Conference Names: In Retrospect
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?
August 27th, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^
I don't hate the names, I just didn't think they were all that great. I liked the idea of using the geography of the area as part of the names, something like Lakes and Plains. They may grow on me, but I think part of the issue was that it was quite a surprise to people.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
The names are ridiculous. At best they're arrogant and at worst they make the Big 10 seem like it's had a break from reality.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:08 PM ^
Completely agree. I do not envy Big Ten alums/fans who were in SEC/Pac country when those were unveiled. The best thing the conference could have done is accepted they made a mistake and came back with something better. The front office sticking to its guns on this one is almost as bad as bringing them out in the first place.
August 27th, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^
I live in SEC territory and am a notorious UM fan here. Yet not one single person has said anything to me about Legends/Leaders. It's just not on their radar.
August 28th, 2011 at 1:08 AM ^
Which has a reputation for not being aware of anything outside itself. I'm also a notorious M fan. And I definitely heard some smack talk about how silly L&L were.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
It's clearly Stockholm Syndrome.
Also, if there is one good thing that might come out of this next round of expansion, it's that the B10 will have an opportunity to fix the division names and move Michigan to the East so that we play OSU in a deathmatch at the end of each season to get to the BTCG.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
Fruity, ill-concieved, and stupid. I refuse to recognize or use them. East and West to the death.
August 27th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
East & West.
August 27th, 2011 at 3:17 PM ^
Agree. The "Legends" has way to much of a peachy after taste to me, and "Leaders" has like a blueberry-ish, cranberry-ish mash up that tastes too much like a Welch's fruit snack to me.
August 27th, 2011 at 7:21 PM ^
Well played.
August 28th, 2011 at 12:25 AM ^
As you state, they are so ridiculous that if we just go about calling them the Bo & Woody divisions, I think we can make that stick as the unofficial names that get used more often than the L&L. Or is it LOL?
I haven't tried to make it stick, but I'm not sure which division we're in. Off the top of my head (not cheating), I know Michigan, MSU, Nebraska are in the Bo division, and I believe the others are ?Iowa?, ?Minnesota?, and ?Purdue?.
About to hit save to see if I'm correct. And my three guesses at the last three were aided by my (not perfect) recollection that Nebraska plays OSU, Wiscy, & PSU but missess Illinois, Indiana, & ?NW? OOD this year.
August 28th, 2011 at 12:28 AM ^
and I swapped NW & Purdue.
How I'll remember: We're the "Leaders & Best", but the B1G screwed that up, too.
August 28th, 2011 at 10:29 AM ^
That is exactly what I do.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:16 PM ^
What is wrong with east and west? Who cares if the geography doesn't make sense? At least you would be able to remember what conference your team was in. The Red Wings have been in the West for years and no one seems to mind. (I know they are going to the East but at least we can remember the conference.)
August 27th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
I might be a little biased here, but what the hell was wrong with Bo and Woody? Give Paterno his trophy (especially since his best days were before 1993 anyway) and throw Nebraska a bone and be done with it. Whether it's popular to say at Chancellor's/President's meetings or not, they were the two that made this conference a modern power and they deserve the names.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
I don't see that as a plausible solution. Right off the top, you're eternalizing an icon who had a pretty fast fall from grace in Woody. Hell, Mike Leach locked a kid in a closet and is still considered somewhat toxic from that episode. Could you imagine if Woody cold cocked some kid in this day and age? You may as well have the Jim Tressel Sportsman of the Year too.
Second, while I'm starting to turn around on the conference names, the award names are stupid. If the conferences were going to be named, they'd probably be the Bo/Izzo/Osborne conference and the Woody/JoePa/Alvarez conference. Because everyone is equal. Let's all hold hands and sing Josh Groban.
Maybe East and West would work better. But definitely not Bo and Woody.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
Woody had problems, obviously. But he also had a few accomplishments, more than any coach not named Bo Schembechler; more importantly, they all took place either in the Big Ten or representing it. Paterno and Osborne will go down as great coaches, but Paterno in the Big Ten is not even close to being on the same level as either Bo or Woody, and Osborne never coached a single down in the conference. The Ten Year War was the defining modern moment for the conference and names that bring back those memories would sit much better with fans than Leaders and Legends.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^
If we were to go to names, I think Griffith and Wilson may be the most diplomatic. Name them after the first two commisioners. To see things from another perspective, how would you feel playing in the Osborne Conference when we've had so many legends coach at our school?
August 27th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
August 27th, 2011 at 12:50 PM ^
When you said Mike Leach locked a kid in a closet, did you mean to say that Craig James definitely did not kill 5 hookers?
August 27th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
Those claims that Craig James killed 5 hookers and recorded it all on a snuff film that he now sells to impressionable children are unsubstantiated, not unlike the details on Michigan night game jersey sales in Ohio. C'mon, man!
August 27th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
Bo and Woody basically says the other 10 teams don't matter. You could have had the Royal/Switzer divisions in the Big 12, but the Big 10 set the bar for cooperation and sharing amongst its members. It's why we were able to poach Nebraska away from its historical rivals. We work together while the Big 12 placates its powerhouses and that's why we succeed.
August 27th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
August 27th, 2011 at 1:55 PM ^
Yeah, but every school got their name on a couple of trophys and people generally don't care about award names.
Remember how the NHL went away from Wales and Campbell for geographic names? Casual fans couldn't remember which team was in which conference and the NHL decided it hurt overall interest. The Big 10 will, hopefully, have the same problem and come to the same solution. Woody and Bo would have created that problem too.
August 27th, 2011 at 5:10 PM ^
August 27th, 2011 at 6:41 PM ^
My uncle went to State and said he wouldn't have been opposed to the division names Bo and Woody FWIW
August 27th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^
Sports are and have been littered with examples of division names that didn't make geographic sense. TCU is about to join the Big East, the Cincinnati Reds used to be in the NL West, the Dallas Cowboys are in the NFC East, the New Orleans Saints used to in the NFC West, the Indianapolis Colts are in the AFC South...the list could go on and on.
I refuse to say "Leaders" or "Legends." They sound like something from senior tour golf.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:19 PM ^
As long as we win our division they could be called Dumb and Dumber....hmmm. Just win the thing.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:21 PM ^
I think Leaders/Legends were just a cop out and generic enough so when the B1G does expand to 16 teams, they won't have to fuss over geography incase the 4 new schools are all from the east coast (Syracuse, Pitt, etc) or all 4 are from the plains (KU, KSU, Mizzou, etc).
If a new school is added, the PR machine can fabricate a justification for why a school belongs in either the Legends or the Leaders
August 27th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^
Yes, I think this is it exactly. East and West works pretty well now (and would have worked perfectly if they put the teams where they really should have been), but it may not win if/when the B1G expands to 14 or 16.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
August 27th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
Is a cool name, the division names are still terrible.
August 27th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
I think the sad part is that the names for the trophies are even more unwieldy and awkward.
August 27th, 2011 at 1:05 PM ^
The trophy names seem to be incredibly forced. How was the Championship Trophy named after JoePa? What does he know about B1G championships? I think that JoePa has won three championships in 18 years. Hell, Gary Moeller won that many in five years. JoePa should have been on the "sportsmanship" trophy or something like that.
All of the trophies seem like they're just trying to make people happy by throwing names on them.
August 27th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^
Ya, the names for all the awards and trophies piss me off way more than the division names.
At least with the divisions, there is a high likelihood they will be changed.
But all those other trophies? Well, let's just say that I'd be surprised if they decided to take the name away from some former star/coach. We may be stuck with those for all eternity.
August 27th, 2011 at 1:40 PM ^
Exactly. Plus aren't there two Woodson trophies? One for the good one and the other for Rod Woodson? How does that make sense?! My brain hurts.
August 27th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^
Nebraska players who never played a down in the B1G? Even we were shaking our heads on that one.
What's next, adding past Nebraska school records to the rolls? And I speak as a Husker fan
August 27th, 2011 at 1:09 PM ^
August 27th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
I am in the group that refuses openly to acknowledge the division names.
I prefer "Spicy" and "Mild" or "Zero Calorie" and "No Trans Fats" to "Leaders" and "Legends" actually.
August 27th, 2011 at 2:15 PM ^
I would embrace our Midwestern dietary habits, though, and go with the "High Fructose Corn Syrup" and "Fried Stick of Butter" divisions.
August 27th, 2011 at 2:24 PM ^
Corn and Pastie divisions! I can get behind that.
August 27th, 2011 at 7:24 PM ^
The second ingredient listed is typically HFCS. All of the mass-produced jams and jellies are that way.
August 27th, 2011 at 1:31 PM ^
the names were bad then, the names are bad now and the names will always be bad for as long as they exist. everytime i watch some shitty report on the big ten from a national perspective be it espn or whatever the horrible division names seem to be mentioned at least once. they should have just gone geographical.
August 28th, 2011 at 12:35 AM ^
a few laughs, I'd chuckle and mention the Legends & Leaders, too.
August 27th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^
Delaney is a fool if he does not change the names. A real man admits his mistakes. Going forward I will not acknowledge the L&L divisions. I don't even know which one we're in.
August 27th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
While Legends and Leaders is by far the worst of it, all the hyphenating that happeded in an attempt to be PC and represent everyone equally is almost as bad. I would rather have no association with any of our history than to have this hug fest that we have. That being said everytime I hear Legends and Leaders I throw up a little bit in my mouth and hope and pray that the B1G takes another look at it once ESPN rails on them all season for their stupidity.
August 27th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
I've never hated Leaders and Legends, actually. Speaking as also an ACC fan I know that we actually don't use the names Atlantic and Coastal very often. It's not like the names dominate conversation. I'd rather the vitriol be directed at the hideous logo than the division names. I hate the logo way more than I hate "Leaders and Legends."
August 28th, 2011 at 12:52 AM ^
I never thought the logo looked great - boring font and all - but I have started to use "B1G" in my typing and that saves it from being too bland and bad.
I feel like the names are pretentious, and somewhat trite concepts that make them mean almost nothing. I mean, every major conference has their legends - Bear Bryant, John Heisman, Pop Warner, Bobby Dodd - and I'm sure everybody claims that they're leaders on the field and in the classroom, or something to that effect. If our audience was strictly Big Ten it wouldn't matter so much - nothing wrong with pumping yourself up. But when you're trying to draw interest from the entire nation (which was a stated goal of expansion, a championship game, and the BTN) these concepts are trite.
Additionally, they're a bit confusing - they both start with the letter "L," and I personally have to remember that "Leaders" is the one that doesn't have the "leaders and best," and then use the fact that we can still mostly call ourselves "Champions of the West" to distinguish who goes where. I'd say that takes away from names that are already bland. Add in the amount of hype that the Big Ten brass threw behind the naming effort, and the underwhelming names look even worse.
Combining the pretentiousness, blandness, lack of clarity, and failed hype that preceded the division names gives a recipe for the 90% rejection that they received initially - and even now, when I still hear them, all those feelings remain.
Get rid of those names.
August 27th, 2011 at 4:25 PM ^
Someone proposed the York and Lancaster divisions and subtitling the conference title game "the war for the roses" and that was the awesomest idea I'd heard.
August 28th, 2011 at 12:37 AM ^
I remember hearing that on Rittenberg's blog and being convinced it was too good of a marketing opportunity to pass up.