BigTen Expansion: How ND would Work

by SandbergEra on Jul 11, 2009 2:57 AM EDT

Hey Crimson Quarry and Hoosier fans-

I've been kicking around the idea of Big Ten expansion- and how Notre Dame might fit in these plans- since this site's post on JoePa's comments a few months back. I struggled with how the subdivisions & rivalries could work, and I believe I've come up with what might just be a long-term solution. Take a look and tell me what you think...

Now, I know that ND is still a long (perhaps the longest) shot for Big Ten expansion, and I do think that accommodations (such as letting them keep their NBC contract, etc.) will be necessary. But as an Indiana native, IU alum and Big Ten partisan, forgive me for believing that ND in the 12th spot is in the best interest of both the conference and the Domers (hell, let's even add a shamrock in the 'BigTen" logo and let them arrange some kind of 'Independent' named status with the BCS, if that will bring them aboard.) Let's face it, basketball and Olympic sports aren't what's keeping ND in the Big East- it's the football schedule. To make this happen, the Big Ten will need to suck it up and create subdivisions that will both keep traditional rivalries intact and also show ND that they can keep their own unique identity while being a full member of the league.

So here is a proposed BigTen/12/ND football breakdown: I've split the conference into two subdivisions (I'm calling them Red and Blue, although that's the least important detail) and weighed each member by the historical strength and cache of the program from I-III (and further denoting IIIa and IIIb) in order to give the traditional conference heavyweights their due.

Blue Division:

I. Notre Dame

I. Penn State

II.Illinois

II. Purdue

IIIa. Northwestern

IIIb. Indiana

Red Division:

I. Michigan

I. Ohio State

II. Michigan State

II. Wisconsin

IIIa. Iowa

IIIb. Minnesota

Now, before you go too nuts, I've thought about how these subdivisions would affect yearly schedules and rivalries. Each subdivision would play every team in their own subdivision each year, which would preserve almost every annual rivalry, and would play the remaining teams in alternate years. Here is an example of the alternate-year schedule for two teams, Notre Dame (the "target" school) and Ohio State (a current 'traditional power' school):

ND Alt Year 1:

I. Michigan

II. Wisocnsin

III. Iowa

ND Alt Year 2:

I. Ohio State

II. Michigan State

III. Minnesota

Ohio State Alt Year 1:

I. Notre Dame

II. Purdue

III. Northwestern

Ohio State Alt Year 2:

I. Penn State

II. Illinois

III. Indiana

The strongest positives are that this schedule keeps nearly every major in-state and historical rivalry within the conference, and establishes new conference rivalries with ND.

The main losses include a few of the league's lesser rivalry games that would move from annual to semi-annual (but map it out and think: how many people live or die by the Illibuck or the Old Brass Spittoon?) and the new alternate-year schedule for ND and UMich/MSU. MSU is probably the biggest loser here, losing ND every other year. However, a big winner would be Penn State, who would gain ND as an annual foe, helping to cement an 'East Coast' draw that seems to be key for both schools.

ND is clearly also a winner- the Irish not only gain an annual rivalry with PSU, but also get to keep traditional rival Purdue and would now alternate UM/MSU, thus keeping interest alive in the Wolverine State while freeing a spot for another non-conference team. Furthermore, ND solidifies a presence from the Alleghenies past the Mississippi, and would play two Illinois teams each year and would thus further solidify its traditional Chicago-area market. The Irish would also have plenty of room to rotate USC, Navy, Boston College, Army and Stanford in their non-conference schedule, thus combining the benefits of their historic rivalries as well as their traditional Independent status.

Of course, the BIGGEST winner would be the combined forces of the Big Ten + Notre Dame together. Clearly, no other expansion choice for the Big Ten would offer the combination of academic, athletic and traditional fit that ND could offer, but- perhaps more importantly to the proposed alliance- only the Big Ten could increase the academic, athletic and traditional mystique that Notre Dame holds on its own.

Just wanted to follow up on Crimson Quarry's previous post and record my thoughts- let me know what you think!

FanPosts can be created by any member of The Crimson Quarry. While such posts are subject to community guidelines, the statements therein are the assertions or opinions of the poster only. Please no profanity in subject lines.

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I agree with your divisional alignment.

I have given way to much thought to this in the past. I think that if the Big Ten were to add a 12th team, this alignment makes sense no matter who the new team is. Of the 11 protected games the Big Ten currently uses, your alignment protects all but the manufactured “Land Grant Trophy” game between PSU and MSU. I prefer contiguous divisions (it’s easy to keep the divisions straight in the SEC and the Big 12, but I have no idea who is in what division in the ACC), but there’s no good way to do it in the Big Ten. The nice thing about this proposed alignment is that it makes sense for most non-ND additions as well. Missouri would want to be in the same division as Illinois. Any eastern school would want to be in the same division as Penn State.

As I said earlier, I don’t support expansion for expansion’s sake, but this alignment makes sense.

To take the Notre Dame side, I really don’t think this advances ND’s interests all that much. Most ND fans seem completely bored by the Purdue series, and ND already has a strong presence in Chicago despite rarely playing either Illinois team.

The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog

by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Jul 13, 2009 8:30 AM EDT reply actions

I still like a North-South arrangement

North: Michigan, MSU, ND, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota
South: Penn State, Ohio State, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa

Look at the division disparity (these are 30 year standings ). You put the Top 5 teams in the same division! Yes, Penn State and Notre Dame help, but your balance is still way out of whack.

At least with the North South, there is some fairness. Follow the SEC model of one permanent opponent (UM-OSU, IA-MN, NW-IL, PSU-MSU, PUR-ND, WI-IN) and two rotating games. And, Purdue and Indiana are all in the same division and will get home and homes for BBall (since that is the only rivalry that really needs attention in that sport).

If Notre Dame was to join the Big Ten (still not going to happen), they would LOVE the Red-Blue setup. Most years, it would give them a one-game playoff (Penn State) for the Division Title.

The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.

by Bama Hawkeye on Jul 17, 2009 4:36 PM EDT reply actions

Well, if you're going to rely on FACTS...

…then I guess you have a point.

However, the main focus of my divisional breakdown is 1.) Enticement of ND- get them to join the fold, even if that means giving them more than their due. Still beats adding Pitt or Syracuse or Louisville, etc.
and 2.) Keeping as many annual/regional rivalries as possible, which will help the have-nots in the conference keep their own fanbases happy and their traditions in place.

But seriously, your North/South division is now my 2nd favorite option, and perhaps the best if true parity is the objective. However let me toss in that if you look at Rose Bowl participants over the past 15 years or so, and throw ND BCS games on the Blue side (and, ahem, maybe neglect to look at non-Rose-Bowl BCS games on the Red side), my divisions look kinda decent! And yeah, maybe my division gives teams like Wisconsin and Iowa a rough time, but let’s face it, besides the Roman Numeral I’s, all of the other teams need pretty spectacular years to contend for the league and national titles anyway, so the divisional lineup is only a small part of the equation. My divisions just give the traditional underdogs a little boost, and as long as we’re wishful thinking, might help bring the Irish in as well, which would be good for everyone concerned.

by SandbergEra on Jul 23, 2009 4:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Why the hell should I care about the other division? Really, though, you make a good point. Still, no setup is perfect. It would be a little boring to see OSU-Michigan constantly played two weeks in a row.

The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog

by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Jul 20, 2009 11:06 AM EDT reply actions

The main reason I don't think your proposed alignment would work

is because Notre Dame and Michigan would not play every year. That rivalry is already close to being as big as Michigan vs. Ohio State so I don’t think either school would go for that.

I do think Notre Dame makes the most sense, but given their stance in the past I doubt they will ever agree. I actually think it would benefit their football program as much as it would the Big Ten. It’s a shame they care more about their TV contract money than they do about having a winning football program again.

One program that few people are mentioning is Rutgers. I think they are a dark horse if expansion does take place. The Big Ten would love to get a presence in the nation’s largest media market, both for their schools and for the Big Ten Network. I also think it would be easier to convince them to leave the Big East than it would be to convince Syracuse to leave the Big East or Missouri to leave the Big 12.

I really like the North-South alignment mentioned above. That’s the first time I’ve heard that mentioned. Just for fun, if the expansion team were Rutgers you could could throw them in the North division and it would still work.

by acelion on Aug 4, 2009 5:49 PM EDT reply actions

I really don’t think Notre Dame is financially motivated. If you look at the recent revenue numbers, ND is doing well, but ranks comfortably behind Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin and Penn State in revenue and is more comparable to Iowa and MSU (#14 overall). I think this is because the Big Ten’s TV and bowl revenue package has grown in recent years.

I think it’s more a matter of tradition, national profile, scheduling flexibility, and strong alumni preference for remaining independent. Certainly, ND’s great advantage is that its bowl revenue increases dramatically when ND qualifies for a BCS game. Still, even another $8 million wouldn’t have moved ND into the top 4 in the Big Ten in 2007. Certainly, if being independent became a financial impediment, ND might make a move.

I think Rutgers would be a disaster. Of course, it would be easy to convince them to join up. “Hey Rutgers, you have a bottom-of-the-barrel tradition in both football and basketball. Want some free money?” I know Rutgers is in the NYC media market, but they are a mere afterthought in that market. Do people in NYC, on Long Island, in Westchester County, or in SW Connecticut care about the state university of New Jersey? I don’t buy Rutgers at all.

The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog

by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Aug 7, 2009 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions

Rutgers and another name

Since there are still 29 days until it’s the season, let’s keep playing…

I go back and forth on Rutgers. Winning the Big East in the next couple of years would be a huge help. In the end, you’re likely right. The lack of tradition, or present ability to be a national player in any sport, likely kills their candidacy. Plus, are there than many actual “fans” of Rutgers in NYC? We usually get the TV market there due to Penn State any way.

Here’s one to kick around…Maryland. Access to the DC market, neighbor to Penn State. Strong recent history in hoops; some tradition (if you go back fifty years) in football…

The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.

by Bama Hawkeye on Aug 7, 2009 1:56 PM EDT reply actions

Maryland is interesting, but seems unlikely to make a move. ACC football is nothing spectacular, but it’s hard for me to imagine Maryland walking away from its long basketball history in the ACC.

My darkhorse is Kentucky. Obviously, the SEC makes money hand over fist, and UK has been in the SEC since its founding. It’s a basketball school, but has reasonably good football attendance and interest. While Maryland, also a basketball school, is in a basketball focused conference, UK is the lone traditional basketball power in a football-obsessed conference. Again, I think it’s extremely, extremely unlikely that UK would make the jump, but I think it’s easier to imagine than Maryland. There also might be an academic motivation for UK, a flagship state university that doesn’t have nearly the academic status of even the lowest-ranked Big Ten school.

The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog

by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Aug 9, 2009 11:40 AM EDT reply actions