Delany willing to consider changes to Legends/Leaders
In an ESPN.com article, Delany talks about the new branding and conference changes coming with the additions of Rutgers and Maryland. Legends and Leaders is open for change. It sounds like he is very aware that a lot of people still don't like the names.
One of the quotes I found interesting:
"Whether or not we change division [names], I don't know," Delany said. "If [the divisions] are not geographic, we are not going to have geographic names."
So goodbye East and West, unless it really fits.
My hope is the B1G logo will change too, although he doesn't mention it. If the logo gets changed, then having Maryland and Rutgers will be worth it. ha!
January 14th, 2013 at 4:32 PM ^
the new additions are. I read your post, completely agreed with everything you said and then realized, "Holy shit, not only did we add Rutgers, we managed to add a second team that's even worse than Rutgers!"
January 14th, 2013 at 4:16 PM ^
...after adding two schools that have no business being in this conference. Let them eat cake.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:18 PM ^
The logo they got right. It's easily recognizable. The names...not so much.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:44 PM ^
I'd agree with the exception of the blue color they use. It should be darker to match the old logo. Then you'd have a "new and imporved" mark with a connection to the past.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:35 PM ^
NW, NEB, OSU, UW, RU, MD, MINN
IOWA, ILL, IND, PU, PSU, MSU, UM
January 14th, 2013 at 4:45 PM ^
Not a bad divisional realignment. I would trade PSU for Nebraska though. But at the end of the day, the one is the placeholder for the other.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:49 PM ^
Unless we go with Urban and Brady.
January 14th, 2013 at 7:10 PM ^
Why would Michigan be in the "Rural" division and Nebraska in the "Urban" one? That's backwards. (Lincoln has a larger population than Ann Arbor, but only because it covers a huge geographic area - it has a much lower population density.)
January 14th, 2013 at 8:33 PM ^
Believe it or not, I didn't research the population density of Lincoln, Nebraska. If you want to be picky you could make a case that several teams could fit in the other division, pretty much like any other way of dividing them. All of the rural schools are located in college towns. The urban schools either are not, or are closest to a bigger city (MD and MSU).
January 14th, 2013 at 9:20 PM ^
It's still a pretty silly argument. It's a major reach to suggest that Ann Arbor is "rural" when it's on the doorstep of a metro area of over four million people. Meanwhile, Lincoln is quite literally surrounded by nothing but farmland for miles and miles.
January 14th, 2013 at 10:35 PM ^
So, you're saying it makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than the current divisions.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:41 PM ^
Why does everyone want Michigan in the same division as Ohio? I'd rather give my team a better chance of winning their division and competing for the conference at a neutral site than making it more difficult. How fair is it to take out the two best programs (Michigan and Ohio) and give the other side a pillow fight? Will the new names be Leaders and Cupcakes?
January 14th, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^
Because in years where we're Big 2, Little Other Integer, The Game will be a sandbag fest since the rematch is a done deal. In addition you can get a grouping of teams in the other division where at least one of them (and likely a pair) will be Top 20 teams. That works well enough. If everyone else has a down year, that just means the championship game is a victory lap and an extra week of practice before the Rose Bowl.
I have no problem with the CC game being Michigan's second string throttles the life out of Indiana for 4 quarters. I will sit there, gloat, and thank Bo that our starting QB is unlikely to get injured sitting on the bench and drinking Gatorade.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:53 PM ^
I don't know. I suppose one answer is that with the two teams in the different divisions, it's possible they could play again in a week, thereby theoretically neutralizing the magnitude of the regular season game. The other one, which I like better, is that we always have to play Ohio while MSU always has to play Indiana, and that's not a great setup for us.
However, the ACC put Florida State and Miami in opposite divisions just so they could meet in the ACCCG. That was the very specific reasoning. Ask the ACC how often that's happened. (Hint: Zero.)
There's only one thing I care about: that the Game is always played in the last week of the regular season, and never moved. I concede that it's slightly possible that having the teams in opposite divisions makes it more likely they move the Game. However, the likelihood that both teams will head into the final weekend, both having already wrapped up a spot in the B1GCG and thus with nothing to play for, is miniscule at best. I'll take my chances. Chances really are that one team or both will have the division title on the line when they play. Fine by me.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:05 PM ^
Don't doubt for a minute that the B1G will try to move the Ohio State v UM game earlier in the season while keeping them in opposite divisions. Why? That's what's best for the BTN.
With more teams, the inventory of conference games grows and the BTN wants big games earlier in the season. It's one of the few things that the SEC does that's better than the B1G scheme.
DiNardo on BTN has been beating this drum for two years. He makes no bones about it. Ohio State v. UM should be an early season game for two reasons: 1) Huge TV ratings early in the season; 2) Prevents OSU v UM in back to back weeks in the B1G championship game. If you care about the tradition of "The Game" put your attention here.
As for the division names I don't really care at this point. The only reason I dislike the current Leaders and Legends is that they are snark bait for national writers/reporters who like to dump on the B1G and find that the lowest of low-hanging fruit.
FWIW I like the B1G logo.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:51 PM ^
either put a team and its rival in the same division or screw the rivalry. The vast majority of Big Ten "rivalries" were invented for media attention and have no historical basis whatsoever. There's something like 30 trophy games within the Big Ten conference - that's absurd. The only one worth keeping - and the only one with schools powerful enough to prevent its elimination - is the game. So make the inner/outer divisions and put Michigan and Ohio in the same division and be done with it.
The fact that Michigan has to play Ohio every year while MSU gets a guaranteed win is a big disadvantage given the teams' all time historical win percentages vs. those respective opponents.
January 14th, 2013 at 10:46 PM ^
I would also like to keep Minnesota and Michigan in the same division. The little brown jug may not seem like much to most, but the long history is worth preserving.
January 14th, 2013 at 5:26 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 5:42 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 6:11 PM ^
I'd rather give my team a better chance of winning their division and competing for the conference at a neutral site than making it more difficult.But don't you see, putting us in the opposite division (while keeping the annual rivalry game) makes it harder for us to win the division than it would be otherwise. As it now stands, we play Ohio every year but three of our division rivals won't, which puts us at a disadvantage. (It's the overall conference record that counts in the standings, not the divisional record.) If we are in the same division as Ohio, then it's a fair competition with everyone else in the division. It also would avoid the ridiculous proposition of us playing them on back-to-back weeks.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:46 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 6:17 PM ^
But in my case, I don't like them being in separate divisions AND having them play the last weekend of the season. In my opinion, it should be one or the other. It's just a matter of time until both schools match up in the B1G championship game (possibly as soon as next year) and I don't like the idea of seeing them play each other in back to back weeks. I feel that the winning team of the first game is at a relative disadvantage if the rematch is held just one week later.
For example, say an underdog Michigan team beats Ohio in Ann Arbor by emptying the playbook with new formations and trickery, and catches some good fortune or a couple lucky bounces along the way. The euphoria from the win will be terrific for about 5 minutes.....until we realize we need Michigan to pull off the very same miracle the following week. If you need a real life example, just imagine how much different the Michigan-Ohio historical narrative would be if a rematch of the 1969 game had occurred 7 days after the original. What are the odds that the 1969 Michigan team beats the 1969 Ohio team 2 weeks in a row?
For games of this magnitude, if there's going to be a rematch, it's better if the two games are spaced out across several weeks or a couple months. Let the winner enjoy the victory, because otherwise it will dilute the value of The Game. If you put them both in the same division, that solves the problem of a rematch because there simply won't be one (my preference is same division, and a Rocky-esque "ain't gonna be no rematch")
You might think I'm worrying about this too much, but just wait until the first season where we beat Ohio in late November and immediately start freaking out about having to play them again the very next week. On the list of topics that might crash this wonderful site, I'd put this scenario way up there.
January 14th, 2013 at 7:05 PM ^
I think there are some holes in your reasoning.
You state the winner of the first game is at a disadvantage in the rematch, citing examples where a big underdog wins. What if the favorite won the first game, as happens more often? Wouldn't they be an even bigger favorite in the rematch in your examples? Speaking for myself, the chance to get revenge after an upset loss to OSU outweighs having to face them again after we won in an upset. If we were a big underdog we're probably not going to the championship game even with a win.
I think you are greatly overestimating the negative effect a rematch will have on the value of The Game. It has survived us losing ten of the last eleven and not always being competitive. It has survived many games with no meaning for the Big Ten title. Rematches with a new kind of drama may well add quite a bit to the rivalry.
I could care less if fans on this board meltdown worrying about having to face OSU again a week after beating them. I care about what the players and coaches do. If they can't get ready to face OSU for the Big Ten title, how would they be ready to play Wisconsin or anyone else?
January 14th, 2013 at 7:12 PM ^
Regardless of whether it's easier or harder the second time around, it's just absurd to ever have to play a team in back-to-back weeks. It'd make the first game meaningless. It should never be allowed to happen.
January 14th, 2013 at 9:03 PM ^
While it's unusual, we'll have to just disagree on whether it's absurd to play to play the same team on back to back weeks. I don't see the big difference between that and having a game or three between the rematch. I also don't see why the first game would be meaningless. If you are thinking of some scenario where both teams are guaranteed to win their divisions with a loss and there are no national championship implications, that sounds like an extreme longshot.
Aside from that, the idea that a game against OSU would ever be meaningless is what strikes me as absurd. It wasn't meaningless the last two years when neither team could win the division. It wasn't meaningless in 2009 when OSU had already wrapped up the Big Ten and we went 1-7.
Maybe when the rematch happens I won't like it so much. But Michigan playing in the championship game is something I'm looking forward to seeing. I don't believe my interest or enjoyment will be any less because OSU is the opponent.
January 14th, 2013 at 8:55 PM ^
Even if the favorite wins Round 1, unless it's a heavy favorite (think Tressel teams vs RichRod teams). Take this year for example. Ohio as a slight favorite wins a tight game at home, in part because of some questionable play calling by Borges in the 2nd half. Have the rematch one week later on a neutral field, and the result could be different based on what Michigan learned in the first matchup. When two relatively even teams play in back to back weeks, it's tough for one team to win both games. I'm not completely opposed to a rematch, but if you want to add that dynamic to the rivalry I think it would make more sense to move The Game to earlier in the season. It's just asking a lot for either team to win back to back games against the other, and I do think it could reduce the luster of the regular season matchup if both teams are going to line up against each other one week later.
I say put them in the same division and be done with it, but that's just like....my opinion...man.
January 15th, 2013 at 2:24 AM ^
Once a year with all the chips on the table. That's how it's always been and how I think it should remain. The losing team should have to sit with that taste in their mouth for 365 days.
January 14th, 2013 at 8:20 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 5:00 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 7:22 PM ^
Names
I personally think the names "Legends" and "Leaders" is a bit excessive for the B1G divisions. My thought is that it needs to be something that reflects the Midwest, sorry Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers you're outnumbered here. Change it to the "Plains" and "Lakes" divisions. It intrinsically makes more sense.
B1G Logo
I'm actually not in favor of change. As weird as it looks to others outside the conference I'm in favor of it staying the same.
OSU and Michigan
I'm in favor of putting both teams in the same division. Hello_Heisman surmises everything that makes the decision a good one. I think if you look at what happened with UCLA and Stanford this year, UCLA played conservatively and that came out in the interviews when Mora was ask wither he was trying to win the game, throw it or just not opening the playbook fully. The next week his team plays better but not good enough to win. I can see this happening to either OSU or Michigan and it would make The Game seem less meaningful.
Realignment
I have no idea what Delany is going to do here but I think that its important to have rivalry games at the end of season. Wisconsin and Minnesota have express their desire to play for the ax at end of the season since some think the B1G only cares about OSU and Michigan and no one else.
January 14th, 2013 at 7:59 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 9:07 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 9:08 PM ^
"Slow" and "Plodding"
"Contenders" and "Pretenders"
"Kool" and "The Gang"
"Rocky" and "Bullwinkle"
"Bitches" and "Hos"
I mean, if we're going to get ripped on in the press for having stupid division names, might as well make it count. Imagine the BTN advertising - instead of "creating leaders and honoring legends", the spot could say "checking bitches and pimping hos". It's a publicist's dream!
January 14th, 2013 at 9:11 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 11:10 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 11:19 PM ^
What about the Little Brown Jug!? That could be a protected game, I suppose. Eehh, just not an easy way to do it is there? On the one hand it preserves rivalries. On the other Rutgers traveling to Nebraska....
January 15th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
I feel worse about making the Cornhuskers travel to NJ, as I actually respect Nebraska. Perhaps we should make it so the newer teams don't get home games.
January 15th, 2013 at 9:47 AM ^