Delany willing to consider changes to Legends/Leaders

Submitted by Sugaloaf on January 14th, 2013 at 3:04 PM

In an 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 3:17 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...

Horace Prettyman

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.

Dutch Ferbert

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 3:22 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 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 3:42 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 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.

Dutch Ferbert

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 3:52 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 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 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 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.