As to why schools would be interested in leaving the Big 12, I’ve seen some reports that it’s all about bowl revenue distribution. The Big 10 pools it and splits it evenly among its members, while the Big 12 apportions it according to which bowl, if any, each team plays in. That builds in a self-perpetuating dominance for Texas and Oklahoma, and the other 10 have reason to look for a better deal elsewhere.
And the Big 10 can work fine with an odd number of members, everyone. They’ve been doing so for years.
The problem with an odd number of schools is that the general model is to create two divisions with the winner of each division playing each other in a championship game. It would be kind o f unfair to have one division with one less team, thus making it easier to win the division.
I don’t understand the rationale behind Notre Dame’s insistence on wanting to keep all its bowl money. It is a very risky way to live, as it creates quite the annual fluctuations. The nice thing about being in the Big 10 is that you are practically guaranteed 6-7 Bowl game payouts and one or even two BCS payouts among them…every year. So being in a conference that shares Bowl revenues is really a more conservative approach in terms of risk and I bet overall creates almost as much revenue.,
ND maybe doesn’t face that much financial risk overall, due to their exclusive NBC contract. If the network cuts back at renegotiation time, based on ND’s recent chronic reduced competitiveness and TV ratings, *then *they have a problem.
But I do agree that their insistence on football independence so far has been based more on tradition (IOW ego and stubbornness) than on money.
Or even better, let ND home games stay on NBC (splitting the money), show the away games on BTN, and the same thing happens but with more money for everyone involved.
Notre Dame no longer keeps all their bowl money as of the last iteration of the BCS agreement in 2006. Instead of all or nothing, they gambled on their continued terribleness and went with the small (but guaranteed) annual payments. They get $4.5 million for going to a BCS game (the amount given to a second place team from a conference), or 1/66th the share of the BCS money for when they don’t go.
Depends on what you call financial risk. Their contract is already tiny compared to what the Big Ten and SEC contracts are (it kind of puts it in perspective when you realize that ND has the third highest revenue of the schools in Indiana). The risk they run is not going broke, but being left behind financially, which has already started to happen.
That said, (as a Big Ten fan) I hate the idea of ND in the Big Ten, and hope they turn it down again. There are other schools that are a better fit and a more attractive option (how you doin’, Texas?)
I’m curious as to why Pitt wasn’t in the first invite list. Could it be that JoePa is still holding his grudge from the 80’s?
Penn State really doesn’t have a natural rivalry in the Big Ten, and none has really developed since they’ve become a member. Pitt is the only school that would provide them that rival.
Well, neither do Iowa, Illinois or Northwestern. I guess Illinois and Northwestern kinda do because they’re in the same state - do they have a special name for their football game?
I graduated from NU in 1998 and was in marching band for both the 1994 and 1997 football seasons. IIRC, the game itself didn’t have a name, but the winner of the game took home the Sweet Sioux Tomahawk trophy, which was a replica of a tomahawk. The original trophy was the Sweet Sioux, a cigar store Indian, which was either stolen, or retired due to logistical transportation issues. (The former is according to Wikipedia, the latter is according to NU sports web page.)
The Tomahwak was offiically retired in 2008 due to the new NCAA regulations banning hostile American Indian imagery. It was replaced starting this past season with the Land of Lincoln Trophy.
I still maintain that it has to do with tv (this horse isn’t quite dead yet), that it shares the same market as PSU, as to why Pitt wasn’t listed among the “invitees”, as their academic credentials and overall athletic department are certainly up to snuff.
As far as natural rivalries, which should include border states I would think (Ohio State/Michigan, Fla/Ga to name 2), then both Ohio State and Rutgers would be potential rivalries for JoePa’s club; OSU moreso I believe because of each programs storied histories and that many of the players would have faced each other in the Big 33 game.
I do believe that one reason why PSU and OSU don’t have a bigger rivalry is because they haven’t played each other every year; also I’m not sure that they’ve played many meaningful (or memorable) games in their series.
I might be wrong, but I think the current set-up of the Big Ten has 3 “divisions” where each team plays the others every year: Minnesota, Iowa, & Wisconsin; Illinois, NU, Indiana, & Purdue; and MSU, Michigan, OSU, and PSU. I’m quite sure PSU and OSU have played every year since PSU joined the Big Ten. None of their games stand out as classics (I’m sure there have been a few that escape memory), though it’s been hyped up every year. But, Michigan and PSU have played many great games over the past 15 years, and I’d say that’s a great rivalry in the Big Ten. What I don’t like is the manufactured rivalry between MSU and PSU, which close each Big Ten season in a game for the Land Grant Trophy.
That’s not quite right. Each Big Ten team has two protected rivals that are always on the schedule. The rest of the teams rotate on and off. Here is the list of each teams protected rivals.
Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern
Indiana: Illinois, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State
Purdue: Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota
IIRC, one of things that works against Pittsburgh is that there is no on-campus football stadium and that it is basically a “commuter” school. I really don’t see why that should make a difference, but I am not involved in the decisions.
Pittsburgh also doesn’t expand the TV market for the Big 10. The conference already has exposure in Pennsylvania (via Penn St).
Rutgers (allegedly*) adds the Northeast Corridor, Nebraska and Missouri adds the western region of the Midwestern US. Notre Dame can make the Big 10 Network go Nationwide.
I said "allegedly’ because I am not convinced that New England, NYC, Long Island regions will ever give a damn about College Football. I grew up in the New England and upstate NY and I never ever watched any college football games except maybe some of the major bowl games. The Northeast is professional sports-centric.
I agree with this point. And further, Rutgers is in New Jersey. I don’t think that many people in New York or New England care about Rutgers. It’s hard enough for the Nets and Devils to compete in the NYC metro marketplace.
