transferred to Pentagram?
Unofficial Big Ten Logo Dance-Off
I have weathered all the submissions and whittled them down to a plausible few. Many submissions either unwisely tried to shoehorn a 2 into the design, adopted the horrifying your-printer-is-out-of-ink cyan, or were not better than the New Coke logo. I ruthlessly cut those.
Our four candidates:
Yes, this is just the BTN logo minus "network" and with an extra star, but it's included because 1) it makes sense and 2) points out what a weird lack of cohesion there is between the two new marks.
The Reigning Champion
Who's cuisine reigns supreme?
Really like Anthony's, minus the teams at the bottom and possibly cleaning up the alignment of the stars (a few seem a little too close to each other).
I wish my name was a conference. The hidden '10' in the CRAIG-10 would be awesome. I could even fire up MS-PAINT and make my own logo just like the BIG-10/12
I would go with the second one, but the shield too closely resembles the new Pac 10 (12) logo. Otherwise I'd love it.
It's simple. It's clean. The gradient color pattern is both nondescript and better on the eyes. And what a subtle and genius way to get 12 in there (looks like football laces)....plus, it's very adaptable to future expansion. I get that the Big Ten doesn't want to have to change the logo every time a new team is added, however (1) it's not like new teams are added on a yearly basis, and (2) simply adding/subtracting a tick mark or star or whatever is really easy to change without having to truly change anything.
I like Choi's. Only change I would make is each notch or lace would be split in half with the colors of each school. Might make it a little busy but would add a little Office Space "flair." So sad that all of these are better than the real one.
Tscherne wins my vote, but I would take away the teams at the bottom and just make it the shield.
Agreed. It looks pretty crisp with just the shield.
Is this campaign going to be just as effective as the banner votes we took? Notice we're still waiting on the winner to be unveiled. Choi's and the other guys work was awesome. Get those submitted ASAP.
Now to work on the Leaders/Legends deal.
that the proposal in the comments with the geographical footprint and stars for the campus locations didn't make it. I thought that one was legit.
I thought that one was cool, but it was almost too much - I think you want a little more simplicity.
This bad boy?
I really like the first one if it can be made more compact. Feels a little too spread out.
And we all know the spread can't work in the big ten!
At least it's a ton more compact than the one on the bottom.
True. I'm just imagining it with a thicker font. Any of them would be better than what we've got.
BTW, it should be "Whose cuisine reigns supreme?" not "Who's."
I like the Big Ten logo, but only the top B1G part and not the bottom.
i am hoping that the TEN part on the bottom drops off in a few years. i think its just to start with so the old folks aren't too far behind.
I'm surprisingly not against the <black>B</black><blue>1G</blue>, but the full logo is hideous.
are 100000 times better than the new logo. I mean seriously? They paid thousands(and even millions) of dollars to the experts to design the logo and this is the best they could come up with? smh
Love that first one. The twelve slashes reminiscent of the laces on the old rock. If it were mine, I would have sold it to the Big Ten for a fraction of what they paid out to some ridiculous company.
I like the first one as well. The only thing that Is that it has to represent the conference as a whole and not just the football programs.
Good point, though we could just see those slashes as representative of every member.
I think Tscherne is on the right track. I think it's the best of the 4, but the color scheme could stand for improvement.
Tscherne's logo immediately brings Bowling Green to mind...
Sorry my opinion offended you so much.
But I wasn't complaining about the blueness of it; in fact, I didn't even specify what I felt could be improved. But, since you so graciously asked, I don't there's enough contrast between the navy blue and the lighter blue in the middle. I like how there is a white stripe that divides the navy from the light blue along the bottom, and if it was possible to add that around the little triangle in the middle, and change the 1896 to white or add a white border around the numbers, then I think that would help it be better.
I wasn't dissing it; Tscherne obviously put a lot of effort into it and he did a great job.
Brian - you should post all of them somewhere for kicks.
Here's a write-in vote for Anthony Tscherne's - but without the individual logos beneath it. They're unnecessary.
I'm with you, I like the logo but the teams at the bottom don't need to be there. But I imagine that they would disappear when being put on a uniform/court/field/tramp stamp.
The shield looks great cause it's really simple and clean but still has significance (founding year, 12 stars etc). My only thing is that it looks too similiar to the Pac10 shield, which isn't necessarily a bad thing because it's the best looking of all the major conference logos.
I personally still prefer the old logo, but the new one has grown on me.
Jesus, even the old Pac-10 logo is better looking than the new Big 10 logo. I am completely baffled at how Delany and his cronies reviewed this design and were satisfied with the result.
Agreed. They would help a bit with remembering which school is in which conference, although im sure that will be easy to remember by next season.
Personally, I like the logos. There's probably a better way to include them, and it'd still be good without them.
Wow too bad all three of them are better than the chosen one. What a waste of time and money by Delany. Personally I like the BTN minus N one the best but whatcha going to do.
There is probably a separate legal entity created for the Big Ten Network, and having overlapping trademarks might inadvertently cause legal issues to overlap between the network and the conference. I'd keep the logos separate and distinct.