Dan Wetzel article on Irish football independence:


https://sports.yahoo.com/notre-dame-smar...49737.html

This is just a guess, but I think perhaps the real reason for the angst about playing in NYC over South Bend is that Syracuse is not a chump and due to the Dome, Syracuse would likely be at a real disadvantage off Lake Michigan in South Bend. NYC weather is mild by comparison to Chicago area weather.


It's not fear of losing, it's angst at possibly giving away an advantage when they are just two games from the playoffs.

(11-12-2018 03:31 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Shamrock Series and Independence

Ouch!! Something tells me that Swarbrick is tired of being questioned and I bet ND Nation is in total meltdown about this article.

“I certainly understand people saying, ‘Hey, the Wisconsin series should be home and home, not neutral site,’ ” Swarbrick said. “That’s OK, but you really are saying, ‘It makes no sense to be independent anymore,’ because that is the basis of being independent. That’s why we do it.

“There’s no financial advantage to Notre Dame being independent. There is no competitive advantage to get into the College Football Playoff for Notre Dame to be independent. So why are we independent?

“We’re independent to have opportunities like this one. And I get people who say, ‘You shouldn’t do it.’ But then what you have to acknowledge is that you’re saying, ‘You shouldn’t be independent anymore.’

Not sure I totally get Swarbrick's logic here, but I am definitely getting the feeling that he, himself, is wondering wouldn't it just be easier if we were in the ACC full-time. Of course the last time a regime at ND was thinking along these lines, they were shown the door.

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe you have something there Neil but the way the article and the reflective questions came across to me was that Swarbrick was saying that the ability to play in major cities across the nation is the essence of being independent and that calling those kinds of games into question with the demand for home and home series negated the fruits of independence which are in N.D.'s national exposure and therefore the ability to do things no other school can do.

So he equates the shackles of having to have 7 home games to the standard conference model and the ability to play anyone anywhere anytime as he essence of freedom from conference constraint.

I think he was scolding the alumni that claim to cherish independence but which want the same kind of schedule that every other school has and therefore he was reminding them that they couldn't have it both ways. That there were advantages to the conference style of scheduling but that it would come at the cost of their national exposure. Therefore you can't cherish your national exposure and be in a conference at the same time. A traditional schedule with 7 home games of which 4 or 5 are home and home series would have no national benefit and therefore negate any advantages that being independent has given Notre Dame for all of its history. In the end he essentially said he was committed to continuing the history of independence, with a veiled threat that only sounded like a concession to dissatisfied alums. He essentially told them if they had to be satisfied that they would have to stem the tide of N.D.'s history to get there and kind of implied in that was the assumption that he wouldn't be the one to do it.

But that was just my reading. Perhaps Terry D. has another take.

Editorial Note: I read the article and responded before reading the rest of the thread, but the rest of the thread didn't alter my interpretation of the O.P..