tho0505 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, UND1983 said: My how attitudes change. 4-5 years ago it was "I hope the university is ready to sell ZERO merchandise now that the Sioux logo is gone". Now it's, "Let's keep releasing the Sioux gear and call it a Legacy Collection. That way we can still make money....without having to look like we're taking a stand on the nickname." Faison Quote
UND1983 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 1 minute ago, tho0505 said: News flash for everyone. 99.9% of the world (let a alone this country) couldn't find North Dakota on a map. It doesn't matter if people mistake our ND for Notre Dame, they are a nationally recognized brand. To think this new logo is going to magically make UND more relevant from a national brand standpoint, is a far stretch. Not only will this logo not make us stand out more, but doesn't look good anyways. Mississippi, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, all get confused with one another at times. Who cares really, it doesn't lessen the impact of the school and it's athletic program. The point I tried to make earlier was that UND probably could have kept the "ND", yes. But, it wasn't going to be the primary logo or used predominantly anytime soon anyway. There isn't a marketing firm in the world that would base their entire presentation for a NEW nickname around an old logo that has NOTHING to do with that new nickname. 3 1 Quote
Teeder11 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, tho0505 said: News flash for everyone. 99.9% of the world (let a alone this country) couldn't find North Dakota on a map. It doesn't matter if people mistake our ND for Notre Dame, they are a nationally recognized brand. To think this new logo is going to magically make UND more relevant from a national brand standpoint, is a far stretch. Not only will this logo not make us stand out more, but doesn't look good anyways. Mississippi, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, all get confused with one another at times. Who cares really, it doesn't lessen the impact of the school and it's athletic program. Exactly. So can we quit bitching about logos now and start talking how were gonna win more championships? 3 1 Quote
UND1983 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 1 minute ago, tho0505 said: Now it's, "Let's keep releasing the Sioux gear and call it a Legacy Collection. That way we can still make money....without having to look like we're taking a stand on the nickname." Faison What do they make, a thousand bucks or so? They sold so little that the money had very, very little to do with it. Quote
tho0505 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Teeder11 said: Exactly. So can we quit bitching about logos now and start talking how were gonna win more championships? In context, my point was in support of keeping the interlocking ND, NOT in support of the new logo. Quote
Teeder11 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 4 minutes ago, tho0505 said: Now it's, "Let's keep releasing the Sioux gear and call it a Legacy Collection. That way we can still make money....without having to look like we're taking a stand on the nickname." Faison Um, has nothing to do with recouping lost revenue and everything to do with the settlement with the NCAA. With as little as is put up for sale each time, you might be able to pay for the cost of production. Quote
southpaw Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 1 minute ago, tho0505 said: In context, my point was in support of keeping the interlocking ND, NOT in support of the new logo. I would like to see documentation or any sort of proof that it doesn't lessen the school or its athletic programs. You've stated it as fact, so I'm sure you have proof. You've already stated that other schools get confused with those with M logos. How does that not lessen the impact of a school? Quote
Teeder11 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 1 minute ago, tho0505 said: In context, my point was in support of keeping the interlocking ND, NOT in support of the new logo. What's new? Quote
Cratter Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 2 hours ago, southpaw said: They wanted to get out the main version of the logo before Kennedy took over. Seems like a poor reason to release a logo that they admit still needs tweaking. Quote
Cratter Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 16 minutes ago, Teeder11 said: Exactly. So can we quit bitching about logos now and start talking how were gonna win more championships? Those two can't be talked about among sioux sports . Com at the same time? Quote
Teeder11 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 10 minutes ago, Cratter said: Those two can't be talked about among sioux sports . Com at the same time? Too funny, and apparently very true! Quote
southpaw Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 31 minutes ago, Cratter said: Seems like a poor reason to release a logo that they admit still needs tweaking. Yeah, you're right. There hasn't been any backlash towards the current president over the logo release at all. Might as well have just pushed all this joy and love into Kennedy's first couple of days The logo isn't being "tweaked." Every logo has accompanying variations for different backgrounds. Those haven't been released yet. The main logo on the UND page is not being changed. Quote
tho0505 Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 48 minutes ago, southpaw said: I would like to see documentation or any sort of proof that it doesn't lessen the school or its athletic programs. You've stated it as fact, so I'm sure you have proof. You've already stated that other schools get confused with those with M logos. How does that not lessen the impact of a school? Isn't that petty, real classy. I stated my opinion, you took it as a fact. You're telling me Michigan's logo getting confused with Minnesota's lessens Michigan's impact? Or vice versa? I would just say the individual is the one that isn't aware of sports logos. 1 Quote
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 1 hour ago, UND1983 said: What do they make, a thousand bucks or so? They sold so little that the money had very, very little to do with it. Not saying they only did it for the money but a thousand bucks? Say they conservatively sold 500 sweatshirts and hats at $70 and $30. That's very conservatively $50k. 1 Quote
Cratter Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 33 minutes ago, southpaw said: Yeah, you're right. There hasn't been any backlash towards the current president over the logo release at all. Might as well have just pushed all this joy and love into Kennedy's first couple of days The logo isn't being "tweaked." Every logo has accompanying variations for different backgrounds. Those haven't been released yet. The main logo on the UND page is not being changed. I sure hope the future president could have handled some criticism of a logo he had nothing to do with...otherwise he's probably not the right man for the job. We don't know what tweaks are coming or what they will look like. It's anyone's guess. Just the administration has claimed tweaks are coming. We just "know" at a minimum there will be at least a border or different color combos...things they didn't want to release at the ceremony because they wanted to rush it so we didn't hurt the new guys feelings.... ..or eds ego took over and wasn't going to pass up that opportunity in the spotlight....I'll go with B. 2 Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted June 30, 2016 Posted June 30, 2016 3 hours ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said: Not saying they only did it for the money but a thousand bucks? Say they conservatively sold 500 sweatshirts and hats at $70 and $30. That's very conservatively $50k. You do realize that UND gets very little of that money, don't you? They get a licensing fee, which is probably in the 1-2% range, maybe a little bit higher in best case scenarios. Manufacturing companies, trucking companies and retail stores get the bulk of that money. I believe that Scheels and the Sioux Shop sold most of the merchandise, neither is owned by UND. Even the bookstore is contracted out. So on $50k in merchandise sales the licensing fee would probably net UND $500-1,000. Quote
UND1983 Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 1 hour ago, 82SiouxGuy said: You do realize that UND gets very little of that money, don't you? They get a licensing fee, which is probably in the 1-2% range, maybe a little bit higher in best case scenarios. Manufacturing companies, trucking companies and retail stores get the bulk of that money. I believe that Scheels and the Sioux Shop sold most of the merchandise, neither is owned by UND. Even the bookstore is contracted out. So on $50k in merchandise sales the licensing fee would probably net UND $500-1,000. Very similar to what I stated. Money not even an objective of the legacy collection. For some reason I have a feeling the "ND" makes a comeback sometime down the road. Quote
UND1983 Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, DaveK said: The logo doesn't have to pertain to the nickname. As you will see if you look at the primary logos of other schools across the nation, more often than not a logo is simply a letter or letters that represent the name of the university and/or state. Right. Logos and names that have been around for, well...ever. UND chose a NEW nickname, if you would read what I wrote. The company isn't going to suggest to keep an old completely unrelated logo for a new nickname/marketing campaign. How hard is this to understand? 1 1 Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 23 minutes ago, DaveK said: It was never on the football helmet. Do you have any explanation for that? Just this: http://und.edu/identity/_files/docs/style-guide-june-2013.pdf Quote Restriction: The Interlocking ND mark must always be used in conjunction with another University of North Dakota trademark as illustrated with these examples. So if there was another University of North Dakota trademark on the uniform, done. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 Best one I've heard yet: "Hawks aren't white!" Uh-huh ... uh-huh ... go on, tell me more ... http://www.wvrrc.org/snow.html https://www.nps.gov/chat/blogs/Thats-no-Snowy-Owl-Its-a-Leucistic-Red-Tailed-Hawk.htm 1 Quote
The Sicatoka Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 I love this whole "dove" thing. Doves have circular eyes and pointed beaks. I haven't seen too many doves with hooked beaks and vectored eyes. Quote
Blackheart Posted July 1, 2016 Posted July 1, 2016 34 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said: Best one I've heard yet: "Hawks aren't white!" Why do you have to bring race into this? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.