Heather Dinich said on Mike Greenberg, PO probably sticking to 12, SEC B1G
who have the power can't agree (Remember they got the power by saying to the others that they will just do their own playoff, if they don't get control) . B1G will vote for 16 now and 24 2-3 years from now, but the SEC at least right now, doesn't want to agree to 24 in the future. By the way, the B1G has fallen off of needing more automatic bids than P4 Champs and highest ranked G6 Champ. That is an interesting change for them, but still the SEC doesn't want it. Makes me think that the SEC/ESPN is striving for the P1 and that the B1G/Fox don't want that. However, who knows? Right now it is the Super Ego Conference backed by ESPN versus the B1G Ego Conference backed by primarily by Fox, and minorly by CBS and NBC.
PS Too bad if true on 16 this year, I really think it would be cool to have no byes and at least one if not two rounds of home games IMHO this year.
** Edited by Stech at 1/15/2026, 1:07:42 PM
25 Replies
6mo
(In response to this post by Stech)
6mo
How would that work if they stay at 12 ?
(In response to this post by Stech)
V
vtce2000
6mo
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
T
TerryD
6mo
Got a link to this "rumor"?
09/06 - vs Wisconsin (in Green Bay, WI)
09/12 - Rice
09/19 - Michigan State
09/26 - at Purdue
10/03 - at North Carolina
10/31 - vs Navy (in Foxborough, MA)
11/07 - Miami (FL)
11/21 - Boston College
TBA - SMU
TBA - Stanford (Tentative)
TBA - at Syracuse
TBA - at BYU
** Edited by TerryD at 1/15/2026, 3:11:17 PM
(In response to this post by vtce2000)
6mo
Here is a link but I believe the B1G specific comments were on some talking head show after the AD tantrum happened and the MOU was fully understood.
Link:
Link
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
6mo
An organized group boycott can be a serious antitrust violation, especially if it's a "horizontal" boycott among competitors to restrain trade, fix prices, or exclude rivals from a market, often falling under the Sherman Act as a per se offense (meaning it's illegal regardless of justification) or rule of reason.
While political or social boycotts might be protected speech, economic boycotts by competitors to gain unfair advantage are generally illegal, as they harm competition and consumers.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
6mo
(In response to this post by TerryD)
6mo
assume the Big Ten would be a lot more clever in how it accomplishes the goal. Plus, the Big Ten would run the plan by the crackerjack legal team to make sure everyone has plausible deniability in case they have to deal with any lawsuits. At the very least put the burden on Notre Dame to prove that it wasn't a mere coincidence that the Big Ten schools opted to schedule games against other schools than Notre Dame.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
6mo
task would be difficult to do if there isn't much evidence available for Notre Dame to build a case around.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
6mo
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
6mo
in court of law though. Assuming Notre Dame ever wanted to go to court over the potential issue.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
6mo
been like that from the beginning, and will continue forever.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
6mo
will continue to exist after the banner is raised.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
6mo
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
6mo
Ten is trying to organize a blackballing of Notre Dame on future football schedules within the conference.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
6mo
If you look at the original post of the sub-thread, then you will someone reported that the Big Ten may be guilty of "encouraging" its (Big Ten) members to not schedule future games against Notre Dame in football. The subdiscussion is on that topic including the legality of the behavior and potential challenges Notre Dame could have if it decided to pursue the matter further in the courts.
IF the Big Ten schools decide (as a group) to stop scheduling OOC games against Notre Dame for whatever reason, then there isn't much Notre Dame could do to prevent it because it takes 2 to tango. So in that regards, the Big Ten could have indirect power over Notre Dame's ability to play Big Ten teams in football going forward (assuming there is any truth to the report).
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
6mo
reason blackballs or stops scheduling ND, it will have zero effect on ND's independence, and ND can EASILY backfill it's schedule with other schools. EASILY.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
6mo
the subject of the sub-thread.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
6mo
if they chose to pursue it.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TerryD
6mo
"Directed this"=organized
ND's lawyers would have a field day.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
6mo
it. I'm saying if there is any truth to it, then the Big Ten would be more clever in how it goes about accomplishing it. The Big Ten probably wouldn't put the directive in writing (i.e. memo, email, press release, etc.) that can be easily used as evidence in a court case. The Big Ten probably wouldn't be blatant verbally in any conference meetings in case the meeting is being recorded by someone or the minutes are being documented. Any verbal instructions would be left open to interpretation where you are implicitly being "encouraged" not to schedule Notre Dame in the future while the schools still get the message that they are "encouraged" not to schedule Notre Dame in the future.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
6mo
Anything written or said to the contrary is BS.
Several writers (Nicole Auerbach of NBC, for one) mentioned this back when USC was trying to bait and switch ND.
** Edited by TerryD at 1/15/2026, 2:53:45 PM
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)