Who knows what the heck is going on; so many things are being reported.
Personally, I detest the idea of Notre Dame in the B1G. They'd want too much.
Who knows what the heck is going on; so many things are being reported.
Personally, I detest the idea of Notre Dame in the B1G. They'd want too much.
I think one of the reasons this is so tough to follow is that ESPN is attempting to manipulate A LOT of people here. Most of the Texas news reported by ESPN the last month has turned out to be false or misleading and I wouldn't be surprised about a lot of the ACC news.
ESPN couldn't let the Big Ten get ahold of ND and/or Texas because the BTN is essentially the only non-ESPN competitor in the marketplace. We'll see how it turns out, but I think ND to the ACC is a lot more ESPN smoke than anything.
to accept the notion that if nd finishes with 3 or fewer losses, then nd will be declared the ACC champion and get the automatic BCS bowl berth - regardless of who they lose to or where they finish in the ACC standings.
ND knows the B1G is simply too tough in football ( ND - returning to glory ... since 1993 )
Lol big ten teams sure were dominant last weekend
"To hell with Notre Dame." ~ Bo Schembechler
So Penn State should join the ACC too.
They're afraid to play us every year
They already play us every year pretty much.
Hence their fear.
Rejecting her traditional suitor conference, ND flounced from the room with greatest indignity. Striding purposefully across the now-silent marble Louvre courtyard, ND was followed by a gaggle of Pitt and Syracuse, giggling and whispering.
You seem like you'd be a good guy to do drugs with.
Football wise they might feel they have a better chance for success. After VaTech and FSU, the ACC is fairly average football wise. Not that the Big Ten is having a banner year this year but if ND joins the Big Ten they're either looking at being in a division with either Nebraska, Michigan, Iowa, MSU or OSU, PSU and Wisky.
This seems right to me. ND knows it would finish near the bottom of the Big 10 every year, while at the same time it would erode its recruiting base, whereas joining the ACC gives ND not only an easier schedule, but a chance to expand their national footprint, and recruit more extensively in the south and southeast.
IMO, the Big 10 missed the boat on this one, and should have been having sub rosa discussions with OU and Texas after they landed Nebraska. Now, there is a realistic possibility that there could be three conferences with the same (if not bigger) national footprint, and national appeal.
I still don't think the Big 10 wants Texas and nor do I think Texas wants to go to a conference where they would have to share revenue.
Texas probably doesn't even consider the B1G an option, since it makes no sense at all. They aren't going to want to travel that far for all their road games (sans Nebraska and maybe Iowa), and no one (sans those teams) are going to want to travel down to Texas.
Texas is thinking about joining the PAC-12 and playing the majority of their road games two time zones away from their fan base. I think that's worse then traveling to michigan or psu. On the otherhand, Texas wants to keep the longhorn network, which is one big reason not to join the big 10. Stupid tv contracts.
near the bottom of the B10 every year." While I agree with your conclusion re: Texas and Oklahoma, and also that the ACC may have certain advantages for them, what exactly have you seen the last few years to make you think the B10 is clearly superior (other than perhaps Wisc. and OSU) to ND?
I posted this in another thread but their was a rivals article talking about how the ACC made the most sense for ND because so much of their fanbase is east coast and with the current population trends the midwest is a bad place to be. The article also said that ND doesn't really need to worry about money since they have rich ass boosters so the difference between the BIG and ACC just wouldn't matter to them. Throw in the idea that if the ACC were to start a network like the big ten and ND was part of the conferenence they would have boston, new york, chicago, indy, and the dc/baltimore markets. Thats three of the four biggest media markets in the country plus major markets in boston and indy. Throw in having FSU and Miami and all of florida gets included. Thats some serious money/exposure waiting to be made. Not to mention 22 of ND's players are from ACC states, they need to maintain their presence there and joining the BIG would eliminate that. Honestly the more I think about it the only reason ND would be a better fit in the BIG is geography, the rest of the profile of the school matches the ACC.
Good synopsis. I don't like it, but good synopsis. The ACC can sell demographics better than any other conference.
Watch out. The ACC is also starting to bat its eye at Penn State.
I don't buy the NYC and DC TV markets argument. Who is watching college football in these cities? If NYU moved into D1 football and joined the Big 10, we wouldn't suddenly have the New York TV market. New Yorkers wouldn't give a shit about NYU football, just like they don't give a shit about Rutgers.
Frankly, this realignment stuff doesn't worry me too much, aside from the fact that a 16-team conference would suck since you barely play teams from the other division. If there are 4 16-team conferences, I'd be just fine being in the weakest one competitively, since the system would almost certainly turn into an 8-team playoff with the conferences championships as the first round. Rankings would no longer matter, so being in the weakest conference would be an advantage. Of course the bigger programs bring in more money, but I have a hard time thinking that the Big 10 is going to struggle financially with such massive fan bases and historic followings.
It's about who's forced to pay for it on their cable lineup because the conference footprint includes their region/state.
of schools like ND and Michigan. I recently met with a representative from LSA and she said that outside of Chicago and Michigan, the biggest Michigan alumni groups are in DC and NYC. There are enough alumni there that they can pressure the cable networks to carry the channels.
I've gotta say, if I lived out there I would be pretty pumped to be able to see the team without having to fly back. I imagine the rutgers home games would be a lot like northwesterns are now.
Like someone said it doesn't matter if people watch it matters if it gets put on the basic cable package. Also dc already is an acc market with MD/UVA and people do watch so yeah that was just plain wrong.
With all due respect, as a 25 year resident of DC, nobody here gives a hoot about UVA, and maybe like 39 people give a hoot about Maryland football, the juggernaut that they are. On Saturdays you see more Big 10 fans of all schools than anyone else by a country mile.
Unlike New York, nobody in DC is from DC. It is one of the top destinations for people from all over the Northeast and Southeast, and for a pretty solid population nationwide. Guess what, virtually all of those people are college educated, which means they have a team..
Not to mention that NYC has more than 20 million people in its metro and DC has 6 million and 8+ if you include nearby Baltimore where there is a bit of media/cultural synergy. Plenty of people are going to watch. And yes, to reiterate, there are plenty of alumni in these areas.
I am sure that this is all valid. But if ND goes to the ACC aren't they just punting on the validity of their football program as a true power? That would be pretty humiliating for them, I think. Still, people have a tendency to cut off their nose to spite their face and many ND people would probably like to do that with respect to the Big Ten.
FSU was the predominat football power for a period in the 90's. The ACC is fine in football and if FSU and miami get good again and clemson actually starts capitilizing on crazy recruiting its actually a solid football conference. Just because FSU and miami are struggling right now doesn't mean anything, if this was happening in the late 90's FSU and miami would be huge football draws.
Many valid points
Come home with us to the ACC - we'd love to keep beating you in, well, everything.
First of all, I don't buy the argument that because they have rich boosters they don't need more money. Rich people care about money more than poor people do - they want more.
Also, I heard on the radio today that ND likes the ACC better because the ACC will let them be more autonomous. They will let them keep their NBC deal and maybe not ask for full revenue sharing. The Big Ten will make them play by the same rules as everyone else.
To hell with Notre Dame!
Yeah if I had a weaker football program, I'd want to go to a weaker football conference too. Makes perfect sense.
Beating Indiana versus beating Duke AND Virginia.
Notre Dame may have a weird thought process, but even they know two is still better than one.
A sad but readily apparent truth of the Great Conference Shuffle is the irrelevance of rivalries in driving realignment. Nebraska to the B1G was the last nail in an already gutted Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry, and OU is now willing to give up Texas too (they may still end up together but they're acting independently). Utah and BYU are no longer conference-mates, nor are Texas and TAMU. In an environment like this, a minor rivalry like ND-Purdue doesn't even merit consideration. And as long as ND gets to keep SC (YTUSC) on its schedule, I suspect they could care less what happens to the rest of their rivalry games.
Texas-OU has only been a conference game for about 15 years. They played that game as a non-conf up until the mid ninties, when the Big 12 was formed.
They'll keep playing it after regardless. There's too much money at stake.
Personally, I think the great conference shuffle is a pre-cursor to a new Bowl Coalition. The BCS ends in 2016, right? If there are 3 or 4 16 Team Conferences, that would be in a position to develop a playoff. Hell, that group might be in a good position to tell the NCAA to pound salt.
I agree that people need to stop thinking that everything will stay the same after conference armageddon. There is a very good chance that the BCS is blown up, or at least completely redefined. I think that there would be a great chance for an 8 or 16 game defacto playoff when all said and done. Also, people need to stop thinking that just because conferences are saying that they will play 8 or 9 conference games that this will be set in stone with superconferences. How do we know that we won't go to 10 games or more. If they say to hell with the NCAA, will all of the teams that aren't in superconferences even be realistic options anymore? Maybe we only play teams from the B1G going forward and intertwine this with playoffs and slimmed down and restructured bowl schedule. I also don't think that these superconferences are going to go to 2 8 team divisions where you have protected rivalry games and never play other schools. I would bank on 4 pods with 4 teams in each. You would have your primary rivals in your pod and then play 2 teams from each of the other pods, while rotating one off your schedule each year and home and homes on a rotating basis (ie Wisky and PSU as an out of pod game one year, and Wisky and Purdue the next, then Purdue and IU the next, etc.) This will allow you to play all teams more than once per decade and you won't have to worry about protected rivalry games always creating unbalanced schedules. The bottom line is that people need to stop believing that the status quo will remain the same after all of this change. When superconferences come, more change will come with it.
people need to stop believing that the status quo will remain the same after all of this change
This whole realignment has me tottally disgusted. How in the name of Hypocrisy can the powers-that-be in college football, sanction and suspend, teams and players for receiving improper benefits, i.e. free tats and loaner cars, when at the same time they are throwing age old rivalries and traditions right into the shitter for the expressed purpose of making more money? I swear they are not even trying to hide the fact that this is all a money grab. It used to be that money being the predominant factor in anything and everything about college athletics was a dirty little secret. Billion dollar TV contracts are ok, but paying the players would ruin the game? Give me a fucking break, the game is ruined, if not already, we are speeding in that direction.
I can't wait to watch the 2016 Big East/Big 12 championship game between South Florida and Iowa State played in New Jersey sponsored by Exxon.
I can't wait either- the winner of that game will move on to one of the eleven MasterCard BCS games- probably the American Airlines Bowl Presented By Bud Light, which will be played in Indianapolis, whereas the loser will likely play in the John Deere-Walmart New Orleans Honda Classic.
The problem is there are no powers-that-be. Just little fiefdoms, from the NCAA, which only controls eligibility, scholarships, and practice time, to the presidents, the conferences, the bowls, and the networks.
Is it true? Perhaps. Does it matter? Not really. All that's relevant to The Network is you're talking about it and tuning in.
Dolla Dolla Dolla Bills Yo.
The more I read this stuff from ESPN, the more I think that they are really pushing their own agenda with this conference realignment. There stuff is so incredibally one sided. Their latest article on ESPN.com states that "OU and Texas have been authorized to act on the PAC12" when really they were authorized to pursue expansion opportunites (not specifically the PAC12). The rumor on the Northwestern rivals board about Texas and Notre Dame potentially coming to the B1G came from a source that I bet is just as or more reliable than any of the "sources" that ESPN is claiming has Texas to the ACC or PAC12 or Notre Dame to the ACC yet has gotten literally no circulation by ESPN. If Notre Dame went to the ACC, I see it as a major cop out as they will be doing this to face lesser competition.
Conference realignment has nothing to do with rivalries or demographic considerations. It has to do with money... or better put, with greed. ND can go f* itself for all I care. The Big 10 is one of, if not the most, stable Conference in the land due to its stable of quality, tradition rich treams and system of equal sharing. ND probably wants to go to the ACC so that it can have a beter chance of winning... they won't win as much in the B1G.
If ND does join the ACC, then B1G teams should immediately refuse to play them anymore. Lately, though, Michigan would be doing them a favor by cancelling.
Really? 3 in a row for the first time since 1908 between the two all-time winningest prpgrams.
This it's bad in your mind?
Boy, I remember the 90's. We dominated OSU. Good thing things never change. Also, I don't think he thinks that beating ND is bad. At least, I don't think that stance was ever submitted in his post.
They think its a better fit in terms of demographics, recruiting, markets, and academics. They see themselves more like Duke and Wake than M and Iowa. They also don't want to play 9 conference games, and be forced to give up playing Navy, USC, Stanford, and BC.
I also think its stupid. ND is all about tradition. If you are going to join a conference, why not join the one that gives you the best chance at maintaining that tradition? Granted, joining the B1G with 9 conference games means you give up a home game every other year to keep playing USC/Navy, but ND has never really cared about money anyway. Joining the ACC would upset more ND fans then joining the B1G.
On the other hand, it may give us more breaks in the ND contract: Georgia anyone?
They also have to deal with the least knowledgable fanbase in college football, a fan base who thinks it's still 1988 and that the college football world revolves around ND. Most of their fans have no idea how the new world of conference networks and tv scheduling works, because they've been sheltered from it with their increasingly irrelevant presence on NBC.
Their only strong point is that academically, they fit better in the ACC than the Big 10 (BC, Wake) than they do in the Big Ten's research focus. The faculty at ND's going to be pissed if this comes to fruition, though. Rather than having the resources of a bunch of schools in the immediate proximity (especially U of C and NU, since about half the ND faculty live in Chicago anyway) the closest affiliate would be Pitt.
Well, I think this news proves once and for all that ND's academics are not up to the B1G standard.
ranks higher than us academically. so the acc will accept nd, but the b1g won't?
I hate it when I don't detect sarcasm...
If we stand pat at 12 as a conference, are we in danger of losing a second BCS or Playoff spot? Who makes and enforces a rule like that?
I think we will always have a BCS spot. The thing that really would concern me if we dont hit a home run in this next round of expansion is that the B1G could end up being behind the SEC, ACC and PAC16 in terms of competitvness and therefore prestige. I really do see this as a critical time for the B1G because we could end up anywhere from the best to the 4th best athletic conference in college football.
I meant a second BCS/Playoff spot.
because some of their basketball rivals are shifting conferences, but all of the money comes from football. Tickets, tv deals, merchandise, bowl games, basketball can't hold a candle to football revenues and after their tv deal expires they'll have to jump into bed with someone because they won't get a favorable renewal. If they went to the ACC would they schedule Michigan, MSU, Purdue, USC, and a military academy every year for their non-conference games? They don't fit in the B1G in either academics, or research, they just have a big fanbase. Mizzou is a better fit all around, but doesn't have the historic rivalries ND does with us.
ND couldn't schedule the teams you listed. That would be five out of conference games. Assuming they were to play an eight game conference schedule, they would have to drop at least one of those games anyway. The would probably drop at least a few of the games, if not all of them, although playing Michigan gives them a big stage.
Remember, too, that in a couple of years the B1G is going to a nine game conference schedule. That, in and of itself, may cause some of the teams to rethink whom they play, although with a playoff system, a couple of out of conference losses really won't impact your chance of playing for the NC. It is all about winning your conference.
I think Delaney blew this one big time. The ACC had timed expansion just right and the B1G will get what is left.
I'm sick of playing ND every year let them go to the dam pac-10 for all I care lets take a year or three off from playing ND they phucking suck
For the B1G to expand at this point. "Because everyone else is" is only a valid reason if we are asking why we should do drugs with BlueDragon and JimLahey. With four marquee brands, what does going to 16 do for anyone?
while pitt and syracuse - the two closest contiguous academic and sports fits in the big east were swiped by the acc, and now we should stand around while the best of the big 12 and nd are acquired? then what, when the acc, sec, and pac all head to 16 with the picks of the litters?
The only way expansion of the B1G makes sense is if you can boost average revenue per team - adding Texas and ND could probably do that and significantly increase the total pie for all B1G teams to share. Adding almost any other schools will just increase the number of teams while leaving the size of the pie roughly the same or only slightly increased - thus decreasing each team's average share of B1G revenue. This is why we might just be better off staying at 12
so what if we stay at twelve, and the eventual superconferences only allow us one bid in the eventual nc playoff system? then our revenue drops, no?
The other reason it would make sense is if it gets you a second guaranteed BCS or Playoff team if that comes to pass.
Otherwise if TX and ND are off the table and being a 16 team conference does not get you any extra BCS/Playoff slots, there is no compelling reason to do it.
Although, Delaney has stressed shifting demographics out of the rust belt and to the south. If we stay where we are, it's rust belt city. However, there aren't any really good options left to expand southward or even eastward.
to post this twice, either
Sure, ND would be a great football addition, but from the academic side of things, they bring absolutely nothing. Weak graduate programs, not part of the AAU, and very little reseach whatsoever. I know that doesn't matter to a lot of us, but if we bring in a school that actually contributes to the CIC, that would be a LOT more helpful towards the school, the students, alumni, and eventually athletics as well. Think about it, Michigans research expenditure was 3 billion that past 5 years. Thats roughly 6~7 times our football revenue.
We're the Big 10. ND would be nice, but if they want to go elsewhere, hey, be my guest.
One more thing, this may be a negotiating ploy to get a better offer from the B1G.
I like the current B1G, but unfortunately I'm not sure doing nothing is the right play. Whether he acts now or reacts based on the climate, Delaney needs to decide on at least 1 more splash addition IMO to have in his back pocket in case the chips really start falling into superconferences. Texas seems out of the question what with the LHN and its alpha-dog mentality. That leaves Delaney with OU or ND. He must choose which is better for the conference: a meh academic large state school with a powerhouse football program or a high academic Catholic school with a historic football program.
Pair Delaney's favored choice with Missouri, who I think is a good fit that should work as a mid-tier program with decent academics and solid athletics that delivers the St Louis and Kansas City markets, and I think we have a viable long-term league. Problem is, the SEC may swipe Missouri, the ACC may swipe ND, the Pac may swipe OU, and there's still the possibility that ND remains independant or OU doesn't want in the B1G.
If we stay where we are, we lock ourselves into a permanant "Rust Belt" conference with a declining population. All of the other major conferences - ACC, SEC, PAC 16 - would be in high-growth demographic areas.
Problem is, there aren't any good options left to go southward or even eastward if the ACC and Pac 16 now have the compelling ones truely locked up.
That's actually not true, numbers wise. From 2000 to 2010, only the state of Michigan in the Midwest lost population (and it was only a -.6% drop). Most other states had growth of between 3.0 and 7.0%. The national average was 9.7%, so the rustbelt isn't keeping up. But the so-called sunbelt was absolutely nailed by the recession.
and West Virginia.
Both are academically sound and maybe interested in joining the BIG Ten. Maryland maybe another opportunity - good academics and reasonable football.
of their uniforms. But seriously, I'm with you on Virginia Tech but not West Virginia. Besides, WVU already applied for the SEC. I'd prefer just ND and Mizzou, but I'd be open to taking Virginia Tech and Virginia.
West Virginia is anything but academically sound.
But their coal mining degree is only second Western China State University.
I'm not buying it for a second.
If ND joins a conference it'll be the BT. My concern is who the other 3 teams will be.
Here is the link about Pitt and Syracuse applying to the ACC
The NY Times article describes everything except Pitt and Syracuse as speculation, even stating that the Pac 12 would have a hard time figuring out how adding teams makes them more money. It's true Texas and Oklahoma are looking around, but that is different than having a conference accept them.
So this seems like everything about ND is just people speculating that now is the time when they will be forced to pick, and if you are going to write that, seems hard not to make some guesses. What is interesting about the Pac 12 accepting Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is that the Pac 12 essentially would have eaten the best of the Big 12 that remained. If it works financially to increase everyone's amount of pie (slices are smaller so the pie has to get a lot bigger) then you almost have the new Big 8 (CU, Utah, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and slam Arizona and Arizona State in there) versus the Pac 8 (all of California plus Oregon and Washinton) as the two divisions. The Pac 12 already plays 9 conference games, so that's everyone in the division plus two cross division games. The could even have a geographicaly relevant naming of the divisions (kind of) in Mountains versus Coast.
But I just don't see how that gets the Pac 12 enough revenue, unless ESPN is ready to deliver and Texas is willing to play nice. Of course one way to increase Conference Revenue is to have a 3 game conference playoff from the winners of 4 4-team divisions. That's the only way I see it ending up as actually growing that Conference Revenue Pie.
ND rumor is at the bottom of that article.
"If the Irish decide they can't remain as a football independent then the choice would be to pursue the ACC before the Big Ten."
Yeah, because the Atlantic Coast is the first thing I think of when I hear the words 'South Bend'
That and ESPN owns all of the ACC's football rights.
And the Pacific when I hear "Boulder, CO," "Salt Lake City," "Austin," "Lubbock," or "Oklahoma."
Notre Dame is probably considering the ACC because it doesn't want to be a midde-of-the-road team in other conferences, as it probably would be most years in the B1G. I mean, it's Notre Dame, right? I am sure that's what they are thinking.
The B1G should just black list Notre Dame. Michigan never signed the contract with them last I heard so it is an easy out.
Notre Dame doesn't have the graduate programs/research to be in the CIC. Their faculty senate once voted heavily to join us (they wanted the CIC membership), but they had to preserve their 'independence.'
If they are in the ACC, I don't want to play them every year. If we go to 16 team super conferences then we'd probably move to 9 conference games and with only 3 OOC games - why play ND every year? Let's get variety. Play Georgia, Tennessee, Boston College, USC, Washington, etc....
Sorry, but no way this happens. This whole thing is about money, and the ACC currently makes less than the B1G, PAC 12 and SEC. Now, if the ACC let's them keep their NBC deal, that's a whole other story.
Screw em Once and For all.....Stop scheduling them as well...I have NO prob dropping ND from all sports scheduling and in Football replacing them with one Big name school Every year...We DONT need ND and Im sick of their arrogance and special treatment they get...ND hasnt been relevant in football in Decades so why all the special attention ???
What have they done to deserve it?//NOTHING.....GET LOST ND
If they join the ACC this is right. The Big Ten needs to stop scheduling them. Let them play the MAC if they want to play regional teams.
dollars are going to be the key. i'd be shocked if nuances like the likelihood of conference championships have much to do with anything. if nd joins a conference, it'll be the one that offers the best bottom line deal.
Not true. if it was about conference money, they would have joined the B1G years ago. ND has plenty of money from other sources. They will do what is the best for their football "brand" (yeesh, thanks DB). That is independence first. If that is no longer viable, they will not just go to the B1G because of money. Other major factors will come into play.
Someone beat me to it.
Basketball school. The acc is perfect for them.
Notre Dame can't win 9 games playing 7 patsies per season, how in the hell could they survive some combination of UM, OSU, Wisc, Neb and PSU every year? The ACC is a weaker football conference and they may let ND keep their football "independence".
If ND goes to the ACC, I hope every school in the B1G says, "screw you." AS Bo said so many years ago, Notre dame needs us, more than we need ND.
We might want to grab Mizzou and Kansas while they are available. It would bolster the basketball marqee while keeping the football about even.
Losing PSU would be a killer. I never saw Pitt going to ACC.
seems to have an overall delusional understanding of itself with regards to the college football landscape. The relevance they assign to themselves seems to be frozen in 1992 when they were a traditional Top 5 football power. It must be fun to be the apple of your own eye.
Who cares? Let Notre Dame do what they want, they will go over to the ACC and get whooped too. I dont get why people want them in the B1G so bad
I suppose in this brave new world it is more likely they could leverage their reputation for a disproportionate slice of ad dollars in the inevitable ACC network instead of taking an egalitarian dividend in the B10.
I hope we never play them again. What a joke
If that's true about the city being "in the footprint," that is insane to me. Who cares where the school is located? It should simply be about who wants to watch. Like the previous responder said, I'm sure many more people in NYC want to watch Michigan games than Rutgers games, so if we don't already have the TV market there, I don't see why adding an irrelevant school that happens to be close to city should change things.
EDIT: This was meant to be a reply above--not sure what happened.
This is a huge misconception that pops up on Michigan message boards — that B1G schools should stop scheduling Notre Dame, to “punish them” for their arrogance, their refusal to join a conference, their BCS deal, or whatever the fans are annoyed about.
This is simply wrong. Purdue and Michigan State get far more out of playing Notre Dame than the Irish get out of playing them. Purdue is fairly obvious. Notre Dame is their only rivalry that anyone outside the state of Indiana cares about. If they dropped Notre Dame, they might not have a nationally televised game ever again. The Irish can schedule anyone and get it televised; Purdue can’t.
The Spartans are in only slightly better shape. They’re a more popular and better known team than Purdue; still, there is no opponent they could schedule regularly that is as high-profile as Notre Dame. Whereas the Irish could easily replace Michigan State with a comparable opponent, the Spartans could not so easily replace the Irish.
That leaves Michigan, which could replace Notre Dame with comparable opponents, if it wanted to. But the notion that this would “penalize” the Irish, or “teach them a lesson,” is just daft. There was a 35-year hiatus in the Michigan/ND rivalry between 1943 and 1978, and Notre Dame did just fine. If Dave Brandon thinks Michigan would be better off without ND, he can go ahead and drop them, although I think Brandon is smarter than that. If he does so, it should be because it makes Michigan better, not in the delusion that it makes Notre Dame worse.
For the record, the ACC makes quite a bit of sense for Notre Dame. They will never have trouble recruiting their own back yard (the midwest), while an East Coast schedule would help them recruit that part of their country. Plus, there are a lot of Catholic fans in the Northeast. I am not saying the Irish will go to the ACC (I think they will remain independent), but it is not such a bad idea if they do.
Notre Dame is boring and lacks the prestige it once had, im sick and tired of playing them every year. Missouri seems like a nice fit and Kansas has elite basketball cache.
They could easily schedule a home and home with an ACC, SEC or Pac opponent. ASU scheduled Wisconsin and Illinois in recent years, Cincinnati and Tennessee are in the middle of a home and home, Illinois has gotten one of the Arizona schools, it's very possible for them to schedule another decent opponent.
I have no idea how their fanbases would feel about dropping ND, but quality games are out there for schools that want to schedule them.
Lets just say we "have" to get to 16 and ND is not an option because they decide to head over to the ACC. Who do we get then?
To me, it looks like it would be any of these teams: Missouri, Rutgers, Kansas, K-State, Iowa St, Louisville, UConn, Cincy.
Its going to come down to these criteria as well: Money (expanding B1G footprint with media markets), Football (competitiveness and appeal), other sports (i.e. Uconn has hockey for the B1G hockey conference, etc), and geography.
Yuck. Let's hope we don't "have" to get to 16.
Most recent National Science Foundation (FY 2009) research expenditures, all sources.
Michigan and Wisconsin are #2 and #3 in total research spending annually, about $1 billion each
Iowa is the lowest of the current B1G, around $330 million
Notre Dame spends like $95 million. Saw a thread on Rivals board about this last night, and the ND poster stated that ND has more in common with the private, smaller ACC schools like BC.
They may be right; I think the CIC entrance may be much more difficult than football fans may believe. Michigan and Wisconsin voted to boot (supposedly) Nebraska out of the AAU for God's sake. There is no way that ND is anywhere near AAU status yet.
Nice research. Thanks.
I just clicked the link and it shows Rutgers and Cincy ahead of Iowa in terms of research dollars. If nothing else, its a positive for both those schools if they wanted to join.
I still stand by this: if its emminent that we are expanding, then losing out on Pittsburgh hurts. They have relatively good academics, they spend money on research, geographical fit, potential showcase rivalry with Penn State, good "secondary" sports, and another media market that would expand the B1G Network.
This is just ND, Texas and everyone else trying to leverage power.
Everybody is going to hint they are going everywhere, until the dominos fall. Otherwise, they have no leverage. Notre Dame will hint about every alternative before coming to the table with the Big 10, because they are under the delusion that the Big 10 needs them more than they need us, and thus, will get nervous and make a quick and advantageous deal to ND.
ND doesn't gain anywhere close to the same results by joining the ACC or anyone else. Monetary is just one advantage. How would is suck for their other sports to travel those distances? Despite what anyone is saying that eats at the bottom line too.
I think the Big 10 is playing this right. If you are a big school like ND or Texas, you got a phone call...but not much more. And if you want to go elsewhere because you don't like financial parity, fine by us. If you want to join as equal partners, give us a call.
And anyone that doesn't like that, fine by me.
ND pretty much already does that though. The non football teams are in the big easy and the football team has been barnstorming dine we taught them to play.
Wetzel opines regarding ND and the ACC:
"if you’re going to tie your football program to a conference for the next 50 years, do you want to do it in a region of the country (the Midwest) which is growing at a far slower rate than the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic?"
This is the part that scares me in all of this. That the B1G gets locked into a permanent Midwest Rust Belt conference status while all of our major rival conferences are in high-growth areas.
The ACC and Pac 16 are fast locking up all of the appealing teams that we would want to invite for eastward or southward expansion. If ND is off the table, there goes our National trump card.
in 25 years. Any growth in those areas will have to be approved by a special B1G water committee.
A lot of the expansion talk is along the lines of, “If the Big Ten has to add 2 (or 4) teams, who would they be?”
But they don’t have to add anybody. When conferences expand, it is usually about the following:
No conference expands unless it will make more money than the payout it will owe to its new members, and no conference expands unless it will get stronger (or at least preserve its strength) in football.
Conferences sometimes make minor academic sacrifices (e.g., the Big Ten accepted Nebraska), but not major ones (no way they would’ve taken Louisville).
No conference has the combination of academic prestige, football prestige, and financial payout of the Big Ten. Because of this, it’s hard to come up with schools that would make the Big Ten better. In fact, Texas and Notre Dame just might be the only ones.
If Texas and/or Notre Dame are interested, the Big Ten would listen. But no one is going to tell the Big Ten that they have to add teams.
Yes, but if other conferences start picking off Big Ten teams then we will have no choice but to expand.
Good. I don't want those sanctimonious, whiney babies in our conference anyway.
ND to the ACC? I am willing to bet ND ends up in the BIG. This ND to the ACC is just leverage really, basically the oldest barganing chip is to say I'll take my business elsewhere if you don't meet my demands. ND is pretty much a defacto BIG team and they really have no other bargaining chip.
A side note if you will. ND does not meet the research standards set to be a BIG Team. You see high ranking research universities get high ranking grant money. Since ND is not in the top 50 of research institutions which is the conerstone of BIG schools, they cannot join the BIG for that reason alone.
Conspriacy theory: ND does not wan to be a part of the BIG because somemany schools are engaged in research that is contrary to ND/Catholic doctrine. Ie. stem cell, abortion
This would be consistent with the word on the Pitt board after SU and Pitt jumped to the ACC and how it went down.
Word was that ND coupled themselves with Pitt and Syracuse and would go wherever they went. There was obviously conversations with both the Big Ten and ACC. When Florida State voted to start an exploratory committee on conference expansion, the ACC became proactive. Swofford then called Norderberg and Pitt and Cantor at Syracuse and said you're in or you're out right now, which is why it happened so quickly.
SU and Pitt committed on the spot, and now ND feels spurned which is why Swarbrick has had such vitriolic comments. ND feels that they are academically more aligned with the ACC schools and have had good relationships with SU and Pitt, and values exposure to the NY market with SU (they currently have a 10-game series scheduled with SU with 5 games at the Meadowlands).
So that's one rumor that would make sense.
they are cowards
This whole realignment clusterfk is about money, period. Honor, tradition, academics, integrity, etc. have nothing to do with it. Everybody's putting their souls on eBay. The decision maker in all of this is Benjamin Franklin and some dead Presidents.
What all of this has to do with providing quality higher education in this country escapes me.
Our beloved Big 10 is no different. Watching that idiot in the bowtie masquerading as the President of Ohio State slobber all over the morally bankrupt douche bag coach and his cast of future felons was not enlightening. Almost as bad as the IU idiot that shredded his dignity to keep from firing his psychotic basketball coach a few years ago.
If there was any justice in this world somebody would have arrested both teams last week when Oh Shit played Miami and sparred us all the fake NCAA "enforcement" BS.
As for ND? They're two vodka martinis way from starring in the remake of Sunset Boulevard. It ain't bragging if you can do it; but they can't do it anymore. Frankly, who cares about ND, except ND?
Somebody needs to take the crack pipes away from the these college presidents and lock 'em in a room without the networks, moneychangers, and lawyers. When we're grillin' brats for the Little Ceasars Pizza Bowl, or the Papa Johns Bowl from Dunkin Dounts Stadium or whatever, somebody has snorted a whole lot of something.
I am not stupid or naive enough to believe in any "purity" of college sports or "student/athletes". There is way too much money in college sports for that anymore. And nothing will change that as long as we are willing to buy tickets or push buttons on the clicker.
But... is this really what we want college sports to be about? Just askin'
I agree the ESPN ticker about Notre Dame preferring the ACC is a smokescreen and a negotiation ploy for both the B1G and ACC to consider. Either way, Notre Dame is no longer going to be a "national" program anymore at least as far as scheduling. Either conference is going to have 14-16 teams, leaving ND only three nonconference games. if they join the ACC, will those be UM, MSU and Purdue? No more Southern Cal or Navy? If they join the B1G, will the nonconference games could BC, Southern Cal and Navy, and they'd still play UM, MSU, and Purdue along with, for goodness sakes, bus rides to Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Ohio State, and Penn State. What? That's only 8 conference games? How does ND-Nebraska sound? Absolute no-brainer.
ND can make demands and push around the ACC. They can't do this to the BIG 10 and schools like Michigan. So they will go look for a sweetheart deal from the ACC. They would rather be a big fish in a small pond.
because of the Irish, and Catholic connections. They have a lot of fans/ alumni and get top talent from the area. I think they want to preserve this. If they joined the B10, the closest they would get is Central PA.
Um, ND's biggest fanbase is in Chicago. It's where the biggest chunk of their alumni go, and as it turns out, there are some Irish-Catholics in Chicago too. If ND joins the Big Ten, the alumni in Chicago and the students can drive to about any game, and the East Coasters will come, just like M alumni. Going to the ACC means the Chi alums and the student body won't be at many away games.
Ugh, if we're not getting Pitt or ND I'd rather stay put at 12. I would have liked to have found a way to add Mizzou but I can't think of a partner for them and an uneven conference is one of the last things I want.
ESPN is pushing this whole bullshit ACC getting Texas and ND thing because the ACC is the only conference 100% under ESPN's control. If the Big East had taken ESPN's last contract offer, they'd probably have Notre Dame considering joining for football to save the league.
If Notre Dame is willing to join a conference and they end up somewhere other than the Big Ten, I don't care what concessions they're given... Delaney will have failed and wound up the biggest loser of the conference expansion. If we sit pat now and lose out on the only appealing candidates near our borders (Mizzou and ND), we've failed and we'll have nobody to blame but ourselves when we start falling behind in revenue.
I tend to agree, I think many people like the ACC only because its a new option