(10-30-2013 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  im not saying that these conference wouldnt take ND

my point is that the b10 was no longer gonna plan conf. realignment around ND and would not try to beat a dead horse by actively going after ND because the reward was no longer worth the risk of waiting for that chance that ND might join and miss a good pick up in the process

There was zero chance that ND was going to join the Big Ten.

If the Big Ten planned conference expansion around ND joining, they were foolish to do so.

There is less than zero chance that ND is interested at all in the Big Ten now that it is a partial member of the ACC with a GOR and an exit fee.

The ACC and the Boston to Miami corridor is where ND wants to be.

(10-30-2013 09:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 09:39 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  As to the PAC, two of the California schools have excellent relations with ND and would eject Berkeley before rejecting ND (USC already did this once to get UA and ASU admitted).

This was before my time of following west coast collegiate sports. Please do tell.

Back in the 70's, UA and ASU were candidates to join the PAC, making it the PAC 10. The lacked some academic credentials that other schools wanted (ironic considering the Washington and Oregon schools were/are not academic giants). The PAC had a unanimous consent requirement for expansion (this may now be changed, but it was a requirement then). USC threatened to pull out of the PAC if both schools were not voted in. In football, this meant the PAC had no "King". USC had its annual game with ND and could easily fill its schedule anyway they wanted.

Further, USC openly made it known that they would gladly form a new conference with anyone of the PAC schools that would join USC and the AZ schools. If I recall correctly, the Washington and Oregon schools were already on board and I think UCLA was, too. It was either Berkeley or Stanford or both that was blocking everything and they pragmatically concluded that it would all be a waste of time to break apart and join a new conference wherein the AZ schools would be members so they changed their votes.

Effectively, this is the same thing that Syracuse and Pitt told the Big East: Expand football with acceptable teams or they would look elsewhere. Obviously, TCU was acceptable, but limiting the next choice to Nova was not (they had no objections to Nova stepping up, but there needed to be additional football adds). The PAC listened to USC and the Big East did not, the results speak for themselves.

(10-31-2013 06:54 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  im not saying that these conference wouldnt take ND

my point is that the b10 was no longer gonna plan conf. realignment around ND and would not try to beat a dead horse by actively going after ND because the reward was no longer worth the risk of waiting for that chance that ND might join and miss a good pick up in the process

There was zero chance that ND was going to join the Big Ten.

If the Big Ten planned conference expansion around ND joining, they were foolish to do so.

There is less than zero chance that ND is interested at all in the Big Ten now that it is a partial member of the ACC with a GOR and an exit fee.

The ACC and the Boston to Miami corridor is where ND wants to be.

Agreed. Though the B1G has tried for the last 20 years, ND has been consistent. ND does NOT want to be a midwestern regional school. ND's greatest audience/graduate pool and growth sector is the east coast. They will still play B1G schools as they choose, keep up their west coast presence with Stanford and USC and can play UT, OU, AFA and any SEC school as they like. They are not giving up the Navy game and will probably play Army periodically. Overall, a schedule anyone of us would love to see for our own teams.

I think the Big 12 was a non-starter for the same basic reason that the B1G was rejected, too regional and add to that, it lacks several desirable name schools to play annually with very limited exposure to ND's historical audience. Even a deal similar to the ACC deal would limit ND's ability to play along the east coast as much as they want. And, let's be real, how often has any school demanded to play Iowa State or travel to TTech?

(10-31-2013 06:54 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  im not saying that these conference wouldnt take ND

my point is that the b10 was no longer gonna plan conf. realignment around ND and would not try to beat a dead horse by actively going after ND because the reward was no longer worth the risk of waiting for that chance that ND might join and miss a good pick up in the process

There was zero chance that ND was going to join the Big Ten.

If the Big Ten planned conference expansion around ND joining, they were foolish to do so.

There is less than zero chance that ND is interested at all in the Big Ten now that it is a partial member of the ACC with a GOR and an exit fee.

The ACC and the Boston to Miami corridor is where ND wants to be.

Agree, and I would take it further...the ACC needs to learn from that. They can be great partners with Notre Dame, but ACC decisions going forward need to NOT be based on the premise of luring ND in full time. If it happens, it happens, only because ND has to. But the ACC should not be looking at Notre Dame-bait when it comes to expansion (and Louisville over UConn indicates that they aren't) or any other policies or arrangements.

Now, if Notre Dame comes to the ACC and has some demands to meet to join in football, like bringing in Navy as a football 16th, that can be on the table. But any attempt to lure or corner ND into football membership is fruitless and can lead to decisions that might be overall negative for everyone else. Learn the B1G and BE lesson...ND will do what ND wants.

(10-31-2013 09:21 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 06:54 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  im not saying that these conference wouldnt take ND

my point is that the b10 was no longer gonna plan conf. realignment around ND and would not try to beat a dead horse by actively going after ND because the reward was no longer worth the risk of waiting for that chance that ND might join and miss a good pick up in the process

There was zero chance that ND was going to join the Big Ten.

If the Big Ten planned conference expansion around ND joining, they were foolish to do so.

There is less than zero chance that ND is interested at all in the Big Ten now that it is a partial member of the ACC with a GOR and an exit fee.

The ACC and the Boston to Miami corridor is where ND wants to be.

Agree, and I would take it further...the ACC needs to learn from that. They can be great partners with Notre Dame, but ACC decisions going forward need to NOT be based on the premise of luring ND in full time. If it happens, it happens, only because ND has to. But the ACC should not be looking at Notre Dame-bait when it comes to expansion (and Louisville over UConn indicates that they aren't) or any other policies or arrangements.

Now, if Notre Dame comes to the ACC and has some demands to meet to join in football, like bringing in Navy as a football 16th, that can be on the table. But any attempt to lure or corner ND into football membership is fruitless and can lead to decisions that might be overall negative for everyone else. Learn the B1G and BE lesson...ND will do what ND wants.

I think that this is absolutely, 100%, rock solid correct.

(10-31-2013 09:21 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 06:54 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 10:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  im not saying that these conference wouldnt take ND

my point is that the b10 was no longer gonna plan conf. realignment around ND and would not try to beat a dead horse by actively going after ND because the reward was no longer worth the risk of waiting for that chance that ND might join and miss a good pick up in the process

There was zero chance that ND was going to join the Big Ten.

If the Big Ten planned conference expansion around ND joining, they were foolish to do so.

There is less than zero chance that ND is interested at all in the Big Ten now that it is a partial member of the ACC with a GOR and an exit fee.

The ACC and the Boston to Miami corridor is where ND wants to be.

Agree, and I would take it further...the ACC needs to learn from that. They can be great partners with Notre Dame, but ACC decisions going forward need to NOT be based on the premise of luring ND in full time. If it happens, it happens, only because ND has to. But the ACC should not be looking at Notre Dame-bait when it comes to expansion (and Louisville over UConn indicates that they aren't) or any other policies or arrangements.

Now, if Notre Dame comes to the ACC and has some demands to meet to join in football, like bringing in Navy as a football 16th, that can be on the table. But any attempt to lure or corner ND into football membership is fruitless and can lead to decisions that might be overall negative for everyone else. Learn the B1G and BE lesson...ND will do what ND wants.

I second the above, especially the comment in bold. ND is a good partner, even in the Big East. ND lived up to what was agreed to. The ACC should fully expect that ND is a full member in all sports except football and an ally in football. ND has agreed to it and will live up to their commitment.

(10-31-2013 07:36 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 09:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 09:39 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  As to the PAC, two of the California schools have excellent relations with ND and would eject Berkeley before rejecting ND (USC already did this once to get UA and ASU admitted).

This was before my time of following west coast collegiate sports. Please do tell.

Back in the 70's, UA and ASU were candidates to join the PAC, making it the PAC 10. The lacked some academic credentials that other schools wanted (ironic considering the Washington and Oregon schools were/are not academic giants). The PAC had a unanimous consent requirement for expansion (this may now be changed, but it was a requirement then). USC threatened to pull out of the PAC if both schools were not voted in. In football, this meant the PAC had no "King". USC had its annual game with ND and could easily fill its schedule anyway they wanted.

Further, USC openly made it known that they would gladly form a new conference with anyone of the PAC schools that would join USC and the AZ schools. If I recall correctly, the Washington and Oregon schools were already on board and I think UCLA was, too. It was either Berkeley or Stanford or both that was blocking everything and they pragmatically concluded that it would all be a waste of time to break apart and join a new conference wherein the AZ schools would be members so they changed their votes.

Effectively, this is the same thing that Syracuse and Pitt told the Big East: Expand football with acceptable teams or they would look elsewhere. Obviously, TCU was acceptable, but limiting the next choice to Nova was not (they had no objections to Nova stepping up, but there needed to be additional football adds). The PAC listened to USC and the Big East did not, the results speak for themselves.

I'd disagree on UDub not being an academic giant. The others yes.

Also I recall it was Cuse, Pitt, WVU and Rutgers that told the Big East that. And guess what all 4 ultimately left. Louisville also may have been on board that train. (All 5 of the schools with legitimate options essentially.)

I also hope that the ACC will not make any decisions with the intent to lure ND to the conference. They'll join on their own terms if they join at all and it makes no sense for the conference to do things anticipating it will help them along. I also wouldn't make accommodations for ND if they say they'll join if... but that's just me. Others will likely feel differently about that and that's cool.

(10-31-2013 06:33 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 07:36 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 09:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 09:39 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  As to the PAC, two of the California schools have excellent relations with ND and would eject Berkeley before rejecting ND (USC already did this once to get UA and ASU admitted).

This was before my time of following west coast collegiate sports. Please do tell.

Back in the 70's, UA and ASU were candidates to join the PAC, making it the PAC 10. The lacked some academic credentials that other schools wanted (ironic considering the Washington and Oregon schools were/are not academic giants). The PAC had a unanimous consent requirement for expansion (this may now be changed, but it was a requirement then). USC threatened to pull out of the PAC if both schools were not voted in. In football, this meant the PAC had no "King". USC had its annual game with ND and could easily fill its schedule anyway they wanted.

Further, USC openly made it known that they would gladly form a new conference with anyone of the PAC schools that would join USC and the AZ schools. If I recall correctly, the Washington and Oregon schools were already on board and I think UCLA was, too. It was either Berkeley or Stanford or both that was blocking everything and they pragmatically concluded that it would all be a waste of time to break apart and join a new conference wherein the AZ schools would be members so they changed their votes.

Effectively, this is the same thing that Syracuse and Pitt told the Big East: Expand football with acceptable teams or they would look elsewhere. Obviously, TCU was acceptable, but limiting the next choice to Nova was not (they had no objections to Nova stepping up, but there needed to be additional football adds). The PAC listened to USC and the Big East did not, the results speak for themselves.

I'd disagree on UDub not being an academic giant. The others yes.

Also I recall it was Cuse, Pitt, WVU and Rutgers that told the Big East that. And guess what all 4 ultimately left. Louisville also may have been on board that train. (All 5 of the schools with legitimate options essentially.)

I think you may be right on UW, I will defer. WSU and the Oregon schools are not academic giants.

I know Pitt and Syracuse laid down the ultimatum. WVU, Rutgers and Louisville may have done so, too, but I don't recall. Regardless, I have no doubt that all the football schools wanted football expansion and they all voted for TCU.

(10-31-2013 07:36 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 09:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 09:39 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  As to the PAC, two of the California schools have excellent relations with ND and would eject Berkeley before rejecting ND (USC already did this once to get UA and ASU admitted).

This was before my time of following west coast collegiate sports. Please do tell.

Back in the 70's, UA and ASU were candidates to join the PAC, making it the PAC 10. The lacked some academic credentials that other schools wanted (ironic considering the Washington and Oregon schools were/are not academic giants). The PAC had a unanimous consent requirement for expansion (this may now be changed, but it was a requirement then). USC threatened to pull out of the PAC if both schools were not voted in. In football, this meant the PAC had no "King". USC had its annual game with ND and could easily fill its schedule anyway they wanted.

Further, USC openly made it known that they would gladly form a new conference with anyone of the PAC schools that would join USC and the AZ schools. If I recall correctly, the Washington and Oregon schools were already on board and I think UCLA was, too. It was either Berkeley or Stanford or both that was blocking everything and they pragmatically concluded that it would all be a waste of time to break apart and join a new conference wherein the AZ schools would be members so they changed their votes.

Effectively, this is the same thing that Syracuse and Pitt told the Big East: Expand football with acceptable teams or they would look elsewhere. Obviously, TCU was acceptable, but limiting the next choice to Nova was not (they had no objections to Nova stepping up, but there needed to be additional football adds). The PAC listened to USC and the Big East did not, the results speak for themselves.

UW is good. You're right about Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State.

EDIT: Brista beat me to it.

the academic giants of the pac are.......

tier 1
the cali-4

washington
colorado
arizona

after that the rest of the conference isnt very good