Talk:Big Ten Conference

Iowa Membership

The timeline indicated Iowa briefly left the conference, but there is no discussion of this. Does anyone have any info on this?

I don't if or when this ever got addressed, but I believe there was confusion over Iowa's participation in the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association (what eventually became the Big 8 Conference). Iowa helped form the league in 1907 and competed in it through the 1910 season, all while remaining a member of the Western Conference. So for 4 seasons they were competing for two separate league titles, and not taking a sabbatical from the Big Ten. Frank12 (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Stadium Capacities

The table on stadium capacities isn't currently properly arranging football stadium capacities from smallest to largest or largest to smallest when requested. Somehow OSU and PSU end up being ranked as larger than Michigan. The rankings work for basketball and baseball.

Untitled

The NCAA Championships and Big Ten Championships sorely need updating; the last time was in 2008.VictorsValiant09 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Expansion

No official announcement has been made regarding the expansion. The Kansas City radio station report has not been confirmed. Every story about the expansion refers to the 810 WHB's story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.153 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait to add Nebraska until they've actually joined? Macmanui (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should. It is not official yet and we do not know when they exactly will join. It is also likly the Big Ten will extend more invitations in the future. Bcspro (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the following text that appeared immediately above the "Expansion" section of the article. It was redundant and I think it was all speculation (even though cited). I've also requested page protection for this article due to the non-stop barrage of Nebraska-related stuff. I am putting this text here so that someone can easily review what I took out, if you like.

The University of Nebraska announced their intent to join on June 11, 2010 to become the conference's 12th team. These other schools have been rumored to be good choices for additional teams:

• University of Notre Dame
• University of Connecticut
• Rutgers University
• Syracuse University
• University of Missouri
• University of Pittsburgh
• University of Texas
• University of Maryland
• Georgia Institute of Technology

These schools all belong to rival BCS conferences, with the exception of University of Notre Dame football which is independent (all other Notre Dame sports teams compete in the Big East). Notre Dame and UConn are the only known potential invitees who are not members of the Association of American Universities.

1995hoo (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Big Ten Women's Basketball - Section Needed

Any Wikipedian, please create this section if you have time.

13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The only sections written for any sport are under the heading "rivalries," for which I think, only football should be listed. The Big Ten has long been known for its intense football rivalries, but men's basketball has been tepid at best (I'm talking about rivalries, not level of play). I think the men's basketball section should be removed, if anything. While I agree that women's basketball is an important sport for the conference, the overall repuation of play and fan interest simply doesn't support a section for that moreso than any other sport. The Big Ten is by no means known for its women's basketball, ranking typically between the 6th and 8th best conference in the country. I'd suggest instead a list of the national championships and other national accolades won by memebers of the conference across all sports.

-m

13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Conference

Why does Western Conference redirect to this article? --All in 03:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The conference’s official name throughout the time was still the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives and was also known as the Western Conference. It did not formally adopt the name Big Ten until 1987 when it was incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation. ... but it needs to be a dab. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 03:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

But there are other Western Conferences. I think "Western Conference" should be a disambig page. For example, in the NHL, NBA, WHL, etc. I'm sure there are many others. --thirty-seven 00:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)--thirty-seven 00:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I noticed this the other day but did not have time to fix. I created the disambig page now. (Terryn3 22:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Not the Oldest

The Big Ten is not oldest college athletic conference. That title goes the the Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association, founded in founded March 24, 1888. MIAA History. The Big Ten was founded on January 11, 1895 Big Ten History. --Colslax 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article states that the Big Ten is the oldest DI athletic conference. The MIAA is not Division I. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.101.181.114 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC).

Logos

Fair use images are allowable where no free alterantive exists. By definition, there is no free alternative to a logo. Therefore, logos would be usable here under fair use if the team they represent is discussed (not just mentioned). Johntex\^talk 21:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion to clarify our policy/guideline on the use of sports team logos. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Logos#Clarification_on_use_of_sports_team_logos if you wish to participate in the discussion. Johntex\^talk 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Penn State Enrollment

Listing Penn State's enrollment as 82K is misleading and not consistent with how the other institutions are listed. This incorporates all the affiliated campuses, evn those with distinct names (Dickenson, Penn Tech, Hershey, etc.) and probably distinct sports teams and conference affiliations. This is not done for any of the other Big-10 schools (many of which would get larger if it were done), and smells of one-upsmanship. The List_of_largest_US_universities_by_enrollment page doesn't do this either, so there is precedent and consistency to maintain. It is probably correct as well, given this is the Big 10 page: only the University Park campus is affiliated with the Big 10 athletic conference. Nestify 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous editor states.... "probably"...which is not correct as it is defintiely not included in the compilation of Penn State enrollment figures nor athletic conference alignment or membership. As all NCAA FBS schools are listed as members based upon first their affiliation with varsity team sports and football as primary. Thus, as Penn State was established as The Commonwealth University many decades ago, their unique branch campus system is inclusive of their entire university and makes no distinction in degrees granted or administration of academics or policy. There is no "transfering" of credits or students from one campus to the next, rather an "assignment" of the students classroom; (i.e. a class one blcok away is the same as a class 150 miles away). These figures however do not included distance learning or online classroom enrollments but actual physical attendance in the classroom. Thus, The Pennsylvania State University has an annual enrollment that now exceeds 87,000. For a list of specific classroom totals, please see the www.psu.edu.

The previous editor of this information notates the "List_of_largest_US_universities_by_enrollment page doesn't do this either, so there is precedent and consistency to maintain." This same standard indicates that the University of Arizona State has an total enrollmentn of over 60,000 but which is enmassed over 4 different and distinct campuses. This does not indicate consistancy. Precedence is thus to those figures which are indicative of a singular university entity, not a system, and not an independent campus. Thus Penn State not being a university system, comprised of a single adminstrative and academic entity with non-independent campuses fulfills the previous editors requirement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniservallaw (talk • contribs) 17:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Notre Dame not officially invited

I removed this phrase:

the Big Ten extended an official invitation to Notre Dame

Per the citation ( http://www.mndaily.com/daily/1999/02/08/sports/irish/ ), the Big 10 did not officially invite ND. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.53.49 (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

History

Nearly all of the "History" section is lifted verbatim from the Big Ten History page on the conference website. This needs to be rewritten by someone a bit more familiar with the topic than myself. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the two only this "At the 1895 meeting, a blueprint for the control and administration of college athletics under the direction of appointed faculty representatives was outlined. The presidents' first-known action "restricted eligibility for athletics to bona fide, full-time students who were not delinquent in their studies." This helped limit some problems of the times, especially the participation of professional athletes and "non-students" in the universities' regular sporting events. "

seems to be cut and paste and perhaps part of the first para should not be to difficult to fix it give it a shot Smith03 03:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a gap in the University of Michigan's membership in the conference on the time line graphic. Perhaps there should be a discussion regarding their departure and return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.170.178 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the discussion of potential new members, it might be best to place it under its own heading separate from the history section. Also, "Other possible universities that have gained favor for any possible expansion for the 12th spot in the conference include:" should be reworded (without "other"), as several of the universities subsequently listed were discussed in the paragraph immediately prior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.170.178 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

University of Colorado

How could the University of Colorado even be considered to join the Big Ten if it isn't in or next to the current territory, as the next paragraph states is required? The inclusion of University of Colorado on the list of schools that may join the Big Ten is a little hinky to me. -- Guy Without a Wikipedia Account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.15.100 (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember Colorado was disscussed on ESPN's College Football Live with Mark May and Lou Holtz saying that Colorad was up for consiteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No redirect

It says at the top of this page that "Big Ten" redirects here. Well, having just come here from that page I can tell you that it definitely does not. Just a heads up. 138.69.160.1 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Research Expenditures

Do Big Ten research expenditures really exceed the Ivy League on a per-university or per-capita basis or total basis? This unsourced claim seems somewhat... questionable. Cornell, Columbia, Harvard, Penn and Yale all spend in the 500-600 million dollar range while even the little ivies like Princeton and Dartmouth spend over 200 million each. UW-Madison certainly pulls its' own weight at 800 million, but using system wide numbers for Michigan, OSU and PSU seems pretty shady. Thoughts?Jeh25 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OSU vs TOSU

Okay, so which is it? Ohio State University or The Ohio State University (not to be confused with Ohio University)? Whole lotta reverting goin' on... Dagordon01 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's Ohio State. See Ohio State University. HoosierState^Talk 20:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The official name is The Ohio State University (as obnoxious as some people make it sound), but you can get away saying "Ohio State University", or just simply "Ohio State." Likewise, Penn State is officially known as The Pennsylvania State University, but that's a mouthful. The reason I've heard for saying "The" like "Thee" is because it sounds more pleasing to the ear to stress the word "the" prior to a word that starts with a vowel. (shrugs shoulders). I went to Ohio State and the emphasis on that word drives me nuts. You're right though, it'd be easier if they were the University of Ohio, but they are older and had first dibs, so we'll respect that. Besides, we could have wound up as Ohio A&M. Frank12 (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We were Ohio A & M for a time, or so says the bronze historic plaque at the head of Mirror Lake. I was a student when the administration started using the "The". I remember the comic strip "Potshots" in the Lantern had a great strip making fun of it. I always considered it a creation of the public relations office. I, too, found it annoying but have grow accustom to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.170.178 (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If, as stated above, Penn State is actually "The Pennsylvania State University" as well, then The Pennsylvania State University's name should be written likewise as well. It makes no sense to have a double-standard simply to pander to fans of a particular college over another. Either both must include "The" or neither should include "The". Scipio Carthage (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

U of Chicago returning as the 12th member?

Did anyone else read the reference article (here) and think it was a tongue-in-cheek joke written by a U of C student? They made it sound nice, but I don't think it holds much merit. Frank12 (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have heard that according to the Big Ten bylaws, the U of Chicago can return to the Big Ten. Can anyone confirm this, as I haven't been able to finf the Big Ten's bylaws. It's unlikely as they would have to move up to D-I, and have shown no interest in doing so.--RLent (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nebraska

Just saw that Nebraska was added as the 12th team to the conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.126.191 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska was removed from the grid as this is not official. See the discussion under #Expansion on this page. Teetlebomb (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rose Bowl participation

The first and last lines of this paragraph contradict each other:

"The Big Ten did not allow their schools to participate in bowl games, other than the Rose Bowl, until the agreement struck with the Pacific Coast Conference for the 1947 Rose Bowl. From 1946 through 1971, the Big Ten did not allow the same team to represent the conference in consecutive years in the Rose Bowl with an exception made after the 1961 season in which Minnesota played in the 1962 Rose Bowl after playing in the 1961 Rose Bowl due to Ohio State declining the bid. It was not until the 1975 season that the Big Ten allowed teams to play in bowl games other than the Rose Bowl."

So from what year were Big Ten teams allowed to participate in bowl games other than the Rose Bowl? Was it 1947 or 1975? Can someone with knowledge of the situation update the article? Thanks

BMetts (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If I can find a reference to back me up, 1947 is when the Big Ten said "OK, we'll let our champion play in the Rose Bowl against the PCC Champion, but that is the only bowl game we'll send a representative to." 1975 is when the league said "OK, now we'll let our schools go to other bowl games as well." I see that the wording is confusing and should probably read:

"The Big Ten did not allow their schools to participate in bowl games until the agreement struck with the Pacific Coast Conference for the 1947 Rose Bowl. From 1946 through 1971, the Big Ten did not allow more than one school (its champion) to represent the league in bowl games, nor did it allow the same team to represent the conference in consecutive years in the Rose Bowl with an exception made after the 1961 season in which Minnesota played in both the 1961 and 1962 Rose Bowls when Ohio State's administration declined the 1961 invitation. It was not until the 1975 season that the Big Ten allowed teams to play in bowl games other than the Rose Bowl."

Not sure about the 1971 reference though? Frank12 (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Time line

I shrunk the time line because it was causing lest to right scrolling on the page. However, I don't know how to change the location of the text for Nebraska's bar so it all shows up. Thus, I'm deferring that to someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michealin (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nebraska Join Date

I believe that Nebraska is already actually an official member of the conference academically. It is only joining in 2011 in athletics, to my knowledge. However, I can't back this up, so I won't make the assertion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.164.186 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

hi - under Endowments, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation should at least be footnoted, if not included for Wisconsin. UW's Endowment is really in 2 parts, and this article leaves over half ($2bil) of it out.

Jswede1 (talk) 02:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)jswede1

Not done: Please provide a reference to a reliable source. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Divisions

There are two tables listing the new divisions, one in the Expansion section, and one in the Football section. Shouldn't they be consolidated? Can we have the expansion section link to the Football section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Literaldeluxe (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why 12 Teams?

Why does this article reflect what's going to happen next year? Isn't it still currently an 11 team conference? The first few sentences make it seem as if 12's current. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't reflect what's going to happen? And how is it confusing? DC T•C 06:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you? What part of "Its eleven member institutions are located primarily in the Midwestern United States" is confusing? Or how about "Despite the conference's name, since Penn State joined in 1990, there have been 11 schools in the Big Ten. The University of Nebraska–Lincoln will join the conference as its 12th member effective July 1, 2011"? DC T•C 20:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

err.. some quick detective work would have made it clear that _I_ changed it from "twelve" to "eleven" and took out the reference to Nebraska being the western-most state. However, the part about Penn State, 11 schools, and Nebraska joining the conference, I left as it was. These made it confusing with the parts that I changed, and you've just confirmed that my changes made sense. Good job--that's mighty fine police work there, Lou ;) Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I agree the previous version was confusing and wrong. DC T•C 01:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies if I seemed flippant in my previous post. Was trying to be ha-ha sarcastic, nothing more. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Logo

The new big ten logo is currently not the official logo of the big ten, The hidden 11 logo is the current logo until Nebraska officially joins on July 1, 2011. If you check bigten.org the 11 logo is still in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.181.231 (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that now Bigten.org has switched. What should we do about pages like 2010–11 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Teams' basketball courts still reflect the pre-Nebraska logo. Bcspro (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The conference tournament's courts are using the new logo. I think it is safe to say they switched. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament uses the new logo, although the flywheel only has the school colors of 11 teams.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Which new logo version?

I uploaded File:Big Ten Conference logo (2011).png on January 27; it was taken directly from several new logo versions posted on the Big Ten website here. Another user claims the Big Ten has "abandoned" most of those versions because they are no longer viewable on that page; he/she has also used their absence to justify replacing my upload. I disagree. The initial press release for the new logo/divisions, also on the Big Ten website, still states the following:

"The new logo... provides the flexibility of multiple versions which can be used horizontally, vertically and within new media."

There is nothing online (or in print) which indicates the Big Ten has "abandoned" all other versions of the new logo (perhaps the Big Ten simply did not want multiple, relatively high resolution graphics up indefinitely). The real issue here is which version of the new logo should be used in the infobox. The version I uploaded includes the words "Big Ten"; the other does not. I also was not the first to upload my preferred version; another user uploaded the same version, though at a lower quality, the very day the new logo/divisions announcement was made on December 13. Levdr1 (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The version you have uploaded no longer exists anywhere, the Big Ten clearly quit using it. Stop being stubborn and accept reality. Look at the header on the Big Ten website. Look at the court at Conseco Fieldhouse. LOOK AT THE PAGE LITERALLY LISTING ALL THE NEW LOGOS WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE: http://www.bigten.org/genrel/121310aaa.html How stupid can you be? Eightball (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Considering that is what the Big Ten says their logo is, I would say change it. I will say, however, that calling someone stupid over this is taking it a little far, especially since there was no announcement of any further changes, in print or otherwise. Be civil, people — it's just Wikipedia. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

First, the Big Ten has not said anything, except what I already included above ("multiple versions"). The only difference between now and January 27 is that the Big Ten website no longer lists multiple high resolution versions of the new logo. "B 10" versions, "Big Ten" versions, some black and blue, some only blue -- all were among those which were present on that page up until just recently. Given the fact there has been no announcement declaring that all logos aside from the black-blue "B 10" logo have been "abandoned", we have no reason to think they have been. Even if we accepted that link (which has already changed once) as completely reliable, does that mean we drop all other sources contradicting the link? The Big Ten Network special airing on or around December 13 made it clear that multiple versions will be used. Here's an article containing video from that day: [1].

I realize that the Big Ten website now uses the black-blue "B 10", but again, that does not mean that all the other versions have been "abandoned" (perhaps the Big Ten plans to roll out a different version each month over the next several months). I also stand by my argument that for the purposes of this article, the appropriate version from the "multiple versions" the Big Ten says it will be using (again, see this link) should read "Big Ten". I'm restoring the logo again, if for no other reason than to generate a more thorough discussion. Levdr1 (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the fair-use rationale for the logo? To "...assure the readers that they have reached the right article..." and "...illustrate the organization's intended branding message..." To be true to the latter, we should use the new one. _wjemather^bigissue 11:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eightball, the single-line B10 logo is preferable. Both logos are nice but why would we possibly display the two-line version when nobody seems to use it? –CWenger (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As an example, take a look at Nike, Inc. Its infobox uses the plain "swoosh" logo, no need to add the text "Nike" to it. –CWenger (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

At this moment, I would have to agree that the single-line B10 logo is preferable. Yes, we have no idea if the two line version has been abandoned or not. Whether it has been or not is irrelevant in my opinion. At this time, the single-line version is the one predominantly featured on their official website, basketball courts, championship releases [2], clothing [3], etc. Until they start using the two-line version more than the one-line version, I believe the single-line version is the one wikipedia should also use.Americanhero (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we have a consensus for the previous, one-line B10 logo here, so I went ahead and changed it back. –CWenger (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you guys agree but really your opinion is irrelevant, the old "new" logo is nowhere to be found on the Big Ten's website, they CLEARLY are not using it anymore, this Levdr10 guy is an absolutely delusional moron. Eightball (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That is an unacceptable personal attack and a violation of Wikipedia policy. This is/was a legitimate disagreement over improving the article. –CWenger (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reported this at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Talk:Big Ten Conference#Which new logo version?. –CWenger (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Gee whiz, CWhizzer, you're right about the logo, and you're right about Eightball's comment, but you're acting like a ninny to be lodging a formal report on Eightball (and I'm probably next for saying you're acting like a ninny). I'm glad you know where such things can be reported (I don't didn't), but that doesn't mean you are required to do so. You could have just struck his comment from here, let 8Ball know on his talk page, and perhaps inform Levdr10 where he could bring it up if it's important enough to him to do so. Instead you jump and make a federal case of it. Maybe if Lev wants to complain, he should do so, but your overreaction accomplishes nothing positive as far as I can see. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If it was just once I might have gone a different route but this was two obvious personal attacks on somebody trying to improve the article. I have zero tolerance for that and deferred the matter to administrators who are familiar with the appropriate course of action. –CWenger (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the history, I suppose it's this edit to which you're referring. Yeah, 8Ball's definitely committed an annoying scratch there (pun intentional). And I see that Daniel J Simanek addressed it appropriately at that time, so yes, I stand corrected; you probably did the right thing. Sorry to have jumped to conclusions. (But you may want to actually include both statement in your posting; I likely would have reacted differently if I had seen both statements there. No worries.) I mean, I do think we overconcern ourselves with personal attacks around here, but 8Ball was clearly in the wrong here. Oh well, children will be children. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, no, this is not a legitimate disagreement about improving the article. This is one editor being 100% factually wrong and somehow unable to see that despite all evidence to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.25.109 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You really don't find it the slightest bit depressing that we wasted this much time arguing about a matter of absolute fact? brb, I'm going to go change the Star Spangled Flag article to a picture of a whale and defend it to the death.

After a small amount of research, it appears that *BOTH* logos are currently acceptable.

At the same time, the designers also worked out a parallel logo that spelled out the word “ten” below the “B1G.” Although the designers preferred just the three-character version and its variations, “everyone thought that the simpler version might be too limited to launch with, so we introduced both at once. The strategy going forward is to try different versions in different applications and see which ones work best and gets the most positive fan response once they're in use.” from http://www.fastcodesign.com/1662945/why-do-football-fans-hate-the-big-tens-smart-new-logo

For naming, it might be good to call the simpler logo the "preferential current logo" and the larger one the "alternative current logo" -- Avanu (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Further research at the United States Patent and Trademark Office website reveals that, as far as this editor can tell, The Big Ten Conference, Inc., only registered the smaller version. This makes some sense, considering that the smaller logo is incorporated into the 'stacked' version. USPTO reports a filing date of February 20, 2011, for the logo. It is possible that the alternate logo will show up soon, or might never, but either way, it is protected since it incorporates the mark that is registered. Either way, there's no excuse for insulting other editors. People can have divergent points of view without actually being wrong, as is shown in the case now. Unsportsmanlike conduct doesn't help. -- Avanu (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And Finally... Yet more research shows that the older 'hidden 11' logo is still listed as 'LIVE' by the USPTO. It might good to avoid using terminology like "abandoned" with regard to these marks, because although they might not be used often, they are still active and protected marks. -- Avanu (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

To decide the proper emblem for the main infobox, one question needs to be answered: What does the Big Ten Conference consider as its new PRIMARY logo? The answer: Just simply look at the top of the homepage on its official website.

While reading the other submitted comments above, I was thoroughly appalled by the namecalling and utter lack of civility. If Wikipedia strives to be a legitimate entity, such bad behavior must end immediately. Please remember the first important rule of being a successful manager (or editor): CHECK YOUR EGO AT THE DOOR. It shouldn't matter who gets the credit; what's most important is that whatever is contributed must be truthful, informative and educational. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just some observations I've made in the last month since anything was posted: The 2011 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament had games that were played at the United Center in Chicago, and the "host" of the games in that location was the Big Ten Conference. The logo used on the floor to identify that location's host was the new "B1G" version that is currently the one used on our article's page. The Big Ten Network is also using the B1G logo (without the "TEN" underneath) during broadcasts of Big Ten sporting events. Today, for example, the BTN had a softball game between Northwestern and Iowa, and a women's lacrosse match between Ohio State and Penn State. Both broadcasts used the B1G logo before commercial breaks, sort of swooping from the left side of your screen to the right. I'm guessing that's going to be the primary default logo used by the league for now and that the "hidden 11" logo is now obsolete. I'm sure we'll see the B1G TEN logo here and there, either horizontally or stacked every now and then, but I bet the B1G version will be the one we see on the front of football helmets, stitched on jerseys, or painted on playing surfaces.Frank12 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ice hockey

At what point do we say the Big Ten will start sponsoring hockey, without violating WP:CRYSTAL? There is a pretty good source here but it sounds like the official announcement won't come until Monday. Do we have to wait with a source like that? Daniel J Simanek (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The press release came out today, so we should be in the clear to add this. SCS100 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a reference to sport list regarding potential ice hockey addition. RonSigPi (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Academics

This section is in desperate need of editing after the expansion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.110.176 (talk) 05:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. The section now reflects Nebraska's current membership in the Big Ten. Feel free to improve it further. cmadler (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Recentism

I sincerely doubt that half the salient history of the Big Ten includes the 2010 expansion. Regards, --PhilipR (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to address this issue with my revisions on 01:59, 20 September 2011 and 02:02, 20 September 2011. Sentences were revised to be more concise. Inaccuracies were also corrected, where assertions were made in the article that were not present in the citation. --Bushy1129 (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Three related TFDs

Comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 15 regarding {{Big Ten Conference Athlete of the Year navbox}}, {{Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year navbox}} and {{Chicago Tribune Silver Football navbox}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bowl Selection Procedures

According to Adam Rittenberg on ESPN.com, the rule stating that the lower bowls take a 7-5 team ahead of a 6-6 team no longer applies.

Adam Rittenberg: Tim, I checked with the Big Ten for the post earlier today, and the rule you mention no longer applies. It was changed a few years back. The only two bowls that can't take a 6-6 team ahead of an 8-4 team are the Capital One and Outback bowls. The Insight and Gator bowls are only bound to take the Big Ten title-game loser, depending on the season, if the team is still available. But after that, the bowls have license to select any eligible Big Ten team. So the 2007 rules no longer apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.134.223 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to make timelines more consistent

I noticed that conferences in List of NCAA conferences have articles, usually including a membership timeline. While some of the decisions made for each conference make some sense, there is a wide variety of styles for the various timelines, particularly involving color choices, but also other matters of style that could be more consistent.

for example, a school with a yellow bar means:

• An associate member in one sport (if part of the BE)
• A former member of the conference (in the SEC)
• A future member of the conference (in the SEC and Big West)
• A football only member (in the Sun Belt)
• A team that has moved to another conference (in the WAC, NEC)
• A full member of the Big Sky

Some graphs have captions, some do not, and none are centered. To see the variety of styles, review Current conference timelines

I think it would be worth discussing how best to provide some measure of consistency, recognizing that there may be legitimate reasons for some differences from a standard presentation (for example, some conferences show the name of the new conference for former members. In some cases, this makes sense, in other, it may not.)

I've produced a draft of how the timelines would look with some consistency added. Please see Draft proposal of conference timelines.

I propose a discussion to see if there is consensus on improving the consistency.

Because it would not be practical to have this discussion on each and every conference talk page, I suggest centralizing thie discussion at the Talk page of Project College football SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Standardize facility sections

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball#Standardize conference pages' facility sections.

Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences

A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.

If you're interested, please join the discussion here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency

Expansion

Just a reminder, as with the addition of Nebraska a few years ago, this article needs to reflect the *present state* of the conference. Maryland will not join the conference until 2014 and neither will Rutgers (though that announcement hasn't been made official yet). Because of that, the Big Ten still has 12 members and will until July 2014. The infobox and the lead need to reflect that; I've already changed them back to 12 twice. Mentioning the pending additions, of course, is perfectly fine, but with the realization that they are pending. Maryland and Rutgers in the Big Ten is a future event. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect "Rivalry" Section

Rivalry section includes teams not in the Big Ten. I attempted to edit it myself, but couldn't do so without messing up the table. Notre Dame, Temple, Missouri should all be removed, as they are not in the Big Ten and share no Big Ten rivalries.

Voncartia (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC) voncartia

Future divisional format

I removed the reference citing that Illinois would be moving to the Legends division so Maryland and Rutgers could join the Leaders, mainly because the Big Ten commissioner said that a new split hasn't been decided upon yet and I think we should wait on an announcement from the league office. Frank12 (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Geographical descriptions

Currently the intro section states that the Big Ten's "twelve member institutions ... are located primarily in the Midwest, stretching from Nebraska in the west to Pennsylvania in the east, and from Illinois in the south to Minnesota in the north."

It is true that the southernmost point in the state of Illinois is farther south than that of any other state containing a Big Ten school, but is this relevant? Indiana University is farther south than the University of Illinois, and is the southernmost institution in the Big Ten. Since the grammatical subject of this clause is the institutions, not the states (not mention that the Big Ten is a grouping of institutions, not of states), I suggest that the ending of this sentence be reworded to: "...stretching from Nebraska in the west to Penn State in the east, and from Indiana in the south to Minnesota in the north" with the hyperlinks changed to link to the WP pages of those institutions, rather than the states.

This wording uses the shorthand of referring to the University of Nebraska, Indiana University, and the University of Minnesota simply by the state names; the potential ambiguity of whether we are referring to the universities or the states is resolved by the fact that Penn State is mentioned, which is clearly a reference to the university, not the state in which is located. Thus, even if were not already clear to the reader based on the subject of the sentence being "institutions" (and the hyperlinks pointing to the universities' pages), it should be obvious that this last portion of the sentence is referring to the institutions and not the states. Nizamarain 19:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizamarain (talk • contribs)

Question on Minnesota

Should the current members list show Minnesota as being in Minneapolis/St.Paul when the article on the University of Minnesota plainly states, "The St. Paul campus is in the city of Falcon Heights." ? ? ? Additionally, the article on St.Paul includes a listing of colleges and universities in the city which excludes the University of Minnesota. GWFrog (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

After a further look, it comes to light that the school's name is the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities... NOT Minneapolis-St.Paul, but Twin Cities... GWFrog (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

School colors

I tried to find official university pages that referenced what their school color shades were. They don't necessarily match the colors worn by their athletic teams (notably with Indiana's cream color and Ohio State's scarlet), but I believe it works in cases not like Michigan and Penn State, both of which designated official athletic colors on their pages. I just hope there aren't the same issues with this as there are for using the logos. Frank12 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you should stick to the official colors as designated by the university historian and not their marketing department, which can change on a whim. For example, Wisconsin is cardinal and white, not "Wisconsin red," whatever that is; Rutgers is just Scarlet; black is not an official Nebraska color. 73.8.139.190 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Men's Lacrosse

i'm going to leave it for someone with more familiarity and interest in this article to do, but the formation of a six team sub-conference (?) announced on 6/3/13 needs to be included. how and where, as i said, is up to someone else.Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Regions

Shouldn't Maryland be considered a Mid-Atlantic state? The page for the Mid-Atlantic shows maps that have the region centered on Maryland. --108.45.122.107 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

College Basketball Team Navboxes

Please join discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections within Conference Articles

This section now exists in multiple conference articles. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football to help improve this content. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Head football coach compensation tables

There is a discussion of "Head football coach compensation tables" as implemented within this article, ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football which may be of interest to you. UW Dawgs (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

removal of Join Date references

The recently added (by me) citations for "Join Date" taken from bigten.org were removed with a comment of "I deleted the references that had an error to them." After reviewing, I reverted the removal (re-added) in WP:AGF as the comment alone didn't clarify the actual or perceived issue. Happy to discuss, fix, or re-remove. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Membership table

I re-separated the associate member table from the full members. This is the norm at most other comparable conference articles, plus it makes it easier to understand for people who aren't familiar with college athletics and/or the Big Ten. JHU will compete in one sport in the Big Ten, so having it listed with the full members is confusing and misleading, especially with the national titles column (JHU hasn't yet won any national titles as a member of the Big Ten obviously) and not mentioning their primary athletics conference (Centennial Conference). --JonRidinger (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Template help

I have updated several of the templates. I am a bit confused about the multiple Rutgers campuses as it applies to the following templates: {{Big Ten Conference business school navbox}} and {{Big Ten Conference law school navbox}}. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You want Rutgers–New Brunswick. Camden and Newark are separate entities within the Rutgers University System, similar to what Texas–El Paso is to Texas–Austin. Hope that helps. Msjraz64 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)