So the new logo for the Big Ten, which is now a necessity since the conference has 12 teams, was revealed today. Based on the Twitter reaction immediately upon the new logo’s announcement, most people seem to think of it what I do.
Image source: TwitPic
I don’t know exactly what I don’t like about it; I’ll need to ruminate and look at it a bit more. But my first impression is just that I am completely unimpressed.
It is boring and without any character whatsoever. And what is the point of the #1 in the middle of Big? I suppose it is meant to signify the Big Ten’s superiority, but it just seems lame. I could go on and on, but just look at it. What did that take, 15 minutes to design in MS Paint?
Update: Ah, I get it now. The 1 and the G are supposed to look like a 10. Whatever. Still don’t like it.
From the official press release at BigTenNetwork.com:
The new Big Ten logo was developed by Michael Bierut and Michael Gericke of the international design firm Pentagram.
About Pentagram: Pentagram is a distinguished international design consultancy with offices in New York, London, Austin and Berlin
Yes, they are distinguished…for creating the lamest possible logo for the greatest conference in America.
Our very own KVB did a quick mock up a few years back of a new Big Ten logo for when the conference ultimately added a 12th team. I still like his design, which was a take off on the previous logo, much better:
And the divisions are going to be called “Leaders” and “Legends”…seriously.
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Northwestern are the “Legends” while Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, and Wisconsin are the “Leaders.”
And all of the Big Ten conference will now be a “Laughingstock” as word circulates about these horrendous choices.
Please, someone wake me up from this should-be-an-Onion story nightmare. What is happening to my conference?
Another feature will be an extensive series of football trophies. This idea I do somewhat like, and I love seeing Anthony Thompson and Antwaan Randle El get recognition, but the hyphenated names seem about as clumsy as the “Leaders”/”Legends” thing. I’ll give them a pass on this though, because as a good Purdue friend of mine said, “at least they were thinking outside the box.” And I’m in favor of honoring past greats, so at least this part wasn’t a complete debacle.
What do you think? And please, dissenting voices chime in with a comment. Make me feel better about this.