If ND is to play 5 ACC games per year, should ACC consider matching ND with those teams that appear to be targeted by B1G and SEC for invitation, FSU and Clemson?

BCS conferences are probably not likely to go after BC, Syracuse, WF, or Duke.

Maybe get ND to play 4 more ACC games (rather than 3 more) and allocate those 4 games something like this:

Virginia/Virginia Tech every other year
North Carolina/NC State every other year
Boston College/Pitt every other year
Ga Tech/Louisivile every other year

The beneifit to ND gets to be in a super strong bb conference and in a division very heavily northeast oriented which shold please ND. And ND keeps it football independent by not allowing ACC to be raided into oblivion.

No.

No -- and I believe the suggestion is an overreaction.

The ACC needs to rotate all its members through South Bend for maximum exposure.

(03-18-2013 11:16 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  If ND is to play 5 ACC games per year, should ACC consider matching ND with those teams that appear to be targeted by B1G and SEC for invitation, FSU and Clemson?

BCS conferences are probably not likely to go after BC, Syracuse, WF, or Duke.

Maybe get ND to play 4 more ACC games (rather than 3 more) and allocate those 4 games something like this:

Virginia/Virginia Tech every other year
North Carolina/NC State every other year
Boston College/Pitt every other year
Ga Tech/Louisivile every other year

The beneifit to ND gets to be in a super strong bb conference and in a division very heavily northeast oriented which shold please ND. And ND keeps it football independent by not allowing ACC to be raided into oblivion.

It would be unfair to the other ACC schools to miss out on the money involved with a game with ND. Should play every one...

I don't care either way. Whatever works best to hold the ACC together and the hyenas at bay.

Miami & Pitt make more sense IMO. it would allow N.Dame to hit two of their prime recruiting areas yearly & could help Miami get back on it's feet post sanctions by adding another marquee team to their schedule

(03-18-2013 12:07 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't care either way. Whatever works best to hold the ACC together and the hyenas at bay.

A $50M ACC exit fee evidently not going to provide protection.

I would ask the ACC schools, "Do you want to be like UConn and Cincy in Nbe/Arseco12?"

ND probably could care less which ACC teams are played. The trick for ACC is how to maximize ND for the benefit of each and every ACC team?

Apparently if what the B1G did just to get Maryland & the utter resistance that UNC & to a certain extent Georgia Tech toward going to the B1G it just might.

Look @ it this way...if Maryland is "worth" $30 Million what is UNC plus a UVa/GT asking price...they could be looking @ $104 Million just to get their attention...that not going to sit well with the current members of the B1G. Plus, kind of doubt that ESPN would really want to lose basically exclusive coverage of FSU/Miami Football along with UNC/Duke Basketball...

A better strategy could be to shift the revenue to reward the higher performing fb schools as well as the higher performing bb.

No! Why do you want the ACC to take its best potential bowl teams and give them extra losses when you already have a strength of schedule issue. 12-0 in the ACC will get them in the BCS against 11-1 teams from the Big 12 and SEC. They aren't getting into the BCS with 11-1 records against 11-1 teams in the SEC & Big 12. Plus Clemson has to play South Carolina and F.S.U. has to play Florida every year. The Irish get U.S.C. annually and get Oklahoma again next year. Taking your top three prospects and getting them to beat each other up just isn't getting her done!

(03-18-2013 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No! Why do you want the ACC to take its best potential bowl teams and give them extra losses when you already have a strength of schedule issue. 12-0 in the ACC will get them in the BCS against 11-1 teams from the Big 12 and SEC. They aren't getting into the BCS with 11-1 records against 11-1 teams in the SEC & Big 12. Plus Clemson has to play South Carolina and F.S.U. has to play Florida every year. The Irish get U.S.C. annually and get Oklahoma again next year. Taking your top three prospects and getting them to beat each other up just isn't getting her done!

With 4 spots, why would they not make it at 11-1?

Given the proposed ACC/B12 Alliance, I withdraw my post that started this thread. The Alliance is a very good idea.

(03-18-2013 04:19 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No! Why do you want the ACC to take its best potential bowl teams and give them extra losses when you already have a strength of schedule issue. 12-0 in the ACC will get them in the BCS against 11-1 teams from the Big 12 and SEC. They aren't getting into the BCS with 11-1 records against 11-1 teams in the SEC & Big 12. Plus Clemson has to play South Carolina and F.S.U. has to play Florida every year. The Irish get U.S.C. annually and get Oklahoma again next year. Taking your top three prospects and getting them to beat each other up just isn't getting her done!

With 4 spots, why would they not make it at 11-1?

Because they wouldn't get in over an 11-1 Big 10 school either.

(03-18-2013 05:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 04:19 PM)curtis0620 Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 04:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  No! Why do you want the ACC to take its best potential bowl teams and give them extra losses when you already have a strength of schedule issue. 12-0 in the ACC will get them in the BCS against 11-1 teams from the Big 12 and SEC. They aren't getting into the BCS with 11-1 records against 11-1 teams in the SEC & Big 12. Plus Clemson has to play South Carolina and F.S.U. has to play Florida every year. The Irish get U.S.C. annually and get Oklahoma again next year. Taking your top three prospects and getting them to beat each other up just isn't getting her done!

With 4 spots, why would they not make it at 11-1?

Because they wouldn't get in over an 11-1 Big 10 school either.

I think they might if Clemson or FSU beat their in-state rival plus a good Notre Dame team. It just depends on the OOC schedule of the particular team.

NO. ND solves some ills but for the ACC to be successful, Clemson, FSU and VT need to step up in thier performance on the field against top competitive. Beating SCAR and UF in the in-state rivalry games would provide greater returns than trying to manufacture a fake rivalry with ND.

(03-18-2013 11:38 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(03-18-2013 11:16 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  If ND is to play 5 ACC games per year, should ACC consider matching ND with those teams that appear to be targeted by B1G and SEC for invitation, FSU and Clemson?

BCS conferences are probably not likely to go after BC, Syracuse, WF, or Duke.

Maybe get ND to play 4 more ACC games (rather than 3 more) and allocate those 4 games something like this:

Virginia/Virginia Tech every other year
North Carolina/NC State every other year
Boston College/Pitt every other year
Ga Tech/Louisivile every other year

The beneifit to ND gets to be in a super strong bb conference and in a division very heavily northeast oriented which shold please ND. And ND keeps it football independent by not allowing ACC to be raided into oblivion.

It would be unfair to the other ACC schools to miss out on the money involved with a game with ND. Should play every one...

It's unfair to FSU to make the same amount of revenue from the conference as Wake and BC do.

That's a real shame for FSU.

(03-18-2013 05:57 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  NO. ND solves some ills but for the ACC to be successful, Clemson, FSU and VT need to step up in thier performance on the field against top competitive. Beating SCAR and UF in the in-state rivalry games would provide greater returns than trying to manufacture a fake rivalry with ND.

FSU's won 2 of the last 3. FSU and Clemson were top 10-15 all year but the rest of the ACC was sh*t. The ACC's problem is that the majority of the conference is mediocre or awful.

(03-18-2013 07:01 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  That's a real shame for FSU.

Whether you like/admit it or not, most fans from non-ACC schools would agree.

Conferences that followed the unequal revenue sharing model fell apart first.