Musing: Texas or Notre Dame as the next Big Ten Team?

Submitted by victors2000 on February 13th, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Just a scenario, something to do because I'm bored, but say talks with Texas are going well and an invitation with acceptance appears imminent, but all the sudden talks with ND start up and they are serious. If both wanted in, who would you pick? Right now, I'd pick Texas. Just out of spite.



February 13th, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^

Why not both?

But out of purely geographical concerns, I'd want Notre Dame. I like symmetry and putting things where they belong and Texas is just so out of whack from traditional Big Ten locales, it just doesn't sit right to me. Plus we'd potentially get back to scheduling some interesting OOC opponents since the infinite scheduling agreement with ND would have to go out the window.


February 13th, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^

They don't quite match, but you're nuts if you're equating Penn State's lack of geographical fit with Texas's. At least Penn State is a northern school. And they're closer to Michigan, Ohio State, etc. than Iowa and Minnesota are. Texas would instantly become the furthest school from each and every other Big Ten school.


February 14th, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^

And teams would fly into Pittsburgh.....why?

You know State College has an airport, right?

Edit: Here, for your edification:…

A Friday evening flight lasting all of 56 minutes from Lansing to University Park Airport. MSU played PSU in basketball on Saturday.


February 13th, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^

That quote is as old as Phyllis Diller and played out more than Paris Hilton's private parts jokes, but it definitely applies here.

Notre Dame has never gotten over their hatred of Fritz Crisler and Fielding Yost, and they will never join the Big Ten unless Michigan opts out.

Texas is a great choice. I have always favored Nebraska. Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse make me barf.

Here's a real good read by a guy who thinks outside the box. I think you'll all enjoy it:…


February 14th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^

Rutgers. Way less attractive, IMO, because I think their ability to make the NYC market care about the Big Ten is way overblown.

The problem with Syracuse is that I think they'd be much less likely to come than most schools. They were all set to join the ACC, yes, but the ACC plays elite-level lacrosse.


February 13th, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^

that would be awesome, at that point you could finally get all of the big ten teams to stop playing Notre Dame and leave them to struggle to fill a halfway decent schedule.


February 13th, 2010 at 2:30 PM ^

I'd rather have Texas simply because they are prominent across a variety of sports, but geographically it would be tough. ND makes more sense for the region, but they would be an immense prima-donna with little recent success to back it up. If I'm the Big 10, I'd rather put up with the headaches associated with Texas than the mediocrity that follows ND.


February 13th, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^

Is out the wondow in today's world. Economies aside, if you look at the Big East, they go from Connecticut to South Florida. The Pac Ten from Warshington to Arizona. That's a whol lotta miles.

The money that Texas' addition to the Big Ten would bring would far outweigh any thoughts of Geography. We MUST think outside the FanBox here.

The Big 12 is not nearly a stable conference--and not nearly as stable as the Big Ten.

The distance is 1164 miles from Detroit to Austin. 1068 miles from Columbus to Austin.

In contrast, 963 miles from Tempe (ASU) to Pullman, WA (WSU) of the Pac Ten.


February 13th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^

When have fans ever been considered in these decisions? Fans will make do. It's not like the average fan these days can really afford to drive from Lansing to Ann Arbor and shell out the four to five hundred dollars that a day for three or four would cost to attend a game.

I believe Notre Dame would accomplish everything a Texas addition would, and yes, be cheaper for fans to get to and from. But they aren't coming, and everyone else (except possibly Nebraska) pretty much represents a status quo move that would bore the rest of the country to tears, not increase the TV footprint (New York doesn't give a shit about Rutgers or Syracuse), and do nothing but add more mediocrity to a conference that is fairly heavily saddled with it already.

Scott Dreisbac…

February 13th, 2010 at 3:28 PM ^

Travel for the team, coaches, etc would of course not be an issue. However, when you are talking about a school whose fans travel as well as Texas' does, it becomes a real issue. Instead of driving to Texas A&M, Oklahoma et. al., now they have to fly to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Distance is still an issue, especially when talking about a school whose identity is in part associated with the amount of fans that travel to away games.


February 13th, 2010 at 5:35 PM ^

Younger, worse-off academically, and less profitable. Plus some of the northern schools in the Big Twelve are unhappy with the lack of revenue sharing and the perceived (and probably true) dominance of the conference by the Texas schools and Oklahoma.


February 13th, 2010 at 7:45 PM ^

Missouri and Colorado both want out. If the Big Ten asks, Missouri is GONE. Then Colorado is GONE. Then what do you have? Two of the biggest three markets would be gone.

of course, if the bIg Ten chickens out and invites Pitt, all this might be for naught, but I think the Big Ten has bigger fish to fry than backwater Syracuse and Joe Pa's lil red-headed stepchild in Pittsburgh.


February 13th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^

I say take notre dame... There is a reason their names keep coming up in expansion talks even though they have no interest. And that is because they are an obvious fit. I just like the identity of the midwest in the Big Ten and Notre Dame would add to that.


February 13th, 2010 at 3:14 PM ^

The reasons ND keeps coming up in expansion talks is because they are the very obvious choice.

However, they just didn't decide not to join, they slammed any idea of becomming a Big Ten member last time they were invited. And are they any less arrogant about it now? Michigan just signed a contract to play them for the next century. They play MSU and Purdue every year. They play USC every year. There simply is no incentive for ND to join--and if they can get back to any semblance of their past selves, they'll be cashing regular $12-14 million paychecks from the BCS bowl fiasco and keeping it all to themselves.

And they'll always have their own TV contract. The minute NBC opts out (and why would they?), ESPN will snatch them up as part of their ongoing effort to control the world. Yes, ND makes less than they would as part of the Big Ten (and the Big Ten would become more marketable with them--increasing money), but they seem to be very shortsighted on this one and the time is now or never. I don't see them joining the Big Ten.

Now, one idea that could be possible is the Big Ten has floated this 12-18 month thing as a way of saying to ND that the rubber is about to meet the road, and it looks like there is no shortage of colleges waiting to jump. Force their hand a bit more, so to speak.

But I see notre Dame as happy with their position--albeit somewhat delusional--and also happy as a cultural icon. They won't say yes.

It's time to move on, and the Big Ten should shock the world and offer Texas. It's a no lose. There will be no public invite unless they KNOW there will be an acceptance of the ring.


February 13th, 2010 at 9:36 PM ^

The one part that is incorrect is the BCS money. They now can only accept what any other team can take. In the grand scheme they technically *could* make more since they would not split it within a conference, but on the other hand, the revenue sharing should be more, especially if two Big 10 teams go to a BCS bowl, which happens somewhat frequently.


February 13th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^

If we bring A&M and OU with them. That'd be a 14 team super conference to end all conferences. A&M might suck at football but their non-football teams are very good and translate well into the Big Ten getting top points in the Directors Cup. I posed this to a few UT and A&M alums and they all liked (those two groups NEVER agree on anything). With the divisions split up in a way such that the 4 closest schools to DFW (a good average for the three schools) would join OU, UT and A&M. So - Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, OU, UT, A&M in the South or whatever you want to call it and OSU, UM, MSU, PSU, UW, Northwestern and Minnesota in the North. Football wise you it might be a little heavy on the north side of things but basketball wise it's heavy on the south side of things. You'd have 6 division games, 1 guaranteed rivalry and 1 rotating game and 4 non-conference or you could have 2 guaranteed games, 1 rotating and 3 non-conference. Either way I like it.

If we can't get OU & A&M to go with we might as well go w/ ND because having the 1 outlier in Texas just doesn't make any sense.

Frank Drebin

February 15th, 2010 at 11:34 AM ^

ND is also not in the AAU, and would require 3/4 of the member universities to accept them. This has been said to be a big hurdle to their joining the conference. Schools that have been tossed out there and are in the AAU include Maryland, Mizzou, Nebraska, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, UT and A&M.


February 13th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^

Use talks with Texas to give an ultimatum to ND. Hopefully, ND coalesces and becomes the 12th team.

Adding Texas to the Big Ten would be a bad move, IME. They're the big shots of the Big 12, and they'd want similar status here. They don't want to share the stage with us, OSU, and Penn State, especially considering that they'd be fighting for the 2nd BCS spot.


February 13th, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^

Personally I think Texas should be added and the conferences that dominate college football should stop giving benefits to Notre Dame, treat them like any other independent and therefore force them to ultimately join the Big East.

Texas should come, and as for geographical sense, Boston College plays Miami, Washington plays Arizona, USF plays Syracuse, and on and on and on. Distance is pretty much a non-factor.


February 13th, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^

ND doesn't belong in the Big Ten. We have only one private school in the Big Ten - Northwestern, and they're non-religious. ND, on the other hand, is a private, religious school. Maybe I just have a different impression of the conference, but I don't think that a religious school belongs in the Big Ten.

Texas might be far away, but I'd love to see them join. It's a solid school academically, with powerful sports programs. In my ideal world, we poach UT, Neb and OU...then split into a 7/7 format.


February 14th, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^

you may have been negged because your argument that ND shouldn't join holds no weight. The first point in your argument is that the Big Ten is a conference with just one private school. What does this mean? Do you want to keep the private-to-public ratio the same? Do you think that the number of private schools should only be 1 per conference? Also, you argue that ND is religious. So what? Why doesn't a religious school belong? I think people on this board value opinions, yes, but well-supported and logical ones.


February 14th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^

My argument holds no weight???

A religious school doesn't belong in the Big Ten. You could always state why you disagree, but merely attacking my point as having "no weight" is bullshit.

Why doesn't a religious school belong? Because no other school in the conference is a religious school. That makes it not-like-the-others...Every argument for or against any school involves "similarity" or lack thereof.

Some folks say Texas doesn't fit because it's geographically dissimilar, others say certain schools' rivaries aren't similar, some school are service academies, other schools academics aren't similar, etc. You might not agree, but my point about religious schools holds as much weight as any other argument that one school or another is not similar enough to join the Big Ten.

Your response...holds no weight.


February 14th, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^


No no no no no.

Geographically dissimilar means something: travel costs.

Academically dissimilar means something: Presidents care about this.

Lots of schools in the Big Ten aren't like any other. Northwestern is the only private school. Should we kick them out?

If Morgan State tried to join the Big Ten, and the Big Ten rejected them and said the reason for this was because the Big Ten doesn't allow black schools, the Big Ten would be roasted over the coals and rightfully so. That has nothing to do with the practical reasons (revenue, strength of athletics, strength of academics, etc.)

Your response not only holds no weight, it's also discriminatory.


February 15th, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^

Except for the NW exception, the Big Ten is public. Religious schools are nothing like public schools. We have a cool separation of church/state in the U.S., so that one religion can't be favored over others. That's why we don't have public religious schools. I like that openness and think that's the way the Big Ten should remain. Presidents (university and politically) care a lot about church/state separation...maybe just as much as geography. Religious freedom is a bit more important to some than "travel costs".

My response is the OPPOSITE of discriminatory. I want a Big Ten with schools open to all, not one which favors one religion over others...but at least you presented an argument (even if it was a really bad one).


February 15th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^

The University of Notre Dame builds an atmosphere of trust among its students, faculty, and staff. Although unwavering in its Catholicism, the University requires no particular belief of its community members and asks only that all be willing to appreciate and nurture the University’s mission.

Honestly, you can't be serious: "I want a Big Ten open to all, therefore no religious schools allowed." Yes, it's discriminatory, not to mention contrary and borderline hypocritical. Notre Dame, as with 99.9% of religiously-operated schools in the country, doesn't discriminate based on religious affiliation or require any kind of religious participation any more than the public schools do. Guess what: they don't even ask your religious affiliation on the application form. You can be Muslim, atheist, or sun-worshipping and go to Notre Dame. You have just as much religious freedom at Notre Dame as at Michigan.

Given this, the only possible remaining religious reason for you to want Notre Dame out of the Big Ten is an exclusionary and discriminatory one. You're not pro-religious freedom, you're anti-religion.

P.S.: The motto of the University of Wisconsin is, "God, our Light", and Northwestern's is a verse from the King James Bible.

P.P.S.: Given that the Big Ten has already tried to invite Notre Dame, I don't think the university presidents care about the school's religious affiliation like you claim they do.


February 15th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^

Of course, ND will take students from any religion (if they pay the tuition)...That isn't the point (or even close to it). I won't get into the endless history our nation has putting a line (albeit blurred by the far right wing) between church and state. I also won't get into the battles to keep religion from pushing into public schools. For example, no public school could EVER write that it is "unwavering in its Catholicism". The State cannot "establish" a religion. Next time, read what you quote...and remember that your argument looks pretty weak when your quote proves my point.

Frankly, if the Big Ten were starting from scratch, I'd eliminate NW because they are private and all else are public. I would not consider ND because it's private and religious.

I'm guessing that you follow a majority faith, or else you wouldn't be so amazingly clueless as to think that Notre Dame and Michigan are equals in terms of religious freedom. When Jesus is hanging all over the walls (and even over an end zone), it doesn't give such a "everyone welcome" feeling. It's 100% their right to educate in that manner, but that has nothing to do with religious freedom.

I've attended public and private schools; religious and non...religious schools, by their very nature...favor one religion over others. That's just the way it is. Nothing against ND, and I could care less if the Big Ten already invited them, it's my well-founded and clearly reasoned opinion that a religious school does not belong in the Big Ten any more than a service academy would.


February 16th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^

And what's special about the Big Ten that has turned you into an anti-religion zealot? What threat to you do they pose? Is your religious freedom impaired in any way by their Catholicism?

Is Texas less religiously free because they associate with Baylor? Is Florida State less religiously free because they associate with Boston College and Wake Forest? Do SMU, TCU, and BYU leave a religious stain on their conferences? You know, we have laws in this country that prevent you from discriminating against religion. They're not here to to protect your sensitive ass from religion, they're here to protect religion from people like you who would deny membership for religious reasons.

So why is the Big Ten special? You might wish Northwestern away, but they're here. You might wish U of C away, since they're a private school (and were inconveniently founded by the Baptists) but you can't - there they are, associating with the Big Ten. The conference wasn't founded on some bedrock principle of public schools only, it just happened that way, and if you want freedom from religion, I suggest you move to North Korea.