Skip to content

Notre Dame, Big Ten 'are very much in deliberations'

If there is one school that could possibly — possibly — put a halt to a conference apocalypse at the ready to change the collegiate football landscape for evermore, it’s Notre Dame.

And, yes, I can hear it now.  “Notre Dame hasn’t been relevant for 20 years!!! What do they have to do with anything???”  That sentiment is understood, but hear me out for just a coupla minutes.

If Notre Dame were to accept an offer from the Big Ten — and, make no mistake, the Irish are still the apple of the Big Ten’s eye.  Right below Texas — it’s conceivable that the conference would stop at that and not pilfer other leagues.  The Irish and their flung-far-and-wide fan base would give them a national television footprint for their television network that no other school/schools could come close to matching.

If that were to happen, the Pac-10 might — might — stand down from their six-school plundering of the Big 12.  Maybe they’d look to add a Colorado and a Utah, but nothing as earth-shattering as the option of imploding one of the six BcS conferences that’s currently on commissioner Larry Scott‘s to-do list.

With the Irish finally in the Big Ten’s clutches, it could, basically, be status quo for all of the other “major” conferences, with the exception of a tweaked Pac-10 and a Big 12 featuring a replacement for Colorado.

No implosion of the Big 12, Big East, nothing.  Again, just a couple of tweaks.  Maybe.

With that as a backdrop, Pete Thamel of the New York Times dropped an interesting nugget on his Twitter feed this evening.

According to Thamel, and based on a conversation with an unnamed BcS athletic director, “Notre Dame and the Big Ten are very much in deliberations.”

And so it begins anew.  The Golden Domers and their Midwest brothers-from-a-different-mother continuing a flirtation that’s gone on for decades.

Nebraska the linchpin as far as conference expansion is concerned?  Please.  Very likely, it will once again come down to the Big Ten’s utter infatuation with the school in South Bend. 

And, finally, a consummation.

Those hoping for minimal change in the structure of college football had better pray for Notre Dame to lay down and get biblical with the Big Ten.  And soon, with a “loyalty deadline” for the corn shuckers looming.

UPDATE 9:38 p.m. ET: Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick has told Thamel that the talk of his school being “very much in deliberations” with the Big Ten “are just not true.”

Dammit, would somebody either sh-t or get off the pot already?  This is getting old.

Permalink 0 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: American Athletic Conference, Big 12 Conference, Big Ten Conference, Independents, Notre Dame Fighting Irish, Pac-12 Conference, Rumor Mill
Respond to “Notre Dame, Big Ten 'are very much in deliberations'”
  1. Gailikk says: Jun 7, 2010 9:14 PM

    Now we are talking. I am not an advocate of the Super 16 divisions starting in the college world. If ND would finally see the light and join the Big 10 (Big North?) and the PAC 10 becoming the PAC 12 the football world would remain.
    Still though, the expansion concept has been interesting.

  2. AldoRaine says: Jun 7, 2010 9:27 PM

    I love a good bit of juicy gossip like everyone else…..but let me be the first to say… one….not Pete Thamel, no one from any BCS school knows what ND is going to do.

  3. The Warren Sapp Diet says: Jun 7, 2010 9:28 PM

    Notre Dame, Big Ten ‘are very much in deliberations’
    This reminds me of a guy I worked with who had three kids with his girlfriend. After 12 years he said “guess what – I’m marrying (name)”
    ND already plays half of the Big Ten every year. Good. Non story.

  4. Michael says: Jun 7, 2010 10:06 PM

    If all of this goes down with the Conferences going BIG in expansion…I hope Notre Dame plays this game so long to the point they get left out and the Big Ten won’t allow them to schedule Michigan, Michigan State & Purdue every year. Their schedule will suck and they won’t be able to compete with the big boys outside of still being a National draw…if it stays that way.

  5. Bigbuckeye says: Jun 7, 2010 10:54 PM

    Why would the Pack 10 back off of their expansion?
    If they get the opportunity to grab UT, OU……..and whoever else, they are gonna take it….

  6. AldoRaine says: Jun 7, 2010 11:32 PM

    ND plays 3 Big 10 teams a year, how is that playing “half of the Big Ten every year”.
    Does anyone even watch college football on this site?

  7. AldoRaine says: Jun 7, 2010 11:34 PM

    So….as I posted…..Thamel was full of crap.

  8. Kevvy says: Jun 8, 2010 1:11 AM

    I do not understand the logic that if the Irish don’t join the Big Ten, Michigan/Michigan State/Purdue would refuse to schedule them. That makes zero sense for both the institutions involved, as well as the exposure they get on NBC when they play at Notre Dame. Completely idiotic. It goes back to my theory that people think college football is run by middle school girls. Notre Dame doesn’t want to join a conference? Who gives a crap? No one cares that Navy or Army aren’t in a conference and have special bowl tie-ins. Navy even has a deal with CBS! Even in a super conference, they aren’t going to schedule more than 8-9 conference games per year. USC is content to spend one of those 3 non-conference games on Notre Dame every year as is. Why would it change just because of conference realignment?

  9. contrary says: Jun 8, 2010 1:48 AM

    I hope Notre Dame stays “out in the cold” so that the “Big 10” (the Western Conference) and the Pac10 (Athletic Association of Western Universities) DO become greatly expanded conferences. That way we can eventually have a playoff system and have an “on the field” national champion instead of a “voted” national champion.

  10. willmose says: Jun 8, 2010 8:00 AM

    Somebody tell me why the breakup of the Big 12 would be a bad thing? The Southwest Conference breakup was actually good for college football. The Big 12 admin is lazy and doesn’t give a hoot about the universities. Good ridance to them.

  11. Florida727 says: Jun 8, 2010 9:17 AM

    What’s the incentive, financial or otherwise, for Notre Dame to join the Big Ten? They hand-pick their schedule, and it’s usually a pretty tough one. They have their own NATIONAL network (NBC), not a pay-per-view one (Big Ten Network), so why would they care about the BTN? They’d have to likely give up some historic rivalry games such as Navy, maybe USC. Again… it begs the question, what does Notre Dame GAIN from joining a conference, any conference? They already fulfilled a need by having their basketball team join the Big East, while keeping their football team from joining the same conference. I just don’t ever see them joining a conference as long as they can become competitive on a national scale under Kelly… which I think they will. And no, I’m not a Notre Dame fan.

  12. Bo Darville says: Jun 8, 2010 12:15 PM

    They should just take the 32 best college teams and put them in 8 4 team divisions. Have two wild cards and a Super Bowl in Miami every year. Then a Pro Bowl in Hawaii. And a draft in April to select the High School players. There, then nobody will have to suffer through something different than the NFL.

  13. aiden says: Jun 8, 2010 2:32 PM

    Notre Dame does NOT have its own network. NBC televises their home games. Thats it! A network like the Bigten is on 24 hrs a day 7days a week all year long and features many sports!!

  14. edgy1957 says: Jun 8, 2010 4:01 PM

    Florida727 says:
    What’s the incentive, financial or otherwise, for Notre Dame to join the Big Ten? They hand-pick their schedule, and it’s usually a pretty tough one. They have their own NATIONAL network (NBC), not a pay-per-view one (Big Ten Network), so why would they care about the BTN?
    They’d probably care because they no longer suckle from a larger TV teat than the Big 10. The ONLY thing that being an independent has over the Big 10 is that they can win 9 games and be ranked high enough in the BCS and they’re in while they’d have to make the Big 10 title game in order to have a shot.
    Oh and their schedule isn’t as tough as you make it out to be. Stanford, Army, Air Force and Navy aren’t going to help your schedule and the “tough” part of their schedule is Michigan, Michigan State and USC.
    If they go to a 12 team Big “10”, you’re looking at 8 conference games and 4 non-conference games. That allows them to keep Navy and USC plus rotate Army and Air Force. Their schedule would actually toughen up because they’d most likely end up in a division with Iowa, Ohio State and Penn State. My suggestion would be 2 locked in opponents from the other division and then they’d rotate the other four. For example:
    Illinois (Penn State, Wisconsin)
    Michigan (Notre Dame, Ohio State)
    Michigan State (Notre Dame, Ohio State)
    Minnesota (Indiana, Purdue)
    Northwestern (Indiana, Purdue)
    Wisconsin (Penn State, Wisconsin)
    Indiana (Minnesota, Northwestern)
    Iowa (Illinois, Wisconsin)
    Notre Dame (Michigan, Michigan State)
    Ohio State (Michigan, Michigan State)
    Penn State (Illinois, Wisconsin)
    Purdue (Minnesota, Northwestern)

  15. Kevvy says: Jun 8, 2010 6:23 PM

    You don’t know what you’re talking about with Notre Dame’s schedule. They play Army once every 5 years and Air Force a tad more than that. What about games with Boston College, Stanford, and Pittsburgh? Why would it make sense for them to trash their rivalry with Pitt/Stanford/BC just to play Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio State? Your mentioning of Army and Air Force as major ND rivals shows your lack of understanding of the situation. Do a little research and look at who they actually play every year.

  16. edgy1957 says: Jun 8, 2010 8:12 PM

    Kevvy says:
    How about the ones with Nevada (guffaw), San Diego State (stop, my sides are hurting) and Duke (Oh God, my testicles just burst). Please, the ONLY thing that ND does is NOT play I-AA (or FCS). Other than that, they’ll have their share of gimmes and that’s THE major reason why all the Notre Shame people were talking national championship game this year. Not every school that signed a contract were football powers when they signed contracts with the Blighting Irish so get off your high horse. A Big 10 schedule would be a theoretical upgrade to their schedule and you know it and if you don’t then you’re deceiving yourself.

  17. edgy1957 says: Jun 8, 2010 8:15 PM

    Also, I didn’t say that Army and AF were major ND rivals OR ELSE I wouldn’t have said that they should rotate them, which is something that I didn’t say about Navy and USC. READ next time.

  18. Kevvy says: Jun 8, 2010 9:06 PM

    I’m not trying to be cute (I’m actually mediocre at best…), but you missed my point: why even mention Air Force and Army? Pitt, Stanford, and Boston College are bigger rivals. Also, if you look at the statistics, you’ll see that Notre Dame’s schedule is almost always harder than any Big Ten team in most every measurable way:
    Nevada is a bowl team every year…hardly a joke opponent. I notice you picked 1 team from each of the past 3 years. Looking at their 2007 slate that included Duke, you must have realized that it was tougher than pretty much anyone that year, with every team except Duke and Stanford going to a bowl. Don’t you think it’s fair to say that most of the teams on those ND schedules are quite decent, or even very good?

  19. edgy1957 says: Jun 8, 2010 10:01 PM

    Kevvy says: June 8, 2010 9:06 PM ET
    Jesus Christ, if I would have said BC, Stanford or Michigan, you’d be bitching about why I didn’t mention Army and Air Force. Look, BC and Stanford have been playing more yearly than the others BUT that’s only been since the late ’80s. But, who gives a crap. ND can still play Navy, USC and choose one of those other 3 *RIVALS* that you want.
    I picked for the last 3 years and YET, you say that Nevada, a team that goes to the I Don’t Give A Crap Bowl for 5 years in a row is ” a bowl team every year” when they missed the bowls 8 years in a row before that and they didn’t become D1-A until 1992.
    BFD – a move to the Big 10 will give them a lot of opponents that will go bowling and keep most of their rivalries alive (most importantly, their annual death march against the Trojans). Just because a lot of their opponents in any given year went to a bowl means that they were destined to do so when they signed their contracts. You can’t tell me that until recently, Stanford and Navy weren’t anything more than cannon fodder for the Irish and Purdue hasn’t put much fear in the Irish hearts, as well.
    BTW, your fellow Dome Heads don’t have a clue. A team like Nevada or San Diego State, could go 12-0 but their opponent’s record is going to work against Notre Dame while a game against Penn State would be a positive and even Indiana would be a positive because of their opponent’s record. This is what put TCU ahead of Boise State in the final BCS standings. It was the reason that I predicted that if both teams were to be undefeated that Boise State had to win the polls by a considerable margin to even have a chance.
    Look, the only reason for ND to stay independent is because it’s an easier road to the BCS for them (or do you want to argue that this is not true). The money that they would get in the Big 10 would be greater than what they get now but it looks like you Domers don’t have the stones to want to play against better competition.

  20. Kevvy says: Jun 9, 2010 9:13 AM

    No, I wouldn’t have complained that you didn’t mention Air Force and Army because they aren’t rivals of Notre Dame…they’re just teams that we play more than others. I mentioned Nevada because Notre Dame scheduled them about a year out from actually playing them, and it was a half-decent team to put on the schedule. You can complain about a couple of random games all you want. If you read that thorough article I posted, you’d see that the Irish play plenty of good opponents on their schedule, especially in comparison to Big Ten schools. The point is that it’s silly for ND to join the Big Ten and limit their ability to play their rivals. They’ll be able to keep everyone on the schedule like normal once this all shakes out.

  21. edgy1957 says: Jun 9, 2010 3:26 PM

    Kevvy says:
    More arrogance from the Blighting Irish. Look, I could give a rat’s ass whether they play anyone as their rival and all I said was that they could still play their principle rivals. My God, two of them are RECENT rivalries: Stanford and BC and neither have reached as many games played against the Irish as Army. When it comes down to it, a Big 10 membership would allow them to play USC, Navy, BC and what other manufactured rivalry that you want.
    Again, the ONLY thing that being independent does for them is allow them an EASIER path to the BCS because they don’t have to finish among the top 2 in a conference and they can have the NCAA kiss their butts. What the BCS schools need to do is toughen up the standards for ND and let’s see how they can deal with it.
    Also, it’s apparent that YOU and the other Domers don’t get it. When you choose to play Navy, you LOSE over even a game against Indiana because their overall record takes a hit. Human voters will look at Navy and give them good marks but the computers laugh at them when you compare it to other teams (As a former Navy man, I’m not pissing on the academy just to piss on it but I’m telling the truth about their opponents).

  22. edgy1957 says: Jun 9, 2010 5:17 PM

    About this schedule thing: if you take their schedule last year and look at opponent’s strength and their opponent’s schedule strength, it grades out at 73.04.
    Rip out Connecticut, Nevada, Pittsburgh, Washington and Washington State and replace them with the teams that I proposed for a “South” division and take the WORST team from the “North” and their opponent’s grade out at 73.67. Replace Stanford with Pittsburgh and it grades out at 73.81. The best part about that is that I didn’t factor in Notre Dame and recalculate, which would have brought those numbers up even more because their strength would have upgraded the opponent and the opponent’s schedule strength. ND didn’t lose anything by jumping to the Big 10 and they actually gained and that was with them playing the weakest team from the other division.

  23. Kevvy says: Jun 9, 2010 6:00 PM

    I don’t know which numbers you are using. You’re using too many hypotheticals for this math to mean anything. I get your point, but I also don’t think that your division of the conferences is very likely…possible, but unlikely. Your numbers are based on one year. Take some time and calculate something based on 1997 to 2009 like the guy from Bleacher Report did. As is, it’s hard to take your numbers and take them as seriously as the ones on the site I linked. Did you check it out?

  24. edgy1957 says: Jun 9, 2010 7:57 PM

    I got the numbers from the Sagarin ratings and it wouldn’t matter because the 2009 season actually is the BEST CASE SCENARIO for the Irish’s independent schedule. Stanford isn’t that good year in and year out while Army, AF, Navy, Duke, San Diego State, etc drag down their overall schedule, NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY ARE!
    If you want to go back 20 or 40 years, fine but the Blighting Irish aren’t playing those teams any more.
    Yes, I checked it out and it was a JOKE. You need to understand the difference between SERIOUS research and guys who are trying to make a point by cherry picking their numbers.
    1, Seriously, they play the SAME THREE Big 10 teams every year while the Big 10 teams 8 or so of a variety of teams. If you play that many teams in a year, you’re going to play MORE SUB .500 teams than a team that plays 1, 2 or 3 against a given conference. That’s a FACT and only a MORON would try to present that as a valid point. If Notre Dame played Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota every year, the would be playing far MORE sub .500 teams than the study indicated. This is also why their opponent’s winning percentage is better. They don’t play the other teams while the other teams have to factor those weaker teams into their schedule. Again – MORONS. The whole point of this study is to make the Big 10 look bad and they did it by cherry picking the information and not putting it into context or at least, hiding the context with a few dismissive phrases. They even take great pains NOT to show how ND fared against the same kind if competition by saying “Well, they’re not in a conference so….” Give me a break.
    Here is a study that I did that excluded non-conference opponents. It’s for 5 and 7 years and even includes numbers MINUS FCS opponents so that you see how they stacked up only against I-A (FBS) opponents.
    I will warn you that if you try to go through the schedule and add up the W-L records, you’ll find that it’s different from what really happened. As I say in the study, I ADJUSTED all that so that it reflected the strength of an opponent, based on THEIR W-L record and their OPPONENT’S W-L record. This study had NOTHING to do with Notre Dame or any other particular team but to show the strength of a conference adjusted for its schedule. FYI, the FCS Independent is ND while the I-A are the others.

  25. Kevvy says: Jun 10, 2010 2:06 AM

    Sounds to me like you’re making excuses for why Big Ten teams’ opponents don’t have as high of a winning percentage. Who cares if they are locked in to playing certain teams. The fact is that USC and Boston College alone win more games than most any Big Ten squad has managed over the past few years (they both average about 10+ wins over the last 10 years). Regardless of whether they beat each other up in the same conference, they’re still 10+ win teams every year. Why doesn’t Notre Dame get credit for playing a tough team?
    You keep mentioning teams that Notre Dame rarely plays. I don’t think 2007 Duke, 2007 Stanford, 2008 SDSU, and 2006 Army were any good. My point was that those were the only junk teams on the schedule that year. And it appears that your system would reward a BCS team for beating a non-BCS team that went 10-2 against a weak schedule whose opponents still had a decent win/loss record. i.e. There is a theoretical reward for beating a Central Michigan team in the MAC West (typically the stronger division) simply because it finished 9-3 (or whatever) and beat the better teams in the division doing so. That doesn’t make a win over a 9-3 Central Michigan team as good as beating a 4-8 Michigan State team that beat them. (again, random examples, but realistic in a general sense).
    If the Bleacher Report article has flaws, at least it was more thorough than your study, which might as well have been copied from Sagarin himself. …Unless you are Sagarin…or Bret Saberhagen, for that matter. In that case, I like your work.
    Final points: (1) opponents’ winning percentage is the easiest indicator to quantify over a large scale, and it is strengthened more by using larger samples of data…10+ years, etc. (2) I don’t care that teams in the Big Ten sometimes have to play Northwestern, Indiana, and Minnesota in the same year. No excuse. Just like Notre Dame doesn’t get an excuse that Michigan has been crappy the past few years and Michigan State and Purdue occasionally nose-dive. (3) the study you have created is thorough in a sense (and structured well), but ultimately is unsustainable, which is the very reason that they removed the bonus point reduction for beating a top-10 team in the BCS after the 2002 stats rewarded Oklahoma for crushing a completely overrated and overmatched Iowa State team (Seneca Wallace was good, but he was no Bret Saberhagen). (4) The bottom line is that Notre Dame’s opponents typically have a better record than Big Ten opponents and the interlocking grid of scheduling isn’t something that Notre Dame magically learned how to navigate simply to throw off the numbers in your system. Perhaps your system is too simplistic and rigid, if thorough and structured. I think the Bleacher Report …report is more thorough and does a better job explaining the uniqueness of ND’s scheduling than your grid of numbers does.
    I hope you found my post fun and entertaining, if slightly enraging (I know how these debates get).

  26. edgy1957 says: Jun 10, 2010 1:57 PM

    Kevvy says: June 10, 2010 2:06 AM ET
    Sounds to me like you’re making excuses for why Big Ten teams’ opponents don’t have as high of a winning percentage.
    I could give a rat’s ass about the Pig Ten. I happen to believe that if you’re going to make a VALID point, you need to VALID research and it’s NOT VALID. My God, how can you not understand that if you play the same three teams every year, you’re going to have a far LESS representative sample than if you play 7, 8 or 9 different teams a year and they continue to rotate them. If ND were to be playing Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota, the number of sub .500 teams would have been FAR WORSE but it still wouldn’t have been valid because they don’t play as many different kinds of teams (good, bad, ugly) as a conference team would – IN ANY CONFERENCE.
    BTW, you should stick to ND because you don’t know much AFTER them. BC has NOT averaged 10+ wins over the last 10 years, they’ve averaged 8 with 2 – count ’em – 2 10+ win seasons. Now, I’m NOT discrediting the Irish for playing USC and BC but I suppose in your mind, I’m doing that. I am saying that ND CAN improve on its overall record with a jump to the Big 10 and their opponents’ record would be consistently better than what they play year in and year out. Remember, Stanford has been on the schedule and it’s NOT because they were a great winning tradition. In most years, the Cardinal is a DRAG on their record and that’s NOT hyperbole (42-63 in the last 10 years with 2 winning seasons). Navy works as a winner BUT that’s offset by their opponents. Humans like you don’t care BUT the computers gig ND for them.
    You don’t even have an understanding about what I did when you say that bull crap. None of that has ANYTHING to do with whether a team was a top 10 team or NOT – PERIOD. It had to do with the quality of team (something that you can’t seem to grasp) and their opponents. You can play 12 teams that are 10-2 and it would mean nothing if they played teams that were crappy (A big reason why TCU had an edge over Boise State, who got a bump as did TCU for their Pac 10 opponent but lost big time because of their conference opponents while TCU got a big boost because of Utah and BYU). You seem to overlook the fact that I’m not dissing ND with the study because they do better than the Big East and just slightly worse than the Pac 10. It’s a load of crap to say that it’s unsustainable AND then try to compare it to something that it’s NOT, especially when you don’t even understand it.
    No, I’m NOT Sagarin but I’ve been doing this for a long time and the system that I developed is similar in nature but like the others, it differs from what he has. I just used his as an example because more people know him than the others.
    The whole point of the article is make all you frigging Domers all warm and fuzzy about staying independent instead of showing you the value of being in a conference. The study pointed out all the flaws OF the Big 10 while not even comparing what ND did against those same opponents UNLESS it was obviously in ND’s favor (but I suppose you never even gave that a thought when you were reading it). It’s subtle but they did their best to show ND in a good light and then making excuses as to why they didn’t show their record against the same teams.
    You know what, it’s obvious that you and the rest of the Blighting Irish faithful don’t intend to listen to the truth so let’s end this now before I really take your beloved report apart….

  27. Kevvy says: Jun 10, 2010 9:38 PM

    When I mentioned the ISU/OU thing from 2002, I was not saying that you were doing similar math. I was using that as an example to illustrate that the math they used that year seemed like a good idea, but it relied on too many other factors to comfortably assume that ISU was a top 10 team, thus giving OU a deduction on their score. I’m well aware that an article defending Notre Dame’s strength of schedule on a website like Bleacher Report is possibly subject to “scheming”, we’ll call it. But the article goes through really every conceivable measure to line up Notre Dame’s schedule with the Big Ten teams’. (I don’t think you read the whole article thoroughly…probably just skimmed through parts)
    You are JUST AS BIG of a schemer yourself, by saying that BC only averages 8 wins per year when they average 8.8! 8.8 is a lot different than 8. I was wrong, but you could have played the moral high road! Instead you turned into a lame cheater via truncation! And I’m supposed to trust you because “you’ve done this a long time” when you can make an obvious oversight like that?
    Let’s do new math: Show me a table that includes Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue’s Big Ten schedules over the last 10 years (2000-2009) versus Notre Dame’s record versus BC, Michigan State, Pitt, Michigan, Purdue, USC, Navy, and Stanford. Since ND didn’t always play Pitt, BC, or Michigan throughout all those years, let’s swap in comparable teams (2000 Nebraska for 2000 Michigan, 2001 Texas A&M for 2001 Pittsburgh, etc).
    I realize I’m a nobody asking you a favor, but since Notre Dame’s have a conference, let’s use the 8 teams they play most of the time and when they don’t play one of their traditional rivals, let’s replace someone on their schedule that had a comparable record. e.g. I mentioned using Texas A&M because they had the same record as Pittsburgh (traditional rival of ND) in 2000. If you’re saying it’s apples to oranges, let’s make it apples to apples.
    I get that it’s not just your opponents’ win percentage, but THEIR opponents’ win percentage as well. But don’t assume I’m some yahoo that isn’t thinking. I’m an objective guy, and if it’s not obvious to me, it’s one of two things: (1) I’m not incredibly experienced or (2) you’re not doing a good job of explaining it because you’re focusing so much on coming up with creative ways to parody “Fighting Irish”.
    If we can’t agree on a way to create a Notre Dame “conference”, let’s use overall win percentage and call it a day. Otherwise I’m going to keep finding ways to mention Bret Saberhagen and his wicked sidearm.

  28. Arizona Buckeye says: Jun 12, 2010 1:33 AM

    notre yawn will not join the Big Ten because they are thoroughly afraid of getting the asses kicked week after week after week by the big time schools. No longer will they be able to pepper their schedules with patsy teams to attempt to bolster their record. This university has been irrelevant to big time college football for 30 years. Let them continue to play with themselves and leave the real football to the big boy schools!

  29. big ten rocks says: Jun 12, 2010 2:33 AM

    Notre Dame must make a move now or there 20 years of being non competitive will just continue. Notre Dame has to go undefeated to go to a decent bowl game . They lose one game they go to the gator bowl ugh. While every team that goes 6-6 is guaranteed a bowl bid in the Big 10. The money issue is over because of the big 10 tv network payouts. With 2 big ten schools in prime bowl games Notre Dame would have received more money from the Big Ten than they would receive as an independent.

  30. funi says: Jun 12, 2010 11:57 PM

    Screw N.D! They act like they win championships yearly! They had their chance years ago to join Big Ten and did notwant to. Thrig East goes to a basketball confrnace only

  31. funi says: Jun 13, 2010 12:01 AM

    Screw N.D. They had their chance years ago and did not want to join. They can be an independant, all BCS Confernaces can drop them now and the Big East can kick them out of thier confernace if they do not join as a football team. Since N.D. won’t do that and there will be 4 major conferamces with 16 teams, N.D. can go to conferance USA, wiht Memphis and Louisville and play for the GMAC Motor City bowl invite! All BCS conferances need to drop N.D. now and put them in thier place!

  32. SonofCalifornia says: Jun 13, 2010 6:10 PM

    Notre Dame is a joke. They need to get to a 1-AA to match their cupcake schedule. They are still living in the 1900’s.

  33. Kevvy says: Jun 13, 2010 10:27 PM

    Arizona Buckeye:
    I don’t think it’s reasonable to call any team that schedules Michigan, USC, and Boston College regularly “scared”, especially when they’re getting Miami back on the schedule, as well as Oklahoma. If you don’t like ND, fine, but scared? Come on…very few easy wins on their schedules if you go look at them.

  34. Arizona Buckeye says: Jun 15, 2010 11:12 AM

    They schedule one or two tough teams a year and line the rest of their schedule with patsies and armed forces pushovers. Now they’ve plunged to such depths of ineptness that they can’t even beat them. If they had to play in the Big Ten the entire year they’d get crushed Saturday after Saturday.

  35. BENITO says: Jun 30, 2010 10:29 AM

    yes because playing the illini, gophers, and the wildcats every year is SO much better than ND’s schedule. zona buckeye must be sun poisoned down there!

  36. tiortedrw says: Jul 2, 2010 7:14 PM

    All this talk of Notre Dame playing a soft schedule and afraid to join the Big Ten and being arrogant is older than me and im no kid. The fact is Notre Dame will do what is best for Notre Dame just like everybody else does what is best for them. Why does the Big Ten and some others want N D as a member, because it would benefit them. As far as the arrogance goes, read some of the comments from Arizona buckeye,funi,big ten rocks anf of course edgy1957 if you want to hear arrogance.

  37. Arizona Buckeye says: Jul 4, 2010 7:07 PM

    The Big Ten schedule, even with the mildcats and the gophers is much tougher than the teams ND plays. Saturday after Saturday playing big boy teams, not Air Force, Temple, and DeVry University, takes it toll and ND has proven year after year after year they are soft and can’t hang with the big boy schools. That is why they scared to join a big boy conference. Hard to believe but they would perform even worse than they do now… they need to stick to play Vinny’s Auto Shop Institute and leave the really college football to those that can hang

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!