Big Ten Division Names and Logo Released

Big Red Spartan said:
I could poop a better logo and randomly pick 2 words out of a dictionary for better division names.

As for the color, nothing screams power conference and tradition like powder blue :facepalm:

PS: MichiganMan - clearly neither a Engineering or Geography major.
Click to expand...
If you can poop logos you truly have a talent I have yet to master.

 
I find it humorous that everyone on this board is suddenly a design expert. Any designer worth his weight will tell you that the best logo is one that is simple, functional, to the point, and recognizable. I like the new logo (The color could be improved, but is also fine), it works quite well.

 
knapplc said:
lilred said:
I'm all for "Legends," but "Leaders" is hella corny.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I like the logo (but not wild about the color) and I like Legends for a division name. Leaders sounds like they decided to try and be "hip" and make one of the names "progressive" and "forward-thinking" which are advertising buzzwords. I think they looked at everything they had and it all said Solid, Permanent, OLD, and they wanted to balance that with something about the future.

I think it failed. "Leaders" is what you come up with when you try too hard.

Still, if this is the biggest mistake they make in this process, I'm damned happy about it.
Click to expand...
This is my problem with the logo too, the coloring is off-putting. You have a simple block letter style logo that shy's away from whatever boldness they were trying to portray with a weak powder blue color scheme. It looks even worse when you pair it with a big bold black B. I'm also not a fan of a big blocks of color with white cutout letters. Its personal preference, but it looks like someone's nephew dropped the ball.

"Legends" is an okay division name but you kinda paint yourself into a corner with it. Where do you go? "Lore," "Myth," "Tradition"? I like two of those better then "Leaders" and all it would have taken was a thesaurus to come up with them. There simply isn't a lot that is gonna go with that word for cross division marketing. X's and O's was fine, simple, but not very exciting from a marketing standpoint.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken said:
irafreak said:
ESPY said:
The new Big Ten logo was developed by Michael Bierut and Michael Gericke of the international design firm Pentagram.
Click to expand...
Methinks some of the talented design folks on HB could outdo the Pentagram Michaels mentioned above. Anyone wanna give it a try now that we know the conference is sticking with "Big Ten"?
Click to expand...
I'll answer the call!



That's 4 minutes wasted...
Click to expand...
this could turn into a fun board contest. much like this.
Click to expand...
Here's mine



 

Attachments

  • Big 10 logo.jpg
    Big 10 logo.jpg
    23.6 KB · Views: 0
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
I find it humorous that everyone on this board is suddenly a design expert. Any designer worth his weight will tell you that the best logo is one that is simple, functional, to the point, and recognizable. I like the new logo (The color could be improved, but is also fine), it works quite well.
Click to expand...
Simple and recognizable doesn't guarantee its any good.

 
For the trophies: I can understand them not including us if it was only Big 10 legends (leaders?) but since they included Rimington, they opened the flood gates. I won't really complain, but it's still fun to discuss which Huskers got left out...

Championship Game MVP: Frazier (3 straight MVPs in NC games... unheard of)

Defensive Lineman of the Year: Suh

Running Back of the Year: Rozier

Kicker of the Year: Henery (just look at Jim Bakken's stats)

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
I find it humorous that everyone on this board is suddenly a design expert. Any designer worth his weight will tell you that the best logo is one that is simple, functional, to the point, and recognizable. I like the new logo (The color could be improved, but is also fine), it works quite well.
Click to expand...

ive been trying to stare at it before commenting. a few hours have passed.

i like that they went simple. what i dont like is that simple became complicated when they felt the need to include what was a clever design in the last logo into the new one....the whole "it looks like one thing but is really two."

the last one was great because you couldnt tell anything was going on until you really looked for it.

this one, you look at it, and you think- "what exactly am I looking at." its busy like one of those crap optical illusions.

seems like two opposite ends of the spectrum.

you want simple? check out the round SEC logo. thats simple. what the Big 10 did here is far from it. its almost garish.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
I find it humorous that everyone on this board is suddenly a design expert. Any designer worth his weight will tell you that the best logo is one that is simple, functional, to the point, and recognizable. I like the new logo (The color could be improved, but is also fine), it works quite well.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that I just proved that I am an expert at design

 
I think the logo is alright. Im not a design expert so Im not gonna bash it. Im sure on the field and on the courts it will look fine.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top