Five thoughts on the new logos and rebranding

There were rumors circulating Thursday night about a possible rebranding of the UVA sports logos. Friday morning, they were proven to be true.

The logos came from Nike with the idea that it would present a bolder, more impressive, face of Virginia sports. Well, they were certainly bold, but the jury is still out as to whether it was the right move. You can watch the explanation and announcement video here:

𝘈 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝐁𝐋𝐔𝐄#GoHoos | #WeCavaliers 🔶🔷 pic.twitter.com/zZ40Jpr13P

— Virginia Cavaliers (@VirginiaSports) April 24, 2020

The logos come with a new slogan, “We Cavaliers,” and some new typography. Here are some thoughts about that slogan, typography, and logos.

1) These new logos are not UVA

Bronco Mendenhall talks in the above video about how the old logos were too subtle. Maybe from a football point of view, that’s true. But let’s be real, Virginia is and always has been basketball first, football second. Basketball is the sport that put the V-Sabres on the map.

And the king of subtlety, of being quiet and reserved, is none other than the coach of that team. Tony Bennett is not some up-in-your-face, blustering coach. Bennett is calm, cool, and collected. There, making an impact, but not always noticed.

In other words, subtle.

So the idea of going against that is without a doubt an interesting one. Again, maybe it plays into what the football team is trying to do, and we’d all love to see them succeed as well. But it just doesn’t represent the way the University of Virginia has come to be known by its fans and the nation.

Plus, the traditional V-Sabres were there all through Virginia’s rise to national relevancy in basketball, and in all sports. Now, once we’ve reached the height of that, we’re just going to tear it down and replace it with a new logo? Come on.

Even the traditional V would be better. A solid, steadfast V and a simple V-Sabres. Not some garish logo that would be better served appearing for an XFL team.

2) The new V-Sabres aren’t all bad

I think I’ve made it clear that I disagree with the new logos on the whole. With that said, the updated V-Sabres has its merits. It certainly catches the eye more, and it is admittedly more visually appealing.

It has that pop that the designers were looking for, and the sharp, sleek lines do look nice. If the idea was to make it look more modern and refined, it certainly succeeded. But then again, there’s still the question: Why?

Blab all you want about the need to present a bolder front to attract recruits and whatnot. There was nothing wrong with the old logo. It was clean and simple. There were no crazy designs or bells and whistles.

Regardless, there’s nothing really wrong with the new V-Sabres. And this would be much easier to stomach if not for the accompanying logos.

3) They got the secondary logos all wrong

The idea behind the facemask covering the face is not a bad one. It’s quite an interesting concept, and leaves a lot to the imagination. But in no way does it absolve the secondary logos of guilt.

When you look at your team’s logos, it’s normally a given that you can tell that they represent your team. Had somebody shown me those two out of context, before today, it would not have immediately clicked that those were for UVA.

They’re adorned with that ridiculous helmet and the shield on one of the two. In theory, the University of Virginia is the Cavaliers. In practice, it’s the Wahoos.

Nobody truly acquainted with the university uses the term Cavaliers. That’s reserved for dimwitted TV announcers and people unfamiliar with the ACC. Everybody knows that it’s the Hoos.

What is it that we say during the national anthem? Not Cavaliers, no, that’s not it. We shout “Hoos!” When trying to spur the team on in a high-stakes situation, nobody yells “Go Cavaliers!” Nope. The phrase is “Go Hoos!” The twitter hashtag with the V-Sabres was #GoHoos, not Cavaliers.

Hopefully you get where I’m going with this. As such, the idea to make two of three logos totally and completely dependent on the Cavalier makes no sense. Nobody’s asking for a logo with a large fish, but laying so much emphasis on the Cavalier is an odd choice.

The secondary logos are just awful.

4) They nailed the new typography

For all the shortcomings of the logos, the new typography is on point. It’s sleek, it’s cool, it’s modern. I have no trouble seeing that becoming a staple of UVA athletics branding.

This was a score on the part of the designers without a doubt. That aspect of the rebrand was a job well done.

5) We Cavaliers… Eh

I’d like to copy and paste everything mentioned in the third section about Cavaliers vs Hoos. And I understand that the Cavalier is still the official mascot of Virginia athletics.

It’s not a terrible slogan, but come on. That’s the best you could do? A generic, “We (insert mascot here)” phrase?

It could be worse, and when put in conversation with those secondary logos it was a genius idea. But at the same time it’s a tad weird and way too universal.

So was it a success?

If you read any part of this article I think you won’t be surprised that my answer is a resounding “no.” Again, these are my opinions of the new logos. Normally we stick to analysis on this website, but these logos were a punch to the gut and I had to do my due diligence as a Wahoo fan and speak out against them.

With the exception of the new typography, none of it was an improvement. Most of it was a downgrade.

Look, Carla Williams is trying to build a nationally respected program in football to add to the one already established in basketball. And I’m behind that all the way. She’s done a great job thus far as AD and will continue to do so.

And who knows, maybe something good comes of these logos. But from a fan’s perspective at present, moving away from our solid, dependable logos and towards these new outlandish ones is not a welcome step.