Should the Big 10 and Big 12 switch names?

Submitted by ._. on July 28th, 2010 at 12:14 AM

Seems like a reasonable idea.

Comments

kevin holt

July 28th, 2010 at 12:43 AM ^

that is a pretty Clever name... however mine is the complete opposite, as it is my real name, as I am apparently extremely stupid. Figured I would sign up to comment once, ended up addicted to the site... you know how it goes. But now I'm stuck with either keeping an MGoName like this or starting over

turd ferguson

July 28th, 2010 at 1:05 AM ^

No. Even if the Big 12 changes its name to the "Big Ten," we shouldn't change. It'd be like when the CFL had like eight teams and two of them were named the Roughriders.

Baldbill

July 28th, 2010 at 8:51 AM ^

The "Big 12" has changed it's name every time it grows, it was the Big 6, then the Big 8, then Big 12, soon it will be the Big 0 cause it is going to implode. We however are the BigTen and have been for 80yrs, I think we will be sticking with it.

RedSox04

July 28th, 2010 at 2:04 AM ^

Hell No! the Big Ten has so much history behind it. Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard. Besides if they did, there would be no way in hell anyone would call them the new names.

Copey1050

July 28th, 2010 at 2:39 AM ^

You have to keep the Big 10 because of it's brand name.

But here is a simple way to keep it the Big Ten while having 14 teams.   Add Missouri and Notre Dame.    How does it make sense?

You'd have teams in the following states

Illinois (2)

Indiana  (3) 

Iowa

Michigan (2)

Minnesota

Missouri

Nebraska

Pennsylvania

Ohio

Wisconsin

 

10 States - the Big 10 - there you go. 

Makes perfect sense - so therefore, will never happen because it's college football. 

 

 

East   Indiana-Illinois-Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State-Penn State-Purdue

West  Iowa-Minnesota-Missouri-Nebraska-Northwestern-Notre Dame-Wisonsin

 

wildbackdunesman

July 28th, 2010 at 5:29 AM ^

No. There is too much history with both names that it would be less confusing to just keep our current name. The B12 can rename itself to "Texas's Conference".

If we were to change names it should be to something more unique about our geography, etc, but I say that we stay put on the name for now. Besides we may be at 14 or 16 in a few years.

Seth

July 28th, 2010 at 6:51 AM ^

I'm surprised the Big Ten didn't raise holy hell when the "Big 12" called itself such in the first place.

Any lawyer worth his salt would have been able to show the "Big 12" was trying to capitalize on the Big Ten's brand, and would create problems down the road for expansion. The "Big East" at least is static, but that too should have been questioned. But "Big 12" when there's already a "Big Ten" should have been stopped immediately.

Rasmus

July 28th, 2010 at 9:54 AM ^

That argument needed to take place in 1964, when the Big Eight took its name -- its Wikipedia page repeatedly claims that its predecessors were "unofficially" known as the Big Six/Seven/Eight -- methinks the lady doth protest too much...

The Big Ten has a legitimate claim to its name beginning in 1917 (Chicago was replaced by Michigan State in the late 1940s), although apparently it was not legally known as such until it became a corporation in 1987.

MGoShoe

July 28th, 2010 at 7:09 AM ^

...it's the Big Ten, not the Big 10 and the Big XII, not the Big 12.

Anyhow, Delaney has previously stated that the Big Ten is not interested in a name change. Yestersay, Beebe announced at the Big XII meetings that the conference is exploring a name change and joked about having talks w/ Delaney about a swap.

Here's's the bottom line (reality check): the Big XII will likely change its name. The Big Ten will retain its name. The Pac-10 has already announced plans to change its name to the Pac-12 in 2011 when Colorado and Utah join. They also rolled out a new Pac-10 logo that is easily changeable to a Pac-12 logo.