If the ACC stayed at 8 conference games...and let Texas and ND keep their 3rd tier rights (i.e. Longhorn Network for Texas and OOC home game rights for ND)...plus still got an equal share in the first tier rights...I could see this happening.

The PODs you created look like a dream for ND...not so much for Texas though. BC and Pitt give them some NE exposure, but are scheduling duds for them. They'd much rather have FSU/Clemson/Miami on the schedule yearly for maximum pop. And if the league stayed at 8 games...Texas would be stuck with some drab schedules in 2/3 of their seasons. Pitt/BC plus your 4 NC schools...or plus your UVA/VaTech/Syracuse/UL.

ND Pod
ND
Miami
Pitt
BC

Mid Atlantic
Syracuse
VT
UVA
UL

All State
UNC
NCST
Wake
Duke

SEP (South East Pod)
Clemson
GT
FSU
Texas

(05-13-2016 12:38 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  If the ACC stayed at 8 conference games...and let Texas and ND keep their 3rd tier rights (i.e. Longhorn Network for Texas and OOC home game rights for ND)...plus still got an equal share in the first tier rights...I could see this happening.

The PODs you created look like a dream for ND...not so much for Texas though. BC and Pitt give them some NE exposure, but are scheduling duds for them. They'd much rather have FSU/Clemson/Miami on the schedule yearly for maximum pop. And if the league stayed at 8 games...Texas would be stuck with some drab schedules in 2/3 of their seasons. Pitt/BC plus your 4 NC schools...or plus your UVA/VaTech/Syracuse/UL.

ND Pod
ND- (Only play 5 games annually against the ACC, still gets POD named after them)


Miami
Pitt
BC

Mid Atlantic
Syracuse
VT
UVA
UL

All State
UNC
NCST
Wake
Duke

SEP (South East Pod)
Clemson
GT
FSU
Texas

FIFY

(05-13-2016 10:46 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:37 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Texas isn't going to get a partial agreement because Notre Dame's not even going to be able to maintain their partial agreement for very much longer. Notre Dame isn't as special as they once were, and Texas DAMN SURE isn't special in the world of college football.

Want to bet on this? I bet in 2025 this conversation will be the exact same.....
We are very happy with the arrangement and will not give an inch more, unless you add Navy you will get no more games. Our admin has set a course and no matter the consequence we will not waver off of it. The Alumni have drawn a line in the sand and won't budge an inch. I know this pops the ACC fans bubble that we will be joining but it's the truth. Only way this changes is if CC games are the only way in(Not happening), and if they do that I bet ND and other g-5 or indy teams will sue.

By the way if we aren't "special" who cares? Let us be, get off our lawn dang it!!!! If we choose this path what difference does it make to you or your school?

The ACC is fine without us, and we would be fine without you. The deal works for both of us.

I didn't think either party needed each other from the get go. And I still think the arrangement is overrated.

(05-13-2016 12:49 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:46 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:37 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Texas isn't going to get a partial agreement because Notre Dame's not even going to be able to maintain their partial agreement for very much longer. Notre Dame isn't as special as they once were, and Texas DAMN SURE isn't special in the world of college football.

Want to bet on this? I bet in 2025 this conversation will be the exact same.....
We are very happy with the arrangement and will not give an inch more, unless you add Navy you will get no more games. Our admin has set a course and no matter the consequence we will not waver off of it. The Alumni have drawn a line in the sand and won't budge an inch. I know this pops the ACC fans bubble that we will be joining but it's the truth. Only way this changes is if CC games are the only way in(Not happening), and if they do that I bet ND and other g-5 or indy teams will sue.

By the way if we aren't "special" who cares? Let us be, get off our lawn dang it!!!! If we choose this path what difference does it make to you or your school?

The ACC is fine without us, and we would be fine without you. The deal works for both of us.

I didn't think either party needed each other from the get go. And I still think the arrangement is overrated.

I don't like the five game commitment, three would have been better, but the deal was good for ND in that it fixed:

--late season scheduling

--minor bowl bids

--other sports needing a P5 home


Because of the partial ACC deal, ND also gets to keep:

--football indy

--flexibility to schedule 7 games/yr.

--keep the NBC OTA deal and...most importantly..

--keep everything (especially football) but hockey (unfortunately, in my view) away from the clutches of Jim Delany.

That last one alone alone makes it not "overrated" to me, not by a long shot.

So, it is a pretty good, not ideal but pretty good, deal for ND.

Notre Dame has played hockey with Big Ten schools for many, many years, starting with the WCHA (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan) and then in the CCHA (Michigan, Mich St, Ohio St). If the Big Ten had left well enough alone, Penn St would've been in the CCHA, as well.

ND had no business being in HE. It's correct that they joined Big Ten hockey.

(05-13-2016 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't like the five game commitment, three would have been better, but the deal was good for ND in that it fixed:

--late season scheduling

--minor bowl bids

--other sports needing a P5 home


Because of the partial ACC deal, ND also gets to keep:

--football indy

--flexibility to schedule 7 games/yr.

--keep the NBC OTA deal and...most importantly..

--keep everything (especially football) but hockey (unfortunately, in my view) away from the clutches of Jim Delany.

That last one alone alone makes it not "overrated" to me, not by a long shot.

So, it is a pretty good, not ideal but pretty good, deal for ND.

IMO, Texas is looking at this ND list and anxious to get started as an ACC-Independent if the Big 12 thing doesn't pan out.

(05-13-2016 01:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Notre Dame has played hockey with Big Ten schools for many, many years, starting with the WCHA (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan) and then in the CCHA (Michigan, Mich St, Ohio St). If the Big Ten had left well enough alone, Penn St would've been in the CCHA, as well.

ND had no business being in HE. It's correct that they joined Big Ten hockey.

Yes, but I am a virulent anti-Big Ten guy and have been for close to fifty years (since about 1968 or so). So, that kind of logic is sorta lost on me.

All my life, ever since growing up in Pa. in the Sixties/Seventies, I have strongly disliked Michigan, Ohio State, Bo, Woody, Lloyd Carr, Gary Moeller, Duffy Daughtery, Jim Tressel, Joe Tiller, you name it, anything associated with the Big Ten.

Penn State joining with the hated (by me) Joe Paterno only added to my disdain.

I understand the travel issues but personally preferred Hockey East to the Big Ten.

I definitely, definitely do not want ND to join the Big Ten, partially or in full, with anything other than hockey, ever.

(05-13-2016 10:01 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think this is as nearly as far fetched as it may look. Texas craves southern AND Eastern exposure (EST), but they don't want to kick around the SEC because 1) TAMU beat them to the conf and 2) they think it would tarnish their academics (unjustified or not). ND has the exclusivity agreement with the ACC that runs until the GOR expires, and maybe a school like Texas intrigues ND enough to join a conference. What would a new ACC look like? Let's do pods. Why not. It's trendy still - I think - and it would keep together those schools who crave that connection the most. I think the pods would look like this:

ND Pod
ND - Texas, UVA, GT
SU - FSU, UL, Duke
Pitt - Miami, VT, NCSU
BC - Clemson, Wake, UNC

ND and Texas are pretty tight, plus ND has tradition with BC and Pitt

Mid Atlantic
Wake
VT
UVA
UL

OK, UL and the state of Virginia isn't Mid Atlantic, but what's in a name? Not like it matters.

All State
UNC
NCST
GT
Duke

Tobacco road. Everyone lumps these 4 together for ACC pods. It's tradition

SEP (South East Pod)
Clemson
Texas
FSU
Miami

I'd make Texas ND's crossover and put SU with BC and Pitt. ND and SU don't really have a lot of shared history in football (~7 games), but there is a lot of shared history in other sports.

(05-13-2016 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 12:49 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:46 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:37 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Texas isn't going to get a partial agreement because Notre Dame's not even going to be able to maintain their partial agreement for very much longer. Notre Dame isn't as special as they once were, and Texas DAMN SURE isn't special in the world of college football.

Want to bet on this? I bet in 2025 this conversation will be the exact same.....
We are very happy with the arrangement and will not give an inch more, unless you add Navy you will get no more games. Our admin has set a course and no matter the consequence we will not waver off of it. The Alumni have drawn a line in the sand and won't budge an inch. I know this pops the ACC fans bubble that we will be joining but it's the truth. Only way this changes is if CC games are the only way in(Not happening), and if they do that I bet ND and other g-5 or indy teams will sue.

By the way if we aren't "special" who cares? Let us be, get off our lawn dang it!!!! If we choose this path what difference does it make to you or your school?

The ACC is fine without us, and we would be fine without you. The deal works for both of us.

I didn't think either party needed each other from the get go. And I still think the arrangement is overrated.

I don't like the five game commitment, three would have been better, but the deal was good for ND in that it fixed:

--late season scheduling

--minor bowl bids

--other sports needing a P5 home


Because of the partial ACC deal, ND also gets to keep:

--football indy

--flexibility to schedule 7 games/yr.

--keep the NBC OTA deal and...most importantly..

--keep everything (especially football) but hockey (unfortunately, in my view) away from the clutches of Jim Delany.

That last one alone alone makes it not "overrated" to me, not by a long shot.

So, it is a pretty good, not ideal but pretty good, deal for ND.

I thought if ND had waited, it could've pulled off a multi-conference arrangement, parking its Olympic sports in one conference, but playing the other conferences against each other to get better scheduling and bowl bids.

(05-13-2016 05:01 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 01:09 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 12:49 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:46 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:37 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Texas isn't going to get a partial agreement because Notre Dame's not even going to be able to maintain their partial agreement for very much longer. Notre Dame isn't as special as they once were, and Texas DAMN SURE isn't special in the world of college football.

Want to bet on this? I bet in 2025 this conversation will be the exact same.....
We are very happy with the arrangement and will not give an inch more, unless you add Navy you will get no more games. Our admin has set a course and no matter the consequence we will not waver off of it. The Alumni have drawn a line in the sand and won't budge an inch. I know this pops the ACC fans bubble that we will be joining but it's the truth. Only way this changes is if CC games are the only way in(Not happening), and if they do that I bet ND and other g-5 or indy teams will sue.

By the way if we aren't "special" who cares? Let us be, get off our lawn dang it!!!! If we choose this path what difference does it make to you or your school?

The ACC is fine without us, and we would be fine without you. The deal works for both of us.

I didn't think either party needed each other from the get go. And I still think the arrangement is overrated.

I don't like the five game commitment, three would have been better, but the deal was good for ND in that it fixed:

--late season scheduling

--minor bowl bids

--other sports needing a P5 home


Because of the partial ACC deal, ND also gets to keep:

--football indy

--flexibility to schedule 7 games/yr.

--keep the NBC OTA deal and...most importantly..

--keep everything (especially football) but hockey (unfortunately, in my view) away from the clutches of Jim Delany.

That last one alone alone makes it not "overrated" to me, not by a long shot.

So, it is a pretty good, not ideal but pretty good, deal for ND.

I thought if ND had waited, it could've pulled off a multi-conference arrangement, parking its Olympic sports in one conference, but playing the other conferences against each other to get better scheduling and bowl bids.

If the Catholic 7 would've separated earlier, then Notre Dame would've stayed in the Big East, I'm sure of it. Notre Dame would be able to keep all their rivalry games too. Michigan, Michigan State, Navy, Purdue, USC & Stanford and they could still schedule 6 games after that each year, no problem for them. Ideally Notre Dame in the Big East would've been a big deal and they'd be the Power program in the Olympic sports after that.

(05-13-2016 10:30 AM)bluesox Wrote:  ACC could just add texas or they might add 2 more to get:

16 full + Texas and ND without football

ACC

North: BC, Cuse, Pitt, WVU, Lville, ND

Central: UVA, V tech, UNC, Duke, NC state, Wake

South: Clem, G tech, FSU, Miami, Texas, Baylor

How awesome! Now the ACC can own the Waco market!

Why take Baylor when the ACC could take Connecticut or Tulane or Houston or SMU or Cincinnati...?

(05-13-2016 10:46 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:37 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Texas isn't going to get a partial agreement because Notre Dame's not even going to be able to maintain their partial agreement for very much longer. Notre Dame isn't as special as they once were, and Texas DAMN SURE isn't special in the world of college football.

Want to bet on this? I bet in 2025 this conversation will be the exact same.....
We are very happy with the arrangement and will not give an inch more, unless you add Navy you will get no more games. Our admin has set a course and no matter the consequence we will not waver off of it. The Alumni have drawn a line in the sand and won't budge an inch. I know this pops the ACC fans bubble that we will be joining but it's the truth. Only way this changes is if CC games are the only way in(Not happening), and if they do that I bet ND and other g-5 or indy teams will sue.

By the way if we aren't "special" who cares? Let us be, get off our lawn dang it!!!! If we choose this path what difference does it make to you or your school?

The ACC is fine without us, and we would be fine without you. The deal works for both of us.

Get off your lawn? You guys have more in common with BYU than you might like to admit.

2012 proved that the Irish are still a power in terms of ratings.

(05-13-2016 11:09 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:59 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-13-2016 10:37 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Texas isn't going to get a partial agreement because Notre Dame's not even going to be able to maintain their partial agreement for very much longer. Notre Dame isn't as special as they once were, and Texas DAMN SURE isn't special in the world of college football.

If Notre Dame can't sustain it and they have to join a conference it's NOT going to be a conference with little pull and less money thats for sure. Especially if Texas joins the B1G then that would seal it for ND. Their ego would need them to be with the biggest of big boys.

Oh, Whom that might be ?

I'll give you 3 guesses.

1. Notre Dame IMO isn't joining a league and really I'm am just fine with the agreement they have with the ACC.

2. They have a written contract that "IF" they join a conference it is only with the ACC...part of the ACC/ND agreement...but again Notre Dame ain't joining a Conference....learn before posting nonsense..

I think the ACC would take texas for spot 16 and give them the same deal as ND if they wanted to go indy in football. The only reason to jump to 18 would be if texas wanted another school or two in their region. IT could 1-2 from Baylor, Rice, Houston, SMU, TCU or Tulane to possibly be paired with 1 from uconn, wvu or cincy.

PODs = not workable under the CCG rules so they are a non starter

and anyone that thinks that PODs would get passed was not paying attention to the last round of CCG deregulation when the ACC was the first to propose CCG deregulation so they could match the two top teams up in the CCG and then the Big 12 was accused of "trying to game the system" because they wanted a CCG with only 10 teams

a very large # of people on this forum said the Big 12 would never get what they wanted because they were trying to "cheat" or "game the system" or "pull a fast one" and they ignored that the ACC was the first to propose CCG deregulation

then the Big 10 stepped in and kicked the ACC right in the face like a "ninja" and everyone tried to pretend that somehow the Big 10 was trying to sabotage the plans of the Big 12 even though their proposal had really no effect on what the Big 12 wanted

then when the vote came the ACC was so screwed they voted against it and it ended up passing anyway and not only did the Big 12 get the right to have a CCG with 10 teams, but they can also split into two divisions with 10 teams and have a CCG as long as the divisions have divisional round robins and the CCG has division winners.......the ACC got a big bag of nothing

so there is ZERO chance that the Big 10 or the SEC are going to let PODs pass

You are aware that the idea for "pods," are simply to set up the two pods as two divisions in a given season, that rotate annually, right? SMH. Pods were not banned or outlawed, or prohibited in any way, shape, or form. What was made undoable was to not play everyone within your division in a season, and hosting a CCG. Rotating the divisions annually, or bi-annually, which is what pods do, was never addressed, and is viable should one choose to do it.

(05-21-2016 02:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  You are aware that the idea for "pods," are simply to set up the two pods as two divisions in a given season, that rotate annually, right? SMH. Pods were not banned or outlawed, or prohibited in any way, shape, or form. What was made undoable was to not play everyone within your division in a season, and hosting a CCG. Rotating the divisions annually, or bi-annually, which is what pods do, was never addressed, and is viable should one choose to do it.

you have a great difficulty reading

no where did I claim that PODs were banned so your point misses the mark right there you should attempt to refrain from tying to be "correct" by refuting things that others have never said......it makes you look like Sancho Panza (or just an idiot)

second if it was so sensible to have PODs and rotate teams around why did the ACC try and get CCG deregulation passed......well because they are intelligent enough to know that swapping teams around annually (or bi-annually which would make more sense) is a scheduling and logistical nightmare

and the ACC knows they already have teams that are stupid enough to be scheduling each other in the OUT OF CONFERENCE because they feel they are not playing often enough

so adding two more teams and then trying to swap them all around in a POD or individually or anything else is just stupid and no TOP team is going to put up with that

if you only care about regularly playing 3 other teams in a conference and you are OK with playing the other 12 teams every 8 or 10 years or so then why in the hell would a TOP team be stupid enough to join a 16 team conference when they can be in a conference with fewer teams and play other teams they care about in the OOC much more frequently without being locked in with all the garbage

ND is not going to give up a deal where they play 5 AAC games and then they play 7 other games with teams they like to play regularly so they can be locked in with 3 other teams in a POD and then rotate around with mostly teams they do not give a crap about so every 8 or 10 years they can get to ones they do

this is why PODs always come from people that want to be in massive cobbled together conferences filled with teams that no one else gives a damn about and then they pretend they will round that out with teams that do not have to be bound to 12 other teams they don't give a damn about and the stupidity of PODs scheduling so they can play a couple of others they do care about every 8 or 10 years

PODs are a stupid idea and no top team is going to be a part of that nor are they going to be a part of having PODs in divisions and then trying to rotate that crap every 2 years (or every year or any other stupid rotation period).....it defeats the purpose of being in a conference unless your purpose of being in a conference is to just "have games and teams to play" and who gives a crap about who it is that you actually play

if any conference is stupid enough to try PODs and then group some up and call it a division and then swap them around have fun in your half filled stajiums as your fans stay home and watch it on TV

(05-21-2016 02:27 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  PODs = not workable under the CCG rules so they are a non starter

and anyone that thinks that PODs would get passed was not paying attention to the last round of CCG deregulation... there is ZERO chance that the Big 10 or the SEC are going to let PODs pass

(05-21-2016 03:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  you have a great difficulty reading

no where did I claim that PODs were banned...

(05-21-2016 03:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 02:27 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  PODs = not workable under the CCG rules so they are a non starter

and anyone that thinks that PODs would get passed was not paying attention to the last round of CCG deregulation... there is ZERO chance that the Big 10 or the SEC are going to let PODs pass

(05-21-2016 03:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  you have a great difficulty reading

no where did I claim that PODs were banned...

that is not stating they are banned

that is stating that you cannot have 4 PODs and then have a CCG if you are trying to pic the CCG participants as the two best teams from any of the 4 PODs

if you are going to just group two PODs together and call that a division then that is not PODs that is divisions where you swap teams around however you want to every year or every two years

which no top teams are going to put up with and which will be all the worse with Olympic sports tossed in...and if you are going to swap teams in divisions around every two years why would you limit yourself to grouping those teams up why would you not swap the teams around for what is the best to get a team in the playoffs

the ACC could have "PODS" right now they could have two PODs of 4 and two PODs of three and they could swap a team back and forth in them as well

and then pair them up every two years and call that a division for CCG purposes.....but that is only slightly more stupid than PODs with equal numbers of teams which is why the ACC does not do it