I just pooped.

(09-10-2012 11:29 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  I just pooped.

Congratulations.

(09-10-2012 11:55 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 11:29 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  I just pooped.

Congratulations.

It had been brewing for awhile.

(09-10-2012 11:29 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  I just pooped.

(09-10-2012 11:02 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 10:55 PM)nert Wrote:  Neither is worth it for a marginal bump up in BB conference reputation.

In all honestly only people on this board who hate the Big East even think the ACC is a bump up from the Big East in basketball.

NotreDame BB with
1) Duke, UNC, WakeForest, Maryland, Virginia, Miami - and the rest of the ACC - plus now Syracuse and Pitt

vs

2) UConn, the eastern Catholic BB schools (Providence, St.John's, SetonHall, Villanova, Georgetown, DePaul and Marquette - most of which are not what they used to be), L'ville, Cinci and Memphis (with a significant number of BB deadweight programs - both all-sports and Catholic non-FB members)

I think you can make an argument either way without hating either conference

There are a lot of articles from June discussing ND/ACC partial membership, no doubt driven by B12's attempt to lure ND as a partial member. This is one, but certainly not the only voices raising the issue if partial membership with ND for ACC.

TEEL TIME: UVA'S AD LITTLEPAGE SAYS ACC NEEDS TO CONSIDER PARTIAL MEMBERSHIP FOR NOTRE DAME

"Notre Dame is a powerful brand," UVA AD Littlepage said via email Wednesday. "Any conference would want to consider their potential value (all in, or partial membership)."

"Littlepage's email confirmed my interpretation of Swofford's tone Sunday at the ACC's preseason football gathering. There Swofford, entering his 16th year as commissioner, appeared to ease his hard line on partial membership."

The article goes on to state this is a highly complex issue and would take much time to evaluate. My guess is that is what is going on now. Both ACC and ND are talking to their tv partners because, as we all know, it all comes down to money.

For ND, access to football bowls is an issue and the departure of Pitt and Syracuse seem to be driving forces. ND considers itself an eastern school and Boston College, Pitt, Syracuse, and Maryland open up the NE corridor to ND if ACC is pursued. Throw in a Catholic school like Georgetown and ND would retain its NE presence.

For ACC, it is all about prestige...if the money is there.

Going thru the many June 2012 articles, it appears ACC will demand 6 games from ND. With Syracuse, Boston College, Pitt, and Maryland, ND might find 6 ACC games agreeable. I suspect ND would want to play these 4 schools more than the other ACC schools....yet another complicating factor to be negotiated.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports

I didn't see the article re: Notre Dame in the link.....am I missing something?
The article with the interview with Littlepage is a little dated isn't it?

Old news. Here's the direct link from the article, which is 7 weeks old.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...3196.story

(09-10-2012 10:55 PM)nert Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 07:42 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  What I am saying is that four is in effect one, because they play three anyway. Why would the ACC turn its conference upside down for other sports just to get one ND football game?

They don't often play "3 anyway".

NotreDame's schedule is basicly:
3 Big10/11/12 teams: Purdue, MichSt and UMich (although there are some gaps coming up wiith MichSt and UMich that trace their cause back to when NotreDame was actively trying to talent-down their competition by playing other "privates" like SMU, Rice, Vandy, etc.). The two against Purdue and MichSt are very long standing rivalries. UMich not as often - but very regular for the past 20 years or so.
2 PAC12 teams: USC and Stanford
1 indy: Navy

Point taken. But I'd have to ask where is this vital, critical advantage/preference to playing Purdue, Michigan and Michigan State all the time? How is is that any better than playing Maryland, UNC and Virginia all the time?

You say scheduling flexibility is important, but then you sum up a big chunk of the ND schedule in less than six schools anyway.

(09-10-2012 11:29 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  I just pooped.

Ain't that some ?

(09-11-2012 07:28 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 10:55 PM)nert Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 07:42 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  What I am saying is that four is in effect one, because they play three anyway. Why would the ACC turn its conference upside down for other sports just to get one ND football game?

They don't often play "3 anyway".

NotreDame's schedule is basicly:
3 Big10/11/12 teams: Purdue, MichSt and UMich (although there are some gaps coming up wiith MichSt and UMich that trace their cause back to when NotreDame was actively trying to talent-down their competition by playing other "privates" like SMU, Rice, Vandy, etc.). The two against Purdue and MichSt are very long standing rivalries. UMich not as often - but very regular for the past 20 years or so.
2 PAC12 teams: USC and Stanford
1 indy: Navy

Point taken. But I'd have to ask where is this vital, critical advantage/preference to playing Purdue, Michigan and Michigan State all the time? How is is that any better than playing Maryland, UNC and Virginia all the time?

You say scheduling flexibility is important, but then you sum up a big chunk of the ND schedule in less than six schools anyway.

Well, Purdue and Michigan State are long time opponents of ND.

Those two schools also rejected the attempt by Michigan's two anti-Catholic bigoted AD's who tried to enforce a Big Ten boycott of ND.

It is giving up the ABILITY to change the schedule that is the issue.

Why lock up half the schedule forever with the ACC?

What is the advantage to playing Maryland, Duke, Wake Forest, etc?

What concrete benefit is there to ND? I see very little.

I object to the chipping away of football independence in any manner.

I hope this proposed deal dies or only includes 3-4 games at most.

I hope for the former.

Do we really need a separate new thread for every Notre Dame article and rumor - no matter how old?

(09-11-2012 07:55 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Do we really need a separate new thread for every Notre Dame article and rumor - no matter how old?

Merged the two I saw on the board.

I don't see why the ACC even needs to go to 16 if ND will only be an all-sports but football member/football scheduling partner. 15 is just as easy to manage for basketball scheduling purposes. With 18 games that means 4 Home and Home opponents each year. And you can protect stuff like UNC-Duke much more easily. Now if they were going to be joining as a full member. Say they agree to join as a partial member with a football scheduling alliance but in 10 years they join as a full member. When they join as a full member you obviously need a 16th.

(09-11-2012 07:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Well, Purdue and Michigan State are long time opponents of ND. Those two schools also rejected the attempt by Michigan's two anti-Catholic bigoted AD's who tried to enforce a Big Ten boycott of ND.
So the issue is loyalty and not money? That's almost refreshing.

It is giving up the ABILITY to change the schedule that is the issue.
But they never change it anyway when it comes to those opponents.

Why lock up half the schedule forever with the ACC? See above.

What is the advantage to playing Maryland, Duke, Wake Forest, etc?
What's the advantage of playing Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan and Stanford?

What concrete benefit is there to ND? I see very little.
Better competition for the non-revenue sports and better access to bowl games. I know it's debatable as to what degree ND would get these benefits, but that is where the payoff would be.

I object to the chipping away of football independence in any manner.
I have absolutely no dog in the fight. I don't really see the big deal either way. But I do like the fact that ND is fighting against the overall BCS process, which I think is destroying college football. The conferences are little more than subsidiaries of the networks now.

Well, ND has been very loyal to schools like Navy, Pitt, Purdue and Michigan State.

Michigan and Michigan State are close in proximity, compete with ND for Midwestern recruits and are usually pretty highly ranked/regarded.

Beating them in September historically means that ND will have a good season. They are pretty good regional rivals.

Stanford is a highly rated academic school. It also has shown that such a school can have high standards and compete for BSC bowls. It is a good "aspirational peer" (stealing from Father Monk Malloy, former ND president) for ND.

Plus, it allows ND to play a game on the West Coast every year (rotates home/away games with Southern Cal) for recruiting purposes.

ND recruits California pretty heavily every year.

Purdue? I can do without playing them, actually.

The non-revenue sports are not a real issue, are they? I thought that "football drives the bus" in all of these discussions.

I like that ND is fighting conference realignment too. I agree with you that college football is being destroyed by it and the conferences are now merely lap dogs for ESPN and other networks.

ND has usually gone against the grain historically, so that should not be that big of a surprise.

I thought college football was a lot better when Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, Florida State, Penn State, etc. were all football independents.

(09-11-2012 09:26 AM)TerryD Wrote:  The non-revenue sports are not a real issue, are they? I thought that "football drives the bus" in all of these discussions.

I just think that if any school at all would genuinely care about its non-revenue sports it would be ND. At some point, you'd think the Big East may deteriorate to the point where they feel that something needs to be done, even if that means making a concession with football.

(09-11-2012 09:48 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(09-11-2012 09:26 AM)TerryD Wrote:  The non-revenue sports are not a real issue, are they? I thought that "football drives the bus" in all of these discussions.

I just think that if any school at all would genuinely care about its non-revenue sports it would be ND. At some point, you'd think the Big East may deteriorate to the point where they feel that something needs to be done, even if that means making a concession with football.

Aren't you a Louisville fan? Aren't they in the Big East?

I would think that you would not want ND to bolt the Big East for the ACC.

(09-10-2012 10:55 PM)nert Wrote:  They don't often play "3 anyway".

NotreDame's schedule is basicly:
3 Big10/11/12 teams: Purdue, MichSt and UMich (although there are some gaps coming up wiith MichSt and UMich that trace their cause back to when NotreDame was actively trying to talent-down their competition by playing other "privates" like SMU, Rice, Vandy, etc.). The two against Purdue and MichSt are very long standing rivalries. UMich not as often - but very regular for the past 20 years or so.
2 PAC12 teams: USC and Stanford
1 indy: Navy

And then a series of schools that they have played before - but most are not "regular" by any sense. Some of them used to be very regular (Syracuse and Pitt, for example) - but haven't been "that" regular in quite some time. Pitt, Syracuse, Miami and BC are part of that group, but it is ridiculous to claim that they are annual games - or even that they regularly play more than 1-2 of that group per year. The series with Miami, for example, isn't that long and has been mostly non-existant since it got ugly in the 1990's (Catholics vs Convicts games).

NotreDame also plays the other academies and BYU, and even adds a national football power from one of the other 2 power conferences from time to time (Texas, Nebraska (when it was a Big12 school), Tennessee, etc).

They are not going to give up all that schedule flexibility to play 5-6 ACC schools. If they did agree to 5-6 games vs the ACC; they would either have to give up some of the 6 annual rivals (Purdue, MichSt, UMich, USC, Stanford, Navy) - or give up their flexibility to add other major programs (Texas, Nebraska, BYU, AF, etc). Neither is worth it for a marginal bump up in BB conference reputation.

Pitt plays Notre Dame at least 8 out of every 10 years. That seems pretty regular to me. We are scheduled with them through 2017 currently.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

(09-11-2012 10:08 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Aren't you a Louisville fan? Aren't they in the Big East?

I would think that you would not want ND to bolt the Big East for the ACC.

Oh I don't. That is unless we are getting the hell out of Dodge too. I'm just thinking that if your ND, and your biggest competitor in your conference is Louisville, then surely you are looking at other options. There is an epic snob factor in college sports. And the competition level from the rest of the conference in non-revenue sports outside of basketball really is pretty damn thin.