Well this gets into the conversation above, the shield IS "just a letter", in the same sense as the Wisconsin motion W, or the Minnesota M. It's a single letter logo that has enough to it to be recognizable across contexts. That Purdue logo has the same quality.
I would argue that the Nebraska, Michigan and Rutgers logos suffer from the same problem. Though those letters inherently have a bit more to them than an I.
Nebraska and Michigan are like many storied football powerhouses in that their uniforms, especially their helmets, are essentially a brand identity unto themselves, and are able to be used as such in a lot of contexts.
Maryland and Ohio State have what I would consider lame-o cop outs along the lines of our slant Illinois logo or putting the block I in front of the state outline. That is where we're headed, some additive element to give it just enough.
Wasn't that your thought process in creating that concept? That an unadorned I at a midfield scale just lacked a certain something? I'd be fascinated to hear your creative process on that, I could barely create what passed for art in elementary school.
Of those, Purdue, Wisconsin and Minnesota have very distinctive versions of the letter in question.
Rutgers is not "getting away with just a letter" - Rutgers' brand is hot garbage.
Nebraska isn't really pulling it off, either - Nebraska's real "N" is the comically simple helmet "N", I'm not sure the one you've got there is as recognizable, which is why they sometimes do this:
Only Michigan is getting it done with what I would deem a fairly straightforward single letter.
I think the shield doesnt work as "just a letter" here because the letter it is using is in the negative space. It's not the most prominent feature of its own logo, so I would draw issue there.
I do think its worth noting too that you think Michigan and Nebraska work because of successful football teams. I think our biggest problem is lack of consistent consistency. EVEN NOW. we freaking rebranded 4 years ago, and we've changed the football unis, basketball unis, soccer, hell we JUST got the baseball ones. how we use each logo too, see football helmet, and lack of shield.
We cant have successful years in unis because we change them so often. Now is that a case of not having a particularly strong brand to being with, I think you could say that. I think thats why im also so partial to our 08 throwbacks. Those looks classic as hell, and were a nod to our successful years.
Don't think of these letterforms as pulling it off. Think about it in terms of recognizably. You see a plan block N... BOOM Nebraska. Minnesota's, which i think is interesting falls into the "distinctive" category. Easy. Michigan too. But these brands have also been around for YEARS!!! They pull it off because they have solid, bold, with history behind them, looks. i think this is why the rebrand failed so fully in my mind, because it looked so trendy. So of course it was loved in the first week. But how is it now. Full of holes and already showing its age, which each new coaching change?