NCAA conference changes

[Mince]

@Omniscient

It’s the Big Ten, always will be and always should be. No one from any of the schools would tolerate anything else. The alumni outrage would be off the charts. Suggestion otherwise indicates that you simply don’t get it.

The division names are overwhelmingly embarrassing. Holy crap that is stupid. The logo is bland and I think I would have preferred that they just erased the ghost “11” from the current logo over this one. That said, conference logos are pretty meaningless and I rarely notice them and getting cut with the “IG” in this one reeks of trying too hard. I can tolerate the two name awards, the league has been around for a 100 years I think they can justify it. My biggest complaint is COURTNEY BROWN? Courtney fucking Brown? Simeon Rice and probably a dozen other guys threw up in their mouths seeing this. I want to complain about the Ameche-Dayne trophy too, but I suppose the Grange-Griffin trophy is better as a MVP award…but I’m not sure.

I will forever be pretending that the Graham-George trophy honors Jeff George though. Ha!

You are correct: I don’t get it. The name (officially) is only 23 years old and the conference has had 11 teams for twenty of those years. If you can alter The Big Ten to add teams, then you can alter its name to properly reflect the number of teams. Obviously the Big Ten saw the wisdom in this when they originally (and unofficially) named the conference. The members, boosters, etc., have no problems changing the structure of the conference, why would they have a problem changing its name accordingly? Yeah; I don’t get it.

The division and award names are ridiculous and irritating, not befitting a conference with such legacy. I think it should be the Trudeau Division and the Kittner Division, as the Illini win the Big Ten so rarely, any quarterback who does so deserves the honor.

[RetroVertigo]

@A Monkey With a Gun

There are rumors that Arkansas might jump to the Big 12 from the SEC, but I don’t see that happening.

Doubtful. They left the SWC to get away from the Texas schools, and I don’t see how much of anything has changed. As a Mizzou alum I would welcome it if they decided to join.

[Marley23]

@markdash

And regarding the awards, this is the first I’ve heard of them, but it seems they were trying to appeal to as many schools as possible instead of just taking a stand and picking one player per award.

They clearly wanted to make sure there was at least one award named after a famous player from each school. It’s silly and gives the whole thing a participation trophy feel.

[markdash]

@Marley23

They clearly wanted to make sure there was at least one award named after a famous player from each school. It’s silly and gives the whole thing a participation trophy feel.

Precisely. It makes the awards look like a class list at a Berkeley, CA elementary school, with all the hyphenated names.

[Skammer]

“Griese-Brees Quarterback of the Year” Snerk.

“When you see him make a quick toss while evading the rush, you think ‘Greasy Breeze’!”

[Gedd]

Nah, they can stick with Big Ten. They know they have more than 10 teams, so they aren’t a 10, they are a **big **10. Get it? Get it?? Haa haa . . . ugh. :rolleyes:

I have a friend who suggested Beef and Cheddar for the division names.

[gonzomax]

Iowa is put with all the Ms and Ns. They are with Mich., MSu, Minn., Nebraska, Northwestern. Seems Iowa was a mistake. They belong with Illinois and Indiana. They could have shifted Wisconsin, that is a M flipped over.
They did not reason this out very well.

[RaftPeople]

The “Leaders” and “Legends” names seem pretty lame, but I think the Big10 was in a tough spot, I can’t think of anything decent if you don’t do geographical names.

Can anyone think of good non-geographical division names?

[Omniscient]

@RaftPeople

The “Leaders” and “Legends” names seem pretty lame, but I think the Big10 was in a tough spot, I can’t think of anything decent if you don’t do geographical names.

Can anyone think of good non-geographical division names?

Way up the thread I said “Red” and “Blue”, at the very least a color combo would have been less stupid than what they chose. Another interesting one that just occurred to me is the “Lewis” and “Clark” divisions if you want to go with some regional history. Some inoffensive geographic names would have worked too, “Great Lakes” and “Great Plains” so long as you treat them as tributes to the region and not descriptive of the teams in them.

[RaftPeople]

@Omniscient

Way up the thread I said “Red” and “Blue”, at the very least a color combo would have been less stupid than what they chose. Another interesting one that just occurred to me is the “Lewis” and “Clark” divisions if you want to go with some regional history. Some inoffensive geographic names would have worked too, “Great Lakes” and “Great Plains” so long as you treat them as tributes to the region and not descriptive of the teams in them.

Those are all good suggestions. Red and Blue works but it’s a little boring. I like the other 2 you listed.

[notfrommensa]

It looks like the Big 10 might be doing some crawfishing over the division names

None of it prepared him for the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the conference’s new division names.

Delany said during an interview with WGN AM-720 in Chicago on Thursday that the names Legends and Leaders were picked to highlight the conference’s rich history, and that “to a great extent it’s fallen on deaf ears.” Many fans have instead mocked the names and asked officials to reconsider, which Delany said could happen after the first of the year.

…

“It’s humbling, to say the least, because we’re trying to build fan bases, not push them away,” Delany said of the uproar caused by the new division names. “I was surprised. I’ve been around this business a long time, and it’s one of the more surprising things.”

[Tom_Scud]

Really, they could just call them the Southeast & Northwest divisions and the only team out of place would be Wisconsin.