SEC makes 14m for their champ game...just shows you how much $'s the big 10 is leaving on the table with no champ game in chicago or indy + if they add a school outside of their market, they bring in more $'s...enough to drive jo pa over the edge. As for nd schedule wise, i do think 7 is what they want but they would make nice $'s with a trailblazing game against say army in the new giants/jets stadium.

(06-16-2009 06:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  ND has always found the means to generate revenue.

Notre Dame used to win a lot.

Quote:IF ND has to decide to join a conference, I think it would more likely consider the Big East or attempt to form a new conference.

That's right - tell the suckers what they want to hear. You should go into politics.

(06-17-2009 11:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 08:28 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  I think scenarios like this would be played out too often to have the Big Ten be for an entirely unseeded Plus One model. I could be wrong, but I don't think the Big Ten will like their chances of ever getting to the NC game if their champion has to beat the Pac-10 champion, sometimes in a convincing manner, if they are a shaky two or three ranked team going in. I can't even remember the last time the Big Ten champion beat the Pac-10 champion, no less did so in a convincing manner. Can you?

Cheers,
Neil

If you replace the "Pac-10 champion" reference with "USC", then I'm with you - the Big Ten has a problem beating USC in Pasadena, but not the Pac-10 overall. Of course, this is largely looking at a data set based on the Big Ten's performance over the last 3 years, which isn't the same as a future long-term projection. Things are cyclical - if we were having this discussion in 2000, we'd be talking about how much the Big Ten has dominated the Pac-10 in the Rose Bowl since the Big Ten had won 7 out of the last 8 games (and those were all true conference champion match-ups). In 2005-06, which wasn't exactly eons ago, the Big Ten won 2 BCS bowl games. Remember what happened in the last year prior to the current BCS system went into place? Michigan won a share of the national title that year by winning the Rose Bowl (the split national title was largely a result of the coaches giving a retirement present to Tom Osborne). Even in the BCS era, USC laid claim to the AP national title in 2004 by winning the Rose Bowl. Just because something has happened over the last 2 or 3 years doesn't mean that it's anywhere close to being a permanent situation. Big Ten and Pac-10 teams have won national titles via the Rose Bowl in the not-so-distant past and they can do so again.

So, the Big Ten and every other conference has to look at things from the long-term. Having attended a Rose Bowl (along with the festivities such as the Rose Parade) in person, I completely understand why the Big Ten and Pac-10 want to hold onto that event with everything that they have. It's NOT the same as the Sugar, Orange, or Fiesta Bowls, even if critics of the Rose Bowl want to claim differently. From an economic perspective, the additional value of the Rose Bowl essentially mitigates the fact that the Big Ten and Pac-10 don't have conference championship games - asking the Big Ten and Pac-10 to give up the Rose Bowl is the equivalent of asking the SEC of giving up the $14 million that it receives for its conference championship game. If someone asked the SEC to do that, the conference would understandably tell that person to go "f" themselves, so people need to understand that the Big Ten and Pac-10 are going to react the same way with respect to the Rose Bowl.

It's the "grandma" test - your grandma (or the random non-sports fan in your life) probably has no clue when or where the Super Bowl or BCS National Championship Game is being played in any given year, but she probably knows that the Rose Bowl is played in Pasadena on New Year's Day. That's the power of the Rose Bowl - even people that don't even watch sports recognize its existence, which is what differentiates it from every other bowl game (if not almost any other event in sports). Maybe people outside of the Big Ten/Pac-10/Rose Bowl sphere don't agree with it, but they have to understand that it's a pretty reasonable position as to why the conferences aren't going to lay down and give the Rose Bowl up.

Hail Frank!

I don't think anyone is disputing that the Rose Bowl is the greatest Bowl game of all time. But while everyone knows that, I'll also bet you that more people know who won the NC in any given year, than they remember who played in the Rose Bowl that year.

And I really don't see you disputing the fact that the SEC and Big 12 champs will have an easier time getting to the NC game IF the unseeded Plus One model is used and the Rose goes back to simply getting the Pac-10 and Big Ten champs for its January 1 game.

I certainly think this up for debate, but I don't see both conferences risking losing out on an NC for a chance to play in the Rose Bowl, otherwise Ohio State would have gave up their shot in 2002/3, 2006/7, and 2007/8 in order to play in it and USC their shot in 2005/6. And in two of those years, the Rose still wound up with a Big Ten/Pac-10 match-up and the two times that it didn't, Oklahoma and Texas were the substitutes. Although I understand that the next time it happens, they will be forced to take the non-auto-bid BCS at-large, which with the Rose's luck will probably turn out to be ND.

As for the Big Ten winning two Bowl games in 2005/6, neither were against a Pac-10 team, or as you pointed out correctly, USC. Instead they played ND in one, who hasn't won a major Bowl game in ages and FSU from the ACC, when the ACC was in the midst of a 7-game BCS losing streak at the time.

Still, all kidding aside, an unseeded Plus One, while great for the Rose Bowl itself, is not so great for either the Big Ten or the Pac-10. A seeded Plus One that only included the top 4 ranked Conference Champions, increases the odds for both conferences of playing in the NC game. Which, to me, explains why the Plus One model hasn't flown so far. Neither the unseeded nor the strictly Top 4 BCS ranked (regardless of conference affiliation) truly works for all conferences. Ultimately, I see the compromise as being the Top 4 ranked Conference Champions, but understand this is a minority view at this point in time.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-17-2009 11:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 10:08 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  In the above example, the Irish play traditional opponents USC, Michigan, Navy, and Pitt and also have flexible scheduling to get in another West Coast team as well as another Big Ten/Big 12/SEC/ACC team.

The schedule is either a 7-4-1 schedule or a 6-4-2 schedule, so they never play more than 4 true away games at the opponent's home site and the schedule has them actually playing in a minimum of 5 sub-regions and a maximum of 7 depending upon who they schedule and where the Navy neutral site game is played.

Again, the Big Ten would likely be the conference of choice, but the adaptability/flexibility of the Big East vs the rigidity of the Big Ten could make things interesting.

Cheers,
Neil

One quick point - any scheduling scenario MUST take into account that the 7 game home schedule for ND (meaning games actually played in South Bend) every singe year is not merely optional anymore - that's going to be a hard and fast requirement going forward (as it is for many BCS schools). So, any scheduling format (whether it's a Big Ten or BE schedule) is going to have to accommodate that. ND needs (not wants) 7 home games - any neutral site game must replace a road game as opposed to a home game. If we assume that the chances of ND ever giving up independence as small, then the chances of ND ever having less than 7 home games in any season from this point forward is even smaller than that - this is how serious the 7 home game schedule is in terms of football revenue today.

Good point. Right now the Irish are trying for 7-4-1 every season where the one is part of the NBC package (to get them to 8 games for NBC package). I think that is where the rub is for their fans because in order to achieve that kind of schedule one needs to resort to two home-only series games against foes the Irish fans simply are not used to seeing on ND schedules. With 4 home games automatically as a member of the Big Ten they are even more boxed in than most realize by going to the Big Ten.

Cheers,
Neil

Its not hard to create a playoff for football and keep the rose with what they want:

8 team seeded playoff using 4 bcs bowls, ie orange, sugar, rose, fiesta
7 bids go to conference champions + one at large bid, might make that 6 champs + 2 at large but i'm being nice to the mw
1st round on campus 1st week-end in december at higher seed home
2nd round on campus 2nd week-end in december at higher seed home

6 teams that lost in playoff get kicked into 3 "bcs bowls" avoiding rematches
2 teams get kicked into rotated bcs bowl for a title game

-rose bowl will always have the pac 10 champ if it isn't in the title game when the rose isn't hosting the title game

Well, it took them a day, but the Irish fans over on NDNation at least are having a decent, but brief discussion about this topic.

Here is my favorite so far from domer_mq:

As of Sept. 1998, it seemed very probable that ND would join the Big 10, a topic that was set to be addressed conclusively in early Feb. 1999. Two things turned the tide against ND joining:

1. The alumni went bananas. As clueless as Monk and Beauchamp were, they knew who wrote the checks.

2. Joining the Big 10 means joining their academic consortium (the 11 B10 schools, plus the U. of Chicago). In Oct. 1998, the Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly to join the B10 on the basis of the touted benefits of membership in this consortium: prestige, resource sharing, access to research bucks, etc. However, the more it was considered, the more faculty members began to doubt that such benefits were the quantum leap forward that they had originally thought. Confirming this was the presidents of 2 B10 schools saying that ND would really not benefit very much from consortium membership.

Additionally, Monk (going by his own words) began to see that, other than geography, ND and the B10 schools didn't have some very important things in common. After a December meeting with the presidents of 5 B10 schools (Northwestern wasn't one of them), Monk was reported as saying, "It occurred to me that I was in a meeting with presidents of 5 huge, public, secular institutions as a president of a small, private, Catholic one." I believe this view began to trickle through the POB of ND: If we join the B10, we're going to be on the wrong end of a lot of 11-1 or 10-2 votes.

By the February meeting, ND joining the B10 was a dead issue. It wasn't even voted on.

I think the closer ND gets to the Big 10, the more it realizes how different it is from the schools that comprise it.


The other interesting post was from a poster called GeronimoRumplestiltskin, who wrote:

I'm sure there are many flaws in the article's premise, but no one seems to have pointed them out yet. Even Domer MQ's rebuttal at Her Loyal Sons doesn't really address the article's point - that ND could make significantly more television revenue by joining a conference.

I understand that money alone may not drive us to join a conference (although let's face it, the football program is a business), and I understand that our football team is already Top 10 in football-related revenues. But that still doesn't address the article's point that ND's unwillingness to join a conference might be leaving significant television revenue on the table (and might in the future cause them to reconsider the Big 10).

Again, there are probably a ton of financial factors that the author of the article has not considered (we are in the Top 10 for football revenue for a reason). If there is anyone that can refute the actual point the author made (that ND is leaving TV money on the table), I would love to hear it.


The answers have basically been along the lines of "money not being everything", without acknowledging that for the first time since 1990 when they got their own separate TV contract, the Irish are not in the Top 5 of overall athletic revenues. Projecting out over the next 2 years, they are in danger of falling out of the Top 15, with Iowa, Michigan State, and Oklahoma potentially surpassing them.

However, they rightly point out that ND's situation is fluid, and may change as a result of a couple of BCS Bowl appearances, a greater TV contract in 2015, increased BE revenues from NCAA units, etc.

Money alone will not be the reason for joining a conference. Other forces will need to arise to get them to give up their cherished independence for football.

Which means the ball is back in the Big Ten's court as to what to do in regard to #12.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-17-2009 02:02 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Well, it took them a day, but the Irish fans over on NDNation at least are having a decent, but brief discussion about this topic.

Here is my favorite so far from domer_mq:

As of Sept. 1998, it seemed very probable that ND would join the Big 10, a topic that was set to be addressed conclusively in early Feb. 1999. Two things turned the tide against ND joining:

1. The alumni went bananas. As clueless as Monk and Beauchamp were, they knew who wrote the checks.

2. Joining the Big 10 means joining their academic consortium (the 11 B10 schools, plus the U. of Chicago). In Oct. 1998, the Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly to join the B10 on the basis of the touted benefits of membership in this consortium: prestige, resource sharing, access to research bucks, etc. However, the more it was considered, the more faculty members began to doubt that such benefits were the quantum leap forward that they had originally thought. Confirming this was the presidents of 2 B10 schools saying that ND would really not benefit very much from consortium membership.

Additionally, Monk (going by his own words) began to see that, other than geography, ND and the B10 schools didn't have some very important things in common. After a December meeting with the presidents of 5 B10 schools (Northwestern wasn't one of them), Monk was reported as saying, "It occurred to me that I was in a meeting with presidents of 5 huge, public, secular institutions as a president of a small, private, Catholic one." I believe this view began to trickle through the POB of ND: If we join the B10, we're going to be on the wrong end of a lot of 11-1 or 10-2 votes.

By the February meeting, ND joining the B10 was a dead issue. It wasn't even voted on.

I think the closer ND gets to the Big 10, the more it realizes how different it is from the schools that comprise it.


The other interesting post was from a poster called Buddy Jeans, who wrote:

I'm sure there are many flaws in the article's premise, but no one seems to have pointed them out yet. Even Domer MQ's rebuttal at Her Loyal Sons doesn't really address the article's point - that ND could make significantly more television revenue by joining a conference.

I understand that money alone may not drive us to join a conference (although let's face it, the football program is a business), and I understand that our football team is already Top 10 in football-related revenues. But that still doesn't address the article's point that ND's unwillingness to join a conference might be leaving significant television revenue on the table (and might in the future cause them to reconsider the Big 10).

Again, there are probably a ton of financial factors that the author of the article has not considered (we are in the Top 10 for football revenue for a reason). If there is anyone that can refute the actual point the author made (that ND is leaving TV money on the table), I would love to hear it.


The answers have basically been along the lines of "money not being everything", without acknowledging that for the first time since 1990 when they got their own separate TV contract, the Irish are not in the Top 5 of overall athletic revenues. Projecting out over the next 2 years, they are in danger of falling out of the Top 15, with Iowa, Michigan State, and Oklahoma potentially surpassing them.

However, they rightly point out that ND's situation is fluid, and may change as a result of a couple of BCS Bowl appearances, a greater TV contract in 2015, increased BE revenues from NCAA units, etc.

Money alone will not be the reason for joining a conference. Other forces will need to arise to get them to give up their cherished independence for football.

Which means the ball is back in the Big Ten's court as to what to do in regard to #12.

Cheers,
Neil

These are very good points. The thing is that if ND's standard is to find the conference where it would "fit in" in terms of institution size and character, then the only viable option is actually the ACC with its contingent of private schools. ND would face the exact same large public school/small private school divide in every other conference, including the BE. Remember that the schools in the BE that are "similar" to ND are the non-FB Catholic schools that ND is already a part of. ND has no more in common with Rutgers, Pitt, and the other BE FB schools than it does with Michigan and Ohio State.

(06-17-2009 12:53 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 11:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 10:08 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  In the above example, the Irish play traditional opponents USC, Michigan, Navy, and Pitt and also have flexible scheduling to get in another West Coast team as well as another Big Ten/Big 12/SEC/ACC team.

The schedule is either a 7-4-1 schedule or a 6-4-2 schedule, so they never play more than 4 true away games at the opponent's home site and the schedule has them actually playing in a minimum of 5 sub-regions and a maximum of 7 depending upon who they schedule and where the Navy neutral site game is played.

Again, the Big Ten would likely be the conference of choice, but the adaptability/flexibility of the Big East vs the rigidity of the Big Ten could make things interesting.

One quick point - any scheduling scenario MUST take into account that the 7 game home schedule for ND (meaning games actually played in South Bend) every singe year is not merely optional anymore - that's going to be a hard and fast requirement going forward (as it is for many BCS schools). So, any scheduling format (whether it's a Big Ten or BE schedule) is going to have to accommodate that. ND needs (not wants) 7 home games - any neutral site game must replace a road game as opposed to a home game. If we assume that the chances of ND ever giving up independence as small, then the chances of ND ever having less than 7 home games in any season from this point forward is even smaller than that - this is how serious the 7 home game schedule is in terms of football revenue today.

Good point. Right now the Irish are trying for 7-4-1 every season where the one is part of the NBC package (to get them to 8 games for NBC package). I think that is where the rub is for their fans because in order to achieve that kind of schedule one needs to resort to two home-only series games against foes the Irish fans simply are not used to seeing on ND schedules. With 4 home games automatically as a member of the Big Ten they are even more boxed in than most realize by going to the Big Ten.

If you two look at the corrected Notre Dame schedule projection I posted at the bottom of page one, using an eight-game Big Ten schedule, it leaves the Fighting Irish with a 7-5 when they host Navy and a 6-5-1 when they travel to a neutral site against Navy. The 12th game would always have to be a home buy game, as well, which would pretty much wipe every Big East team off Notre Dame schedules forever.

It is unlikely that the Fighting Irish would want to join the Big Ten and be confined to a 7-5, followed by a 6-5-1, at any rate. Their options would have to include asking the Big Ten to switch to a seven-game schedule, as suggested above, and the Big Ten is highly unlikely to do such a thing no matter how much money Notre Dame represents. A Big Ten schedule would simply be too confining for the Fighting Irish.

(06-17-2009 02:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 02:02 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Well, it took them a day, but the Irish fans over on NDNation at least are having a decent, but brief discussion about this topic.

Here is my favorite so far from domer_mq:

As of Sept. 1998, it seemed very probable that ND would join the Big 10, a topic that was set to be addressed conclusively in early Feb. 1999. Two things turned the tide against ND joining:

1. The alumni went bananas. As clueless as Monk and Beauchamp were, they knew who wrote the checks.

2. Joining the Big 10 means joining their academic consortium (the 11 B10 schools, plus the U. of Chicago). In Oct. 1998, the Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly to join the B10 on the basis of the touted benefits of membership in this consortium: prestige, resource sharing, access to research bucks, etc. However, the more it was considered, the more faculty members began to doubt that such benefits were the quantum leap forward that they had originally thought. Confirming this was the presidents of 2 B10 schools saying that ND would really not benefit very much from consortium membership.

Additionally, Monk (going by his own words) began to see that, other than geography, ND and the B10 schools didn't have some very important things in common. After a December meeting with the presidents of 5 B10 schools (Northwestern wasn't one of them), Monk was reported as saying, "It occurred to me that I was in a meeting with presidents of 5 huge, public, secular institutions as a president of a small, private, Catholic one." I believe this view began to trickle through the POB of ND: If we join the B10, we're going to be on the wrong end of a lot of 11-1 or 10-2 votes.

By the February meeting, ND joining the B10 was a dead issue. It wasn't even voted on.

I think the closer ND gets to the Big 10, the more it realizes how different it is from the schools that comprise it.


The other interesting post was from a poster called Buddy Jeans, who wrote:

I'm sure there are many flaws in the article's premise, but no one seems to have pointed them out yet. Even Domer MQ's rebuttal at Her Loyal Sons doesn't really address the article's point - that ND could make significantly more television revenue by joining a conference.

I understand that money alone may not drive us to join a conference (although let's face it, the football program is a business), and I understand that our football team is already Top 10 in football-related revenues. But that still doesn't address the article's point that ND's unwillingness to join a conference might be leaving significant television revenue on the table (and might in the future cause them to reconsider the Big 10).

Again, there are probably a ton of financial factors that the author of the article has not considered (we are in the Top 10 for football revenue for a reason). If there is anyone that can refute the actual point the author made (that ND is leaving TV money on the table), I would love to hear it.


The answers have basically been along the lines of "money not being everything", without acknowledging that for the first time since 1990 when they got their own separate TV contract, the Irish are not in the Top 5 of overall athletic revenues. Projecting out over the next 2 years, they are in danger of falling out of the Top 15, with Iowa, Michigan State, and Oklahoma potentially surpassing them.

However, they rightly point out that ND's situation is fluid, and may change as a result of a couple of BCS Bowl appearances, a greater TV contract in 2015, increased BE revenues from NCAA units, etc.

Money alone will not be the reason for joining a conference. Other forces will need to arise to get them to give up their cherished independence for football.

Which means the ball is back in the Big Ten's court as to what to do in regard to #12.

Cheers,
Neil

These are very good points. The thing is that if ND's standard is to find the conference where it would "fit in" in terms of institution size and character, then the only viable option is actually the ACC with its contingent of private schools. ND would face the exact same large public school/small private school divide in every other conference, including the BE. Remember that the schools in the BE that are "similar" to ND are the non-FB Catholic schools that ND is already a part of. ND has no more in common with Rutgers, Pitt, and the other BE FB schools than it does with Michigan and Ohio State.

Agreed. Assuming of course ND ever got to the point of wanting to be in a conference for all-sports including football, the ACC was at one time, imho, a very viable option #2. They certainly have a better mix of academic-type institutions and after the Ivy and the Big Ten, are the most elite athletic conference in terms of academics.

The problem now, as I see it, is that they already have 12 members. And I think for football purposes, going beyond 12 may be too much, whereas for basketball, the Big East is proving that 14-16 can be successful. So do Duke and Wake give up football to allow ND and another northeastern team to join the ACC? That might be a hard sell. Of course, at one time I was convinced that there would ultimately be 5 super conferences with 16 teams, so what do I know?

I think the original ACC expansion branding of being a league that stretches from Boston to Miami was also appealing to ND at one point in time. But then they basically settled on being SEC-lite with a strange northern satellite. So, imho, they may have screwed the pooch leaving a crack open for the Big East. A Big East I am envisioning as ND, PSU, Miami, USF, Pitt, WVU, SU, BC, UL, UC, RU, UConn, with G'Town, Nova, St. John's and Marquette for all sports but fb, taking into consideration ND's preference for more like-institutions.

Again, a lot of work needs to be done internally by the Big East and just as the ACC has the question of what happens with Duke and Wake football there remains for this imagined Big East the big question of what happens to Seton Hall, Providence, and DePaul? But who knows? By the time ND even contemplates joining a conference maybe one or two of them already would have come to realize they could make more net revenue and be more prominent as a Gonzaga or an Xavier in a small pond then bleeding red in athletics trying to keep up with the likes of Louisville, Connecticut, and Syracuse and left the league of their own accord.

Yes, I know, "when pigs fly!"

But as I said before, I'd rather the Big East shoot for the moon and miss then not to have tried at all. The other options, as impolite or perhaps elitist as this may sound, will likely still be available in 2015-2020.

Cheers,
Neil

I thought BC didnt want anything to do with a conference that large? Maybe if it was still able to have a Fb Champ game and had ND and PSU they'd consider it.(?)

(06-17-2009 08:37 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  I thought BC didnt want anything to do with a conference that large? Maybe if it was still able to have a Fb Champ game and had ND and PSU they'd consider it.(?)

When BC "leads" in something let me know, alright.

They are a follower, not a leader. They followed Miami's lead in regard to the ACC expansion. When the time came up to vote for BC in June 2003 and NC State President Fox and Virginia President Casteen motioned to table accepting any more members after VT and Miami, BC then followed the lead of SU, giving a private pledge to SU's leaders that they would not seek out ACC #12 slot.

And later when the ACC failed to get ND, Florida, Georgia, etc. they had to have Shalala take a visit up to BC for their football game on Sept. 20, 2003 and then they returned to following Miami, allowing them to claim that they hadn't backed out of the private pledge to seek ACC membership #12 since it was the ACC who did the seeking.

In other words, BC is a follower, not a leader, but they also happen to be private, Catholic, and located in Boston.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil:

I tried to articulate the true depth of the anti-Big Ten feeling at Notre Dame (Gray Avenger's smarmy comments notwithstanding).

I think you may now have a better appreciation of the feelings of ND alumni and fans (and therefore the administration) about the possibility of joining the Big Ten.

They despise the idea.

It really would be the last preference if ND had to join a conference for football. The chances of ND going to the Big Ten are really pretty negligible.

I also tried to set out the argument that ND's situation is fluid and that the original SEC blogger is biased and simplistic when he opines that ND's athletic financial future is dire and cast in stone.

It looks like other fans did a better job of making those points than I did (not that is such a big surprise, lol).

Anyway, the message of Notre Dame's imminent demise began in the 1930's as soon as Knute Rockne's plane crashed and has continued on pretty much non-stop until today. I think that they are greatly overstated.

(06-17-2009 11:00 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Neil:

I tried to articulate the true depth of the anti-Big Ten feeling at Notre Dame (Gray Avenger's smarmy comments notwithstanding).

I think you may now have a better appreciation of the feelings of ND alumni and fans (and therefore the administration) about the possibility of joining the Big Ten.

They despise the idea.

It really would be the last preference if ND had to join a conference for football. The chances of ND going to the Big Ten are really pretty negligible.

I also tried to set out the argument that ND's situation is fluid and that the original SEC blogger is biased and simplistic when he opines that ND's athletic financial future is dire and cast in stone.

It looks like other fans did a better job of making those points than I did (not that is such a big surprise, lol).

Anyway, the message of Notre Dame's imminent demise began in the 1930's as soon as Knute Rockne's plane crashed and has continued on pretty much non-stop until today. I think that they are greatly overstated.

Hail TerryD!

You did a find job. I was just interested in NDNation responses - since I consider them Fundamentalists Irish fans.

For them it's independence or DEATH! So their commentary on the Big Ten was expected, just as it would be for the ACC and the Big East. I copied and pasted it here more for the benefit of those who do not follow the Irish and understand why the Big Ten isn't the ONLY option, when even a leader like Father Monk Malloy who the fundamentalists were convinced was trying to get ND into a conference had deep reservations about the Big Ten.

Cheers,
Neil

In my humble estimation, the opinions and positions of those "Fundamentalists" are shared by around 90-95 percent of all Irish fans and alumni.

To truly understand Notre Dame and put the Fighting Irish in any meaningful context when discussing conference realignments, etc...one must understand that, for most of the folks at Notre Dame, it really is something (with apologies to Patrick Henry) akin to "Give me football independence or give me death."

That is a sort of bedrock position that most have had for all of their lives and continue to think that way. That will not change any time soon.

That is why the various scenarios portrayed on message boards of "why wouldn't Notre Dame seriously consider this?" miss the mark.

Many think that with the right amount of money or scheduling flexibility, ND would jump at the "right conference situation." That is not so.

That is also why the threat of or an actual ultimatum of "all in or all out" would carry little weight or much of a concern. If push came to shove, ND would sacrifice its other sports to some degree to remain a football independent. That decision would take all of about three seconds.

There seems to be little appreciation or true understanding of the fervor with which Notre Dame alumni and fans (particularly the former) hold football independence. It is viewed as some sort of Holy Grail, all by itself.

When people say "Well, the NBC contract is no longer tops" or "ND would make a ton of money in the Big Ten" and other such statements, they really do not look at the situation from the same perspective as ND folks do.

It is similar to a proposal that "The United States would make a lot of money if it merged with Iran or China."

That might be true, but the total outrage would prevent it from happening.

I know that I am being guilty of gross overstatement with that example (and I am not equating any conference with Iran or China), but I wanted to convey the true depth of the feeling that ND has for its history of football independence.

It will take a seismic event for that to even BEGIN to change.......

(06-17-2009 11:28 PM)TerryD Wrote:  In my humble estimation, the opinions and positions of those "Fundamentalists" are shared by around 90-95 percent of all Irish fans and alumni.

To truly understand Notre Dame and put the Fighting Irish in any meaningful context when discussing conference realignments, etc...one must understand that, for most of the folks at Notre Dame, it really is something (with apologies to Patrick Henry) akin to "Give me football independence or give me death."

That is a sort of bedrock position that most have had for all of their lives and continue to think that way. That will not change any time soon.

That is why the various scenarios portrayed on message boards of "why wouldn't Notre Dame seriously consider this?" miss the mark.

Many think that with the right amount of money or scheduling flexibility, ND would jump at the "right conference situation." That is not so.

That is also why the threat of or an actual ultimatum of "all in or all out" would carry little weight or much of a threat.

There seems to be little appreciation or true understanding of the fervor with which Notre Dame alumni and fans (particularly the former) hold football independence. It is viewed as some sort of Holy Grail, all by itself.

When people say "Well, the NBC contract is no longer tops" or "ND would make a ton of money in the Big Ten" and other such statements, they really do not look at the situation from the same perspective as ND folks do.

It is similar to a proposal that "The United States would make a lot of money if it merged with Iran or China."

That might be true, but the total outrage would prevent it from happening.

I know that I am being guilty of gross overstatement with that example (and I am not equating any conference with Iran or China), but I wanted to convey the true depth of the feeling that ND has for its history of football independence.

It will take a seismic event for that to even BEGIN to change.......

Oh, I understand what you are saying. Having known quite a few of the fundamentalists in my time. But you vastly overestimate that number. I'd say about 20% are the hard-core fundamentalists, the rest are the sheep led about by the hardcore fundamentalists who chant independence! independence! and independence! as if independence alone was the issue. But you are correct that as long as the 20% hardcore fundamentalists are leading the vast majority of sheep, it will take a massive change in the college landscape before ND considers conference membership.

But I think both you and I know that independence by itself is most assuredly NOT the sole issue!

Independence - speaking about these 20% hardcore fans now, NOT the institution - brings with it (I'd say married with it) the notion that ND is scheduling the best of the best. Else why be independent???

The fundamentalists see the mission of the university being brought forth to a starving nation waiting on the word from the Irish coupled with its football. Of course, the word and football can only be spread if it is against the holy of holiest in the college football world, therefore providing the grandest of stages to get their message across. Not for these zealots the homes of the sick or the poor.

So having 7 home games, where 2 of which are one-off body bag games against the likes of San Diego, Nevada, Boise, South Florida, etc., (all fine programs, but beneath contempt to the fundamentalists and their holy grail, similar to the tax collectors and whores in the days of Jesus) will not suffice.

For the true Irish fundamentalist it must be Michigan, USC, and Navy every year and then the other nine opponents must be against 3 upper-level Big Ten/Pac-10/SEC/ACC/Big 12 teams, 3 mid-level teams from those conferences and 3 lower level but name programs from said conferences as well.

Not for them the 7-4-1 model, or sh!tstormin' schedule as they call it. A neutral site game only works for them if they are playing the likes of Texas or FSU at the neutral site. Baylor at the Citrus Dome in Orlando? Washington State at the Alamo Dome? That's not a holy crusade, that's only about making $$$ - no better than the tax collectors (who they see as the cheats in college football today). Forgive these cheaters their sins oh, Lord! And keep their temptations away from us!!!

How can we spread the greater message of ND through showing how our football wins with integrity in a tough sport if we aren't playing and beating the best of the best??? Who, by the way, we know are really cheating unlike us, because they have to be cheating since none of them have the athlete academic standards that we have.

*deep breath* as I return to my normal posting self.

Swarbrick is going to be under a lot of pressure to produce good schedules starting in a year or two. They ran White out of there partly because he hinted at these types of schedules. And as much as I hate to say it, Swarbrick is going to take a lot of heat if both the UConn and SU long-term deals are signed off on and the neutral site games become "Big East" games owned by ESPN and not NBC. Which is why I was wondering earlier what you were hearing on this topic.

If the 20% hardcore fans are forced to give up their marriage of independence with tough schedules because the institutional administrators are unable to produce tough enough schedules for them simply to appease NBC and to make more $$$ to KEEP UP with the Big Ten and the SEC what happens?

I'll tell you what I think has a good chance of happening. It could result in the hardcore 20% believing the right message about ND isn't getting out there, which in turn, can mean, in essence, ND is no better than the cheaters they see winning now. Then what happens?

There exists the strong possibility that if even a minor disturbance in the landscape takes place the majority of sheep may start to wonder, "If independence wasn't about playing tough schedules and getting the message out that ND football wins with integrity in a tough sport against the very best, but was REALLY only about $$$, what's so bad about conference affiliation, again? Especially if conference affiliation results in making more $$$?

And by that time, after fighting an exhaustive but ultimately fruitless battle to get these unbelievable high scheduling standards the hardcore fundamentalists may simply only have enough energy to shrug their shoulders to that question.

Cheers,
Neil

P.S. Let me add that I think ND's schedules are fine as is. But then, I'm not a zealot.

(06-17-2009 11:28 PM)TerryD Wrote:  To truly understand Notre Dame and put the Fighting Irish in any meaningful context when discussing conference realignments, etc...one must understand that, for most of the folks at Notre Dame, it really is something (with apologies to Patrick Henry) akin to "Give me football independence or give me death."

Brave words. It would be interesting to see whether ND would back them up if the Big East tired of bending over the table for them.

Quote:It is similar to a proposal that "The United States would make a lot of money if it merged with Iran or China."

Would the Big East be Iran or China in that analogy?

(06-18-2009 12:31 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-17-2009 11:28 PM)TerryD Wrote:  In my humble estimation, the opinions and positions of those "Fundamentalists" are shared by around 90-95 percent of all Irish fans and alumni.

To truly understand Notre Dame and put the Fighting Irish in any meaningful context when discussing conference realignments, etc...one must understand that, for most of the folks at Notre Dame, it really is something (with apologies to Patrick Henry) akin to "Give me football independence or give me death."

That is a sort of bedrock position that most have had for all of their lives and continue to think that way. That will not change any time soon.

That is why the various scenarios portrayed on message boards of "why wouldn't Notre Dame seriously consider this?" miss the mark.

Many think that with the right amount of money or scheduling flexibility, ND would jump at the "right conference situation." That is not so.

That is also why the threat of or an actual ultimatum of "all in or all out" would carry little weight or much of a threat.

There seems to be little appreciation or true understanding of the fervor with which Notre Dame alumni and fans (particularly the former) hold football independence. It is viewed as some sort of Holy Grail, all by itself.

When people say "Well, the NBC contract is no longer tops" or "ND would make a ton of money in the Big Ten" and other such statements, they really do not look at the situation from the same perspective as ND folks do.

It is similar to a proposal that "The United States would make a lot of money if it merged with Iran or China."

That might be true, but the total outrage would prevent it from happening.

I know that I am being guilty of gross overstatement with that example (and I am not equating any conference with Iran or China), but I wanted to convey the true depth of the feeling that ND has for its history of football independence.

It will take a seismic event for that to even BEGIN to change.......

Oh, I understand what you are saying. Having known quite a few of the fundamentalists in my time. But you vastly overestimate that number. I'd say about 20% are the hard-core fundamentalists, the rest are the sheep led about by the hardcore fundamentalists who chant independence! independence! and independence! as if independence alone was the issue. But you are correct that as long as the 20% hardcore fundamentalists are leading the vast majority of sheep, it will take a massive change in the college landscape before ND considers conference membership.

But I think both you and I know that independence by itself is most assuredly NOT the sole issue!

Independence - speaking about these 20% hardcore fans now, NOT the institution - brings with it (I'd say married with it) the notion that ND is scheduling the best of the best. Else why be independent???

The fundamentalists see the mission of the university being brought forth to a starving nation waiting on the word from the Irish coupled with its football. Of course, the word and football can only be spread if it is against the holy of holiest in the college football world, therefore providing the grandest of stages to get their message across. Not for these zealots the homes of the sick or the poor.

So having 7 home games, where 2 of which are one-off body bag games against the likes of San Diego, Nevada, Boise, South Florida, etc., (all fine programs, but beneath contempt to the fundamentalists and their holy grail, similar to the tax collectors and whores in the days of Jesus) will not suffice.

For the true Irish fundamentalist it must be Michigan, USC, and Navy every year and then the other nine opponents must be against 3 upper-level Big Ten/Pac-10/SEC/ACC/Big 12 teams, 3 mid-level teams from those conferences and 3 lower level but name programs from said conferences as well.

Not for them the 7-4-1 model, or sh!tstormin' schedule as they call it. A neutral site game only works for them if they are playing the likes of Texas or FSU at the neutral site. Baylor at the Citrus Dome in Orlando? Washington State at the Alamo Dome? That's not a holy crusade, that's only about making $$$ - no better than the tax collectors (who they see as the cheats in college football today). Forgive these cheaters their sins oh, Lord! And keep their temptations away from us!!!

How can we spread the greater message of ND through showing how our football wins with integrity in a tough sport if we aren't playing and beating the best of the best??? Who, by the way, we know are really cheating unlike us, because they have to be cheating since none of them have the athlete academic standards that we have.

*deep breath* as I return to my normal posting self.

Swarbrick is going to be under a lot of pressure to produce good schedules starting in a year or two. They ran White out of there partly because he hinted at these types of schedules. And as much as I hate to say it, Swarbrick is going to take a lot of heat if both the UConn and SU long-term deals are signed off on and the neutral site games become "Big East" games owned by ESPN and not NBC. Which is why I was wondering earlier what you were hearing on this topic.

If the 20% hardcore fans are forced to give up their marriage of independence with tough schedules because the institutional administrators are unable to produce tough enough schedules for them simply to appease NBC and to make more $$$ to KEEP UP with the Big Ten and the SEC what happens?

I'll tell you what I think has a good chance of happening. It could result in the hardcore 20% believing the right message about ND isn't getting out there, which in turn, can mean, in essence, ND is no better than the cheaters they see winning now. Then what happens?

There exists the strong possibility that if even a minor disturbance in the landscape takes place the majority of sheep may start to wonder, "If independence wasn't about playing tough schedules and getting the message out that ND football wins with integrity in a tough sport against the very best, but was REALLY only about $$$, what's so bad about conference affiliation, again? Especially if conference affiliation results in making more $$$?

And by that time, after fighting an exhaustive but ultimately fruitless battle to get these unbelievable high scheduling standards the hardcore fundamentalists may simply only have enough energy to shrug their shoulders to that question.

Cheers,
Neil

P.S. Let me add that I think ND's schedules are fine as is. But then, I'm not a zealot.

I think that 20% "fundamentalist" base (I love how you describe it) will never waver in its stance against independence. Even a lot of old-line Penn State supporters wish that the school was still independent. The question, though, is whether ND's actions will continue to be dictated by the fundamentalists or if the ND leadership will end up diverging from them. Penn State's leadership came to the conclusion 20 years ago that Big Ten membership was going to position the school the best for the long-term, even though there were plenty of old school fans that were vehemently against any type of conference membership. Those feelings dissipate over time - almost all of Penn State's undergraduate student body today wasn't even born when the school decided to join the Big Ten.

I know the argument of ND's situation where the leadership is disproportionately influenced by the school's alumni base, but there's a point in every successful organization (whether it's in academics, business, sports, or politics) where the leadership has to make a move that goes against popular opinion at the time. All of the emotional arguments that ND alums and fans have made (and I know tons and tons of Domers) about independence (freedom in football, private, Catholic, etc.) used to be backed up by a concrete objective financial situation where it was truly making more money than any other school in the contract as a result of its NBC contract. Thus, it was a pretty easy leadership decision back in the 1990s - they were making more money because of its independence, not in spite of it, so all of the amorphous emotional reasons were supported by an extremely strong logical reason.

TerryD might be correct in stating the financial advantage of the Big Ten and SEC isn't necessarily permanent and that NBC or another network could kick ND's rights fees up to level greater than those conferences. However, I think the main premise of the Clay Travis blog post that started this thread is onto to something in terms of a broader change. ND used to be truly "special" in an objective sense (not just the media-fueled notions of "tradition" and "independence") - its NBC money made the school financially special compared to every other school. However, the new Big Ten and SEC contracts take away ND's financial specialness - even if ND can get more rights fees in its next contract negotiations, that would only mean that ND is merely keeping up or being on the same financial tier level as the Big Ten and SEC schools (instead of being on a clearly higher financial tier level as they were 10 years ago).

The upshot is that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I don't think that ND's leaders are quite the lackeys for its fundamentalist alumni base as people imply - they have been smart enough to keep ND at a high level for quite awhile (even when they aren't performing that well on the field), so I believe that they are going to be more open to the notion of conference membership in the long-term. However, that doesn't mean any potential changes are coming in the near future - more likely, it will be at least a decade before ND really starts considering a conference membership move (if it does at all). This is going to play out over a very long period of time (i.e. there won't be some mass movement after the current BCS contracts expire - it will likely take another cycle or two after that).

(06-17-2009 10:04 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  According to Tom Jurich, Former Notre Dame AD Kevin White led the push to get UofL into The Big East before Miami and Virginia Tech left for The ACC. Those comments alone would lead one to believe that there is at least some support for UofL at Notre Dame.

First and only time I've ever heard this. However, if it is true, then my thanks go out to Mr. White who is now serving as Duke's AD.

(06-17-2009 10:04 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I do know that Tom is working at this time with Notre Dame trying to get them into PJCS next year to open the stadium expansion. Tom has said there are on going talks with Notre Dame about playing in Paul Brown Stadium in the next few years.

I've heard from several reliable Louisville posters/fans that Notre Dame has expressed less than zero interest in playing PJCS when Louisville approached them about it. Jurich did graciously received an invitation to play in South Bend whenever Louisville wanted to make the trip. Tom may be trying to get the Irish here, but from every account I've heard, that isn't going to happen. If UofL plays Notre Dame, then it will be neutral (I've heard both Cincinnati and Indianapolis) or at South Band.

(06-17-2009 10:04 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I don't have any doubt that if Notre Dame led an effort to start a new conference that Louisville would certainly be involved.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If your above statements are indeed correct, then it is important to remember that it was Kevin White (former ND AD) not John I. Jenkins (ND president) that was big on Louisville joining the Big East. Athletic directors may have some pull when it comes to conference affairs, but ultimately it will be the university presidents, boards of trustees, etc that will vote on conference affiliation. So the question is whether John I. Jenkins and ND board of trustees would want UofL associated with Notre Dame. In addition, keep in mind that Kevin White is now at Duke University and that Notre Dame's new athletic director may not view us in the same light as you claim White did.

My guess is that if Louisville got invited to Notre Dame's new conference, it would be more due to the fact that we were the "best of the rest" rather than Notre Dame actually wanting us in the conference. I'd guarantee that PSU, Maryland, UConn, Rutgers, Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, and Pitt would all receive invitations before us.

(06-18-2009 09:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think that 20% "fundamentalist" base (I love how you describe it) will never waver in its stance against independence. Even a lot of old-line Penn State supporters wish that the school was still independent. The question, though, is whether ND's actions will continue to be dictated by the fundamentalists or if the ND leadership will end up diverging from them. Penn State's leadership came to the conclusion 20 years ago that Big Ten membership was going to position the school the best for the long-term, even though there were plenty of old school fans that were vehemently against any type of conference membership. Those feelings dissipate over time - almost all of Penn State's undergraduate student body today wasn't even born when the school decided to join the Big Ten.

I know the argument of ND's situation where the leadership is disproportionately influenced by the school's alumni base, but there's a point in every successful organization (whether it's in academics, business, sports, or politics) where the leadership has to make a move that goes against popular opinion at the time. All of the emotional arguments that ND alums and fans have made (and I know tons and tons of Domers) about independence (freedom in football, private, Catholic, etc.) used to be backed up by a concrete objective financial situation where it was truly making more money than any other school in the contract as a result of its NBC contract. Thus, it was a pretty easy leadership decision back in the 1990s - they were making more money because of its independence, not in spite of it, so all of the amorphous emotional reasons were supported by an extremely strong logical reason.

TerryD might be correct in stating the financial advantage of the Big Ten and SEC isn't necessarily permanent and that NBC or another network could kick ND's rights fees up to level greater than those conferences. However, I think the main premise of the Clay Travis blog post that started this thread is onto to something in terms of a broader change. ND used to be truly "special" in an objective sense (not just the media-fueled notions of "tradition" and "independence") - its NBC money made the school financially special compared to every other school. However, the new Big Ten and SEC contracts take away ND's financial specialness - even if ND can get more rights fees in its next contract negotiations, that would only mean that ND is merely keeping up or being on the same financial tier level as the Big Ten and SEC schools (instead of being on a clearly higher financial tier level as they were 10 years ago).

The upshot is that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I don't think that ND's leaders are quite the lackeys for its fundamentalist alumni base as people imply - they have been smart enough to keep ND at a high level for quite awhile (even when they aren't performing that well on the field), so I believe that they are going to be more open to the notion of conference membership in the long-term. However, that doesn't mean any potential changes are coming in the near future - more likely, it will be at least a decade before ND really starts considering a conference membership move (if it does at all). This is going to play out over a very long period of time (i.e. there won't be some mass movement after the current BCS contracts expire - it will likely take another cycle or two after that).

Agree with just about everything you said, and the little bit I would have phrased differently, isn't really worth extending the ND part of the discussion.

So, I'm back to what I ended Post #66 with, IF it's going to take at least one more cycle after their next TV contract negotiations, how long will the Big Ten wait?

Even with BTN monies and the SEC under their old contracts, the SEC wasn't too far behind in overall revenues because they tend to make more than Big Ten teams in terms of their football. Now that the SEC has closed the gap in TV monies, how long does the Big Ten wait out ND? The ball is in their court. Again, they don't NEED to rush into anything. They can be the second best conference in overall revenue and still be perfectly happy.

But that means the question Clay Travis asked of ND, is now relevant to the Big Ten as well. After all, they are leaving a lot of potential money on the table by not expanding into a new state and by not having a conference championship game.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Neil

(06-18-2009 01:12 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-18-2009 09:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think that 20% "fundamentalist" base (I love how you describe it) will never waver in its stance against independence. Even a lot of old-line Penn State supporters wish that the school was still independent. The question, though, is whether ND's actions will continue to be dictated by the fundamentalists or if the ND leadership will end up diverging from them. Penn State's leadership came to the conclusion 20 years ago that Big Ten membership was going to position the school the best for the long-term, even though there were plenty of old school fans that were vehemently against any type of conference membership. Those feelings dissipate over time - almost all of Penn State's undergraduate student body today wasn't even born when the school decided to join the Big Ten.

I know the argument of ND's situation where the leadership is disproportionately influenced by the school's alumni base, but there's a point in every successful organization (whether it's in academics, business, sports, or politics) where the leadership has to make a move that goes against popular opinion at the time. All of the emotional arguments that ND alums and fans have made (and I know tons and tons of Domers) about independence (freedom in football, private, Catholic, etc.) used to be backed up by a concrete objective financial situation where it was truly making more money than any other school in the contract as a result of its NBC contract. Thus, it was a pretty easy leadership decision back in the 1990s - they were making more money because of its independence, not in spite of it, so all of the amorphous emotional reasons were supported by an extremely strong logical reason.

TerryD might be correct in stating the financial advantage of the Big Ten and SEC isn't necessarily permanent and that NBC or another network could kick ND's rights fees up to level greater than those conferences. However, I think the main premise of the Clay Travis blog post that started this thread is onto to something in terms of a broader change. ND used to be truly "special" in an objective sense (not just the media-fueled notions of "tradition" and "independence") - its NBC money made the school financially special compared to every other school. However, the new Big Ten and SEC contracts take away ND's financial specialness - even if ND can get more rights fees in its next contract negotiations, that would only mean that ND is merely keeping up or being on the same financial tier level as the Big Ten and SEC schools (instead of being on a clearly higher financial tier level as they were 10 years ago).

The upshot is that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I don't think that ND's leaders are quite the lackeys for its fundamentalist alumni base as people imply - they have been smart enough to keep ND at a high level for quite awhile (even when they aren't performing that well on the field), so I believe that they are going to be more open to the notion of conference membership in the long-term. However, that doesn't mean any potential changes are coming in the near future - more likely, it will be at least a decade before ND really starts considering a conference membership move (if it does at all). This is going to play out over a very long period of time (i.e. there won't be some mass movement after the current BCS contracts expire - it will likely take another cycle or two after that).

Agree with just about everything you said, and the little bit I would have phrased differently, isn't really worth extending the ND part of the discussion.

So, I'm back to what I ended Post #66 with, IF it's going to take at least one more cycle after their next TV contract negotiations, how long will the Big Ten wait?

Even with BTN monies and the SEC under their old contracts, the SEC wasn't too far behind in overall revenues because they tend to make more than Big Ten teams in terms of their football. Now that the SEC has closed the gap in TV monies, how long does the Big Ten wait out ND? The ball is in their court. Again, they don't NEED to rush into anything. They can be the second best conference in overall revenue and still be perfectly happy.

But that means the question Clay Travis asked of ND, is now relevant to the Big Ten as well. After all, they are leaving a lot of potential money on the table by not expanding into a new state and by not having a conference championship game.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Neil

Someone said this in another thread (I can't recall where or who said this, but credit is due to that poster): The Big Ten will wait for the simple fact that the last thing that it would want to happen is to invite a 12th team and then ND decides that it wants to join a conference thereafter. The converse is also true in that much of ND's leverage and freedom is based upon the fact that the Big Ten could naturally extend them an invitation down the road. In a way, it's almost a Cold War between the Big Ten and ND (and by extension, the rest of conferences' alignments). That 12th open spot in the Big Ten keeps both parties in check just the way Mutually Assured Destruction ensured that neither the US nor the USSR started firing nukes first. As long as ND is independent, then the incentive for the Big Ten to move isn't very great - even though the Big Ten might be leaving some money on the table today by not having a conference championship game, it knows for a fact that it would be eliminating the prospect of being the megapower conference above all others if that 12th spot goes to anyone other than Notre Dame. It also scares the crap out of other conferences that one of their teams might move (particularly the Big East and Big 12) - the Big Ten isn't keeping that spot open for that purpose, but it's always better to be the scarer than the scaree and it shows where the power lies. Likewise, as long as the Big Ten has a 12th spot open, then ND will always have a massive leveraging tool with the Big East and other entities along with a fallback position. That open 12th spot is essentially an insurance policy: any threat of the BE taking action against ND will be thrown out the window as soon as ND suggests that it would just move over to the Big Ten, while if things get tougher later on for ND as a result of football independence, then that 12th spot is naturally there for them.

So, it's a situation where both the Big Ten and ND are simultaneously better off with either (1) maintaining the status quo completely or (2) joining together completely. Each of those scenarios trump the Big Ten adding a 12th team other than ND when everything is taken into account.