Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 1:37 PM ET, 12/13/2010

Big Ten Conference goes with Leaders and Legends divisions

By Cindy Boren

The Big Ten Conference has released the names of its two divisions. One will be the Leaders Division; the other will be the Legends Division.

bigtenlogo.jpgThe conference has a new logo, too. The logo that replaces the "i" in "Big" with a "1," which makes about as much sense as calling a 12-member conference "the Big Ten."

"Like anything new, it'll take time to get used to," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said.

Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin will be in the Leaders Division; Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska and Northwestern will compete in the Legends Division.

"We decided to look to our history and our future," Delany said of division names.

By Cindy Boren  | December 13, 2010; 1:37 PM ET
Categories:  College basketball, College football  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tashard Choice apologizes for asking for Michael Vick's autograph
Next: Eagles-Vikings game Dec. 26 moves to prime-time

Comments

Generic division names and second rate logo. Lame. Poor show.

Posted by: zplapplap | December 13, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

We Can't Add Conference

Posted by: jeadpt | December 13, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

if you hate these new division names (and this u of minnesota guy does), then please "like" the facebook page just created to show dissent about them: http://www.facebook.com/... #!/pages/Big-Ten-Should-NOT-Ad opt-Legends-and-Leaders-as-Div ision-Names/176226855728978

Posted by: moore104 | December 13, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The Big Ten screwed up its divisional alignments to begin with, and now they are left with this idiotic names that make no sense. How is anybody going to remember Legends vs. Leaders? They're not. A simple East-West division would have made perfect sense, both in terms of rivalries and common sense...except that the Big Ten is all about money and schools like Iowa and Wisconsin wanted to ensure that they'd get air time in recruiting grounds closer to the East Coast.

Posted by: blert | December 13, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

East-West division allignments would not have worked, unless you think having OSU, PSU, and Michigan in the same division "works". I'm fine with the alignment the conference decided upon. The names are generic and say nothing about the conference or region. "Legends" and "Leaders" is generic. The terms evoke nothing that sets the big ten apart. To suggest otherwise, as Delaney has, is supremely arrogant.

Also, the conference could have asked students at the member universities for logo submission and gotten better choices than the one they ultimately top dollar for.

This is a missed opportunity and a bad day overall for the Big Ten.

Posted by: zplapplap | December 13, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

What the Big Ten is doing is a joke. It would have made perfect sense to have a Big Ten East of Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, and Michigan State. And also have a Big Ten West of Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Nebraska. It would work geographically and be largely balanced, just like the Southeastern Conference’s divisions are aligned.

http://philiptortora.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-big-ten-divisions-are-joke.html#

Posted by: philtortora | December 13, 2010 10:04 PM | Report abuse

What the Big Ten is doing is a joke. It would have made perfect sense to have a Big Ten East of Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, and Michigan State. And also have a Big Ten West of Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Nebraska. It would work geographically and be largely balanced, just like the Southeastern Conference’s divisions are aligned.

http://philiptortora.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-big-ten-divisions-are-joke.html#

Posted by: philtortora | December 13, 2010 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company