New Era, New Look

[GeauxSioux]

New era, new look

However, there are three noticeable changes.

n One, North Dakota will be spelled out on the front of the jersey.

n Two, the interlocking ND logo on the Sioux green helmets will have a slightly different look.

n Three, there will be no Sioux logo to be seen anywhere on the uniform. That

Edited July 26, 2009 by GeauxSioux

[MplsBison]

This is more or less the new standard Nike uniform style. A lot of teams have this now.

Looking good!

Fully agree on changing the logo away from the one Notre Dame uses.

[Diggler]

I hate the pointless striping that is the Nike template.

[MplsBison]

I hate the pointless striping that is the Nike template.

It's either that "standard" Nike template with the stripes or the dull solids look, like SDSU's Nike uniforms they've had for a couple seasons now.

Unless you're a Nike "Elite" school, they aren't going to design a custom for you.

[GeauxSioux]

More on the new era, new look Logos.

[Shawn-O]

I've seen worse, but I don't know why they had to change it. I've always subscribed to the "don't fix what isn't broken" mentality. In all of college and pro sports, the vast majority of uniforms that would make a "best of" list in any given sport are the ones that have remained the same for as far back as any of us can remember. The teams that alter their uniforms every 10 years or so never really establish much of an identity.

My understanding is that UND is no longer allowed use of the "Notre Dame interlocking ND", so I think that was as much a reason for tweaking it as the name uncertainty.

[82SiouxGuy]

My understanding is that UND is no longer allowed use of the "Notre Dame interlocking ND", so I think that was as much a reason for tweaking it as the name uncertainty.

Who cares what anyone else thinks? UND should keep using the interlocking ND logo as long as they want, even if that other "UND" doesn't like it. :lol:

[jimdahl]

The image sheet linked above does contain some language about how the interlocking ND should only be used in conjunction with another trademark. That, presumably, is for the purpose of differentiating from the other ND. I don't recall if the old sheet contained that guidance.

However, my real point in replying in this thread is that I feel I'm missing something -- I don't really see how these new ND logos represent such a departure from the Notre Dame logo. Different strokes of the N and D pass in front of/behind each other than on the Notre Dame logo, but otherwise it looks to me like exactly the same logo colored green with a shadow? A modest modernization at most, IMHO, as prep for potentially having to use it as a primary logo this year, but I don't really see it as a departure from the Notre Dame logo or staking out a particularly unique look for UND.

[The Sicatoka]

The image sheet linked above does contain some language about how the interlocking ND should only be used in conjunction with another trademark. That, presumably, is for the purpose of differentiating from the other ND. I don't recall if the old sheet contained that guidance.

However, my real point in replying in this thread is that I feel I'm missing something -- I don't really see how these new ND logos represent such a departure from the Notre Dame logo. Different strokes of the N and D pass in front of/behind each other than on the Notre Dame logo, but otherwise it looks to me like exactly the same logo colored green with a shadow? A modest modernization at most, IMHO, as prep for potentially having to use it as a primary logo this year, but I don't really see it as a departure from the Notre Dame logo or staking out a particularly unique look for UND.

The old sheet had the same "use in conjunction with" guidance. I believe that's why we saw "Sioux" added to the interlock on the 2008-09 hockey shoulder patches.

The key difference is the font. "Our Lady of the Lake" (South Bend, IN) uses a courier block font with outlining. This new logo looks like it's based off the font used to make the UND flame logo. I say that based on the sharp, pointed serif used on the "N" in both cases. I'd say Athletics was "inspired" by the flame logo's font but then they "toughened" it up (bold, more block). See the stylesheet in the link GeauxSioux provided to look at U, N, D letters there for comparisons.

The other difference I see is that "Our Lady" uses it just as a two-dimensional logo. This new logo (see my avatar) is shaded to make it look three-dimensional.

[The Sicatoka]

Black trim it is, Sica.

Someone finally listened to me.

[Shawn-O]

I find this topic troubling on a few different levels...

A. UND and Notre Dame have both used this logo for as long as I can remember and it had never been an issue in the past.

B. From what I understand, UND had it first.

C. There are multiple teams that use a pawprint as a logo, so why can't two teams use the ND logo?

They tweaked it with some black trim to give it a three-dimensional look, just like this helmet. I'm not sure what there is to be troubled about.

[MplsBison]

You may also consider that since UND was DII, Notre Dame didn't care. Now that UND is DI, they might care.

[The Sicatoka]

Like I said, the old sheet had the same "use in conjunction with" guidance. I believe UND used it first, but "Our Lady" trademarked it first. That's why UND had to have the "use in conjunction with".

Personally, I'd rather not have a logo that makes people ask (and I've heard this), "Why do you guys have a Notre Dame logo on your shoulder?"

There's nothing wrong with freshening it up in conjunction with the DI transition.

[jimdahl]

Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful that they just tweaked the logo rather than scrap it altogether and replace it with something completely different. I just don't understand why it should be an issue at all.

That was kind of my point -- I don't think these tweaks were enough to really move it any further from the Notre Dame logo, if Notre Dame actually cared. The two are still quite clearly the same logo, color scheme and minor font deviations aside.

Instead, I see these tweaks as UND trying to revive the logo (freshen it up, as Sicatoka said) in anticipation of increased usage.

[82SiouxGuy]

Like I said, the old sheet had the same "use in conjunction with" guidance. I believe UND used it first, but "Our Lady" trademarked it first. That's why UND had to have the "use in conjunction with".

Personally, I'd rather not have a logo that makes people ask (and I've heard this), "Why do you guys have a Notre Dame logo on your shoulder?"

There's nothing wrong with freshening it up in conjunction with the DI transition.

I've heard that multiple times in different parts of the country. And people don't really care who used it first. They perceive it as being "the Notre Dame logo" and you know what they say about perception. Some deviation might be a good move.

[Let'sGoHawks!]

But like I said previously, if multiple teams can use a pawprint as a logo what's wrong with two teams using the ND logo?

The ND logo=Notre Dame. Sad, but true. It is what it is.

[82SiouxGuy]

To compare how schools can use the same logo I went back and looked at how many schools used paw prints logos on their football helmets. The entire current list in FBS is:

Clemson Tiger paw print

The FBS list in historical terms (to 1960) also includes:

University of Ohio from late 70s to mid 90s

California used a bear paw print with Cal over it during the mid 80s

Since this list was statistically very small I moved on to include current FCS school:

South Dakota Coyote paw print

Sam Houston State Bearcats have a small paw print superimposed over SH since 2005

Savannah State has a small paw print under initials SSU, have used a plain paw print in the past at times

The FCS list in historical terms includes:

Idaho State for 1 season in 2000

Northeastern in the mid to late 90s

Brown had bear print in early 2000s

Albany had great dane paw print late 70s to mid 80s

Lafayette in early 80s

Drake in early 2000s

Still not finding a lot I moved on to DII current teams:

Northwood

St Josephs

Northwest Missouri State has Bearcat print with N imbedded

Pace has paw print with P imbedded

Wayne State has paw print with WSC imbedded

Adams State has grizzly print

West Virginia Wesleyan bobcat print

And DII historical teams:

West Alabama through early 2000s

Concord a couple of times

I could have gone on to DIII and NAIA, but felt this was enough research. A couple of schools have logos that use initials and then add toes to try to make it look similar to a paw print. This research is not 100% accurate, especially for the smaller schools.

My conclusions are that very few schools use paw prints as logos, especially at the upper levels. At the upper levels, even the few schools that have used them have tended to stop. And that the only schools that copy logos or use logos very similar to other schools are the smaller schools. Division I schools try to have unique logos so that they are recognizable. Sorry for the length of this post.

[MplsBison]

But like I said previously, if multiple teams can use a pawprint as a logo what's wrong with two teams using the ND logo?

Because the entire nation associates that ND logo with Notre Dame.

It is what it is, don't be obtuse.

[Big A HG]

I don't mind any of the new logos, other than that HORRENDOUS new font they have. It looks so cheesy, I can't even describe how much I dislike it. I think it would be best suited for a 2nd grade soccer team.

[The Sicatoka]

Cincinnati's Reds and Chicago's Bears use a similar "C" but different sports. (Concordia in Moorhead, MN, uses it also.)

Green Bay and Georgia use a similar "G", but again, different (pro/college) contexts.

The goal is unique identity and identification.

Today's quiz:

Name two major players in a single professional or single NCAA DI sport that "share" a common logo.

The one I come up with is the interlocked ND used by Notre Dame and North Dakota.

If it's no big deal, why don't Washington and Wisconsin use the same "W" and Michigan and Minnesota use the same "M".

The goal is unique identity and identification.

[Shawn-O]

I don't mind any of the new logos, other than that HORRENDOUS new font they have. It looks so cheesy, I can't even describe how much I dislike it. I think it would be best suited for a 2nd grade soccer team.

Yeah the arch ones aren't very sharp.

[Big A HG]

Cincinnati's Reds and Chicago's Bears use a similar "C" but different sports. (Concordia in Moorhead, MN, uses it also.)

Green Bay and Georgia use a similar "G", but again, different (pro/college) contexts.

The goal is unique identity and identification.

Today's quiz:

Name two major players in a single professional or single NCAA DI sport that "share" a common logo.

The one I come up with is the interlocked ND used by Notre Dame and North Dakota.

If it's no big deal, why don't Washington and Wisconsin use the same "W" and Michigan and Minnesota use the same "M".

The goal is unique identity and identification.

Grambling State also uses the Packers G. I know you said major players, but North Dakota is no more of a major player in college athletics than GSU.

[sikolec]

Grambling State also uses the Packers G. I know you said major players, but North Dakota is no more of a major player in college athletics than GSU.

Georgia Bulldogs use the same "G" logo as the Packers and GSU. (Just slight color differences)

[The Sicatoka]

Today's quiz:

Name two major players in a single professional or single NCAA DI sport that "share" a common logo.

The one I come up with is the interlocked ND used by Notre Dame and North Dakota.

You folks are missing the point:

Teams at different sports or levels of play share common logos (the "G" for example at the NFL, FBS, and FCS levels).

What you don't see are (like I said) Wisconsin and Washington sharing a "W" or Minnesota and Michigan sharing an "M".

Notre Dame and North Dakota are at the same level in DI hockey. (OK, "Our Lady" has some work to catch up to North Dakota. ) They shouldn't share a logo: unique identities.

[UNDvince97-01]

I really like the new-look Nike uniforms. The only thing I would change is adding a Sioux logo obviously , but we all know why that is absent. As far as the new interlocking "ND" - I think it will just take all of us a little time to get used to. I can understand why UND wants to separate itself in terms of marketing and branding. Like many have already stated, it really isn't all that different.