Notre Dame AD Says Football Conference on the Table
by nittnut on Mar 9, 2010 3:30 PM EST
Email
PrintAfter years of trying to avoid it, Notre Dame says it's considering joining a football conference. Specifically, in a New York Times blog, the athletic director is reported to be saying that the school is considering giving up its football independence and joining a conference, although that is not its preference. The writer is Pete Thamel, and here's a link:
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/notre-dame-considers-not-going-it-alone/?hpw
Thanks for the fanpost! Please do not post any content from a premium site that requires a subscription. Also, if you just want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using fanshots instead. Thanks.
127 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I may be the only one that dislikes ND and it’s fans enough to NOT want them in the B10. I’d rather get Rutgers than give the Irish the opportunity to suckle from the tremendously lucrative teet of the B10. What a visual that is. I dare you to try not to visualize Delany breast-feeding the ND mascot… I dare you!
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
you are not the only one
I too would rather Rutgers or the dreaded sPitt (I know it will never happen just making a point)
"There are only three certainties in college football: all players will eventually leave, the ACC will be bad, and Joe Paterno ", Clay Travis, CNNsi Fanhouse
we already have one obnoxious fanbase that thinks their the greatest thing ever
I cant deal with another osu Give me pitt or syracuse
Never insult seven men when all you have is a six shooter --COL Sherman T Potter
by psu in the w-b on Mar 10, 2010 7:43 PM EST up reply actions
definitely thought you were talking about michigan at first
even though they’re down, the smugness up there is still too much to handle
Texas >> Notre Dame
I mean, are we supposed to be fawning over the fact that the Mighty Irish are now gracing us with their contemplation of joining our lowly conference? Get outta here.
I could care less what Notre Dame does. Let them keep thinking they’re better than everyone, and keep “waking up the echoes” of their epic Hawaii Bowl win. I’d honestly rather have Pitt…
"We heard all that talk all week about the SEC and their speed, but we knew personally that they weren't nearly as tough as us."
-Tony Hunt
by Cpiritual27 on Mar 9, 2010 4:51 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I always think of high school drama/teen movies
when I think of the courting that goes on with the conferences.
Notre Dame is like the hot chick in high school who turned us down because she liked her independent lifestyle, but now years later we’ve gone to college, gotten a great job making a boatload of $, and suddenly there are some real gorgeous women flirting with us (Texas, etc). Meanwhile the years have not been kind to Notre Dame, and while she’s still definitely attractive, and moderately successful, she’s no longer the belle of the ball.
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 10, 2010 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
Hanging on to what could have been.
"Have I ever told the story of when I met Miley Cyrus?"
by Jeff Junstrom on Mar 10, 2010 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
I do not understand this.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 10, 2010 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
Mean Girls reference ftw
The woman to the left is that neck brace girl’s mom, in the movie she’s the kind of mom that pretends she’s still her daughter’s age and like totally BFF instead of a real mom. Mean Girls isn’t all that bad of a chick flick really, considering all the hot women in it; the least of which is the punk girl but it turns out she’s actually really hot and topless 90% of the time in True Blood, which is based on a chick-lit novel about vampires, but it’s not really half bad of a show.
I really wish I didn’t know all of this.
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
Thanks.
I guess.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 10, 2010 3:58 PM EST up reply actions
I wish I didn't agree with all of this
or that I didn’t know what you were talking about
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 10, 2010 4:30 PM EST up reply actions
There is absolutely no such thing as "win" when in combination with Mean Girls
"I did my walk of shame this morning and everyone was so much nicer," she said. "People were inviting me to parties at 9 a.m."
Except for the slo mo scene where they walk down the hall.
I spent a month there one night.
Milk-a-what?
by Jeff Junstrom on Mar 10, 2010 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
You don't understand my TV/movie references and no one understands your war references.
Are you new to this blog?
Milk-a-what?
by Jeff Junstrom on Mar 10, 2010 8:53 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, whatever.
Mean Girls, I mean are you sixteen?
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 10, 2010 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
I always kind of wonder why Notre Dame is considered the ideal fit for the Big 10.
They are a very good school academically. But they are a relatively small private religiously affiliated school. Beyond football, they really don’t fit into the “culture” of the Big 10 like Texas, Nebraska, Rutgers, et al. would. Plus while Notre Dame will surely add subscribers to the Big 10 network, it wouldn’t add any new home markets. All that said, they would be my second choice for expansion behind Texas.
Academics and location, location, location
They’re an independent school in the heart of B10 country, I think that’s why they’re considered an ideal fit for the conference.
hard as it is to say,
notre dame has a big enough fan base, that it could potentially deliver EVERY home market. there are only a few schools that can do that.
"They stalk their prey to within two or three great leaps and then launch a lightning-fast charge, striking their prey. Victims are most often killed by suffocation with a prolonged bite..."--Hinterland Who's Who
Notre Dame + Penn State = closest thing you will get to a New York college football following. Both teams already have their weekly football recap show on the YES Network…
by Paterno Ave on Mar 10, 2010 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
They can't deliver any new home markets when it comes to the Big 10 Network.
The Big 10 Network is guaranteed to be on a basic tier within the Big 10 footprint which equals a lot more subscribers than if it was relegated to a more expensive sports tier like in the rest of the country. It would take some in depth research to tell which would provide more subscribers: Notre Dame with no new home market subscribers plus lots of national subscribers or a school like Missouri with lots of new home market subscribers plus very few new national subscribers. That is why you hire an outside consulting firm to review the available options.
by VVeRPennState on Mar 10, 2010 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
Notre Dame can deliver new home markets is it can (help) get the BTN onto basic cable on a national basis and/or get higher subscription fees. ND, given their national fan base, together with PSU, tOSU, Michigan might be enough to push the needle of the BTN to more widespread distribution. And, of course, this is even more likely/possible if you ass Notre Dame and Texas at the same time.
you need a consulting firm
to tell you that ND is more valuable to the big ten than Mizzou? Are you f$%ing crazy?
Even if ND gets you nothing more out of the big ten network (which is a stretch), you would be able to renegotiate the abc/espn contract significantly in a way that Missouri wouldn’t.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
Yes, you need a consulting firm.
Due to the way the Big 10 Network is setup, simply adding Notre Dame does not automatically add a single new subscriber. Sure, lots of people will sign up for the BTN because of Notre Dame, but no new territory is added to the Big 10 footprint. Adding Missouri could (I forget the exact stipulations) automatically give the BTN to each cable subscribers in the entire state. I honestly have no idea which number is higher: the number of Notre Dames fans who are willing to pay for the BTN (keep in mind only games like ND vs Indiana or Northwestern will actually be relegated to the BTN, with the marquee games being on ABC/ESPN) or the total number of cable households in the state of Missouri.
What Notre Dame would add in terms of value to the other TV deals is unknown. If we are using Notre Dame’s current NBS contract as a guideline, it isn’t much. Let’s be honest Notre Dame isn’t the program it was 20, 10, or even 5 years ago.
by VVeRPennState on Mar 10, 2010 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
TV sets
Like Laaaaazzzz (sorry if I didn’t get that right, I didn’t bother to count the a’s and z’s) suggests ND does add territory outside the footprint because ND alums/bandwagoneers add to other B10 fanbases to push the number of subscribers over the tipping point for the network to be added. Hypothetically, in LA, the combined number of PSU, OSU Michigan fans are not enough to add the B10 network; however, throw in the tens of thousands of ND fans, and suddenly having the network is appealing. How many Missouri fans do you think reside in LA? or NY or Boston or DC or Atlanta for that matter?
I have no facts to support any of the foregoing, but intuitively, it’s true. I don’t think adding the state of Missouri outweighs adding the major metro areas likely to be added with ND.
by Nittany Lawyer on Mar 10, 2010 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
I have to disagree
Maybe I am being pessimistic, but I don’t think the BTN has a chance of being on basic cable anywhere outside the Big 10 footprint. After all the NFL Network isn’t on basic cable in most places and they have to have more viewers than the BTN. I just don’t think Notre Dame has the kind of pull to force the BTN into anyone’s cable lineup.
by VVeRPennState on Mar 10, 2010 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
BTN is available outside the footprint
I have it on basic in Rhode Island, and it is available in Boston. I think it is available in several areas outside the footprint. That is only part of the point, though. The other is eyeballs on the screen, which is advertising dollars, which means more lucrative TV deals.
Despite my unwillingness to research this and do anything more than wildly speculate, I did quickly google the ratings for regular season games last year. Michigan-ND was the 7th highest rated. Also, for nationally televised games, ND roughly doubled Missouri’s ratings, and it’s not like ND had a good season last year. In fact, during ND’s 3-9 season, it drew roughly the same ratings as Missouri did last year, and Missouri was a bowl team (albeit a fairly mediocre season). By comparison, UCONN out-rated Missouri, aided in no small part by its game with ND I’m sure.
I just don’t see any argument that Missouri adds even remotely what ND adds by way of subscribers and viewers.
by Nittany Lawyer on Mar 10, 2010 7:34 PM EST up reply actions
I guess it depends on your cable provider
But I know that for both Comcast and Timewarner, it is not included in the basic package (I live in Boston and have to pay extra for it). For a channel like the Big 10 Network are majority of the revenue comes from subscription fees and not from advertisements. That means the number of households is the important number not the actual ratings. Its not like the BTN is raking in the cash with all the Barbasol and Rotel ads. Also, lets be honest, the games on the BTN are generally the worst games of the season. Notre Dame vs Michigan is going to be on ESPN. Notre Dame vs. Indiana is going to be on the BTN.
by VVeRPennState on Mar 10, 2010 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
I would have no issue paying extra for
it, God knows my check to my cable operator is already my 2nd largest bill after my mortgage. What’s an extra $5?
I just want the b@astards at Cox Communications to offer it in Virginia.
One man doing the work of 100's for the good of 1000's
I'm in freaking PA and I can't get it (Poconos)
I complain all the time. Neigher the Big 10 or the cable company seem to care.
"There are only three certainties in college football: all players will eventually leave, the ACC will be bad, and Joe Paterno ", Clay Travis, CNNsi Fanhouse
Are you saying we should go after Lehigh?
"I did my walk of shame this morning and everyone was so much nicer," she said. "People were inviting me to parties at 9 a.m."
First of all, does the NFL Network really have more viewers than the BTN? I know that’s easy to say because of the popularity of the NFL, but honestly, I don’t know many people who actually watch the NFLN outside of live games and maybe draft coverage. 98% of the time, the NFL Network is pretty pointless.
The BTN has a ton of live games. The reality is that sports channels live and die by their games, not their studio shows. And expansion will bring even more live games to the network. If enough popular teams are in the conference, it’s certainly possible that at some point that it reaches critical mass and the BTN gets treated at least as well as ESPNU or Versus. I don’t know if Notre Dame + current Big Ten does that, but ND + Texas + current Big Ten? It’s got to be close.
And anyhow, the BTN is on “basic” tiers nationally on DirecTV, Verizon Fios and AT&T U-verse. So, it’s not like it’s unprecedented for people in non-Big Ten areas to get it without a sports package.
It's all relative.
You can say the Big 10 Network is useless 98% of the time. Think of it, if you are not an alumni or fan of one of the 11 or theoretically 12 teams in the league, would you ever watch the channel?
Also I don’t know if I would qualify things like DirecTV and FIOS as basic cable, they are already a step up from most TV packages. But that is really an argument about semantics that I don’t really want to get into.
by VVeRPennState on Mar 10, 2010 10:45 PM EST up reply actions
well your argument of being an alumni/fan of the teams
works equally well (or moreso) against the NFL Network.
I haven’t paid attention to the NFL Network lately, but it seems like they have only a handful of games a year (maybe this has changed recently). Let’s give them one game a week, that’s 16-17 games total, over the course of an entire year. Unless it is a big time matchup like they sometimes force(d) to try to get subscribers, are you really going to watch it? Maybe if it is a game featuring divisional rivals. Still, that gets you what, like 3, maybe 4 watchable games a year on the network (yes, I am pulling all these numbers out of my ass, since as I said, I haven’t really followed the NFL Network much).
The BTN has a ton of football, basketball, and other sports on, and all of the games feature conference rivals, so even if it isn’t a big matchup, there’s still a rooting interest there. Plus the fact that there are usually a guaranteed 2-3 football games (plus however many basketball games) featuring your team, and I could see an argument for the BTN having higher ratings across the year than the NFL Network.
Of course, the NFL is more popular than college football, let alone just the Big Ten, so they may win on volume that way.
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2010 8:14 AM EST up reply actions
You are thinking like a Big 10 fan
The nation as a whole does not care about the Big 10 enough to watch relatively weak games between conference rivals (the better games generally make it to ABC/ESPN). The NFL, on the other hand, is a national sport in which people still watch even if they do not have any affiliations to the game.
A quick google search yields the Big 10’s highest rating looked to be about a 4.7 HH rating. I admittedly had no idea what that meant, so I consulted Wikipedia. It stateda 4.7 HH rating equals roughly 5.4 million households. Coincidentally the NFL Network averaged 5.4 million viewers for its live games, with a high of 10.5 million. Clearly the NFL Network is in more demand than the BTN.
Also one interesting note. The only markets that were followed for the ratings on the Big 10 Network were Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Pittsburg. All midwestern cities that would traditionally have a large Big 10 following. I have no idea how this was accounted for and whether it would skew the ratings higher or lower.
by VVeRPennState on Mar 11, 2010 10:19 AM EST up reply actions
Ratings
The NFL Network is not a good comparison. It broadcasts only 7 games per season, and those are mostly primetime games competing against no other games in the time slot. And, they try to schedule marquee matchups and holidays. E.g. the first game of the season is always a Super Bowl re-match on the Thursday of before opening weekend. Also, they do the primetime Thanksgiving game and this past year, on Christmas. Given all this, I am shocked that ratings were not much, much higher. I think it has to do with subscribers. Compare that to the BTN, which is always competing with at least 2-3 other games in its timeslot, and as you point out, those are typically lower tier matchups.
Also, the fact that your BTN ratings number only includes the footprint markets undermines your argument. It means that actual viewers was a higher number, albeit less concentrated around the country.
Again, though, I think this is all beside the point. The way the contracts are set up with ABC/ESPN and BTN, for the time being, the BTN is designed to be the second tier network to allow its fans guaranteed access to their teams’ games. Pre-BTN, I could not get 2-3 games per season in Rhode Island. Now, with BTN + overflow channels, I have not missed a game in two years, and given the choice between BC-Syracuse or ND-Indiana, I am tuning into the latter. I suspect that a lot of fans of Big Ten teams feel the same way. Are PSU fans in Portland, OR more likely to watch Ore State-Washington or ND-Indiana?
The fact is that adding ND pushes the BTN in a direction toward critical mass that Missouri does not. Does the Big Ten anticipate having its first tier games on BTN someday? I don’t know, but ND pushes the meter in that direction like no other schoold does, with the exception of Texas and Nebraska.
by Nittany Lawyer on Mar 11, 2010 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
this is basically what I was trying to say
essentially, the NFL Network (currently) doesn’t show many games, and while those games may be higher rated (due to the higher popularity of the NFL), as a whole, the BTN still has a lot more TOTAL viewers. Again, I don’t have numbers, but it seemed there were about 3 BTN games a week. I’m going to assume the number Nittany Lawyer posted (7) is accurate for the NFL season.
So if the NFLN averaged 5.4 million viewers for 7 games, that is 13.4 million viewers.
Again, assuming the BTN averaged 3 football games a week for 13 weeks, then they’d only need to average 2.9 million viewers for each of the games to match the NFL viewership. This doesn’t even take into account the basketball games and other live events.
Of course, if the NFLN eventually showed more games (and this is likely the direction they are heading), then it would obviously be more valuable, but it isn’t right now.
And of course this study didn’t take into account all markets for the BTN, but I don’t know how that would skew things either. Like if the number is is “raw” and only counts the exact/estimated number of viewers in that region, or if it is a percentage of that region (and thus would be a huge overestimation if extrapolated out to the rest of the country).
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2010 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
I guess we will agree to disagree
I just don’t see how the Big 10 Network is more in demand than the NFL Network and no numbers anyone has posted would suggest otherwise. And since the NFL Network is struggling to make it onto most basic cable lineups, the Big 10 Network will likely struggle to accomplish the same.
My original point is that these things are a lot more complicated then many people here think. Its not simply Notre Dame is a big name and therefore would be the best pick for expansion. There is a reason why a consulting firm was hired and included ND in their study. If ND was such an obvious slam dunk, as some have suggested, there would be no reason to spend the extra money and include them in the study.
by VVeRPennState on Mar 11, 2010 9:38 PM EST up reply actions
lol, I was wondering if you'd instead point out my calculation error ;-)
but basically:
NFLN has 7 programs at 5.4 million viewers each = 37.8 million viewers. I’m going to go out on a limb and say the studio shows that aren’t attached to live football games don’t draw very high ratings, so I’m going to discount them for now.
Meanwhile the BTN has about 35-40 football games they show, plus about 100 men’s basketball games, (and about 50 women’s basketball games). For football alone, they’d only have to average 1 million viewers a game to equal draw than the NFL network. For just men’s football and basketball they’d only have to average 270,000 viewers per game to equal the NFL Network. You don’t think they could do that?
Now perhaps if you are saying that nearly all those viewers are coming from within the Big Ten’s footprint, and expanding nationally won’t bring enough viewers to justify the cost of the network (ie they are efficiently targeting their demographic by limiting it to the Big Ten footprint) then you might have a point.
Can adding Notre Dame be enough to push this to a national audience? Hard to say. Right now Notre Dame already carries a national broadcast, though. In their down years they’ve been apparently averaging 1.9 ratings, while when they were good most recently (2005 & 2006) their ratings were 3.6 and 3.0 respectively.
I never fully understand how ratings convert, but apparently 1 rating point is equal to about 1.5 million households. Not sure if that further gets translated to million viewers or what, but basically ND varies from averaging 3.5 million viewers when playing terribly, to averaging 5.5 million viewers when playing well. That seems like a pretty wise investment to me, but I suppose if the majority of those viewers are in Indiana, Chicago, and NYC, then perhaps we’d “only” add NYC.
Or maybe the audience really is more spread out, and the addition of a team like ND would bump the BTN onto basic cable everywhere. Perhaps this is what the consulting firm was hired to find out.
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 12, 2010 11:46 AM EST up reply actions
I honestly didn't put to much thought into your caclulations.
In my view demand is the number of unique households that want your channel. I think the highest number of viewers is a better approximation of that then total viewers over the course of a year. This is because I suspect (I really have no proof of this) that most viewers of either network are repeat viewers. I don’t think many people turn to the channels for only one game. They either watch the channel for several games or don’t watch at all.
On a side note, ND’s games would lose many viewers going from NBC to the Big 10 Network simply from moving from network tv to cable (even if it was on basic cable). This is true for all TV programs.
by VVeRPennState on Mar 12, 2010 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
Comcast
Comcast is going to paly hard ball with ND. They are going to own NBC in the next couple of months and aren’t going to spend the kind of money on ND when the renewal comes up. They are going to need the money that comes with being in a conference.
i for one would rather have Pitt.
2011 National Champions
Choices
Texas is by far the prettiest girl at the dance, so to speak (large, dedicated fanbase, new markets, great athletic history, solid research school, 2 new Senators and a bunch of new Congresscreatures). If given a choice between ND and Texas, Delaney should be instantly fired for not taking Texas.
But let’s not pretend that ND to the B10 isn’t a win-win for both the league and ND in terms of money, especially since ND inexplicably owns the NYC market more than anyone else. Syracuse and Rutgers matter, but the combination of ND and PSU would replace the torch in Liberty’s hand with a B10 flag. ND is a great geographic fit (for whatever that’s worth) as well.
In terms of research and money sharing, I don’t know that the Catholic Church would be OK with sharing money with some of the other schools in the league.
Reach out; touch faith.
I agree with millzners on this one
At first ND seemed the most logical choice when the whole expansion thing first came up. Now, with the rumors flying over the possible chaos of the B12, it’s not so appealing. They wanted to be smug when we first announced expansion plans and maintain their independence, and NOW they possibly want in? No thanks. They would be just like we’re assuming Rutgers or Pitt would be in the B10: a middle of the road to low-end of the conference football team, who will be struggling for even a bowl bid every year. They might add academically to the conference, but they sure as hell don’t add much athletically. Plus the thought of having to deal with Domers and the Domer Denial Syndrome on a yearly basis makes me want to vomit.
Despite their history in CFB, I have no problems with watching their football program wither into yearly mediocrity or FAIL. The schadenfreude of the past few years has been far too good to give up by allowing them to possibly reap the benefits of joining a conference.
I feel the same way...
…about Pitt. They destroyed JoePa’s Eastern Conference behind the scenes, hoping PSU would never recover. I enjoy watching them decay. I enjoy losses to Bowling Green and blown 21 pt leads against Cinci and celebrating a 10-3 season where the best win was over a team (Navy) that lost to Temple like it’s a BCS year and watching the 2nd best program in Utah call off the dogs in the 3rd quarter and yellow outs.
Reach out; touch faith.
I agree about Pitt, but would much rather see them than ND
As hard as it is to compliment Pitt, in terms of football I have no qualms about saying Pitt FB > ND Football right now, so regardless of what either school brings to the table academically or TV market wise, I would take Pitt over ND.
What about other sports?
Revenue, academics, location, national fanbase? And please don’t compare ND football to Pitt. Pitt may have had a better season the last two years, but they’re not even comparable and you know that. Everyone needs to look past their hatred of ND.
I meant from the past two years and on a strictly football based argument
Who has been more successful? Pitt beat ND this past year, and had a better record the previous year. Historically, ND has been far more overrated than Pitt has. If we’re talking on a truly football based argument, you can’t say that ND was better than Pitt was.
yes, because we should make a decision that will impact the future of the conference,
and the college football landscape in general, because Pitt has had 2 better seasons in football than Notre Dame. You can’t think short term in this. ND may be historically more overrated than Pitt, but even if you take out the “overratedness” they’re still better than Pitt nearly every year.
This would basically be like saying the Big 10 should have dumped Penn State and take Pitt after 2004 since they had a better record for the prior 5 seasons.
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 10, 2010 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
I certainly hope the conference wouldn’t base the decision on either (1) a limited snapshot of football performance or (2) just football performance anyway. There’s a hell of a lot more that goes into the decision.
On to the specific point you are making, if you were to ask which school should be expected to be better at football in, say, 2012-2020 between Notre Dame or Pitt, anyone with some sensibility would say Notre Dame, right? I mean, what has Pitt shown that leads one to believe that they’ve even be able to sustain their good but not even remarkable level of 2008-9. If your entire goal would be to get the team expected to be a better football program in the future, you take the Irish.
Destroyed the Eastern Conference behind the scenes?
What are you talking about? You can’t destroy something that never existed. Pitt wasn’t part of the basketball Big East yet when the 5-3 vote kept Penn State from joining. When Pitt joined in ’82, it was strictly a basketball decision because 1) the Eastern 8 was terrible and 2) It allowed football to remain independent.
How exactly is maintaining independence in football “hoping PSU would never recover?” Recover from what? Pitt and Penn State were both independent and doing well for themselves in the 80s. It was the Big Ten invite in December of ’89 that killed any thoughts of an eastern conference.
When Paterno floated the idea of an Eastern All-Sports Conference, the only schools to support him were WVU and (IIRC) Temple or maybe Rutgers.
Everyone else (including Pitt and perhaps most notably in Paterno’s mind: Syracuse) told him to take it somewhere else.
I’m gonna go ahead and say that a) Paterno was right to realize that TV contracts were the future, and b) “maintaining independence” really worked out well for the non-basketball Big East schools. All 3 Big East commisioners have been from Providence, correct?
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 10, 2010 11:35 AM EST up reply actions
No disagreement here
Paterno clearly saw the writing on the wall for the future of tv and football conferences while Pitt and Syracuse did not. I just don’t see how it’s anyone’s ‘fault’ the way ckmneon put it. Shortsighted, sure, no ill will or malice towards Penn State.
Maintaining independence only fell apart when Penn State joined the Big Ten and limited their out of conference dates. That move was then a catalyst for Big East football expansion in ’91, which worked out pretty well until 2003.
I disagree with the "no ill will or malice".
The eastern schools hated Penn State. Sure, the no revenue sharing portion of the deal was bad enough for them, but you can’t convince me that that was enough of a deal breaker.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 10, 2010 4:00 PM EST up reply actions
Of course...
… it couldn’t have had anything to do with JoePa advocating a revenue sharing model that would have been great for Penn State and awful for the rest of the conference.
I mean, in retrospect, we should have done it anyway (because PSU and BC not in the primary northeastern conference with SU and Pitt and WVU and Rutgers is crazy, and some combination of Cinci, UConn, and Louisville would have joined later. Or possibly Virginia Tech joins and sticks around.), but I can’t see any way SU or Pitt would have gone for the conference as proposed at the time.
Well, fercryingoutloud, why should we pay you guys when we kick the crap outta of you and the whole bit?
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 11, 2010 7:17 PM EST up reply actions
Notre Dame isn’t going to just “wither into mediocrity” any more than PSU was after the dark years in 2000-2004. They are a major historical power and while there are peaks and valleys, those programs always return. The infrastructure is there and too strong to prevent it. They are nothing like Pitt or Rutgers — they are one of the great programs in college football. If they don’t join the Big Ten, they can survive as an independent or the ACC or some other opportunity will come along to take them. They aren’t going to go away.
Don’t get me wrong: I hate them. I agree with the annoyance of ND fans, many of whom have never even been the South Bend. I want to see them lose forever. But they’d be a great addition to the Big Ten.
The Ivy League
They probably though the same thing back 80 or so years ago, “nothing can knock us off our pedestal of football dominance,” but conservative thinking and a refusal to adapt to the changing landscape was able to kill off an entire league. Notre Dame can certainly fall into the same trap if they keep living in the past…
You beat me to it
This is the truth. What should warn ND even more is that what actually killed the Ivy League (or at least relegated them to irrelevance) was an overestimation of how great of a TV draw they were.
Reach out; touch faith.
Huge difference between the 2000’s and the 1940’s.
But more importantly, the Ivy Lague schools chose to give up sports excellence by refusing to give out athletic scholaships and focus on academics. They intentionally de-emphasized athletics. I don’t see how that’s a remotely comparable case.
Instead looks at schools like Texas or USC or Alabama (or PSU!) who are historical powerhouses but went through tough times in recent decades and losing seasons and are back on top again. That’s the comp for Notre Dame.
Agreed that there is a huge difference between those time periods. But the Ivy League choosing to de-emphasize sports by not handing out scholarships still boils down to one thing, money. The IL chose to spend theirs on something else while other schools started to spend more on athletics, and that’s fine. But in this current landscape of TV contracts, shared conference revenue, etc, if Notre Dame tries to maintain the status quo, they’re going to find themselves in a similar position where the other big time athletic schools will have MUCH more money at their disposal, and ND won’t be able to keep competitive.
It’s not just about weathering a tough period on the field, but maintaing a monetary dedication to athletic success that competes with other schools. ND’s stubbornness and conservative thinking is screwing them here.
University of Chicago is
another good example of a powerhouse disappearing from the sports landscape.
PSU football also hit a rough patch when they quit the athletic scholarship game back in the 40’s (?).
One man doing the work of 100's for the good of 1000's
ugh, Domers
they combine the worst attributes of Michigan (snobby) and Iowa (ridiculously delusional) fans, while bringing few, if any, of the positives.
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 10, 2010 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
"while bringing few, if any, of the positives"
They gave us this walking punch-line, which will be comedic gold for decades.
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
by millzners on Mar 10, 2010 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Holy Crap
Neither did I. Instant Rec!!
"We heard all that talk all week about the SEC and their speed, but we knew personally that they weren't nearly as tough as us."
-Tony Hunt
i will miss making fun of the dude. Hopefully he will do well at KC
Never insult seven men when all you have is a six shooter --COL Sherman T Potter
by psu in the w-b on Mar 10, 2010 7:48 PM EST up reply actions
Actually
it sounds like they’ll consider joining IF the Big Ten and Pac-10 expand, which means there would have to be an expansion for them to consider it, meaning they will not join the Big Ten unless the Big Ten expands already, which means…
ND —→ Big East
Who wouldn't want to see ND losing to Cinci, UConn, the Cuse, Rutgers, South Florida in THE SAME YEAR?
Usually, their horrible losses are spread out over a decade. I don’t think I could take the schadenfreudegasm.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 9, 2010 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
The more we do this expansion thing
the more I want things to stay the same. More teams means playing all of them less often. I don’t like that.
I know about your diabolical plan.
No but seriously
How many teams in the B10 do you get excited about playing? Obviously UM, OSU, Iowa, and… maybe given the year you can throw in MSU or Wisco. I do agree with Laaaaazzz though, it’s not like Rutgers gets circled on the calendar either.
I say this frequently, but I’m never all that excited to play Indiana/NW/Illinois/Purdue and whatever other team I’m forgetting. See what just happened there? I can’t even remember all the teams in the B10 most of the time, it’s just 5-6 games of “meh, we’ll really be ashamed if we lose this one”
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
You will be excited
For every Pitt, Texas, or ND game, regardless if they are good or not, which is why I think they are the three top choices and no one else does anything for me.
One of those things is not like the others…. Pitt? Should I be excited if we play Rutgers or Marlyand or Syracuse too? Because Pitt “excites” me just as much as them (which is to say, marginally at most).
Texas and Notre Dame? Yes, please.
But
While I think it may seem like a blah game, it would be our final game, and we would finally have a natural rival. I also think Pitt football would improve in the B10, as they don’t have to explain to recruits why the Big East is such a joke.
maybe we get a little extra excitement
but does OSU care at all about playing Pitt?
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face
OSU only cares about Michigan and Penn State. Penn State only because if they win they can go on message boards and talk about how they don't care about Penn State.
Everyone else is just some team they “don’t respect like we respect Michigan” or whatever.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 10, 2010 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
Eh, to each there own. Would I be more excited ending the season with Pitt over Michigan St? Maybe marginally. but I don’t think it would feel any different than ending the season with Rutgers or Syracuse, et al. — Pitt just seems like the same thing to me as any of those Eastern opponents. Just because the are in-state doesn’t carry any more excitement for me.
Ending the season with Notre Dame though? That would be cool and exciting and rival tOSU/UM.
We could at the very least have a rival that hates us back
And we could finally get rid of the monstrosity that is the Land Grant Trophy (actually we’d probably just have two trophy games), and replace it with a geographical rival, and an actual rivalry game that is within fair driving distance.
we already have 2 trophy games
never forget the Governer’s Bell!
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 10, 2010 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
Governors'
"Want a donut go to dunkin donuts, want a linebacker go to Penn State."
- Cris Carter, NFL Draft, 4/25/09
twitter: @princessblueezy
all sorts of fail on my misspelling
and it does appear to be Governor’s everywhere I looked, even though it is between 2 governors.
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2010 8:18 AM EST up reply actions
I guess the theory would be only one governor would ring the bell after the victory.
That or they are just idiots. At least it isn’t called the LOL trophy.
by VVeRPennState on Mar 11, 2010 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
NO-GAST
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 11, 2010 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
Then they are using bad grammar then.
"Want a donut go to dunkin donuts, want a linebacker go to Penn State."
- Cris Carter, NFL Draft, 4/25/09
twitter: @princessblueezy
by kmblue on Mar 11, 2010 10:17 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Easy rec.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 11, 2010 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
I agree
I normally wouldn’t have rec’d this based on the post alone, but RR advised me to, and I’ve got his back. Junny was being mean to him.
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2010 1:56 PM EST up reply actions
Mom, you're embarrassing me!
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 11, 2010 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
Well now the chips are starting to fall into place.
I see how it is JNitt. It’s called tough love. Not everyone has to get it, it just works.
Milk-a-what?
by Jeff Junstrom on Mar 11, 2010 7:28 PM EST up reply actions
Kevin agreed with me too.
Morelli hater.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 11, 2010 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
I never said I didn't agree with your Morelli-based premise.
I, along with others, took umbrage with your assertion of what BSD members’ wive/girlfriends/etc. look like.
Milk-a-what?
by Jeff Junstrom on Mar 11, 2010 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
Kevin still agreed with me and he's a mod so suck it.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 11, 2010 8:45 PM EST up reply actions
But I agree with Kevin.
So, there’s that.
Milk-a-what?
by Jeff Junstrom on Mar 11, 2010 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
He agreed with me first.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 11, 2010 9:02 PM EST up reply actions
hey, you know how to get on my good side
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2010 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
Pay you?
I can offer one free front page bump per month. Except that I can’t. But I can steal your content and post it on the front page as my own.
Milk-a-what?
by Jeff Junstrom on Mar 11, 2010 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
lol, content
I’m a leech, I provide no content, only semi-witty retorts. I average about 1.5 posts/ month.
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 12, 2010 11:49 AM EST up reply actions
We could at the very least have a rival that hates us back
You could say the exact same thing about any team in the East that we used to play. You think people at Rutgers or Maryland don’t hate Penn State?
Ah, as jesse. has said before:
We kicked the life out of them. They hated us. We didn’t care.
And so on and so forth.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 10, 2010 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think they do
I have met plenty of people from all 3 schools (Pitt, Rutgers, and Maryland) after college and ONLY Pitt still seems to hold the grudge of beingthe red headed step child
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face
I've met 2 types of Rutgers fans
the hardcore ones (season ticket holders, etc), and the more casual ones (not sure the best term for this second group…basically they don’t really care, but Rutgers has been moderately successful lately so they are “fans”). The first group also tends to be older than the second group.
The first group definitely still hates Penn State (my step-father is one of them. He doesn’t rub it in my face or anything, so this definitely isn’t like a friendly in family ribbing, but he roots against Penn State in every game they play, except against Notre Dame and certain other rivals).
I only really know one Maryland grad, and he’s too young to remember the PSU-Maryland “rivalry” (he’s my age…I don’t remember it either).
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2010 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
Could very well be a generational thing
as I am only 28 so don’t remember playing any of these teams other than Pitt my first two years at PSU. But what I meant was that regarding current studnets, it seems that Pitt is the only one that still is hating after all these beatings er I mean years
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face
Someone's got to.
I’m not gonna debate that the Pitt-Penn State series had been mostly-one sided in the Paterno era, but really; have any of these other “rivals” won a national championship?
all things require tradeoffs. An actual championship game and some more prestige is worth it..
Never insult seven men when all you have is a six shooter --COL Sherman T Potter
by psu in the w-b on Mar 10, 2010 7:49 PM EST up reply actions
would we really have more prestige by adding a team like, say, Syracuse?
and the championship game would be nice, but not really a huge money maker and would just give us one more week of exposure (we’re already pushing games back to the weekend after thanksgiving)
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 10, 2010 8:13 PM EST up reply actions
that week means a lot. By prestige I mean the fact thay we have an outright champion every year.
There is a certain level of prestige to a championship game. I hate to say it but look at the crap the SEC puts on. I know we could do better. Also, Joepa said it therefore it must be true.
Never insult seven men when all you have is a six shooter --COL Sherman T Potter
by psu in the w-b on Mar 11, 2010 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
well, who exactly was the Big XII's outright champion in 2008?
If the Big Ten just wanted an outright champion, they could modify the tie-break rules and eliminate sharing. Just because you arbitrarily choose a tiebreak to send one team to a conference championship doesn’t necessarily mean that they are the “outright champion” either.
I’m just playing devils advocate here, and I do understand the benefits of a championship game, but it isn’t worth diluting the conference with a weaker, less prestigious team for 13 weeks of the season just to get the chance to have one week with more exposure.
There is definitely a threshold for teams worthy to invite, now we just have to define that threshold. Texas, ND, or bust? Drop it down to the Syracuse level? Drop it down to the Akron level? Invite Youngstown St?
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2010 8:39 PM EST up reply actions
I am still holding out for the merchant marine acadmey
You post very vaild points. Actually I can see both points of the argument
Never insult seven men when all you have is a six shooter --COL Sherman T Potter
by psu in the w-b on Mar 13, 2010 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
ND seems worried about a "seismic shift"
in college athletics, which to me means that they’re worried that some combination of teams (Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers?) could leave the big east for the big ten, and all of a sudden ND is in a now crappy big east for all non-football sports without a real plan for ever joining the big 10.
It’s interesting to see them acknowledge the fact that they’re at the mercy of the conferences now, which indicates that if Delaney plays his cards right, ND could join the big 10.
I’m not really sure if I want ND, but I’d definitely take them over any other single team. If we’re only expanding to 12 teams, ND is the best choice. You can talk about TX, but the geographic problems are real and bigger than the fact that ND is private and catholic. jNW is small and private as well.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
I disagree with you on the geographic problems
especially coming from a Penn State perspective (and yes, I live in the heart of the Big 10 right now where I can drive to pretty much any away game).
The geographic problems aren’t really an issue for the teams (ooh, a 4 hour flight instead of a 2 or 3 hour flight), and won’t really be that big a factor for traveling fans (what is the usual allotment, 5,000 away tickets?). The people that already travel to the away games are going to be just as willing to travel to Texas as they are going to Minnesota, or Iowa, or Wisconsin (or Penn State, for the people on the western side of the footprint).
Heck, depending on the exact details on getting to Austin (ie flying directly there, or flying ot Dallas or San Antonio and driving up), it isn’t really any more expensive or time consuming for me than getting home to Penn State for a home football game (and again, this is coming from Michigan State, one of the closer schools to PSU).
Sure, there are cultural/geographic differences, but I think the cachet of playing against Texas will trump that
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 10, 2010 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think that the geographic problems are insurmountable
or even that big of a deal, but I think they’re bigger than any problem ND presents.
I definitely think that TX is the second best choice, and a great choice at that, but I wonder about what happens when the big ten hoops tourney (or the wrestling tourney or the women’s volleyball tourney) is in Austin. Texas pretty much gets to dictate what goes down in the big12 right now, and it stands to reason that they’re only coming to the big11 if they get their fair share, too. I don’t think that it would be too big of a deal to give it to them. But I do think that it makes them a less attractive option than ND.
I wouldn't trust old rooster me neither.
well, I guess you have to ask "what is more important?" to them
an extra $10 million, guaranteed, over their best yearly revenue, and moreso if they have down years (and probably even more guaranteed, just because the addition of Texas would increase the revenue of the Big Ten), or the ability to dictate what goes on (which I don’t think they’d realistically get. There are already OSU and Michigan who think they can call all the shots. Heck, when was the last time a Big Ten event was held in Pittsburgh or Philly?)
by The JuggerNitt on Mar 11, 2010 8:22 AM EST up reply actions
Agree with QBSneak 2
There isn’t much to like about Comcast in spite of its fast internet service. No one ever quotes the right price over the phone and the actual price is always higher. Comcast has no shame. I can see Comcast putting Notre Dame on a budget – one the Irish will not like but one that will maximize funds for the cable network. It’s about time the Irish come down to earth. Just like I did when I dumped Comcast for AT&T.
Pitt has moved on.
Despite what some posters on this board say, the attitude of Pitt fans toward Penn State is indifferent, perhaps even benign. Renewing the Pitt-Penn State series is not a major concern although it is still talked about. Right now fans of all conferences except the SEC and Big Ten are wondering what is going to happen. Although reams have been written about expansion, only a few official comments have been made – by Delaney, Swarbuck, Missouri representatives, Jamie Dixon, and today Bill Stewart. The only thing that appears certain is some major change is going to happen. I don’t think we’ll hear Delaney say this summer, “We looked into it and decided not to do it.” I do know there have been some intense meetings with Big East Commissioner Marinatto and Swarbuck and Pitt AD Steve Pederson at the Big East Tournament in New York. That’s about it. Oh, and, yes, today Bill Stewart talked about the Big East disbanding and what conference WVU would join. No one knows where that came from.
I don't think we can generalize about either fanbase:
Some Pitt fans are indifferent toward Penn State and others embrace the hate. We see similar variety of emotions among the Penn State fans.
Stewart has never been known as a media-savvy coach. He was probably speculating just like the rest of us.
What SlingStone said.
This weekend, I’ll walk around Oakland with a PSU hat and sweatshirt. If I make it out alive, I’ll be sure to let you know.
What a joke.
"Based on my estimates, it appears that Stanzi shall transcend the ages." - Cairo
by ReadingRambler on Mar 12, 2010 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE BLACK SHOE DIARIES STORE
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
