Tuesday, January 01, 2013

New year, new logo?

We've got rid of the italics (a.k.a. the slanty number). Reebok's been gone for many years. The regime that ushered the logo is now an old memory. Maybe 2013 is the year we should finally refresh the BC logo. I don't mind the eagle above. I also can live with the spacing and the gold/white trim. I just want to get rid of the slant. Or we can go with something completely new. I just think now is the time to get moving on the new look. Make all the relevant decisions in the next few months and then roll it out in September with the new school year! It will be the fresh start many of our teams need.


Unknown said...

Your and the NCAA's idea about bringing in guys who have already graduated from another college is absurd. The idea is to win with kids going to class not some guys who we used to consider as semi-pros.

As far as the logo is concerned, it's time to get rid of the flying eagle and bring back a more dignified one. Get rid of the slant, as you suggest, and have a gold B, a Maroon C, and the eagle perched on top as they have on the Marine Corps insignia. Time to bring back a little more class to a classy institution.

Dan said...

Always liked this logo. Not against something new but this might fall under the if ain't broke don't fix it category.

chicagofire1871 said...

Not unless we go back to the block letters/interlocking BC logo.

And no logo on the side of the helmet.

blist said...

I'm with Dan. Like the logo (but also like older block BC logo). I'm for addition by subtraction by getting rid of the 49ers helmet

Goberry said...

I've been rather outspoken about returning to the old logo, seen here:


Lenny Sienko said...

Goberry has the logo.

The rest of that stuff they've been pushing out the last decade or so, all slanted, does not do it.

I'd even like the idea of going back to old "Old School" with just the monochrome block interlocking "B" and "C"--no eagle. I managed to find a hat with this logo about 10 years ago and I love it.

The very old "skinny Eagle" also is a great look.

While we are at it, the school colors are maroon and gold--there is no black anywhere, trim or otherwise. Adding black is a n abomination; e.g., just look at what the Celtics did to their classic uniforms.

OMG the damnable, unreadable letters are back. Please say you're not going to inflict that nonsense on us again? First time didn't work...here we go again...second time no go...(why do you torture us with this?

Lenny Sienko said...

My avatar is a very old, throwback, skinny Eagle. I like the sinister, threatening look a whole lot better than the bland Baldwin "Angry Chicken".

If you'd like a copy of the throw back, you can get it here:



Bill, I am not a robot. Only a robot would put up with this crummy verification system....argh....please make it stop.

Big Jack Krack said...

Lenny - I agree. We are maroon and gold. Get rid of the black and grey - it's stupid and not representative on our school.

dixieagle said...

I like the logo Goberry posted.

Lenny, your skinny eagle looks like an ugly dragon from Harry Potter. NOT a good look. No offense.

mod34b said...

Changing the logo will do nothing for BC football.

Knucklehead said...

I have gotten used to the new logo. The issue I had when it came out was the gold was changed from yellow gold to brown gold.

There is no need to change the logo. This is the new logo and we should stick with it long term.


I would like to see the word EAGLES written on the helmet in an upside down u. Similar to what LSU does but without the logo. the font would be key but the old gaelic font would be neat to tryout for the next ND game or USC game next season


Joseph said...

WOW!! I agree with Mod 34b.

NEDofSavinHill said...

LSU amassed a total of less than 200 yards against the Clemson defense. BC got 420. Is LSU a top 10 team? Is the SEC overrated? All their games, including bowls are played in Dixie. What does beating BIG 10 teams in home games prove?2

mod34b said...

Ned, having a month to prepare provides a big advantage for defenses.

So it is hard to meaningfully compare BC vs Clemson to LSU v Clemson.

LSU had only 48 plays against Clemson (BC had 72). LSU allowed Clemson to run 100 plays (Clemson ran 84 vs BC)

But I must say, the Clemson defense was incredible vs LSU -- compared to their season averages. Clemson allowed almost 500 yards to GT and almost 400 yards to lowly Ball State.

Clemson will be tough next year.

Lenny Sienko said...

I was hoping one of you would recognize the "Skinny Eagle". It was the primary logo for BC from 1946-61.

If we are stuck with the slanty BC logo, we can do a better job on its maroon and gold aspects.


"Boston College logos through the years" and click on images, if they don't come up automatically.


Homo sapiens is the species that invents symbols in which to invest passion and authority, then forgets that symbols are inventions.
Joyce Carol Oates

downtown_resident said...

The changes BC sports needed have already been made-- the athletic director retired and the in-over-his-head football coach was fired. Keep the existing logo or go back to the pre-2000 logo that others have linked. In addition, ditch the SF 49ers/Under Armor helmet stripe and never, ever use black or gray or any of those colors that do not represent BC.

Coast said...

The slanted logo BC has now has grown on me. I never thought I would say it, but I miss the italic numbers. It was recognizable and memorable-- and that is what you call branding.

The only school that changes what it does all the time is Oregon, and in that sense, change is synonymous with the Oregon brand. BC needs a brand. Pick something and stick with it.