"The Big 12 is redesigning its logo, sticking with the same roman numerals for the 10-team conference.

The second rebranding since the league formed in 1996 features a rounded, modern-looking "XII" to replace a more traditional block design. The new look was unveiled Monday, a day before the July 1 start of the athletic year for colleges." ...

Conference officials have said they aren't considering expansion but haven't ruled it out.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...igned-logo

(07-02-2014 10:05 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  "The Big 12 is redesigning its logo, sticking with the same roman numerals for the 10-team conference.

The second rebranding since the league formed in 1996 features a rounded, modern-looking "XII" to replace a more traditional block design. The new look was unveiled Monday, a day before the July 1 start of the athletic year for colleges." ...

Conference officials have said they aren't considering expansion but haven't ruled it out.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...igned-logo

"Conference officials have said they aren't considering expansion but haven't ruled it out", which means if the SEC, B10, ACC, and PAC 12 require a CCG to qualify for the playoffs, we will stop our round rob-been (for a few years) format and expand....

For some reason, that new logo reminds me of FAU. I have no idea why though... it's just a XII...

UGLY!

Didn't they reveal this logo awhile back?

Regardless, I think the old one was much better.

Ugly, and inaccurate

Think the expansion depends on what is decided about the number of teams for a conference championship game. I personally think it will stay at 12 and the other conferences want the Big 12 to expand. I would not be surprised to see a compromise in the future of all conference go to 9 game schedules and have 12+ teams in a P5 conference. Plus my additional Carnac prediction is 10 conference games with the addition of 13th game to have three OOC games. Guess will find out in about 30-45 days.

(07-02-2014 12:35 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Didn't they reveal this logo awhile back?

Yeah, they previewed it some time ago, but called it a concept/draft. I guess it never got any better than this.

And agreed with the poster who said it looked like FAU. Whoever is designing school and conference logos these days, I need to get in on that scam. Zero creativity.

Still 2 teams short. Just saying. Unless Texas and Oklahoma get counted twice.

(07-02-2014 12:41 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Ugly, and inaccurate

And the Big 10 is accurate? ACC with Louisville is accurate? Missouri is in the Southeast? Colorado is on the Pacific?

Don't fix it if it's not broken. The old logo was way way better than the new one. And I agree 100% with the poster who said there's no creativity with these new logo designs. It's like those consultants who charge universities thousands of dollars just to tell them what they need to do to move to a power conference. I can do the same for $1,000 and would save universities tons of money.

(07-02-2014 02:48 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Don't fix it if it's not broken. The old logo was way way better than the new one. And I agree 100% with the poster who said there's no creativity with these new logo designs. It's like those consultants who charge universities thousands of dollars just to tell them what they need to do to move to a power conference. I can do the same for $1,000 and would save universities tons of money.

KU paid some consultant a crap-ton of money to pick a font for them a few years back. Like you, I'd have done the same thing for a lot less.

(07-02-2014 03:10 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 02:48 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Don't fix it if it's not broken. The old logo was way way better than the new one. And I agree 100% with the poster who said there's no creativity with these new logo designs. It's like those consultants who charge universities thousands of dollars just to tell them what they need to do to move to a power conference. I can do the same for $1,000 and would save universities tons of money.

KU paid some consultant a crap-ton of money to pick a font for them a few years back. Like you, I'd have done the same thing for a lot less.

UC paid some company 35K to basically take the old Cpaw and make it look "italicized" when we joined the Big East in 2005...unreal

(07-05-2014 08:13 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 03:10 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 02:48 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Don't fix it if it's not broken. The old logo was way way better than the new one. And I agree 100% with the poster who said there's no creativity with these new logo designs. It's like those consultants who charge universities thousands of dollars just to tell them what they need to do to move to a power conference. I can do the same for $1,000 and would save universities tons of money.

KU paid some consultant a crap-ton of money to pick a font for them a few years back. Like you, I'd have done the same thing for a lot less.

UC paid some company 35K to basically take the old Cpaw and make it look "italicized" when we joined the Big East in 2005...unreal

Dude, that is so funny and so true!

(07-05-2014 08:13 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 03:10 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 02:48 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Don't fix it if it's not broken. The old logo was way way better than the new one. And I agree 100% with the poster who said there's no creativity with these new logo designs. It's like those consultants who charge universities thousands of dollars just to tell them what they need to do to move to a power conference. I can do the same for $1,000 and would save universities tons of money.

KU paid some consultant a crap-ton of money to pick a font for them a few years back. Like you, I'd have done the same thing for a lot less.

UC paid some company 35K to basically take the old Cpaw and make it look "italicized" when we joined the Big East in 2005...unreal

I always thought this was your coolest logo

(07-05-2014 08:32 AM)krux Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 08:13 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 03:10 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 02:48 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Don't fix it if it's not broken. The old logo was way way better than the new one. And I agree 100% with the poster who said there's no creativity with these new logo designs. It's like those consultants who charge universities thousands of dollars just to tell them what they need to do to move to a power conference. I can do the same for $1,000 and would save universities tons of money.

KU paid some consultant a crap-ton of money to pick a font for them a few years back. Like you, I'd have done the same thing for a lot less.

UC paid some company 35K to basically take the old Cpaw and make it look "italicized" when we joined the Big East in 2005...unreal

I always thought this was your coolest logo

that was our logo when I was a student there! Good times...good times

(07-02-2014 10:55 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

...I don't follow the 'mixed martial arts' deal, but...isn't this pretty much the 'Tapout' logo style?

(07-02-2014 02:48 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Don't fix it if it's not broken. The old logo was way way better than the new one. And I agree 100% with the poster who said there's no creativity with these new logo designs. It's like those consultants who charge universities thousands of dollars just to tell them what they need to do to move to a power conference. I can do the same for $1,000 and would save universities tons of money.

I'd have no problems with schools putting money into rebranding if they actually got something original out of it. The Big XII's logo is practically FAU and TapOut. Creighton's "rebranding" is essentially a cross between UConn's and Chattanooga's "C" and the bird is like Toronto and Johns Hopkins. The ACC ripped off the Big East's font, and even the new A10 logos do a little borrowing from Army. Big Ten? How about Burger King's "have it your way" campaign?

Envious of others' brands much or just unknowledgeable about branding in general? But what do I know...they make beaucoup bucks, even if it never gets back to the students or taxpayers.