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:

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:



December 1st, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^

New "Legends": Michigan, Ohio, MSU, Purdue, Nebraska, Iowa, Maryland

New "Leaders": PSU, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Rutgers

Protected cross-divisional rivalries: Brown Jug, Land Grant (MSU-PSU), Illibuck (Ohio-Illinois), Old Oaken Bucket (Indiana-Purdue), Heartland (Iowa-Wisconsin), Nebraska-Northwestern, Maryland-Rutgers

Annual Divisional rivalries: Paul Bunyan, The Game, Heroes (Nebraska-Iowa), Governor's Victory Bell (PSU-Minn), Paul Bunyan's Axe (Wisconsin-Minn), Land of Lincoln (Illinois-Northwestern)

"Lost" rivalries (won't occur annually): Purdue Cannon (Illinois-Pudue), Old Brass Spitoon (MSU-Indiana), Floyd of Rosedale (Iowa-Minn), Maryland-PSU, OSU-PSU


December 1st, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^

Is my memory and reading comprehenshon so bad that I didn't notice a straight "Did you support the decision to add Rutgers and Maryland" question as opposed to the generic "futher thoughts" comment box?  I wonder why on earth they wouldn't just ask the question.  I'm sure it's because everyone loves it *so* much! 


December 1st, 2012 at 2:25 PM ^

I think the funny thing about talking new division alignment is that the Big Ten is going to add 2 more teams within the next few years (conventional wisdom) and this talk will become moot. 


December 1st, 2012 at 2:40 PM ^

Was it some marketing firm, or did the B1G honchos get in a room together and brainstorm? Was a short list circulated for a vote, and if so who voted? Seems like it was something only a committee of disconnected consultants could come up with. Will be interesting to see if they use another process this time, if there is a next time.

West German Judge

December 1st, 2012 at 3:15 PM ^

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are all states that touch a Great Lake.

10 Big Ten schools, Illinois/Indiana/Purdue/NWU/Michigan/MSU/Minn/OSU/PSU/Wisc would have a claim to be  in the Great Lakes division.  Not going to work.


December 1st, 2012 at 2:51 PM ^

Thanks for alerting us to this.  They don't give a shit, but it's still great to have the illusion that someone in the office might be listening to the fans.

Point Blanke

December 1st, 2012 at 4:20 PM ^

1) Michigan

2) Legends
3) Start from scratch
4) Somewhat Dislike
5) Change the names
6) Eastern (Time Zone) & Central (Time Zone), or simply keep the current names and reorganize them geographically; i.e., Leaders (Eastern) & Legends (Central).
7) 1 - Protect traditional rivalries, 2 - Geography, 3 - Competitive balance
8) Somewhat Important (*if these can be protected/guaranteed across divisions, it is not a deal breaker)
9) Somewhat Important (*see note from #8; i.e. Michigan vs. Minnesota)
10) Yes, increase to 10 games (*no more baby seals; realistically, 9 games would happen first)
11) Every Big Ten team qualifies
12) No
13) Divisions are not necessary for basketball; the conference schedule can be increased if needed.
14) Yes
15) Yes (*it is a brand)
16) Conference expansion for the sake of expansion alone is foolish. I support the recent move to add Maryland and Rutgers, though, as I believe that these additions will be beneficial to the conference in the long term. I would be less supportive of a move to 16 teams as I feel that it could damage the integrity of the Big Ten, and collegiate athletics as a whole. If this were to occur, however, I would hope that the Big Ten looks to the following universities as realistic candidates: Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, & Kansas. Each of these institutions fits the profile of a Big Ten school with existing AAU membership, geographic continuity, and academic and athletic excellence, while expanding the conference's footprint.