What would Big Ten football, basketball look like with Notre Dame?

Say the Big Ten and Notre Dame finally hook up in the coming months and begin playing a unified schedule in 2014. The logistics are interesting to say the least.

Would the league split into two divisions and a play a football championship game? Would the league split into two divisions for basketball? I think the answers are yes, yes and no.

First with football, the most popular sport and the whole reason we're having this debate. A Big Ten Championship Game the first Saturday in December is a big factor in expansion. The Southeastern Conference makes $15 million off its title game, and the Big Ten would clear even more (not because Big Ten football is better, it just has more TV sets in its primary viewing area).

How would the league decide its championship game participants? The league couldn't stay in one 12-team division because you could have a three-team tie for the second spot. If the Big Ten splits into two divisions of six, I think it would be foolish to put Michigan and Ohio State in opposite divisions. That rivalry is sacred and to potentially play it twice in consecutive weeks devalues college football tradition. Likewise, you can't break up the Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa triangle. 

The league would have to split into East and West Divisions. The East would consist of Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue and Indiana. The West would comprise Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Notre Dame.

On appearance, the league looks top-heavy toward the East. In tradition, that's true. In reality, not so much. Last year the six Eastern schools were 23-25 in league games. The five Western schools were a combined 21-19. Three teams in the East missed bowl games, while only Illinois missed a bowl game from the West. Notre Dame, which was 6-6 as an independent, was bowl eligible.

Scheduling could be an issue, but it has an easy solution. Currently, the Big Ten designates 22 games -- two for each school -- as annual rivalry games. But only two current rivalry games would take place outside of these potential divisions -- Purdue-Northwestern and Illinois-Indiana. While Illinois-Indiana has some tradition, it's hardly a bedrock of Big Ten football. It doesn't make sense for the league to designate inter-divisional rivalries just to appease Illinois-Indiana in football.

A Big Ten football schedule likely would follow a similar path to the Big 12, with one important difference. Big 12 schools play each team in their division plus three non-divisional teams on two-year cycles. The only issue with that system is teams like Iowa State will play Texas and Oklahoma for two consecutive years, thus dotting them with a pair of losses. The two years Texas and Oklahoma are off Iowa State's schedule hurts the Cyclones at the gate and helps them in the win-loss column.

In the eastern Big Ten, Ohio State, Michigan and, to some extent Penn State, are gate attractions. In the west, only Notre Dame would be considered one. So the Big Ten should cycle the two year rotation with Michigan on for two years, followed by Ohio State for two years. So Iowa could play Michigan-Indiana-Penn State on a two-year cycle, then Ohio State-Purdue-Michigan State on another. It keeps the schedule balanced and produces the potential for championship game opponents not meeting in the regular season. It also throws Notre Dame a bone so it could keep playing USC and Navy annually.

As for basketball, there's no need to split into two divisions. A tournament already is in place and there's not a true round-robin. Maybe the league should consider protecting rivalries like Indiana-Purdue and Michigan-Michigan State to ensure they are played twice every year, but divisional play would shoehorn Big Ten basketball into an unnecessary mess.

The only question now is, will the Big Ten and Notre Dame hook up? That's a subject to be continued.