ITT: suggest names for the new conference

Submitted by SFBayAreaBlue on

If and when the big ten finally does add a 12th team, what the heck is it going to call itself? So ignoring math and hiding a little "11" in the logo was cute once, but they can't really expect to do it again. Not unless we specifically start calling schools 'the little two'.

So, anyone got good ideas? I've seen some not so good ideas knocked around, but nothing catchy yet. I can't think of anything good. The Midwest Conference seems logical but would be confused with the mountain west conference. The Big 12 is of course already taken, and I doubt they could be persuaded to ignore four of their teams and call themselves the big 8 again.

So I'll just toss out some crappy names to get this topic rolling.

The Big Midwest
The Midwest 12
the Great Lakes Athletic Division
the North Central Conference
the Northern Athletic Conference

blah...

blueloosh

December 15th, 2009 at 2:56 PM ^

Maybe the MAC-12 (Midwestern Athletic Conference)?

Or...Biggest 12
Huge 12
The 12
Big Dozen

EDIT: just remembered there already is a MAC conference, making my first sort of stupid.

MichIOE01

December 15th, 2009 at 2:55 PM ^

The Speed Conference? (so we could compete with the SEC)

The Bigger Than You Conference? (if we add more than 1 team we can become the largest conference in the country)

The Bad at Counting Conference? (this may clash with our academic standards)

blueblueblue

December 16th, 2009 at 9:56 AM ^

I'm with NHW. CHanging the name would be way too expensive. And because they did it once (didn't change the name when adding another team) means they have precedent to do it again. The OP states "ignoring math and hiding a little "11" in the logo was cute once, but they can't really expect to do it again." I think it is actually the reverse - because they did it once they are expected to do it again (or at least it wont be surprising if they did). Incongruence between number and name has been institutionalized.

rtyler

February 26th, 2010 at 3:10 AM ^

Not only that, but the rationale for keeping the name wouldn't have changed either—Big Ten is the oldest Div I conference. We've been "Big Ten" off and on since 1917 (officially only since 1987) so the name has serious recognition throughout generations. The move to add a school is controversial enough without a name change. They will have to get rid of the 11 or find a way to sneak the real number in a similar way. I really can't see them finding a name that is better than Big Ten.

c williams

December 15th, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^

seriously, does it matter if we have 11 or 12? We're the BIG TEN, and you don't go messing with that name recognition factor.

Plus, we can always talk to PSU and (?) about the "original 10".

ThWard

December 15th, 2009 at 2:57 PM ^

Big 10 is fine. I've always thought the outsider crack about the name not reflecting the exact number of teams in the conference was dumb. Who cares? The name of the conference isn't intended to help imbeciles count, it's just a historic name.

turbo cool

December 15th, 2009 at 2:58 PM ^

Big 10. There's no need to change it. 'Big 10' can just be a name. It doesn't need to be an actual description of the quantity of schools that are in the league. Yeah I get the whole numbers thing, but there will be a lot of suggestions and I'd bet that 99% of them are horrible.