When have you seen it?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
Printable View
When have you seen it?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
So you want throw away the best logo MSU has so a niche sport’s brand isn’t diminished?Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonBelle
Why doesn’t Bama, UGA, or Auburn do this with their baseball teams?
Why would they want their inconsistent baseball programs diminishing their football brand?
ANYTHING would be better than that crap we have currently. The Flying M kicks the shit out of our current logo
This we can agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
Your avatar pic is my personal preference. But the MoverS would be better than the banner too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
And LT is why we sold the interlocking MSU. And also why we use a the M-State logo. He always liked the M-State logo. And not because of AD inbreeding at MSU we keep using it because those people look up to LT despite the fact that he was a terrible AD.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
MSU and Adidas could absolutely come up with their own version of the interlocking MSU if they wanted to. Most would be fine using it once a year and then the M-State logo the rest of the time. But no- we don't want to get confused with Ole Miss and "branding" even if it is incredibly unpopular amongst the people that buy MSU merchandise. Not using an interlocking MSU at least some of the time is just costing MSU money and goodwill among the people that support the program. But LT was so important let's make him happy.
The interlocking logo(and uniform combinations) from the last Jackie teams are our best by far and it isn't close. The MoverS isn't even close.
Chill Billy did a mock up. It looks better than our current crap but not as good as the interlocking MSU or cursive State in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
We used it a year or two on our football helmets...late 60s early 70s?? Seems like maybe Felker played with the m over s on his helmet??
1989-1995 is the logo I believe most like the best.
https://www.hailstateunis.com/footba...m-history.html
When have you seen it?Quote:
Originally Posted by msu15
Chill Billy did a mock up with the M over S taking up the entire side of the helmet. It looked like a FUBU artist did it. Was comically large & oversized.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
You've never seen an M over S with it sized correctly to where the logo actually fits the helmet like Auburn's does.
that what I want to see
I think you overestimate the "baseball brand". I would say the m over s looks like a high school logo from the midwest.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
So I assume you believe North Carolina's & Auburn's are also HS logos?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord McBuckethead
Perhaps Tennessee's letter T is higher quality?
Here's a rough crack at it. I'm sure it would look significantly better if professionally done.
https://i.imgur.com/aylKfwV.jpg
I wish we’d market “State” a lot more. A good bit of people call us “State” and it’s something OM & USM can’t use so its completely recognizable to specifically us. And imo, all the “STATE” script uniforms we have in sports are among our best. Here’s a tweet that shows a football helmet with “STATE” script as the logo and aside from the outline color of the letters, I think the helmet looks great.
Because baseball isn't a blip on football relevance but football could totally overshadow baseball? We all know football is king. No one from those schools cares what their baseball team does as long as football is performing well. You take a baseball logo that is from a historically good and nationally prominent baseball team and attach it to mediocre football team (which historically we are) and pretty soon all people attach to that logo is the mediocre football team and start thinking of baseball as a mediocre afterthought. The history of those great players we have had, of Ron Polk being the godfather of college baseball, of Thunder and Lightning, all attached to that logo and that logo attached to our baseball program, all gets diminished. U want to take the one logo from the sport we are most respected in historically and currently, the one thing we can hang our hat on, our most special thing that sets us apart (and it is, regardless of it being a "niche" sport or not), and drag it down to the level of all other sports and that doesn't help us at all. What does Florida do? What does Florida State do? South Carolina? Arkansas? ALL of them have secondary logos for baseball. U don't like the banner logo? Fine. Change it. But don't drag our baseball reputation into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
If football, or any other sport at this school reaches that level of sustained prominence within it's own sport, get back to me. Otherwise using that logo for all sports is just casting pearls before swine.
I'm trying the help the football program by giving it a great logo that enhances its brand.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonBelle
You obviously don't think much of our football program.
I get your point but believe it's absolute insanity and a misappropriation of priorities to put baseball or a logo above MSU football.
I'm ok with marketing State but not ecstatic.Quote:
Originally Posted by HailStateSZN19
Most the country doesn't see us as state. Just the states around us. It's a pretty small minded endeavor imo.
The entire point here is to get out of being small minded Mittittippi Tate and build a national profile. The M over S helps us the most to do that.
The fact that you use Bama, UGA or Auburn to help support your view shows your lack of understanding. Those schools could not give a rip about baseball and have strong national football brands that could potentially elevate baseball. Baseball branding isn't going to elevate football anywhere, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg
In addition to showing poor business sense, you're not looking at this subjectively. You are placing a higher value on baseball marketing sway because you care about college baseball, and you probably have a higher opinion of our football brand value. Again, it's not poor missipi state. It's objective truth about our position in each market. Surely you see this.
If our football team were to rise to the level of baseball it could make sense on one level to combine. But if that happens we would be building brand equity in football along the way and at that point it wouldn't make sense to combine because you would have built two strong brands. You would maintain ability to market and sell two distinct logos/brands.
The "what looks best" discussion is a separate debate and even in this thread the opinions are split. The discussion of what makes sense from a brand marketing standpoint is a no-brainer for anyone that actually knows about this stuff. But keep calling it small-minded insanity, the irony is pretty hilarious.