Admittedly, I’m not too clued-in on US sports, but the Big Ten logo is one I’ve been familiar with for a while now (mainly because of its use of negative space to indicate the 11 institutions it represents).

Big Ten logo

Next year, 11 becomes 12, and alongside the change is a new logo by Pentagram.

Big Ten logo

“There will be people who would want us to be digitally correct with our name and our number, but I think we have 100-percent support of the people who have responsibility for these programs — in fact, it was a presidential directive that we maintain our name.”
— JIM DELANY, BIG TEN COMMISSIONER

Big Ten logo

“Seeing two numbers at once is clever, but it means redesigning the logo every time the conference expands.”
— MICHAEL BIERUT, PENTAGRAM

Big Ten logo

Project Team: Michael Gericke and Michael Bierut, partners-in-charge and designers; Don Bilodeau, Joe Marianek, Matt McInerney, Michelle Leong, Jed Skillins, designers.

More details on the Pentagram blog, and here on the Big Ten website.

Now, back to watching Man Utd vs Arsenal.

# # #

December 13, 2010

Comments

At first glance, I was thinking… well that is boring. But it really is a simple solution. I think it works better in application than it does on it’s own. Ok, so the previous version incorporated the 11. That is good and all, but the type in this new version is much better. Although, I would love to see the process of how they got to this point.

Its a shame they couldn’t find a negative space solution as the old logo. I can see what they have attempted with the 0/G play but for me it just doesn’t carry off, the second American college division to release a logo down grade after the PAC10 did earlier in the year.

I’m not a “Big” fan of this.

The solution was perhaps in the name and not the logo. The new logo isn’t inspiring to me. It leans too heavily on common collegiate slab serif type. The stacked version is awkward to me and negates the subtle “10”.

It is my opinion that this design is leaning toward clever more than effective. Effective can be clever but clever alone is not necessarily effective.

S.

It was a real thought provoker at the end realizing that if they keep up on the road they are going that they will have to redesign every time the league expands… thats a lot of designing for one “group”

Designing for a big college sports conference like the Big Ten is never an easy job. Not only do you have your direct client to work with, you have years and years of tradition, passion, alumnus and boosters that want their say in the decision and are more than open about their opinions.

The job that Michael Beirut and Michael Girecke was, in my opinion, a job well done. With all the design considerations that had to be addressed: the expansion of the conference, American sports tradition, the schools involved and most of all good design, they did some fine work.

As usual, there is much criticism from the sports community. I wouldn’t expect anything less from the millions of armchair analysts out there that are quick to voice their distaste of something so seemingly simple – and that’s the beauty of the solution. Only seeing the identity in application form will possibly quell the masses. Or not.

In my opinion their new logo gets the job done and meets all of the criteria. That being said I’m not particularly fond of it either.

To me the “collegiate” type is rather obvious and immediately gives me feelings of beer drinking and hazing rituals. The frat-boy look of the logo is front and center, thinly veiled by an attempt to add some intelligence by turning the “i” to a “1”. The ten still needed to be coloured for emphasis in fear that their target market of drunken fans will get lost.

Ok ok maybe the logo is perfect and my opinions are based on personal feelings. The only obvious fact is that I hate basketball and frat boys.

I’m not sure how I feel about the blue color that was added to the “10″ part of the logo. I think it looks much better as a single color design. It works much more successfully when anchored by the “Ten” in the examples shown. The design solution was incredibly intelligent, in my opinion.

As usual, there is much criticism from the sports community. I wouldn’t expect anything less from the millions of armchair analysts out there that are quick to voice their distaste of something so seemingly simple – and that’s the beauty of the solution. Only seeing the identity in application form will possibly quell the masses. Or not.

Is this not designed for the ‘sports community’? There is much criticism because they do not like the logo. That is what is so seemingly simple, the logo should be loved by the people who it serves, and it does not. This is a terrible effort, of course I would not expect anything less from the art community LOL

I also do not like the new name/logo. Somehow it should show there are 12 teams, not just 10…maybe Big Ten + 2.

I agree with Rob. I think this logo is a ‘downgrade’ to what they’ve done in the past. The logo is not loved by the people it was intended to serve and is therefor a fail. I agree that it is clever, but not effective. Simple, but not precise.

Maybe an example of design by committe?

Share a thought