(09-12-2013 09:12 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 06:03 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  What exactly did we gain from the ND deal?

Our bowls are worse, and they will get one of the best ones just about every year.

None of their other sports are anything special. If they were they would be independent too.

Exposure? Clemson doesn't need the thieving Irish for that.

What exactly did we gain for our selling out on one of th few things this Godawful conference has got right over the years, every school is fully in or fully out.

I think TIGER-PAUL stated them pretty succinctly, actually. And I would add that, due to those reason, I don't have a problem with Notre Dame getting access to one of the ACC bowls. Its a fair exchange, and one that the Big XII offered to the Golden Domers. The SEC had no chance to land ND (not that they wanted the Irish), and the Big Ten would never need to make a partial membership offer. Then again, those are two conferences I wouldn't have had a problem with FSU joining.

I seriously think the Big Ten was making a mistake in not looking at the Irish just as the ACC did. They probably would have felt much less need for expansion again if they had (still could have, but wouldn't have felt forced like it seemed they felt this time), would have kept the existing series with the Domers and added a few others, gotten another valuable hockey member, and further helped their bowls.

The principle of only full members to me is as faulty as the logic of everything must absolutely be shared equally. Neither idea is bad in the right circumstances, but don't be glued to it if changing it can help your conference more than hurt it.

(09-12-2013 10:59 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 09:12 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 06:03 PM)catdaddy_2402 Wrote:  What exactly did we gain from the ND deal?

Our bowls are worse, and they will get one of the best ones just about every year.

None of their other sports are anything special. If they were they would be independent too.

Exposure? Clemson doesn't need the thieving Irish for that.

What exactly did we gain for our selling out on one of th few things this Godawful conference has got right over the years, every school is fully in or fully out.

I think TIGER-PAUL stated them pretty succinctly, actually. And I would add that, due to those reason, I don't have a problem with Notre Dame getting access to one of the ACC bowls. Its a fair exchange, and one that the Big XII offered to the Golden Domers. The SEC had no chance to land ND (not that they wanted the Irish), and the Big Ten would never need to make a partial membership offer. Then again, those are two conferences I wouldn't have had a problem with FSU joining.

I seriously think the Big Ten was making a mistake in not looking at the Irish just as the ACC did. They probably would have felt much less need for expansion again if they had (still could have, but wouldn't have felt forced like it seemed they felt this time), would have kept the existing series with the Domers and added a few others, gotten another valuable hockey member, and further helped their bowls.

The principle of only full members to me is as faulty as the logic of everything must absolutely be shared equally. Neither idea is bad in the right circumstances, but don't be glued to it if changing it can help your conference more than hurt it.

You are making an assumption that the Irish would have rejected the partial ACC offer for a partial Big Ten one.

Personally, I make no such assumption because I think that ND would still have selected the ACC deal.

(09-12-2013 10:56 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think way, way too much is being made of a new division. The order of likelihood of events with this in my opinion is.

1. No major changes, but compromises to the power schools to get a lot of what they want.
2. Division 1-A (FBS) splits from the rest of division 1 for governance purposes. It might be wider than that, but if it is, it will also include the Big East and maybe some other schools.
3. A full split of the power schools (definitely adding in Notre Dame possibly adding BYU and a few others), probably still within the NCAA.
4. A division split that brings the 5 power conferences, Notre Dame, and the Mountain West/American.

Of the four, only #3 (the one I think is 2nd to least likely), might effect Notre Dame independence and I think even there, they'd still be much more likely to keep it than lose it.

Let's say, the power 5 conferences split into a new division to make their own rules. That doesn't mean the bowls/CFP/games are actually altered all that much. In much the same way we have FBS vs. FCS games now, we would probably continue a mixture, but to a larger extent then. They aren't likely to fundamentally alter the CFP given it has a 12 year deal they just signed and that would require a big buyout to the Group of 5 who would fight tooth and nail to stay part of the system. They also probably wouldn't change the regular season much given all the existing schedule agreements and everyone's desire for 7 home games. I think 2-3 games against current FCS schools would still be allowed even with a separation. In short, for purposes beyond governance rules, even with a formal split along power conference/non-power conferences, I doubt we see much change.

If we assume that the power conferences have really changed their mind quickly though and want away from the Group of 5 and are willing to do pay the fees associated with that, things start to get more interesting. Then, away from the Group of 5, you might get more look at an 8 team playoff (although I don't see it at this point), but it would probably be along classical lines. You could have Big Ten vs. PAC-12 as a first round in the Rose Bowl, the SEC hosting someone in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange, and Big 12 in the Sugar or possibly back to the Fiesta or Cotton. Even then though, I think you'd have room for independents to fill in one of the at large spots.

I think the only way you get to the point Notre Dame must join a conference if you essentially have to merge into one giant conference made up of several divisions and sub-divisions (probably called conferences and divisions) before it would even be possible in the short term. That requires several leaps from the point we are at though and given how slow everything generally moves in college football, I'd say that's still a ways off. It might happen someday, but when we just had the Big Ten putting forth a plus one over a 4 team playoff a year ago, when we just had the Group of 5 sign the CFP, with no major players wanting independents eliminated in principle, etc, I see no reason to think we are anywhere close to the point Notre Dame is forced into that position.

On the issue of the new division: I first came to the conclusion that it is inevitable a few years back when I was working out at a gym here in Cleveland, and ran into a guy who played linebacker at Division III power Mount Union who was about my size (5'10", 200 lbs), and lifed about what I lift. I compared this information to what I knew of the linebackers at FSU when I was there; young men who were gargantuan and moved faster than anyone, at any position, at any school, I saw in the football conference my high school is in in the entire 4 years I spent in high school. For me, this was visual representation that the breath of administration the NCAA is attempting is just not possible, and will become less possible as the money at the top gets bigger. Think about it. How can the NCAA even begin to write rules that cover the gamut from Ohio State/Texas/Alabama, on down to Mount Union/John Carroll/Baldwin Wallace? Have you been to a D-III game? I went to a John Carroll game once just for sh*ts and giggles. There might have been 500 people watching the game. 500! There's 100,000 at an Ohio State game. I paid $5 for my seat. I just went to the FSU-Pitt game and paid $280 for 2 seats. That gap is Grand Canyon in size, only to get bigger. I don't know how its going to happen, but the split is going to happen. Even if the Division I powers wanted to stop it, I don't think they could.

I kind of take a similar position with regard to ND: I'm not sure how or when its going to happen, but it will happen. Name me another team at any semi-professional or professional level anywhere in the world that operates with the independent status ND does. For me, that fact alone means the Irish will succomb to the pressure to join a conference at some point. Their independence is a historical artifact, not proof of their unique nature, as some might argue.

(09-13-2013 06:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You are making an assumption that the Irish would have rejected the partial ACC offer for a partial Big Ten one.

Personally, I make no such assumption because I think that ND would still have selected the ACC deal.

Regardless, I can tell you the Big Ten would not have offered it.

I think the Irish probably would have accepted Big Ten over ACC given it was less disruptive to the schedule (in the Big Ten, 3 of the 5 games probably would have always been Purdue, Michigan State, and Michigan game the Notre Dame administration at least would have liked), especially if expansion to the east coast was still on the table. There were also CIC considerations. The ACC was a very good fit though and Notre Dame is good for the move.

Personally, I'm somewhat happier you guys went to the ACC. I usually casually root for the Irish against non-Big Ten schools and them playing fewer games vs. the Big Ten means I'll root for them more often. If football expansion happened regardless, I'm doubly happy has 14 is already too big and 15 in basketball would have made championships that much harder to win.

(09-13-2013 08:14 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  On the issue of the new division: I first came to the conclusion that it is inevitable a few years back when I was working out at a gym here in Cleveland, and ran into a guy who played linebacker at Division III power Mount Union who was about my size (5'10", 200 lbs), and lifed about what I lift. I compared this information to what I knew of the linebackers at FSU when I was there; young men who were gargantuan and moved faster than anyone, at any position, at any school, I saw in the football conference my high school is in in the entire 4 years I spent in high school. For me, this was visual representation that the breath of administration the NCAA is attempting is just not possible, and will become less possible as the money at the top gets bigger. Think about it. How can the NCAA even begin to write rules that cover the gamut from Ohio State/Texas/Alabama, on down to Mount Union/John Carroll/Baldwin Wallace? Have you been to a D-III game? I went to a John Carroll game once just for sh*ts and giggles. There might have been 500 people watching the game. 500! There's 100,000 at an Ohio State game. I paid $5 for my seat. I just went to the FSU-Pitt game and paid $280 for 2 seats. That gap is Grand Canyon in size, only to get bigger. I don't know how its going to happen, but the split is going to happen. Even if the Division I powers wanted to stop it, I don't think they could.

I kind of take a similar position with regard to ND: I'm not sure how or when its going to happen, but it will happen. Name me another team at any semi-professional or professional level anywhere in the world that operates with the independent status ND does. For me, that fact alone means the Irish will succomb to the pressure to join a conference at some point. Their independence is a historical artifact, not proof of their unique nature, as some might argue.

On the issue of Notre Dame, the key difference between college football and any of the pro leagues is that college football is already made up, even at the power level of 5 separate leagues and 1 independent. It's very different from the NFL, NBA, and really even baseball anymore (despite the leagues being pretty separate initially). Until we get to the point that those 5 separate leagues, with their own structure, own TV deals, own rules, morph into one, I don't see anything that also prevents Notre Dame from remaining as their own separate entity.

On the wider issue of college alignment, the differences are huge between division 3 and 1 (I've seen more division 3 games live than anything else actually :) ), but that doesn't mean they can't all exist in the NCAA structure. I'm not arguing they necessarily should, but I don't see that changing anytime soon. We might get a split in division 1 or at the most extreme along power conference lines, but big changes in college football have usually been slow and I expect the 12 year CFP deal to go through as is regardless with more room for change after that.

I'm not going to speak personally for Notre Dame here but, if you believe this you aren't paying attention to what the Irish value. I can hit upon previous denials, stem cell research, barnstorming and multiple other issues that make Notre Dame a terrible fit for the b1g. Terry?

(09-13-2013 10:52 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 06:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You are making an assumption that the Irish would have rejected the partial ACC offer for a partial Big Ten one.

Personally, I make no such assumption because I think that ND would still have selected the ACC deal.

Regardless, I can tell you the Big Ten would not have offered it.

I think the Irish probably would have accepted Big Ten over ACC given it was less disruptive to the schedule (in the Big Ten, 3 of the 5 games probably would have always been Purdue, Michigan State, and Michigan game the Notre Dame administration at least would have liked), especially if expansion to the east coast was still on the table. There were also CIC considerations. The ACC was a very good fit though and Notre Dame is good for the move.

Personally, I'm somewhat happier you guys went to the ACC. I usually casually root for the Irish against non-Big Ten schools and them playing fewer games vs. the Big Ten means I'll root for them more often. If football expansion happened regardless, I'm doubly happy has 14 is already too big and 15 in basketball would have made championships that much harder to win.

(09-13-2013 08:14 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:56 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think way, way too much is being made of a new division. The order of likelihood of events with this in my opinion is.

1. No major changes, but compromises to the power schools to get a lot of what they want.
2. Division 1-A (FBS) splits from the rest of division 1 for governance purposes. It might be wider than that, but if it is, it will also include the Big East and maybe some other schools.
3. A full split of the power schools (definitely adding in Notre Dame possibly adding BYU and a few others), probably still within the NCAA.
4. A division split that brings the 5 power conferences, Notre Dame, and the Mountain West/American.

Of the four, only #3 (the one I think is 2nd to least likely), might effect Notre Dame independence and I think even there, they'd still be much more likely to keep it than lose it.

Let's say, the power 5 conferences split into a new division to make their own rules. That doesn't mean the bowls/CFP/games are actually altered all that much. In much the same way we have FBS vs. FCS games now, we would probably continue a mixture, but to a larger extent then. They aren't likely to fundamentally alter the CFP given it has a 12 year deal they just signed and that would require a big buyout to the Group of 5 who would fight tooth and nail to stay part of the system. They also probably wouldn't change the regular season much given all the existing schedule agreements and everyone's desire for 7 home games. I think 2-3 games against current FCS schools would still be allowed even with a separation. In short, for purposes beyond governance rules, even with a formal split along power conference/non-power conferences, I doubt we see much change.

If we assume that the power conferences have really changed their mind quickly though and want away from the Group of 5 and are willing to do pay the fees associated with that, things start to get more interesting. Then, away from the Group of 5, you might get more look at an 8 team playoff (although I don't see it at this point), but it would probably be along classical lines. You could have Big Ten vs. PAC-12 as a first round in the Rose Bowl, the SEC hosting someone in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange, and Big 12 in the Sugar or possibly back to the Fiesta or Cotton. Even then though, I think you'd have room for independents to fill in one of the at large spots.

I think the only way you get to the point Notre Dame must join a conference if you essentially have to merge into one giant conference made up of several divisions and sub-divisions (probably called conferences and divisions) before it would even be possible in the short term. That requires several leaps from the point we are at though and given how slow everything generally moves in college football, I'd say that's still a ways off. It might happen someday, but when we just had the Big Ten putting forth a plus one over a 4 team playoff a year ago, when we just had the Group of 5 sign the CFP, with no major players wanting independents eliminated in principle, etc, I see no reason to think we are anywhere close to the point Notre Dame is forced into that position.

On the issue of the new division: I first came to the conclusion that it is inevitable a few years back when I was working out at a gym here in Cleveland, and ran into a guy who played linebacker at Division III power Mount Union who was about my size (5'10", 200 lbs), and lifed about what I lift. I compared this information to what I knew of the linebackers at FSU when I was there; young men who were gargantuan and moved faster than anyone, at any position, at any school, I saw in the football conference my high school is in in the entire 4 years I spent in high school. For me, this was visual representation that the breath of administration the NCAA is attempting is just not possible, and will become less possible as the money at the top gets bigger. Think about it. How can the NCAA even begin to write rules that cover the gamut from Ohio State/Texas/Alabama, on down to Mount Union/John Carroll/Baldwin Wallace? Have you been to a D-III game? I went to a John Carroll game once just for sh*ts and giggles. There might have been 500 people watching the game. 500! There's 100,000 at an Ohio State game. I paid $5 for my seat. I just went to the FSU-Pitt game and paid $280 for 2 seats. That gap is Grand Canyon in size, only to get bigger. I don't know how its going to happen, but the split is going to happen. Even if the Division I powers wanted to stop it, I don't think they could.

I kind of take a similar position with regard to ND: I'm not sure how or when its going to happen, but it will happen. Name me another team at any semi-professional or professional level anywhere in the world that operates with the independent status ND does. For me, that fact alone means the Irish will succomb to the pressure to join a conference at some point. Their independence is a historical artifact, not proof of their unique nature, as some might argue.

Your first bolded sentence directly contradicts your second bolded sentence.

(09-13-2013 10:52 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 06:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You are making an assumption that the Irish would have rejected the partial ACC offer for a partial Big Ten one.

Personally, I make no such assumption because I think that ND would still have selected the ACC deal.

Regardless, I can tell you the Big Ten would not have offered it.

I think the Irish probably would have accepted Big Ten over ACC given it was less disruptive to the schedule (in the Big Ten, 3 of the 5 games probably would have always been Purdue, Michigan State, and Michigan game the Notre Dame administration at least would have liked), especially if expansion to the east coast was still on the table. There were also CIC considerations. The ACC was a very good fit though and Notre Dame is good for the move.

Personally, I'm somewhat happier you guys went to the ACC. I usually casually root for the Irish against non-Big Ten schools and them playing fewer games vs. the Big Ten means I'll root for them more often. If football expansion happened regardless, I'm doubly happy has 14 is already too big and 15 in basketball would have made championships that much harder to win.

ND much preferred the fellow private schools and particularly the Boston to Miami nature of the ACC over the Big Ten.

ND did not want to become "regionalized" as a Midwestern school in a Midwestern based conference, even as a partial member.

It also did not want to be one of two private schools in a large, land grant public university dominated conference.

Finally, there is a lot of anti-Big Ten sentiment among ND alumni and fans.

All things being equal, my opinion is that ND would choose the ACC over a similar offer from the Big Ten (and yes, I understand that the Big Ten would never offer partial membership).

remember, in the early founding of the big 10, there was huge anti-catholic feelings by the big 10 schools (particularly michigan) . THe only schools that would play notre Dame was purdue and michigan state (who was not in the big 10 at that time)...This marginalization forced Notre Dame to go national and the REST is history.

WHile I wouldnt say there is still that level of predjudice with the big 10 and michigan there is still that long term feeling of mistrust from both camps. ACC, particularly some of the new schools (pitt, boston college, syracuse and miami) have had long term relationships with notre dame and so many of the other ACC schools have leaders that have worked in senior positions at Notre Dame and understand them.

This is the 21st century where the money impacts are huge, but behind it is that the institutions just have to feel comfortable. I think the Notre Dame relationship is just that.

(09-13-2013 10:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 10:52 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 06:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You are making an assumption that the Irish would have rejected the partial ACC offer for a partial Big Ten one.

Personally, I make no such assumption because I think that ND would still have selected the ACC deal.

Regardless, I can tell you the Big Ten would not have offered it.

I think the Irish probably would have accepted Big Ten over ACC given it was less disruptive to the schedule (in the Big Ten, 3 of the 5 games probably would have always been Purdue, Michigan State, and Michigan game the Notre Dame administration at least would have liked), especially if expansion to the east coast was still on the table. There were also CIC considerations. The ACC was a very good fit though and Notre Dame is good for the move.

Personally, I'm somewhat happier you guys went to the ACC. I usually casually root for the Irish against non-Big Ten schools and them playing fewer games vs. the Big Ten means I'll root for them more often. If football expansion happened regardless, I'm doubly happy has 14 is already too big and 15 in basketball would have made championships that much harder to win.

ND much preferred the fellow private schools and particularly the Boston to Miami nature of the ACC over the Big Ten.

ND did not want to become "regionalized" as a Midwestern school in a Midwestern based conference, even as a partial member.

It also did not want to be one of two private schools in a large, land grant public university dominated conference.

Finally, there is a lot of anti-Big Ten sentiment among ND alumni and fans.

All things being equal, my opinion is that ND would choose the ACC over a similar offer from the Big Ten (and yes, I understand that the Big Ten would never offer partial membership).

(09-14-2013 07:07 AM)Fburghokie Wrote:  remember, in the early founding of the big 10, there was huge anti-catholic feelings by the big 10 schools (particularly michigan) . THe only schools that would play notre Dame was purdue and michigan state (who was not in the big 10 at that time)...This marginalization forced Notre Dame to go national and the REST is history.

WHile I wouldnt say there is still that level of predjudice with the big 10 and michigan there is still that long term feeling of mistrust from both camps. ACC, particularly some of the new schools (pitt, boston college, syracuse and miami) have had long term relationships with notre dame and so many of the other ACC schools have leaders that have worked in senior positions at Notre Dame and understand them.

This is the 21st century where the money impacts are huge, but behind it is that the institutions just have to feel comfortable. I think the Notre Dame relationship is just that.

(09-13-2013 10:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 10:52 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 06:52 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You are making an assumption that the Irish would have rejected the partial ACC offer for a partial Big Ten one.

Personally, I make no such assumption because I think that ND would still have selected the ACC deal.

Regardless, I can tell you the Big Ten would not have offered it.

I think the Irish probably would have accepted Big Ten over ACC given it was less disruptive to the schedule (in the Big Ten, 3 of the 5 games probably would have always been Purdue, Michigan State, and Michigan game the Notre Dame administration at least would have liked), especially if expansion to the east coast was still on the table. There were also CIC considerations. The ACC was a very good fit though and Notre Dame is good for the move.

Personally, I'm somewhat happier you guys went to the ACC. I usually casually root for the Irish against non-Big Ten schools and them playing fewer games vs. the Big Ten means I'll root for them more often. If football expansion happened regardless, I'm doubly happy has 14 is already too big and 15 in basketball would have made championships that much harder to win.

ND much preferred the fellow private schools and particularly the Boston to Miami nature of the ACC over the Big Ten.

ND did not want to become "regionalized" as a Midwestern school in a Midwestern based conference, even as a partial member.

It also did not want to be one of two private schools in a large, land grant public university dominated conference.

Finally, there is a lot of anti-Big Ten sentiment among ND alumni and fans.

All things being equal, my opinion is that ND would choose the ACC over a similar offer from the Big Ten (and yes, I understand that the Big Ten would never offer partial membership).

1) Exactly.

2) It is pretty amazing how many ex-ND people are in positions of power at ACC schools.

FBSchedules.com is reporting on Notre Dame vs. Louisville for 2017 and 2020. However, I think we've discussed N.D. enough... let's address the ACC.

FBSchedules wrote this:

Quote:Since there are only 14 ACC teams, Notre Dame will have to play one member twice during each three-year span. It’s not yet known if that will be Syracuse each time.

Let me answer that - No. When Miami freezes over. When pigs fly.

Syracuse only got to play them 2 time sin 3 yrs because they had an existing contract that was amended to the agreement of both sides. I wouldn't expect Syracuse to get notre dame on the schedule again until 2018 and then 2022 with the 2018 one likely at nd with the return trip in 2022

pitt and bc are probably next in line for 2 in 3 years

(09-13-2013 10:24 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 08:14 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:56 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think way, way too much is being made of a new division. The order of likelihood of events with this in my opinion is.

1. No major changes, but compromises to the power schools to get a lot of what they want.
2. Division 1-A (FBS) splits from the rest of division 1 for governance purposes. It might be wider than that, but if it is, it will also include the Big East and maybe some other schools.
3. A full split of the power schools (definitely adding in Notre Dame possibly adding BYU and a few others), probably still within the NCAA.
4. A division split that brings the 5 power conferences, Notre Dame, and the Mountain West/American.

Of the four, only #3 (the one I think is 2nd to least likely), might effect Notre Dame independence and I think even there, they'd still be much more likely to keep it than lose it.

Let's say, the power 5 conferences split into a new division to make their own rules. That doesn't mean the bowls/CFP/games are actually altered all that much. In much the same way we have FBS vs. FCS games now, we would probably continue a mixture, but to a larger extent then. They aren't likely to fundamentally alter the CFP given it has a 12 year deal they just signed and that would require a big buyout to the Group of 5 who would fight tooth and nail to stay part of the system. They also probably wouldn't change the regular season much given all the existing schedule agreements and everyone's desire for 7 home games. I think 2-3 games against current FCS schools would still be allowed even with a separation. In short, for purposes beyond governance rules, even with a formal split along power conference/non-power conferences, I doubt we see much change.

If we assume that the power conferences have really changed their mind quickly though and want away from the Group of 5 and are willing to do pay the fees associated with that, things start to get more interesting. Then, away from the Group of 5, you might get more look at an 8 team playoff (although I don't see it at this point), but it would probably be along classical lines. You could have Big Ten vs. PAC-12 as a first round in the Rose Bowl, the SEC hosting someone in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange, and Big 12 in the Sugar or possibly back to the Fiesta or Cotton. Even then though, I think you'd have room for independents to fill in one of the at large spots.

I think the only way you get to the point Notre Dame must join a conference if you essentially have to merge into one giant conference made up of several divisions and sub-divisions (probably called conferences and divisions) before it would even be possible in the short term. That requires several leaps from the point we are at though and given how slow everything generally moves in college football, I'd say that's still a ways off. It might happen someday, but when we just had the Big Ten putting forth a plus one over a 4 team playoff a year ago, when we just had the Group of 5 sign the CFP, with no major players wanting independents eliminated in principle, etc, I see no reason to think we are anywhere close to the point Notre Dame is forced into that position.

On the issue of the new division: I first came to the conclusion that it is inevitable a few years back when I was working out at a gym here in Cleveland, and ran into a guy who played linebacker at Division III power Mount Union who was about my size (5'10", 200 lbs), and lifed about what I lift. I compared this information to what I knew of the linebackers at FSU when I was there; young men who were gargantuan and moved faster than anyone, at any position, at any school, I saw in the football conference my high school is in in the entire 4 years I spent in high school. For me, this was visual representation that the breath of administration the NCAA is attempting is just not possible, and will become less possible as the money at the top gets bigger. Think about it. How can the NCAA even begin to write rules that cover the gamut from Ohio State/Texas/Alabama, on down to Mount Union/John Carroll/Baldwin Wallace? Have you been to a D-III game? I went to a John Carroll game once just for sh*ts and giggles. There might have been 500 people watching the game. 500! There's 100,000 at an Ohio State game. I paid $5 for my seat. I just went to the FSU-Pitt game and paid $280 for 2 seats. That gap is Grand Canyon in size, only to get bigger. I don't know how its going to happen, but the split is going to happen. Even if the Division I powers wanted to stop it, I don't think they could.

I kind of take a similar position with regard to ND: I'm not sure how or when its going to happen, but it will happen. Name me another team at any semi-professional or professional level anywhere in the world that operates with the independent status ND does. For me, that fact alone means the Irish will succomb to the pressure to join a conference at some point. Their independence is a historical artifact, not proof of their unique nature, as some might argue.

Your first bolded sentence directly contradicts your second bolded sentence.

Its like has been said about treason: its just a matter of dates. I.E., from the perspective of a couple decades down the line, they won't be contridictory.

Let me reiterate at this point that I have no issues with ND's partial membership status. I think it was a fair deal, and as I said before, the ACC got as much out of ND as they were willing to give anyone. A corollary of my feeling there is that it wouldn't bother me if my prediction turns out to be false; if this arrangement is as much is the Irish give up to anyone, then I am fine with that.

Having said that, permit me to say that I think the Irish administration and its fan base holding on to independence does you no favors. Belief in that first bolded statement veers dangerously close to a holier-than-thou attitude that, were I in a decision making position in South Bend, I would do everything in my power to extinguish by pushing for full conference affiliation.

Part of goal setting, in my opinion, is setting up small step, reachable goals on one's way to whatever ultimate goal one has. When Jimbo Fisher first took over at FSU, he indicated that the first goal you have to have in the ACC is to win your division. Then you work towards winning the conference, then you work towards a national title. These small steps do not hurt, they help. They help focus the organization.

ND independence, which creates only one concrete, concise goal; a national title, does not help reach that goal. It makes it more difficult. This is why I suggest ND joins as a full-time member, and then Kelly says, "the first goal were going to have is to win the division." Its very pedestrian, but it works.

One man's opinion.

(09-16-2013 07:42 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 10:24 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 08:14 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:56 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think way, way too much is being made of a new division. The order of likelihood of events with this in my opinion is.

1. No major changes, but compromises to the power schools to get a lot of what they want.
2. Division 1-A (FBS) splits from the rest of division 1 for governance purposes. It might be wider than that, but if it is, it will also include the Big East and maybe some other schools.
3. A full split of the power schools (definitely adding in Notre Dame possibly adding BYU and a few others), probably still within the NCAA.
4. A division split that brings the 5 power conferences, Notre Dame, and the Mountain West/American.

Of the four, only #3 (the one I think is 2nd to least likely), might effect Notre Dame independence and I think even there, they'd still be much more likely to keep it than lose it.

Let's say, the power 5 conferences split into a new division to make their own rules. That doesn't mean the bowls/CFP/games are actually altered all that much. In much the same way we have FBS vs. FCS games now, we would probably continue a mixture, but to a larger extent then. They aren't likely to fundamentally alter the CFP given it has a 12 year deal they just signed and that would require a big buyout to the Group of 5 who would fight tooth and nail to stay part of the system. They also probably wouldn't change the regular season much given all the existing schedule agreements and everyone's desire for 7 home games. I think 2-3 games against current FCS schools would still be allowed even with a separation. In short, for purposes beyond governance rules, even with a formal split along power conference/non-power conferences, I doubt we see much change.

If we assume that the power conferences have really changed their mind quickly though and want away from the Group of 5 and are willing to do pay the fees associated with that, things start to get more interesting. Then, away from the Group of 5, you might get more look at an 8 team playoff (although I don't see it at this point), but it would probably be along classical lines. You could have Big Ten vs. PAC-12 as a first round in the Rose Bowl, the SEC hosting someone in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange, and Big 12 in the Sugar or possibly back to the Fiesta or Cotton. Even then though, I think you'd have room for independents to fill in one of the at large spots.

I think the only way you get to the point Notre Dame must join a conference if you essentially have to merge into one giant conference made up of several divisions and sub-divisions (probably called conferences and divisions) before it would even be possible in the short term. That requires several leaps from the point we are at though and given how slow everything generally moves in college football, I'd say that's still a ways off. It might happen someday, but when we just had the Big Ten putting forth a plus one over a 4 team playoff a year ago, when we just had the Group of 5 sign the CFP, with no major players wanting independents eliminated in principle, etc, I see no reason to think we are anywhere close to the point Notre Dame is forced into that position.

On the issue of the new division: I first came to the conclusion that it is inevitable a few years back when I was working out at a gym here in Cleveland, and ran into a guy who played linebacker at Division III power Mount Union who was about my size (5'10", 200 lbs), and lifed about what I lift. I compared this information to what I knew of the linebackers at FSU when I was there; young men who were gargantuan and moved faster than anyone, at any position, at any school, I saw in the football conference my high school is in in the entire 4 years I spent in high school. For me, this was visual representation that the breath of administration the NCAA is attempting is just not possible, and will become less possible as the money at the top gets bigger. Think about it. How can the NCAA even begin to write rules that cover the gamut from Ohio State/Texas/Alabama, on down to Mount Union/John Carroll/Baldwin Wallace? Have you been to a D-III game? I went to a John Carroll game once just for sh*ts and giggles. There might have been 500 people watching the game. 500! There's 100,000 at an Ohio State game. I paid $5 for my seat. I just went to the FSU-Pitt game and paid $280 for 2 seats. That gap is Grand Canyon in size, only to get bigger. I don't know how its going to happen, but the split is going to happen. Even if the Division I powers wanted to stop it, I don't think they could.

I kind of take a similar position with regard to ND: I'm not sure how or when its going to happen, but it will happen. Name me another team at any semi-professional or professional level anywhere in the world that operates with the independent status ND does. For me, that fact alone means the Irish will succomb to the pressure to join a conference at some point. Their independence is a historical artifact, not proof of their unique nature, as some might argue.

Your first bolded sentence directly contradicts your second bolded sentence.

Its like has been said about treason: its just a matter of dates. I.E., from the perspective of a couple decades down the line, they won't be contridictory.

Let me reiterate at this point that I have no issues with ND's partial membership status. I think it was a fair deal, and as I said before, the ACC got as much out of ND as they were willing to give anyone. A corollary of my feeling there is that it wouldn't bother me if my prediction turns out to be false; if this arrangement is as much is the Irish give up to anyone, then I am fine with that.

Having said that, permit me to say that I think the Irish administration and its fan base holding on to independence does you no favors. Belief in that first bolded statement veers dangerously close to a holier-than-thou attitude that, were I in a decision making position in South Bend, I would do everything in my power to extinguish by pushing for full conference affiliation.

Part of goal setting, in my opinion, is setting up small step, reachable goals on one's way to whatever ultimate goal one has. When Jimbo Fisher first took over at FSU, he indicated that the first goal you have to have in the ACC is to win your division. Then you work towards winning the conference, then you work towards a national title. These small steps do not hurt, they help. They help focus the organization.

ND independence, which creates only one concrete, concise goal; a national title, does not help reach that goal. It makes it more difficult. This is why I suggest ND joins as a full-time member, and then Kelly says, "the first goal were going to have is to win the division." Its very pedestrian, but it works.

One man's opinion.

ND has never operated with that mindset for 126 seasons and really never wants to.

It has always been National Championship or bust at ND.

Lately, it has included a BCS bowl bids as a goal if no national championship.

ND coaches, players , alumni and fans are not interested in conference championships in football, let alone division titles.

They think those are not goals worth having and such titles are of very little value.

This is a different mindset than most places, but that doesn't mean it is not the way it is at ND.

Go on ND message boards and ask them. They will tell you.

(09-16-2013 12:35 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 07:42 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 10:24 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 08:14 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:56 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think way, way too much is being made of a new division. The order of likelihood of events with this in my opinion is.

1. No major changes, but compromises to the power schools to get a lot of what they want.
2. Division 1-A (FBS) splits from the rest of division 1 for governance purposes. It might be wider than that, but if it is, it will also include the Big East and maybe some other schools.
3. A full split of the power schools (definitely adding in Notre Dame possibly adding BYU and a few others), probably still within the NCAA.
4. A division split that brings the 5 power conferences, Notre Dame, and the Mountain West/American.

Of the four, only #3 (the one I think is 2nd to least likely), might effect Notre Dame independence and I think even there, they'd still be much more likely to keep it than lose it.

Let's say, the power 5 conferences split into a new division to make their own rules. That doesn't mean the bowls/CFP/games are actually altered all that much. In much the same way we have FBS vs. FCS games now, we would probably continue a mixture, but to a larger extent then. They aren't likely to fundamentally alter the CFP given it has a 12 year deal they just signed and that would require a big buyout to the Group of 5 who would fight tooth and nail to stay part of the system. They also probably wouldn't change the regular season much given all the existing schedule agreements and everyone's desire for 7 home games. I think 2-3 games against current FCS schools would still be allowed even with a separation. In short, for purposes beyond governance rules, even with a formal split along power conference/non-power conferences, I doubt we see much change.

If we assume that the power conferences have really changed their mind quickly though and want away from the Group of 5 and are willing to do pay the fees associated with that, things start to get more interesting. Then, away from the Group of 5, you might get more look at an 8 team playoff (although I don't see it at this point), but it would probably be along classical lines. You could have Big Ten vs. PAC-12 as a first round in the Rose Bowl, the SEC hosting someone in the Sugar, ACC in the Orange, and Big 12 in the Sugar or possibly back to the Fiesta or Cotton. Even then though, I think you'd have room for independents to fill in one of the at large spots.

I think the only way you get to the point Notre Dame must join a conference if you essentially have to merge into one giant conference made up of several divisions and sub-divisions (probably called conferences and divisions) before it would even be possible in the short term. That requires several leaps from the point we are at though and given how slow everything generally moves in college football, I'd say that's still a ways off. It might happen someday, but when we just had the Big Ten putting forth a plus one over a 4 team playoff a year ago, when we just had the Group of 5 sign the CFP, with no major players wanting independents eliminated in principle, etc, I see no reason to think we are anywhere close to the point Notre Dame is forced into that position.

On the issue of the new division: I first came to the conclusion that it is inevitable a few years back when I was working out at a gym here in Cleveland, and ran into a guy who played linebacker at Division III power Mount Union who was about my size (5'10", 200 lbs), and lifed about what I lift. I compared this information to what I knew of the linebackers at FSU when I was there; young men who were gargantuan and moved faster than anyone, at any position, at any school, I saw in the football conference my high school is in in the entire 4 years I spent in high school. For me, this was visual representation that the breath of administration the NCAA is attempting is just not possible, and will become less possible as the money at the top gets bigger. Think about it. How can the NCAA even begin to write rules that cover the gamut from Ohio State/Texas/Alabama, on down to Mount Union/John Carroll/Baldwin Wallace? Have you been to a D-III game? I went to a John Carroll game once just for sh*ts and giggles. There might have been 500 people watching the game. 500! There's 100,000 at an Ohio State game. I paid $5 for my seat. I just went to the FSU-Pitt game and paid $280 for 2 seats. That gap is Grand Canyon in size, only to get bigger. I don't know how its going to happen, but the split is going to happen. Even if the Division I powers wanted to stop it, I don't think they could.

I kind of take a similar position with regard to ND: I'm not sure how or when its going to happen, but it will happen. Name me another team at any semi-professional or professional level anywhere in the world that operates with the independent status ND does. For me, that fact alone means the Irish will succomb to the pressure to join a conference at some point. Their independence is a historical artifact, not proof of their unique nature, as some might argue.

Your first bolded sentence directly contradicts your second bolded sentence.

Its like has been said about treason: its just a matter of dates. I.E., from the perspective of a couple decades down the line, they won't be contridictory.

Let me reiterate at this point that I have no issues with ND's partial membership status. I think it was a fair deal, and as I said before, the ACC got as much out of ND as they were willing to give anyone. A corollary of my feeling there is that it wouldn't bother me if my prediction turns out to be false; if this arrangement is as much is the Irish give up to anyone, then I am fine with that.

Having said that, permit me to say that I think the Irish administration and its fan base holding on to independence does you no favors. Belief in that first bolded statement veers dangerously close to a holier-than-thou attitude that, were I in a decision making position in South Bend, I would do everything in my power to extinguish by pushing for full conference affiliation.

Part of goal setting, in my opinion, is setting up small step, reachable goals on one's way to whatever ultimate goal one has. When Jimbo Fisher first took over at FSU, he indicated that the first goal you have to have in the ACC is to win your division. Then you work towards winning the conference, then you work towards a national title. These small steps do not hurt, they help. They help focus the organization.

ND independence, which creates only one concrete, concise goal; a national title, does not help reach that goal. It makes it more difficult. This is why I suggest ND joins as a full-time member, and then Kelly says, "the first goal were going to have is to win the division." Its very pedestrian, but it works.

One man's opinion.

ND has never operated with that mindset for 126 seasons and really never wants to.

It has always been National Championship or bust at ND.

Lately, it has included a BCS bowl bids as a goal if no national championship.

ND coaches, players , alumni and fans are not interested in conference championships in football, let alone division titles.

They think those are not goals worth having and such titles are of very little value.

This is a different mindset than most places, but that doesn't mean it is not the way it is at ND.

Go on ND message boards and ask them. They will tell you.

I'm a Midwesterner who went to FSU. Not only would I not argue with your assessment of ND fans/administration/alumni, I would agree with it 100%.

Just to reiterate, my point is two-fold; A)you can't hold out forever, and more importantly, B)the attitude doesn't help, it hurts.

But, I have no problem with the deal that was struck between the ACC and ND. Some road trips to South Bend for contests in basketball, football, and baseball are in my future.

(09-16-2013 01:25 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:35 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 07:42 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 10:24 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 08:14 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  On the issue of the new division: I first came to the conclusion that it is inevitable a few years back when I was working out at a gym here in Cleveland, and ran into a guy who played linebacker at Division III power Mount Union who was about my size (5'10", 200 lbs), and lifed about what I lift. I compared this information to what I knew of the linebackers at FSU when I was there; young men who were gargantuan and moved faster than anyone, at any position, at any school, I saw in the football conference my high school is in in the entire 4 years I spent in high school. For me, this was visual representation that the breath of administration the NCAA is attempting is just not possible, and will become less possible as the money at the top gets bigger. Think about it. How can the NCAA even begin to write rules that cover the gamut from Ohio State/Texas/Alabama, on down to Mount Union/John Carroll/Baldwin Wallace? Have you been to a D-III game? I went to a John Carroll game once just for sh*ts and giggles. There might have been 500 people watching the game. 500! There's 100,000 at an Ohio State game. I paid $5 for my seat. I just went to the FSU-Pitt game and paid $280 for 2 seats. That gap is Grand Canyon in size, only to get bigger. I don't know how its going to happen, but the split is going to happen. Even if the Division I powers wanted to stop it, I don't think they could.

I kind of take a similar position with regard to ND: I'm not sure how or when its going to happen, but it will happen. Name me another team at any semi-professional or professional level anywhere in the world that operates with the independent status ND does. For me, that fact alone means the Irish will succomb to the pressure to join a conference at some point. Their independence is a historical artifact, not proof of their unique nature, as some might argue.

Your first bolded sentence directly contradicts your second bolded sentence.

Its like has been said about treason: its just a matter of dates. I.E., from the perspective of a couple decades down the line, they won't be contridictory.

Let me reiterate at this point that I have no issues with ND's partial membership status. I think it was a fair deal, and as I said before, the ACC got as much out of ND as they were willing to give anyone. A corollary of my feeling there is that it wouldn't bother me if my prediction turns out to be false; if this arrangement is as much is the Irish give up to anyone, then I am fine with that.

Having said that, permit me to say that I think the Irish administration and its fan base holding on to independence does you no favors. Belief in that first bolded statement veers dangerously close to a holier-than-thou attitude that, were I in a decision making position in South Bend, I would do everything in my power to extinguish by pushing for full conference affiliation.

Part of goal setting, in my opinion, is setting up small step, reachable goals on one's way to whatever ultimate goal one has. When Jimbo Fisher first took over at FSU, he indicated that the first goal you have to have in the ACC is to win your division. Then you work towards winning the conference, then you work towards a national title. These small steps do not hurt, they help. They help focus the organization.

ND independence, which creates only one concrete, concise goal; a national title, does not help reach that goal. It makes it more difficult. This is why I suggest ND joins as a full-time member, and then Kelly says, "the first goal were going to have is to win the division." Its very pedestrian, but it works.

One man's opinion.

ND has never operated with that mindset for 126 seasons and really never wants to.

It has always been National Championship or bust at ND.

Lately, it has included a BCS bowl bids as a goal if no national championship.

ND coaches, players , alumni and fans are not interested in conference championships in football, let alone division titles.

They think those are not goals worth having and such titles are of very little value.

This is a different mindset than most places, but that doesn't mean it is not the way it is at ND.

Go on ND message boards and ask them. They will tell you.

I'm a Midwesterner who went to FSU. Not only would I not argue with your assessment of ND fans/administration/alumni, I would agree with it 100%.

Just to reiterate, my point is two-fold; A)you can't hold out forever, and more importantly, B)the attitude doesn't help, it hurts.

But, I have no problem with the deal that was struck between the ACC and ND. Some road trips to South Bend for contests in basketball, football, and baseball are in my future.

1) They think that they can hold out forever;

2) They like that it hurts, not helps. Strange, but true.

ND doesn't want to take the same path that others do. It wants to do it differently.

They want to win big as an independent while having a high graduation rate for its players.

When ND was ranked #1 last December, it was just as proud that its player grad rate was also #1.

It wants to prove that it can be a different model for success, that it can win big as an independent. They like the challenge.

I want Notre Dame to stay independent too (It's because I just don't want them to be a member of my conference), but it won't happen in the long run.....sorry TerryD.

(09-17-2013 07:09 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:25 PM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:35 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 07:42 AM)GoNolzOhio Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 10:24 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Your first bolded sentence directly contradicts your second bolded sentence.

Its like has been said about treason: its just a matter of dates. I.E., from the perspective of a couple decades down the line, they won't be contridictory.

Let me reiterate at this point that I have no issues with ND's partial membership status. I think it was a fair deal, and as I said before, the ACC got as much out of ND as they were willing to give anyone. A corollary of my feeling there is that it wouldn't bother me if my prediction turns out to be false; if this arrangement is as much is the Irish give up to anyone, then I am fine with that.

Having said that, permit me to say that I think the Irish administration and its fan base holding on to independence does you no favors. Belief in that first bolded statement veers dangerously close to a holier-than-thou attitude that, were I in a decision making position in South Bend, I would do everything in my power to extinguish by pushing for full conference affiliation.

Part of goal setting, in my opinion, is setting up small step, reachable goals on one's way to whatever ultimate goal one has. When Jimbo Fisher first took over at FSU, he indicated that the first goal you have to have in the ACC is to win your division. Then you work towards winning the conference, then you work towards a national title. These small steps do not hurt, they help. They help focus the organization.

ND independence, which creates only one concrete, concise goal; a national title, does not help reach that goal. It makes it more difficult. This is why I suggest ND joins as a full-time member, and then Kelly says, "the first goal were going to have is to win the division." Its very pedestrian, but it works.

One man's opinion.

ND has never operated with that mindset for 126 seasons and really never wants to.

It has always been National Championship or bust at ND.

Lately, it has included a BCS bowl bids as a goal if no national championship.

ND coaches, players , alumni and fans are not interested in conference championships in football, let alone division titles.

They think those are not goals worth having and such titles are of very little value.

This is a different mindset than most places, but that doesn't mean it is not the way it is at ND.

Go on ND message boards and ask them. They will tell you.

I'm a Midwesterner who went to FSU. Not only would I not argue with your assessment of ND fans/administration/alumni, I would agree with it 100%.

Just to reiterate, my point is two-fold; A)you can't hold out forever, and more importantly, B)the attitude doesn't help, it hurts.

But, I have no problem with the deal that was struck between the ACC and ND. Some road trips to South Bend for contests in basketball, football, and baseball are in my future.

1) They think that they can hold out forever;

2) They like that it hurts, not helps. Strange, but true.

ND doesn't want to take the same path that others do. It wants to do it differently.

They want to win big as an independent while having a high graduation rate for its players.

When ND was ranked #1 last December, it was just as proud that its player grad rate was also #1.

It wants to prove that it can be a different model for success, that it can win big as an independent. They like the challenge.

Well, its a certainly very catholic attitude!

I do not suspect ND will be forced to join the ACC for the next while, or at least until the next TV contract is signed.
The one wild card is the money aspect of being in a conference. If the ACC Network is really successful then the $$$ may make it advantageous for Notre Dame to join the ACC as a full member. As things stand ND makes approximately $15 million per year for the NBC football contract plus a few million from the ACC TV deal for basketball and other sports so there is not much difference in money between being in the ACC or not.
Again, there are those at Notre Dame who want to stay independant at all costs but as we all know, that $$$$ can sometimes change people's minds.
I don't suspect the P5 conferences will break away from the NCAA as its too much work to come up with governance rules and administration for that.

As for the upcoming rotation, I suspect the TV networks will want to have a say in when and where these will be, plus what is the point in announcing things so far in advance.