|
|
Post by thebigdawg on Sept 10, 2021 10:06:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Fowl Ball
Sept 10, 2021 18:24:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by gwebb1994 on Sept 10, 2021 18:24:12 GMT -5
I walked over around Lake Hollifield last month and have never seen it so dirty and in disrepair, no fountain, nothing.
|
|
|
|
Fowl Ball
Nov 27, 2021 23:22:37 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by garbageman80 on Nov 27, 2021 23:22:37 GMT -5
I know it's a bit late to add to this but I think versus the Citadel 2016-17 season first home game those geese or geeses flew at least over Spangler Stadium more than 4 times once in the 2nd half one of them was roaming around the end zone and when they began playing music I believe the one roaming in the endzone got spooked and flew around the visiting side of the stadium with everyone kinda watching and laughing at that geese! Finally he after figuring out he didn't wanna fly around the endzone he flew behind the visiting side with about half the Citadel fans looking to see where he flew to!!! Not very interesting story but best one I can come up too bad it took months to come up with that!!
|
|
|
|
Fowl Ball
Nov 27, 2021 23:23:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by garbageman80 on Nov 27, 2021 23:23:09 GMT -5
I walked over around Lake Hollifield last month and have never seen it so dirty and in disrepair, no fountain, nothing. Yeah it looks rough still!!! |
|
|
|
Post by gwebb1994 on Nov 28, 2021 15:23:04 GMT -5
But we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a completely unnecessary athletic 'rebrand'.
|
|
|
|
Post by notsofast on Nov 28, 2021 19:58:14 GMT -5
Far be it from me to defend a price tag of hundreds of thousands, but a rebrand is hardly completely unnecessary. The official logo is horrifically outdated, to the point that individual teams have taken to rebranding on their own, leading to inconsistent branding and a fragmented look across the department (shocking that our AD would allow this to happen, I know). Trivial as that may sound, it matters. Hopefully we're keeping the price tag reasonable and staying far away from the consultants who brought us the stupid flame branding, but I'm all for a fresh, modern, and consistently used look.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebigdawg on Nov 29, 2021 15:00:04 GMT -5
Far be it from me to defend a price tag of hundreds of thousands, but a rebrand is hardly completely unnecessary. The official logo is horrifically outdated, to the point that individual teams have taken to rebranding on their own, leading to inconsistent branding and a fragmented look across the department (shocking that our AD would allow this to happen, I know). Trivial as that may sound, it matters. Hopefully we're keeping the price tag reasonable and staying far away from the consultants who brought us the stupid flame branding, but I'm all for a fresh, modern, and consistently used look. Does anyone have a timeframe for when we should expect to see the new brand? |
|
