(12-09-2014 03:57 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 02:43 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:26 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Terry could certainly speak more definitively as a ND fan than I could as an outsider, but I suspect that ultimately ND's independence (and unique identity) means more to them than the playoff for a given season would.

My impression is that the average ND fan agrees. But the administration very well might disagree. And it's the admins who make the decisions.

Just look at the deal to enter the ACC in the first place - the average fan hated that agreement and would have preferred to stay in the Big East. ND would have blackballed Butler, making it an all-Catholic conference. But the administration did it because it made their jobs easier (made it easier to schedule games in October/November).

Fair point - it is definitely the university administration and not the rank-and-file fanbase that make the decisions, although wealthy alums do have influence. Perhaps I'm not as well plugged in as you are (and there aren't a ton of ND fans around here), but I don't recall the overall fanbase being that upset with the ACC affiliation, since it still allowed a large amount of autonomy. I do also think that while it is on some level more mundane than playing for a national title, the ability to schedule and get games late in the year is a priority since it's a practical matter - you have to play somebody, and more and more attractive potential opponents are getting wrapped up in conference play late in the year as conferences expand.

I'm not exactly "plugged in" to ND, I just have a few friends who are die hards, one of whom has only has missed 2 home games since 1984 (including missing the birth of one of his kids).

I agree that scheduling is important. But was the scheduling really that difficult? In Oct & Nov they played the following schedules before joining the ACC:
2008: Stanford, North Car, Washington, Pitt, BC, Navy, Syracuse, USC
2009: Washington, BC, USC, Washington State, Navy, Pitt, UConn, Stanford
2010: BC, Pitt, W. Mich, Navy, Tulsa, Utah, Army, USC
2011: Purdue, Air Force, USC, Navy, Wake, Maryland, BC, Stanford
2012: Miami, Stanford, BYU, Oklahoma, Pitt, BC, Wake, USC

So that's 8 games every year, and except 2010 they were all pretty solid schedules. I just don't see what the big deal is other than that they had to make more phone calls to make these schedules work.

ACC will get them if they decide to join a conference. The ACC will definitely accept them too.

Probably gonna be some crazy media deal though.

If the ACC ever went to 16 or 18 with ND, let's say UC gets in along with UConn and WVU, would really solidify the rivalries

Division A (Private/Academic):

ND
Miami
BC
GTech
VaTech
UVa

Divison B (ACC)

NC State
FSU
Clemson
WF
UNC
Duke

Division C (Big East)

WVU
UC
UL
UConn
Cuse
Pitt

I don't understand the hubbub about ND not being in a conference. They can schedule whoever they want, and typically play a tougher schedule than most conference teams. If they go 12-0 or 11-1, they're in just like everyone else. They need a championship game about as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

(12-08-2014 05:59 PM)westophilia Wrote:  http://www.csnchicago.com/notre-dame/aft...ocid=yahoo

"I think everything is a fluid situation after today's decisions relative to who the four teams are," coach Brian Kelly said Sunday. "I think everybody is kind of back into their own conferences looking at, did we make the right choices in scheduling and decisions. I'm sure Jack (Swarbrick) and I will get back together and look at where we are and (if) are we doing the right things.

"Certainly, I think it's, again, a situation that has to be looked at and evaluated because it's such a fluid situation. Do we go to six? Do we go to eight? I think all those things are on the table for discussion as well as (if) would we be in at 11‑1."

until notre dame can beat northwestern i dont think they have that big of a playoff gripe.

what are they 0-4 in bcs games, 3 bowl wins in 20 years. impressive victories overr against rice, purdue, navy, north carolina, stanford and the worst michigan team in 50 years.

gave up 41 points to North Carolina, really?

somehow notre dame is worrying about their chances in a playoff, seriously?

hubris and delusion have no limits

(12-09-2014 09:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 08:44 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(12-08-2014 10:07 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The committee has put a lot of value into winning your conference. If Ohio St or FSU had lost, they still would have had a conference champ in Baylor. It has nothing to do with playing a CCG. The other thing, had the Big 12 played a CCG it would not have been TCU and Baylor. It more than likely would have been Kansas St and Baylor just like last Saturday.

We have no idea what the B12 structure would have been with two extra and unknown teams as per B12 CCG opponents.

What we can be almost sure of is that had there been a scenario (not a stretch at all) whereby the previous week's #3, TCU, had beaten Baylor in a CCG, TCU would have been chosen in place of Ohio State.

Just conference champs? Had there been no CCGs, Baylor likely gets in over an Ohio State that had not made the Wisconsin statement.

Either way, the B12 is left out this year. Notre Dame has to see this, and consider that as an independent, it almost surely will have to go undefeated to make the playoffs as currently configured.

So the B12 must consider the following:
1. does it expand now?
2. does it wait and hope (as unlike the divisional relaxation there is yet no strong support), for a relaxation of the twelve team CCG proscription?
3. does it wait 3 years for the contractual end of the current four team format and hope for an eight team CFP format?
4. do nothing and hope this doesn't happen (yeah right) again?

Notre Dame's choices are:
1. does it join the ACC now?
2. does it wait 3 years for the contractual end of the current four team format and hope for an eight team CFP format; where it still would likely be at a disadvantage, albeit a smaller one?
3. do nothing and hope it goes undefeated (yeah right) every season?

*Even the eight team format could favor conferences with CCGs in seasons whereby a conference has one or two bubble teams.

I vote for options 2 and 3.

Why throw out 127 years of identity and tradition for a minimally advantageous position for a playoff spot that most years ND will not likely be in the running for, anyway (2 or more losses)?

Within that 127 years of history are 11 shared or outright national championships, the most of any D1 team. As an independent, it has been getting more difficult each year since your last one in '87 or '88. In this new system, your chances for a future NC are almost nil.

I guess it depends on what part of your history you want to throw out.

The ACC should just add ND for football but give ND an exemption where they only have to play 7 games while everybody else plays 9 or 10 games.

Then set up 4 different 4-team pods and ND will play everybody in their pod every year and rotate playing the other pods every 3 years.

Divisional winners will be based on overall record.

(12-10-2014 08:42 AM)goofus Wrote:  The ACC should just add ND for football but give ND an exemption where they only have to play 7 games while everybody else plays 9 or 10 games.

Then set up 4 different 4-team pods and ND will play everybody in their pod every year and rotate playing the other pods every 3 years.

Divisional winners will be based on overall record.

Why would you give ND an exemption?