(07-12-2018 03:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 10:19 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 07:28 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your legal status with the ACC is irrelevant. As evidenced by you entry into the ACC, even ND recognizes deals in it's own interest.

Irrelevant? Lol. ND best interests are now enshrined in that legal status.

ND has consistently made moves since 1991 to preserve football independence (NBC deal, Big East deal, ACC deal).

Every one of these moves was made to maintain that indy position. If ND was primarily interested in the most TV money, like you think, it would already be in the Big Ten.

ND has always declared that it strongly believes that football independence is in its own best interests.

Your arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to that position.

You claimed that if the Texas associated with the ACC in football, brining along TCU, that ND would not be inclined to add a 6th ACC game in order to also benefit from the constant exposure in Texas:

You said:

I am not so sure that ND will give the ACC that suggested sixth game.

I said:

Of course you will because the 6th game will be you and Texas.


I doubt you would turn down the following:


6 ACC games with TCU, Tulane, CU, Miami, FSU, UNC, WF, Duke, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCSU and GT
1 Game with Texas
1 Game with Navy
1 Game with USC
I Game with Stanford
2 Games with scrubs or the B10, or SEC, etc.

That puts Notre Dame playing a school form Los Angeles, San Francisco, Texas, NC, and DC every year, every other year you will play Miami or FSU, you will be playing Pitt, Syracuse, and BC every third year.

In all ND gets Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, DC, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Raleigh, New York and New Orleans. If that's not the national schedule, what is?

You said:

It gives more to the ACC and chips away at independence. It takes one more game from ND's control in scheduling.

For those reasons, I think that you would find great resistance from ND to this idea.


That claim is not supported by ND's past actions. Like any other creature that has a set of self interests, ND makes decisions based on it's self interests. It's not the money, it's the bi-annual appearance in Catholic rich Texas.

If ND could join a conference that consisted of Pitt, Navy, Texas, USC, Stanford, NW, Purdue, and Miami - you would. However such a conference does not exist, so you angle for the next best thing.

You seem to know very little about ND.

The Irish WOULD NOT join the hypothetical conference you list.

They would say no to that proposed conference for football in about two minutes.

To repeat...ND does not want to "limit itself" by putting their football program into a conference...any conference. They have said this repeatedly over the years up to right now.

ND just had a home/home with Texas. They could set up more if they wanted to.

BTW, ND has played 2 "Shamrock Series" games...moving a home game away from ND Stadium.....in San Antonio, Texas.

Look for more such Texas (and other) ND "home games" in the future.

(That is three ND games in Texas since 2009 as a football independent....almost your proposed "bi-annual games in Texas").

Why, then, does it need to do what you propose? It doesn't and won't.

That is one way ND uses independence and scheduling flexibility to play where they want exposure.

ND is not going to join a football conference and is not very likely to agree to an ACC sixth game (I believe they already said "No" to the ACC in the recent past on this issue).

Preach it, TerryD!

(07-12-2018 03:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 10:19 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 07:28 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your legal status with the ACC is irrelevant. As evidenced by you entry into the ACC, even ND recognizes deals in it's own interest.

Irrelevant? Lol. ND best interests are now enshrined in that legal status.

ND has consistently made moves since 1991 to preserve football independence (NBC deal, Big East deal, ACC deal).

Every one of these moves was made to maintain that indy position. If ND was primarily interested in the most TV money, like you think, it would already be in the Big Ten.

ND has always declared that it strongly believes that football independence is in its own best interests.

Your arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to that position.

You claimed that if the Texas associated with the ACC in football, brining along TCU, that ND would not be inclined to add a 6th ACC game in order to also benefit from the constant exposure in Texas:

You said:

I am not so sure that ND will give the ACC that suggested sixth game.

I said:

Of course you will because the 6th game will be you and Texas.


I doubt you would turn down the following:


6 ACC games with TCU, Tulane, CU, Miami, FSU, UNC, WF, Duke, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCSU and GT
1 Game with Texas
1 Game with Navy
1 Game with USC
I Game with Stanford
2 Games with scrubs or the B10, or SEC, etc.

That puts Notre Dame playing a school form Los Angeles, San Francisco, Texas, NC, and DC every year, every other year you will play Miami or FSU, you will be playing Pitt, Syracuse, and BC every third year.

In all ND gets Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, DC, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Raleigh, New York and New Orleans. If that's not the national schedule, what is?

You said:

It gives more to the ACC and chips away at independence. It takes one more game from ND's control in scheduling.

For those reasons, I think that you would find great resistance from ND to this idea.


That claim is not supported by ND's past actions. Like any other creature that has a set of self interests, ND makes decisions based on it's self interests. It's not the money, it's the bi-annual appearance in Catholic rich Texas.

If ND could join a conference that consisted of Pitt, Navy, Texas, USC, Stanford, NW, Purdue, and Miami - you would. However such a conference does not exist, so you angle for the next best thing.

You seem to know very little about ND.

The Irish WOULD NOT join the hypothetical conference you list.

They would say no to that proposed conference for football in about two minutes.

To repeat...ND does not want to "limit itself" by putting their football program into a conference...any conference. They have said this repeatedly over the years up to right now.

ND just had a home/home with Texas. They could set up more if they wanted to.

BTW, ND has played 2 "Shamrock Series" games...moving a home game away from ND Stadium.....in San Antonio, Texas.

Look for more such Texas (and other) ND "home games" in the future.

(That is three ND games in Texas since 2009 as a football independent....almost your proposed "bi-annual games in Texas").

Why, then, does it need to do what you propose? It doesn't and won't.

That is one way ND uses independence and scheduling flexibility to play where they want exposure.

ND is not going to join a football conference and is not very likely to agree to an ACC sixth game (I believe they already said "No" to the ACC in the recent past on this issue).

Keep that illusion going.

(07-12-2018 04:05 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 10:19 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 07:28 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your legal status with the ACC is irrelevant. As evidenced by you entry into the ACC, even ND recognizes deals in it's own interest.

Irrelevant? Lol. ND best interests are now enshrined in that legal status.

ND has consistently made moves since 1991 to preserve football independence (NBC deal, Big East deal, ACC deal).

Every one of these moves was made to maintain that indy position. If ND was primarily interested in the most TV money, like you think, it would already be in the Big Ten.

ND has always declared that it strongly believes that football independence is in its own best interests.

Your arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to that position.

You claimed that if the Texas associated with the ACC in football, brining along TCU, that ND would not be inclined to add a 6th ACC game in order to also benefit from the constant exposure in Texas:

You said:

I am not so sure that ND will give the ACC that suggested sixth game.

I said:

Of course you will because the 6th game will be you and Texas.


I doubt you would turn down the following:


6 ACC games with TCU, Tulane, CU, Miami, FSU, UNC, WF, Duke, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCSU and GT
1 Game with Texas
1 Game with Navy
1 Game with USC
I Game with Stanford
2 Games with scrubs or the B10, or SEC, etc.

That puts Notre Dame playing a school form Los Angeles, San Francisco, Texas, NC, and DC every year, every other year you will play Miami or FSU, you will be playing Pitt, Syracuse, and BC every third year.

In all ND gets Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, DC, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Raleigh, New York and New Orleans. If that's not the national schedule, what is?

You said:

It gives more to the ACC and chips away at independence. It takes one more game from ND's control in scheduling.

For those reasons, I think that you would find great resistance from ND to this idea.


That claim is not supported by ND's past actions. Like any other creature that has a set of self interests, ND makes decisions based on it's self interests. It's not the money, it's the bi-annual appearance in Catholic rich Texas.

If ND could join a conference that consisted of Pitt, Navy, Texas, USC, Stanford, NW, Purdue, and Miami - you would. However such a conference does not exist, so you angle for the next best thing.

You seem to know very little about ND.

The Irish WOULD NOT join the hypothetical conference you list.

They would say no to that proposed conference for football in about two minutes.

To repeat...ND does not want to "limit itself" by putting their football program into a conference...any conference. They have said this repeatedly over the years up to right now.

ND just had a home/home with Texas. They could set up more if they wanted to.

BTW, ND has played 2 "Shamrock Series" games...moving a home game away from ND Stadium.....in San Antonio, Texas.

Look for more such Texas (and other) ND "home games" in the future.

(That is three ND games in Texas since 2009 as a football independent....almost your proposed "bi-annual games in Texas").

Why, then, does it need to do what you propose? It doesn't and won't.

That is one way ND uses independence and scheduling flexibility to play where they want exposure.

ND is not going to join a football conference and is not very likely to agree to an ACC sixth game (I believe they already said "No" to the ACC in the recent past on this issue).

Keep that illusion going.

Right back at you !!!

P.S. I don't think Texas is going to end up in the ACC, in full or as a partial.

I don't think Texas will either, but if they do kiss that sixth game right on the mouth for me.

(07-12-2018 04:05 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 03:22 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 10:19 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 07:28 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your legal status with the ACC is irrelevant. As evidenced by you entry into the ACC, even ND recognizes deals in it's own interest.

Irrelevant? Lol. ND best interests are now enshrined in that legal status.

ND has consistently made moves since 1991 to preserve football independence (NBC deal, Big East deal, ACC deal).

Every one of these moves was made to maintain that indy position. If ND was primarily interested in the most TV money, like you think, it would already be in the Big Ten.

ND has always declared that it strongly believes that football independence is in its own best interests.

Your arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to that position.

You claimed that if the Texas associated with the ACC in football, brining along TCU, that ND would not be inclined to add a 6th ACC game in order to also benefit from the constant exposure in Texas:

You said:

I am not so sure that ND will give the ACC that suggested sixth game.

I said:

Of course you will because the 6th game will be you and Texas.


I doubt you would turn down the following:


6 ACC games with TCU, Tulane, CU, Miami, FSU, UNC, WF, Duke, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCSU and GT
1 Game with Texas
1 Game with Navy
1 Game with USC
I Game with Stanford
2 Games with scrubs or the B10, or SEC, etc.

That puts Notre Dame playing a school form Los Angeles, San Francisco, Texas, NC, and DC every year, every other year you will play Miami or FSU, you will be playing Pitt, Syracuse, and BC every third year.

In all ND gets Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, DC, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Raleigh, New York and New Orleans. If that's not the national schedule, what is?

You said:

It gives more to the ACC and chips away at independence. It takes one more game from ND's control in scheduling.

For those reasons, I think that you would find great resistance from ND to this idea.


That claim is not supported by ND's past actions. Like any other creature that has a set of self interests, ND makes decisions based on it's self interests. It's not the money, it's the bi-annual appearance in Catholic rich Texas.

If ND could join a conference that consisted of Pitt, Navy, Texas, USC, Stanford, NW, Purdue, and Miami - you would. However such a conference does not exist, so you angle for the next best thing.

You seem to know very little about ND.

The Irish WOULD NOT join the hypothetical conference you list.

They would say no to that proposed conference for football in about two minutes.

To repeat...ND does not want to "limit itself" by putting their football program into a conference...any conference. They have said this repeatedly over the years up to right now.

ND just had a home/home with Texas. They could set up more if they wanted to.

BTW, ND has played 2 "Shamrock Series" games...moving a home game away from ND Stadium.....in San Antonio, Texas.

Look for more such Texas (and other) ND "home games" in the future.

(That is three ND games in Texas since 2009 as a football independent....almost your proposed "bi-annual games in Texas").

Why, then, does it need to do what you propose? It doesn't and won't.

That is one way ND uses independence and scheduling flexibility to play where they want exposure.

ND is not going to join a football conference and is not very likely to agree to an ACC sixth game (I believe they already said "No" to the ACC in the recent past on this issue).

Keep that illusion going.

(07-12-2018 06:35 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I don't think Texas will either, but if they do kiss that sixth game right on the mouth for me.

I think that you are delusional on this score, but take care.

(07-08-2018 10:11 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  Cincinnati and Temple are both large (39000 - 44000 range) compared to ACC schools. Not sure which would be better.

I voted for the Bearcats!

Cincinnati would be a great addition. Their last few years in the Big East were terrific. They've suffered some but that could easily be a result of their "demotion" to the American.

(07-12-2018 06:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 09:44 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  If they choose by TV markets again it will more than likely be Texas schools added if ND stays partial.

I don't doubt that Texas will be on the radar, but I don't see them giving up their network nor do I see the ACC adding another partial member. Rice, SMU, and Houston have been available for years and there has never been indication the ACC had any interest to get into Texas with any mid-level Texas program, so I doubt TCU will magically change that when their GOR is over.

Also, unlike TAMU, TCU likes being associated with Texas and Baylor so they really have no reason to join an east coast/northeast conference.

The only way I see Texas (or TCU) being part of the ACC is with a full-blown merger of the two leagues, forming three 8 team divisions. They could call it the Big 3. To do that, you would need the SEC and B1G to support a proposal to allow conference championship semifinals.

You would also need ESPN to find a way to merge the LHN and ACC networks and include all 24 schools in the net.

(07-21-2018 09:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 09:44 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  If they choose by TV markets again it will more than likely be Texas schools added if ND stays partial.

I don't doubt that Texas will be on the radar, but I don't see them giving up their network nor do I see the ACC adding another partial member. Rice, SMU, and Houston have been available for years and there has never been indication the ACC had any interest to get into Texas with any mid-level Texas program, so I doubt TCU will magically change that when their GOR is over.

Also, unlike TAMU, TCU likes being associated with Texas and Baylor so they really have no reason to join an east coast/northeast conference.

The only way I see Texas (or TCU) being part of the ACC is with a full-blown merger of the two leagues, forming three 8 team divisions. They could call it the Big 3. To do that, you would need the SEC and B1G to support a proposal to allow conference championship semifinals.

You would also need ESPN to find a way to merge the LHN and ACC networks and include all 24 schools in the net.

The three Divisions:

Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor

Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Louisville
Virginia Tech
Miami
Texas Christian

Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Duke
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

(07-21-2018 10:17 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 09:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 09:44 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  If they choose by TV markets again it will more than likely be Texas schools added if ND stays partial.

I don't doubt that Texas will be on the radar, but I don't see them giving up their network nor do I see the ACC adding another partial member. Rice, SMU, and Houston have been available for years and there has never been indication the ACC had any interest to get into Texas with any mid-level Texas program, so I doubt TCU will magically change that when their GOR is over.

Also, unlike TAMU, TCU likes being associated with Texas and Baylor so they really have no reason to join an east coast/northeast conference.

The only way I see Texas (or TCU) being part of the ACC is with a full-blown merger of the two leagues, forming three 8 team divisions. They could call it the Big 3. To do that, you would need the SEC and B1G to support a proposal to allow conference championship semifinals.

You would also need ESPN to find a way to merge the LHN and ACC networks and include all 24 schools in the net.

The three Divisions:

Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor

Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Louisville
Virginia Tech
Miami
Texas Christian

Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Duke
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

Putting TCU in the northeast division makes sense from a competitive balance point of view. But it makes more sense to move Iowa State from a geographic standpoint, since they wouldn't be moved away from many of their traditional competitors. TCU would surely want to stay with the other Texas schools.

(07-21-2018 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 10:17 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 09:52 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 09:44 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  If they choose by TV markets again it will more than likely be Texas schools added if ND stays partial.

I don't doubt that Texas will be on the radar, but I don't see them giving up their network nor do I see the ACC adding another partial member. Rice, SMU, and Houston have been available for years and there has never been indication the ACC had any interest to get into Texas with any mid-level Texas program, so I doubt TCU will magically change that when their GOR is over.

Also, unlike TAMU, TCU likes being associated with Texas and Baylor so they really have no reason to join an east coast/northeast conference.

The only way I see Texas (or TCU) being part of the ACC is with a full-blown merger of the two leagues, forming three 8 team divisions. They could call it the Big 3. To do that, you would need the SEC and B1G to support a proposal to allow conference championship semifinals.

You would also need ESPN to find a way to merge the LHN and ACC networks and include all 24 schools in the net.

The three Divisions:

Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor

Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
West Virginia
Louisville
Virginia Tech
Miami
Texas Christian

Virginia
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Duke
Wake Forest
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Florida State

Putting TCU in the northeast division makes sense from a competitive balance point of view. But it makes more sense to move Iowa State from a geographic standpoint, since they wouldn't be moved away from many of their traditional competitors. TCU would surely want to stay with the other Texas schools.

But TCU was going to be a Big East School. The other teams have zero ties to Iowa State. So just drop Iowa State and give TCU their slot. Then give Cincinnati the TCU slot.

(07-21-2018 09:18 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(07-21-2018 12:58 PM)ken d Wrote:  Putting TCU in the northeast division makes sense from a competitive balance point of view. But it makes more sense to move Iowa State from a geographic standpoint, since they wouldn't be moved away from many of their traditional competitors. TCU would surely want to stay with the other Texas schools.

But TCU was going to be a Big East School. The other teams have zero ties to Iowa State. So just drop Iowa State and give TCU their slot. Then give Cincinnati the TCU slot.

TCU was going to be a Big East school the same way Boise State was, and for the same reason. They weren't doing it because they had ties, they were doing it because the Big East was AQ and they were not.

But now they are, and are no longer desperate. They can demand to be with their peers because their success gives them leverage that Iowa State doesn't have with the Texas contingent.