December 27th, 2010 at 7:08 PM ^

It's not really a defense, as much as an explanation by the original designer why he thought his crappy ideas didn't suck. I mean, he can justify it all he wants, but B1G doesn't look like a 10, and every reproduction I've seen has the same shitty colors. It's not how it's printed. And really, contrary to what he says, I don't remember ANYBODY not liking the Big Ten logo with the 11 when they introduced it back in the day. Everyone thought it was a smart answer to the number problem. And would be too hard to incorporate more number changes? Except that the original designer gave them designs up to like 16. Guess if they became the "Big 128". It might be a problem...


December 27th, 2010 at 8:43 PM ^

"And would be too hard to incorporate more number changes?"

It's laughable --downright pitiful-- when someone rolls out the "Oh but it would be stupid to change the conference logo EVERY TIME the conference adds a new team!" So why change the logo this time? And how frequently is that going to happen, anyway?

/head asplode


December 27th, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^

As a business owner who employs a designer to do a lot of logo and brand identity kit type work, I really think they blew this one. I have had my own hits and misses - impossible to create things that hit the mark every time. The trick is NOT to let the misses go public! The cutesy number/letter thing makes it hard to read. The color is awful. And the chunky font just looks stale. Overall it fails to provide any feeling of what the Big Ten was/is/will be. Do over time.


December 27th, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^

appear to be "you'll learn to love it", "there are other very simple logos that are good" and "at least we didn't do literal pictures of M-OSU football games, which we'll claim someone actually wanted to use". 

Sure, they could've invented a new conference called The Intergalactic Twelve, and created a logo that consisted of a three-panel comic strip showing Herbstreit getting sacked, all in hues of baby-poo brown and magenta.  And that would've been worse.

The fact that they didn't do the worst possible job doesn't mean what they came up with is a good design.


December 27th, 2010 at 8:04 PM ^

Sure, they could've invented a new conference called The Intergalactic Twelve, and created a logo that consisted of a three-panel comic strip showing Herbstreit getting sacked. . .

Is it too late to do this?


December 27th, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^

I'll still root for the hockey team, until the Big Ten Hockey Conference forms. 

Really, if  I CAN'T be serious, I guess I'm not and I actually am kidding, mostly, but that logo would be as bad as advertising in my book and I'm one of those "Say HELL NO to advertising" type people (obligatory get off my lawn).  Especially as large as it is in those pictures.  If they had to put the current (old?) logo in, a reasonable size, below the diagonal 30's, I'd be fine with that, but I'm against ruining such a nice looking stadium with that eyesore, in any way.


December 27th, 2010 at 8:48 PM ^

This write-up is snotty and unconvincing. It sets up a series of straw-men by cherry picking the least relevant complaints against the logo and knocking them down, framing college football fans as uncultured.

But, much like the logo itself, the success of this tactic relies on being vapid and insubstantial.

Hardware Sushi

December 27th, 2010 at 10:55 PM ^

Wow, talk about condescending. Apparently us football fan "human beings" aren't intelligent enough to decide what we do and don't like. That is an absurd post by an individual living in some sort of insulated design world...we aren't allowed to have a worthwhile opinion until we've gotten our design degree from Parsons.

The complaints she offers rebuttals for aren't even the main issues that most fans have had regarding the new logo. She points out mathematical inconsistencies (note to the author: those are relating to the name, not the logo, and most of those are from fans of other conferences), evoking images (I haven't even heard an outcry for this), and too simple/ugly.

The first two don't even to be that important to fans, especially MGoBloggers, and the last one has pretty much been universally agreed upon. If those in the design world love it, but 90% of the public hates it, I have one question to ask: Who is the target audience here?

Is the Big Ten trying to impress designers and win design awards? If so, good for them and keep the design. Is the Big Ten trying to make a cool logo that makes its fans happy and proud? If so, get rid of this thing and give us something normal. Reading design blogs that defend the logo is like stepping into a bizzaro world.


December 27th, 2010 at 8:49 PM ^

They're claiming things that I've never heard before - I don't call myself a "Big Ten Alum," I'm a Michigan alum. I'm proud of the Big Ten, but I'd be just as proud of it if they called it the Big North or the Big Dozen or whatever. And nobody expected the logo to have an actual image of Michigan-Ohio State. That's about the only thing that could make this logo worse. As far as simplicity goes, I agree with them - but all their examples of simplicity were distinctive. The Pac 10's logo is simple too.

I will give them this though - the "B1G" alone is better than the B1G Ten. And the B1G has started to grow on me. But I'd be much happier if they trashed the whole thing and came up with something that was actually good. Instead of something they hope will grow on me.


December 27th, 2010 at 9:23 PM ^

The font sucks, the color sucks, the way they tried to make BIG look like B10 is stupid, the division names suck too. I know what Jim Delany's New Year's Resolution should be...