Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

But Fat Phil Fulmer had a hand in Spurrier leaving to the NFL.
2001 was his last year in Gainesville and UT beat the Gators (somehow).  That '01 team destroyed a 1-loss Maryland team in the Orange Bowl and finished 3rd in the country....but it wasn't good enough for Gator fans.  That really irked Spurrier.

And the funny thing is that Spurrier made Florida what it is. Prior to Spurrier hadn't they only won like one conference title in their entire history?  And it was shared or something?  Florida was very much a sleeping giant, if even that because they hadn't done much prior to the late 80's early 90's.  So it wasn't like the expectations of fans from a school like say Texas or OU who had won big in the past.  So in ~12 years he made the monster what it was.  

I think I recall that he was kinda bored and wanted to try something new.  Didn't last long !

Florida earned 1, but it was voted away after the fact, in 1984.  Zero official SEC championships from 1933-Spurrier.  Finished 1st in the SEC in 1990 under Spurrier, but even that one didn't count (same thing as 1985).  
1991 was Florida's first official, kept SEC title.

I don't disagree with this at all.  Bad choices were shared by everyone in the conference.

You know who else voted AGAINST a conference network and FOR unequal revenue sharing EVERY single time it came up?  Texas A&M.

Was conference networks even a thing when A&M left the Big 12?  Because as I recall the SEC network didn’t even exist until 2013. Does the Big 12 even have a network now?  Surely if they wanted it they could have gotten it 10 years later. 

Why wouldn’t A&M vote for unequal sharing?  We’ve never denied that we did. I couldn’t tell you who all was in favor of it and who wasn’t, but it seems like you had 4 schools that wanted it and 8 who didn’t. Right now if the original XII members decided to get back together and kick out the XII come-lately all the OG 8 would sign on the dotted line and do so gladly. Even in an unequal model they benefitted more with us. 

A&M brought eyeballs and TV sets into the conference, probably almost as much as UT/OU and Nebraska. KU ISU oSu and the rest….there is a reason nobody wants them. 

BTN launched in 2006.

I think BTN was 2007.

And everyone thought it was a dumb idea, which is why it took so long for others.  Nobody even had a plan in place IF it worked, because they all assumed it wouldn't.  Pac 12 was 2012, and SEC was 2014

Iowa AD Says the ‘Big Ten Is Not Seeking Members’ Right Now - Sports Illustrated

I am guessing this means Notre Dame told the Big Ten we are not in a position to respond to your offer. Our TV contract is up at the end of 2025.  NBC will not negotiate with us for 2026 and beyond, this early. Call us in 2023 or 2024 if you are interested.

We can probably all calm down for a while. I don't expect movement on this for at least a year.

It appears Notre Dame makes about $15M from NBC TV rights per year, plus $7M from ACC TV rights, or $22M per year, plus they get a little bit more from the BCS whether they make the playoff, or not.

Is Notre Dame paid TV-rights for away games involving teams not in the ACC (such as Stanford, USC, Michigan, or Michigan State), or does that money go entirely to the host school, and Notre Dame is just paid an appearance fee? I would guess maybe just an appearance fee?

Notre Dame's $22M+ would go up in 2026 if they negotiate with NBC and remain independent, but . . .

Big Ten schools currently receive about $57M per year per school under the current contract, with this # expected to go considerably north under a new contract. They are talking $80M - $100M per school per year under a new contract with USC and UCLA. And maybe more with ND?

I cannot see how Notre Dame could financially justify not joining a conference in 2026. Notre Dame could justify joining the ACC if Clemson, North Carolina, and FSU remain in the ACC. They would pay a large exit fee, but they could probably more easily justify joining the Big Ten even with the exit fee. And the risk of schools leaving the ACC looms which would put them at risk of paying an exit fee at some point anyway.

If I am off on my #s, or if anyone knows the answers to the questions asked above, post on it. And post thoughts on how Notre Dame could possibly remain independent given the financial sacrifice that would involve.

(Sorry if I did not read every post on this thread, and maybe this was already thoroughly discussed).

Yep, I do recall the Big Ten (and Delany) taking flack on that. Turns out it was genius.

I got mixed emotions about the BTN.  On one hand, it has been a huge financial success.  On the other hand,  the Big Ten's identity has changed.  Is the Big Ten now an athletic conference or is it a TV network that constantly needs to grow its market/revenue.  Plus it was the temporary need for new cable subscribers that led to adding Rutgers.  An addition I am still getting used to.

Oh well,  you got to live in reality and this is the reality we have to live in.  Give me another 20 years and I will get used to Rutgers (and MD, USC, UCLA, etc.)

Of course in 20 years,  there will be probably be only 1 super conference with 32 teams.  Some existing Big Ten schools will be in the super conference and some won't.  The whole original idea and spirit of the Big Ten conference will be gone.