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?