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 3:10 PM ^
the Inner-Outer division split that was on the poll is going to be the final divisions when the whole thing is set in stone...I guess we'll find out soon enough!
January 14th, 2013 at 3:13 PM ^
When did they say that the new division format will be released?
I'll be content with either option that puts M and OSU in the same diviison, though I think the East/West will give us better exposure for recruiting.
January 14th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^
probably the same time when they announce the names of the new divisions (if they do change it at all)
January 14th, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^
Putting Rutgers and Maryland in the same division as Nebraska and making them travel that far regularly compared to the inner schools seems unfair. I actually was pretty happy with the East/West division that was proposed. Regardless, I just want a chance to see Michigan play out in the DC area and for the division names to change. Of course I'm playing with fire because they could possibly get worse...
January 14th, 2013 at 3:29 PM ^
But it does give the western schools East Coast exposure, which is important for recruiting. As for Maryland and Rutgers, frankly, as newcomers they don't really have grounds to complain.
January 14th, 2013 at 5:37 PM ^
I'm pretty sure the Big Ten has a certain mileage cutoff for driving vs flying. It might be something like 600 miles, so the inner schools have to drive everywhere while the outer schools get to fly when they face the schools across the conference. One could argue that flying 1000 miles would be easier than driving 500.
I'm not 100% on what I wrote above, but if a team like Nebraska is going to fly anywhere east of Chicago, it really doesn't add too much on the trip whether it is Columbus or State College, PA. If I were a player in Lincoln I'd reather fly to Columbus than drive to Champagne. Being farther away could actually reduce your travel times, is what I'm trying to get at.
January 14th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^
the "insider/outsider" divisions.
Outside of Wisconsin (who isn't playing their western brethren regularly these days), I'm not sure it would have wide-spread support from any of the 7 schools slotted for it.
I'd be surprised if we don't have close to a true east/west split.
January 14th, 2013 at 3:16 PM ^
"Obviously we got some acceptance [with Legends and Leaders], but not as much as we would have liked."
I guess his math is technically correct. 1% = "some acceptance"
It's been said a thousand times by thousands of people here and elsewhere, but I'll say it again. All of this branding and marketing and footprint nonsense is diluting the traditions that make college football unique and may have long term consequences that will negate any short terms gains in the sport's popularity.
Now get off my lawn Mr. Delany.
January 14th, 2013 at 3:18 PM ^
jim delany, attention whore
January 14th, 2013 at 3:22 PM ^
Delany's idea for change....
Old crappy names & team alignment were:
Leaders: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin.
Legends: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska and Northwestern.
Exciting NEW names and much better team alignment will be:
Legends: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin.
Leaders: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska and Northwestern.
Everybody happy now?
(we'll just shove Rutgers and Maryland in there somewhere)
January 14th, 2013 at 7:18 PM ^
Maryland would have to join the "new" Leaders division so we can still say we have the M's, N's, and Iowa
January 14th, 2013 at 3:39 PM ^
He does have a point - if the divisions aren't geographic, then you can't have geographic names, and then what are you left with? You can't convince me that "inner" and "outer" are good names for divisions of a conference. I'd be fine with Leaders and Legends if Michigan was in the Leaders division as they should be.
January 14th, 2013 at 3:50 PM ^
As dumb as it sounds, Dallas is deffinetly not in the EAST, but the NFL sacraficed keeping them in the same division as Washington opposed to renaming the division something dumb like The NFC Cowskingianteagle
January 14th, 2013 at 4:18 PM ^
The entire rest of the NFL fits a mostly geographic mold and it would've been inane to come up with a whole new naming system just because of Dallas.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:52 PM ^
I agree that naming our divisions after types of bellybuttons is a bad idea, but Central sounds much more appropriate than inner. We just need a decent sounding regular name for the other division.
January 14th, 2013 at 8:26 PM ^
non-central, of course.
Or universal?
Or Suburbs?
January 15th, 2013 at 6:06 AM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 3:41 PM ^
The logo and put Michigan and Ohio in the same division.
January 14th, 2013 at 3:42 PM ^
The Good
Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Nortwestern
The Bad
Penn State (future), Michigan State (future), Rutgers, Maryland, Minnesota
The Ugly
Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa
*A picture of Clint Eastwood as our logo.*
January 14th, 2013 at 10:57 PM ^
Double post
January 14th, 2013 at 10:05 PM ^
Tuco made that movie GREAT. Although it would be an ugly logo
January 14th, 2013 at 3:44 PM ^
I still don't really like everyone's trepidation when it comes to the logo. I really like it. It's simple and recognizeable. I especially like the two-tone nature of it.
I like it more than about any other conference. Just simpler and cleaner.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:48 PM ^
I agree, I think it's well executed. I like that each school can use their own colors for the logo on the jerseys and basketball courts.
January 14th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^
+1
Before the season I was scared Michigan was going to have that light blue, white and black B1G logo slapped on their jerseys. They turned out to be Maize and smaller than I thought. Not a bad look.
January 14th, 2013 at 10:31 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
Based on # of Big Ten Championships. Northwestern and Purdue are tied at 8 titles. Sorry, Purdue, but I'd rather spend the weekend in Chicago every two years.
Big Ten: Michigan, OSU, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern
BT Lite: Purdue, MSU, Indiana, PSU, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland
January 14th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 3:48 PM ^
...in the community
January 15th, 2013 at 1:21 AM ^
On the practice field.
January 14th, 2013 at 3:52 PM ^
which two teams we need to add to the B1G to get out of this intermediate, 14-team stage we're going to be stuck in. And also to compensate for the fact that from a football perspective, we just invited the Second Comings of Purdue and Indiana to the conference.
With Notre Dame no longer a viable option, Delany and the AD's should try to do everything they can to kill off the Big 12 once and for all by poaching Texas and Oklahoma. Selling the Big 10 Network to more East Coast cable providers is a wonderful business idea and all, but there is still the little matter of actually improving the quality of the on field product. If you're going to force us to watch two new teams that have the combined strength of a wet noodle just to make some extra cash, at least give us two more overrated national programs so you can pretend to still care about the product you're trying to sell us. With a conference full of Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska, we'd theoretically have a puncher's chance of competing better with the SEC.
I know it will never happen, but both Texas and Oklahoma are stagnating more than at any point over the past 10-12 years. The Big 12 doesn't have nearly as much national appeal as it used to with Nebraska and Texas A&M gone and no more conference championship game. Both of these programs are going to have to make a long-term choice on the viability of the Big 12 at some point, and I think one or both will ultimately leave for greener pastures. Instead of waiting for the SEC or Pac 12 to strike, the B1G should be as aggressive as they can about adding them and getting to 16.
Plus, if we add Texas and Oklahoma, we can then finally come up with Division names that make sense: Chokers and Underachievers (I kid, I kid!)
January 14th, 2013 at 10:25 PM ^
It would be nice to add Texas and Oklahoma, but it's never going to happen. Texas isn't going anywhere unless they can keep their own network, and I don't see the state of Oklahoma letting Oklahoma State U. get left behind to fend for itself.
January 14th, 2013 at 3:55 PM ^
I do not like "Legends" and "Leaders." I'm not sure if anyone pointed it out, but if a team is in the "Legends" division does that mean they cannot also be leaders? And vice-versa, if a team is in the "Leaders" division does that mean they cannot also be legends? I don't get it.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^
19,000 points, geeeesh.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:16 PM ^
Congratulations to me!
Oops. That was a short celebration. Shouldn't have responded so I could enjoy it a little longer!
January 14th, 2013 at 4:29 PM ^
Can't you just mod yourself down?
January 14th, 2013 at 4:31 PM ^
You've been a member for 1226 days, with 1902 points, that's around 15.5 points per day. (It's a slow day at work) I'm hoping you had some sort of point bump at some point, otherwise WOW...
January 14th, 2013 at 4:39 PM ^
There used to be a charity drive when you donated you got points. Also back in the days of the posbang you could gain hundreds with one good topic.
January 14th, 2013 at 5:04 PM ^
I definitely benefitted from those posbangs. FWIW, I plan on being the first to start an epic negbang when we go back to cumulative voting (if we get there). Those old-school negbangs were so much fun.
January 14th, 2013 at 5:03 PM ^
What are you insinuating? Are you saying that I have no life? Or are you saying that I am a huge slacker here at work? OR, worse yet, are you saying that its sad that I consider you all to be my friends? Either way, I hate you and I plan on taking away all of your points. If only I could get a point for taking yours away . . .
January 15th, 2013 at 12:09 PM ^
That:
A. You are a slacker at work
B. ????
C. Profit
January 14th, 2013 at 6:24 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^
Nothing to see here, just a double post. Move Along
January 14th, 2013 at 4:03 PM ^
Word on the street is that he's considering "Meanies" and "Tuff Guyz"...of course, that's all hush hush.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^
Haha, reading this I realized that I have NO CLUE which division is which. I just know the teams that share a division with Michigan.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^
Just sing our fight song..."Hail Hail to Michigan the Legends and Best."
January 14th, 2013 at 4:12 PM ^
January 14th, 2013 at 4:20 PM ^
Western Leaders Division (OSU's division)
Eastern Legends Division (Michigan's division, along with Rutgers and Maryland)
January 14th, 2013 at 4:14 PM ^
See guys, I'm reasonable. I'm willing to change the division names you hate. Anything to distract you from our two newest additions and how terrible they are.
January 14th, 2013 at 4:23 PM ^
And you hit it. I hate that the Legends and Leaders thing became the issue on which people decided to galvanize their hatred, instead of, you know, making us put up with the addition of two ridiculously incorrect schools to the conference just so he could get his greedy hands on more money. Perfect opportunity for Delany to claim, see, I'm not such an unreasonable, tradition-destroying monster, look how reasonable I am about the division names. When we should really be screaming about Rutgers.