Okay. First, in the interest of disclosure, you need to know that my son played football for a Big Ten School, and I am a rabid Michigan (fan)atic. So I write with somewhat of a bias. The number of times in the past that I have been able to tie together my love of Michigan football  and my professional expertise in branding has been about zero. So it was with great interest that I read about the recent fiasco with rebranding the Big Ten. And fiasco is exactly what it is.  A recent online poll run by a San Francisco newspaper had 91.3% of respondents commenting that the logo is bad, boring, and the division names are cheesy. Only 4% said the logo was “not bad.”

For the football illiterate some background info:

1. There are actually 12 teams in the Big Ten conference—a bit of a problem with the name—but I can’t see that the name will ever change. The existing logo is actually pretty decent but with Nebraska entering the conference the logo has to be changed. The existing mark was designed by Al Grivetti, an emeritus professor of graphic design at Dubuque’s Clarke College who actually planned on how the logo might change if another one or two universities were added to the conference.

2. The schools in this conference are primarily in the Midwest and are comprised of Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin. Some might argue that Penn State is not really in the Midwest—but we are looking at the majority of the teams.

3. There are some fierce rivalries that exist in the conference—notably the Michigan/Ohio State game—and I am sure that there are lots more—but as the mom of a Michigan player—this is the game to end all games. Careers have been started, and ended, depending on the winner of this annual battle.

4. Conference logos are not design award-winners to start with. Witness the ACC logo or the SEC logo. Or even the newly designed PAC10 logo. And that may be because most NCAA sports fans have more of an allegiance to their school and a secondary allegiance to their conference. Not a ton of product is actually sold that is licensed by the conference as opposed to the figure licensed by the school. For instance, the licensing fees alone to use the Michigan logo in 2010 garnered $4.1 million  for the university. That is not the figure of merchandise sold with the Michigan logo—that is just the amount allowing a manufacturer to use it.

So, some might infer that redesigning a new logo for the Big Ten conference might have little controversy. Witness a few of the choice comments from irate Big Ten fans posted the week after Big Ten commissioner, Jim Delaney, announced not only a new logo—but new names for the two divisions in the conference: The Leaders and the Legends.

“When I look at the Big Ten’s new logo, I feel like I’m looking at a basement full of shag carpet or a bunch of disco movies. Yes, I’m fairly certain the Big Ten paid the 1970s to design their new logo. For it to have been plain is one thing, painfully simplistic is quite another.”

“Before even getting to the fluorescent blue piercing our eyes, it must be pointed out how pitiful the new Big Ten logo really is. Resembling more of a sprawling sporting goods warehouse than a prestigious NCAA college football conference, the new Big Ten logo is something of an abomination—and in all its simplicity is facing a complicated backlash.”

“…Microsoft Paint-inspired logo”

“…New Big Ten logo a dismal flop, rivals Gap as worst logo change ever.”

“…high school graphic arts student designed in two minutes, while under the influence of salvia,” the new Big Ten logo has hit the floor hard. The poor imagery that the new logo brings already has college football fans and Big Ten followers destroying it wherever they find it.”

“Question to parents: How much are you spending to send your child to a Big Ten-Eleven-Twelve institution of higher learning that signs off on this nonsense?
Question to Big Ten-Eleven-Twelve math and marketing professors: Raise your hand if you have students who are smarter and more creative and would’ve “embraced” this as a class assignment and come up with something smarter and more creative than … that thing.”

As Delaney commented on Thursday, “I think we have enough experience with names, and expansion and development of divisions, to know that you never, rarely, get 90 percent approval rating,” Delaney said during the interview. “But to get a 90 percent non-approval rating was, you know, really surprising.”

One has to wonder if Pentagram really did their research, whether they have any deep knowledge of the conference and the quality it is supposed to stand for. Have they attended any games to see the passion and fervor behind a Boilermaker, a Wolverine, a Spartan? Did they give any real thought to the division names that they recommended, The Legends and the Leaders? Did they think about the subtle inference that a Legend might be a thing of the past—good in their day but a has-been, and a Leader is currently the head? And as one sportwriter penned,  “… let’s see if it holds water when phrases such as “Leaders division leader Wisconsin” and “Legends division leaders Iowa leads Leaders division leader Wisconsin in the standings” get thrown about. That’s right. Look forward to sentences brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.”

What is equally amusing to read, in addition to the thousands of blog posts, is the the language Pentagram used to describe the logo and the theory behind a relatively crude mark:

“The new Big Ten logo was developed to symbolize the conference’s future, as well as its rich heritage, strong tradition of competition, academic leadership, and passionate alumni,” said Gericke. “Its contemporary collegiate lettering includes an embedded numeral “10″ in the word “BIG,” which allows fans to see “BIG” and “10″ in a single word. Memorable and distinctive, the new logo evolved from the previous logo’s use of negative space and is built on the conference’s iconic name, without reference to the number of member institutions.”

There does appear to be some thinking to the renaming of many of the trophies and awards that are given out all year. When I asked my son, Max Pollock, a former Michigan football player, what he thought of the names, he indicated that this one area seemed to be positive. “It’s the Big Ten’s effort to get a more racially integrated profile. The current trophies are named after a lot of old white men, and many times the trophies are going to black athletes. I think this is the only smart move the Big Ten made-—although it is kind of silly to have two names associated with each trophy—but it is a move forward.”

As this logo and naming mess swirls around the blog posts and sports websites, Las Vegas is taking bets that the Big Ten will undo the mess they created—go with new division names and rethink the mark. On the other hand, my bet says that Pentagram will not be entertaining any discounts or refunds on the work they did. Lesson learned—sports fans really care about tradition, they care about what logo appears on the apparel they wear, they won’t blindly accept new names just because a marketing team says they should, and they will verbally and insistently exercise their right to sound off. And lastly, any design team that messes with college football better have a thick thick skin and better be watching and learning from the stands—not from a Wikipedia entry.