Official Big Ten Logo/Divisions Reaction Thread.

Submitted by jatlasb on December 13th, 2010 at 12:13 PM

(Ed-I fail at internets. The links go to the images supplied by the Michigan Football twitter account.)

http://ow.ly/i/6lS9

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.

http://ow.ly/i/6lSt

Your thoughts?

Comments

hailhailhailhail

December 13th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^

I think it looks understated and classic.  My only gripe is that the typeface feels like "Ten" should be followed by "essee Volunteers"    Also, Leaders and Legends?!  FMLAAB10F = Fuck My Life As A Big-10 Fan.

GVBlue86

December 13th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^

Well Jim Rome is currently going off about the division names. Says they are lame and it is very "Big Ten" of them to be named that. Can't say I disagree. Seems like a weak attempt to be "elite."

MGoBlue22

December 13th, 2010 at 1:10 PM ^

I am not impressed at all.  After the ingenuity that went into the current logo, this new one looks like it was put together at the last minute.  What gives?

Blue in Seattle

December 13th, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^

Big Ten Logo

 

Also some instructions on how to use the link button.  As long as you're not in "plain text editor" you should see the globe with chain links.  This is the "links" button.

Step 1 - copy the URL from the web page you want to share

Step 2 - type a title for the link in the Comment/Editor box (I typed Big Ten Logo for this one)

Step 3 - highlight the title you just typed.

Step 4 - press the Link Button, a dialogue box opens and there is a field for pasting the URL, paste your chosen URL in this entry field.  Click on OK.

Now your Link Title will be underlined with the typical indication that it's a link.  Congrats!

snowcrash

December 13th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^

They should have just changed the name of the conference, but the logo doesn't make sense in any case. The only thing that sticks out is the 1, which has nothing to do with the conference.

The division names are pretentious. Even the ACC with its screwy geography just went with Atlantic and Coastal. I would have just gone with North and South. Wisconsin would be in the South, but otherwise every school in the North is north of every school in the South. 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 13th, 2010 at 1:20 PM ^

Time for a contrary opinion: I really don't hate the division names.  And I prefer being in the Legends Division because that's a better sounding name than Leaders Division.  My biggest complaint is that the trophy isn't called Schembechler-Hayes, it rolls off the tongue better.

Don

December 13th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^

Pentagram has been one of the world's foremost multidisciplinary design firms for almost four decades, getting its start in London in 1972, and eventually opening offices in NY, SF, and Austin. I'd be shocked if their fees for this identity/branding project for the conference weren't well into five figures.

http://www.pentagram.com/en/

"The new Big Ten logo was developed by Michael Bierut and Michael Gericke of the international design firm Pentagram.

"The new Big Ten logo was developed to symbolize the conference's future, as well as its rich heritage, strong tradition of competition, academic leadership, and passionate alumni," said Gericke. "Its contemporary collegiate lettering includes an embedded numeral "10" in the word "BIG," which allows fans to see "BIG" and "10" in a single word. Memorable and distinctive, the new logo evolved from the previous logo's use of negative space and is built on the conference's iconic name, without reference to the number of member institutions.""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagram_%28design_studio%29

a2bluefan

December 13th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^

Man, the new logo is effin' UGLY. I'm amazed that someone actually came up with this, and the Big Ten commissioners liked it at all, much less choosing it as the top design over what must've been a barrage of other possibilities.  Yikes.

jericho

December 13th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^

The new logo and division names should be served with a single scoop of vanilla.  Not bad. Not great.  Will anyone (besides Big Ten Network) refer to the divisions as Leaders and Legends?  Or will it be Michigan's Division or OSU's Division?

MGoKalamazoo

December 13th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^

Those are the best names they could come up with? I think they might want to go back to the drawing board with the division names... and please get rid of the powder blue logo.

cp4three2

December 13th, 2010 at 1:53 PM ^

 Fielding Yost, Amos Stagg, Henry Williams, Harry Kipke, Bernie Bierman, Woody Hayes, Bo Schembechler, Earl Bruce, Lloyd Carr, Jim Tressell. Nice call, Delaney

 

Woody Hayes: 152-37, Schembechler: 143-24 in the Big Ten.  Joe Paterno 90-43.

 

Does anyone really think Paterno would be all time leader had he always coached in the Big Ten?  His winning percentage before joining the big ten is 79 percent, after its 62 percent.  

psychomatt

December 13th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

These divisions names are so bad that even Delany wouldn't want them. So, what is he really up to?

After attempting to use these names for about a month (week?), the media will inevitably revert to what we all know the divisions really are -- the Ohio State Division and the Michigan Division. Faced with that (and hundreds of thousands of complaints from fans of all the B10 schools), Delany will finally have the support he needs to go back to the university presidents and get approval to officially change the names to Bo and Woody. The schools other than UM and OSU will be so ecstatic to get rid of Leaders and Legends they will let slide the fact that the new names officially brand them all as little brothers.

mcberry

December 13th, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

These names are downright embarassing. Moreover, we can't even be in the Leaders - being that we're the leaders & best. I have seen so many better and different division names on this board alone, you'd think a marketing agency could come up with someone solid.

 

As for someone mentioning a Mich-Neb trophy game - this has to happen.  I think we should play for the other '97 National Championship Trophy - it would instantly be the coolest trophy game around.

mcberry

December 13th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^

So what do you consider to be the worst marketing decision:

1) New B1G TEN logo/divisions

2) Halo around the Big House from '98

The uproar was loud enough to get admins to admit a mistake on the Halo...I'm guessing this won't be possible with the divs/logo due to the general stubborness of B1G Ten officials.

BlueDragon

December 13th, 2010 at 3:27 PM ^

At least we could eventually take that architectural abomination off the Big House, and thanks to the rennovations, our stadium is awesome.  But this new logo on the other hand...no one's ever going to let the Big Ten forget about this one.  Ever.  Leaders and Legends?  I bet every Big Ten team just gained three points on their bowl game lines!

DISCUSS Man

December 13th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^

Switch Notre Dame with Wisconsin and this would work great.

Final Weekend of the regular season-

Iowa vs Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale)

Iowa State vs Missouri (Telephone Trophy)

Michigan vs Nebraska (1997 Rivalry)

msu vs Notre Dame (Megaphone)

 

Illinois vs Northwestern (Land O Lincoln)

Indiana vs Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket)

ohio state vs Wisconsin

Penn State vs Pitt

 

cp4three2

December 13th, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^

You really want to replace the Michigan-Ohio State game for "the 1997 rivalry" that was made up so that we could feel better about playing in the crappy Alamo Bowl after an underachieving 7-5 season?  It's completely made up.  Maybe in 10 years after being in the division it might mean something, but right now it's a rivalry akin to Michigan against Wisconsin or Iowa.  

 

Iowa State and Missouri add nothing whatsoever to the conference besides being from the Midwest.  ND obviously makes sense, Pitt sort of does because it would give PSU a rivalry and both ND and Pitt are good schools.  Iowa State is the second best school in Iowa and MIssouri's academics are always couched with the "but they have an excellent journalism department" qualifier.  

The only school outside of ND and Pitt that could plausibly, though unlikely, join is Texas and Texas AM because the academics, athletic tradition, and loads of cash they'd bring would make it worthwhile despite regional awkwardness.