(01-19-2014 03:05 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 02:52 PM)jmu97 Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 02:38 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  Did you realize that there's not one single mascot logo on any of them?

??? Are you saying that none of those helmets have mascots on the side? I'm confused?

Maybe the Jags but the Jets don't have picture of an F-22 on the side of their helmet. The Eagles have a wing, not an Eagle. Same for the Vikings. The Colts don't have a Colt, they have a horseshoe. And so on and so on....

Are you blind? Dolphins have a dolphin. Jags already mentioned. texans have the bull's head with horns. Falcons have a bird. Seahawks have a bird's head. Patriots have a patriot head. cardinals have a bird. ravens have a bird. in addition, consider the bills and broncos. You are grasping.

(01-19-2014 03:05 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 02:52 PM)jmu97 Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 02:38 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  Did you realize that there's not one single mascot logo on any of them?

??? Are you saying that none of those helmets have mascots on the side? I'm confused?

Maybe the Jags but the Jets don't have picture of an F-22 on the side of their helmet. The Eagles have a wing, not an Eagle. Same for the Vikings. The Colts don't have a Colt, they have a horseshoe. And so on and so on....

There are a few you could argue one way or the other, but by my count 14 of the 32 have mascots on their helmets. That seems like enough to prove the point.

I'll bend and agree that there are some you could argue either way. It's really splitting hairs. The mock ups that have been posted don't look bad. I really like the Duke Dog logo. I just think it's better from a recognition standpoint to keeep the "JMU" across the helmet. We're largely an unknown to most. I just don't think it'd be a good idea to go with a mascot logo. The NFL is different. There are so many less teams that no matter what game you turn on, you immediately know everything about that team. College - especially where we are and aspire to be - is much different. If you want to take off the JMU sticker and slap on the dog head one for a game or two per year that'd be cool. I just want to see JMU establish an Identity. The other thing is the logo doesn't have the uniqueness to separate us. Although I like it, it's very similar to Georgetown, Fresno State, UGA, etc.

(01-19-2014 04:15 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I'll bend and agree that there are some you could argue either way. It's really splitting hairs. The mock ups that have been posted don't look bad. I really like the Duke Dog logo. I just think it's better from a recognition standpoint to keeep the "JMU" across the helmet. We're largely an unknown to most. I just don't think it'd be a good idea to go with a mascot logo. The NFL is different. There are so many less teams that no matter what game you turn on, you immediately know everything about that team. College - especially where we are and aspire to be - is much different. If you want to take off the JMU sticker and slap on the dog head one for a game or two per year that'd be cool. I just want to see JMU establish an Identity. The other thing is the logo doesn't have the uniqueness to separate us. Although I like it, it's very similar to Georgetown, Fresno State, UGA, etc.

I agree with the argument that the sheer number of schools makes college football tougher than the pros when talking about creating an identity. I'm just not a fan of what we have on our helmets now and think that a change might benefit us once we get to a larger stage. IMHO, the current JMU type looks like a D2 school's logo, not a school with a $30 mil+ operating budget. I don't have the answer to the problem, but I like discussing the possibilities.

(01-19-2014 02:23 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  Sorry I don't have skills to make a helmet but I wonder what the Duke Dog would look like similar to what Boise did with their nike pro combat helmet. Instead of being a dot on the side of the helmet go new school and spread him out on the entire side of the helmet.

Before Duuuuuuukes calls me an idiot I'm not suggesting we change to this full-time.

The new school look isn't my thing, but I figured I could do a couple quick samples for the sake of discussion...



And the low contrast look that some schools have tried...

(01-19-2014 05:15 PM)jmu97 Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 04:15 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I'll bend and agree that there are some you could argue either way. It's really splitting hairs. The mock ups that have been posted don't look bad. I really like the Duke Dog logo. I just think it's better from a recognition standpoint to keeep the "JMU" across the helmet. We're largely an unknown to most. I just don't think it'd be a good idea to go with a mascot logo. The NFL is different. There are so many less teams that no matter what game you turn on, you immediately know everything about that team. College - especially where we are and aspire to be - is much different. If you want to take off the JMU sticker and slap on the dog head one for a game or two per year that'd be cool. I just want to see JMU establish an Identity. The other thing is the logo doesn't have the uniqueness to separate us. Although I like it, it's very similar to Georgetown, Fresno State, UGA, etc.

I agree with the argument that the sheer number of schools makes college football tougher than the pros when talking about creating an identity. I'm just not a fan of what we have on our helmets now and think that a change might benefit us once we get to a larger stage. IMHO, the current JMU type looks like a D2 school's logo, not a school with a $30 mil+ operating budget. I don't have the answer to the problem, but I like discussing the possibilities.

Ah, I can't really buy that. Penn State has nothing on their helmets. Ohio State has nothing but the stripes down the middle. Alabama just has the players' numbers. Oklahoma has "OU". Florida has "Florida". UCLA has "UCLA". Cal has "Cal". Nebraska has an "N". I could go on and on but there's no correlation between operating budgets and helmet decals.

(01-19-2014 05:17 PM)jmu97 Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 02:23 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  Sorry I don't have skills to make a helmet but I wonder what the Duke Dog would look like similar to what Boise did with their nike pro combat helmet. Instead of being a dot on the side of the helmet go new school and spread him out on the entire side of the helmet.

Before Duuuuuuukes calls me an idiot I'm not suggesting we change to this full-time.

The new school look isn't my thing, but I figured I could do a couple quick samples for the sake of discussion...



And the low contrast look that some schools have tried...

I like the JMU on the side of the helmet. These as special once or twice a year helmets would look better, IMO, than the one above with the small duke dog logo. Thanks for making these.

(01-19-2014 05:35 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:15 PM)jmu97 Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 04:15 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I'll bend and agree that there are some you could argue either way. It's really splitting hairs. The mock ups that have been posted don't look bad. I really like the Duke Dog logo. I just think it's better from a recognition standpoint to keeep the "JMU" across the helmet. We're largely an unknown to most. I just don't think it'd be a good idea to go with a mascot logo. The NFL is different. There are so many less teams that no matter what game you turn on, you immediately know everything about that team. College - especially where we are and aspire to be - is much different. If you want to take off the JMU sticker and slap on the dog head one for a game or two per year that'd be cool. I just want to see JMU establish an Identity. The other thing is the logo doesn't have the uniqueness to separate us. Although I like it, it's very similar to Georgetown, Fresno State, UGA, etc.

I agree with the argument that the sheer number of schools makes college football tougher than the pros when talking about creating an identity. I'm just not a fan of what we have on our helmets now and think that a change might benefit us once we get to a larger stage. IMHO, the current JMU type looks like a D2 school's logo, not a school with a $30 mil+ operating budget. I don't have the answer to the problem, but I like discussing the possibilities.

Ah, I can't really buy that. Penn State has nothing on their helmets. Ohio State has nothing but the stripes down the middle. Alabama just has the players' numbers. Oklahoma has "OU". I could go on and on but there's no correlation between operating budgets and helmet decals.

All of those schools have long traditions and loads of national exposure, so they can do whatever they want. We don't have either of those luxuries. BTW, OU has arguably the worst "big time" school logo out there. Even Nebraska has started being irrelevant enough to question the helvetica "N" helmet. Ohio State just recently changed their helmets.

(01-19-2014 05:43 PM)jmu97 Wrote:  All of those schools have long traditions and loads of national exposure, so they can do whatever they want. We don't have either of those luxuries. BTW, OU has arguably the worst "big time" school logo out there. Even Nebraska has started being irrelevant enough to question the helvetica "N" helmet. Ohio State just recently changed their helmets.

I've posted this before, but I think that new Ohio State "refresh" is just bad compared to their traditional style. When you put them side-by-side, I don't think there's an argument. The newer one is worse.

(01-19-2014 06:08 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:43 PM)jmu97 Wrote:  All of those schools have long traditions and loads of national exposure, so they can do whatever they want. We don't have either of those luxuries. BTW, OU has arguably the worst "big time" school logo out there. Even Nebraska has started being irrelevant enough to question the helvetica "N" helmet. Ohio State just recently changed their helmets.

I've posted this before, but I think that new Ohio State "refresh" is just bad compared to their traditional style. When you put them side-by-side, I don't think there's an argument. The newer one is worse.

But what are you doing? Talking about them. That's their goal. Whether better or worse, their new helmets made a splash and put energy into their fan base and got non fans talking about them...

(01-19-2014 11:03 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 06:08 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(01-19-2014 05:43 PM)jmu97 Wrote:  All of those schools have long traditions and loads of national exposure, so they can do whatever they want. We don't have either of those luxuries. BTW, OU has arguably the worst "big time" school logo out there. Even Nebraska has started being irrelevant enough to question the helvetica "N" helmet. Ohio State just recently changed their helmets.

I've posted this before, but I think that new Ohio State "refresh" is just bad compared to their traditional style. When you put them side-by-side, I don't think there's an argument. The newer one is worse.

But what are you doing? Talking about them. That's their goal. Whether better or worse, their new helmets made a splash and put energy into their fan base and got non fans talking about them...

Not really. People talk about OSU regardless. That's really not the case at all.

(01-19-2014 11:03 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  But what are you doing? Talking about them. That's their goal. Whether better or worse, their new helmets made a splash and put energy into their fan base and got non fans talking about them...

Good grief. A "new" anything simply for the sake of being "new" is perhaps the most lame of all lame excuses...talk for talk's sake.

When Roseann Barr sang the national anthem she "made a splash" and people talked about her performance...new and controversial does not equate to being worthy.

http://youtu.be/ls1YVhcLD2c

Longhorn, I don't know why, but I clicked the video. Seen it a dozen times. Don't know why I'd do that to myself intentionally...

(01-20-2014 10:17 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Longhorn, I don't know why, but I clicked the video. Seen it a dozen times. Don't know why I'd do that to myself intentionally...

Yes, somethings are better left "un-clicked"...or never done.

Like Roseann's rendition of the National Anthem, the Broncos' vertical striped socks of yesteryore, and most, if not all of the "fabulous" efforts shared by the legion of JMU junior designers striving mightily to freshen the look of JMU's uniforms.

If it ain't broke, don't try to "fix" it.

(01-20-2014 10:28 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 10:17 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Longhorn, I don't know why, but I clicked the video. Seen it a dozen times. Don't know why I'd do that to myself intentionally...

Yes, somethings are better left "un-clicked"...or never done.

Like Roseann's rendition of the National Anthem, the Broncos' vertical stripped socks of yesteryore, and most, if not all of the "fabulous" efforts shared by the legend of JMU junior designers striving mightily to freshen the look of JMU's uniforms.

If it ain't broke, don't try to "fix" it.

LH, I agree with you in that I don't want it changed and like the traditional look we have. But, I try to remember, that I am old, I don't know it all, and I'm conservative in dress and financial matters. Thank goodness the whole world isn't like me, nothing would ever change and we'd be tying our horses up to a post outside "D Hall".

Our helmet and uniforms designs could be broke and I'd never know.

The one thing I like is contrast, therefore, an all purple uniform needs a gold helmet. Otherwise our players will look like thugs. I also like a simple and basic look. It portrays a steady no nonsense attitude.

I do think that its funny how every year we start a conversation about our helmets and uniforms. I guess its some new Dukes or at least new to the boards who start a new thread rather than digging into the archives.

the new ohio state helmet is fantastic.



that is how its supposed to be done.

1) Does it use the school colors? Check
2) is it a modern version of a traditional style? check

and most importantly:

3) is it easily identifiable upon viewing? check.

absolutely done right. and a GREAT helmet for the new age.

Different strokes, I guess. I just don't like it nearly as much as the traditional uniform.

I am with you Hyper. And OSU's helmet looks like it gives credit for how much weed you dealt and/or smoked. Not a fan.

[b]

(01-20-2014 12:41 PM)Yesolitis Wrote:  I am with you Hyper. And OSU's helmet looks like it gives credit for how much weed you dealt and/or smoked. Not a fan.

Not much has changed on OSU's helmets. The old buckeye leaf stickers were black instead of green; the face mask was gray instead of black and the striping is now wider. Same OSU classic, basic helmet look though. it looks sharper now IMO, stands out just a little more without being Oregon or Maryland gaudy.

(01-20-2014 01:01 PM)jmutoml757 Wrote:  [b]

(01-20-2014 12:41 PM)Yesolitis Wrote:  I am with you Hyper. And OSU's helmet looks like it gives credit for how much weed you dealt and/or smoked. Not a fan.

Not much has changed on OSU's helmets. The old buckeye leaf stickers were black instead of green; the face mask was gray instead of black and the striping is now wider. Same OSU classic, basic helmet look though. it looks sharper now IMO, stands out just a little more without being Oregon or Maryland gaudy.

exactly.