re: Who thinks the old tiger logo is better than the new tiger

A few thoughts:

1. It would have been nice for LSU to use a graphics artist or a graphics company with an LSU connection. Or, at least a Louisiana connection.

2. An earlier poster suggested we should use an LSU student to do it. While there are many talented LSU art and graphic design students, this is entirely inappropriate for a professional logo design. BAD IDEA.

3. The poster before me has it right. This is about mass marketing and use of the logo on a WIDE variety of products. You see, you can't use just "one" logo. You need a whole suite of logos that are similar. In LSU's case, there's a Toonces logo, a floating head logo, a jumping Tiger logo, specific fonts, etc. It's versatile for layout. That's its strength. Old logo? It's just a Tiger head. That's all we got.

4. The only university I can think of off-hand that uses only one logo successfully for pretty much everything is Texas, and no matter how you slice it, it's a one-color logo. Easy to use, easy to reproduce. Old LSU logo? It's very intricate. It needs to be simpler.

5. The thing that irritates me most of all about the "new" logo is that the company we used has created almost identical logos for about a dozen other universities. I don't like that we got the plug-into-package treatment.

6. Don't get me wrong. I like the old logo just fine. But I don't really understand the sentimentality toward it. All we ever did with that logo is lose. Year after year. At least we win with Toonces on our side.

7. No, I don't hate Toonces. I think we could have done better, but I don't hate it.

8. I suspect less people are up in arms about Toonces than the representation on this board indicates.