BTN asking fans if Legends and Leaders division names should stay

Submitted by Purkinje on December 1st, 2012 at 1:21 PM

We all remember how the overwhelming disapproval of the current names was ignored last time, but for whatever reason, BTN has posted a survey on the matter again this morning. Maybe with the impending additions of teams 15 and 16 (and beyond?), the conference is considering redoing the divisions.

The poll is hosted by Facebook, so some of you won't be able to make your voices heard. But for everybody else: https://www.facebook.com/BTN/app_127709503932081

FYI, the questions in the survey are:

  1. What is your favorite B1G school?
  2. My favorite school is in which division?
  3. As the conference expands beyond 12 teams, should the new teams be added to an existing division or should new divisions be drawn from scratch?
  4. What do you think of the "Legends" and "Leaders" names? (Strongly Like to Strongly Dislike.)
  5. Should the B1G change or keep the current division names?
  6. If you think the division names should be changed, what should they be changed to? (Input box!)
  7. If divisions were to be changed, what criteria should be used to determine them? (Rank most important through least important: Competitive balance, geography, protect traditional rivalries.)
  8. How important is it for IN-STATE rivals to be in the same division? (Or, "How to ditch Lil Bro forever.") Very important to not important.
  9. How important is it for TRADITIONAL rivals to be in the same division? (Or, "How to make The Game matter like it used to.) Very important to not important.
  10. Currently, the number of conference games the B1G plays is 8. Should this increase?
  11. What is your preference on a B1G Basketball Tourney? (Every team qualifies, or 12 of 14 teams qualify.)
  12. Currently, the B1G has no divisions for basketball. Should this be changed?
  13. If yes, why should there be divisions for basketball?
  14. If no, why shouldn't there be divisions for basketball?
  15. When people reference "B1G", do you recognize that to be the Big Ten Conference?
  16. With 14 teams currently, should the B1G remain the "Big Ten", or should its name be changed?
  17. Do you have any further thoughts on B1G expansion?

Some pretty interesting stuff in there. Go do good!

EDIT: Those of you without Facebook can take the survey on BTN's website: http://btn.com/2012/12/01/big-ten-expansion-tell-us-what-you-think/

Comments

Purkinje

December 1st, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^

That would be fantastic for everybody except Nebraska. (Unless we add more western teams, but still the expansion division would be crossing half the country several times each season.)

Also, there is a large proportion of Michigan fans that really don't give a damn about our rivalry with Sparty. All of the Michigan alumni who came from outside the Midwest didn't care from the start, and those of us like me who left Michigan after graduation don't see any Sparties to razz anymore.

Purkinje

December 1st, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^

Sure, I don't mean to say that you guys aren't out there (or even the majority), but most of my OOS friends in college hated Notre Dame more than Sparty and Ohio more than both combined. I think turning the game wtih Sparty into a less-than-annual affair would ruffle too many feathers at this point, but I know I'm not alone in not caring that much about it.

Lucky Socks

December 1st, 2012 at 2:26 PM ^

I think MSU should be our protected cross-division rivalry though.  I'm very excited by this survery and here's what I had to say in the "additional comments" section regarding divisions

Plains (or West)

Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan State, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota

Atlantic (or East)

Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Northwestern, Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue

Protect:

Michigan vs. MSU

Ohio State or Penn State vs. Wisconsin or Nebraska (and the other...)

Northwestern vs. Illinois

Maryland or Rutgers vs. Iowa or Minnesota

Purdue vs. Indiana

 

I see balance in football (& hoops if we choose that route), geography, and most rivalries protected with potential few new ones to grow.  If we choose to go 16 teams the the new guys would likely come from the East, so simply shift Purdue over.  I also think a 9 game conference slate is almost necessary.  3 NC games --> 1 cupcake, 1 SOS builder, 1 middling should be the goal.  

ChopBlock

December 1st, 2012 at 2:54 PM ^

See here's the thing: how many times are you really going to play MSU twice in a season? Given their track record of only spotty success, we won't play them in the BTCG except once in a great while. OTOH, we'd play OSU all the time if we were in seperate divisions. I have no problem with playing somebody twice, it's just that in a lot of scenarios, we'd go into the Game knowing that it was meaningless because we'd rematch them for the championship the week after.

EGD

December 1st, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^

Those BTN Facebook posts are brutal.  Every single one of them immediately descends into ignorant, non-funny trash-talk.    

EGD

December 1st, 2012 at 1:44 PM ^

I find basketball divisions to be an odd suggestion.  What would be the point?  Would there be a regular season championship game between the two division winners, followed by the Big Ten Tournament?  Seems superfluous.

maizenblue87

December 1st, 2012 at 1:45 PM ^

The way things are going, the Big 10 will soon span the globe encompassing hundreds of universities. So it should look at divisions like "North America", "Pacific", "Middle East/Africa", etc.

MichiganStudent

December 1st, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^

 

  1. Michigan
  2. Legends
  3. From Scratch
  4. Strongly Dislike
  5. Change current names
  6. East/West, North/South, Central Time Zone/Eastern Time Zone 
  7. 1.Protect rivalry 2. Geography 3. Competitive balance
  8. Very Important for instate rivals in same division
  9. Very Important for traditional rivals in same division
  10. 9 conference games, but I wouldn't mind having 10 conference games
  11. Every team qualifies
  12. No, BBall doesn't need divisions
  13. n/a
  14. Don't fix what isnt broken. No need for divisions
  15. Yes, nickname
  16. Keep the name its a brand
  17. I said to expand to 16 teams and snatch up 2 of these schools: North Carolina, Notre Dame, Boston College, Virginia. 

Sons of Louis Elbel

December 1st, 2012 at 1:51 PM ^

I'm not sure I believe they'll actually listen to the fans, but at least the last question provides an opportunity to vent a little.

But just in case they are listening, everyone vote for putting us and tOSU in the same division. It can't hurt...

EGD

December 1st, 2012 at 1:53 PM ^

Maybe the B1G should go to the English Premier League model and line up the divisions according to performance:

Upper Tier: Neb., Mich., Ohio, Wisc., Northwestern, Penn St., Rutgers

Lower Tier: Iowa, MSU, Illinois, Minnesota, IU, Maryland, Purdue

The Championship Game could be played between the top two finishers in the upper tier, and then there could be a relegation/promotion game between the worst team in the upper tier and the champion of the lower tier.

a2_electricboogaloo

December 1st, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^

The problem with that is college football is so variable that a team can be mediocre one year and a national contender the next (like Auburn in 2009/2010).  If you relegate a team down for a single bad season then you're, then you're limiting their season by how their last season went.

EGD

December 1st, 2012 at 3:10 PM ^

That's certainly a good counter-argument.  But I don't see any other way of putting UM and Ohio in the same division without giving Nebraska an easy ticket to Indy (should be Chicago) more-or-less every year.  Maybe if Penn State hadn't gotten nuked by the NCAA and I had more confidence in Wisconsin...  

ChopBlock

December 1st, 2012 at 1:55 PM ^

I may or may not have just written a long rant about how brutally stupid the current divisions are. I think they're going to think I'm a grumpy old man.

I Like Burgers

December 1st, 2012 at 2:21 PM ^

That would just lead to teams that should logically be in a Lakes division being put in the Heartland division.  Most of the Big Ten is close enough to a Great Lake that they could say they belong in a Lakes division.  Only Iowa and Nebraska are really in what I'd consider the Heartland of America.  And what do you do with Maryland and Rutgers?  Neither is really fits a Lakes or a Heartland theme.

Just go with East/West or North/South and be done with it.  No more cutesy names.

eamus_caeruli (not verified)

December 1st, 2012 at 3:09 PM ^

Some nut above said the same thing about associating with tradition Midwestern themes. That would be great if we didn't annex the east coast, but it won't work and it far more ridiculous than legends and leaders. If they keep the same names, frankly I don't care, but make them regionally divisions. Divide as mentioned above by east vs west or north vs south.

North: minn, msu, UofM, Rutgers, NW, Purdue,UW. (Random team)

South: Maryland, PSU, Ohio, IU, UI, Iowa, NU (gatech soon)

I Like Burgers

December 1st, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^

Had to answer not sure on this one.  Two years into these stupid division names, and I'm still not 100% sure what the hell division Michigan is in.  That's how you know your division names are a disaster.