I don't agree that Notre Dame is causing the Big Ten to suffer in any way. I think both sides have agreed that Notre Dame is not a good fit for the Big Ten. The Big Ten doesn't need Notre Dame; and if Notre Dame needs to join another conference, the ACC and Big 12 appear willing.
What they have are some good rivalries. Ending those rivalries would hurt both sides, but Notre Dame more. The Big Ten would have some leverage, but has no interest in using it. The status quo works fine for both sides, so why change it?
I do agree that Notre Dame's refusal to join the Big East for football has contributed greatly to the demise of that conference, but it has no real negative affect on the Big Ten.
Nothing "bad" happens to the Big Ten if Notre Dame stays its present course. But if they leave the Big East, and put their other sports in another conference, it will be the cancer of that new conference. And if the Big East is "torn asunder," and it spurs some absorption by other conferences, it does place the Big Ten in a sticky place of grabbing eastern exposure for the sake of visibility. I know the B1G > ACC, but the ACC is pretty close to locking up the east, with the SEC, which does jeopardize future revenue gain.
The Big Ten doesn't get "hurt," other than potentially having to take two "dead weight" eastern schools that don't fit the Big Ten "type" where maybe it didn't need any if it had Notre Dame (I'd assume a couple of schools would jump to join the Irish). And I think the Big Ten MUST move east, with or without Notre Dame.
I think the conference can do better than Rutgers...but I believe the Scarlet Knights are an inevitable grab the longer the conference doesn't possess the Irish, and that is bad for the conference.