Big Ten Names Divisions "Leaders" and "Legends," Reveals New Logo

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Big Ten Names Divisions "Leaders" and "Legends," Reveals New Logo
H

holdingout

Senior Member

585 posts
Dec 13, 2010 3:54 PM
krambman;599178 wrote:Division Names:

LEADERS:
Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana

LEGENDS:
Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan State, Northwestern, Nebraska

Is this politically correct?...just sayin
Dec 13, 2010 3:54pm
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Dec 13, 2010 4:00 PM
holdingout;599567 wrote:Is this politically correct?...just sayin

What about it wouldn't be politically correct?
Dec 13, 2010 4:00pm
j_crazy's avatar

j_crazy

7 gram rocks. how i roll.

8,372 posts
Dec 13, 2010 4:09 PM
krambman;599565 wrote:The difference with New Coke is that they tested it extensively in blind taste tests and the new flavor overwhelmingly beat out the old flavor. The marketing was just done poorly. That just proved that the brand name was more powerful than the actual product because people were upset about the change even though they liked the new flavor better. The new Big Ten logo is pretty bad though. Honestly I think I would have liked it better had they used a darker blue color and a more traditions varsity block font.


I do like how all 13 past, present, and future Big Ten teams are represented in the names of the Big Ten trophies. I also like that Ohio State has the most trophies named after their players/coaches with five (six if you count OSU alumnus Bo Schembechler).


don't fool yourself, bo is not on there for his contribution to the OSU alumni fund. he's a michigan guy, and a damn good one.
Dec 13, 2010 4:09pm
gorocks99's avatar

gorocks99

Senior Member

10,760 posts
Dec 13, 2010 4:15 PM
krambman;599565 wrote:The difference with New Coke is that they tested it extensively in blind taste tests and the new flavor overwhelmingly beat out the old flavor. The marketing was just done poorly. That just proved that the brand name was more powerful than the actual product because people were upset about the change even though they liked the new flavor better.

The issue with New Coke was Coke getting beat by the sweeter-tasting Pepsi; Coke went and tested their product with small cups but neglected to bother giving people full cans of the stuff. In a small dose, the sweeter New Coke beat the already-sweet Pepsi. But when people got full cans, the sweetness factor was too high. To this day, when testing a new product, Coke sends full cans (6- or 12-packs) to testers to gauge their reactions.

/unrelated to football
Dec 13, 2010 4:15pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 13, 2010 4:24 PM
The quality of the soda isn't the point. The point is that when an organization makes a mistake, the consumers can help alert them to the mistake and change it. Hence, my point about New Coke. Consumers hated it, and that's why Coca-Cola got rid of it. Hopefully, the Big 10 can learn from its "consumers" and realize these division names are ridiculous.
Dec 13, 2010 4:24pm
H

holdingout

Senior Member

585 posts
Dec 13, 2010 4:39 PM
krambman;599573 wrote:What about it wouldn't be politically correct?

Come on man, I'm just goshin' ya. Lighten up.
Dec 13, 2010 4:39pm
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Dec 13, 2010 5:12 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;599606 wrote:The quality of the soda isn't the point. The point is that when an organization makes a mistake, the consumers can help alert them to the mistake and change it. Hence, my point about New Coke. Consumers hated it, and that's why Coca-Cola got rid of it. Hopefully, the Big 10 can learn from its "consumers" and realize these division names are ridiculous.

The difference these however, is that Coke did market research ahead of time and were convinced that they were making the right decision by changing the flavor. When they actually made the change it backfired big time. Coke stood to lose a lot of money by keeping the new flavor, so they admitted they made a mistake, suffered some embarrassment, and changed the flavor back. I don't know if the Big Ten did any fan focus groups to gauge how they viewed various name possibilities, but no one is going to stop watching Big Ten games and no advertisers are going to pull their money because of the new logo or division names, so there's no money to be lost with this mistake. It would just cause more embarrassment with no quantifiable gain to change it after-the-fact like Coke did. Changing it now would have more of a negative effect. Five years from now the names will be commonplace and no one will care.
Dec 13, 2010 5:12pm
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Dec 13, 2010 5:13 PM
holdingout;599616 wrote:Come on man, I'm just goshin' ya. Lighten up.

I assumed you were joking, I just failed to see the humor in your comment and was hoping that you could explain the joke.
Dec 13, 2010 5:13pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 13, 2010 5:36 PM
"so there's no money to be lost with this mistake. It would just cause more embarrassment with no quantifiable gain to change it after-the-fact like Coke did. Changing it now would have more of a negative effect. Five years from now the names will be commonplace and no one will care. "

I agree no money will be lost, but it is still embarrassing and it would be even more embarrassing to not change it. It isn't as if UNC lost money or fans by changing their jerseys a few years ago - but alums/fans hated it and they switched back. Does anyone think that Legends/Leaders is ever going to fly with the public, 5 years from now or 1 year from now? If nothing else people will say that those titles are stupid and refer to them as (i) the division with Michigan in it and (ii) the division with Ohio St. in it.
Dec 13, 2010 5:36pm
J

johngrizzly

Senior Member

213 posts
Dec 13, 2010 6:32 PM
John Holmes...


















LEGEND
Dec 13, 2010 6:32pm
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Dec 13, 2010 6:51 PM
I like how Charles Woodson has 2 trophies named after him.

Then we have Bo and Desmond. Kind of ironic how Michigan and OSU have the most isn't it?
Dec 13, 2010 6:51pm
J

johngrizzly

Senior Member

213 posts
Dec 13, 2010 6:56 PM
Any trophies named for Tom Osborne?
Dec 13, 2010 6:56pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Dec 13, 2010 7:17 PM
I don't like the Leaders ans Legends name but I have to consider it easier to market/promote in TV spots. Just think of all the leaders and Legends that have emerged from the conference accompanied by a deep voice and video clips in slow motion from the past. The Leaders and Legends transcends just football conference alignment I believe and that's what I think they're shooting for, though I have to admit on the surface it does have a somewhat ghey tone to it.
Dec 13, 2010 7:17pm
J

johngrizzly

Senior Member

213 posts
Dec 13, 2010 7:20 PM
Sleeper has got to absolutely love these names!

It sounds like he named them.
Dec 13, 2010 7:20pm
jordo212000's avatar

jordo212000

Senior Member

10,664 posts
Dec 13, 2010 7:30 PM
All this talk about New Coke is making me feel like I am back in marketing class
Dec 13, 2010 7:30pm
V

vball10set

paying it forward

24,795 posts
Dec 13, 2010 7:32 PM
johngrizzly;599798 wrote:Sleeper has got to absolutely love these names!

It sounds like he named them.
where's he been? did he get demoted to The Basement??
Dec 13, 2010 7:32pm
Wildcat24's avatar

Wildcat24

Senior Member

261 posts
Dec 13, 2010 7:46 PM
The blue part of the bottom just looks like it's tacked on there, with the white on top opening up to nothingness.



If they closed it in, I think it looks a little better.
Dec 13, 2010 7:46pm
C

cats gone wild

Senior Member

2,651 posts
Dec 13, 2010 7:51 PM
Congrats Big 10 fans, it must be your better academics to come up with this. Still a joke of a conference.
Dec 13, 2010 7:51pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Dec 13, 2010 8:05 PM
This is what happens when academicians get involved in naming stuff. It gets waaaaay over analyzed and thought.

They should have just gone with Lakes and Plains, and forced themselves to not be so damn politically correct when naming the awards. There's enough hyphens in those things to rebuild Rt. 66 nationally.
Dec 13, 2010 8:05pm
D

dtdtim

Senior Member

358 posts
Dec 13, 2010 8:55 PM
I'm still not getting it. If the new logo has the words 'Big Ten' in it, why do they feel the need to make the 'IG' look like a 10? The logo isn't never going to be just the 'B1G' and the word 'Ten' will always be there, so it just seems kind of stupid to have both. Not to mention, the '11' in the old logo carried some sort of significance. They couldn't manage some sort of logo that played on the fact that the Big 10 has 12 teams?

I hate everything about these decisions. The trophy names, although a nice gesture, are too long and will never be widely used. The division names are a little too precious. Awful. This, coupled with the Northwestern/Illinois travesty at Wrigley Field, should signify that something needs to change at the Big Ten headquarters.
Dec 13, 2010 8:55pm
C

cats gone wild

Senior Member

2,651 posts
Dec 13, 2010 9:07 PM
Maybe they should of came up with a bunch of ideas and had people vote for which ones they liked better.
Dec 13, 2010 9:07pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Dec 13, 2010 9:10 PM
cats gone wild;599937 wrote:Maybe they should of came up with a bunch of ideas and had people vote for which ones they liked better.

agreed. It's not like they don't have the technology where the 12 schools could have put the voting on their secure intranet so only students could vote.
Dec 13, 2010 9:10pm
D

dtdtim

Senior Member

358 posts
Dec 13, 2010 9:15 PM
The hidden number in the current logo is there because it holds significance. If there weren't 11 teams, I doubt the number would appear in the logo. In the new one it's like the designer was thinking 'well, there was a hidden number in the old one and, since 11 won't work anymore, let's just throw in the redundant 10 to have a hidden number still'. I mean, really, I know I've already commented about this, but this is the most juvenile joke of a logo I've ever seen. The conference and its members deserve better.
Dec 13, 2010 9:15pm
T

Tiernan

Senior Member

13,021 posts
Dec 13, 2010 9:50 PM
Would make alot more sense to have named the two divisions "Winners" & "Losers" ...and we all know which one OSU and scUM are in.

I kinda like the "Leaders" - that's what Coach Tress talks about everyday, everyone has the potential to be a Leader but you have to earn it. "Legends" on the other hand are too often made up in one's own mind, like most athletes to have come out of scUM ala the two biggest douches around, Dezzy Howard and Chucky Woodson.
Dec 13, 2010 9:50pm
B

bigkahuna

Senior Member

4,454 posts
Dec 13, 2010 10:20 PM
It would have been awesome if they would have put 12 in there like they did the 11.

Also, I think it's kind of shitty that Nebraska isn't recognized in the trophies anywhere. Yes, they are new, but they have more tradition than 1/2 of the current schools.
Dec 13, 2010 10:20pm