Anyway, I don't think he had some huge master plan but a set of parameters that the Big Ten presidents had previously accepted. We've gone through the names before, so it doesn't need repeating.

Like an old military saying, the greatest of plans don't necessarily survive the first contact with the enemy. The "enemy" in this case being the other P conferences. All of them have to react to what others were doing.

The Big Ten reacted to what the ACC and PAC were doing; the SEC to what the PAC, ACC and Big Ten were doing; and the Big 12 to what the PAC, SEC, ACC and Big Ten were doing.

(06-02-2019 06:37 PM)goofus Wrote:  Missouri is a better cultural and geographic fit for the Big Ten.

Regardless of market size, most of the midwest schools in the Big Ten simply don't get the new obsession with East coast expansion and playing bowl games or tourneys in NYC. It would not bother me if I never set foot in New York City ever again. It's just not a great place to visit.

Goofus, I'll try and give you my best educated opinion I can on this topic. I'm more to the point and probably will leave things out.

First, Maryland, Rutgers and Nebraska were all grand slams for the Big 10. They were much better adds for the Big 10 than Missouri. No disrespect to, Missouri, it's just how it played out.

Do you enjoy playing in this great conference? I know I'm glad Ohio State is still here. Ok, so with an area of the country declining in population like the midwest and/or great lakes region the Big 10 had to act or this conference could have easily dissolved. Why, recruiting is the absolute main reason. That's where Rutgers comes in, so be kind and thank them. Plus, their market doesn't hurt much either, does it? And they fit well with their academics, yes that matters.

Maryland, look at that, even more recruits coming from that state. Go ahead and thank them too while you're at it. Plus, they have a pretty nice market too, am I right? Also, the All Clown Conference can spin it anyway they want, but, losing Maryland hurts them more than helps them. Hey, they are happy with the addition of Louisville, hell I dont know why but they are?

Nebraska, are you at least happy with this addition? I mean, one of the top programs out there. No market and no recruits but name alone trumps all that.

So the Big 10 acted in what would benefit the conference 20, 30, 50, 100etc...years from now. The three schools they added checked the boxes of what they wanted and that's what they got. Sure UNC, Virginia, GT and others were attractive. It just didn't happen and this is where we are. I'm am very appreciative of the three schools added. They will become woven into the conference even more with the passing years.

So as simple as I can be, be happy that Iowa is in the Big 10. It's a great conference even though it has gone east. I'm happy Ohio State is here and I hope they are forever! The midwest is thin and the new additions are balancing some of that out.

(06-02-2019 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 10:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:48 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Delaney and the B1G by no means "botched" expansion during the 2010-2013 cycle, but I do think they underestimated/miscalculated what the SEC was going to do with regards to their expansion plans.

The B1G kicked off the realignment cycle in 2009 when Delaney announced expansion plans (Nebraska was added in June, 2010). I believe that Delaney thought that the SEC was pursuing/was going to pursue A&M (which was public knowledge at that point, considered the Texahoma-PAC expansion plans), as well as Southern ACC programs that would have added new territories for the SEC (Virginia Tech, UNC, Duke, NC State) as well as West Virginia (Big 12). I also believe Delaney believed that Missouri was going to be available/willing for #13 (and beyond). This, IMO, is the only mistake/miscalculation that Delaney made during the cycle (I think the B1G missing out on Missouri was a big mistake). Missouri was announced to the SEC in November, 2011; Rutgers and Maryland were both announced to the B1G in November, 2012 (which were hardly bad fallback options).

If Delaney had grabbed Missouri earlier (and then moved to grab Maryland as #14, instead of Rutgers), I think the SEC would have still acquired Texas A&M and then got Virginia Tech from the ACC. The ACC would have still acquired Syracuse and Pittsburgh, but - here - instead of the ACC getting Louisville to replace Maryland, they acquire West Virginia/Rutgers to replace Virginia Tech. The Big 12 could have looked to West Virginia/Cincinnati/Louisville/TCU to get back to ten, or even twelve, members.

MIssouri is not a fast growing state. CBS was explaining why a top 10 Missouri team didn't get the SEC game of the week-because they were one of the lowest draws in the SEC. That's why CBS didn't pay a dime extra for Missouri and A&M. A&M was no better than average for the SEC and Missouri was below average. CBS still got the same number of games.

Missouri was not a loss. It did nothing for the Big 10.

And you are wrong in your assessment other than the bolded and underlined portion of your post. CBS didn't pay another dime because there was no addition to their inventory. It wouldn't have mattered if the additions had been Texas and Oklahoma. CBS had 17 games paid for and 17 games was all they were still going to get. That's the beginning, end, and middle of the issue.

The rest is is just hard feelings over two Big 12 schools leaving Texas and buds on their own.

I guarantee they would have paid more if it was Texas and Oklahoma. And all you SEC people were bragging about how much more you would get on all the contracts. CBS said no. Those two schools drug down the average ratings in a conference that already had LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida.

(06-02-2019 06:37 PM)goofus Wrote:  Missouri is a better cultural and geographic fit for the Big Ten.

Regardless of market size, most of the midwest schools in the Big Ten simply don't get the new obsession with East coast expansion and playing bowl games or tourneys in NYC. It would not bother me if I never set foot in New York City ever again. It's just not a great place to visit.

The schools totally get the east coast obsession. Its about connecting with well-heeled alumni and trying to bring in some out of state students from the heavily populated northeast. Its NOT about cultural fit. Although Rutgers and Maryland are enormous state universities like all the Big 10 but Northwestern. Maryland was much bigger than the typical ACC school.

(06-02-2019 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 10:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:48 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Delaney and the B1G by no means "botched" expansion during the 2010-2013 cycle, but I do think they underestimated/miscalculated what the SEC was going to do with regards to their expansion plans.

The B1G kicked off the realignment cycle in 2009 when Delaney announced expansion plans (Nebraska was added in June, 2010). I believe that Delaney thought that the SEC was pursuing/was going to pursue A&M (which was public knowledge at that point, considered the Texahoma-PAC expansion plans), as well as Southern ACC programs that would have added new territories for the SEC (Virginia Tech, UNC, Duke, NC State) as well as West Virginia (Big 12). I also believe Delaney believed that Missouri was going to be available/willing for #13 (and beyond). This, IMO, is the only mistake/miscalculation that Delaney made during the cycle (I think the B1G missing out on Missouri was a big mistake). Missouri was announced to the SEC in November, 2011; Rutgers and Maryland were both announced to the B1G in November, 2012 (which were hardly bad fallback options).

If Delaney had grabbed Missouri earlier (and then moved to grab Maryland as #14, instead of Rutgers), I think the SEC would have still acquired Texas A&M and then got Virginia Tech from the ACC. The ACC would have still acquired Syracuse and Pittsburgh, but - here - instead of the ACC getting Louisville to replace Maryland, they acquire West Virginia/Rutgers to replace Virginia Tech. The Big 12 could have looked to West Virginia/Cincinnati/Louisville/TCU to get back to ten, or even twelve, members.

MIssouri is not a fast growing state. CBS was explaining why a top 10 Missouri team didn't get the SEC game of the week-because they were one of the lowest draws in the SEC. That's why CBS didn't pay a dime extra for Missouri and A&M. A&M was no better than average for the SEC and Missouri was below average. CBS still got the same number of games.

Missouri was not a loss. It did nothing for the Big 10.

And you are wrong in your assessment other than the bolded and underlined portion of your post. CBS didn't pay another dime because there was no addition to their inventory. It wouldn't have mattered if the additions had been Texas and Oklahoma. CBS had 17 games paid for and 17 games was all they were still going to get. That's the beginning, end, and middle of the issue.

The rest is is just hard feelings over two Big 12 schools leaving Texas and buds on their own.

I guarantee they would have paid more if it was Texas and Oklahoma. And all you SEC people were bragging about how much more you would get on all the contracts. CBS said no. Those two schools drug down the average ratings in a conference that already had LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida.

CBS would not have paid more if the SEC had added Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Notre Dame.

Why not? Because they didn't have to! The contract did not require that they pay more if the SEC added teams. ANY teams.

In fact, CBS did cut the SEC a little break by lifting their exclusive broadcast window to pave the way for the SECN. But they didn't have to offer any more money for the new teams, so they didn't.

(06-02-2019 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 10:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:48 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Delaney and the B1G by no means "botched" expansion during the 2010-2013 cycle, but I do think they underestimated/miscalculated what the SEC was going to do with regards to their expansion plans.

The B1G kicked off the realignment cycle in 2009 when Delaney announced expansion plans (Nebraska was added in June, 2010). I believe that Delaney thought that the SEC was pursuing/was going to pursue A&M (which was public knowledge at that point, considered the Texahoma-PAC expansion plans), as well as Southern ACC programs that would have added new territories for the SEC (Virginia Tech, UNC, Duke, NC State) as well as West Virginia (Big 12). I also believe Delaney believed that Missouri was going to be available/willing for #13 (and beyond). This, IMO, is the only mistake/miscalculation that Delaney made during the cycle (I think the B1G missing out on Missouri was a big mistake). Missouri was announced to the SEC in November, 2011; Rutgers and Maryland were both announced to the B1G in November, 2012 (which were hardly bad fallback options).

If Delaney had grabbed Missouri earlier (and then moved to grab Maryland as #14, instead of Rutgers), I think the SEC would have still acquired Texas A&M and then got Virginia Tech from the ACC. The ACC would have still acquired Syracuse and Pittsburgh, but - here - instead of the ACC getting Louisville to replace Maryland, they acquire West Virginia/Rutgers to replace Virginia Tech. The Big 12 could have looked to West Virginia/Cincinnati/Louisville/TCU to get back to ten, or even twelve, members.

MIssouri is not a fast growing state. CBS was explaining why a top 10 Missouri team didn't get the SEC game of the week-because they were one of the lowest draws in the SEC. That's why CBS didn't pay a dime extra for Missouri and A&M. A&M was no better than average for the SEC and Missouri was below average. CBS still got the same number of games.

Missouri was not a loss. It did nothing for the Big 10.

And you are wrong in your assessment other than the bolded and underlined portion of your post. CBS didn't pay another dime because there was no addition to their inventory. It wouldn't have mattered if the additions had been Texas and Oklahoma. CBS had 17 games paid for and 17 games was all they were still going to get. That's the beginning, end, and middle of the issue.

The rest is is just hard feelings over two Big 12 schools leaving Texas and buds on their own.

I guarantee they would have paid more if it was Texas and Oklahoma. And all you SEC people were bragging about how much more you would get on all the contracts. CBS said no. Those two schools drug down the average ratings in a conference that already had LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida.

All of you SEC people? I thought you pulled for Kentucky and Georgia in addition to Texas. Guess those true colors are showing now. The addition of A&M and Missouri did more for us than any other conference's additions save for the ACC who was saved by their initial additions and strengthened by their later ones. I guess T.C.U. and W.V.U. at least saved the Big 12's TV contract so there's that.

(06-01-2019 04:03 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Nebraska was off the table for the PAC. They were already committed to the Big Ten. If they were available, PAC would have went after them.

If the Big Ten had chosen Missouri instead at that time, and if Texas had still said no to Scott, then IMO the Pac-10 would have invited Colorado and Nebraska -- but I don't know whether Nebraska would have accepted. The Pac-12 makes sense for CU because California is both their largest source of students from out of state, by far, and the state (other than Colorado) with the most CU alums, by far. That's not the case for Nebraska.

Nebraska was a nice get, even if they're struggling. The Maryland and Rutgers invitations I was always skeptical of, Rutgers seriously has struggled since joining the B1G. How much does the NYC market matter when your team is 1-11 to 4-8 every year? Was Syracuse & Pitt already gone when they invited Rutgers & Maryland?

(06-01-2019 01:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 12:23 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  PAC would have been very interested in Nebraska. Nebraska is a top 10 brand in college football. It was a slam dunk done deal for the Big Ten. That is why no chatter for the PAC expansion on them.

Texas, A&M, TTU, Okla, Ok St, and Colorado were who they wanted--not Nebraska.v

Of those, A&M did NOT want the PAC. From a PAC fan point of view combined with an SEC point of view, the PAC should have concentrated on Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Ok St., and Colorado, since A&M knew they wanted the SEC.

(06-02-2019 06:37 PM)goofus Wrote:  Missouri is a better cultural and geographic fit for the Big Ten.

Regardless of market size, most of the midwest schools in the Big Ten simply don't get the new obsession with East coast expansion and playing bowl games or tourneys in NYC. It would not bother me if I never set foot in New York City ever again. It's just not a great place to visit.

Two words: Penn State. That's why. Much like how FSU strong-armed the ACC into taking Miami, Penn State strong-armed the Big Ten into taking Rutgers and Maryland.

(06-02-2019 09:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 10:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:48 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Delaney and the B1G by no means "botched" expansion during the 2010-2013 cycle, but I do think they underestimated/miscalculated what the SEC was going to do with regards to their expansion plans.

The B1G kicked off the realignment cycle in 2009 when Delaney announced expansion plans (Nebraska was added in June, 2010). I believe that Delaney thought that the SEC was pursuing/was going to pursue A&M (which was public knowledge at that point, considered the Texahoma-PAC expansion plans), as well as Southern ACC programs that would have added new territories for the SEC (Virginia Tech, UNC, Duke, NC State) as well as West Virginia (Big 12). I also believe Delaney believed that Missouri was going to be available/willing for #13 (and beyond). This, IMO, is the only mistake/miscalculation that Delaney made during the cycle (I think the B1G missing out on Missouri was a big mistake). Missouri was announced to the SEC in November, 2011; Rutgers and Maryland were both announced to the B1G in November, 2012 (which were hardly bad fallback options).

If Delaney had grabbed Missouri earlier (and then moved to grab Maryland as #14, instead of Rutgers), I think the SEC would have still acquired Texas A&M and then got Virginia Tech from the ACC. The ACC would have still acquired Syracuse and Pittsburgh, but - here - instead of the ACC getting Louisville to replace Maryland, they acquire West Virginia/Rutgers to replace Virginia Tech. The Big 12 could have looked to West Virginia/Cincinnati/Louisville/TCU to get back to ten, or even twelve, members.

MIssouri is not a fast growing state. CBS was explaining why a top 10 Missouri team didn't get the SEC game of the week-because they were one of the lowest draws in the SEC. That's why CBS didn't pay a dime extra for Missouri and A&M. A&M was no better than average for the SEC and Missouri was below average. CBS still got the same number of games.

Missouri was not a loss. It did nothing for the Big 10.

And you are wrong in your assessment other than the bolded and underlined portion of your post. CBS didn't pay another dime because there was no addition to their inventory. It wouldn't have mattered if the additions had been Texas and Oklahoma. CBS had 17 games paid for and 17 games was all they were still going to get. That's the beginning, end, and middle of the issue.

The rest is is just hard feelings over two Big 12 schools leaving Texas and buds on their own.

I guarantee they would have paid more if it was Texas and Oklahoma. And all you SEC people were bragging about how much more you would get on all the contracts. CBS said no. Those two schools drug down the average ratings in a conference that already had LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida.

CBS would not have paid more if the SEC had added Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Notre Dame.

Why not? Because they didn't have to! The contract did not require that they pay more if the SEC added teams. ANY teams.

In fact, CBS did cut the SEC a little break by lifting their exclusive broadcast window to pave the way for the SECN. But they didn't have to offer any more money for the new teams, so they didn't.

I thought the same thing about ESPN. But in fact, they gave the SEC a big bump because the SEC was relatively undervalued and A&M pulled their weight even if Missouri didn't. Just as they gave the ACC a decent bump for adding Pitt and Syracuse who were probably no more valuable than the average ACC school. ESPN did not just give pro rata, but raised the ACC, as I recall from about $13 million per school to $17 million with that addition. Then they bumped it up again for partially getting Notre Dame.

(06-02-2019 01:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 05:30 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 12:42 PM)Rob from NJ Wrote:  At the time the expansion with Nebraska was about the additional revenue of a Conference Championship game by adding a 12th school, as well as, adding a top national brand. The expansion East was about the additional revenue from cable boxes. Rutgers and Maryland fit the bill. Penn State already has the Western Pennsylvania cable market covered for BTN, thus, Pitt was duplication and the Syracuse cable marketplace was smaller.

Notre Dame was remaining independent no matter what. Their objective is first to secure independence and then to align with a Conference with access to their post season games. The ACC was perfect fit. The Big Ten not so much.

Delany did exactly what he needed to do and their significant jump in TV revenue since this expansion is point of proof. Of course, it's all opinion and subject to looking back in time with present information.

Completely agree.

ND's primary goal in CR was and is to keep football independent. A secondary goal is to find a good home for basketball, baseball and Olympic sports. Another goal is to have minor bowl access.

ND signed the NBC deal in 1991 to provide the revenues and exposure needed to remain a football independent.

The main reason ND joined the Big East in 1995 was that it was agreeable to a partial/non-football membership, gave it a good other sports home and provided minor bowl access.

ND turned the Big Ten down in 1999 for a lot of reasons, but mainly because it would not do a partial deal that excluded the football program.

ND was not going to place its football program in a conference, especially not the Big Ten.

The ACC was ideal for a bunch of reasons, but mainly because it allowed a partial/non-football membership.

It also provides minor bowl access and a great home for the other sports.

If the ACC had not agreed to a partial deal, ND would have tried to cut a partial/non-football deal (through DeLoss Dodds) with the Big 12.

Failing all that, ND would have gone with the new Big East.



No matter what Jim Delaney did, ND was not going to join the Big Ten in full.

Follow the post though--the ACC the Irish would be joining doesn't have Pitt, or Syracuse, or BC.

at this point the Big Ten would have 5 of your rivals/regular opponents and we'd probably go for an 8 game conference schedule for you to accomodate USC, Navy, a G conference home game, and a rotating big time opponent. It's essentially everything the Irish could want only with more media revenue and an easier path to the post season.

Do you really want to join Tobacco Road and friends when the Big Ten has the big urban Catholic markets you want a presence in?

Deloss Dodd might be able to get you a partial Big 12 deal but you're closest opponent is going to be Iowa St and you're going to be playing in the Baptist Belt in a bunch of small towns--that's not Notre Dame's style.

The only way ND maintains their independence if the Big Ten did that expansion is by playing Olympic sports with the Catholic 7.

That would be irrelevant. ND doesn't really care all that much about BC, Pitt or Syracuse.

They have a long history with Pitt, not much with Syracuse and some recent history with BC.

But, they have already agreed to not play Pitt or BC annually any longer.

Those annual games had to go to get the ACC partial deal that keeps football independent.

So...they went. They were not that important as opposed to remaining independent.

(In your scenario, if ND wanted to keep some games with Pitt or BC, it could schedule them with the 7 games per year it controls)

ND has already kicked the annual Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue games to the curb.

Do you know why?

Because those games had to go to keep football independent.

So, you know what? They went. They were not so important to ND as opposed to independence.

(Notice a trend?)

So what if those teams (Pitt, BC, Syracuse) were not in the ACC?

So what if the Big Ten had "Catholic markets"?

If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

(06-02-2019 11:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 08:56 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 10:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:48 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Delaney and the B1G by no means "botched" expansion during the 2010-2013 cycle, but I do think they underestimated/miscalculated what the SEC was going to do with regards to their expansion plans.

The B1G kicked off the realignment cycle in 2009 when Delaney announced expansion plans (Nebraska was added in June, 2010). I believe that Delaney thought that the SEC was pursuing/was going to pursue A&M (which was public knowledge at that point, considered the Texahoma-PAC expansion plans), as well as Southern ACC programs that would have added new territories for the SEC (Virginia Tech, UNC, Duke, NC State) as well as West Virginia (Big 12). I also believe Delaney believed that Missouri was going to be available/willing for #13 (and beyond). This, IMO, is the only mistake/miscalculation that Delaney made during the cycle (I think the B1G missing out on Missouri was a big mistake). Missouri was announced to the SEC in November, 2011; Rutgers and Maryland were both announced to the B1G in November, 2012 (which were hardly bad fallback options).

If Delaney had grabbed Missouri earlier (and then moved to grab Maryland as #14, instead of Rutgers), I think the SEC would have still acquired Texas A&M and then got Virginia Tech from the ACC. The ACC would have still acquired Syracuse and Pittsburgh, but - here - instead of the ACC getting Louisville to replace Maryland, they acquire West Virginia/Rutgers to replace Virginia Tech. The Big 12 could have looked to West Virginia/Cincinnati/Louisville/TCU to get back to ten, or even twelve, members.

MIssouri is not a fast growing state. CBS was explaining why a top 10 Missouri team didn't get the SEC game of the week-because they were one of the lowest draws in the SEC. That's why CBS didn't pay a dime extra for Missouri and A&M. A&M was no better than average for the SEC and Missouri was below average. CBS still got the same number of games.

Missouri was not a loss. It did nothing for the Big 10.

And you are wrong in your assessment other than the bolded and underlined portion of your post. CBS didn't pay another dime because there was no addition to their inventory. It wouldn't have mattered if the additions had been Texas and Oklahoma. CBS had 17 games paid for and 17 games was all they were still going to get. That's the beginning, end, and middle of the issue.

The rest is is just hard feelings over two Big 12 schools leaving Texas and buds on their own.

I guarantee they would have paid more if it was Texas and Oklahoma. And all you SEC people were bragging about how much more you would get on all the contracts. CBS said no. Those two schools drug down the average ratings in a conference that already had LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida.

All of you SEC people? I thought you pulled for Kentucky and Georgia in addition to Texas. Guess those true colors are showing now. The addition of A&M and Missouri did more for us than any other conference's additions save for the ACC who was saved by their initial additions and strengthened by their later ones. I guess T.C.U. and W.V.U. at least saved the Big 12's TV contract so there's that.

Missouri is not a blue blood program by any measure. But they are far from the weakling we are seeing described in this thread. I think they are still suffering from their public relations problem from a few years back. They will make some noise as time goes by.
Because they will always be considered the Longhorn's little brother, A&M does not get recognized as the gawd awful giant program that they are.

(06-02-2019 10:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-02-2019 09:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 05:30 PM)TerryD Wrote:  No matter what Jim Delaney did, ND was not going to join the Big Ten in full.

Yes, ND has said that the only thing that would change their mind about conference membership would be if the path to a football national title was closed off, formally or in practice, for independents.

So if you were a Machiavellian commissioner trying to maneuver ND in to your conference, you would want to engineer CFP rules that make it basically impossible for a school outside a conference to make the playoffs.

That's why ND's arrangement with the ACC was genius on the Irish's part: By explicitly stating that if they join a conference in the next 15-20 years it MUST be the ACC, Notre Dame immediately gave the other four P5 conferences a big incentive to keep that indy-path to the title open.

Notre Dame will join a conference when they find it too difficult to have success as an independent. That time isn't now and it wasn't 2010. Kelly has had a couple of excellent seasons in the last 6-7 years.

They key for them is to recognize that time before their value has significantly declined.

Here is a recent article addressing this, as well as showing that Tim Brando was full of **** when he predicted three years ago yesterday that ND football would join the ACC within three years of his comments because of the launch of the ACC Network:

"Brando is correct that Notre Dame cannot command the same television revenue as their ACC brethren, but the Irish acknowledge that.

“There’s no financial advantage to Notre Dame being independent,” Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick told ND Insider last December. “There is no competitive advantage to get into the College Football Playoff for Notre Dame to be independent. So why are we independent?We’re independent to have opportunities like this one (playing the Wisconsin Badgers in the Shamrock Series).”

I believe the desire to maintain independence also transcends football, which Brando either doesn’t understand or dismisses prematurely.

“I’ve long argued that Notre Dame would lose money by joining a conference, but the loss would come in donations,” The Athletic’s Pete Sampson tweeted last December. “When independence is your culture — athletic and institutional — and you’re raising $700 million per year in development, you don’t sweat $10 million in media rights.”


https://www.onefootdown.com/2019/6/2/186...CzrGnHTS7g



The bottom line is that ND understands that it could have made a lot more media and conference distribution money if it had joined the Big Ten, but is happy it did not.

It sees the football program as a marketing tool for its pitch that it is a national university, not a regional one.

It also is well aware and informed that an alumni and donor revolt would erupt if the Administration surrenders football independence.

That donor threat (very loudly and often expressed) moots any issue about making less in media deals.

Besides, ND already had newly built or renovated most of its facilities, fully funds 26 sports and then still sends $20-25 million a year from the athletic budget to the academic side, so it is not hurting over media dollars.

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

It will never happen for a lot of reasons, but I always thought Notre Dame should have done a partial membership with the SEC instead of the ACC. Would have a lot more huge matchups, more fertile recruiting ground, and ND still gets the national schedule.

Is the B1G discriminating against Rutgers? BTN is airing a "(insert team) Football Classic" from 2018 of every team but Rutgers. Conference networks are supposed to be equitable and foster growth of each brand.

(06-03-2019 01:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

It will never happen for a lot of reasons, but I always thought Notre Dame should have done a partial membership with the SEC instead of the ACC. Would have a lot more huge matchups, more fertile recruiting ground, and ND still gets the national schedule.

I dont know that you could say "a lot more huge matchups." The SEC has more teams that are in the running for a CFP every season. But really, is there a huge difference between the SEC top of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas AM, LSU and Auburn, as opposed to the ACC top group of Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, Louisville and GT? Of course the edge goes to the SEC, but the difference is not huge. The next grouping of Tennessee, MSU, Kentucky, Missouri and Arkansas is not much more appealing, if at all, than NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Virginia.

Then the difference in academic prestige is actually huge between the ACC and SEC. Not to mention the other revenue sport, men's basketball. The other difference is that Notre Dame enjoys playing in the northeast every year where they like to recruit for their students. The SEC cant do that for ND. I believe that if the SEC and ACC were both willing to allow ND partial membership to satisfy ND's quasi-independence desire, that ND would choose the ACC every time.
And I know none of this really matters to your point but its the off season. What else an I going to talk about?

(06-03-2019 01:20 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Is the B1G discriminating against Rutgers? BTN is airing a "(insert team) Football Classic" from 2018 of every team but Rutgers. Conference networks are supposed to be equitable and foster growth of each brand.

Nah. In 2018 Rutgers had 1 win to show against Texas State and I would not call that a Classic.

(06-02-2019 10:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 04:50 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 03:59 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 03:34 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Hmmm Texas or Nebraska......

Nebraska won't split the conference in half politically, try to railroad a bunch of "reforms" to screw over their new conference mates and then start flirting with other conferences the moment the rest of the Big Ten becomes too destabilized from their double-dealing, so there's that.
Texas is poison.

The only one that wanted illiterate criminals on the football field was Tom Osborne.
When you lose 11-1, you should take a hint. Osborne never did. He had some awesome football teams in the 90s, perhaps the best ever, but nobody else wanted to go that route.

What he wanted isn't any different than what Boise State is doing now and makes sense when you have a relatively weak conference academically like the Big 8 was. Regardless, that doesn't include making it so laws have to be won 9-3 to pass, giving Texas a functional veto since the four schools in Texas vote as a bloc, and moving the conference offices and football championship game to Dallas from KC.
Besides, I wouldn't say Texas has a strong track record of throwing a bunch of scholars on the field either. Remember Vince Young's Wonderlic?

He was no Lawrence Phillips. And Nebraska had 23 Prop 16s (or whatever it was called) on one of those teams, more than any other conference in the country.

Yeah, you guys are lucky that your own mentally ill failure of a running back decided to kill a promising career so he could stay home and smoke weed instead. Grats. Hook 'em. Phillips was one rehab case gone horribly wrong over how many that ended up successful?
Also, the results speak for themselves. Football CoSIDA All-Americans, Nebraska's 1st, Texas tied for 14th.
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=3943

(06-03-2019 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

It will never happen for a lot of reasons, but I always thought Notre Dame should have done a partial membership with the SEC instead of the ACC. Would have a lot more huge matchups, more fertile recruiting ground, and ND still gets the national schedule.

I dont know that you could say "a lot more huge matchups." The SEC has more teams that are in the running for a CFP every season. But really, is there a huge difference between the SEC top of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas AM, LSU and Auburn, as opposed to the ACC top group of Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, Louisville and GT? Of course the edge goes to the SEC, but the difference is not huge. The next grouping of Tennessee, MSU, Kentucky, Missouri and Mississippi is no more appealing than NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Wake Forest.

Then the difference in academic prestige is actually huge between the ACC and SEC. Not to mention the other revenue sport, men's basketball. The other difference is that Notre Dame enjoys playing in the northeast every year where they like to recruit for their students. The SEC cant do that for ND. I believe that if the SEC and ACC were both willing to allow ND partial membership to satisfy ND's quasi-independence desire, that ND would choose the ACC every time.
And I know none of this doesnt really matter to your point but its the off season. What else an I going to talk about?

Is there a huge difference in ACC football and SEC football? Yes and it won't even be close until there are 3 or 4 schools every year that can mount a challenge to your front runner (which is now Clemson). As for basketball the SEC actually earns very nearly what the ACC and Big 10 do. There's very little separation between basketball revenue totals. There's a gulf of difference for football earners.

You do realize that the SEC averaged 33 million more in Gross Total Revenue than the average ACC school last year? You do realize that we averaged 75,000 in attendance at our football venues as opposed to your 49,000 at yours while our basketball attendance was within a few thousand of yours. You do realize that the average cost of a 1 season ticket book in the SEC starts at $550 per each plus $20 dollars for handling and that to purchase 2 you must donate around $1200 more? There is virtually all of your revenue difference. Price of the tickets x number of seats + required donations to purchase said tickets = 70% of the revenue gap. Ad revenue for football which is figured into the rights deal is the other part of it.

If your basketball was so valuable the gap wouldn't be so large and we would be way behind in basketball attendance and revenue, but we aren't. Heck the Old Big East would never have folded had basketball been a true moneymaker. It was a great basketball conference!

It simply is what it is. If the ACC is to catch up it needs larger sold out venues, and brands like Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Louisville need to win every year at a higher level than 7-5 and 8-4.

As to the bottom grouping Tennessee averages 90,000 attendance even in bad years. Mississippi State, Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Missouri still out draw and out earn your bottom and Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State are in the mix most years and all win at a high level in other sports. Even Vanderbilt has won 3 national titles now and their baseball team looks strong this year.

The bottom is where the ACC actually gets swamped when it comes to revenue averages.

Look up the data. It gets posted every year.

And as for markets, we don't have many professional teams in the South outside of a few large cities. College Sports is king down here and our saturation numbers bear that out. We have the highest % of actual viewers to total possible viewers of any region. And that's part of the difference too.

(06-03-2019 02:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 01:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  If the Big Ten wanted football included, the answer would still be no and ND would embrace Tobacco Road or the Big 12 to keep football out of a conference.

As I said, failing all of that, it would be the Big East, not full membership in any conference.

It will never happen for a lot of reasons, but I always thought Notre Dame should have done a partial membership with the SEC instead of the ACC. Would have a lot more huge matchups, more fertile recruiting ground, and ND still gets the national schedule.

I dont know that you could say "a lot more huge matchups." The SEC has more teams that are in the running for a CFP every season. But really, is there a huge difference between the SEC top of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas AM, LSU and Auburn, as opposed to the ACC top group of Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, Louisville and GT? Of course the edge goes to the SEC, but the difference is not huge. The next grouping of Tennessee, MSU, Kentucky, Missouri and Mississippi is no more appealing than NC State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC and Wake Forest.

Then the difference in academic prestige is actually huge between the ACC and SEC. Not to mention the other revenue sport, men's basketball. The other difference is that Notre Dame enjoys playing in the northeast every year where they like to recruit for their students. The SEC cant do that for ND. I believe that if the SEC and ACC were both willing to allow ND partial membership to satisfy ND's quasi-independence desire, that ND would choose the ACC every time.
And I know none of this doesnt really matter to your point but its the off season. What else an I going to talk about?

Is there a huge difference in ACC football and SEC football? Yes and it won't even be close until there are 3 or 4 schools every year that can mount a challenge to your front runner (which is now Clemson). As for basketball the SEC actually earns very nearly what the ACC and Big 10 do. There's very little separation between basketball revenue totals. There's a gulf of difference for football earners.

You do realize that the SEC averaged 33 million more in Gross Total Revenue than the average ACC school last year? You do realize that we averaged 75,000 in attendance at our football venues as opposed to your 49,000 at yours while our basketball attendance was within a few thousand of yours. You do realize that the average cost of a 1 season ticket book in the SEC starts at $550 per each plus $20 dollars for handling and that to purchase 2 you must donate around $1200 more? There is virtually all of your revenue difference. Price of the tickets x number of seats + required donations to purchase said tickets = 70% of the revenue gap. Ad revenue for football which is figured into the rights deal is the other part of it.

If your basketball was so valuable the gap wouldn't be so large and we would be way behind in basketball attendance and revenue, but we aren't. Heck the Old Big East would never have folded had basketball been a true moneymaker. It was a great basketball conference!

It simply is what it is. If the ACC is to catch up it needs larger sold out venues, and brands like Miami, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Louisville need to win every year at a higher level than 7-5 and 8-4.

As to the bottom grouping Tennessee averages 90,000 attendance even in bad years. Mississippi State, Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Missouri still out draw and out earn your bottom and Kentucky, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State are in the mix most years and all win at a high level in other sports. Even Vanderbilt has won 3 national titles now and their baseball team looks strong this year.

The bottom is where the ACC actually gets swamped when it comes to revenue averages.

Look up the data. It gets posted every year.

And as for markets, we don't have many professional teams in the South outside of a few large cities. College Sports is king down here and our saturation numbers bear that out. We have the highest % of actual viewers to total possible viewers of any region. And that's part of the difference too.

LOL. Calm down JR, Relax. You took this way off the rails. WAAYY OFF. Gamecock mentioned the SEC providing way more huge matchups. I challenged him regarding that. Nobody mentioned revenue. If ND was interested in being in a conference with more revenue and that provided everything they needed, they wouldnt be dealing with the SEC or ACC. It would be the BIG. Whether the ACC provides more revenue in bb than the SEC doesnt matter in this context either since we are talking about better basketball, which is as clear as the vast difference that you think exists in football. Im also going to stick by my assertion that ND would choose the ACC over the SEC every time, regardless of all the advantages that the SEC has over the ACC. The reason being is that the ACC is a much better academic conference, which means something to ND, the ACC provides games for ND in the student rich northeast as well as the south. ND thinks of itself as a northeastern university.