don't get me wrong, i understand what and why they're doing what they're doing currently with the brand and, actually, i'm a fan of the current type. i just think it's a shame that some people only want uber-uniformity to the point where everything looks the exact same. of course that's kind of the point of branding but i don't think it has to be so limiting to where our wordmark can't stand alone and be recognized by someone who can't read. think of like a UCLA or something who uses a scripty 'Ucla' but it's not like every part of their brand looks like that. even in the dan mac days with the twirly cy, there was a less 'vanilla' wordmark that i thought did it's job as a stand alone mark completely removed from cy holding it.
again, i'm a fan of the simple, athletic typeface we have going on currently but the old stuff like the 80s wordmarks are still cool and has withstood the test of time if you ask me. the same can't be said about a lot of the 'trendy' sports logos from the 90s so i was just trying to imagine what could still be relevant 20 years from now, thus the subtle changes/updates to the mark.