If it's always about the money. I don't quite understand Notre Dame and Texas right now. It seems now that we already have Nebraska, Texas and ND would call each other up and say let's do this Big Ten thing we can basically start printing money. It seems like Tex, ND and whatever 2 teams Texas wants would allow the BTN to take over the world and make a sick amount of money for everyone involved. If anyone can explain what I'm missing and why Tex would want to go to the Pac 10 please help me out?
Question about Texas and ND
Notre Dame makes enough money by themselves with a T.V. contract with CBS.
Texas is also power hungry. I don't think they could get what they wanted like they did in the Big 12 lf they went to the Big10
You mean NBC.
Yes that one. Sry my bad.
Also they make less with NBC than they would with BTN.
Also, with Comcast buying NBC, what if they were to relegate the Irish to the Vs. network and no longer give them prime time play on NBC..
They can only move a couple games to cable, not all of them
I thought it was proven ND could make more with the Big Ten, but you may be right. It just seems like Texas is wading into a pretty big unknown, they have no tvdeal set up yet, vs the Big Ten Network is pretty established.
Without that contract, he would be out of a job...
There's always the triple crown and Olympics for Mr. Hammond.
I don' believe that Notre Dame's tv contract is the driving force behind their independence. According to espn (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3452161), the deal only runs through 2013. The deal is supposedly a loser for new NBC owner, Comcast.
I think that Jack Swarbrick is negotiating with the powers that be at ND, and that he is privately in favor of joining the Big10. The money is "guaranteed," a term every businessman loves. However, this is the same guy that kept paying Charlie Weiss, so maybe he's not that intelligent.
they are hardly in a posotion to expect it to be renewed. They signed it when they looked like they were returning to national prominence and that has hardly been the case. I don't think NBC has been entirely excited about the situation and wouldn't be dying to jump back on that wagon.
So, barring some meteoric rise back to being a national contender (with a new coach, a freshman QB, we all know how that can turn out in the short term) in the near future, they are looking at a pretty desolate landscape beyond the end of that contract.
Even if they did, say, win a MNC in that time period, I still think that the idea of signing a single team to a long term exclusive TV deal is not something that would happen again, becuase you just can't count on the continued success of a program and a dog program on your channel each week is a huge drag. I'm not saying that you are going to see ND games filled with NBC promos (read: unsold ad space), but I highly doubt they are getting close to the value they expected when they signed the contract.
yeah seriously who would want to sign ND to a tv contract if they had just won a national championship, talk about low TV ratings, lol
Not to defend a domer (believe me it hurts) but:
A. He was responding to the hypothetical mtzlblk proposed.
B. With a name like 'Irish' do you really think anyone was unsure of his team allegiance?
If what you say is so obvious, why doesn't it happen all the time? I must be forgetting about all those other teams that won a MNC and were immediately rewarded with an exclusive TV contract. Except that........
The ND 'experiment' was NBC trying to catch a rising star and betting they were going to broadcast an ND program that was nationally relevant. I think they learned a bit of a lesson there, don't you think? Perhaps one having to do with putting all your eggs in one basket?
All I was saying is that I don't see networks ever going multi-year exclusive with any one team again simply because in today's college football, the year-to-year the success of any team is never guaranteed. I mean, you could have signed a deal with USC a few years ago and where would you be right now?
If you don't think that the ND TV contract was an anchor for NBC in terms of revenue, well, you are perhaps a little bit deluded, despite most of your comments on here being fairly even-toned and non-homerish.
I am not talking about "other teams" I am talking about ND; NBC signed the newest extension with ND almost exactly 2 years ago. At that time ND was in the middle of it worst 2 seasons in school history with regard to football and NBC still saw enough value to sign them to a new contract when their current one didn't even run out till this year.
That "experiment" is now on its 20th year, and isn't set to run out until 2015. When the most recent contract begins this year, it will be the 5th time NBC signed a multi-year exclusive TV contract with ND. You can think none of this is happening all you want but it is.
I am not privy to the details of the contract and I don't know what is involved for not renewing, normally it lasts X years and have options at certain junctures to get out, but normally there is a buyout or payoff to be able to do that and are rarely simply a yes/no decision.
All i am saying right now is that I would doubt that ND gets extended again on the same terms they have now, even if they were successful. It is not a slam against ND, it is just that the landscape for broadcasting college football has changed so much that I don't believe their will be the same impetus to lock a single team into an exclusive deal.
1. Texas knows it won't be able to run the Big 10 like they did the Big 12. Maybe it thinks it could run the Pac-10 or at least the Southwest half of it. Perhaps, it can get an unequal share of the $ from a network in Texas.
2. It can keep much of the old gang around (TT, TA&M, ...) Notwhithstanding modern aviation, geography matters for travel costs (dollars and otherwise), rivalries, and good relations in the legislature.
BTW, ND makes $ but Indiana and Purdue get more from the Big Ten TV deals than ND does.
i have heard this elsewhere, but can someone clarify to me how "Texas ran the Big 12"?
The Big 12 doesn't have equal revenue sharing like the Big 10. Texas gets more money than everyone else. In some cases, compared to the lower level teams, a lot. They refuse (as late as this week, if you believe the rumors) that they refuse a Big 12 Network, in favor of one for themselves. They wrestled traditional power to the South from the former Big 8 teams. And obviously leads all things academic in that conference.
ND is a good fit and they need to get off this high Four horseman thing. They really haven't been ND for a long time so they need to do this . The Big 10 doesn't need them but I would take them over Texas. If we come out of this with ND, Cuse, Ga tech and Rutgers that is fine with me.
I haven't heard any talk of Georgia Tech either. That would be quite a random addition.
did i miss where georgia tech was ever discussed in big10 expansion?
Ga Tech hasn't been brought up at all.
This fellow's conclusion: "I personally think the Big Ten is the best fit for Georgia Tech academically and financially but the allure of a return to our SEC roots is a huge factor as well."
i dont doubt the fit. but kind of like usc is a fit, ga tech is way to far outside of the big10 footprint. we're talking 4-5 state gap between the next closest state which is probably ohio
I don't think everybody understands just how vital football independence is to Notre Dame's students and alumni (I don't think faculty really care - but they do like the idea of CIC membership). It is a part of their own self-identity, a fact I didn't appreciate before, but after several years at ND as a grad student and program director, I do.
I don't think ND (again, alumni and students) will change for TV money. It would take restricted access to, say, the BCS or complete isolation of their non-football sports for it to happen. Keep in mind that ND's endowment (~$4.75bn) is about 20% less than Michigan's (~$6bn), ND has roughly 1/3 the number of students. Granted, state support for UM changes the equation somewhat, but I don't think it's enough to bring them to equality on a per-student basis. The few million dollars we may be talking about is not enough to sway opinion. Hell, they might be able find a handful of alumni to kick in the annual difference just to make sure they stay independent.
If ND were to switch to the Big Ten without the perception that they were forced to by access issues, there would be an absolute revolt. It's what they believe they are and always need to (not should) be.
Very well said
State support has been nearly linearly decreasing since the 60s and now comprises less than 50% of associated student costs (around 45%). UM has been filling that gap by tremendous private philanthropic support.
I thought the level of support from the state of Michigan has dropped to under 10%. If someone knows the real number, I would like to find that out.
From the umich "Understanding Tuition" site:
Q. Why is it necessary to raise tuition when Michigan families are struggling so much financially?
A. One of the key reasons for increasing tuition is the decline in state funding. In the last six years, state funding for the U-M has dropped 12.9 percent. In the 1960s, state funding made up 80 percent of the U-M’s general fund budget – the budget that pays for the university’s core academic program. This year, state funding represented 22 percent of the general fund budget.
If the Pac 10 goes to 16 and the Big 10 goes to 14 or 16 teams, I wouldn't be surprised if ND loses 5 of their games (M, MSU, SC, Purdue, and Stanford) depending on how scheduling goes. If these conferences end up with 9 league games I would guess that the three OOC games all become cupcakes. Only time will tell.
As long as M, MSU, SC and Purdue have at least one OOC game, ND will be the first call they make to fill it
I think, as far as the Big Ten teams are concerned, you are sadly mistaken.
Wisconsin has been trying to schedule ND for 4 years now, and even went so far as to try and bump Purdue off of our schedule themselves a year ago
Texas could be interested in spreading their influence out to the West Coast markets (L.A., SF, etc.) and may see more promise there
Why do we care about ND? Some tarnish has come off the Dome and, frankly, they haven't been that good since Lou Holtz left. They have told the Big Ten "hell no" for two decades. I agree with bwlag - they want to remain independent. So let them. We have our 12th member, a championship game, etc. So, in the words of Bo, "To hell with Notre Dame."
The Big Ten needs Texas more than Texas needs the Big Ten.
If Texas joins the Big Ten, they'd get an equal share of the revenue from all local and national TV contracts because of the BTN. It's rumored that the new PAC-16 will leave the local contracts in the hands of local schools, which means Texas will get a great local contract and once again rake in the money.
Meanwhile, the academic side of the Pac-16 just took a hit, but there's still plenty of chances to form a block with Cal, UCLA, Stanford, and Washington to jointly conduct reseach. They can form their own little CIC out west.
It looks like the money will be equivalant, and Texas will have more freedom and influence in the Pac-16 then they ever would have had in the Big Ten.
1) Notre Dame loooves their independence (and their corresponding arrogance)
2) Texas is far and theyre shackled to the other texas schools which makes it hard to get them away and into the big10
I think we are all being led by the media (ESPN, who rightfully fears the power of the BTN) to believe that it's a done deal for Texas to go to the Pac-10. But that ignores a couple of occurrences late last week. First, the Pac-10 (probably) invited 6 schools with Texas and Tex A&M among them. A couple days after that news hit, Texas and Tex A&M met alone to discuss their move. Then on Friday Texas called an impromptu meeting of its board of regents (meaning a vote of some sort was probably taken.) So, why would the only two schools the Big 10 has viable interest in from among the six Pac-10 invitees decide to meet with each other? It's not a state of Texas thing, Tech was left on the sidelines. And it's not a conference-power thing, Oklahoma was left on the sidelines.
Add to that the chatter among ND fans that ND and Texas have been in private discussions... the belief is that it is regarding some sort of affiliated-independent thing (I know, that sounds a lot like a two team conference... I love my ND buddies.) Of course, ND and Texas have something else in common: they are being courted by the Big 10. Supposedly Irish fans place a lot of importance on the ability to play a "national" schedule. It doesn't get much more national than playing Penn St., Texas, and Nebraska with the ability to keep a solid OOC game with USC and a second OOC with Navy. The way things are looking, the Big 10 IS national (especially if ND joins before #16 and the Big 10 can cherry pick the last team... I still like the idea of GA Tech for a truly Southern market.)
The SEC is also involved with Texas (in response to NOLA Blue)
Although I can't believe they would give up a chance at the CIC in exchange for rubbing shoulders with Florida and Georgia (two of the better academic institutions of the SEC.) Tacopants made a good point re: the strong academics at some of the PAC-10 schools. But come on... why would an institution actually decide to go through developing a new TV Network and a new Academic Network when the Big 10 already offers excellence in both arenas at near-zero risk?
Texas has already contemplated building their own TV Network that would only show UT athletics and nothing else, and they could still do it as a part of the SEC. They didn't like the big12 network granting equal air time to all 12 schools and wanted a bigger piece of the programming. They would have the same problem in the bigten, not sure about the pac10 though, since they don't have a network yet.
For Texas, you can sum it up in two words - COLD WEATHER. They certainly don't want to spend 3-4 weeks in the bitter cold when they are able to continue having temper climates in the PAC 10.
to popular belief, Washington/Oregon do get a ton of cold/rainy/shitty weather.
I grew up in Pullman, WA. It can snow during any Wazzu home game, any sport, any time of year.
in '97-8? Divided emotions?
...but I was emotionally and psychologically prepared. Going to school in Ann Arbor, I learned to be gracious in victory. Growing up rooting for Wazzu made me incapable of feeling anger or disappointment.
but the UT site that has been discussing UT-to-Big-10 since December had a comment on it (from someone at Northwestern?), right after it was newly reported that the original six minus Baylor might be going to the Pac-10 after all. The comment speculated that the sites with "inside connections" were being played by contacts with the UT AD in order to spread rumors that would assist UT in obtaining its objectives. One of the suggestions was that UT was using the "six to Pac-10" rumors to stampede T-Tech and A&M into the Pac-10. The purpose of this would be to cover UT with the Texas state legislature -- with three of the four TX schools left after the Pac-10's refusal of Baylor now safely in a major conference, UT would now be politically covered for their move to the B-10. According to this thinking, rumors of the six to Pac-10 are actually evidence of UT ridding itself of the "Tech problem" in order to get to the B-10.
Sorry I can't find the links; I have trouble locating old threads on this site.
Meta -- it looks like the "rich text editor" obliterates paragraphs when you edit. Trade off clarity for one line of space?