<p>Just wondering: What do you guys think of the new UCLA logo with the blue, italicized bold lettering? If you haven't already noticed, it's been replacing all non-athletic UCLA logos throughout campus publications since the beginning of this year.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.identity.ucla.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.identity.ucla.edu/</a></p>
<p>sure as hell wasn't worth $90,000 - they should have asked the art department to create several options. It would have been $90,000 cheaper, they would have gotten the same product (anyone's grandmother could create that new logo on photoshop in about 10 minutes), and it would be great since it came from students/faculty currently at UCLA.</p>
<p>i like the cursive ucla better still, its fun making that for the pre-game show in the rose bowl =D</p>
<p>well, UCLA athletics will still be using the cursive logo, which is good</p>
<p>The new logo is horrible!!! I don't care that the angles are done in such a way that it is not reproducible! For $98,000 it was a rip-off.</p>
<p>If anything, the UCLA logo should either be more classical looking as a method of "unifying" all the institutions. </p>
<p>Thank goodness they kept the cursive athletic logo.</p>
<p>Well, as a former designer I like it. And the $98k is a deal all things considered. Sadly, most of the money is for the time it takes to get over the politics of such a major decision. The final logo itself is incredibly simple and IMO not at all unique..but I still like it.</p>
<p>They wanted to use something that had some historic reference to when UCLA was founded and this logo satisfies that goal.</p>
<p>There will still be plenty of other flavors for UCLA items..but this is now the official, contemporary look. All good things come to an end...right?</p>