(08-01-2014 11:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:07 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 09:38 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I cannot imagine any scenario in which Notre Dame would join the ACC as a full member.

ACC adds texas for a "break-the-bank" contract ...

TRIGGER HAPPY

That would make two partial members playing five ACC football games a year.

That works for me......

INNOVATION

an acceptable add to notre dame ...

WORKING PREMISE

(08-01-2014 11:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:07 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 09:38 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I cannot imagine any scenario in which Notre Dame would join the ACC as a full member.

ACC adds texas for a "break-the-bank" contract ...

TRIGGER HAPPY

That would make two partial members playing five ACC football games a year.

That works for me......

INNOVATION

how do you figure ...

CREATIVE DESTRUCTION

(07-31-2014 10:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

Quote:Posted by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer - Today 10:42 PM
As a PITT fan, we understand the deal. We know where we fit into things. Also, we understand exactly what we have to give up to make this whole deal work. We just ask that everyone else recognizes that we have sacrificed more than anyone else to make this arrangement work. Therefore, down the road when other scheduling considerations pop up (pods, permanent rivals, etc.), it is our expectation that the next set of sacrifices come from someone else, which we think is more than fair. That is how true partnerships work. It can't be, "We're going to stick you wherever we want to stick you and you are going to STFU and take it, you whining, good-for-nothing Yankee." That shitt's not going to fly.

Eight current ACC members gave up round robin basketball and football and a three day basketball Tournament format (with a Thursday play-in after FSU joined) for all this money that none of us care about or see a dime of either. My school voted against it from the beginning, but we're getting along, and voted for Pitt as far as I know. We understand the deal too.

I've grown to like Pitt a lot, and the more I know the more I like. I grew up in the deep South, and didn't know about Pitt when I was looking at colleges, but if I had I definitely would have applied. I'd be as proud to send my children there as anywhere. And I recognize that giving up the annual Notre Dame football game is a sacrifice -- a sacrifice, by the way, that Notre Dame, not the ACC, is imposing on you.

I don't think anyone has it in for Pitt. Happy to have you as conference-mates, looking forward to revenge on November 1.

Oh, yeah, you're right. My bad. That is totally the same...said nobody with a functioning brain.

You are still playing everyone you have always played. You are just no longer playing them twice per season. Now, if the round-robin scheduling meant that you would only play say, North Carolina every three years from now on (or not at all according to some proposals) then you would have an excellent point. However, that is not what is happening and is therefore not even close to what Pitt has surrendered.

I just don't think you guys are getting it. I understand that we have been better in men's basketball than football for the past decade or so but football remains PITT's number one sport - by a mile. I don't care what BS some of these goofs try to sell you on, that's the truth. I think that is also the difference between PITT and Syracuse, which I think considers basketball its top priority. You would have to ask them on that one though.

As such, no basketball game versus even a Duke or North Carolina will ever mean nearly as much to the locals as a football game versus Notre Dame. For almost a century now, Notre Dame has been one of PITT's biggest draws. That is a HUGE deal for a program that shares its stadium with not only an NFL team but one that is easily among the most popular franchises in American pro sports.

It's not the same as not getting to play Florida State twice per year in basketball every year. It was a MUCH larger sacrifice than that.

Again, I want to reiterate that we are adults and we made this agreement with our eyes wide open. I am not expecting anything other than an acknowledgement of what we have already given up and an understanding that further concessions - particularly when nobody else seems willing to give up anything of real significance - are going to be forcefully protested.

(08-01-2014 11:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:07 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 09:38 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I cannot imagine any scenario in which Notre Dame would join the ACC as a full member.

ACC adds texas for a "break-the-bank" contract ...

TRIGGER HAPPY

That would make two partial members playing five ACC football games a year.

That works for me......

INNOVATION

No matter who you are, everybody got a price.
-- R. Kelly

you mean to tell me that if TV dangled an ungodly sum ...
double, triple, quadruple current obligation ...
NFL type money ...
notre dame would sneer at it in order to cling to some anachronistic notion of independence from a bygone era ...
gosh darn it ...
forgive me for not accepting a less-than-perfect you ...

THERE'LL BE HOLY HELL TO PAY

(08-01-2014 01:04 PM)green Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 11:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:07 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 09:38 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I cannot imagine any scenario in which Notre Dame would join the ACC as a full member.

ACC adds texas for a "break-the-bank" contract ...

TRIGGER HAPPY

That would make two partial members playing five ACC football games a year.

That works for me......

INNOVATION

No matter who you are, everybody got a price.
-- R. Kelly

you mean to tell me that if TV dangled an ungodly sum ...
double, triple, quadruple current obligation ...
NFL type money ...
notre dame would sneer at it in order to cling to some anachronistic notion of independence from a bygone era ...
gosh darn it ...
forgive me for not accepting a less-than-perfect you ...

THERE'LL BE HOLY HELL TO PAY

I'll answer that. Yes they will(we) if their is access to the Championship Game. If we want more money we could join the SEC, Big 10 or PAC but we didn't.

(08-01-2014 01:36 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 01:04 PM)green Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 11:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:07 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 09:38 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I cannot imagine any scenario in which Notre Dame would join the ACC as a full member.

ACC adds texas for a "break-the-bank" contract ...

TRIGGER HAPPY

That would make two partial members playing five ACC football games a year.

That works for me......

INNOVATION

No matter who you are, everybody got a price.
-- R. Kelly

you mean to tell me that if TV dangled an ungodly sum ...
double, triple, quadruple current obligation ...
NFL type money ...
notre dame would sneer at it in order to cling to some anachronistic notion of independence from a bygone era ...
gosh darn it ...
forgive me for not accepting a less-than-perfect you ...

THERE'LL BE HOLY HELL TO PAY

I'll answer that. Yes they will(we) if their is access to the Championship Game. If we want more money we could join the SEC, Big 10 or PAC but we didn't.

but you don't live in a vacuum sir ...
irrational selfishness won't sit well with your conference mates...
truth be told, we're going to be pretty g_ddamned pissed ...
those with options will entertain them ...
the rest will tell you to go play with yourself ...
and this is how it ends ...
crumble from within ...

MENTAL MASTERBATION

(08-01-2014 01:04 PM)green Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 11:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:07 AM)green Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 09:38 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I cannot imagine any scenario in which Notre Dame would join the ACC as a full member.

ACC adds texas for a "break-the-bank" contract ...

TRIGGER HAPPY

That would make two partial members playing five ACC football games a year.

That works for me......

INNOVATION

No matter who you are, everybody got a price.
-- R. Kelly

you mean to tell me that if TV dangled an ungodly sum ...
double, triple, quadruple current obligation ...
NFL type money ...
notre dame would sneer at it in order to cling to some anachronistic notion of independence from a bygone era ...
gosh darn it ...
forgive me for not accepting a less-than-perfect you ...

THERE'LL BE HOLY HELL TO PAY

The Big Ten dangled the BTN and its additional millions in front of ND.

ND said "No, thanks, we will stay independent."

Right now, Purdue and Indiana make more TV money than ND and stand to make many millions a year more than the Irish, just because of Big Ten membership.

ND went in another direction, leaving millions of dollars of TV money on the table.



Says Jack Swabrick:


Here’s Swarbrick on the school’s continued push to play a national schedule and pursue and align with big-time partners (Under Armour, NBC) as Notre Dame continues to cherish its independence and national reach.

“A brilliant guy, our first full-time coach here, Jesse Harper, really set the model for us back in 1913, when he decided that Notre Dame would be the first team to schedule nationally. He really saw it as an opportunity to talk about Notre Dame, to promote the university, so that’s always been our model.

“The importance of the NBC partnership, the football independence, or Under Armour, it’s nothing to do with any direct or immediate impact, but has to do with the platform that it gives us to run the university. We couldn’t be more excited about Under Armour as a partner in that regard. They’re growing like crazy, they have a special place with the younger demographic in this country, and they help us tell the Notre Dame story.”


"“Fortunately, I think that world has settled down. I think we went through a period where there was sort of wholesale movements. I think we’re probably going to go through about a decade here… I think that’s going to produce a real period of stability. Our goal is to maintain independence. But you never say never. It’s not that we prefer to ever pursue an alternative, but you could imagine further changes down the road, as people project further consolidation of conferences. I don’t think that’s going to happen, at least not during my professional career, but that’s the only way we’d do it.

“It has nothing to do with football. We’d have a lot easier route to the national championship through a conference and becoming a conference champion, but that just doesn’t do for the university what we’re committed to do for it. So right now, that’s the balance we strike and it works well for us.”


http://irish.nbcsports.com/2014/07/31/fo...ame-story/


ND's main goal is independence, not the most money.

PRIORITIES

(08-01-2014 02:46 PM)green Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 01:36 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 01:04 PM)green Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 11:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:07 AM)green Wrote:  ACC adds texas for a "break-the-bank" contract ...

TRIGGER HAPPY

That would make two partial members playing five ACC football games a year.

That works for me......

INNOVATION

No matter who you are, everybody got a price.
-- R. Kelly

you mean to tell me that if TV dangled an ungodly sum ...
double, triple, quadruple current obligation ...
NFL type money ...
notre dame would sneer at it in order to cling to some anachronistic notion of independence from a bygone era ...
gosh darn it ...
forgive me for not accepting a less-than-perfect you ...

THERE'LL BE HOLY HELL TO PAY

I'll answer that. Yes they will(we) if their is access to the Championship Game. If we want more money we could join the SEC, Big 10 or PAC but we didn't.

but you don't live in a vacuum sir ...
irrational selfishness won't sit well with your conference mates...
truth be told, we're going to be pretty g_ddamned pissed ...
those with options will entertain them ...
the rest will tell you to go play with yourself ...
and this is how it ends ...
crumble from within ...

MENTAL MASTERBATION

If it crumbles, it crumbles.

I view conferences as (unfortunately) necessary evils, short term business arrangements at best.

(apparently many others do too with all of this realignment).

ND will end up just fine either way.

THE ROAD LESS TRAVELED

(08-01-2014 12:56 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 10:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

Quote:Posted by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer - Today 10:42 PM
As a PITT fan, we understand the deal. We know where we fit into things. Also, we understand exactly what we have to give up to make this whole deal work. We just ask that everyone else recognizes that we have sacrificed more than anyone else to make this arrangement work. Therefore, down the road when other scheduling considerations pop up (pods, permanent rivals, etc.), it is our expectation that the next set of sacrifices come from someone else, which we think is more than fair. That is how true partnerships work. It can't be, "We're going to stick you wherever we want to stick you and you are going to STFU and take it, you whining, good-for-nothing Yankee." That shitt's not going to fly.

Eight current ACC members gave up round robin basketball and football and a three day basketball Tournament format (with a Thursday play-in after FSU joined) for all this money that none of us care about or see a dime of either. My school voted against it from the beginning, but we're getting along, and voted for Pitt as far as I know. We understand the deal too.

I've grown to like Pitt a lot, and the more I know the more I like. I grew up in the deep South, and didn't know about Pitt when I was looking at colleges, but if I had I definitely would have applied. I'd be as proud to send my children there as anywhere. And I recognize that giving up the annual Notre Dame football game is a sacrifice -- a sacrifice, by the way, that Notre Dame, not the ACC, is imposing on you.

I don't think anyone has it in for Pitt. Happy to have you as conference-mates, looking forward to revenge on November 1.

Oh, yeah, you're right. My bad. That is totally the same...said nobody with a functioning brain.

You are still playing everyone you have always played. You are just no longer playing them twice per season. Now, if the round-robin scheduling meant that you would only play say, North Carolina every three years from now on (or not at all according to some proposals) then you would have an excellent point. However, that is not what is happening and is therefore not even close to what Pitt has surrendered.

I just don't think you guys are getting it. I understand that we have been better in men's basketball than football for the past decade or so but football remains PITT's number one sport - by a mile. I don't care what BS some of these goofs try to sell you on, that's the truth. I think that is also the difference between PITT and Syracuse, which I think considers basketball its top priority. You would have to ask them on that one though.

As such, no basketball game versus even a Duke or North Carolina will ever mean nearly as much to the locals as a football game versus Notre Dame. For almost a century now, Notre Dame has been one of PITT's biggest draws. That is a HUGE deal for a program that shares its stadium with not only an NFL team but one that is easily among the most popular franchises in American pro sports.

It's not the same as not getting to play Florida State twice per year in basketball every year. It was a MUCH larger sacrifice than that.

Again, I want to reiterate that we are adults and we made this agreement with our eyes wide open. I am not expecting anything other than an acknowledgement of what we have already given up and an understanding that further concessions - particularly when nobody else seems willing to give up anything of real significance - are going to be forcefully protested.

My brain is functioning just fine.

Pitt is a football first school as much as FSU or Miami, who have had down years in football coinciding with up years in basketball in recent memory too. Everyone who has ever been invited to and joined the ACC from Georgia Tech on has been invited primarily for football, with the possible exceptions of Louisville and Syracuse, which might have been closer to 50-50. (Virginia Tech was primarily invited because of politics, but they're a football school. It certainly wasn't for their basketball).

I don't know if there's any way to meaningfully compare how HUGE it is in North Carolina that UVA and the five Carolina schools don't play home and home in basketball every year, that some will play each other in football less often than they play an Indiana-based Catholic school, and that the Tournament is now a 15-team Big East-like monstrosity that takes all week to how HUGE it is in Pittsburgh that Pitt lost its annual series with Notre Dame because Notre Dame decided they will only play Pitt if it counts as one of their five ACC games. I do know that the former sacrifices are the direct result of decisions made by the ACC, and Pitt's sacrifice is not.

In other words, don't lay the blame for the (hopefully temporary) interruption to the series with Notre Dame on the ACC. There is nothing at all stopping Notre Dame from scheduling Pitt in the years that the ACC doesn't schedule the two. Nothing. They would only give up less than 2/3 of an out-of-conference slot over time, and they have three more out-of-conference slots to give up than everyone else in the conference. Four more than the schools with SEC rivals. Doesn't seem like a big sacrifice on their part, especially compared to the imposition not doing so places on their old friends at Pitt. Has Pitt tried calling them?

Notre Dame has played Pitt every year for a reason that long predates either's relationship with the ACC, why can't they just continue it? The ACC is certainly not getting in the way.

I have no doubt that when Notre Dame commits to more ACC games, Pitt will play them annually before anyone else does (if Notre Dame agrees). Who do you think is holding that up right now? Tobacco Road? Don't be Maryland. We're all on the same side (or 5/8 of the same side in Notre Dame's case).

(08-01-2014 07:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 10:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 08:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 06:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't, not even a little bit.

Why the hell would ND want to do that?

I suspect the cost of having access to the ACC's bowl line-up (not to mention the other sports) may go up...

I don't. I think the status quo was agreed to by all parties and will remain that way indefinitely.

If the ACC pulls a "bait and switch", then that may make a good case for litigation. No ND exit fee or GOR? We shall see.

I don't think the ACC will pull a "bait and switch," or pressure ND to increase it's membership in ACC football in any way. The increase to 6, 7 or 8 games will be voluntary and reflect the wishes of all sides. To answer TerryD's question, when ND does increase the number of ACC football games it plays, it will be because it would be good for ND as an institution and good for ND football at that time. I'm not talking about next year or anything.

And when the other ACC members agree to play ND more often, it will be for the same reason for their institutions. ND (the university and football program, not the fanbase) will be able to claim "independence" for as long as it needs to.

Quote:Posted by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer - Today 10:42 PM
As a PITT fan, we understand the deal. We know where we fit into things. Also, we understand exactly what we have to give up to make this whole deal work. We just ask that everyone else recognizes that we have sacrificed more than anyone else to make this arrangement work. Therefore, down the road when other scheduling considerations pop up (pods, permanent rivals, etc.), it is our expectation that the next set of sacrifices come from someone else, which we think is more than fair. That is how true partnerships work. It can't be, "We're going to stick you wherever we want to stick you and you are going to STFU and take it, you whining, good-for-nothing Yankee." That shitt's not going to fly.

Eight current ACC members gave up round robin basketball and football and a three day basketball Tournament format (with a Thursday play-in after FSU joined) for all this money that none of us care about or see a dime of either. My school voted against it from the beginning, but we're getting along, and voted for Pitt as far as I know. We understand the deal too.

I've grown to like Pitt a lot, and the more I know the more I like. I grew up in the deep South, and didn't know about Pitt when I was looking at colleges, but if I had I definitely would have applied. I'd be as proud to send my children there as anywhere. And I recognize that giving up the annual Notre Dame football game is a sacrifice -- a sacrifice, by the way, that Notre Dame, not the ACC, is imposing on you.

I don't think anyone has it in for Pitt. Happy to have you as conference-mates, looking forward to revenge on November 1.

How is ND "imposing" this? The ACC sets the opponents, ND only provides the dates.

ND would love to have Pitt as one of its five ACC games every year. It is the league that wants ND to play all schools in a three year period.

As far as your first point, I don't think that it ever will be in ND's best interests to increase its ACC game commitment or join the conference for football.

That would limit its ability to play schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Arizona State, etc..for national exposure... and keep Southern Cal, Stanford and Navy as bedrock games.

Notre Dame can schedule whomever they like for their 7 out-of-conference games. In the past, Notre Dame has chosen to schedule Pitt most every year. Why Notre Dame would stop, I don't know. But it's purely Notre Dame's decision. Pitt is still Pitt, whether they're in the ACC or the Big East or the SEC or whatever. If Notre Dame likes playing Pitt every year, then Notre Dame should play Pitt every year no matter what conference they're in. That's how a football independent would act, right?

Pitt being in the ACC, and Notre Dame being in the ACC for 5/8 of football and 100% of everything else doesn't mean you can only play Pitt when the ACC makes you. What's independent about that?

(08-01-2014 09:58 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 10:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 08:26 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I suspect the cost of having access to the ACC's bowl line-up (not to mention the other sports) may go up...

I don't. I think the status quo was agreed to by all parties and will remain that way indefinitely.

If the ACC pulls a "bait and switch", then that may make a good case for litigation. No ND exit fee or GOR? We shall see.

I don't think the ACC will pull a "bait and switch," or pressure ND to increase it's membership in ACC football in any way. The increase to 6, 7 or 8 games will be voluntary and reflect the wishes of all sides. To answer TerryD's question, when ND does increase the number of ACC football games it plays, it will be because it would be good for ND as an institution and good for ND football at that time. I'm not talking about next year or anything.

And when the other ACC members agree to play ND more often, it will be for the same reason for their institutions. ND (the university and football program, not the fanbase) will be able to claim "independence" for as long as it needs to.

Quote:Posted by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer - Today 10:42 PM
As a PITT fan, we understand the deal. We know where we fit into things. Also, we understand exactly what we have to give up to make this whole deal work. We just ask that everyone else recognizes that we have sacrificed more than anyone else to make this arrangement work. Therefore, down the road when other scheduling considerations pop up (pods, permanent rivals, etc.), it is our expectation that the next set of sacrifices come from someone else, which we think is more than fair. That is how true partnerships work. It can't be, "We're going to stick you wherever we want to stick you and you are going to STFU and take it, you whining, good-for-nothing Yankee." That shitt's not going to fly.

Eight current ACC members gave up round robin basketball and football and a three day basketball Tournament format (with a Thursday play-in after FSU joined) for all this money that none of us care about or see a dime of either. My school voted against it from the beginning, but we're getting along, and voted for Pitt as far as I know. We understand the deal too.

I've grown to like Pitt a lot, and the more I know the more I like. I grew up in the deep South, and didn't know about Pitt when I was looking at colleges, but if I had I definitely would have applied. I'd be as proud to send my children there as anywhere. And I recognize that giving up the annual Notre Dame football game is a sacrifice -- a sacrifice, by the way, that Notre Dame, not the ACC, is imposing on you.

I don't think anyone has it in for Pitt. Happy to have you as conference-mates, looking forward to revenge on November 1.

How is ND "imposing" this? The ACC sets the opponents, ND only provides the dates.

ND would love to have Pitt as one of its five ACC games every year. It is the league that wants ND to play all schools in a three year period.

As far as your first point, I don't think that it ever will be in ND's best interests to increase its ACC game commitment or join the conference for football.

That would limit its ability to play schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Arizona State, etc..for national exposure... and keep Southern Cal, Stanford and Navy as bedrock games.

Notre Dame can schedule whomever they like for their 7 out-of-conference games. In the past, Notre Dame has chosen to schedule Pitt most every year. Why Notre Dame would stop, I don't know. But it's purely Notre Dame's decision. Pitt is still Pitt, whether they're in the ACC or the Big East or the SEC or whatever. If Notre Dame likes playing Pitt every year, then Notre Dame should play Pitt every year no matter what conference they're in. That's how a football independent would act, right?

Pitt being in the ACC, and Notre Dame being in the ACC for 5/8 of football and 100% of everything else doesn't mean you can only play Pitt when the ACC makes you. What's independent about that?

Because that would be six ACC teams per year, not five.

That is not the deal ND signed with the ACC.

(08-01-2014 10:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:58 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 10:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 11:16 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't. I think the status quo was agreed to by all parties and will remain that way indefinitely.

If the ACC pulls a "bait and switch", then that may make a good case for litigation. No ND exit fee or GOR? We shall see.

I don't think the ACC will pull a "bait and switch," or pressure ND to increase it's membership in ACC football in any way. The increase to 6, 7 or 8 games will be voluntary and reflect the wishes of all sides. To answer TerryD's question, when ND does increase the number of ACC football games it plays, it will be because it would be good for ND as an institution and good for ND football at that time. I'm not talking about next year or anything.

And when the other ACC members agree to play ND more often, it will be for the same reason for their institutions. ND (the university and football program, not the fanbase) will be able to claim "independence" for as long as it needs to.

Quote:Posted by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer - Today 10:42 PM
As a PITT fan, we understand the deal. We know where we fit into things. Also, we understand exactly what we have to give up to make this whole deal work. We just ask that everyone else recognizes that we have sacrificed more than anyone else to make this arrangement work. Therefore, down the road when other scheduling considerations pop up (pods, permanent rivals, etc.), it is our expectation that the next set of sacrifices come from someone else, which we think is more than fair. That is how true partnerships work. It can't be, "We're going to stick you wherever we want to stick you and you are going to STFU and take it, you whining, good-for-nothing Yankee." That shitt's not going to fly.

Eight current ACC members gave up round robin basketball and football and a three day basketball Tournament format (with a Thursday play-in after FSU joined) for all this money that none of us care about or see a dime of either. My school voted against it from the beginning, but we're getting along, and voted for Pitt as far as I know. We understand the deal too.

I've grown to like Pitt a lot, and the more I know the more I like. I grew up in the deep South, and didn't know about Pitt when I was looking at colleges, but if I had I definitely would have applied. I'd be as proud to send my children there as anywhere. And I recognize that giving up the annual Notre Dame football game is a sacrifice -- a sacrifice, by the way, that Notre Dame, not the ACC, is imposing on you.

I don't think anyone has it in for Pitt. Happy to have you as conference-mates, looking forward to revenge on November 1.

How is ND "imposing" this? The ACC sets the opponents, ND only provides the dates.

ND would love to have Pitt as one of its five ACC games every year. It is the league that wants ND to play all schools in a three year period.

As far as your first point, I don't think that it ever will be in ND's best interests to increase its ACC game commitment or join the conference for football.

That would limit its ability to play schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Arizona State, etc..for national exposure... and keep Southern Cal, Stanford and Navy as bedrock games.

Notre Dame can schedule whomever they like for their 7 out-of-conference games. In the past, Notre Dame has chosen to schedule Pitt most every year. Why Notre Dame would stop, I don't know. But it's purely Notre Dame's decision. Pitt is still Pitt, whether they're in the ACC or the Big East or the SEC or whatever. If Notre Dame likes playing Pitt every year, then Notre Dame should play Pitt every year no matter what conference they're in. That's how a football independent would act, right?

Pitt being in the ACC, and Notre Dame being in the ACC for 5/8 of football and 100% of everything else doesn't mean you can only play Pitt when the ACC makes you. What's independent about that?

Because that would be six ACC teams per year, not five.

That is not the deal ND signed with the ACC.

I'm quite sure the deal with the ACC doesn't limit Notre Dame to five games a year against ACC teams. It's a floor, not a ceiling. If you like playing Pitt every year, and if you are independent and can play whomever you want then play Pitt every year. Nothing is stopping you. Duke gets to play Pitt every year, why can't Notre Dame?

(08-01-2014 10:23 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:58 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-31-2014 10:51 PM)opossum Wrote:  I don't think the ACC will pull a "bait and switch," or pressure ND to increase it's membership in ACC football in any way. The increase to 6, 7 or 8 games will be voluntary and reflect the wishes of all sides. To answer TerryD's question, when ND does increase the number of ACC football games it plays, it will be because it would be good for ND as an institution and good for ND football at that time. I'm not talking about next year or anything.

And when the other ACC members agree to play ND more often, it will be for the same reason for their institutions. ND (the university and football program, not the fanbase) will be able to claim "independence" for as long as it needs to.


Eight current ACC members gave up round robin basketball and football and a three day basketball Tournament format (with a Thursday play-in after FSU joined) for all this money that none of us care about or see a dime of either. My school voted against it from the beginning, but we're getting along, and voted for Pitt as far as I know. We understand the deal too.

I've grown to like Pitt a lot, and the more I know the more I like. I grew up in the deep South, and didn't know about Pitt when I was looking at colleges, but if I had I definitely would have applied. I'd be as proud to send my children there as anywhere. And I recognize that giving up the annual Notre Dame football game is a sacrifice -- a sacrifice, by the way, that Notre Dame, not the ACC, is imposing on you.

I don't think anyone has it in for Pitt. Happy to have you as conference-mates, looking forward to revenge on November 1.

How is ND "imposing" this? The ACC sets the opponents, ND only provides the dates.

ND would love to have Pitt as one of its five ACC games every year. It is the league that wants ND to play all schools in a three year period.

As far as your first point, I don't think that it ever will be in ND's best interests to increase its ACC game commitment or join the conference for football.

That would limit its ability to play schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Arizona State, etc..for national exposure... and keep Southern Cal, Stanford and Navy as bedrock games.

Notre Dame can schedule whomever they like for their 7 out-of-conference games. In the past, Notre Dame has chosen to schedule Pitt most every year. Why Notre Dame would stop, I don't know. But it's purely Notre Dame's decision. Pitt is still Pitt, whether they're in the ACC or the Big East or the SEC or whatever. If Notre Dame likes playing Pitt every year, then Notre Dame should play Pitt every year no matter what conference they're in. That's how a football independent would act, right?

Pitt being in the ACC, and Notre Dame being in the ACC for 5/8 of football and 100% of everything else doesn't mean you can only play Pitt when the ACC makes you. What's independent about that?

Because that would be six ACC teams per year, not five.

That is not the deal ND signed with the ACC.

I'm quite sure the deal with the ACC doesn't limit Notre Dame to five games a year against ACC teams. It's a floor, not a ceiling. If you like playing Pitt every year, and if you are independent and can play whomever you want then play Pitt every year. Nothing is stopping you. Duke gets to play Pitt every year, why can't Notre Dame?

ND views it as a ceiling. Who the hell ever said it was a "floor"?

Duke is in a conference with Pitt, ND is not.

If the ACC wants to help Pitt, drop the ACC requirement to four games plus Pitt every year.

(08-01-2014 10:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:23 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:58 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 07:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  How is ND "imposing" this? The ACC sets the opponents, ND only provides the dates.

ND would love to have Pitt as one of its five ACC games every year. It is the league that wants ND to play all schools in a three year period.

As far as your first point, I don't think that it ever will be in ND's best interests to increase its ACC game commitment or join the conference for football.

That would limit its ability to play schools like Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Arizona State, etc..for national exposure... and keep Southern Cal, Stanford and Navy as bedrock games.

Notre Dame can schedule whomever they like for their 7 out-of-conference games. In the past, Notre Dame has chosen to schedule Pitt most every year. Why Notre Dame would stop, I don't know. But it's purely Notre Dame's decision. Pitt is still Pitt, whether they're in the ACC or the Big East or the SEC or whatever. If Notre Dame likes playing Pitt every year, then Notre Dame should play Pitt every year no matter what conference they're in. That's how a football independent would act, right?

Pitt being in the ACC, and Notre Dame being in the ACC for 5/8 of football and 100% of everything else doesn't mean you can only play Pitt when the ACC makes you. What's independent about that?

Because that would be six ACC teams per year, not five.

That is not the deal ND signed with the ACC.

I'm quite sure the deal with the ACC doesn't limit Notre Dame to five games a year against ACC teams. It's a floor, not a ceiling. If you like playing Pitt every year, and if you are independent and can play whomever you want then play Pitt every year. Nothing is stopping you. Duke gets to play Pitt every year, why can't Notre Dame?

ND views it as a ceiling. Who the hell ever said it was a "floor"?

Duke is in a conference with Pitt, ND is not.

If the ACC wants to help Pitt, drop the ACC requirement to four games plus Pitt every year.

So if USC, Stanford, Purdue and Navy joined the ACC tomorrow, Notre Dame would stop playing them forever unless the ACC told them to play? I don't see anything independent about that. Play who you want to play if you're really independent. You've wanted to play Pitt every year up until now, what changed?

If you don't want to play Pitt every year now just say so. The ACC has nothing to do with that.

It is a "floor" because Notre Dame agreed to play at least 5 ACC games a year (on average). If there is a provision that would prohibit Notre Dame and Pitt from playing in years that they are not scheduled by the ACC I am not aware of it. Are you?

If the ACC had added UConn (ugh) instead of Pitt in 2011, and Notre Dame had the same 5-game deal with the ACC today would you still be scheduling Pitt every year?

(08-01-2014 10:48 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:23 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 09:58 PM)opossum Wrote:  Notre Dame can schedule whomever they like for their 7 out-of-conference games. In the past, Notre Dame has chosen to schedule Pitt most every year. Why Notre Dame would stop, I don't know. But it's purely Notre Dame's decision. Pitt is still Pitt, whether they're in the ACC or the Big East or the SEC or whatever. If Notre Dame likes playing Pitt every year, then Notre Dame should play Pitt every year no matter what conference they're in. That's how a football independent would act, right?

Pitt being in the ACC, and Notre Dame being in the ACC for 5/8 of football and 100% of everything else doesn't mean you can only play Pitt when the ACC makes you. What's independent about that?

Because that would be six ACC teams per year, not five.

That is not the deal ND signed with the ACC.

I'm quite sure the deal with the ACC doesn't limit Notre Dame to five games a year against ACC teams. It's a floor, not a ceiling. If you like playing Pitt every year, and if you are independent and can play whomever you want then play Pitt every year. Nothing is stopping you. Duke gets to play Pitt every year, why can't Notre Dame?

ND views it as a ceiling. Who the hell ever said it was a "floor"?

Duke is in a conference with Pitt, ND is not.

If the ACC wants to help Pitt, drop the ACC requirement to four games plus Pitt every year.

So if USC, Stanford, Purdue and Navy joined the ACC tomorrow, Notre Dame would stop playing them forever unless the ACC told them to play? I don't see anything independent about that. Play who you want to play if you're really independent. You've wanted to play Pitt every year up until now, what changed?

If you don't want to play Pitt every year now just say so. The ACC has nothing to do with that.

It is a "floor" because Notre Dame agreed to play at least 5 ACC games a year (on average). If there is a provision that would prohibit Notre Dame and Pitt from playing in years that they are not scheduled by the ACC I am not aware of it. Are you?

If the ACC had added UConn (ugh) instead of Pitt in 2011, and Notre Dame had the same 5-game deal with the ACC today would you still be scheduling Pitt every year?

"Sigh". You don't get it, do you.

"What changed" is the ND/ACC deal.

ND is not going to give the ACC more than five games per year, period.

It is a ceiling as far as ND is concerned. Five is the limit, no more.

Trying to sneak Pitt in as a "non-ACC" game is clever, but no sale.


To answer your last question, yes probably.

If Pitt was not in the ACC, there is a decent chance ND would play Pitt more often in the future than it will as part of the ACC agreement.

(08-01-2014 11:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:48 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:23 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Because that would be six ACC teams per year, not five.

That is not the deal ND signed with the ACC.

I'm quite sure the deal with the ACC doesn't limit Notre Dame to five games a year against ACC teams. It's a floor, not a ceiling. If you like playing Pitt every year, and if you are independent and can play whomever you want then play Pitt every year. Nothing is stopping you. Duke gets to play Pitt every year, why can't Notre Dame?

ND views it as a ceiling. Who the hell ever said it was a "floor"?

Duke is in a conference with Pitt, ND is not.

If the ACC wants to help Pitt, drop the ACC requirement to four games plus Pitt every year.

So if USC, Stanford, Purdue and Navy joined the ACC tomorrow, Notre Dame would stop playing them forever unless the ACC told them to play? I don't see anything independent about that. Play who you want to play if you're really independent. You've wanted to play Pitt every year up until now, what changed?

If you don't want to play Pitt every year now just say so. The ACC has nothing to do with that.

It is a "floor" because Notre Dame agreed to play at least 5 ACC games a year (on average). If there is a provision that would prohibit Notre Dame and Pitt from playing in years that they are not scheduled by the ACC I am not aware of it. Are you?

If the ACC had added UConn (ugh) instead of Pitt in 2011, and Notre Dame had the same 5-game deal with the ACC today would you still be scheduling Pitt every year?

"Sigh". You don't get it, do you.

ND is not going to give the ACC more than five games per year, period.

Trying to sneak Pitt in as a "non-ACC" game is clever, but no sale.


To answer your last question, yes probably.

If Pitt was not in the ACC, there is a decent chance ND would play Pitt more often in the future than it will as part of the ACC agreement.

I fully "get it." Not sure you do.

It's clear from your responses that Pitt has no one to blame but Notre Dame for losing the annual series. You didn't answer my question about USC, Stanford, Purdue and Navy. Is Notre Dame independent or not?

It seems like Notre Dame fans have some adjusting to do. It will happen for most.

Which 4 teams would ND fans like to play 5 times instead of 4? Ready...GO!

(08-01-2014 11:40 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Which 4 teams would ND fans like to play 5 times instead of 4? Ready...GO!

For me?

Pitt
FSU
Miami
Georgia Tech

(08-01-2014 11:32 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 11:13 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:48 PM)opossum Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 10:23 PM)opossum Wrote:  I'm quite sure the deal with the ACC doesn't limit Notre Dame to five games a year against ACC teams. It's a floor, not a ceiling. If you like playing Pitt every year, and if you are independent and can play whomever you want then play Pitt every year. Nothing is stopping you. Duke gets to play Pitt every year, why can't Notre Dame?

ND views it as a ceiling. Who the hell ever said it was a "floor"?

Duke is in a conference with Pitt, ND is not.

If the ACC wants to help Pitt, drop the ACC requirement to four games plus Pitt every year.

So if USC, Stanford, Purdue and Navy joined the ACC tomorrow, Notre Dame would stop playing them forever unless the ACC told them to play? I don't see anything independent about that. Play who you want to play if you're really independent. You've wanted to play Pitt every year up until now, what changed?

If you don't want to play Pitt every year now just say so. The ACC has nothing to do with that.

It is a "floor" because Notre Dame agreed to play at least 5 ACC games a year (on average). If there is a provision that would prohibit Notre Dame and Pitt from playing in years that they are not scheduled by the ACC I am not aware of it. Are you?

If the ACC had added UConn (ugh) instead of Pitt in 2011, and Notre Dame had the same 5-game deal with the ACC today would you still be scheduling Pitt every year?

"Sigh". You don't get it, do you.

ND is not going to give the ACC more than five games per year, period.

Trying to sneak Pitt in as a "non-ACC" game is clever, but no sale.


To answer your last question, yes probably.

If Pitt was not in the ACC, there is a decent chance ND would play Pitt more often in the future than it will as part of the ACC agreement.

I fully "get it." Not sure you do.

It's clear from your responses that Pitt has no one to blame but Notre Dame for losing the annual series. You didn't answer my question about USC, Stanford, Purdue and Navy. Is Notre Dame independent or not?

It seems like Notre Dame fans have some adjusting to do. It will happen for most.

There is no way in hell that ND would agree to the loss of the USC, Stanford and Navy games every year, no matter what.

The ACC would have to adjust for that, just as I am suggesting they should for Pitt.

Purdue? The hell with Purdue. I hope ND never plays them again in the future.

Independent=having the ability to play schools from every P5 conference and play all over the country.

Five ACC games per year hamstrings that ability. But, so it goes, the ACC deal was a good one for both sides.

However, more than five games is not the deal and hampers independence.

It would constrict ND's ability to schedule Arizona State and Georgia, for example. No sale.

The limit is five ACC games per season. That is bad enough. Six or more is not acceptable. There is no "ND fan adjusting" required.

The ACC could make Pitt an annual ND game that counts towards the five game requirement.

Therefore, it is not strictly an ND deal regarding Pitt as you want to make it out to be.

(07-31-2014 09:42 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  As a PITT fan, we understand the deal. We know where we fit into things. Also, we understand exactly what we have to give up to make this whole deal work. We just ask that everyone else recognizes that we have sacrificed more than anyone else to make this arrangement work. Therefore, down the road when other scheduling considerations pop up (pods, permanent rivals, etc.), it is our expectation that the next set of sacrifices come from someone else, which we think is more than fair. That is how true partnerships work. It can't be, "We're going to stick you wherever we want to stick you and you are going to STFU and take it, you whining, good-for-nothing Yankee." That shitt's not going to fly.

Pitt didn't "sacrifice" anything. The ACC commissioner and ND AD made a deal. It wasn't as though they both came to Pitt and said, "Listen, we have this deal on the table, but if you say NO, we won't do it."



And if Pitt gets crapped on again, what is it going to do about it? Join the BiG?

Cheers,
Neil