There is still some bad blood that goes back when the B10 was formed from the western conference and they were blackballed by Michigan and then the B10 would not play them. ND also sees themselves as a national brand and not just Midwest. They also didn't want to be obligated to play 8 or more conference games so they could play a more national schedule with their own network deal on NBC. HOWEVER these times are achanging.
There is a good bit of bad history between the Big 10 and Notre Dame. https://www.si.com/college/notredam...ependence-mutual-respect-to-mutual-resentment. This was many years ago though. These days I think Notre Dame really just wants to stay independent. Its part of their identity and it seems to be more important than money.
Thanks for sharing the link! It provides as interesting background. I wonder how long this grudge will be held?
Here is the bigger issue. Let's just pick a number for arguments sake. Let's say the SEC and Big 10 are 80MM per year per team. Unless adding teams is going to generate more than 80MM for all the teams in the Big 2, why do they want to add? Let's take the ACC. Does Clemson additively give each team in the SEC more than the 80MM per year they are already receiving? Same with FSU. In both cases, there are already SEC schools in both states. Adding teams which dilute the payoffs since there will be more teams is going to require bumps in overall payouts. A major market like LA probably does that. Most ACC markets don't. Maybe a Bay Area maybe since neither of the Big 2 are there currently.
I generally agree with you but this statement I outlined above doesn’t jive with what has been happening. Sure, fans are discussing this stuff now but it will die down once camp starts. Think about how the OU, Texas, USC, UCLA moves were made - all in silence. That’s how it will happen. I agree we are done for now but another wave will come in the next few years. I give 4-5 years until the ACC loses teams.
You’re absolutely right... there is most definitely a point of diminishing return. At some point there are no teams left that move the needle. And it’s not just $80M in your arbitrary example... it’s $80M plus what ever increment per existing team to bring them up to $80M also.
Tech hasn't played Bama since the mid-60s. Some bad blood lasts a very, very long time.
It also happens slowly and in very small groups. Even though it feels like nonstop conference realignment chaos, it will be over a decade between addition of members to the BIG and the SEC and those additions weren’t coming four or five at a time. I think we’re done for the moment. 2030+ before this chaos resurfaces in the two major conferences again.
Well, the series resumed for a while from '79 to the mid '80's. And the last time the Jackets played them, it was 16-6, good guys:
www.winsipedia.com
GT / GTRI is #2 in Total Engineering Research, only behind Johns Hopkins
It's simple. Not all moves are made for money right now, that's checkers. These guys are playing chess. they're looking 3 or 4 moves down the road. There are many reasons to bring in a school that doesn't immediately affect the bottom line.
Agreed. But if you think everyone is just going to wait 15 years you are crazy. The money is too enormous to wait. Both in season games and an expanded playoffs are worth billions and the power brokers know it. I don’t know the how’s or when’s but I also have watched enough history to know how it plays out. It’s no different than when guys like me were told over and over again that the bowl system would never allow a playoff. Today people laugh at the stupidity of bowls and their attendance is garbage as are the ratings (with a few exceptions of the big names who get left). Now, the playoff games are the exact opposite and can’t sell enough tickets. Just remember guys like me when in some random day in a random April or May when the next shoe drops.
I would take those two. Then add Stanford, Washington, and one other. That would help their travel in other sports.
Tech hasn't played 'Bama since 1984 @ Grant Field.
I still don't get how which athletic conference a school is in has any effect on how many research dollars it gets. Lots of conflating the CIC with the B1G. The CIC has influence. The AAU has influence. Most B1G schools are AAU and CIC. So? Where's the connection to the B1G? Bringing an AAU and CIC school into the conference increases the research dollars of the other schools in the conference? How? This article doesn't make that clear to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Does the University of Chicago get less research money because it isn't in the B1G? ???Really interesting post from a Michigan Blogger from almost 10 years ago. Makes an interesting case about the academic side of expansion...and you can see why GT is a high value target from that POV in addition to our TV market and B1G alumni base:
B1G Expansion Dollars: The Research Edition | mgoblog
There has been a lot of talk about the sense, or nonsense, of adding Rutgers and Maryland to the B1G in 2014 from a purely athletic point of view (verdict: non-sense), and also from a BTN TV market point of view (verdict: debatable). Whether the strategy will pan out or not, the consensus seems...mgoblog.com
