Page 1 of 3

OK You people who say the pony is not going away...

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:31 pm
by CalallenStang
From the Official Site of SMU Athletics:

"Official SMU Athletic Logos
Visual identity plays an important role in shaping the image of the SMU Athletics Department. The logos and word marks should never be altered, animated, or appear in any other color. "

Then the logo they show is this:
Image

http://smumustangs.collegesports.com/ot ... nsing.html

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:40 pm
by PK
Yeah...they seem to be pushing the Hell out of that new "secondary" mark. My guess is somebody's *ss is on the line if it doesn't take off. If it were up to me, his/her *ss would already be out the door. I will be having a face to face on this soon. I am one unhappy camper!

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:55 pm
by Diamond Girl
Calallanstang, I like your SMU and mustang you use for your signature. Did you run this by the athletic dept.? It's certainly better looking than what CLC came up with, which just reflects a lack of creativity on their part.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:00 pm
by jtstang
This really doesn't matter in the big picture. If you're just looking to get up in arms about something, and the state of the program isn't enough for you, the real tragedy was for our helmet logo two years ago when they changed from the classic running mustang on a white background to the current indecipherable red blob on a dark blue background.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:05 pm
by NavyCrimson
i just want to know what "corporation" we are now since all this dull, unoriginal corporate logo stuff looks exactly just like that - corporate logos! :wink:

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:41 pm
by PK
jtstang wrote:This really doesn't matter in the big picture. If you're just looking to get up in arms about something, and the state of the program isn't enough for you, the real tragedy was for our helmet logo two years ago when they changed from the classic running mustang on a white background to the current indecipherable red blob on a dark blue background.
Don't worry jt, when they replace the red blob with the new "secondary" mark it won't matter any more.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:15 pm
by CalallenStang
Diamond Girl wrote:Calallanstang, I like your SMU and mustang you use for your signature. Did you run this by the athletic dept.? It's certainly better looking than what CLC came up with, which just reflects a lack of creativity on their part.


I actually emailed them about these terrible new logos and they said "don't worry, we aren't going to take the old stuff away. We are simply introducing a new look." What they are introducing is Boise State's look with the SMU name on it.

jtstang wrote:This really doesn't matter in the big picture. If you're just looking to get up in arms about something, and the state of the program isn't enough for you, the real tragedy was for our helmet logo two years ago when they changed from the classic running mustang on a white background to the current indecipherable red blob on a dark blue background.


If I would have known about this board at that time, you would have seen me on here about that. At least the blob is still supposed to be the Pony.

My feelings on the program are that it is on it's way up. At least we didn't lost 12 games last year...and we have lots of returners from a team that looked pretty good at the end of the year. It still may be a couple of years before a bowl, but we will get there.

NavyCrimson wrote:i just want to know what "corporation" we are now since all this dull, unoriginal corporate logo stuff looks exactly just like that - corporate logos!


Don't you know? We're SMUMustangs.com, a website dedicated to the advancement of merchandise with non-traditional collegiate logos on it.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:28 pm
by NavyCrimson
CalallenStang!!! LOL LOL

u hit the nail on the head with that one!!!

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:35 pm
by jtstang
CalallenStang wrote:My feelings on the program are that it is on it's way up. At least we didn't lost 12 games last year...and we have lots of returners from a team that looked pretty good at the end of the year. It still may be a couple of years before a bowl, but we will get there.

Now whether you've known about this board or not, surely as a fan you've observed the historical trends which have developed over the last 16 years, and are therefore aware that they suggest otherwise.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 4:40 pm
by CalallenStang
jtstang wrote:
CalallenStang wrote:My feelings on the program are that it is on it's way up. At least we didn't lost 12 games last year...and we have lots of returners from a team that looked pretty good at the end of the year. It still may be a couple of years before a bowl, but we will get there.

Now whether you've known about this board or not, surely as a fan you've observed the historical trends which have developed over the last 16 years, and are therefore aware that they suggest otherwise.


Indeed I have. While the ending to last season bears a resemblance to the ending of the 2002 season, it is also different in the fact that we actually have experienced players who have been recruited to fit into Bennett's *cough*system*cough* and that should help us finally break out of the losing skid. Playing teams like Tulane and East Carolina shouldn't hurt either.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:23 pm
by jtstang
CalallenStang wrote:Playing teams like Tulane and East Carolina shouldn't hurt either.

Not sure I'd hang my hat on that given the fact that we played in the WAC before, and one exactly 3 games in the last two seasons. We'll see, I just wouldn't get my hopes up too high if I were you.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:22 am
by CalallenStang
jtstang wrote:
CalallenStang wrote:Playing teams like Tulane and East Carolina shouldn't hurt either.

Not sure I'd hang my hat on that given the fact that we played in the WAC before, and one exactly 3 games in the last two seasons. We'll see, I just wouldn't get my hopes up too high if I were you.


Too high...my hopes are 4 wins this year LOL, but I would live with one after sitting through 2003 :)

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:19 am
by Mustangs35SMU
CalallenStang wrote:Too high...my hopes are 4 wins this year LOL, but I would live with one after sitting through 2003 :)


We better not win only one game! I definately would not "live" with only a one win after the 2004 season in winning three.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:26 am
by PonySnob
And only winning 3 games last year was pretty sorry. It is time for SMU fans and alumni to start to expect winning seasons!!! If TCU and NTSU can do it on a regular basis, why can't SMU? It is time that the coaches be held to a higher standard than 3 wins in 2 seasons will get you a contract extension!!! How much longer until Copeland retires?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 22, 2005 11:02 am
by jtstang
PonySnob wrote:It is time for SMU fans and alumni to start to expect winning seasons!!!

Please. You're an SMU fan and alumnus, right? Tell us what you expect.