MGoAlumnus

May 11th, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^

Notre Dame already is looking at a bigger payday in the Big Ten. The Irish get about $15 million a year in TV revenue compared with $22 million per school in the Big Ten.
Obviously Lynn Henning did not read the front page of MGoBlog today. Tsk tsk.

WolvinLA2

May 11th, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^

True, but ND likely can gain financially by joining the Big Ten.  For one, the bowls (or lack there of) that the Irish have been to lately are below what the average Big Ten team goes to, especially since we go to 2 BCS games every year and we get the Cap 1 bowl, so the bowl revenue sharing would be better than what they're getting on their own.  But moreso than that, ND joining the Big Ten would greatly increase the revenue that the BTN brings in, so that 20 million from Brian's post today would go up significantly if ND joined the league.  

WolvinLA2

May 11th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^

Yeah, it looks like that number is a little whacky.  

It just seems that from a financial standpoint, both ND and the Big Ten win from them joining.  

If ND joins the Big Ten, we become the big time conference in the country, right away.  Not only that, we become the wealthiest conference in the country by a long shot, ensuring we stay on top.  

jmblue

May 11th, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^

While we don't know if there is a basis to this or not, when it keeps being reported, I'm increasingly thinking that there's something to it. 

I hope not, though.  A 16-team Big Ten would be utterly unrecognizeable.  Twelve teams would be enough.

jmblue

May 11th, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^

We never played them before 1993, but PSU has become one of the most important games on the schedule IMO, right behind OSU/ND/MSU.

Incidentally, our ND series basically only dates to 1978 (we played them two times in the previous 60+ years), but I consider it a traditional matchup all the same.

ShockFX

May 11th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^

It's so unfortunate we might play PSU, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, and/or Northwestern less in order to have games against Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, UCONN, ND or some set of those teams.  What a shame.

Seth9

May 11th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^

Freep: Rodriguez is the Force Behind Big Ten Adding Rutgers, Montana, and Alaska-Anchorage

Rich Rodriguez, head coach of the Michigan football team and the sole cause of the Black Plague which swept through Europe during the 14th Century, is the nefarious attempt to ruin the Big Ten via expansion. Multiple anonymous sources claim that Rodriguez has forced every Big Ten University president to vote for his expansion plan involving Rutgers, and FCS school, and a school that doesn't even have a football program by making them practice football for 4 hours and 7 minutes last Sunday. After surviving such a torturous experience, every university president capitulated immediately and voted to add the teams. Rodriguez feigned ignorance upon hearing of these charges.

Beavis

May 11th, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^

His notion of four 16 team superconferences is hard to figure out. 

Regardless, if ND joins the Big 10, the two bottom feeders in the Big East (USF) and Big 12 (Iowa State) will be left out.

Seemingly the ACC could fill in with Big East schools pretty easily (UConn, Louisville, Syracuse, and Cincinnati).

However, for the SEC and Pac-10 it becomes harder.

Colorado is a home run for the Pac-10, but are they seriously going to expand all the way into Oklahoma and Kansas (and one Texas school)?

WVU makes some sense I guess for the SEC but still the only SEC school it's touching is Kentucky (UVa in the ACC obviously).  Are they going to dilute their conference with a couple of Texas schools to get UT to come along?  Or are they going to go for only the biggest of the Big 12 - Texas, OU, and OK State?

Also to think that Texas-based colleges are going to join another conference, rather than say, creating their own, could be laughed at.  This is the same state that just built a $60 million high school field.

The author doesn't provide any insight to this.  He sucks.

M2NASA

May 11th, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^

If the Big Ten goes to sixteen and the only NYC-area team taken is Rutgers, the ACC will likely only go to 14 and take Syracuse and UConn.  Louisville and Cincinnati give them nothing.  The only reason the Big East took them was to have eight teams to maintain a football conference.

How likely is it that the Big Ten would leave open NYC to the ACC taking the two largest alumni and fanbases of the three schools?

Michigan_Mike

May 11th, 2010 at 6:23 PM ^

Since when is USF the bottom feeder of the Big East? They have finished in the top half of the Big East standings all but one year since they joined and have won 8 or 9 games in each of the past four seasons. During this stretch they have beaten Florida State, Auburn, West Virginia several times compiled a winning record in bowl games. That is hardly a bottom feeder.

Tater

May 11th, 2010 at 3:17 PM ^

This article looks like Henning has read a lot of blogs to get his info.  His work over the years definitely seems to have shown much more passion for baseball than it ever has for college football.  This isn't a slam on his writing at all, but more an appreciation of his baseball columns.  That being said, I like the article anyway for selfish reasons. 

Last year at this time, and for a few years prior to that, any articles about the Big Ten usually started with, "What's wrong with."  In one year, the Big Ten has gone from national whipping-boy to "conference most likely to change the face of college sports as we know it."

That is a great accomplishment in my book, and I much prefer what we are seeing now over what we have seen the last few years.