Big Ten to unveil new logo today at 12pm EST

[Cuse2000]

Overall, it's not a terrible logo but it definitely doesn't have any cool factors or any real creative factors. It looks fine by itself, but I think the moment it is put on any type of apparel, it will look bad. So please B1G, do not starting putting that thing on the uniforms!!!

Reminds me of the old Big East logo. Couldn't find a great image, but here's what it looked like on the jerseys

[mightynine]

This, by itself, isn't bad. Plays off the idea the "11" did in the old logo. Slap "BIG TEN" in the same type underneath, and I think it would work alot better than the full wordmark logo.

Those division names...man, nothing can help them there.

[Juddley]

I don't like any of the logo or division names. But that logo could easily accommodate having the "G" turned into a 6 if they expand more.

[ESTONES6]

I read that the person who designed the '11' Big Ten logo... he/she was required to submit designs for 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. I have a hard time believe the same guy who made the great '11' logo made this one too.

The person who made the '11' Big Ten logo didn't have anything to do with the logo they unveiled today. He did say he made variations of that same logo for 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16. He said he gave the Big Ten the designs for the other numbers when he submitted the '11' logo. So, the Big Ten didn't have to pay a design firm and could have updated the current logo to update the hidden number to '12' for free .

Right. I pretty much what I said. I just don't know why they would go in such a different direction. I think the '11' Big Ten logo was quality. It was simple, yet creative. This one is just bad.

[Cujo]

Ain't nothin' wrong with this....

[trekbkr]

I can't help but think "Senior PGA".

[CS85]

Is there a thread on the okc thunder's unveiling? I want to feel better about this.

[ESTONES6]

Ain't nothin' wrong with this....

I think It would be more subtle and more visually pleasing to put the 2 between the G and T and the 1 between the I and G.

[TheoW]

Reminds me of the old Big East logo. Couldn't find a great image, but here's what it looked like on the jerseys

This is it.

[DelayedPenalty]

This logo is bad. Like, Tony Romo botched hold bad.

[rmackman]

Divisions names:

Legends and Leaders.

WTF?!

Legends: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota (LOL), Northwestern (LOL), Michigan, and Michigan State

Leaders: Ohio State, Penn State, Illinois (ROFL), Indiana (WTF), Wisconsin, and Purdue.

Also get ready for 18 new Land Grant trophies.

/I want the address of the consulting firm they used to properly express my...displeasure.

This is actually worse than the logo itself. Why can't they just do an East/West like most conferences do? I guess if they did that it would be:

EAST - Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State

WEST - Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern

Since they didn't completely arrange it via their regional locations, they had to come up with some other names. So fine, if they're going to do that, why not name it after historic figures in Big 10 History like the PATERNO DIVISION and the SCHEMBECHLER DIVISION...or....I dunno. Just something other than what they have. You could even just call it the MIDWEST DIVISION and the NORTHERN DIVISION and it doesn't sound stupid, but all teams could fit under those categories.

[STL FANATIC]

Here's a question. Can someone tell me why they liked the Big Ten (11) logo? I mean really look at it and then tell me what's good about it.

There's 2 things. It's a creative use of negative space, and it utilizes an athletic typeface. But, it's bland, the idea of small caps with a block font is awful, and the notch in the T was a little awkward. But it pulled a visual trick on us all and it was around for a long time, so therefore great.

The new Big Ten logo and the decision to keep the name are all based on the premise that Ten/10 in the context of Big Ten/B10 does not represent a number. Big Ten means one of the premier athletic conference located in the midwest. And 10 is a shorthand for Ten, not a numerical representation (in this context). I think it's brilliant.

And there's always this less than stellar line of defense. Take a look at the BCS conference logos. The new Big Ten logo easily beats out the ACC, SEC, and Big East. The Pac 10/12 gets credit for trying, but their new logo is a mess. The Big 12 logo is okay, it's the only one I'd say might be a push. And again, this new logo is definitely an upgrade over what it's replacing.

I'm just not sure what people were expecting.

[rmackman]

Here's a question. Can someone tell me why they liked the Big Ten (11) logo? I mean really look at it and then tell me what's good about it.

There's 2 things. It's a creative use of negative space, and it utilizes an athletic typeface. But, it's bland, the idea of small caps with a block font is awful, and the notch in the T was a little awkward. But it pulled a visual trick on us all and it was around for a long time, so therefore great.

The new Big Ten logo and the decision to keep the name are all based on the premise that Ten/10 in the context of Big Ten/B10 does not represent a number. Big Ten means one of the premier athletic conference located in the midwest. And 10 is a shorthand for Ten, not a numerical representation (in this context). I think it's brilliant.

And there's always this less than stellar line of defense. Take a look at the BCS conference logos. The new Big Ten logo easily beats out the ACC, SEC, and Big East. The Pac 10/12 gets credit for trying, but their new logo is a mess. The Big 12 logo is okay, it's the only one I'd say might be a push. And again, this new logo is definitely an upgrade over what it's replacing.

I'm just not sure what people were expecting.

SEC logo isn't anything spectacular, but it's at least somewhat pleasing to the eye. ACC is overly complicated:

The Big 10 logo is just overly bland.

[rams80]

Here's a question. Can someone tell me why they liked the Big Ten (11) logo? I mean really look at it and then tell me what's good about it.

There's 2 things. It's a creative use of negative space, and it utilizes an athletic typeface. But, it's bland, the idea of small caps with a block font is awful, and the notch in the T was a little awkward. But it pulled a visual trick on us all and it was around for a long time, so therefore great.

The new Big Ten logo and the decision to keep the name are all based on the premise that Ten/10 in the context of Big Ten/B10 does not represent a number. Big Ten means one of the premier athletic conference located in the midwest. And 10 is a shorthand for Ten, not a numerical representation (in this context). I think it's brilliant.

And there's always this less than stellar line of defense. Take a look at the BCS conference logos. The new Big Ten logo easily beats out the ACC, SEC, and Big East. The Pac 10/12 gets credit for trying, but their new logo is a mess. The Big 12 logo is okay, it's the only one I'd say might be a push. And again, this new logo is definitely an upgrade over what it's replacing.

I'm just not sure what people were expecting.

There was a bit of utilitarianism about the old logo that was appealing. No it wasn't snazzy, it didn't have bells and whistles, and it wasn't designed by a team of overpaid consultants who excel in non-offensive groupthink. The old logo essentially said "We're the Big Ten, you know what we bring to the table and we're not going to conform with your hot fonts or designs, deal with it." This branding, (besides being underwhelming in general-which I think is part of the reason for the backlash) attempts to tweak with that model by being too cute and "trendy" for its own good. The Big Ten overthought this. A lot. And frankly, that's where the package fails.

The division names are where my ire truly falls, and that's because I'd like the division name to actually mean something to the fan. The alignments are fine, and its ok if the division names are not completely geographically accurate. (Did you know Auburn is actually East of Nashville? That Salt Lake City and Boulder are North of Palo Alto and Berkeley? Nobody's cracking on those leagues for this.)

[Mings]

The B10/G Logo works really well for me. The horizontal one is ok, but the B10 keeps the spirit of the old Big Ten logo with the slight play of form. The Division names, well there is no saving those.

[STL FANATIC]

Here's a question. Can someone tell me why they liked the Big Ten (11) logo? I mean really look at it and then tell me what's good about it.

There's 2 things. It's a creative use of negative space, and it utilizes an athletic typeface. But, it's bland, the idea of small caps with a block font is awful, and the notch in the T was a little awkward. But it pulled a visual trick on us all and it was around for a long time, so therefore great.

The new Big Ten logo and the decision to keep the name are all based on the premise that Ten/10 in the context of Big Ten/B10 does not represent a number. Big Ten means one of the premier athletic conference located in the midwest. And 10 is a shorthand for Ten, not a numerical representation (in this context). I think it's brilliant.

And there's always this less than stellar line of defense. Take a look at the BCS conference logos. The new Big Ten logo easily beats out the ACC, SEC, and Big East. The Pac 10/12 gets credit for trying, but their new logo is a mess. The Big 12 logo is okay, it's the only one I'd say might be a push. And again, this new logo is definitely an upgrade over what it's replacing.

I'm just not sure what people were expecting.

There was a bit of utilitarianism about the old logo that was appealing. No it wasn't snazzy, it didn't have bells and whistles, and it wasn't designed by a team of overpaid consultants who excel in non-offensive groupthink. The old logo essentially said "We're the Big Ten, you know what we bring to the table and we're not going to conform with your hot fonts or designs, deal with it." This branding, (besides being underwhelming in general-which I think is part of the reason for the backlash) attempts to tweak with that model by being too cute and "trendy" for its own good. The Big Ten overthought this. A lot. And frankly, that's where the package fails.

It's funny that that's your take on the old logo, because I nearly posted that about the new logo. The Big Ten doesn't care what the outside opinion is, they're saying this IS a good logo. And they're the Big Ten so it is and will be.

Plus, it's excellently designed. It's not cutesy to utilize beautiful typography and one of the best athletic typefaces out there right now. But obviously opinions are opinions, that's just mine.

[rams80]

Here's a question. Can someone tell me why they liked the Big Ten (11) logo? I mean really look at it and then tell me what's good about it.

There's 2 things. It's a creative use of negative space, and it utilizes an athletic typeface. But, it's bland, the idea of small caps with a block font is awful, and the notch in the T was a little awkward. But it pulled a visual trick on us all and it was around for a long time, so therefore great.

The new Big Ten logo and the decision to keep the name are all based on the premise that Ten/10 in the context of Big Ten/B10 does not represent a number. Big Ten means one of the premier athletic conference located in the midwest. And 10 is a shorthand for Ten, not a numerical representation (in this context). I think it's brilliant.

And there's always this less than stellar line of defense. Take a look at the BCS conference logos. The new Big Ten logo easily beats out the ACC, SEC, and Big East. The Pac 10/12 gets credit for trying, but their new logo is a mess. The Big 12 logo is okay, it's the only one I'd say might be a push. And again, this new logo is definitely an upgrade over what it's replacing.

I'm just not sure what people were expecting.

There was a bit of utilitarianism about the old logo that was appealing. No it wasn't snazzy, it didn't have bells and whistles, and it wasn't designed by a team of overpaid consultants who excel in non-offensive groupthink. The old logo essentially said "We're the Big Ten, you know what we bring to the table and we're not going to conform with your hot fonts or designs, deal with it." This branding, (besides being underwhelming in general-which I think is part of the reason for the backlash) attempts to tweak with that model by being too cute and "trendy" for its own good. The Big Ten overthought this. A lot. And frankly, that's where the package fails.

It's funny that that's your take on the old logo, because I nearly posted that about the new logo. The Big Ten doesn't care what the outside opinion is, they're saying this IS a good logo. And they're the Big Ten so it is and will be.

Plus, it's excellently designed. It's not cutesy to utilize beautiful typography and one of the best athletic typefaces out there right now. But obviously opinions are opinions, that's just mine.

My bigger issue is with the IG/10(/16?) thing they had going. One of my basic rules of thumb is that if I have to think about what you are trying to imply with some part of a logo, it's a bad logo.

[microdragon]

http://www.uslsoccer.com/home/486817.html

[14er]

It would have looked a lot better if they would have simply used a darker color.

[STL FANATIC]

I don't necessarily agree with that rule of thumb, but even playing on it, are you saying the idea of a 16 is what throws that wrench in there?

I think that's a stretch. It doesn't really look like a 6. A 6 clearly would have extended more. People are just all expansion crazy, but that really shouldn't have an adverse effect on the logo.