Big Ten logos that could've been

[Hujan]

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.

No doubt. Now if only they'd ditch that baby blue color. That has to be universally despised, right? I would love to see people try it with different colors like grey, red, true blue, silver, black, white, etc. Frankly, I don't see why they couldn't just use the color scheme from the Big Ten Network logo:

 

[ladyhawke]

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-a$$ 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.

I don't mind the logo so much but why did it have to be blue? Ewww! Why couldn't it have been black or even red.

 

[BOJ]

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-a$$ 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.

I don't mind the logo so much but why did it have to be blue? Ewww! Why couldn't it have been black or even red.

Again, I am going to go with the assumption that in time they will be using only the "BiG" part of it and drop the "Ten" underneath, as for colors, yeah I don't know about the baby blue stuff; I prefer the blue and black one that I see all the time where the B is blue and the iG are black, that's decent (the same one that someone on here uses in their signature but changed it to red and black).

I am an idiot, I could have just pointed to the one that is by the countdown clock on the top of the forums. I like that one.