Skip to content

Should the Big East change its name?

Lost and Confused Signpost

As was noted just a little while ago, the Big East looks to be on the verge — for the final time, we hope — of adding five new schools in both football and basketball, including Boise State.

Officially, it’ll be Boise State and San Diego State for football-only, and Central Florida, Houston and SMU as full members.

It’s a mess, a hodgepodge — whatever you want to call it.

The striking, and head-shaking, graphic of what the Big East will look like come 2014 can be seen here in THIS PICTURE courtesy of Bryan Fischer of CBS Sports. Of course, it should be noted that it includes highlighted states for both football-only and basketball-only members, so not every team will play one another.

Still. Just, wow.

I understand that college football is a business, and the Big East is doing what it believes will help it keep its automatic BCS bid (it’s sad that it comes down to that), but this has taken conference gerrymandering to a whole new level.

The Big East isn’t east… exclusively; it isn’t big… although you can insert your own punchlines there.

So should the Big East consider changing it’s name?

Really.

Let’s be honest, it doesn’t have the brand recognition of the Big Ten, SEC, or even the Big 12 — at least in football. And what brand recognition it does have in football… well, you guys know.

You could make an argument that the Big East should keep its title as-is because of the reputation with basketball, where it rakes in TV rights dollars, but isn’t that part of the reason why the Big East is in this situation to begin with? Because of consideration given to the basketball side?

And, as our own Mike Miller opines, perhaps Big East basketball won’t survive as it’s known today.

The Big Ten can stay the Big Ten — and, heck, they can name their divisions Legends and Leaders — because they’re the Big Ten. The Big 12 has two programs — Texas and Oklahoma — married (at least in business) to that conference title. Branding is one of the most important aspects to the financial health of conferences, institutions, etc. Schools like Texas, for instance, fight tooth and nail to protect the Longhorn brand.

Even the new Pac-12 is a brand, and commissioner Larry Scott has done as great a job as anybody selling that brand.

Brands are created and sold in the hopes that we’ll find a relationship to it, that it will invoke some some emotional connection.

The Big East needs to understand how branding can help, or in its current case, be detrimental. The brand of Big East football is a joke. Now’s the chance for change. Conference expansion is obviously not about the consideration for the athletes; the Big East wouldn’t bring in Boise State, which has no significant TV market and is a traveling nightmare, if it was.

The choice to bring in the Broncos was a branding and football decision.

If I’m the John Marinatto, I’m hiring the best marketing and PR firm money can buy and re-work the brand. Why continue to associate with something that’s stood for failure and punchlines the past few years?

The Big East is starting over — again — isn’t it time the name, the meaning, the atmosphere does as well?

Sound off below with your thoughts.

Permalink 15 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: American Athletic Conference, Boise State Broncos, Conference USA, Houston Cougars, Mountain West Conference, Rumor Mill, San Diego State Aztecs, SMU Mustangs, Top Posts, UCF Golden Knights
15 Responses to “Should the Big East change its name?”
  1. cfbfaninbadnfltown says: Dec 6, 2011 10:06 PM

    The Big Least anyone?

  2. geogibso says: Dec 6, 2011 10:10 PM

    I’m pretty sure “At Large Birth” is still a more prestigious title than “Big East Champion.”

  3. redsoxaa says: Dec 6, 2011 10:13 PM

    The Big Anyone

  4. fpupke3 says: Dec 6, 2011 10:18 PM

    All kidding aside…..How about the Nationwide Conference?

  5. thefiesty1 says: Dec 6, 2011 10:25 PM

    How about the Little 9, 10, 13 or however many other SMALL programs they can beg, borrow or steal to become associated with them. Just give it up and play basketball. They have NO business trying to be a football conference.

  6. trapshoot says: Dec 6, 2011 10:27 PM

    I’d vote for Big Mess.

  7. gettinwestern says: Dec 6, 2011 10:35 PM

    This is insane. Why not just pick straws every year about who ends up playing who? What a joke college football is fast becoming.

  8. trapperpk says: Dec 6, 2011 10:58 PM

    Name it the BCS The BIG Cash Scheme. Get one half the country to play the other half and save the airline industry and economy through frequent flyer miles of which the other BCS gets a kick back.

  9. Deb says: Dec 6, 2011 11:04 PM

    The Far Flung?

  10. dmcgrann says: Dec 6, 2011 11:11 PM

    Deb, really close. The “Flung Far” might be more apt.

  11. phelbin says: Dec 6, 2011 11:34 PM

    I really don’t have a problem with the geographical spread. The Pac8/10/12 has always been spread out. Traveling from Tucson to Pullman is no small feat. And Boise spent years in the WAC traveling to Hawaii and Louisiana.

    As a West Coast boy I guess I’m just used to things being more spread out. We don’t have the concentration of population centers like the eastern half of the country.

  12. vincentbojackson says: Dec 7, 2011 12:03 AM

    Doesn’t matter what you call it, when West Virginia, Pitt and Syracuse pull out it will become a Mid-Major football conference. You can polish that turd all day, it’ll still be a turd.

  13. mrpowers88 says: Dec 7, 2011 7:15 PM

    I’d go with “The Big SheastShow”

  14. dickroy says: Dec 8, 2011 8:22 AM

    The Cross-Country Club

  15. ukeone says: Dec 8, 2011 5:28 PM

    “Boise’s Annual Ticket to a BCS Bowl Game Conference”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!