip here and a sound bite there but over the last 2-3 seasons it has become trite. I think people are fed up with the 300 theme being forced upon them and this logo redesign is the straw that broke the Spartan’s back.

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:12 AM

John Hinds’s comment is:

The new logo looks like someone was asked to draw the old logo from memory.

I don’t see any point in changing the logo if it is going to be so close to the old design anyway.

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:13 AM

ljsickmann’s comment is:

The new logo is a bit meaner and a bit more ‘old-school’, which is always good! If it were just refined a bit it would be a winner!

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:15 AM

Prescott Perez-Fox’s comment is:

Clearly, the new design was influenced by the movie 300, with sharper angles in the helmet. I’m not the expert on the historically-accurate design of helmets, but the crest atop the helmet seems forced in the new one — way out of proportion and as been said, makes the whole thing look heavy. While the old one has that dashed element which I imagine makes it more difficult to reproduce at small sizes, adding a solid block doesn’t seem to be the trick.

Classic case of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:24 AM

Neil’s comment is:

Both are quite poorly drawn. I understand why students are opposing the change - maybe if it was changing for the better they may have reacted differently. Design for American Universities does seem to be a no-win situation but then recent examples of the genre on here have been poor.

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:46 AM

Dennis’s comment is:

This is like the revamped Hawkeye logo (called, confusingly the Tiger Hawk) that Iowa fans blew up about around the mid 00’s or so. While the new one was “better” it simply didn’t have what the alumni and students wanted: unwavering nostalgic love.

Neither helmet is quite accurate but since when does that matter? This is football(and other sports, to a lesser extent)!

I prefer the helmet of the new and the plume holder of the old. Put them together and you get angry fans who will begrudgingly buy the new merchandise.

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:59 AM

Dale Campbell’s comment is:

I understand why they would want to redesign the logo as much as I understand why the logo NEEDS to be redesigned.

Changing something that a student body has such an attachment to can be pretty difficult, but I would love the challenge.

Both are poorly executed, and I have always thought that when seeing this icon on ESPN.

Being from the central Florida area, I can say that UCF (University of Central Florida) paid a HEFTY price, but I think the end result was totally successful. Curious to hear what you all think. Perhaps this would change the minds of those who are so against redesigning school logos.

http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/ucf_gets_tough.php

On Jan.25.2010 at 09:02 AM

Yoko’s comment is:

I agree with some of the other comments that the new logo just looks like a badly reproduced version of the old logo (which I for one think looks fine). While I understand the reasons for changing a mark even slightly, it seems like the minute changes in this logo are all the wrong ones. If you think about all the money that likely went into it … seems for naught.

On Jan.25.2010 at 09:02 AM

Devin’s comment is:

I think the fans / students would have been angry even if this was a great redesign. University athletics logos are something that fans hold sacred and any change is normally deemed horrible even if it’s great.

Being from the other school around there, U of M, I can also attest to the whole “300” movement as I’ve been to a few games. The new helmet does look very similar to the helmets from the movie and I can’t say I’m shocked to see this move. Their promotional stuff of recent has really had a “300” vibe to it.

I’ve always found the old logo somewhat awkward, but I don’t think the new one is that much better. I’ll be interested to see the other materials that go with this rebranding in April.

On Jan.25.2010 at 09:18 AM

Armin’s comment is:

> Why is it so bad to redesign university identities?

Because no matter what your design solution is, there is always, always, an uproar from students or faculty or alumni or a combination of all because you changed something they think doesn’t need to be changed at all. Ever.

On Jan.25.2010 at 09:20 AM

Drew Davies’s comment is:

Having worked on the team that [attempted to] redesign the Iowa Hawkeyes logo about 10 years ago, I can tell you I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Always sounds like a fantastic opportunity at the beginning, but I bet only one out of 100 redesigns for established sports programs go well.

On the Iowa project, we spent months designing what we all believed was a massive improvement over the current “tigerhawk” logo (which looks like a fat-jowled chicken). A week or so before the new logo (which had miraculously been approved by the athletic department) was to be unveiled, it was leaked to the public. The public backlash was swift and furious; how dare anyone change the sacred Hawkeye logo of the Hayden Fry era? Needless to say, the University immediately scrapped the whole project.

The best a designer can hope for in this situation is that they can weather the storm and suffer the beatdown until enough people become accustomed to the new logo that it takes hold. But don’t expect any praise or pats on the back along the way.

On Jan.25.2010 at 09:26 AM

Larry W’s comment is:

Here’s the sheer irony of all of this:

The old one looked more like a Trojan than a Spartan!

The Spartan’s were a more militant group and, to that end, had a more militant helmet that looked angrier and, well, spikier.

The new one is better for that alone, and it isn’t too radically different than the old one. Its a fairly decent brand identity redo and I like it.

On Jan.25.2010 at 09:26 AM

Erwin’s comment is:

I was immediately reminded of a similar debate going on here in Holland, where the furious fanbase of football club Ajax Amsterdam has been trying to bring back the club’s old logo for almost 20 years now.

The hideous old logo (left) was replaced by a more minimal update (right) which obviously worked a lot better on merchandise, somewhere in the early nineties I think. There have been constant protests ever since, but (luckily) without any results.

Debates like these are complete bogus and a waste of everyones time. A case can be made for the Ajax update. The MSU update should’ve never happened in the first place… Not an improvement IMHO, and definitely not worth the hassle…

On Jan.25.2010 at 09:36 AM

Brendan’s comment is:

I’m a Pitt fan, and everyone made a big stink when they tried to update the logo…

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07171/795548-142.stm

Lots of “get rid of the new beaver logo” Facebook groups came after that!

So yeah, it’s totally a tough gig to redesign college sports logos.

On Jan.25.2010 at 09:48 AM

Joe’s comment is:

Long time listener - first time caller.

As a purveyor of “mean animal” logos and a designer that has a track record in the genre of sports, my guess is that the new MSU primary logo is likely a small piece of a much larger picture.

It’s not uncommon for schools with fragmented or one dimensional identities (dimensional in the metaphorical sense) to add flexibility to their look through the creation of secondary and word marks. Since MSU suffers from both, I would imagine that Nike entered the process from a similar perspective. The potential problem with such an approach is that it’s just too damn tempting to start messing with existing components of the identity. And when such things leak out without seeing the bigger picture, they look like meaningless changes that result in a zero gain. A net wash.

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:10 AM

Joe’s comment is:

Why so angry, new spartan? The old logo is soooooo much better, it has much more character. PS- the brush thingie at the top is called a Lofos, or a crest. Impress your friends with that tidbit.

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:15 AM

Eric’s comment is:

In 1925 (even before the movie “300”), MSU chose to identify their athletics program with the Spartans for their warrior spirit, not because they had a large student population of Spartan immigrants.

Fighting for tradition is commendable. (Talented as they may be, I’d hate to see Nike designers update the Notre Dame Fightin Irish leprechaun.)

However, the “before” mark, just like the “after” mark, is yet another evolution of an earlier mark. Each generation has redrawn it, mostly simplifying it. Here it is circa 1965:
http://www.helmethut.com/College/MichState/1965.html

If the mark had remained untouched since 1925, I would be more inclined to say “leave it alone.” But since it seems to be constantly contemporized, I have to wonder what the resistance is about.

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:36 AM

Tracy’s comment is:

I am a MSU Alumni - and I am also a designer who did work for the MSU Athletic department several years ago… So, you can say I pretty much bleed green.

I am not against change - I am however, against poor design.

I thought of a few things when I saw this:
Why isn’t the logo refined? I realize it’s in the “baby” stage, but it irks me that Nike would submit a logo that is poorly drawn and unrefined.

Were there test/focus groups of MSU students and alumni?

The logo is a part of a bigger package:
Ok, fine. Are they thinking special uniforms? (Thinking about Oregon, ACK!) Or are they thinking of having 2 Spartan heads? Why have two?

Finally, I think an evolutionary logo rather than a revolutionary logo would have been more appropriate in a case like this. There are a few good variations out there now that some fellow Spartan designers have tried that would work OK, IMHO.

I am interested to see the unveiling in April and the logo applications. Go Green!

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:41 AM

Alex P.’s comment is:

I feel Nike receives a lot of unreasonable criticism for their designs and re-designs. There is no doubt at times they appear to serve themselves through their own work rather than the school/team they’re designing for but the inventiveness and conceptual process is there. Also, no one can honestly deny their work on basketball’s “System of Dress”, football’s “Rivalry Uniforms”, the rebrand of Oregon, the rebrand of Syracuse, etc., were all smashing successes. At the end of the day, it’s the clients who take responsibility for the decision making.

And for the record I do not work for Nike. However if a Nike employee happens to read this, please hire me.

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:41 AM

Derek Hollister’s comment is:

I like the edge that the new helmet portrays, but I think they should’ve kept some of the elements of the older one. I agree that the older one looks a bit too classic and the eyes make the spartan appear tired. What if they would’ve just replaced the older helmet and left the items above it the same? Regardless, I think this is still one of the stronger icons in college sports and is used very effectively on team uniforms and merch.

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:43 AM

Dennis Van Staalduinen’s comment is:

On the logo itself: the old one isn’t perfect, but it ain’t broken either. They could have made small technical tweaks without sending the fecal matter toward the spinning ceiling appliance.

On student reaction: good on them for caring enough to get worked up. Not even Nike can buy that kind of passion.

On this quote:

“As in all branding, the power of a single symbol cannot be appreciated or measured outside the context of the total presentation.”

Two things: 1) Sorry. I think it just got measured. 2) You brought this on yourselves by applying for a trademark prior to unveiling the whole system - which in terms of all the criteria that matter to IP lawyers - was totally unneccessary.

Three words: dumb brand management.

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:48 AM

rynot’s comment is:

the new one is for days better, certainly not perfect certainly, but on the right track. why redesign an identity so mininmally? merch money.

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:59 AM

Jeremy M’s comment is:

Alex P- I beg to differ that the “re-branding” of Oregon football wasw a smashing success. I’m convinced they have a different uniform depending on the day, month, air temperature, moon phase…the list could go on.

As a current MSU student it’s less about just wanting to hear ourselves talk, the new logo just stinks. This looks like a big money grab for Nike and the athletic dept. Change the logo, well you’re going to have to buy some new merchandise.

The other thing that bothers me is that Hollis won’t talk about what this “comprehensive brand and identity project” entails. As students, alumni, and fans we are supposed to sit back and not say a word, until April when everything is unveiled and then voice our opinions. What good will that do?

On Jan.25.2010 at 11:03 AM

Kwesi Amuti’s comment is:

As someone who is the son of MSU alumni and born in the Lansing, Michigan (Home of the Spartans) I have fond memories and associations of the Spartan logo and I don’t feel it should be changed…I know change is inevitable but with some things it’s just not necessary…frankly the new logo looks like someone watched the TNT marathon of “300” and got “inspired” without realizing that historically the Spartan looked closer to the traditional logo rather than the Frank Miller/Zack Snyder/Michael Wilkinson creation…and as a note to that designer, “300” was only a graphic novel/movie…the real battle was not like that at all…I was a Ancient History major before becoming a graphic designer…Ultimately the decision will rest with MSU but my 3 cents say the old logo was perfection from the beginning.

On Jan.25.2010 at 11:05 AM

MSGDS’s comment is:

Poor redesign. The old logo looks so much better, I could appreciate some minor updates, but they completely failed by redrawing the whole icon.

On Jan.25.2010 at 11:06 AM

SpartanStu’s comment is:

You know what armin? Your opinion is as much junk as our new logo. First of all get your facts straight.

The blog gang green didnt break the story. The story was broken wide open on The Red Cedar Message Board. Next came the internal memo to MSU staff and admin. That too was uncovered by the Red Cedar Message Board. The outrage flowed, the facebook sites started, then the gang green blog, then response from the athletic department. Next came all the media attention and now the facebook pages are exploding.

Overall response has been overwhelming against this new logo abomination…and for many different reasons. I understand that some of the outraged dont like change. But understand this. The new logo is poorly conceived. It evokes many images besides a Spartan.

Within a day people were seeing other things than a Spartan. Jay Leno, A high heeled shoe, a sea horse, An elephant with a low droopy wing, and tomorrow we may discover something else. Isnt the point of a logo to imprint a lasting clear image of what it represents? Now tell me how there is a clear image portrayed in the new logo when so many other things can be seen. You represent brand identity? I am shocked you have a job.

Our current logo is easily recognized as a Spartan, and only a Spartan. It has remained current. I am certain if the two tested side by side and the unknowing were asked “which came first?” our current logo would come off as more modern. My university is breaking a cardinal rule. “If it aint broke, dont fix it!” …and in all seriousness if this piece is representative of your job as a whole, your clients are getting ripped off.

On Jan.25.2010 at 11:15 AM

Mojo’s comment is:

Although I like the new logo, I think it was completely unnecessary and reeks of change for the sake of change. I never understood the need to redesign a logo that’s defined a university for years, unless it’s OBVIOUS it needs an update. Tweaks like this to me are a waste of time and money.

On Jan.25.2010 at 11:35 AM

bob digital’s comment is:

The old logo is not flawed. It does not look like it’s taking a nap, you simple idiot. It looks like a great symbol for a great school. The new one is butt-ugly and it looks like a flying elephant. I’ll assume that you mean appendage rather than appendix, which makes you an idiot. It’s called a crest. Idiot.

On Jan.25.2010 at 11:40 AM

Maureen O'Connor’s comment is:

Both of them like you said, have their flaws. I think that if they combined the new helmet with the old brush-thing it could be a better redesign. The top of the new one is too heavy and boring.

On Jan.25.2010 at 11:51 AM

Rico’s comment is:

You should have added an option for “They both suck” in the poll.

I’ve always cringed at the Michigan State logo, but the revised isn’t an improvement in my book.

On Jan.25.2010 at 11:51 AM

ScottyM’s comment is:

Whoa, Stu, easy on the attacks there buddy. You’re blaming the messenger.

Separately, I find it interesting the debate about Nike and its comprehensive rebrand efforts. I agree with the above poster that this is terrible brand management, at best. Terrible design planning and programming, at worst.

Is UOregon a success? Sure. The “O” is universal. The constantly swapping of uniforms is now part of the comprehensive Oregon brand identity… not just its logo. The public identifies with the ? around what they’ll see with Oregon. Though, the O stays true.

‘Cuse? Not really. Arguments could be made for either side.

The bigger picture is the System of Dress and the Artillery, er, I mean Rivalry System of uniform design … those are geared toward “innovation.” Sure, the material may be innovative. Though, what happens with the design is ubiquity … how to replicate the same design over and over. The SOD stuff is gigantically baggy short + tight tops. Tops that eschew traditional stripes, collars, and such, for tabs of color on the shoulders, sweat patches under arms, no color sleeves, and so forth. Completely disowning traditional systems of style.

The problem? Universities really don’t have a choice. Few in college athletic departments are skilled enough to push back and say “bunk,” for fear that Nike will ignore them and move on to the next victim university. Perhaps, they’re simply thrilled Nike “cares” so much to do this. Perhaps, it’s an old-boy network with no one on staff who actually understands consumer-related comprehensive brand management.

When Nike can dictate the look of, oftentimes, 100-200 year-old institutions, that’s a problem. Shame on the universities for not hiring consultants to shepherd the process of dealing with them.

On Jan.25.2010 at 12:04 PM

Mike’s comment is:

The new one is hideous. Like a pro wrestler has gone soft and doughy in retirement.

On Jan.25.2010 at 12:10 PM

Tracy’s comment is:

@ ScottyM

I totally agree - MSU should have hired a consultant as well as tested the new mark - regardless if it’s just a “part” of a new identity.

Even if the Spartan Helmet is going on a uniform variation once a year - you can’t forget that two years(!) went into the development of this logo. Proper research/brand consultation should have been executed.

On Jan.25.2010 at 12:18 PM

kuratowa’s comment is:

What happened to brand differentiation. Designers are quick to congratulate the tweaking of an athletic logo to be meaner and more tough. Soon you end up up with a field full of nothing but mean, tough logos. The one that chooses to remain with the traditional design would then, by default, be the one that stands out from the rest.

On Jan.25.2010 at 12:19 PM

Carlson’s comment is:

Let’s keep it civil, folks.

SpartanStu, bob digital, if you’re truly interested in persuading anyone, you’ll have better results if you don’t call people names or insult them professionally. Grow up.

Then explain to us specifically why you think the new logo is such an “abomination.” Just because it “evokes many images besides a Spartan,” like Jay Leno or a flying elephant? Really? That’s it?

On Jan.25.2010 at 12:20 PM

Nate’s comment is:

This is really a matter of emotions rather than aesthetics.

Sure, both logos have their technical shortcomings, but they get the job done (it’s a spartan, we got it). The only people who will truly care about the trivial nuances are MSU fans.

Best of luck to the board that gets to make a decision on this logo debacle. You have your work cut out for you.

On Jan.25.2010 at 12:59 PM

John’s comment is:

It’s easy to say “get over it” when you’ve got zero affiliation with the institution.

Commentors like Nate can dismiss the uproar as trivial but to those of us that actually care or are involved in the process in some way? It matters a great deal.

On Jan.25.2010 at 01:20 PM

Ainsley’s comment is:

Thanks for posting this, Armin!

If this is just the tip of the iceburg for this whole “rebranding” process, I’m afraid to see what things are going to look like come April when it’s all revealed. I’m glad I’m graduating in May! We’ve got enough problems going on at this university and we definitely did NOT need to spend any money on a new, unnecessary logo from Nike.

While I am not one of the students that have jumped on the Facebook-revolt bandwagon, I’m glad people are making their voices heard. Go Green!

On Jan.25.2010 at 01:22 PM

bob digital’s comment is:

@Carlson

IT LOOKS LIKE A FUCKING ELEPHANT! YES, THAT IS IT! You obviously are not a Spartan.

On Jan.25.2010 at 01:36 PM

Erwin’s comment is:

I think I saw Leno in there for a second, but haven’t found the elephant yet!

On Jan.25.2010 at 01:42 PM

Carlson’s comment is:

You’re right, bob, I’m not a Spartan. And I’m sure the rest of the Spartans are glad to have someone as articulate as you on their side. You’ve really won me over.

On Jan.25.2010 at 02:49 PM

Nate’s comment is:

@John,

The passion surrounding the logo is understandable. I was just acknowledging the fact that I (and most of the community here) don’t have emotional ties to the logo like an MSU fan. Point being, it’s difficult to objectively defend one logo over the other.

I’m interested in hearing which logo you prefer.

On Jan.25.2010 at 03:05 PM

Jhames’s comment is:

I don’t understand why the former logo required a redesign. The crest has more character than its successor and the helmet wasn’t evoking a tired sports team “we’re dynamic!” elliptical stress. Removing the Coptic styling of the helmet altogether denies the Grecian heritage of Sparta.

The new logo one part menacing, one part frilly mullet.

On Jan.25.2010 at 03:15 PM

Von Glitschka’s comment is:

The old one at least had a bit more elegant and graceful curves to it. A simple “Refresh” of the old would have been suffice without adding the unnecessary detail and hinky curves the new one contains.

Looks like the vector work was handled by a monkey on crack.

Von

On Jan.25.2010 at 03:30 PM

don Kelly’s comment is:

Two years? Really? Two years??
Anyway… not really partial to either of them. But I like elements of both IF they had to stay with that general look.
I like the top of the eye piece and the nose guard of the new.. but the bottom of the helmet and “brush and holder” part of the old. Still it’d be nice to see in what context it will be used.
Where’s the type that will accompany it?

On Jan.25.2010 at 03:37 PM

yoke’s comment is:

this is best.

On Jan.25.2010 at 03:56 PM

Jay Lindsay’s comment is:

After looking around the internet and reading some articles about why the new logo was chosen, I understand the university’s decision. I think the new logo is a better choice, but wish that they’d kept the broken lines above the helmet to open-up the logo. Nevertheless, I do like the new logo and think they team has done their research to develop a history-influenced logo.

Thanks!

On Jan.25.2010 at 03:58 PM

CJ’s comment is:

I think a more subtle update would have been better also…

On Jan.25.2010 at 04:00 PM

Tom Browne’s comment is:

They both suck. Go Blue!

On Jan.25.2010 at 04:18 PM

khedaywi’s comment is:

The eyes are a definite upgrade. Much more intimidating.

I’m just waiting for the football team to abandon traditional helmets and sport real Spartan helmets.

Who knows, maybe it’ll be a part of the new identity package. *Is hoping :)

On Jan.25.2010 at 04:34 PM

SpartanStu’s comment is:

To Mike and Carlson,

I agree maybe I was too harsh, but when you cant get the facts straight, thats a problem. When you dont have the facts your interpretation is very often wrong.

Add to that, telling me to bend over and take it really upsets me. If you wont stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

Have you seen the elephant of which I mentioned earlier? Believe me, once you do, you wont see anything else….

Take your finger or whatever and cover up the plume. Look at the remaining image and all you see is the elephant.

On Jan.25.2010 at 04:48 PM

DC’s comment is:

Tom Izzo’s response:

http://www.freep.com/article/20100125/SPORTS07/100125043/1055/SPORTS07/Disappointed-Izzo-defends-MSUs-new-logo

On Jan.25.2010 at 05:00 PM

bob digital’s comment is:

von glitschka has the right idea

On Jan.25.2010 at 05:34 PM

Douglas’s comment is:

Speaking as an MSU alumni, I could care less. :)
That school (most schools) put too much emphasis on their sports teams and keg parties.

On Jan.25.2010 at 05:38 PM

Alex P.’s comment is:

CJ & Yoke have great suggestions.

@Jeremy M
http://ow.ly/10nbd
I’m surprised you think Oregon’s rebrand isn’t a success. The fact that they do have a different uniform combination for every game makes them by far the most unique and forward thinking programs in college sports. They’re building tradition on the untraditional. Personally, I think their uniforms are quite tasteful without any excessive graphics or piping. Even with a green and yellow color scheme, the identity is still open to neutral colors like white, gray & black. Also, Nike dropped all duck cartoons, leaving us only with the minimal “O” logo which will probably never change. Though even if you still hate all of this, you’re talking about it, right?

On Jan.25.2010 at 06:06 PM

Shane’s comment is:

In my opinion the only part of the new logo that begins to be an improvement is the eye/nose area. The rest make it worse. I don’t at all like the little serify chunks on the top and bottom back edge of the helmet. I also like the contrast of the old logo, specifically the section in between the middle in relationship to the other more solid shapes, and don’t think it should be dumped. I’m not saying there aren’t improvements to be made, but these aren’t it, I’m going to go join that facebook group.

On Jan.25.2010 at 06:42 PM

Ray Rubio’s comment is:

New logo is not smart!

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:29 PM

Gary’s comment is:

Gangrene!

On Jan.25.2010 at 08:59 PM

shiftklick’s comment is:

The old one was a laid back intellectual spartan who read books in his spare time from pummeling barbarians, although there were rumors that he prefers pink over green. The new one took steroids and participates as a contender in the UFC now and then, but hides the fact he likes to read books in fear of being called a sissy. They both have the same mother but different fathers.

Which one’s better? I’ll reserve judgement until I see the whole program.

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:20 PM

John Mindiola III’s comment is:

The new logo is an abomination. Absolutely no craft was employed. The point made about universities needing to hire brand consultants, or bring them in-house, is brilliant. If your school is 100-200 years old, you should have a team like this already! And not just for sports, but for all marketing efforts. On the larger scale, it’s really not about slick branding and graphics to lure in some kid (because they’re going for the school, not the colors), it’s about consistency and competency. If a storied institution can’t keep its visuals in line, what does that say about other matters on campus?

On Jan.25.2010 at 10:21 PM

shiftklick’s comment is:

I think they were going for a more historically accurate depiction of a spartan. They probably did a few archeology on the side while designing the logo. The old logo I think more closely resembles the trademark for a famous brand of prophylactic and not a spartan, historically speaking.

On Jan.26.2010 at 12:13 AM

shiftklick’s comment is:

The two years they spent were probably on archeological digs in ancient sparta sites doing research. They also probably spent a lot of time analyzing the movie 300. That’s why it took 2 years.

On Jan.26.2010 at 12:37 AM

spartanscientist’s comment is:

@Douglas

We have that Spartan head all over the Cyclotron laboratory, parts of our observatories, major instruments etc. Don’t just dismiss the logo as an artifactual remnant of sports, it’s part of the identity of the University as a whole.

Even lobbying for the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams took place at the football game (we got waxed by OSU), and we had Bucks fans nice enough to sign things for us as a fellow Big Ten School. Our campaign had the school logos and advertisements everywhere, prominently involving - you guessed it - the head. The head that any ten year old in Michigan could identify easily.

PS It’s “I am an MSU alumnus”, singular. Apparently you were one of those guys too busy with the keg parties.

On Jan.26.2010 at 01:16 AM

Bob Smith’s comment is:

Being a brand consultant, I can tell you about the nightmares I have about new branding projects not being received by the masses. At first look, the new logo is classical in the sense that it represents the type of helmet that the ancient greeks. The old logo is aerodynamic and lacks that classic ancient greek look.

I don’t know too much about the background of the traditions of Michigan State, but I don’t really conjure up 1 image that says, “That is Michigan State” to me. In fact, when I saw the logo that they are moving away from, I flashed on a logo similar that a rival high school of mine from back in the day used.

I know this, however, I now know Michigan State and the next time I see the new logo or even the old logo, I will know that it is Michigan State’s.

On Jan.26.2010 at 01:17 AM

Bob Smith’s comment is:

Another thing of note. Michigan State doesn’t completely own the trademark to the logo that they are moving away from. That mark is used far too often by other entities.

I can understand the need for the rebranding initiative. They have no identity they can call their own.

On Jan.26.2010 at 01:29 AM

buy dsi r4’s comment is:

I would like to say I for Michigan State Spartans helmet logo I like them both equally.Thanks for such a great article and share here….

On Jan.26.2010 at 02:06 AM

Iulian’s comment is:

Armin, it seems that an even more thankless job than redesigning university identities is reviewing redesigned university identities :))

On Jan.26.2010 at 02:59 AM

Giant Moose’s comment is:

The proposed MSU logo was first uncovered by me and posted on the message board SpartanTailgate.com — the Gang Green blog should not get the credit.

http://www.spartantailgate.com/forums/msu-red-cedar-message-board/425215-msu-planning-change-spartan-logo.html

On Jan.26.2010 at 08:09 AM

Need_you’s comment is:

What do you think about this version?

On Jan.26.2010 at 08:38 AM

Need_you’s comment is:

Or what about this one… (I changed the notch for the eye)

On Jan.26.2010 at 08:52 AM

Guy Incognito’s comment is:

As a holder of 2 degrees from MSU (an alumnus, if you will, Spartanscientist), I’m embarrassed by some of the comments on here - SpartanStu, I’m looking in your direction.

I understand the uproar, and also worry about what plans Nike has in store. Personally, I think a combo of the old and new like some have already posted here would be great… But let’s at least keep this civil, and not act like dolts.

On Jan.26.2010 at 09:28 AM

Tracy’s comment is:

I am hoping that everyone remembers: Nike doesn’t own the brand – the MSU nation does, the students, the fans and the alumni. They have the power to do what they want with the brand, and believe what they want to believe about it. All in all, I think Nike/MSU Officials have FAILED in this area.

I am curious to see the rest of the package this new mark is a part of!

On Jan.26.2010 at 10:15 AM

Alex P.’s comment is:

@Need_You

Fantastic!

On Jan.26.2010 at 10:39 AM

JonB’s comment is:

Yes, MSU can do what it wants with it’s intellectual property. Yes, both logos look enough like an ancient Greek helmet to convey the idea. However, the school wants the students to buy into the identity, to be part of the Spartan Nation. They surely want alumni to have a sense of belonging when it’s time to ask for contributions. The logo is the visual representation of that identity. Think of it this way, your Dad calls and says he’s changing the spelling of the family name because he and a buddy (Nike) are going to make some cash on the deal… It just stinks.

On Jan.26.2010 at 02:44 PM

elisa’s comment is:

I like Von Glitschka’s version better. I don’t think the new one is too bad, it can be improved, and you’re right, it’s not really that different.

On Jan.26.2010 at 04:51 PM

Douglas’s comment is:

@spartanscientist’s

Fair enough. I am guilty as charged for killing too many braincells in East Lansing. I suppose my point was that this helmet modification/update is getting too many people in a tizzy for something so small. If I’m going to debate the new Spartan logo, I want my energy to go into something as impactful as the 2012 Olympics. Give people something worth hating… or loving. Granted there are many purist and conservative people in the Great Lake State, and diehard sports fanatics alike (yes, I still believe the issue here revolves around sports sales, even though I personally respect the branding on your laboratory instruments as well) who go crazy when something so minor occurs. But just think, all your retro helmet knick knacks are going to be that much more special now!!1

On Jan.26.2010 at 05:54 PM

rynot’s comment is:

i think there is a broader discussion outside of design regarding the import of athletics vs. academics at our universities because MSU is certainly not being represented well on this board as an institution of higher learning and reason.

On Jan.26.2010 at 05:56 PM

bob digital’s comment is:

Kalin Lucas just did U of M in the butt-hole!

On Jan.26.2010 at 09:27 PM

Jen’s comment is:

As a Michigan native and lifelong Spartan fan, I am just glad the dang thing is still a helmet and didn’t turn into a badger or whatever that ugly Michigan critter is.

(As for the logo, I would have liked the old-new combo posted by CJ up yonder. I think the new one looks a bit bloated.)

Go green! Go white!

On Jan.27.2010 at 09:53 AM

Alexandra’s comment is:

As one of the 31,000 fans on “The Old Spartan Logo” am I am insulted that people seem to think we are “overreacting”. We have the right as students and as alums(who pay the university a ton of money to be here)to have a say in this new logo project. The helmet is a symbol of tradition, pride, originality. We wear it to show our love and our dedication to our school. All this new symbol seems to say is ” I am a result of a once proud university who feels the need to sell-out to NIKE in order to help out it athletic department” And I for one do not want to wear the symbol of a “cooperate sell-out”. If NIKE wanted to really “help” us, they should have give money to our academic programs that just got cut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Jan.27.2010 at 09:57 AM

Pennsylvania workers compensation lawyer’s comment is:

It seems too close for me to care enough to not side with the students. If the alumni, and student populous like the identity that they support, let them have it.

On Jan.27.2010 at 03:15 PM

JR Salazar’s comment is:

Students: “This is madness!”
Board: “Madness? THIS IS SPARTA!”

On Jan.27.2010 at 08:06 PM

Gentleman Agitator’s comment is:

Oooh, I guess this is the bad ass Spartan. Ooh, that angry eye slit. Isn’t it the 20-teens now and not 1997? When will this trend to bad ass every athletic logo end? Nike, as usual, just can’t help themselves. Though it could have been bad assed a whole lot more. It looks lazy and bad assed. That is a bad combo. Taking the white spaces out in the crest of the helmet and squaring off the points was probably too make it faster and cheaper for Nike’s sweat shop labors to mass produce. I doubt the alumns or students will get a reprieve. Once the $$$ have been spent with the promise that the university will make even more on their investment, there will be no going back. I am very sorry to say Spartan nation, in this nation as a whole anymore, tradition means little.

On Jan.27.2010 at 08:29 PM

Jon’s comment is:

I go to Iowa State University- known for many, many years as ISU. Last year, the athletic department decide to rebrand the team as “I State”, a term I have never heard used to refer to the team in my 22 years in Ames. To top it off, we were provided with a very boring typographic logo that doesn’t really work on uniforms.

MSU: bad decision
Students: over-reaction

On Feb.04.2010 at 11:34 AM

Jon’s comment is:

I go to Iowa State University- known for many, many years as ISU. Last year, the athletic department decide to rebrand the team as “I State”, a term I have never heard used to refer to the team in my 22 years in Ames. To top it off, we were provided with a very boring typographic logo that doesn’t really work on uniforms.

MSU: bad decision
Students: over-reaction

On Feb.04.2010 at 11:40 AM

Joshua Drake’s comment is:

Ha! Student activism works again! Today, the university announced it won’t be changing the logo after all, in consideration of “a flurry of concern and discontentment among some of our students, alumni, and fans.”

http://www.freep.com/article/20100205/SPORTS07/100205012/1319/MSU-wont-alter-logo

On Feb.05.2010 at 10:56 AM

Pei Lepez’s comment is:

Kent Calkins

On Jun.29.2010 at 06:37 PM

christian louboutin shoes’s comment is:

They are very different I have never seen anything like them. I probably would have loved them when I was younger but now flats are fine.

On Jul.31.2010 at 12:46 AM