Official Big Ten Logo/Divisions Reaction Thread.
(Ed-I fail at internets. The links go to the images supplied by the Michigan Football twitter account.)
My thoughts: Meh.
I liked the hidden 11 in the old logo, and hoped there would be one in this, but it's not terrible.
The second logo, a horizontal shortening, is awful and needs to be destroyed.
Your thoughts?
December 13th, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
Or the LEGENDS?
Embarassing...
December 13th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
I think my brother and I had GI Joe wars in the sandbox with those names for our respective armies. Legends 4 Life, baby! Legends/Leaders=Lame.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
The logo, the names, the production, Ohio State, new trophy names, colors...one big fucking failure today
December 13th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
I'm actually OK with the shortened version. It's tolerable at least. All in all these are pretty disappointing after the old logo.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^
This couldn't happen in the other thread devoted to this?
December 13th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
I think the terribleness is too great to be contained in just one thread
December 13th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
Great point. My outrage came before the division and trophy names came up.
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
December 13th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
That's awful. Both are. The color scheme is too close to UNC, and the type-face is too modern-ish for the Big Ten. We're a classic conference, whereas these look like a tame Oregon-conference design.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
I posted it in another thread, but I'll put it here also since it's a dedicated thread. I'm unimpressed. Seems very bland. It's like they waited to the last minute and told a designer "you have half an hour, just put something together."
December 13th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
You think they actully hired someone to do this?
December 13th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
Not only did they hire someone to do this, they paid them a butt-load of cash to do so.
Life doesn't always make sense, and that applies to the world of design just as well.
December 13th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
Oh, that's right. He only does brilliant design for free.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
Look closely at the diagonal part of the N. It's discontinuous. I'm sure the intern they hired to make the logo could have done better with minimal inspection.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
will all Big Ten facilities now offer 1G wireless service? bc that's all I am getting out of this:
December 13th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
B16? Honoring Denard, duh.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
When I see this, I think Gatorade. Is anyone else getting that?
December 13th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
All I see is "B16".
December 13th, 2010 at 1:00 PM ^
YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP!!!
December 13th, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
no, no...B 1 G: they want you to "be number one g"! g being a gangsta, of course.
clear reference to MSU, i think.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^
I think this honors Brandon Graham - BG #1
December 13th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
Best comment I've read so far
December 13th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
First impression? Definitely meh. Interesting thing about the second version -- it could easily be adapted for a league that wants to call itself "The Big Sixteen"
Hmmm...
December 13th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
i can't believe someone was paid to design this bullshit
December 13th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
but, Legends and Leaders don't seem to be on the same level, power-wise (if you know what I mean.) Legends seem way more influencial than Leaders. Couldn't they have done something simple like "These 6 Teams" and "Those 6 Teams?"
Big fail, and the logos are terrible too.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
the old guard versus the new guard of power teams in the conferences
also fail:
The Leaders and the Best are in the Legends conference. wtf.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^
December 13th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^
i missed it but can only guess, based upon the mount of fail in the previous naming and logos, that they are titled the Nina (Legends), the Pinta (Leaders) and the Santa Maria (Conference title)
December 13th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
We could not come up with any Sparty for the trophy names, glad the conference could at least dig and find some.
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/121310aaa.html
December 13th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
Actually thought we would get something cool and innovative like the last logo but both the logo (Carolina Blue) and the division names are disappointing. See too much input from the same folks who did the BTN graphics. With geography out of play, the division names were going to be controversial regardless but Legends and Leaders seems too vanilla. Back to work.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
the BIG looks like B16
16 teams anyone? Let's start some rumors!
December 13th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
Awful, both options. Just awful. I'd rather keep the current than use either of these two.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:37 PM ^
It appears to be based on the typeface "Vitesse" from Hoefler & Frere-Jones with just a little bit of unimaginative twiddling with the "I" and the "G."
I hope they didn't pay a lot of $$ for it; if they did, they didn't get very much for their money.
The conference names are much lamer, IMHO. They have all the cachet of something dreampt up by Delaney's 14-year old niece at the dinner table.
December 13th, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
It looks like I'm not the only armchair typographer in the room. As much vitriol as this logo is provoking, I can't seem to hate it. It's not great -- when I found out the designer of the previous B10 logo had made other versions with hidden 12s I thought for sure they'd just dust off one of those. This is a compromise on that idea -- you get to keep the "hidden" number (the 10 in Big) but go with something fresh and eschew focusing on the true number of teams, which from a branding perspective is moot. I wish they had unveiled some sort of icon-type logo that looks as good as the SEC logo put on officials, etc.
December 13th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
It's competent, but thoroughly unremarkable. It's just big, beefy slab-serif type which will adapt well to a wide variety of situational uses. Stolid, workmanlike, unspectacular, plodding, straightforward.
Just like the popular conception of the Big Ten in other parts of the country, in other words.
I'm a designer in my day job (when I'm not wasting time on MGoBlog, that is) so this stuff hits close to home professionally-speaking. The only thing I'll say on behalf of the designers at Pentagram is that it's possible they presented truly innovative and memorable design concepts which were rejected by the client. That's a normal part of the design biz.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^
OMG, everything is AWFUL!
Honestly, did some clown take all of 10 minutes to design those logos in MS Paint.
Actually, I shouldn't insult MS Paint like that.
Ugh!
December 13th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^
December 13th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
what's the point of hiding a 1 if they don't also hide a 2?
on a scale of 1-10, i give it a meh.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
on January 4th.
They did get the division names half right..Leaders and Best would have worked better.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
If there ever is a meme to replace the "Antonio Bass", I vote it's to never actually use the division names contrived today. We must, no, will, henceforth describe the divisions as Brian and Tim.
/kidding
December 13th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
with the provision we change Brian and Tim to Bo and Woody.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
December 13th, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
Works for me. But which is which?
December 13th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
They fight. And Fight. And fight and fight and fight. Fight fight fight. Fight fight fight.
At least it would have been good for a laugh. This is just sad.
December 13th, 2010 at 1:10 PM ^
To further the meme, use them interchangably.
December 13th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
lol this is almost as bad as the new GAP logo.. look it up for those interested.. you will laugh
December 13th, 2010 at 12:34 PM ^
Gap actually changed it back after public outcry.
Can we do the same thing here?
December 13th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
Why couldn't we just have kicked out some team to keep it eleven teams and no horrible changes would be made?
December 13th, 2010 at 12:31 PM ^
Indiana, maybe?
December 13th, 2010 at 1:20 PM ^
otherwise you can't have a championship game.
And now that Big Ten and Pac Ten will be having championship games, along with the SEC, ACC and Big East, allowing a 6 team playoff will be easy!
5 Champions and one wild card!
Although I'm sure there trying for 8 teams in the playoff.
Remember the thread bitching about all the bowl games in january. well, how many bowl games do you need for a playoff of 8 teams?