Conference Names: In Retrospect

Submitted by 1464 on

Sooo....

I know this was discussed ad nauseum a few months ago, but I wanted to revisit it.  Sometimes, when faced with something we don't like and given no options to resolve, we actually warm up to an idea.  Whether it be complacency or a shift in opinion, I'm starting to think the Leaders and Legends conference names aren't as bad as we initially thought.  Am I wrong?

As an example, my wife and I named our son Hudson.  I got the feeling that a lot of people didn't like that name as it wasn't really common and sounded kind of funny the first 20 or so times we said it.  Almost two years later, everybody loves the name and doesn't see him as anything but Hudson.

In retrospect, some names are beyond salvagability.  Beaner's Coffee was a stupid idea when it was created.  It was still a stupid idea when it was finally changed.

So, am I suffering from some weird sort of Stockholm Syndrome (or Chicago Syndrome, as it may be) for feeling like these names are growing on me?  Or did we all just overreact a bit when the conference names were released?

I'll pose one last question - What if the Big 10 had ALWAYS had the Legends and Leaders divisions?  Would you have accepted them as tradition, or thought of them as an embarrasing representation of the conference?

MGoBoard
Football
Big Ten
conferences
B1G
leaders and legends

trueblueintexas

August 27th, 2011 at 4:36 PM ^

While I do not like the names, I am very happy they did not do the easy thing and create two divisions based solely on geography. Look at the disaster the Big12 was, well you know before right now, with their north and south divisions. Look at the potential mega failure the Pac12 south could become. Even the SEC has had some very unbalanced years. So yea for trying to find balance. Oh yeah, the names. I just call the two divisions Michigan's division and the other one.

Joined: 11/10/2008

MGoPoints: 36878

Tater

August 27th, 2011 at 5:55 PM ^

The Schembechler and Hayes divisions would have been a very classy move.  If it wasn't for them, the Big Ten would likely be a minor player right now.  I detest all things scarlet and gray, but would have no problem seeing the "other" division named after Hayes as long as Michigan's was named after Bo.

If any other schools complain, give them a record book.

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

BondQuest

August 27th, 2011 at 10:15 PM ^

While the current names don't strike me as being genius, I haven't heard any suggestion that is better than Legends and Leaders.

I agree with Delany that this is a conference of legends and leaders. What is it, four of the winningest programs in the history of college football all in one conference? That ought to be bragged about.

Legends and Leaders is a lot classier than East and West, or North and South, or Up and Down.

Lakes and Plains is simply lame. Only Iowa and Nebraska would be justified in being in the "Plains" division.

Whether it is Tressel with his lies, or Woody Hayes with his sucker punching an opposing athlete, any reference to TSIO would give the Big Ten a stench. We don't need that.

Joined: 11/22/2010

MGoPoints: 171