Rumor: ND to move all non-football sports to Big XII.

Submitted by GunnersApe on October 26th, 2011 at 8:59 AM

From Orangebloods.


Money Shot.

If Notre Dame does make such a move, it is being proposed that the Irish would remain independent in football but begin playing up to six football games against Big 12 competition. has reported that Texas would love to replace Texas A&M on Thanksgiving with Notre Dame, if possible. That still may be a bit of a longshot.

One high-ranking official at a Big 12 school holds out the hope that if Notre Dame moves its non-football sports into the Big 12 it would be a "segue to full conference membership in a year or two - about the time the first tier TV rights (held by ABC/ESPN) are negotiated."

This could be UM's out from playing ND so they can schedule someone non-conference variety(SEC). G'Ape approves this due to UT's/ND's ego's and eventual "dick measuring contest between the two" and Bo's famous quote.


ND's Schedule?

Keep: Purdue, USC, MSU, Army, Navy, Pitt/Stanford.

New: Texas and five Big XII (WVU?).




October 26th, 2011 at 9:04 AM ^

Don't care. If true, ND is sacrificing its non-football sports by making them play in a conference that couldn't be any more different just so football can remain independent.

-but- could provide a boost to the reputation in graduate education 

Mr. Yost

October 26th, 2011 at 9:06 AM ^

I like the ND rivalry, just not as much...

If I were AD we'd play ND every other year...2012 @ ND, 2014 vs. ND, 2016 @ ND...and so on...

In those in between years I'd schedule home and home's. OR home games vs. big schools that aren't good enough to expect us to return the favor. OR neutral site games like the Alabama game next year.

It keeps the rivalry and allows you to schedule outside the conference as well...

Mr. Yost

October 26th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^

I'm not going to give you the "I work in college athletics" schpeel, but...I work in college athletics. And the opponent at schools can be overrated.

Playing a home game vs. Maryland at 3:30 in Michigan Stadium isn't going to be that much different than playing Notre Dame at 3:30 in Michigan Stadium. The stadium can only hold so many're only going to sell so many tickets.

This is why we play MAC schools and 1-AA teams. Because THIS IS MICHIGAN, we're still going to sell tickets. Period.

Now if you're talking about UTL and everything that went into that vs. a 3:30 game vs. Maryland or Kentucky or Washington or Arizona...then yea, the UTL game is going to generate much more revenue and get more attention.

The key is that you have to play the Maryland/Kentucky/Washington/Arizona at HOME and not return the favor on the road.

Home games generate the revenue at Michigan...not necessarily the opponent. People are going to come to the game even if it was Michigan vs. 22 MGoBlog Posters.


October 26th, 2011 at 10:15 AM ^

why is there a money difference for Michigan to play at ND or at MD (or another school with approximately the same number of seats)? An away game is an away game, correct?

The reason Michigan doesn't travel to a MAC school is because their stadiums are so small.

So, Michigan makes more money paying the MAC school more then they would have otherwise gotten from a home game and Michigan makes more. I don't think that's the case against a decent to good team with a large-ish stadium that holds say 70,000+ (or hell, play in an NFL stadium close by).

Mr. Yost

October 26th, 2011 at 8:24 PM ^

I would play as many home games as you can...


What you have to do is find teams that will come play Michigan at home without a return favor.


Even if you have to give them a few bucks, it's still in Michigan's favor to do it.


October 26th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^

Thanks for wasting five minutes as I fantasized about an MGoFootballSquad.

Brian is head coach and offensive coordinator; Magnus and Steve Sharik coordinate the defense. The Mathlete is sub-offensive coordinator in the press box, running equations on how to handle each situation.

We make MGoShoe an honorary captain until he returns at halftime of the final game to lead a rally and victory.

Section 1 is the team's media/PR guy. For obvious reasons.


October 26th, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^

I won 2 IM flag football championships while an undergrad. Left Tackle and MLB. I feel very confident that at 5'11'' 195# I could block Roh and RVB. Now who's gonna be the QB I protect?

/Also wasted at least 5 minutes, I'm guessing that Brian running Oregon's O will kill at least 1/3 of the team


October 26th, 2011 at 6:19 PM ^

I won one, fraternity league, circa 2005.  Still have the t-shirt. 

Anyway, I'd need to get back in shape a little, but I was an All-OK White cornerback! 

I will now put Glory Days on loop.  Thanks for this.

CRISPed in the DIAG

October 26th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^

The fans who didn't show up for the Eastern game just called to say "hi"...

I generally agree, but there's no way the stadium generated as much revenue for the Eastern game as it would for, say, Arizona (just to use the example of a possible non-home-and-home-but-still-a-decent-name-type-school).


October 26th, 2011 at 11:53 AM ^

And how would we get Arizona without a home and home? We're playing at UConn in a couple years, after all. Every AQ school (other than Colorado) seems to be set on demanding home and homes. Even places like East Carolina have gotten home games from the likes of Va Tech. Even the days of 2 for 1 seem to be over. 


October 26th, 2011 at 5:09 PM ^

if michigan makes precisely the same amount of money playing patsies as a good team and can obviously get to the bcs more easily playing patsies, why play anybody out of conference, ever?

if michigan stopped playing good teams, eventually they'd stop being michigan. they'd be wisconsin.


October 26th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^

TV deals are renegotiated every 8-12 years. The B10's current deals come up for renewal in 2015/2016. If the B10 "dumbs down" its schedule by replacing games against ND with games against MD (or, worse yet, a variety of MAC schools), it will eventually impact pricing in the B10's TV deals.

The B10's games against ND are among the highest rated games in the country every year. For example, the Michigan-ND game this year pulled about the same rating as LSU-Oregon at JerryWorld (and both of those teams were ranked in the top five at the time, while neither Michigan nor ND were ranked at all). If the B10 dumps ND for someone else, both ND and the B10 will lose. ND can find plenty of other quality opponents and so can Michigan, but ND-Georgia and Michigan-Auburn is not nearly as attractive on a national level as Michigan-ND. The impact on MSU and Purdue would be even worse. MSU-Auburn (assuming MSU could even get Auburn to schedule them) would be a forgettable game most years. It certainly doesn't carry the appeal of MSU-ND. And Purdue is lucky as hell that it is located in the same state as ND. Otherwise, that annual game would not even exist.

The B10 would be crazy to dump ND out of spite, simply because ND will not join the B10. If ND or the B10 schools want to cut back on those games to be able to have more variety in their schedules, that is fine. But suggesting that those games against ND are not extremely valuable to the B10 is simply wrong. From a TV ratings (and, therefore, TV money) standpoint, those games would be extremely difficult if not impossible to replace on a year-in and year-out basis.

Indiana Blue

October 26th, 2011 at 9:08 AM ^

have a contract that allows them to "rape and pillage" a conference ONLY for their benefit.  They will NEVER share their filthy NBC football money with any conference  -  yet they want all their other teams to have "conference recognition".  The Big East has to be the worst run conference in the history of man ... nd knew this so they "raped and pillaged" them for their other sports and now they looking for another "patsy".  Fuck them ...  God willing they will NEVER be a part of the B1G.

Go Blue!


October 26th, 2011 at 9:43 AM ^

At this point, from what I understand, thier NBC football money is significantly less than our BTN football money, so that's not an issue. Notre Dame is looking to move to a weaker conference where they can be competitive and not stuck in the middle of the standings.

If they remain independant, the Big Ten should boycott. Carr talked about this back in the 90s. Notre Dme should not be allowed to put together their own "fantasy conference" of Mich, MSU, Purdue, Standford, USC, Army, Navy and Pitt. Enough of their bullshit exceptionalism. Their team has sucked for 20 years now - time to choose a side.


October 26th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^

It is a good deal less, and about to get smaller if their games suck enough that they keep getting pushed to Versus. Notre Dame has the third most lucrative TV deal in the state of Indiana. Think about that; IU and Purdue bring in more money than ND does. They're not the brand they once were, at least TV wise.


October 26th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^

Using an article that cites 2009 BTN numbers every Big Ten school brings in about $17m per year, then add the bowl revenue on top (about $2.5m per school).

ND just signed a new contract that we'll generously value at $10m, a ten percent bump from their previous contract. They would have to average a BCS bowl once every two years to just break even with IU and Purdue.

This isn't even going into the expansion of the BTN since then, or the very real possibility that this is ND's last network-only deal.


October 26th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^

Last fiscal year (ended June 20, 2011), the B10 paid out about $11 million per team from third party TV deals (ABC/ESPN/CBS) and other miscellaneous licensing rights and nearly another $9 million per team from BTN. The above numbers do not include bowl revenue (approximately $3 million per team) or revenues from the new TV deal the B10 has negotiated with FOX for the BTCG (nearly $2 million per team). It also does not reflect any adjustment for the addition of Nebraska to the conference (most TV deals have clauses that allow for the parties to sit down and negotiate a reasonable adjustment if the value of the conference has increased enough to warrant that). Last year, the B10 teams pulled in around $23 million from all of the above.

In comparison, ND is paid about $15 million per year under its TV deal with NBC (the original deal was $9 million, but that was renewed at $15 million a few years ago). ND also gets $1 million per year from the BCS every year plus $4.5 million additional money if it makes a BCS bowl game. Accordingly, assuming ND makes a BCS bowl every third or fourth year and a non-BCS bowl most other years, it probably earns about the same bowl money as the teams in the B10. ND also earns a small amount of money as a member of the Big East for its non-revenue sports. Last year, ND probably pulled in around $20-21 million from all of the above.

Both the B10's and ND's third party TV deals come up for renewal around the same time (2015/2016), so both will likely see a significant increase, similar to what FOX recently gave the B12 and ABC/ESPN/FOX gave the P12. The difference, however, is that BTN's revenues are also increasing at around 20% per year, or the equivalent of about $2 million per team per year. That ever increasing BTN money is what is tipping the scale in favor of the B10 compared to all the other leagues and ND. It is why Texas started LHN and why the P12, SEC and ACC all will eventually have their own networks.


October 26th, 2011 at 6:30 PM ^

What these numbers also don't take into account is what the B1G would make per team if ND was one of them.  ND is a cash cow, like it or not, and our TV deals would be enormous with them on it.  ESPN would love the idea of showing ND home games and they'd pay big time for the chance.  Every ND fan would demand the BTN in their area so they wouldn't have to miss ND-Navy or something.  The per team payout would be significantly higher with ND in the fold.


October 26th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^

I don't think it will happen, but you've got it right as to why this rumor exists. Not sure when the NBC deal ends, but no doubt ESPN is pushing ND to set up something like the Longhorn Network when it does. The Big XII is probably the only conference that will let them do that.

MI Expat NY

October 26th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^

I think the benefit goes both ways.  ND doesn't have to worry about filling their schedule without a conference affiliation like the one they currently have with the Big East and the Big 12 gets to sell their TV partners on two or three ND games a year.  If ND home games, of which they average about 7 a year, are worth $15M to NBC, 2 or 3 home games vs. ND has to be worth about $5M to the Big 12's TV partners.  All that at very little cost to the Big 12, adding a prestigious athletic program to its non football sports.  Splitting non-football tv revenue 11 ways instead of 10 probably doesn't cost much at all, especially if ND adds anything to the value.  Hardly a "rape and pillage" situation.


October 26th, 2011 at 9:42 AM ^

has continued to get attention from the national media in inverse proportion to its football decline for two decades.

If they are smart they do something because the world is so tired of them. Their whining has damaged the product.

A move to the B12 shows what an awful position they're in; they've gone from having the world by the b*lls to trying to shoehorn in with a crowd they've got nothing in common with. Wonder if NBC drops them when contract time comes. 


October 26th, 2011 at 9:22 AM ^

Their identity as an independent program has become so important to them that they can't stand the possibility of being eclipsed in a conference. In other words, it's all ego.

The gamble is that if ND becomes relevant again, they'll make more money than they would if they were a member of a conference that shared revenue equally. This possibility, no matter how remote it seems at the moment, serves to help justify their continued independence in football.


October 26th, 2011 at 5:05 PM ^

if you put your understandable conference loyalty aside for a second...being indepdendent is great as a fan.

do you really want to play indiana every other year? illinois? northwestern? minnesota? purdue? moreover, the effect of 9 conference games is going to mean that, at best, you get to play one major non-conference team per year.

nd has scheduled home and homes with the best of the b1g (michigan, osu, penn state), the big 12 (texas, oklahoma) the pac 12 (usc, stanford, washington), the acc (fsu) and to a lesser extent the sec (lsu, tennessee, florida...but no alabama) over the last 15 years. that's fantastic as a fan. the theoretically patsies on our schedule - the academies are more interesting tradition-wise and football-wise than playing the mac or scraping up a 1aa team.

wouldn't you rather play a couple rivals every year (osu, msu) and then rotate in a series of power non-regional teams and fill the schedule out with some regional rivals? it sure seems more interesting to me than play 9 b1g games, 2 mac snacks and maybe one other interesting game if you're lucky.


October 26th, 2011 at 10:59 PM ^

The problem with independence is that you're not really playing for anything once you're out of the national championship picture. Once the national title is out the window, you just have a series of games without much of a target to aim for, or at least a target that you're meaningfully competing with other teams for. That element of competition gives the games against Indiana and Minnesota an importance that ND's games against its patsies lack.


October 26th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^

Big 10's not interested in ND without football. 

Nor should they be. This is easier for the Big 12, since they don't have a stand alone network,   so they don't have to worry about cutting ND in on their revenue streams in such a situation.


October 26th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^

Exactly. That's what this is about. Television.

The Big 12 is falling apart, and needs a big name team to offset the dpartures of Nebraska, A&M and Mizzou. West Virginia isn't that much of a draw.

Notre Dame fills the bill, and if they'll play football however many games per year, the Big 12 can keep the networks interested.

Indiana Blue

October 26th, 2011 at 9:26 AM ^

they have to follow conference rules.  This means no guarantee to a BCS game if they have 2 losses and make the BCS top 10 or whatever their "special" deal is.  And if they make a BCS game ... who do they split the money with ????   no one!

Truth is they know they could not win a BCS berth a regular basis if the join a "football conference" (B1G, SEC or Big 12).  They could have won the Big East - but I think they knew that the Big (L)East was doomed from a football point of view.

Go Blue!


October 26th, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^

The New York Post has a good article this morning, summarizing ND’s options, including the Big Ten, the ACC, the Big 12, and remaining in the Big East.

Unless the Big East engineers a miracle save, the conference going forward is going to be a mid-major at best, and that is not the image ND wants for its Olympic sports. (To be fair, it’s not the image anyone wants, but the Irish have options the others do not.)

The Big 12 would allow the Irish to remain independent in football, but it is not a particularly good cultural fit.

Both the ACC and the Big Ten would require ND to join in all sports and share revenue equally. The ACC might be a bit more flexible about scheduling and third-tier TV rights. The ACC makes sense for them, because of the large catholic population on the east coast. The Irish have a long history of scheduling those teams in football, and it’s a league they could win from time to time. For the rest of their sports, the ACC is a better fit than the Big Ten.

The Big Ten is obviously the best geographical fit, but it would present the toughest path to a BCS bid (because the league is so tough), and if the Big Ten insists on playing a nine-game conference schedule, it would make it difficult or impossible for the Irish to continue to play a national schedule.