Big Ten logos that could've been

[druski_2k5]

I don't know why they didn't pick my entry:

 

big teN

 

I was just thinking about this for a "LOL" submission.

 

It was only a matter of time....

[Hujan]

Saw this on another board. It's a bunch of submissions for a Big Ten logo contest. Just about all of these are better than the one that the Big Ten, er, "BIG" chose:

 

http://www.mycroburst.com/contests/redesign-big-ten-logo-unofficial-sponsored-by-mycroburst-com

 

 

 

The vast majority of those are pretty terrible, but I guess I'm in the minority of people that doesn't have a problem at all with the new B1G logo. #941 and #471 are both nice.

 

 

Really though, you're dreaming if almost all of them on that site would ever even momentarily be considered for actual use.

 

If you're saying that most of them are pretty bad, I don't disagree. But that doesn't answer the question of whether most of them would have been better than "BIG." Which tells you how I feel about "BIG." The Big Ten's newest logo is total and complete garbage. It's probably the second worst, only beating out the new Mountain West logo which is so laughably horrendous I am half wondering if someone from that conference is punking us.

 

There must be a serious talent vacuum in logo design and branding if the new Mountain West and BIG logos are the cream of the crop. My God, if he had enough passion for the work, a blind guy with Parkinsons could probably be top dog in that business after a few years.

[Hujan]

Here is their winner.

 

 

Far and away the best, with the possible exception of the shield one. And about 10,000 times better than "BIG." Can someone please send this to Delaney? Also, tell him to slide Wisconsin into "Legends" and Michigan into "Leaders" and then rename Legends "West" and Leaders "East," and you've got a perfect conference. The current logo, division names, and division alignments are what happens when you try to get too cute.

[Landlord]

What don't you like about the B1G logo, Hujan?

[chamrocck]

Far and away the best, with the possible exception of the shield one. And about 10,000 times better than "BIG." Can someone please send this to Delaney? Also, tell him to slide Wisconsin into "Legends" and Michigan into "Leaders" and then rename Legends "West" and Leaders "East," and you've got a perfect conference. The current logo, division names, and division alignments are what happens when you try to get too cute.

And so where does Michigan State fit? It would have to be east as well...just sayin'.

[badger79]

I like B1G. I like how message board users have already started to use it to refer to our conference. It's short and sweet. We're the B1G.

[walksalone]

I've already had someone I work with ask me "What the hell is B one G mean?"

[Hujan]

What don't you like about the B1G logo, Hujan?

 

Well, I should say that "BIG" by itself would not be so horrendous if not for the baby blue color they chose. I strongly suspect that they chose that color specifically because it is not associated with any teams in the conference, and therefore avoids giving the impression that the conference belongs to any one team, which might've happened if they'd used, say, royal blue, red, yellow, green, black, etc.

 

But the real problem is when they stack "BIG" atop "TEN." It's like, "See how the 'G' resembles a zero? And the 'I' kinda looks like a '1'? Put 'em together and you've got '10' inside of 'Big,' as in 'Big Ten'! Isn't that clever! But just for good measure, we put 'TEN' beneath it."

 

I mean, I know it's hard to see, but take a look at this graphic which shows all the conference logos:

 

 

Tell me that the Big Ten's logo doesn't stand out like a sore thumb of candy-ass branding. It is a joke compared to the Pac-10, MAC, or even---dare I say it---the Big XII logo. It just looks totally lame to me, especially in baby blue.

[Hujan]

Far and away the best, with the possible exception of the shield one. And about 10,000 times better than "BIG." Can someone please send this to Delaney? Also, tell him to slide Wisconsin into "Legends" and Michigan into "Leaders" and then rename Legends "West" and Leaders "East," and you've got a perfect conference. The current logo, division names, and division alignments are what happens when you try to get too cute.

And so where does Michigan State fit? It would have to be east as well...just sayin'.

 

Great point. I neglected to mention that Illinois should be swapped for Michigan State. And none of this "protected cross-over rivalry" nonsense. It's garbage. If you want an 8-game conference schedule, each team in a division plays each other team in their division once, plus three teams from the other division on a rotating basis. If you want a 9-game conference schedule (which would be a mistake), teams would play four teams from the other conference on a rotating basis. Clean and simple.

 

Imagine if we swapped out trips to Lansing and Ann Arbor for trips to Champaign and Madison. Not to mention, instead of having to go to Happy Valley every other year (as far from Lincoln as you can get in the "BIG"), we might get by with a trip to Indiana instead.

[knapplc]

I would have to agree that my biggest gripe with the Big Ten logo is the color. That baby blue is very blah.

[Landlord]

What don't you like about the B1G logo, Hujan?

 

Well, I should say that "BIG" by itself would not be so horrendous if not for the baby blue color they chose. I strongly suspect that they chose that color specifically because it is not associated with any teams in the conference, and therefore avoids giving the impression that the conference belongs to any one team, which might've happened if they'd used, say, royal blue, red, yellow, green, black, etc.

 

But the real problem is when they stack "BIG" atop "TEN." It's like, "See how the 'G' resembles a zero? And the 'I' kinda looks like a '1'? Put 'em together and you've got '10' inside of 'Big,' as in 'Big Ten'! Isn't that clever! But just for good measure, we put 'TEN' beneath it."

 

I mean, I know it's hard to see, but take a look at this graphic which shows all the conference logos:

 

 

Tell me that the Big Ten's logo doesn't stand out like a sore thumb of candy-ass branding. It is a joke compared to the Pac-10, MAC, or even---dare I say it---the Big XII logo. It just looks totally lame to me, especially in baby blue.

 

 

 

Agreed. If they only used the B1G logo without adding TEN on the bottom (not like you ever really see that logo pop up much now), I really like it when it's just the three characters. Seeing it on water bottles and basketball courts and etc. looks really sharp to me, and I don't mind the blue either way.

[Hujan]

What don't you like about the B1G logo, Hujan?

 

Well, I should say that "BIG" by itself would not be so horrendous if not for the baby blue color they chose. I strongly suspect that they chose that color specifically because it is not associated with any teams in the conference, and therefore avoids giving the impression that the conference belongs to any one team, which might've happened if they'd used, say, royal blue, red, yellow, green, black, etc.

 

But the real problem is when they stack "BIG" atop "TEN." It's like, "See how the 'G' resembles a zero? And the 'I' kinda looks like a '1'? Put 'em together and you've got '10' inside of 'Big,' as in 'Big Ten'! Isn't that clever! But just for good measure, we put 'TEN' beneath it."

 

I mean, I know it's hard to see, but take a look at this graphic which shows all the conference logos:

 

 

Tell me that the Big Ten's logo doesn't stand out like a sore thumb of candy-ass branding. It is a joke compared to the Pac-10, MAC, or even---dare I say it---the Big XII logo. It just looks totally lame to me, especially in baby blue.

 

 

 

Agreed. If they only used the B1G logo without adding TEN on the bottom (not like you ever really see that logo pop up much now), I really like it when it's just the three characters. Seeing it on water bottles and basketball courts and etc. looks really sharp to me, and I don't mind the blue either way.

 

Drop the "TEN" and put it in black, red, or royal blue, and I agree that it would be a pretty sharp logo. I especially like it when the "B" and "1G" are in two different colors. One in red and the other in true blue, for example, would look great. And maybe outline the letters in white or silver trim and it would look even better. You'll notice that a lot of other conference logos use the two-color approach (e.g., Big East and C-USA).

[corncraze]

What don't you like about the B1G logo, Hujan?

 

Well, I should say that "BIG" by itself would not be so horrendous if not for the baby blue color they chose. I strongly suspect that they chose that color specifically because it is not associated with any teams in the conference, and therefore avoids giving the impression that the conference belongs to any one team, which might've happened if they'd used, say, royal blue, red, yellow, green, black, etc.

 

But the real problem is when they stack "BIG" atop "TEN." It's like, "See how the 'G' resembles a zero? And the 'I' kinda looks like a '1'? Put 'em together and you've got '10' inside of 'Big,' as in 'Big Ten'! Isn't that clever! But just for good measure, we put 'TEN' beneath it."

 

 

 

Agreed. If they only used the B1G logo without adding TEN on the bottom (not like you ever really see that logo pop up much now), I really like it when it's just the three characters. Seeing it on water bottles and basketball courts and etc. looks really sharp to me, and I don't mind the blue either way.

 

Drop the "TEN" and put it in black, red, or royal blue, and I agree that it would be a pretty sharp logo. I especially like it when the "B" and "1G" are in two different colors. One in red and the other in true blue, for example, would look great. And maybe outline the letters in white or silver trim and it would look even better. You'll notice that a lot of other conference logos use the two-color approach (e.g., Big East and C-USA).

Agree. I personally love this look!

 

 

 

 

[okaive]

To me having B1G TEN, your saying 10 twice. Need to keep it that way.

[BOJ]

I personally like the one they game up with if they keep it as just BiG and not add in the "Ten" underneath. Simple easy to remember branding is almost always the way to go (at least according to marketing firms). Now if those same firms would have been consulted on Leaders and Legends...

 

Edit: being able to refer to the conference in time just as the Big conference (while keeping that BiG logo) I think will have added benefits that I think maybe the powers that be saw as a future advantage too.