Monday Musings: New perspective on the QB competition & more

[longtimeclone]

I enjoyed the golf story. Yeah my game has slowly went downhill from HS, and I usually only go for work and/or when there will be a lot of drinking.

[longtimeclone]

I fail to see how 1-2 football games a year on big 12 networks and the rest of the olympic sports will be a great financial advantage for the big 12.

I think if that 1-2 football games was more like 4-6 than it would be a much bigger deal.

[KFitzy87]

Got tenth at state golf individually my senior year! Yeah, I'm a pretty big deal

[CyCloned]

then this is the a question of which QB is the most inspiring to the rest of the team?

I remember when Seneca played it seemed like after a while the rest of the team was watching and waiting for him to make a great play, or they did not know what to do because he was so good at improvising and maybe that is the problem with SJ. He is great at making things happen when there is nothing there, but the rest of the team is not sure what he is doing, while Barnett is more by the book. So, Barnett is better, even if he is not......???

[NickTheGreat]

Agreed

how's that partial membership thing working out for the big east? if notre dame is the badass proclaimed in the article i would think the big east would be THE conference to be in, just because they're graced by ND's occasional presence

I'd LOVE to see the Big12, Big10, PAC12, SEC, etc all turn down Notre Dame part time. And get their own **** together. Then come football realignment time, ND would be sitting at home, alone, holding their leprechaun.

This will NOT happen, however. Everyone will scramble to get them in their league, for no reason

[tplumm]

then this is the a question of which QB is the most inspiring to the rest of the team?

I remember when Seneca played it seemed like after a while the rest of the team was watching and waiting for him to make a great play, or they did not know what to do because he was so good at improvising and maybe that is the problem with SJ. He is great at making things happen when there is nothing there, but the rest of the team is not sure what he is doing, while Barnett is more by the book. So, Barnett is better, even if he is not......???

I think you are spot on.

[agrabes]

Against partial member ND as well, the only thing you have to do is look at the Big East. They gained absolutely zero advantage during conference realignment and in fact ended up in the worst position of all the previous/current AQ conferences. ND's partial membership had no effect good or bad. It comes down to deciding if you want to play them in basketball badly enough, and I don't.

[alarson]

All due respect Chris, youre wrong on ND. Partial membership and 4-5 games a year would only give us 2 more football games for our conference's tv inventory (keep in mind TX already has a series set up with notre dame that could count against that number of games). Unless it was rigged that they only played our conference's top 4 brands, chances are one of those 2 games is against a team that doesnt generate much of a marquee matchup anyways. Divide it 10 ways and youre not talking a lot of money

As for the other sports, revenue for those is miniscule.

Sure, other conferences talk to ND... but because theyre all trying to get them as a full member, and ND is very good at playing the conferences. And honestly i think there are a lot of leadership that are old and stuck in a world that's been gone for 20 years where Notre Dame has any sort of national relevance. The longer notre dame waits to join a conference, and the longer they go without success, the more irrelevant they will become.

[aeroclone]

Put me down as another one in the camp of all ND or no ND. They had all their other sports in the Big East and they played a couple football games a year with Big East schools, but when the **** hit the fan, the Big East was basically left without a seat at the table. ND without full football just doesn't bring much to a conference.

Now I do agree with your statement that one would be crazy to think that the Big 12 would turn down ND for partial membership. UT seems to be pretty worked up over that idea, so I don't see the league turning it down. But I do think it would be the wrong move for the conference to make. ND needs us more than we need them now. We are fine right now at 10. And I think a move to 12 with schools like FSU and Clemson is far more compelling for money and stability than what we get messing with partial membership.

The Big 12 is a stock on the rise, ND football has been on a slide for most of my lifetime. We are gaining strength in that relationship each and every day. You don't make concessions or special arrangements for ND at this point, you just sit back and smoke them out.

[GoCubsGo]

I get the point that ND is a big dog and alll, but...what about the can of worms that could be opened after 6 years (or however many years all 11 institutions would give their grant of rights to the Big12) as Texas could see how well it works for ND, so now they want to be independent in Football. Since we catered to ND we should do the same for others in the league... (see what I did there!)

Although, I would love it if we could get back to 12 teams so that our name isn't as stupid as the Big 10 with 12 teams...

This is the same reason I wouldn't want ND as a partial member. If you do this for ND, then you KNOW that Texas will want the same deal at some point. Then Oklahoma, then OSU, then etc., etc. Down the slippery slope we go until there are only a few "full time" members, including ISU, with the rest using the conference only when it serves their own purposes.

[cyman05]

All you guys point to ND's partial membership with the Big East and state that it didn't work out well there. The Big East's problem wasn't ND and others' partial memberships. It was (1) failure of foresight to invite Penn State in the 90's when Penn State wanted in, (2) the loss of the Miami, Va Tech, and BC combo in the early 2000's, (3) lack of 1-2 dominate FB schools to be able to step up an fill the void of the losses of the 3 schools previously mentioned.

Conference realignment is all about anchor schools. You lose your anchors and its only a matter of time before the house of cards falls down. The Big East didn't have many strong anchors to begin with in the way of football, and those decent schools they had bolted. The Big East was/is a basketball conference.

Same with the ACC. Its a BB conference. If they lose Clemson, FSU, and Va Tech, its a matter of time until the conference loses 2/3 of its membership.

If the B12 lost Texas and OU, we'd be done.

So I don't think you can really point to the Big East and say that ND was the reason it didn't work out.

As long as you could guarantee me that Texas would never go the partial member route similar to ND in 10-15 years from now, then if the B12 added ND as a partial member I'd say bring them on as a partial for the reasons CW mentioned. I don't see any other downside.

[TXCyclones]

Against partial member ND as well, the only thing you have to do is look at the Big East. They gained absolutely zero advantage during conference realignment and in fact ended up in the worst position of all the previous/current AQ conferences. ND's partial membership had no effect good or bad. It comes down to deciding if you want to play them in basketball badly enough, and I don't.

I think that the Big East gained a ridiculous amount with ND. Imagine how much more they would have sucked without ND!

[alarson]

All you guys point to ND's partial membership with the Big East and state that it didn't work out well there. The Big East's problem wasn't ND and others' partial memberships. It was (1) failure of foresight to invite Penn State in the 90's when Penn State wanted in, (2) the loss of the Miami, Va Tech, and BC combo in the early 2000's, (3) lack of 1-2 dominate FB schools to be able to step up an fill the void of the losses of the 3 schools previously mentioned.

Conference realignment is all about anchor schools. You lose your anchors and its only a matter of time before the house of cards falls down. The Big East didn't have many strong anchors to begin with in the way of football, and those decent schools they had bolted. The Big East was/is a basketball conference.

Same with the ACC. Its a BB conference. If they lose Clemson, FSU, and Va Tech, its a matter of time until the conference loses 2/3 of its membership.

If the B12 lost Texas and OU, we'd be done.

So I don't think you can really point to the Big East and say that ND was the reason it didn't work out.

As long as you could guarantee me that Texas would never go the partial member route similar to ND in 10-15 years from now, then if the B12 added ND as a partial member I'd say bring them on as a partial for the reasons CW mentioned. I don't see any other downside.

I dont blame ND for them not working out. At the same time, i'd say they didn't add anything either. The same would be true for the big 12 adding their olympic sports (negligible dollar increase. the money is all in football, especially for ND) and only adding a couple games to our tv inventory.

The fact is, they need us more than we need them. There are viable all-sports targets out there (like FSU\Clemson) that are much better options than a partial ND.

[cyman05]

I dont blame ND for them not working out. At the same time, i'd say they didn't add anything either. The same would be true for the big 12 adding their olympic sports (negligible dollar increase. the money is all in football, especially for ND) and only adding a couple games to our tv inventory.

The fact is, they need us more than we need them. There are viable all-sports targets out there (like FSU\Clemson) that are much better options than a partial ND.

I totally agree with all but one statement. Some say that a couple games addition to tv inventory may not be much. But let's pretend the B12 added FSU and Clemson. Then ND agrees to 4 games a year against the schools that get a lot of TV exposure (UT, OU, FSU, Clemson). That would be 2 mega ND-Big 12 TV games per year that would pull in big time bucks. I could see 2 of those mega games per year being worth 35-40 million to the TV networks if they were schedule at the right time of year, which would equate to 3 million or so per B12 member. Would 3 million/team/yr be worth enough to put up with ND and all the side issues they come along with? That would be a question for the B12 AD's and administration to answer.

[Frak]

I get the point that ND is a big dog and alll, but...what about the can of worms that could be opened after 6 years (or however many years all 11 institutions would give their grant of rights to the Big12) as Texas could see how well it works for ND, so now they want to be independent in Football. Since we catered to ND we should do the same for others in the league... (see what I did there!)

Although, I would love it if we could get back to 12 teams so that our name isn't as stupid as the Big 10 with 12 teams...

This. I don't doubt that ND brings some value...even if it is a light 5 game conference schedule. But what happens when the 13 year grant of rights is up? Isn't is OBVIOUS what UT wants to do? They have their own network and own ESPN payday. All they need is a home for their olympic sports and some help scheduling FB games. Well, ND just set that precedent for them! So UT goes semi-indy just like ND and OU likely follows suit. What does that mean for everyone else??? Probably a Big East style TV contract in 13 years.

Sorry CW, but I think that people who WOULD take a partial member ND are crazy. IMO it is like signing your own death warrant as a big-boy FB program 13 years down the line. Why would ISU sign on for that with what little benefit that ND olymipic sports and their 2-3 visiting FB games a year brings to the Big 12. I mean, what would that be...an extra $1M a team? So ISU is supposed to mortgage their future for $1M a year? Riiiiiigggghhhttt UT.