Terms Presented by Notre Dame and Texas to the Big Ten

Donate To GopherHole
Purple Book Cat said:
Conference officials have been fielding a flood of calls from various boosters and stakeholders from various schools, asking about the validity of a certain message board post. The Big Ten will not respond to any unsolicited questions or requests regarding conference expansion from boosters and supporters of individual institutions other than official leadership.

Further, the Big Ten has no plans at this time to discuss expansion opportunities at this time with anyone other than those individuals involved in the ongoing discussions among the Big Ten, Texas, and Notre Dame.
Click to expand...

Here is another one of his/her posts. The folks on their message board have said this guy/gal is credible. Like someone said he/she might be getting info from somebody but is it the correct info? IMO, I don't buy it but strange things can happen.
 

4four4 said:
Here is the original posters second post in this thread.
Click to expand...

Man, if ESPN is wanting to have TX in the Pac Ten, this in itself makes me want to sign them up for the BT. It irritates me when organizations like ESPN try and manipulate others when it is not theirs to do in order to profit by it.

I think having TX in the BT, though geographically would be challenging would force the BT teams to improve in order to keep up.

That said, if it is about TX dictating terms and not sincere negotiations...cya!!!
 


Great Plains Division
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Mizzouri
Texas
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern

Great Lakes Division
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Notre Dame
Syracuse
 

Could you imagine TX, Oklahoma, ND and maybe Ok St, not going to happen, but that would be a pretty powerful 16 team league
 


Screw Texas. Notre Dame and Missouri or nobody.
 

I'm philosophically not for expanding any further on the grounds that all conference re-shuffling for the purpose of $$ alone (abandoning all tradition, rivalry, and culture), but can anyone explain why people are giving such a middle finger to Texas?

If it's because of their fan base, isn't the ND fan base just as arrogant? If it's because they want money and will try to strong arm the conference in to its ways, wouldn't Notre Dame be JUST the same? I guarantee the admins at ND feel their program brings just as much sway (tradition, traveling fans, TV viewers) as Texas thinks they do. If screw one, why not the other?

If any of this were true and 14 teams is in the B1G's future, Texas brings better recruiting grounds, more fans, more national exposure, better games, and a higher quality athletic department on the whole than Mizzou would. Notre Dame isn't bad, either, with a solid basketball and hockey team in addition to football...
 

howeda7 said:
Screw Texas. Notre Dame and Missouri or nobody.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with this. I will also accept Notre Dame and Maryland. Or maybe Notre Dame and Pitt.

Cultural fit is key for me. Proximity is key. Rivalries are key, and the best ones are between schools whose fans and alumni have constant, year-long interaction due to regional proximity.

Most importantly, Texas will see themselves as better than the Big Ten conference. Everyone knows they will. That is the attitude that they have had regarding their affiliation with the SWC and the Big 12 - and the source of those conferences' demise. With Notre Dame, you have a cultural fit, established rivalries, an alumni base who is growing more humble by the year and is ready to move on as far as clinging to football independence. Yes Notre Dame will always be a proud bunch of folks, but which fanbase isn't? Texas, however, is the school who sees themselves as truly exceptional, i.e. inherently above the rules, with the right to step all over their conference affiliates in order to get what they want. Notre Dame has been moving away from that attitude for a while now.
 

MrGopher said:
I mostly agree with this. I will also accept Notre Dame and Maryland. Or maybe Notre Dame and Pitt.

Cultural fit is key for me. Proximity is key. Rivalries are key, and the best ones are between schools whose fans and alumni have constant, year-long interaction due to regional proximity.

Most importantly, Texas will see themselves as better than the Big Ten conference. Everyone knows they will. That is the attitude that they have had regarding their affiliation with the SWC and the Big 12 - and the source of those conferences' demise. With Notre Dame, you have a cultural fit, established rivalries, an alumni base who is growing more humble by the year and is ready to move on as far as clinging to football independence. Yes Notre Dame will always be a proud bunch of folks, but which fanbase isn't? Texas, however, is the school who sees themselves as truly exceptional, i.e. inherently above the rules, with the right to step all over their conference affiliates in order to get what they want. Notre Dame has been moving away from that attitude for a while now.
Click to expand...

If that's the case then why has Notre Dame turned down joining the B1G several times in the past decade? I would imagine the humbleness we've seen of their fan base is a direct result of poor to horrible play on the field and lack of national relevance (beyond the unwarranted yearly hype) for nearly 20 years.

I completely agree with your points on cultural fit, proximity, and rivalries, which is why I'm not a fan of further expansion in the first place. Pitt and Notre Dame are the only 2 teams that fit the proximity and culture of the B1G. Beyond that I'm not so sure. Maryland, BC, etc seem to be VERY east-coast, Mizzou seems a little closer but still not what I'd call a natural cultural fit.

Keep in mind that if we are expanding and diluting the rivalries/tradition/history we already have, the B1G member schools should get a little something in return, which is why I think Texas comes in. End of the day 12 teams is enough for me.
 



MrGopher said:
I mostly agree with this. I will also accept Notre Dame and Maryland. Or maybe Notre Dame and Pitt.

Cultural fit is key for me. Proximity is key. Rivalries are key, and the best ones are between schools whose fans and alumni have constant, year-long interaction due to regional proximity.

Most importantly, Texas will see themselves as better than the Big Ten conference. Everyone knows they will. That is the attitude that they have had regarding their affiliation with the SWC and the Big 12 - and the source of those conferences' demise. With Notre Dame, you have a cultural fit, established rivalries, an alumni base who is growing more humble by the year and is ready to move on as far as clinging to football independence. Yes Notre Dame will always be a proud bunch of folks, but which fanbase isn't? Texas, however, is the school who sees themselves as truly exceptional, i.e. inherently above the rules, with the right to step all over their conference affiliates in order to get what they want. Notre Dame has been moving away from that attitude for a while now.
Click to expand...

I could probably buy Pitt in place of Missouri, as a nod to PSU but how is Maryland any less of a sell-out than Texas? OK, they're less obnoxious, but they're not a rival of anyone in the conference and while they technically border a B1G state, it's pretty marginal as a geographic fit too.
 

4four4 said:
Here is the original posters second post in this thread.
Click to expand...

Again BS. If the big ten wants ESPN to talk about Texas joining the big ten, all they have to do is put out a press release. Also, where is the tort? How is the Big Ten damaged if Texas leaves conference A to join conference B?
 

4four4 said:
Here is another one of his/her posts. The folks on their message board have said this guy/gal is credible. Like someone said he/she might be getting info from somebody but is it the correct info? IMO, I don't buy it but strange things can happen.
Click to expand...

That post has two sentences that don't make any sense and never would have passes official muster in the Big Ten office. I think this whole thing is a farce.
 

If you're closer to Mexico than Canada you don't belong in the Big Ten.:)
 



RailBaronYarr said:
If that's the case then why has Notre Dame turned down joining the B1G several times in the past decade? I would imagine the humbleness we've seen of their fan base is a direct result of poor to horrible play on the field and lack of national relevance (beyond the unwarranted yearly hype) for nearly 20 years.

I completely agree with your points on cultural fit, proximity, and rivalries, which is why I'm not a fan of further expansion in the first place. Pitt and Notre Dame are the only 2 teams that fit the proximity and culture of the B1G. Beyond that I'm not so sure. Maryland, BC, etc seem to be VERY east-coast, Mizzou seems a little closer but still not what I'd call a natural cultural fit.

Keep in mind that if we are expanding and diluting the rivalries/tradition/history we already have, the B1G member schools should get a little something in return, which is why I think Texas comes in. End of the day 12 teams is enough for me.
Click to expand...

I think ND stayed independent because they knew they had the stage already and the history. They did not need to join a conference since their independence was something they profited from.

They no longer have that and they know it. They need to TV revenue which goes with being in a conf. like the BT.

TX sounds more exciting then Pitt, and will definitely bring about stiffer competition.

Though I would be concerned about bringing in more top teams in the conference swallowing up the historic lessor teams (Ind., MN, Ill...for example), I think the same fear was there when Penn State was brought in, and the first year there was truth to that, but the continual grind of conf. play balanced that out within a couple of years and should do the same with Neb and anyone else that they may have in mind.
 

If your state seceded from the Union, you don't belong in the Big Ten.
 



Notre Dame's fanbase and the powers that be at the University still think they're relevant on the national stage as far as football goes. They're still a big name, but that relevance is fading fast.

There was once a time when every good Catholic school kid rooted for the Irish, but those days are long gone. Kids today either root for their home state/local school, or one of the trendy national powers like Oregon or USC (or Duke basketball). Notre Dame is a school with tough academic standards, is located in a fairly uninteresting place, and hasn't been great in football for a while. Those are some big strikes against a school.

Obviously there are kids that will want to go there because it is such a good school, but if I'm a top flight recruit, I'm probably going to choose Florida or Alabama or Texas, where the weather is better, and I won't have to work as hard.

Much as I'm annoyed by Colin Cowherd, he makes this point very well.

The only reasons people keep bringing up ND is their location, and that they play a number of Big Ten schools each year. In reality, the school they're most similar to is Northwestern, and I don't think that if the Big Ten formed today from scratch, NW would be part of the conference.

Pitt's not a bad fit in terms of size and location (a large public school), but the program is way down. They don't have much of a fanbase, and they don't have their own facility (of course we were stuck in the Dome for years I know). I really think Mizzou is a better choice.

I wish it wasn't all about TV markets and money. I'd like to see Iowa State in the conference.
 





I don't believe this but if it is true, we should tell those 2-pieces of zhit that they're in no position to make demands for joining our sacred conference because we do NOT want them.
 

Scr*w Texas & ND. If it gets to the point where they need a conference (ND) or a new affiliation (Texas) then we'll set the terms, not them! Jmho
 

Why does Kansas never get mentioned?

Geographically logical, academically strong (AAU since 1909), athletically strong (basketball powerhouse), rivalry with Nebraska and could start one with Iowa, adds #31 sized market KC (Austin is #44) as well as likely the rest of KS (Wichita #68). No their football program isn't elite, but I think they'd finish in the middle of the pack.

West - Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East - Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State

For #15 and #16 I would recommend Missouri and Pittsburgh. Other options would be Louisville or Maryland.
 

However interesting this is to think about, it sounds like a hoax.
 

Stanger86 said:
Why does Kansas never get mentioned?

Geographically logical, academically strong (AAU since 1909), athletically strong (basketball powerhouse), rivalry with Nebraska and could start one with Iowa, adds #31 sized market KC (Austin is #44) as well as likely the rest of KS (Wichita #68). No their football program isn't elite, but I think they'd finish in the middle of the pack.

West - Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East - Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State

For #15 and #16 I would recommend Missouri and Pittsburgh. Other options would be Louisville or Maryland.
Click to expand...

Regarding Kansas, there are two things working very strongly against them joining the Big Ten:

1. Kansas is actually serious about sticking it out with KSU. Kansas alone might be worth a look, but the pair together is not attractive.
2. Mizzou accomplishes basically everything KU does, and does some things better. And remember, the Big Ten won't add both Mizzou and Kansas if they can help it: (a. KC and StL markets, b. Missouri has 6.0 million people while Kansas has 2.8 mil, c. Mizzou hoops is regularly highly competitive, d. Mizzou has a more interesting football rivalry with Nebraska, e. recent history with Illinois, f. potential rivalry with Iowa, g. Missouri is certainly not a huge step down academically compared to Kansas, h. Missouri is more fertile recruiting ground than Kansas year after year.

Otherwise, you are right, Kansas does deserve more of a look. It's too bad that KSU is made to be seen like KU's ball-and-chain when KSU isn't a poor BCS institution either. The two of them will probably land in the Big East.
 

Stanger86 said:
Why does Kansas never get mentioned?

Geographically logical, academically strong (AAU since 1909), athletically strong (basketball powerhouse), rivalry with Nebraska and could start one with Iowa, adds #31 sized market KC (Austin is #44) as well as likely the rest of KS (Wichita #68). No their football program isn't elite, but I think they'd finish in the middle of the pack.

West - Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
East - Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State

For #15 and #16 I would recommend Missouri and Pittsburgh. Other options would be Louisville or Maryland.
Click to expand...

You can post your tv market size numbers all you want, but there is no way in hell that Kansas brings more viewers to the B1G than Texas.
 


MrGopher said:
Regarding Kansas, there are two things working very strongly against them joining the Big Ten:

1. Kansas is actually serious about sticking it out with KSU. Kansas alone might be worth a look, but the pair together is not attractive.

Otherwise, you are right, Kansas does deserve more of a look. It's too bad that KSU is made to be seen like KU's ball-and-chain when KSU isn't a poor BCS institution either. The two of them will probably land in the Big East.
Click to expand...

Why is KSU viewed so negatively? Is it the Iowa-ISU factor?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom