Anyone else think that the Big Ten high ups might think the conference is too high and mighty to think they made terrible logos, trophy names and division names despite the bad feedback?

bigkahuna;600058 wrote: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.

Go back and look at the opening post. I posted all of the trophy names. The Offensive Alignment award is the Rimington-Pace Offensive Lineman Award, names for Orlando Pace and Dave Rimington of Nebraska.

what was so wrong with splitting up the conference geographically? is an east division of penn state, ohio state, michigan, michigan state, indiana and purdue to go along with a west division of northwestern, illinois, wisconsin, minnesota, iowa and nebraska just a terrible thing? the big ten has pretty much botched this process every step of the way

Legends and Leaders = Lame.

dazedconfused;600296 wrote:what was so wrong with splitting up the conference geographically? is an east division of penn state, ohio state, michigan, michigan state, indiana and purdue to go along with a west division of northwestern, illinois, wisconsin, minnesota, iowa and nebraska just a terrible thing? the big ten has pretty much botched this process every step of the way

What's wrong about it (which I'm not saying is necessarily wrong, but in the view of the conference it is) is that it isn't balance competitively. My guess is that OSu, Michigan, and Penn State didn't want to be in the same division and let Nebraska be in a division without one of the other "big dogs" by themselves. Competitive balance was their primary concern, followed by traditional rivalries, and geography was the final concern (which is okay to an extend since this isn't a huge conference geographically). My guess is that the breakdown went like this:

Top tier (traditionally top and contending for the conference title every year):
Michigan
Nebraska
Ohio State
Penn State

Second tier (good most years and occasionally contending for a conference title):
Iowa
Wisconsin

Third tier (good enough to go to a bowl game most years, rarely conference title contender):
Illinois
Michigan State
Northwestern
Purdue

Bottom tier (at the bottom every year, rarely in a bowl game):
Indiana
Minnesota

The they decided to evenly split the teams from each tier while trying to preserve as many traditional rivalries and paying as much attention to geography as possible and that gave us the divisions we have.

It's important to remember that while geographic divisions may look equal right now, traditionally they wouldn't be very even. Michigan is not good right now, but that has only been the case for four years (they went 11-2 in 2006) and it's expected that because they are Michigan they will eventually recover. This has been a rebuilding year for Penn State, but typically they are legitimate conference title contenders three out of every four years. Wisconsin shared the conference title this year, and while they are good almost every year, it only happens two or three times a decade where they legitimately contend for the conference crown. Iowa is always a tough beat, but again, it only happens two or three times a decade where they really contend for the conference title. They wanted to divide the conference based more on history with some weight being given to recent performance over only doing geography or just looking at the past two or three seasons for balance.

I know it doesn't make sense geographically, but the easy solution was to have the following in divisions:

Great Plains

Iowa
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Penn State
Purdue
Minnesota

Great Lakes

OSU
Michigan
MSU
Illinois
Northwestern
Indiana

This would maintain historical competitive balance and most of the rivalries would be in tact. The only exception being Purdue and Indiana which, if you're going to by way of impact in football, won't affect much of anything.

Yes, the PSU folks will whine that they are too far East to be in the Great Plains division, but my feeling is SOMEONE has to move between OSU, PSU and UM, and keeping OSU and UM in the same division is more important. PSU doesn't have any long-standing rivalries in the conference.

Of course, my idea is too logical, too plain and makes too much sense for it to ever fly with the idiots who put together what was announced yesterday.

One last thing: With the exception of the Hayes-Schembechler Trophy for coach of the year, I'd make whoever is putting together the trophies choose ONE NAME for each. All those hyphens is totally ridiculous. It looks like PC punctuation gone wild.

Writerbuckeye;600564 wrote:I know it doesn't make sense geographically, but the easy solution was to have the following in divisions:

Great Plains

Iowa
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Penn State
Purdue
Minnesota

Great Lakes

OSU
Michigan
MSU
Illinois
Northwestern
Indiana

This would maintain historical competitive balance and most of the rivalries would be in tact. The only exception being Purdue and Indiana which, if you're going to by way of impact in football, won't affect much of anything.

Yes, the PSU folks will whine that they are too far East to be in the Great Plains division, but my feeling is SOMEONE has to move between OSU, PSU and UM, and keeping OSU and UM in the same division is more important. PSU doesn't have any long-standing rivalries in the conference.

Of course, my idea is too logical, too plain and makes too much sense for it to ever fly with the idiots who put together what was announced yesterday.

One last thing: With the exception of the Hayes-Schembechler Trophy for coach of the year, I'd make whoever is putting together the trophies choose ONE NAME for each. All those hyphens is totally ridiculous. It looks like PC punctuation gone wild.

I agree with all of this (with a minor exception). I think Penn St. would have "taken one for the team" and agreed to be lumped with the more western schools as long as they were GUARANTEED Ohio St. every year, which the Big 10 could have done. A Penn St./Nebraska rivalry could have been great.

The minor exception is that I'd switch Illinois and Purdue. Illinois has more natural rivals in the western part and Purdue has more in the eastern part, plus IMO the Indiana/Purdue rivalry is bigger than the Northwestern/Illinois rivalry, so the latter should be split.

But c'est la vie. We have what we have.

Firad;600117 wrote:Anyone else think that the Big Ten high ups might think the conference is too high and mighty to think they made terrible logos, trophy names and division names despite the bad feedback?

I would wager lots of money that they will not change this. Delany's ego won't allow that to happen

They would have been better off just naming them "A" and "B".

The new logo and names sum up the conference perfectly.

Pompous, sneering, and stuck in the past.

thedynasty1998;600670 wrote:They would have been better off just naming them "A" and "B".

Sad, but true. I think this might have been the brightest post you have ever made.

I'm a fan of this shirt:

is Derrell Johnson-Koulianos a leader or a legend?

KnightRyder;602111 wrote:is Derrell Johnson-Koulianos a leader or a legend?

neither--he's a thug

KnightRyder;602111 wrote:is Derrell Johnson-Koulianos a leader or a legend?

Did you steal that from SI's mailbag? Still funny, but I don't think it was original

gorocks99;601782 wrote:I'm a fan of this shirt:

That's awesome.

The shirts are for sale too

http://46989.spreadshirt.com/leaders-legends-A6839585/customize/color/2#details

If the Big Ten does go to 16, which I think it will the logo will look pretty cool if they make the G a 6

buckeyes_woowee;602226 wrote:If the Big Ten does go to 16, which I think it will the logo will look pretty cool if they make the G a 6

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this was part of the reason this design was chosen. I don't mind the logo so much, except for the atrocious blue they chose.

KnightRyder;602111 wrote:is Derrell Johnson-Koulianos a leader or a legend?

I don't know, but he could have his own trophy with that name.

KnightRyder;602111 wrote:is Derrell Johnson-Koulianos a leader or a legend?

Clearly he was a leader as a captain of enterprise running his own business, and he will forever be remembered as a legend.

Apparently I was wrong. It appears that Delany has listened to the people and will consider changing the division names after the first of the year. I guess the conference isn't too proud to say that they made a mistake. He cites that the names have received a 90% disapproval rating. I'm wondering who the 10% that like it are. I think that it's smart to wait a while and see if the names grow on people, and if they do decide to change them, they really need to get the public's input this time so that they don't screw this up twice.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/21173/big-ten-to-reconsider-division-names

I've thought that Midwest and Heartland would be good divisions names. Both express the geography and demographics of the entire conference, while not being geographically specific to either division (which is why things like Plains, Lakes, and Prairie wouldn't work because neither division fits any of those names perfectly).

krambman;604001 wrote:Apparently I was wrong. It appears that Delany has listened to the people and will consider changing the division names after the first of the year. I guess the conference isn't too proud to say that they made a mistake. He cites that the names have received a 90% disapproval rating.

I'm impressed. I didn't think they would ever change their minds either.

krambman;604001 wrote:Apparently I was wrong. It appears that Delany has listened to the people and will consider changing the division names after the first of the year. I guess the conference isn't too proud to say that they made a mistake. He cites that the names have received a 90% disapproval rating. I'm wondering who the 10% that like it are.


I've thought that Midwest and Heartland would be good divisions names.

Why wait a year? Change it now and all will be forgotten. And yes, it's hard to believe that 10% would approve.

LOVE the Midwest and Heartland idea! Not sure if you came up with that or read it somewhere, but it's brilliant!

He's only waiting like 2 weeks. Jan 1, 2011 is right around the corner.