Some more info on Michigan's new font

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on July 30th, 2016 at 4:34 PM

An eagle-eyed user on Twitter pointed this out to me this morning.

On the Michigan Athletics twitter page, they have been releasing a graphic every day counting down to the Nike launch.

In those graphics, they have been using the font we have seen on the new gear that's been released. Have a look-

I gathered together the new jersey number font and put it together.

Not only has the #2 changed drastically, but the #4 has severely changed along with the #5 that has been slightly altered.

Old

MGoBoard

Football

MgoBlueprint

July 30th, 2016 at 4:36 PM ^

There's really no excuse to change the 2

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 12/15/2008

MGoPoints: 11573

Artie

July 30th, 2016 at 4:42 PM ^

Forget the two, that 4 is hideous. Also, I'm happy to be complaining about this instead of something actually important regarding the team.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 04/23/2009

MGoPoints: 8126

MayOhioEatTurds

July 30th, 2016 at 4:48 PM ^

Although it impinges on fewer historical figures, I find the new four more objectionable even than the new two.

Joined: 06/29/2013

MGoPoints: 5893

champswest

July 30th, 2016 at 8:01 PM ^

24 or 42.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 25919

1464

July 31st, 2016 at 12:30 AM ^

I like the new letters better. I like the old numbers better.

Joined: 06/21/2010

MGoPoints: 37173

JamieH

July 31st, 2016 at 3:42 AM ^

the letters are fine, but the numbers just plain SUCK.

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

Muttley

July 30th, 2016 at 8:34 PM ^

Joined: 07/07/2009

MGoPoints: -73245

Mr. Yost

July 30th, 2016 at 4:51 PM ^

The 4 is especially bad when it's the first digit.

The both look horrible, but #34 looks ways better than #45.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

mgokev

July 30th, 2016 at 5:57 PM ^

Fascinating. I find 45 to be more visually appealing than 34.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 06/17/2009

MGoPoints: 18955

Alumnus93

July 30th, 2016 at 10:08 PM ^

The new 5 is bizarre. Why change the 5???

Joined: 09/10/2009

MGoPoints: 9684

Bando Calrissian

July 31st, 2016 at 1:01 AM ^

Bob Chappuis disagrees.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 68120

Prince Lover

July 31st, 2016 at 2:09 AM ^

But seeing this pic, I'll give it a chance. Not saying it's tradition or anything, but it doesn't look as bad as it does in the number line up from WD's post.

Joined: 07/01/2013

MGoPoints: 13070

Artie

July 31st, 2016 at 8:44 AM ^

I could not care less if the new fours are the old fours. Bumblebees were "historical" as well and those were just as gross. In the grand scheme of things, I really don't give many shits. It's the same as the all whites everyone was bitching about last year. Once the actual football starts, no one will care about fonts.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 04/23/2009

MGoPoints: 8126

Bando Calrissian

July 31st, 2016 at 9:19 AM ^

Well, the bumblebees really weren't historical. Those uniforms were never worn by anyone--they were fantasy designs.

This is a number font. It has precedent. Aside from the sleeve sizes and the addition of brand logos and names on the back, it's the exact same jersey Michigan has worn at home for, what, 90+ years?

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 68120

LBSS

July 30th, 2016 at 6:23 PM ^

Looks like "If it ain't broke, break it!" didn't entire follow Brandon out the door. Too bad. Maybe they'll change it back next year.

Joined: 11/21/2009

MGoPoints: 9642

Blue-Chip

July 30th, 2016 at 4:36 PM ^

The 4 is awful, and the five looks like it encountered a food allergy.

Joined: 01/06/2010

MGoPoints: 9718

xtramelanin

July 30th, 2016 at 4:38 PM ^

they had to put it somewhere.

Joined: 12/09/2014

MGoPoints: 15439

SpazCarpenter

July 30th, 2016 at 4:48 PM ^

Woodstock from The Peanuts.

Joined: 06/09/2015

MGoPoints: 1231

borninAnnArbor

July 30th, 2016 at 5:34 PM ^

Reminds me when I was drawing a picture a kid, I put lines behind something to show it was moving.

Joined: 10/10/2012

MGoPoints: 3554

Gucci Mane

July 30th, 2016 at 4:39 PM ^

We should switch to Roman numerals.

Joined: 02/10/2014

MGoPoints: -99957423

timtebro

July 30th, 2016 at 4:42 PM ^

This.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 06/08/2010

MGoPoints: 12111

The Mad Hatter

July 30th, 2016 at 4:55 PM ^

That's some next level Michigan Arrogance. I wonder if it's allowed?

Joined: 02/17/2015

MGoPoints: 112109

Alton

July 30th, 2016 at 5:40 PM ^

Interesting that they even needed to specify, but NCAA Football rule 1-4-4-c-3: "The jersey must have clearly visible, permanent Arabic numerals measuring at least 8 and 10 inches in height front and back, respectively..."

Too bad, because I would much rather see an "IV" over that awful "4" any day. Seriously, that's hideous.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 13300

softshoes

July 30th, 2016 at 6:49 PM ^

Then how in the hell did those highlighter yellow numbers on white jerseys against SC get past the censors? Those were the total opposite of clearly visible.

Joined: 09/09/2010

MGoPoints: 11993

ABOUBENADHEM

July 31st, 2016 at 9:26 AM ^

with that loose NCAA language. For example, you could put Roman numerals on the back of the jersey and leave the Arabic numbers for the front. That seems to comply. Should we get Harbaugh to take them on again?

Joined: 11/17/2015

MGoPoints: 2768

MGJS SuperKick Party

July 30th, 2016 at 5:39 PM ^

No! Comic Sans would be better

Joined: 08/04/2010

MGoPoints: 14460

Sledgehammer

July 30th, 2016 at 5:45 PM ^

You monster!

Joined: 09/05/2011

MGoPoints: 11289

MGJS SuperKick Party

July 30th, 2016 at 7:29 PM ^

Comic Sans makes emails happier, so they will make jersey numbers happier too

Joined: 08/04/2010

MGoPoints: 14460

Mocha Cub

July 30th, 2016 at 5:58 PM ^

My vote is for sign language

Joined: 11/17/2013

MGoPoints: 23066

Blueroller

July 30th, 2016 at 4:41 PM ^

They had to change the font because what else could they change? I'll reserve total judgment until I see these on players, but I hate to see the change. I've been a fan since the early 70s and every uniform change since 97 has been for the worse. Last year was the best since 96, if not 75. It looks like the numbers may be a bit smaller too, which I really hate. Maybe it won't be so bad…

Joined: 06/08/2010

MGoPoints: 1670

Santa Clause

July 30th, 2016 at 4:43 PM ^

I noticed that USC's number 2 looks exactly the same as our new number 2.

Joined: 12/12/2015

MGoPoints: 5921

Mr. Yost

July 30th, 2016 at 4:46 PM ^

So wait...it's NOT the Chicago Bulls anymore?!

I've been hearing about the Chicago Bulls font for 2 fucking months WD, what's going on maaan? You can't do this to me in the 11th hour!

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

Mr. Yost

July 30th, 2016 at 4:47 PM ^

Oh, and that #4 is fucking terrible.

Joined: 07/25/2011

MGoPoints: -9898220

JamieH

July 31st, 2016 at 3:44 AM ^

are all fucking terrible.

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 28331

Wolverine Devotee

July 30th, 2016 at 4:50 PM ^

No and I'm actually glad it's not. Although the #4 looks dumb now.

The #1, #6, #7 and #9 stay the exact same, though.

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: 31528

Baugh so hard

July 30th, 2016 at 5:16 PM ^

and then Braylon set them straight about how the 1 should look.

Joined: 02/03/2015

MGoPoints: 1414

JClay

July 30th, 2016 at 4:47 PM ^

Never thought I'd care about a font. The 2 is meh. The 4 is totally awful.

Joined: 09/14/2010

MGoPoints: 13753

Gooseggs

July 30th, 2016 at 5:42 PM ^

The new 2 is below average, the 4 is outrageously bad

Joined: 07/16/2016

MGoPoints: 7065

markusr2007

July 30th, 2016 at 4:47 PM ^

Suck. 1980 font was best

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 10/21/2008

MGoPoints: 19372

Lanknows

July 30th, 2016 at 4:48 PM ^

But credit where it's due to Nike for discovering zero.

Joined: 03/23/2012

MGoPoints: 5384

softshoes

July 30th, 2016 at 6:51 PM ^

All is fine and dandy until you start dividing by it.

Joined: 09/09/2010

MGoPoints: 11993

Engin77

July 31st, 2016 at 12:13 PM ^

I feel your infinite pain.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 5791

kevin holt

July 30th, 2016 at 4:50 PM ^

Looks like the 8 is a little different too, WD. do you have the 0 anywhere? also I'd need to see them at the same scale but a couple others look maybe very slightly different. Hard to say though.

Joined: 03/16/2010

MGoPoints: 17447