September 29th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
if the headline wasn't intended to be sensational:
"Lloyd THINKS that ND will join the Big Ten EVENTUALLY"
September 29th, 2010 at 12:41 PM ^
Please no. No thank you. We don't want any.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
The more Notre Dame sucks, the more pressure to join a conference to be relevant.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
I almost think it's the other way 'round. If they're independent, they can soften up their schedule a bit, and rack up some Ws. In the Big Ten, they'd have to go head-to-head with OSU, PSU, Wiscy, Nebraska, etc. in addition to their regular bouts with us & FYS. Given their recent trends, this likely results in at LEAST 2-3 losses per season, and some tough games agains the middle of the road teams as well, not to mention the fact that there is no way their fan base let's them stop playing USC regularly.
I think if ND wants to stay on the national scene, they are better off independent. They can dial down their strength of schedule a bit, keep their exclusive NDC contract, and do pretty well. In fact, the only reason I would want ND to join the Big Ten is precisely so that they could turn into a no-name, middle-of-the-road team that would be forgotten about.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
As Big Ten scheduling goes, they can club four baby seals, get to play the likes of Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, and Indiana and still have their games against Michigan and Michigan State.
I think they can play a weaker schedule but have the opening for an automatic BCS berth still there and the relevance of playing in a conference.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
They're not going to dial down the schedule. ND is having a hard time selling out all its home games right now, as fans aren't thrilled to pay big bucks to see Tulsa and WMU. (According to posters on the ND boards, alumni are being bombarded with emails from the ND AD begging them to buy tickets to those games.) They need to play difficult schedules if they want to keep selling out - and probably also if they want to keep the NBC contract.
I think it's possible that the decision-makers at ND fear becoming an also-ran in the Big Ten, but financial circumstances are going to force them to play brutal schedules in any event. They're adding Texas, Oklahoma and Miami to future schedules. They'll probably lose most of those, but they'll at least sell out.
September 30th, 2010 at 3:16 AM ^
You're making a big assumption that NBC will remain willing to shell out, which is critical for continued ND independance. If ND tries to puff their record with a bunch of patsies, that's going to really hurt the TV ratings and directly impact the bottom line when the next contract comes up for negotiations. Ultimately the B10 offers ND cash, which ND might not be able to refuse regardless of any other considerations.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
Too late, Catholics.
Now, let me propose this scenario... Imagine that ND's fall from grace continues for another ten years, and let's suppose that the BCS stays in place for that entire time. Do you think the BCS would ever pull the ND clauses from the postseason process, and refuse any team that was not in a fully fledged BCS conference?
September 29th, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^
No. The TV draw is too large for ND, especially if they are good enough to actually use the ND clause. They are arguably the most recognized team in the country and have fans not only because of their historic past, but also because of their religious affiliation. Why would the BCS, or the networks that have the rights to the BCS (ESPN) not want to bring in the dollars for ND? If they suck for the next 10 years, but if they win 10 games 11 years from now, everyone will be back on the bandwagon and the BCS will be drooling over them like always. Honestly, ND has sucked since the early 90's and they still have their own network deal and ESPN/ABC will play them any time they get the chance.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
don't you know that the Catholics are never late for anything? I know this to be true because the man in fancy hat told me so.
September 29th, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
This isnt Big East basketball, Screw that, we're fine at 12.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
carry on.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
how you really feel.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^
for losing. They might win for winning, but. . . at some point somebody at NBC starts to talk about pulling the plug on 'em, no?
And in the B10 they're just a middle-rank school.
I know they're getting paid, but otherwise I think they're in a world of hurt.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
The reason I negged you was that you didn't add anything to this link. What good is that? we want to know what you thought about the article so that it guides the discussion. Don't just post a link as a board topic. That just adds noise.
You aren't providing anything more than what an RSS Reader provides.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:28 PM ^
i was actually just sharing an article that i came across, didn't know that was such a crime douche
September 29th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
Don't get angry Hulk.
September 29th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^
Say, "David Banner I just slashed your tires".
September 29th, 2010 at 7:06 PM ^
...wouldn't like him when he's angry.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
I've mentioned this a few times, but I really think the ambitions of the Big 10 and Pac 10 are to push to 16 teams each while swallowing up the relevant bits of the Big 12, Notre Dame and the Big East. They then recommit to the Rose Bowl (who will drop out of the BCS arrangement thus putting that circus out of its misery).
They will then have four divisions of 8 teams each stretching from coast-to-coast split down the middle of the country. The four division winners face off in conference championship games with the winners moving onto a Rose Bowl matchup (conveniently in a traditional Pac 10 vs Big 10 format). This little four team "playoff" could easily include such traditional powers as USC, Texas, Michigan Nebraska, etc. In fact, 16 team versions of the Big 10 & Pac 10 could very likely include 8 of the 10 winningest programs all time (only Alabama & Tennessee would be outside).
This will give the two conferences a huge competitive advantage both on field and financially over the rest of the remaining college football landscape. Nobody is saying it, but I wouldn't be shocked if Jim Delaney & Larry Scott are thinking it.
September 29th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
September 29th, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
Epiphany!
So there are 4 superconferences, each with their own title game. They each scrap the BCS. B10 and P10 play each other in the Rose Bowl. ACC and SEC play in the Orange Bowl.
Well, then...
If there is no BCS, there's no BCS Championship game. Weird that we wouldn't have that. Conveniently, there is a Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl champ. Take the next step?
This could culminate in a 8 team playoff pretty easily. Heck, there could eventually be a Divisional Championship in *SOME of the conferences, making it an 8-16 team (depending on who has a divisional championship) .
Enjoy your independence ND! Haha I love a good conspiracy...
September 30th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^
There won't be superconferences. Instead you'll have very powerful Big 10 and Pac 10 that will have reduced everyone else (including the SEC) to mere regional players. The SEC & ACC could play in the Orange Bowl (although Sugar Bowl might have something to say about that) but that champ will be second fiddle to the Rose Bowl champ. Moreover, the winner of the Rose Bowl has nothing to gain by playing a winner of the SEC/ACC. It will not happen.
The college football landscape is competitive on many different levels. Right now the Big 10 & Pac 10 are Goldman Sachs while everybody else is closer to Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^
That'd be a pretty epic plan and something I could get excited about if it came to fruition.
And, if this actually is their gameplan and they pull it off, they'd be considered strategic geniuses par excellence in my book*, forming an alliance like that that puts all the cards in their hands relative to college football would be a major coup, and mutually advantageous for both conferences in a huge way.
(*I already consider Delany a strategic genius. Nebraska was a huge get, and the way it went down, I give props to Delany... There was an article posted here recently in the Nebraska newspaper that gives some insights into how N to B10 happened. Delany saw a great opportunity, adapted, and siezed it.)
September 30th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^
it's not just epic, it's brillant and remarkably symmetric.
1- the geography breaks out very handsomely. It could feature a Pac 10 and Big 10 with two divisions each:
Pac 10 Ocean division:
- Washington
- Washington State
- Oregon
- Oregon State
- Stanford
- Cal
- UCLA
- USC
Pac 10 Mountain Division:
- Utah
- Colorado
- Arizona
- Arizona State
- Oklahoma
- Oklahoma State
- Texas Tech
- Texas
Big 10 West Division:
- Minnesota
- Wisconsin
- Iowa
- Nebraska
- Missouri
- Illinois
- Northwestern
- Notre Dame
Big 10 East Division:
- Indiana
- Purdue
- Michigan
- Michigan State
- Ohio State
- Penn State
- Syracuse
- Rutgers
Schedule would be 7 games against each division foe, 2-3 cross division games and, of course, 1-2 cupcakes to boost home gate receipts.
2- Historically/traditionally the Big 10 and Pac 10 already have had a longstanding relationship with their Rose Bowl matchup. And I'm thinking that even at 12 teams each that the Big 10 and Pac 10 are tempted to ditch the BCS for their traditional Rose Bowl matchup.
3- Competitiveness. On field, these two conferences would feature 8 of the 10 all time winningest programs. At least one of these would be in each divisionn and many traditional & gegraphic rivals would be preserved. Off field, they'd have tons of schools with large, traditional fan bases. They'd have coast-to-coast markets stretching from New York/New Jersey to Los Angeles and Texas to Minnesota. Moreover, the bowl games are competitive entities too. I have no doubt that the Rose Bowl would love to ditch the BCS arrangement and return to their traditional top dog status.
4- The gateless gate. This scenario is the not-playoff playoff. The NCAA will not be staging a national tournement anytime soon. But there is nothing stopping the Big 10 and Pac 10 from strategic using their resources to place there teams at the top of the heap. Most years, the winner of this Rose Bowl arrangement will have the strongest resume in the national and will be voted "national champ" by the writers and coaches. By most years, I mean probably something like 3 out of 4. Delaney & Scott will probably be quite pleased with that result of their strategic advantage.
If this scenario plays, people are going to look back and feel stupid for not seeing it coming because it will seem so obvious in retrospect.
September 30th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^
You sir are both a gentleman and a scholar.
September 29th, 2010 at 5:37 PM ^
You're stealing my lines.
I have been beating the drum on this line of thinking since this move to expansion began.
I agree with you until you get to the SEC. As long as they have ESPN touting them as just short of a pro league, I think they are sound. They would be in a position to pick up Texas, Oklahoma and about any other leftover Big 12 team they want.
But I am hoping that Jim Delaney is thinking along these lines. The Big Ten must have controlled grow to remain a top conference.
ps - like the way you think. Maybe the Big Ten should hire us as consultants. What do you think?
September 29th, 2010 at 7:15 PM ^
I didn't mean to steal anything. I just haven't seen anything anywhere else that proposes the Big 10 & Pac 10 doing an end-around play (using the Rose Bowl as their ace-up-their-sleeve) to box out everybody else.
For clarity, under my scenario, I would think the Pac 10 gets another crack at the remains of the Big 12 (specifically Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma & Oklahoma St.) I also think that Texas A&M could inadvertently shoot themselves in the foot by setting off this entire scenario if they get antsy & jump for the SEC. The Big 12 is now history and the Big 10 would be in prime position to finally squeeze Notre Dame into it's ranks. At the same time the Big 10 finally makes their push east ward (I'm guessing Rutgers & Syracuse) and probably adds Missouri too from the former Big 12. Voila, Big 10 & Pac 10 now stretch coast-to-coast (nicely split down the middle).
I think it's brillant because the SEC would be absolutely pinned into a corner. Without the BCS arrangement giving them a crack at a top-notch oppenent, then they have virtually no chance of being voted national champs in the polls during most years (an exception being if the Rose Bowl winner had, for example, 2 regular season losses and the SEC champ ran the table undefeated).
Just consider:
-If 8 of the 10 all time best teams are already wrapped up in the race for the Roses, who's the SEC gonna play in their bowl game? The winner of the ACC? Mountain West? MAC? Most years that bowl matchup is going to play second fiddle to the SEC championship game, let alone the Rose Bowl.
-And the bowls have always been independent entities anyways so they'll doing whatever is in their own best interest. The might mean the Orange Bowl taking, for example a 3rd place Penn St team to matchup with the ACC champ.
-Some chaos would ensue but you know that Delaney & Scott would be laughing all the way to the bank.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
I hope not. I don't want any more teams in the conference. We're already only going to be playing PSU, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Purdue 40% of the time starting next year. Adding still more teams is going to mean even fewer games against those teams. We've got our 12th school and a conference title game. That's enough.
September 29th, 2010 at 1:50 PM ^
we don't need (or want) Notre Dame or their pompus ass in the B10. Nebraska will likely win the Big12 this year and then bolt to join the B10. I see ths move as taking the B10 to the #2 football conference ... just behind and pushing the SEC (which is losing respect w/o Tenn. & Georgia being strong).
If I was B10 commish - no B10 teams would play ND. They had their chance ... so fuck em ! Maybe they'll join the big east conference ... and finally be able to compete with teams at their level.
Go Blue !
September 30th, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
Question:
How do you enforce a "No one is allowed to play Notre Dame" rule??
September 29th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^
I agree with the majority. ND had their chance to join. To hell with ND.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:31 PM ^
I can't think of any team we have beaten twice in the last 10 years, worst than ND.
2003 - Michigan 38, Notre Dame 0
2007 - Michigan 38, Notre Dame 0
Joke.
September 30th, 2010 at 3:25 AM ^
I'm pretty sure we stomped on hapless EMU at lesat a couple times in the lsat 10 years. Not the same, of course.
September 29th, 2010 at 3:41 PM ^
I'm happy with 12 teams. To hell with Notre Dame and to hell with superconferences, which are a terrible idea for anyone who likes football tradition. I don't know when people became obsessed with the conference making money, but we aren't getting any of that money. I would rather have a good slate of traditional opponents than a disjointed mess of teams that are highly ranked in all-time winning percentage and/or wins.
September 29th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
Notre Dame football is declining, and has been for quite sometime. The only way ND would ever join the B10 is in an attempt to salvage the tattered remains of a once great program.
<br>
<br>I grew up and lived most of my adult life within 45 minutes of South Bend Indiana. You would be amazed at how many people in that city hate ND with a passion. (for good reason but that belongs in a different post)
<br>
<br>The B10 offered once. ND was just too elite to join.
<br>
<br>I say let them sink.
September 29th, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
ND believed itself too elite to join.
September 29th, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^
An error on my part.
September 29th, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^
I've been waiting for years to see ND in the big ten. I think they would have a few rivalries from day one, just maybe.
September 30th, 2010 at 6:18 AM ^
September 30th, 2010 at 3:57 PM ^
I hope he meant that we (and MSU/PU) were prepared to pull ND off our schedule, and not that the conference itself was dictating it to us. Whom we schedule out of conference is our business. not the Big Ten's.
September 30th, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
dang...Lloyd Brady really is everywhere!
...oh wait, Lloyd Carr ::yawn::