(02-14-2022 02:21 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Notre Dame did not cause the Big East to collapse and won't be the cause of an ACC collapse. But Notre Dame does suffer from being the Flying Dutchman of College Football. They get sweetheart deals for sports other than football from conferences with inherent weaknesses which ND's other sports don't help and which ND football only enhances marginally. The result is it delays the demise of their host but doesn't prevent it. Therefore, they board less seaworthy vessels which then sink, and ND gets a bad rep about it.

2. What you say about the state of ACC sports product is true and NIL will only make it worse, but not because the ACC is incapable of solid NIL interest, but because athletes connect success with NIL likelihood and exposure and will seek higher profile programs because of it. So instead of leveling the competition for talent it actually tilts it more. This will make producing better product less and less likely.

3. It is this acceleration of gap which will propel us toward larger conferences and more consolidation as brands race for these groups like those on the deck of the Titanic raced for un-lowered lifeboats. The SEC and B1G 10 don't have do anything right at this moment, they only have to look strong. When they do something right is magnified by perceived threat everywhere else.

Really nailed it with those three points.

Notre Dame won't have too much of a problem hammering out a football schedule as long as the ACC as we know it remains intact.

But, again, what happens if say Clemson and/or FSU jump on an opportunity to join the SEC? And then UNC, UVA and Duke begin to look toward the B1G? And the expanded SEC and expanded B1G both play 9-game conference schedules, leaving no room for (or interest in) mid- and late-season games against an opponent with the stature of the Irish?

Does Notre Dame stay put and make the best of a scheduling alliance with a dwindling number of marquee football programs in a (likely) back-filled ACC? Would the school's administration and fan base be content with a schedule filled with games against the likes of Pitt and Boston College and Syracuse to go with annual matchups with USC, Navy and Stanford?

I ask because I don't know Notre Dame's "mindset" well enough to say.

And how might a "less glamorous" home schedule impact an upcoming TV renewal or deal, dollars-wise?

ND's seven-game home schedule next season consists of Marshall, Cal, Stanford, UNLV, Syracuse, Clemson and BC. Some years will, on paper, look better and some may not. Regardless, how much money will a media partner be willing to shell out strictly for rights to 7 home football games against a schedule like that?

Notre Dame might not belong to football conference, but I think Irish football may end up being affected by realignment just about as much as anyone when it's all said and done.

Your observation is absolutely true, if ND has to go it alone or with a minor rights holder like NBC. But let's say the B1G and PAC rights stay more or less bid out as they are at present. If Disney picked up the Irish home game rights look at the scheduling ease ND would have. ESPN might insist on 9 P games but could spread them across the SEC, ACC, B12, PAC and B1G and still hold majority rights of a top 7 product. Kill their ACC deal have them play a home and away with the SEC, B1G, & PAC for half their schedule and keep those indpendent of USC & Navy and you have 4 games to fill. Then a Pitt / BC / Syracuse finish gives them all they want.

Terry D NBC is a poor option for your Irish in a consolidated college conference landscape. ESPN is your best bet at continued independence. Here's why:

1. The have the capacity to assist schedules with virtually any conference.
2. They want you more than the ACC does.
3. ESPN is best positioned to keep at large berths in the CFP field. And best positioned to insist on 9P games being the weihted standard.

As for the ACC, they were obstructionists to ESPN's attempted steal of the Big 12's top product in 2010-2. They are part of the obstruction of the CFP expansion now at ESPN's expense. So, I see no hand at the Mouse which will stay whatever peril befalls the conference. They will shelter those schools whose rights they most cherish in the SEC or perhaps in the NB12 should they buy all of those rights. Corporations have long memories too and the ACC has used up any good will they've had. Individual mea culpas will be welcomed and rewarded, but given the current economic chasm, the current macroeconomic picture, the current stress on enrollment, and the current tenor of the Courts, I'd say the prognosis of the ACC is stage 4 terminal and that their longevity is 5 years or less.

(02-14-2022 02:21 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Notre Dame did not cause the Big East to collapse and won't be the cause of an ACC collapse. But Notre Dame does suffer from being the Flying Dutchman of College Football. They get sweetheart deals for sports other than football from conferences with inherent weaknesses which ND's other sports don't help and which ND football only enhances marginally. The result is it delays the demise of their host but doesn't prevent it. Therefore, they board less seaworthy vessels which then sink, and ND gets a bad rep about it.

2. What you say about the state of ACC sports product is true and NIL will only make it worse, but not because the ACC is incapable of solid NIL interest, but because athletes connect success with NIL likelihood and exposure and will seek higher profile programs because of it. So instead of leveling the competition for talent it actually tilts it more. This will make producing better product less and less likely.

3. It is this acceleration of gap which will propel us toward larger conferences and more consolidation as brands race for these groups like those on the deck of the Titanic raced for un-lowered lifeboats. The SEC and B1G 10 don't have do anything right at this moment, they only have to look strong. When they do something right is magnified by perceived threat everywhere else.

Really nailed it with those three points.

Notre Dame won't have too much of a problem hammering out a football schedule as long as the ACC as we know it remains intact.

But, again, what happens if say Clemson and/or FSU jump on an opportunity to join the SEC? And then UNC, UVA and Duke begin to look toward the B1G? And the expanded SEC and expanded B1G both play 9-game conference schedules, leaving no room for (or interest in) mid- and late-season games against an opponent with the stature of the Irish?

Does Notre Dame stay put and make the best of a scheduling alliance with a dwindling number of marquee football programs in a (likely) back-filled ACC? Would the school's administration and fan base be content with a schedule filled with games against the likes of Pitt and Boston College and Syracuse to go with annual matchups with USC, Navy and Stanford?

I ask because I don't know Notre Dame's "mindset" well enough to say.

And how might a "less glamorous" home schedule impact an upcoming TV renewal or deal, dollars-wise?

ND's seven-game home schedule next season consists of Marshall, Cal, Stanford, UNLV, Syracuse, Clemson and BC. Some years will, on paper, look better and some may not. Regardless, how much money will a media partner be willing to shell out strictly for rights to 7 home football games against a schedule like that?

Notre Dame might not belong to football conference, but I think Irish football may end up being affected by realignment just about as much as anyone when it's all said and done.

I think it likely that USC and Stanford will continue to play ND every year. They torpedoed a prior move to a 9 game schedule because they valued the ND games.

I suspect that the "Alliance" will carve out existing scheduled ND games as "Alliance" games.

No matter what, ND will ride out football independence to the bitter end.

It will do so until it is not viable to remain an independent and compete at the top level of college football.

When that dark day ever comes, which I hope is never or at least a long way off (and it likely will be only when two super conferences are formed), then ND will likely hold its nose and join the Big Ten for what, close to $90 million a year or more?

It will not join the ACC in football.

It simply makes no real business sense for ND football to join the ACC, bind itself to the GOR, limit its freedom of movement and surrender its football independence for the lowest possible P5 conference payout.

Tell me where I am wrong and joining the ACC in football would be a great move for ND.

It is a much better option to remain independent, renew the NBC deal and watch to see the landscape after the dust settles in about ten years or so.

(02-14-2022 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your observation is absolutely true, if ND has to go it alone or with a minor rights holder like NBC. But let's say the B1G and PAC rights stay more or less bid out as they are at present. If Disney picked up the Irish home game rights look at the scheduling ease ND would have. ESPN might insist on 9 P games but could spread them across the SEC, ACC, B12, PAC and B1G and still hold majority rights of a top 7 product. Kill their ACC deal have them play a home and away with the SEC, B1G, & PAC for half their schedule and keep those indpendent of USC & Navy and you have 4 games to fill. Then a Pitt / BC / Syracuse finish gives them all they want.

1. The B1G media rights aren't gonna stay the same (and membership isn't going to stay the same, either, as you know ...)

2. Who says — or that ESPN would even urge such a thing — the SEC, B12, PAC and B1G would agree to play home-and-homes with Notre Dame (especially the marquee programs) for what would likely be nominal financial gain? There comes a time where more and more schools may say, "Hey Notre Dame. You do you and we're gonna do us. Good luck to y'all."

3. What would Notre Dame do for its non-football sports? Remain in a jilted ACC? Return to the Big East? Be the nation's only college basketball independent and carry its games on the Mutual Broadcasting Network? :)

(02-14-2022 02:39 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think it likely that USC and Stanford will continue to play ND every year. They torpedoed a prior move to a 9 game schedule because they valued the ND games.

The Pac-12 has played nine conference games since 2006 — that hasn't changed regardless of what USC and Stanford may have wanted (and those two series with ND carry on just fine).

The new-Pac-12 commissioner gets an 'A' for enthusiasm, but he's pretty damn naive if thinks the so-called scheduling "alliance" is actually gonna come to fruition on a widespread basis. That whole thing was a smoke screen to make the floundering Pac-12 and the wobbly ACC look not quite so impotent.

(02-14-2022 02:53 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your observation is absolutely true, if ND has to go it alone or with a minor rights holder like NBC. But let's say the B1G and PAC rights stay more or less bid out as they are at present. If Disney picked up the Irish home game rights look at the scheduling ease ND would have. ESPN might insist on 9 P games but could spread them across the SEC, ACC, B12, PAC and B1G and still hold majority rights of a top 7 product. Kill their ACC deal have them play a home and away with the SEC, B1G, & PAC for half their schedule and keep those indpendent of USC & Navy and you have 4 games to fill. Then a Pitt / BC / Syracuse finish gives them all they want.

1. The B1G media rights aren't gonna stay the same (and membership isn't going to stay the same, either, as you know ...)

2. Who says — or that ESPN would even urge such a thing — the SEC, B12, PAC and B1G would agree to play home-and-homes with Notre Dame (especially the marquee programs) for what would likely be nominal financial gain? There comes a time where more and more schools may say, "Hey Notre Dame. You do you and we're gonna do us. Good luck to y'all."

3. What would Notre Dame do for its non-football sports? Remain in a jilted ACC? Return to the Big East? Be the nation's only college basketball independent and carry its games on the Mutual Broadcasting Network? :)

ESPN would certainly make it woth anyone's while to schedule ND home and home. Look at Georgia. Mega exposure and big bucks through the SEC home game. It's going to be the same anywhere ESPN holds rights. If ESPN owns ND's home games next contract and they hold the rights in most away venues they win big, and they know it, which is why ND's future independence runs through Disney, not NBC which lacks the depth in rights holdings to make it work.

(02-14-2022 02:53 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your observation is absolutely true, if ND has to go it alone or with a minor rights holder like NBC. But let's say the B1G and PAC rights stay more or less bid out as they are at present. If Disney picked up the Irish home game rights look at the scheduling ease ND would have. ESPN might insist on 9 P games but could spread them across the SEC, ACC, B12, PAC and B1G and still hold majority rights of a top 7 product. Kill their ACC deal have them play a home and away with the SEC, B1G, & PAC for half their schedule and keep those indpendent of USC & Navy and you have 4 games to fill. Then a Pitt / BC / Syracuse finish gives them all they want.

1. The B1G media rights aren't gonna stay the same (and membership isn't going to stay the same, either, as you know ...)

2. Who says — or that ESPN would even urge such a thing — the SEC, B12, PAC and B1G would agree to play home-and-homes with Notre Dame (especially the marquee programs) for what would likely be nominal financial gain? There comes a time where more and more schools may say, "Hey Notre Dame. You do you and we're gonna do us. Good luck to y'all."

3. What would Notre Dame do for its non-football sports? Remain in a jilted ACC? Return to the Big East? Be the nation's only college basketball independent and carry its games on the Mutual Broadcasting Network? :)

See my post above and then check ND's schedules going out the next ten to twelve years or so.

You will see games against the likes of Alabama, Michigan, Texas A&M (and other marquee programs) out until 2035 or so. Some of those series were just recently scheduled.

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/notre-dame/#

Now, Alabama, Michigan and USC can cancel those contracts and pay the price, but is that really very likely?

I am not nearly as concerned about ND finding good opponents to schedule as some of you are.

(02-14-2022 02:39 PM)TerryD Wrote:  When that dark day ever comes, which I hope is never or at least a long way off (and it likely will be only when two super conferences are formed), then ND will likely hold its nose and join the Big Ten for what, close to $90 million a year or more?

Promise ya TerryD.

Once you get used to the stench in Ann Arbor, Columbus and State College, the Irish belonging to the B1G is gonna be better than you ever imagined.

(02-14-2022 03:01 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:39 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think it likely that USC and Stanford will continue to play ND every year. They torpedoed a prior move to a 9 game schedule because they valued the ND games.

The Pac-12 has played nine conference games since 2006 — that hasn't changed regardless of what USC and Stanford may have wanted (and those two series with ND carry on just fine).

The new-Pac-12 commissioner gets an 'A' for enthusiasm, but he's pretty damn naive if thinks the so-called scheduling "alliance" is actually gonna come to fruition on a widespread basis. That whole thing was a smoke screen to make the floundering Pac-12 and the wobbly ACC look not quite so impotent.

Well, there was a deal torpedoed fairly recently by USC and Stanford. Maybe it involved the Big Ten, I cannot recall.

The main point is that those schools went against their conference wishes to keep the ND games.

(02-14-2022 03:06 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:39 PM)TerryD Wrote:  When that dark day ever comes, which I hope is never or at least a long way off (and it likely will be only when two super conferences are formed), then ND will likely hold its nose and join the Big Ten for what, close to $90 million a year or more?

Promise ya TerryD.

Once you get used to the stench in Ann Arbor, Columbus and State College, the Irish belonging to the B1G is gonna be better than you ever imagined.

Sorry. If it happens, I hope that I am dead first. Take care.

(02-14-2022 03:06 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:01 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:39 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think it likely that USC and Stanford will continue to play ND every year. They torpedoed a prior move to a 9 game schedule because they valued the ND games.

The Pac-12 has played nine conference games since 2006 — that hasn't changed regardless of what USC and Stanford may have wanted (and those two series with ND carry on just fine).

The new-Pac-12 commissioner gets an 'A' for enthusiasm, but he's pretty damn naive if thinks the so-called scheduling "alliance" is actually gonna come to fruition on a widespread basis. That whole thing was a smoke screen to make the floundering Pac-12 and the wobbly ACC look not quite so impotent.

Well, there was a deal torpedoed fairly recently by USC and Stanford. Maybe it involved the Big Ten, I cannot recall.

The main point is that those schools went against their conference wishes to keep the ND games.

Tennis Larry's idea was that every football team in the Pac would play a Big Ten team every year and that, like the basketball conference challenges, the TV networks could pick the matchups.

USC, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington (and maybe others) objected because they figured TV would give them the most difficult games to maximize TV ratings. USC specifically argued that they already play Notre Dame every year and shouldn't have to let TV make them play the likes of Ohio State or Michigan every year on top of that.

Seems like an obvious objection, and another example of how Larry thought he was 10x more clever than he really was.

(02-14-2022 03:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ESPN would certainly make it woth anyone's while to schedule ND home and home. Look at Georgia.

Georgia with an 8-game SEC schedule and $30M in annual media revenue is not the same as Georgia with a 9-game SEC schedule and $60M in annual media revenue.

I think the conversation from UGA's end goes from "Yeah, a home-and-home with Notre Dame looks really good" to "Hmmm, gonna need to think about that one ... "

(02-14-2022 03:03 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:53 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Your observation is absolutely true, if ND has to go it alone or with a minor rights holder like NBC. But let's say the B1G and PAC rights stay more or less bid out as they are at present. If Disney picked up the Irish home game rights look at the scheduling ease ND would have. ESPN might insist on 9 P games but could spread them across the SEC, ACC, B12, PAC and B1G and still hold majority rights of a top 7 product. Kill their ACC deal have them play a home and away with the SEC, B1G, & PAC for half their schedule and keep those indpendent of USC & Navy and you have 4 games to fill. Then a Pitt / BC / Syracuse finish gives them all they want.

1. The B1G media rights aren't gonna stay the same (and membership isn't going to stay the same, either, as you know ...)

2. Who says — or that ESPN would even urge such a thing — the SEC, B12, PAC and B1G would agree to play home-and-homes with Notre Dame (especially the marquee programs) for what would likely be nominal financial gain? There comes a time where more and more schools may say, "Hey Notre Dame. You do you and we're gonna do us. Good luck to y'all."

3. What would Notre Dame do for its non-football sports? Remain in a jilted ACC? Return to the Big East? Be the nation's only college basketball independent and carry its games on the Mutual Broadcasting Network? :)

See my post above and then check ND's schedules going out the next ten to twelve years or so.

You will see games against the likes of Alabama, Michigan, Texas A&M (and other marquee programs) out until 2035 or so. Some of those series were just recently scheduled.

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/notre-dame/#

Now, Alabama, Michigan and USC can cancel those contracts and pay the price, but is that really very likely?

I am not nearly as concerned about ND finding good opponents to schedule as some of you are.

That's funny......I don't see Stanford on the schedule past 2024 or USC scheduled beyond 2026, but I do see Navy through 2032.

(02-14-2022 03:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:06 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:01 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:39 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think it likely that USC and Stanford will continue to play ND every year. They torpedoed a prior move to a 9 game schedule because they valued the ND games.

The Pac-12 has played nine conference games since 2006 — that hasn't changed regardless of what USC and Stanford may have wanted (and those two series with ND carry on just fine).

The new-Pac-12 commissioner gets an 'A' for enthusiasm, but he's pretty damn naive if thinks the so-called scheduling "alliance" is actually gonna come to fruition on a widespread basis. That whole thing was a smoke screen to make the floundering Pac-12 and the wobbly ACC look not quite so impotent.

Well, there was a deal torpedoed fairly recently by USC and Stanford. Maybe it involved the Big Ten, I cannot recall.

The main point is that those schools went against their conference wishes to keep the ND games.

Tennis Larry's idea was that every football team in the Pac would play a Big Ten team every year and that, like the basketball conference challenges, the TV networks could pick the matchups.

USC, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington (and maybe others) objected because they figured TV would give them the most difficult games to maximize TV ratings. USC specifically argued that they already play Notre Dame every year and shouldn't have to let TV make them play the likes of Ohio State or Michigan every year on top of that.

Seems like an obvious objection, and another example of how Larry thought he was 10x more clever than he really was.

I think that's going to be a huge issue with the whole idea of Alliance scheduling. TV is going to want to pit high-drawing schools against one another, but those schools aren't going to be willing to play other top schools every year while the bottom of their conference doesn't. So there is definitely more $ to be had with Clemson-Southern Cal or Ohio State-Florida State, but how often will we see those marquee matchups? And will games like Clemson-Rutgers or Southern Cal-Duke draw enough viewers and add enough money to offset low interest games like Maryland-Arizona and Virginia-Illinois?

(02-14-2022 03:30 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:06 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:01 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:39 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think it likely that USC and Stanford will continue to play ND every year. They torpedoed a prior move to a 9 game schedule because they valued the ND games.

The Pac-12 has played nine conference games since 2006 — that hasn't changed regardless of what USC and Stanford may have wanted (and those two series with ND carry on just fine).

The new-Pac-12 commissioner gets an 'A' for enthusiasm, but he's pretty damn naive if thinks the so-called scheduling "alliance" is actually gonna come to fruition on a widespread basis. That whole thing was a smoke screen to make the floundering Pac-12 and the wobbly ACC look not quite so impotent.

Well, there was a deal torpedoed fairly recently by USC and Stanford. Maybe it involved the Big Ten, I cannot recall.

The main point is that those schools went against their conference wishes to keep the ND games.

Tennis Larry's idea was that every football team in the Pac would play a Big Ten team every year and that, like the basketball conference challenges, the TV networks could pick the matchups.

USC, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington (and maybe others) objected because they figured TV would give them the most difficult games to maximize TV ratings. USC specifically argued that they already play Notre Dame every year and shouldn't have to let TV make them play the likes of Ohio State or Michigan every year on top of that.

Seems like an obvious objection, and another example of how Larry thought he was 10x more clever than he really was.

I think that's going to be a huge issue with the whole idea of Alliance scheduling. TV is going to want to pit high-drawing schools against one another, but those schools aren't going to be willing to play other top schools every year while the bottom of their conference doesn't. So there is definitely more $ to be had with Clemson-Southern Cal or Ohio State-Florida State, but how often will we see those marquee matchups? And will games like Clemson-Rutgers or Southern Cal-Duke draw enough viewers and add enough money to offset low interest games like Maryland-Arizona and Virginia-Illinois?

And...the SEC, while it is not immune from such problems, has much fewer of them with which to contend, and many more brands to add to the mix of the appealing. In this world our value goes up while the alliance muddles through.

Regionality, having 12 of the top 20 brands and 13 of the top 25, with a reasonable chance of adding as many as 3 more all carries immense advantages.

(02-14-2022 01:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I can sympathize with the ACC on this. I think the ACC entered into the present arrangement with the idea that this was a transitionary step towards integrating ND into a full 8 game conference schedule when the tv deal was up for renewal in 2037. They went into the deal knowing there was a 4 team playoff that was supposedly placing an emphasis on including conference champions (the sham committee has clearly abandoned this criteria so they can stick 2 SEC teams in).

ND went and served as an architect of a plan that was going to derail the 4 team arrangement that the ACC liked.

ND only looks out for ND. Unless you’re USC or Navy they don’t care about you as a rival either (and they keep those games because USC offers SoCal recruiting and Navy’s usually an easy win and acquiesces to playing “home” games in NFL stadiums full of Fighting Irish fans.

Except that the ND/ACC relationship is between two sophisticated parties with lawyers, consultants, etc...

Everyone seems to forget that ND told the ACC loud and clear (and often) up front....before the contracts were signed.....that football was not going to join.

(It told the Big East the same exact thing in 1995)

ND never believed that there was a "transitionary step" and told the ACC this up front. ND signed the deals as negotiated and that is all it signed up for.

If the ACC didn't listen to that plain language and instead engaged in a fantasy or fairy tale of self delusion, against all disclosures, then that is on the ACC, not ND.

The relationship between ND and the ACC is transactional and is established through a series of contracts. It is simply a business deal.

ND has lived up to and honored every term of every contract. It is the ACC who signed the deals, then groused about them and now is angry that it signed them.

Too damn bad. Those contracts are binding and run for 15 more years. If the ACC wants to unilaterally breach those contracts and pay ND damages for doing so, I guess that is an option. I don't see how that will help the ACC, though.

ND is not an ACC member for football and in fact ND football is a third party with regards to the ACC.

It owes no duty to the ACC to lessen its chances to stay independent by supporting a playoff expansion that favors the ACC and limits ND.

ND only looks out for ND's independence. Certainly and appropriately. Nobody else supports ND in this, in fact, most everyone else is hostile to the idea.

So, ND has to look out for itself here. Who else can it look to for such support? No one.

Do you know the story about the U.S. Navy saving ND from closing down during World War II? Do you know that, in gratitude, ND told Navy it would play it every year forever unless/until Navy wanted out of that deal ?

ND has honored that deal since 1945 because Navy wants it to do so.

Do you know that it is Navy's sole choice to play its ND "home" games in NFL stadiums to increase its take at the gate?

Do you know how much of Navy's budget comes from the ND game, both in TV rights and in ticket sales?

So, yeah....ND doesn't care about anyone else. Right.

Do you know that ND began playing USC in 1926 because the Big Ten tried to boycott and kill ND's football program and ND had to barnstorm across the country to counter that attempt by the Big Ten to kill ND football?

Do you know that ND holds USC in high regard and considers the Trojans its greatest rival because it agreed to play ND back then?

Take your Big Ten glasses off.

Seems a bit hypocritical to be going around telling people to take the Big Ten glasses off when you can’t seem to evaluate anything from any standpoint other than your myopic, Notre Dame can do no wrong pulpit.

I’ve heard the duty, gratitude, blah, blah, blah story before and let’s be honest: If Navy won those games more than once in a blue moon and/or decided they wanted to play in Annapolis this Irish would cancel that series in heartbeat.

You guys play USC because in the ‘20s because your administration thought ill of bowl games and playing USC in LA every other year was a way to play a bowl game without it actually being a bowl game.

Notre Dame has cast of rivals left and right over the years and forced schools to take forced hiatuses, something that no real rival would ever do. Don’t act like you’re school is loyal to their partners just because they’ve kept 2 games going for 70+ yrs.

(02-14-2022 03:30 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:06 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:01 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:39 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think it likely that USC and Stanford will continue to play ND every year. They torpedoed a prior move to a 9 game schedule because they valued the ND games.

The Pac-12 has played nine conference games since 2006 — that hasn't changed regardless of what USC and Stanford may have wanted (and those two series with ND carry on just fine).

The new-Pac-12 commissioner gets an 'A' for enthusiasm, but he's pretty damn naive if thinks the so-called scheduling "alliance" is actually gonna come to fruition on a widespread basis. That whole thing was a smoke screen to make the floundering Pac-12 and the wobbly ACC look not quite so impotent.

Well, there was a deal torpedoed fairly recently by USC and Stanford. Maybe it involved the Big Ten, I cannot recall.

The main point is that those schools went against their conference wishes to keep the ND games.

Tennis Larry's idea was that every football team in the Pac would play a Big Ten team every year and that, like the basketball conference challenges, the TV networks could pick the matchups.

USC, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington (and maybe others) objected because they figured TV would give them the most difficult games to maximize TV ratings. USC specifically argued that they already play Notre Dame every year and shouldn't have to let TV make them play the likes of Ohio State or Michigan every year on top of that.

Seems like an obvious objection, and another example of how Larry thought he was 10x more clever than he really was.

I think that's going to be a huge issue with the whole idea of Alliance scheduling. TV is going to want to pit high-drawing schools against one another, but those schools aren't going to be willing to play other top schools every year while the bottom of their conference doesn't. So there is definitely more $ to be had with Clemson-Southern Cal or Ohio State-Florida State, but how often will we see those marquee matchups? And will games like Clemson-Rutgers or Southern Cal-Duke draw enough viewers and add enough money to offset low interest games like Maryland-Arizona and Virginia-Illinois?

Agreed.

And in addition to the name teams not wanting to make their schedules excessively difficult, games like Maryland-Arizona or Virginia-Illinois are probably not better for the teams involved than a 9th conference game would be. Arizona wouldn't benefit from replacing Stanford on their schedule with Maryland. Virginia wouldn't benefit from replacing NC State with Illinois, etc., etc.

There may be games branded as "Alliance" games, but it won't be every team in every year. It will just be putting a label on games that teams wanted to schedule on their own anyway.

(02-11-2022 09:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You can always trust ND......to protect its football independence.

Every single time.

Nobody else will.

Who can ND trust or expect to support its efforts to stay independent? No one. ND is on its own there.

So, why does ND act in its own self interest? Because it has to in order to protect independence.

Besides, the coaches aren't decision makers anywhere (except the ACC, apparently).

So some football coaches didn't get every possible angle or detail from Swarbrick at a talk at an "ACC Kickoff" ...in July.

Oh, the horror of it all. Tar and feather that man or string him up !!! The things people get all worked up about....

(I still think the playoffs end up at 12 teams when the dust settles.)

Yawwnn. And in other news, man landed on the moon, the South lost the War Between the States, schools integrated, Democrats cheat, etc.

(02-14-2022 01:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  Adelson's article wasn't about an ACC all or nothing stance re: Notre Dame.

I did not suggest that Swarbrick had tried to swindle the ACC, nor did I endorse that view, the article was simply re-printed with a phrase highlighted, something I found unusual and very disturbing.

I do find swindle and interesting and sinister description attributed to "a source". It wasn't that; Jack had "misled", or "tried to pull a fast one", or even "tried to pull the wool over our eyes", but swindle (to intentionally cheat or defraud).

That's a pretty serious accusation, and one that would not inspire trust in any future dealings.

That term is complete and total horse$hit, no matter who thought of it.

Get off your high horse Terry D!!! I even have to agree with XLance on this one!!

(02-14-2022 01:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I can sympathize with the ACC on this. I think the ACC entered into the present arrangement with the idea that this was a transitionary step towards integrating ND into a full 8 game conference schedule when the tv deal was up for renewal in 2037. They went into the deal knowing there was a 4 team playoff that was supposedly placing an emphasis on including conference champions (the sham committee has clearly abandoned this criteria so they can stick 2 SEC teams in).

ND went and served as an architect of a plan that was going to derail the 4 team arrangement that the ACC liked.

ND only looks out for ND. Unless you’re USC or Navy they don’t care about you as a rival either (and they keep those games because USC offers SoCal recruiting and Navy’s usually an easy win and acquiesces to playing “home” games in NFL stadiums full of Fighting Irish fans.

Except that the ND/ACC relationship is between two sophisticated parties with lawyers, consultants, etc...

Everyone seems to forget that ND told the ACC loud and clear (and often) up front....before the contracts were signed.....that football was not going to join.

(It told the Big East the same exact thing in 1995)

ND never believed that there was a "transitionary step" and told the ACC this up front. ND signed the deals as negotiated and that is all it signed up for.

If the ACC didn't listen to that plain language and instead engaged in a fantasy or fairy tale of self delusion, against all disclosures, then that is on the ACC, not ND.

The relationship between ND and the ACC is transactional and is established through a series of contracts. It is simply a business deal.

ND has lived up to and honored every term of every contract. It is the ACC who signed the deals, then groused about them and now is angry that it signed them.

Too damn bad. Those contracts are binding and run for 15 more years. If the ACC wants to unilaterally breach those contracts and pay ND damages for doing so, I guess that is an option. I don't see how that will help the ACC, though.

ND is not an ACC member for football and in fact ND football is a third party with regards to the ACC.

It owes no duty to the ACC to lessen its chances to stay independent by supporting a playoff expansion that favors the ACC and limits ND.

ND only looks out for ND's independence. Certainly and appropriately. Nobody else supports ND in this, in fact, most everyone else is hostile to the idea.

So, ND has to look out for itself here. Who else can it look to for such support? No one.

Do you know the story about the U.S. Navy saving ND from closing down during World War II? Do you know that, in gratitude, ND told Navy it would play it every year forever unless/until Navy wanted out of that deal ?

ND has honored that deal since 1945 because Navy wants it to do so.

Do you know that it is Navy's sole choice to play its ND "home" games in NFL stadiums to increase its take at the gate?

Do you know how much of Navy's budget comes from the ND game, both in TV rights and in ticket sales?

So, yeah....ND doesn't care about anyone else. Right.

Do you know that ND began playing USC in 1926 because the Big Ten tried to boycott and kill ND's football program and ND had to barnstorm across the country to counter that attempt by the Big Ten to kill ND football?

Do you know that ND holds USC in high regard and considers the Trojans its greatest rival because it agreed to play ND back then?

Take your Big Ten glasses off.

Gotta say, Terry...

That sounds like a partner you can trust.

(02-14-2022 08:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I can sympathize with the ACC on this. I think the ACC entered into the present arrangement with the idea that this was a transitionary step towards integrating ND into a full 8 game conference schedule when the tv deal was up for renewal in 2037. They went into the deal knowing there was a 4 team playoff that was supposedly placing an emphasis on including conference champions (the sham committee has clearly abandoned this criteria so they can stick 2 SEC teams in).

ND went and served as an architect of a plan that was going to derail the 4 team arrangement that the ACC liked.

ND only looks out for ND. Unless you’re USC or Navy they don’t care about you as a rival either (and they keep those games because USC offers SoCal recruiting and Navy’s usually an easy win and acquiesces to playing “home” games in NFL stadiums full of Fighting Irish fans.

Except that the ND/ACC relationship is between two sophisticated parties with lawyers, consultants, etc...

Everyone seems to forget that ND told the ACC loud and clear (and often) up front....before the contracts were signed.....that football was not going to join.

(It told the Big East the same exact thing in 1995)

ND never believed that there was a "transitionary step" and told the ACC this up front. ND signed the deals as negotiated and that is all it signed up for.

If the ACC didn't listen to that plain language and instead engaged in a fantasy or fairy tale of self delusion, against all disclosures, then that is on the ACC, not ND.

The relationship between ND and the ACC is transactional and is established through a series of contracts. It is simply a business deal.

ND has lived up to and honored every term of every contract. It is the ACC who signed the deals, then groused about them and now is angry that it signed them.

Too damn bad. Those contracts are binding and run for 15 more years. If the ACC wants to unilaterally breach those contracts and pay ND damages for doing so, I guess that is an option. I don't see how that will help the ACC, though.

ND is not an ACC member for football and in fact ND football is a third party with regards to the ACC.

It owes no duty to the ACC to lessen its chances to stay independent by supporting a playoff expansion that favors the ACC and limits ND.

ND only looks out for ND's independence. Certainly and appropriately. Nobody else supports ND in this, in fact, most everyone else is hostile to the idea.

So, ND has to look out for itself here. Who else can it look to for such support? No one.

Do you know the story about the U.S. Navy saving ND from closing down during World War II? Do you know that, in gratitude, ND told Navy it would play it every year forever unless/until Navy wanted out of that deal ?

ND has honored that deal since 1945 because Navy wants it to do so.

Do you know that it is Navy's sole choice to play its ND "home" games in NFL stadiums to increase its take at the gate?

Do you know how much of Navy's budget comes from the ND game, both in TV rights and in ticket sales?

So, yeah....ND doesn't care about anyone else. Right.

Do you know that ND began playing USC in 1926 because the Big Ten tried to boycott and kill ND's football program and ND had to barnstorm across the country to counter that attempt by the Big Ten to kill ND football?

Do you know that ND holds USC in high regard and considers the Trojans its greatest rival because it agreed to play ND back then?

Take your Big Ten glasses off.

Gotta say, Terry...

That sounds like a partner you can trust.

That California recruiting had to be appealing as well. I'm a little surprised that Notre Dame didn't even give UGA or 'Bama a call back then. They might have worked out something with them as well. But they chose not to because of those California recruits & California $$$'s.