Sparty hates new logo, Izzo scolds them for it

Submitted by M-Wolverine on January 25th, 2010 at 7:32 PM

So, the new logo is not going over well-

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100123/SPORTS0202/1230360/1004/

Even the media alum show bias (no, that never happens)-

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100123/OPINION03/1230391/1004/

And then Izzo takes time out of his Michigan press conference to slam them-

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100125/SPORTS0202/1250418/1004/SPORTS/…

Now, I like how Izzo coaches, and he seems like a reasonably nice guy, even if his woe is me, we/I get no respect thing gets old (you're the Big Ten darling and an elite program...act like you've been there before). But man, it seems like Spartans are getting something right for a change, in that maybe it's a good idea sticking with something and create a little tradition, rather than gouging them with a change just to make fans buy all new stuff. And Izzo evicerates them for it! Geeze, there's a guy with job security. He can take the time from his big rival game to side with his Nike bonus over the fans who buy tickets and donate money. (Because "new unified vision"? Please. Try Nike marketing plan).

God I wish we had a basketball program that could really create some heat for him before he retires...

Comments

tjyoung

January 25th, 2010 at 7:43 PM ^

i think the new logo looks more aggressive, whether the fans like it more that way is their opinion.

i, however, would not like it if our logo was changed. block M for life.

HartAttack20

January 25th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^

It may be more aggressive, but they botched that logo like no other. Some parts of it aren't bad, but overall it just is an absolute waste of time and money. Do you know how much money this is going to cost them just to change this crappy logo? I don't, but any amount is too much in my book. Terrible move by them. I would be somewhat upset if I were a fan. Luckily, I'm not, so I can laugh at the situation.

jabberwock

January 25th, 2010 at 8:14 PM ^

Of course it's "more aggressive".

This is Sparty (little brother) were talking about here.

They are forever in a midlife crisis mentality.

This logo is no different then some slick salesmen selling them a MEGA-bass new stereo or a Bitch'n new Trans Am (with Tasmanian Devil decals).

From what I can see, the old logo was more accurate from an archealogical/Greek cultural standpoint.

The new one looks like it came from the beautifully stylized, "aggressive" 300 that spartan fans love to touch themselves over.

Honestly Sparty, it's NOT going to affect your penis size no matter how badly you want it to.

Just say no.

dahblue

January 25th, 2010 at 7:56 PM ^

Look here, Snooky, Izzo is right! Students and alumni have no right to object to a tacky change in the operation of the athletic department. The new logo is awesome...it's kinda like the sweet Jock Jams that Big Brother plays in Michigan Stadium now.

Don't forget - The program is always right! Speaking out against the program is bad for the program. Such troublemakers are merely creating a bad...wait for it...situation.

Sarcasm.

kmd

January 25th, 2010 at 9:28 PM ^

It's pretty ironic that you say this when your avatar uses a version of the Block M which Michigan has phased out.

PLEASE NOTE: The “split block M”—the version that has the word Michigan written across the M—is offered as an alternative here only because it was registered and in use prior to these guidelines. It should be used sparingly and only in settings where we need to graphically distinguish ourselves from another university that uses some form of an "M" as their logo, such as the University of Minnesota. This version of the Block M should not be used as a department logo, or on print pieces or web banners created in the future.

http://www.logos.umich.edu/usemarks.html

SysMark

January 25th, 2010 at 7:52 PM ^

It took them a year and a half to come up with this change? That's some serious thinking and working to mangle what I thought actually looked pretty good. Hello Nike.

"Officials at Nike, the school's athletics corporate sponsor, have worked with athletic director Mark Hollis for the past year and a half to create a logo that dates to Spartan warriors from ancient Greece, Izzo said.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/article/20100125/SPORTS0202/1250418/1004/SPORTS/…

rtyler

January 25th, 2010 at 8:09 PM ^

The new logo doesn't really look bad, the fans are just bristling at change. The old logo is more curvaceous and effeminate than the more martial facemask of the new logo, which also eschews excessive ornamentation on the helmet-poof. It almost looks like they put an MF DOOM mask on the old logo. Anyway, I suspect if they make the change it will be like anti-News Feed backlash on facebook—forgotten within fifteen minutes. And then people will eventually decide they like the new one better.

Also nobody is making anybody buy new stuff! It isn't like you have to throw away your old stuff and replace it or you are denied entry. I just don't get this. Did M fans throw away their white Nike jerseys?

I'm not an MSU fan so I can't speak for anyone, but I think they will get over this once they get a big-time Nike redesign that makes them feel like a more elite school and earns them the "respect" they always crave.

brewandbluesaturdays

January 25th, 2010 at 8:21 PM ^

I am just glad to be a fan of an established academic & athletic university, that has had a unified idenitity for all of time... I congrat MSU on looking more like a lesser institution across the board on a daily basis.

Jeffro

January 25th, 2010 at 8:23 PM ^

I like the new logo a lot better. It's classy and pristine. The other one didn't have much of a history anyway, so what's the big deal? I also hate Sparty and don't care either way. This is almost as bad for them as when Rich Rod tried to take the wings off our helmets lmao.

imablue

January 25th, 2010 at 8:41 PM ^

I don't see why they need to change logo's to
standardize, in fact, I don't see why they need
to standardize. Everyone knows the S for the BB
team. Why switch? It'll be pretty sweet for Nike.

The one thing I noticed when we switched to
Adidas is the Maize is a little lighter. My
Adidas hat doesn't match the Nike windbreaker.
I like Nikes' color a little better.

NHWolverine

January 25th, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^

Man is it ever fun to stand back and laugh at some good ol' turmoil in E. Lansing every once in a while.

Count me in the group of folks who don't think the logo is a massive change. There are a few things in it that I don't like much but they are minor aesthetics rather than hating the logo outright as most of the critics do. I definitely think the logo looks much more modern and possibly (too lazy to do the work) historically accurate.

As I see it the root of the problem is the way the "leak" itself unfolded. It wasn't like MSU was able to bring this logo out on their own terms in April as (I imagine) they wanted to, with the unveiling of a new logo and line of athletic apparel, but rather it was uncovered in the leaked patent documents. I can imagine another scenario where the press release is held on the MSU AD's own terms with a bunch of new apparel for sale and Sparty goes nuts over it. I'm certainly willing to entertain arguments that I'm completely delusional in thinking this.

And yes, if they changed the block or split M's I'd freak so David Brandon, if you're reading this, back off sir.

RagingBean

January 25th, 2010 at 9:44 PM ^

Spartans is a fucking stupid nickname for a school from East Lansing, Michigan anyway. What do the warriors of ancient Sparta have to do with that school, its history, or its ethos? Nothing.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

January 25th, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^

Yes, I remember that story, but you realize that would mean the last spotting in the state was like 70+ years before the team ever played a game, right? One every 200 years, spotted 150 miles from Ann Arbor, doesn't really scream "native." The name (as I'm sure I need not mention) is from properly applied history, not biology.

M-Wolverine

January 26th, 2010 at 1:15 PM ^

Which are both accurate "rumors" (if that makes sense...theories?), there's also-

"Another reason given for the nickname is a story that has Native Americans, during the 1830s, comparing Michigan settlers to wolverines. Some native people, according to this story, disliked the way settlers were taking the land because it made them think of how the gluttonous wolverine went after its food. "

And to the militia one-

"Some people believe that Ohioans gave Michigan the nickname around 1835 during a dispute over the Toledo strip, a piece of land along the border between Ohio and Michigan. Rumors in Ohio at the time described Michiganians as being as vicious and bloodthirsty as wolverines. This dispute became known as the Toledo War. "

But I have heard the pelt trading idea too. No one will ever know. It's more than likely there were some Wolverines here, and in the northern midwest, before they were hunted away.