SF1775
5-Year Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2012
- Messages
- 114
Agreed. It makes sense on paper but when it's actually used it's awkward. At least the logo makes sense and is attractive. The "new" lettering looks just like the old one used on football uniforms (when we switched to the new Nike uniforms) but I suppose it totally removed the slanted "Army" font used for everything else.That "Army West Point" combination is stupid. For athletics, "Army" and "West Point"are interchangeable, of course, but all together? It's an abomination only Nike could conjure up.
Is that going to help us beat "Navy Annapolis?"
I can handle the logo, though think the sword could have been positioned differently. Like the new (old) font & colors.
Really dislike the cumbersome name thing.
And does "cadets" really represent big army any better than "Black Knights"? I think not.
Big Army? Well, first, to me, it presents the cadets because that's who USMA is about. It's not big Army. Yes big Army benefits from USMA and yes big Army cheers for Army (I think at least). At the end of the day, this is a college team and the players are cadets.
It's similar to saying the "Blue Devils Duke" won the national championship.
It seems that Army Athletics - rather, Army West Point Athletics, I apologize - sort of sold itself out to Nike
What I'm saying is that none of us are the Supe, or athletic director, so unfortunately it's above our pay grade. If LTG Caslen asked me about it, I would tell him my thoughts.Spoken like a good future yes-man.