(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 09:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  But they won't remember Notre Dame's great years, because Lou Holtz retired before they were born.

That's the real issue for Notre Dame. When its national championship or bust, they can lose a few games and quickly go bust. When the generation that grew up on the NBC contract and Holtz fades, they'll realize independence is not a good long run plan.

I'm not sure about that. First, Notre Dame hasn't won a national title in 30 years, or even an NY6 bowl in 25 years. And yet the brand and program is as powerful as ever, so that doesn't seem to hinge on winning those titles.

Second, even if ND was in a conference, would the focus change? Would anyone at ND get excited about an ACC or B1G title? I don't think so, it would remain "national title or bust".

Not true at all. The brand is definitely diminished. Now they may still be the top brand, but they aren't what they were 30 years ago.

Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

You are over-rating ND of 30 years ago and underrating them today. Their brand appeal hasn't changed much during that time.

Ohio State, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma - all were close to ND as brands in 1988, and all are now as well.

30 years ago, ND was the biggest football brand, and they still are today. But it was never ND and the rest are dwarfs. The other elite blue bloods were close then, as they are now.

(04-23-2018 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure about that. First, Notre Dame hasn't won a national title in 30 years, or even an NY6 bowl in 25 years. And yet the brand and program is as powerful as ever, so that doesn't seem to hinge on winning those titles.

Second, even if ND was in a conference, would the focus change? Would anyone at ND get excited about an ACC or B1G title? I don't think so, it would remain "national title or bust".

Not true at all. The brand is definitely diminished. Now they may still be the top brand, but they aren't what they were 30 years ago.

Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

You are over-rating ND of 30 years ago and underrating them today. Their brand appeal hasn't changed much during that time.

Ohio State, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma - all were close to ND as brands in 1988, and all are now as well.

30 years ago, ND was the biggest football brand, and they still are today. But it was never ND and the rest are dwarfs. The other elite blue bloods were close then, as they are now.

Notre Dame under Rockne: Mythic appeal
Notre Dame under Leahy: Icon of football
Notre Dame under Parseghian: An elite among elites.
Notre Dame under Devine: A top program.
Notre Dame under Holtz: Still waking up the echoes.
Notre Dame under Kelly: Clinging to the memory.

Have they fallen much since Holtz? No.
Have they fallen much since Parsehian? You Betcha!
Have they fallen much since Leahy? Absolutely!
Have they fallen much since Rockne? Terminal Velocity!

Plot the trajectory between each of those coaches listed and you tell me what direction they have been headed since the 20's. The question about Notre Dame is not whether they are a valuable and recognized brand? They are. The question is how does the public revere them? They don't. And therein lies the difference. The Notre Dame of my grandfather was the darling of the nation. One of my grandfathers was Baptist and a school teacher in the South and he followed the Irish faithfully and on the Radio. Notre Dame of my father was probably a notch above Alabama of today in national appeal and the ability to garner a national t-shirt following and evoke strong emotions both positive and negative. Notre Dame today is a private religious school from Indiana that is still followed nationally but is simply a shadow of what it was 100 years ago, or even 60 years ago. There are more people today but they carry nowhere near the % of followers they've had in their storied past.

So they are an old and recognized brand, but they are no longer what pops into people's minds when they speak of current elite football programs.

(04-21-2018 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 02:47 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I don't buy it. I think that ND grads will continue to do well professionally and donate.

Yes, it's like circa 1978, when the media said the GOP would never win another election, because the future belonged to the huge swath of liberal-hippie baby boomers.

That was wishful thinking, because as people grow older, they grow wiser.

There might be some millennials at ND right now who are blase' about football, but nevertheless the student section still seems packed at the games, and 10 years from now they will already be nostalgic, and thanks to their ND degree, making good money, and they will donate like all the previous cohorts.

Yeah, look at all those educated urbanites who vote red.

Not to mention that 2 of the last 3 Republicans who won a presidential election lost the popular vote.

(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 09:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  But they won't remember Notre Dame's great years, because Lou Holtz retired before they were born.

That's the real issue for Notre Dame. When its national championship or bust, they can lose a few games and quickly go bust. When the generation that grew up on the NBC contract and Holtz fades, they'll realize independence is not a good long run plan.

I'm not sure about that. First, Notre Dame hasn't won a national title in 30 years, or even an NY6 bowl in 25 years. And yet the brand and program is as powerful as ever, so that doesn't seem to hinge on winning those titles.

Second, even if ND was in a conference, would the focus change? Would anyone at ND get excited about an ACC or B1G title? I don't think so, it would remain "national title or bust".

Not true at all. The brand is definitely diminished. Now they may still be the top brand, but they aren't what they were 30 years ago.

Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

You are saying that it takes the marketing appeal and TV value of entire conferences (Big 12, Pac 12, SEC, Big Ten) to equal or exceed the "clout" of tiny, private Notre Dame.

Not as much clout as thirty or forty years ago, but still not too bad.


ND has clout, or its football program would be in the Big Ten, it would not have the NBC stand alone TV contract, wouldn't have gotten the ACC to agree to partial membership, would not have gotten the Big Ten to allow its hockey program (only) to join, would not cause sellouts in most away games (ACC ones included), would not have gotten a full conference share of the ACC Network revenues, etc....

(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 09:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  But they won't remember Notre Dame's great years, because Lou Holtz retired before they were born.

That's the real issue for Notre Dame. When its national championship or bust, they can lose a few games and quickly go bust. When the generation that grew up on the NBC contract and Holtz fades, they'll realize independence is not a good long run plan.

I'm not sure about that. First, Notre Dame hasn't won a national title in 30 years, or even an NY6 bowl in 25 years. And yet the brand and program is as powerful as ever, so that doesn't seem to hinge on winning those titles.

Second, even if ND was in a conference, would the focus change? Would anyone at ND get excited about an ACC or B1G title? I don't think so, it would remain "national title or bust".

Not true at all. The brand is definitely diminished. Now they may still be the top brand, but they aren't what they were 30 years ago.

Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

(04-23-2018 07:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 06:23 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 08:39 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Bowl access and the perception of being in a non-affiliated league made the Big East unworkable.

That makes sense, but IMO it also highlights why Notre Dame might worry about its pay falling way behind the B1G: Pay is an indicator of prestige/status, and ND could worry about its prestige/status dropping even if in a material sense, the money it is getting via the NBC deal is more than adequate.

E.g., even if he is being paid many millions and is thus materially very well off, when a star pro athlete finds out he is getting paid significantly less than another star he regards as his peer/rival, that often is irksome, not just because of the tangible dollars involved, but because it seems to message that he isn't as highly valued as the other guy, hence isn't as good, etc. There's an ego dimension to it, and that works for schools too.

I just don't buy the notion that Notre Dame is above the fray and doesn't worry about such things, tends to its own knitting and doesn't care what the neighbors are getting, or think. IMO, everyone worries about stuff like that.

(04-22-2018 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 09:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 03:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, it's like circa 1978, when the media said the GOP would never win another election, because the future belonged to the huge swath of liberal-hippie baby boomers.

That was wishful thinking, because as people grow older, they grow wiser.

There might be some millennials at ND right now who are blase' about football, but nevertheless the student section still seems packed at the games, and 10 years from now they will already be nostalgic, and thanks to their ND degree, making good money, and they will donate like all the previous cohorts.

But they won't remember Notre Dame's great years, because Lou Holtz retired before they were born.

That's the real issue for Notre Dame. When its national championship or bust, they can lose a few games and quickly go bust. When the generation that grew up on the NBC contract and Holtz fades, they'll realize independence is not a good long run plan.

I'm not sure about that. First, Notre Dame hasn't won a national title in 30 years, or even an NY6 bowl in 25 years. And yet the brand and program is as powerful as ever, so that doesn't seem to hinge on winning those titles.

Second, even if ND was in a conference, would the focus change? Would anyone at ND get excited about an ACC or B1G title? I don't think so, it would remain "national title or bust".

As an ND fan, I value the two recent basketball Elite 8 finishes much, much more than the ACC Championship.

In hockey, I value the two straight Frozen Fours much more than ND winning the Big Ten regular season and conference championships in its first year in the league.

ND women's basketball failed to win the ACC title but won the national championship.

The focus wasn't and isn't on the lack of a conference title, obviously. Failure to win the conference title ended up meaning nothing.

ND baseball won six Big East championships in a row from 2000-06. I didn't really pay much attention to that and I am a big ND baseball fan. I do recall vividly ND's participation in the 2002 College World Series, though.

The school obviously puts up the banners but I think that the fans sort of shrug at conference titles.

To me, conference championships are kind of a necessary evil, merely a stepping stone required by the conferences to get to the post-season.

So, though I obviously cannot vouch or speak for all, I think that the focus would very likely remain the same for ND fans.

I don't think that ND fans are wired to think that much about conference titles. Just my opinion.

Players do. Its gives them something to play for.

In any event, ND is a conference member for everything but football.

Lol, ok Captain Obvious.

(04-23-2018 11:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  Not true at all. The brand is definitely diminished. Now they may still be the top brand, but they aren't what they were 30 years ago.

Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

You are over-rating ND of 30 years ago and underrating them today. Their brand appeal hasn't changed much during that time.

Ohio State, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma - all were close to ND as brands in 1988, and all are now as well.

30 years ago, ND was the biggest football brand, and they still are today. But it was never ND and the rest are dwarfs. The other elite blue bloods were close then, as they are now.

Notre Dame under Rockne: Mythic appeal
Notre Dame under Leahy: Icon of football
Notre Dame under Parseghian: An elite among elites.
Notre Dame under Devine: A top program.
Notre Dame under Holtz: Still waking up the echoes.
Notre Dame under Kelly: Clinging to the memory.

Have they fallen much since Holtz? No.
Have they fallen much since Parsehian? You Betcha!
Have they fallen much since Leahy? Absolutely!
Have they fallen much since Rockne? Terminal Velocity!

Plot the trajectory between each of those coaches listed and you tell me what direction they have been headed since the 20's. The question about Notre Dame is not whether they are a valuable and recognized brand? They are. The question is how does the public revere them? They don't. And therein lies the difference. The Notre Dame of my grandfather was the darling of the nation. One of my grandfathers was Baptist and a school teacher in the South and he followed the Irish faithfully and on the Radio. Notre Dame of my father was probably a notch above Alabama of today in national appeal and the ability to garner a national t-shirt following and evoke strong emotions both positive and negative. Notre Dame today is a private religious school from Indiana that is still followed nationally but is simply a shadow of what it was 100 years ago, or even 60 years ago. There are more people today but they carry nowhere near the % of followers they've had in their storied past.

So they are an old and recognized brand, but they are no longer what pops into people's minds when they speak of current elite football programs.

It only took a hundred years, too. I guess that ND will be fooked by 2118.

Notre Dame has three issues to contend with.

1. Younger Americans are less interested in watching team sports. Everyone is going to have to deal with that because it isn't a Notre Dame exclusive problem.
2. Fewer Americans believe in God and among those who do, they aren't attending church as often. That's a problem for all church affiliated schools to grapple with. The Catholic Church in the US is not immune and some surveys claims it is more severe for the Catholic Church. That will cut in to the potential fan base.
3. The video part of the business has changed dramatically. We no longer are in an era where there are 8-12 national telecasts per season and some regional telecasts where Notre Dame was a given to get the maximum number of national telecasts. Today if you are a fan of Southern Miss who has migrated to Houston, you can watch all 12 USM telecasts. It wasn't that terribly long ago the USM alum migrating to Houston might not see a single USM telecast in five years because Houston might not get the regional coverage of a USM game. That fan who might have watched several Notre Dame games either to be for Notre Dame or Notre Dame's opponent is now watching USM, if he is even watching college football. Notre Dame is a great brand but the bar Notre Dame has to clear to get the sort of national attention it once commanded is much higher.

(04-23-2018 01:53 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 11:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

You are over-rating ND of 30 years ago and underrating them today. Their brand appeal hasn't changed much during that time.

Ohio State, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma - all were close to ND as brands in 1988, and all are now as well.

30 years ago, ND was the biggest football brand, and they still are today. But it was never ND and the rest are dwarfs. The other elite blue bloods were close then, as they are now.

Notre Dame under Rockne: Mythic appeal
Notre Dame under Leahy: Icon of football
Notre Dame under Parseghian: An elite among elites.
Notre Dame under Devine: A top program.
Notre Dame under Holtz: Still waking up the echoes.
Notre Dame under Kelly: Clinging to the memory.

Have they fallen much since Holtz? No.
Have they fallen much since Parsehian? You Betcha!
Have they fallen much since Leahy? Absolutely!
Have they fallen much since Rockne? Terminal Velocity!

Plot the trajectory between each of those coaches listed and you tell me what direction they have been headed since the 20's. The question about Notre Dame is not whether they are a valuable and recognized brand? They are. The question is how does the public revere them? They don't. And therein lies the difference. The Notre Dame of my grandfather was the darling of the nation. One of my grandfathers was Baptist and a school teacher in the South and he followed the Irish faithfully and on the Radio. Notre Dame of my father was probably a notch above Alabama of today in national appeal and the ability to garner a national t-shirt following and evoke strong emotions both positive and negative. Notre Dame today is a private religious school from Indiana that is still followed nationally but is simply a shadow of what it was 100 years ago, or even 60 years ago. There are more people today but they carry nowhere near the % of followers they've had in their storied past.

So they are an old and recognized brand, but they are no longer what pops into people's minds when they speak of current elite football programs.

It only took a hundred years, too. I guess that ND will be fooked by 2118.

I don't know if N.D. will be by 2118, but I promise you that you and I will be!

Notre Dame will be fine without conference mega-bucks. As much as I dislike ND (and it's fans), Notre Dame is unlike any other university in the country, with it's following and devotion. Whatever University you throw out there, ND's following is broader and deeper nationwide. And Notre Dame alum support the Irish in ALL sports, not just football or basketball.

(04-23-2018 03:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Notre Dame has three issues to contend with.

1. Younger Americans are less interested in watching team sports. Everyone is going to have to deal with that because it isn't a Notre Dame exclusive problem.
2. Fewer Americans believe in God and among those who do, they aren't attending church as often. That's a problem for all church affiliated schools to grapple with. The Catholic Church in the US is not immune and some surveys claims it is more severe for the Catholic Church. That will cut in to the potential fan base.
3. The video part of the business has changed dramatically. We no longer are in an era where there are 8-12 national telecasts per season and some regional telecasts where Notre Dame was a given to get the maximum number of national telecasts. Today if you are a fan of Southern Miss who has migrated to Houston, you can watch all 12 USM telecasts. It wasn't that terribly long ago the USM alum migrating to Houston might not see a single USM telecast in five years because Houston might not get the regional coverage of a USM game. That fan who might have watched several Notre Dame games either to be for Notre Dame or Notre Dame's opponent is now watching USM, if he is even watching college football. Notre Dame is a great brand but the bar Notre Dame has to clear to get the sort of national attention it once commanded is much higher.

The decline of the distinct Irish identity is another factor. Notre Dame was the home team of NYC because of all the Irish and Catholics. Irish and Catholics were discriminated against and Notre Dame was one of them and revered because they won.

Irish are still Irish, but they aren't discriminated against so that lessens the unique appeal among the younger generations that Notre Dame once had among non-alumni.

(04-23-2018 01:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure about that. First, Notre Dame hasn't won a national title in 30 years, or even an NY6 bowl in 25 years. And yet the brand and program is as powerful as ever, so that doesn't seem to hinge on winning those titles.

Second, even if ND was in a conference, would the focus change? Would anyone at ND get excited about an ACC or B1G title? I don't think so, it would remain "national title or bust".

Not true at all. The brand is definitely diminished. Now they may still be the top brand, but they aren't what they were 30 years ago.

Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

(04-23-2018 07:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 06:23 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 08:39 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Bowl access and the perception of being in a non-affiliated league made the Big East unworkable.

That makes sense, but IMO it also highlights why Notre Dame might worry about its pay falling way behind the B1G: Pay is an indicator of prestige/status, and ND could worry about its prestige/status dropping even if in a material sense, the money it is getting via the NBC deal is more than adequate.

E.g., even if he is being paid many millions and is thus materially very well off, when a star pro athlete finds out he is getting paid significantly less than another star he regards as his peer/rival, that often is irksome, not just because of the tangible dollars involved, but because it seems to message that he isn't as highly valued as the other guy, hence isn't as good, etc. There's an ego dimension to it, and that works for schools too.

I just don't buy the notion that Notre Dame is above the fray and doesn't worry about such things, tends to its own knitting and doesn't care what the neighbors are getting, or think. IMO, everyone worries about stuff like that.

(04-22-2018 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 09:57 AM)bullet Wrote:  But they won't remember Notre Dame's great years, because Lou Holtz retired before they were born.

That's the real issue for Notre Dame. When its national championship or bust, they can lose a few games and quickly go bust. When the generation that grew up on the NBC contract and Holtz fades, they'll realize independence is not a good long run plan.

I'm not sure about that. First, Notre Dame hasn't won a national title in 30 years, or even an NY6 bowl in 25 years. And yet the brand and program is as powerful as ever, so that doesn't seem to hinge on winning those titles.

Second, even if ND was in a conference, would the focus change? Would anyone at ND get excited about an ACC or B1G title? I don't think so, it would remain "national title or bust".

As an ND fan, I value the two recent basketball Elite 8 finishes much, much more than the ACC Championship.

In hockey, I value the two straight Frozen Fours much more than ND winning the Big Ten regular season and conference championships in its first year in the league.

ND women's basketball failed to win the ACC title but won the national championship.

The focus wasn't and isn't on the lack of a conference title, obviously. Failure to win the conference title ended up meaning nothing.

ND baseball won six Big East championships in a row from 2000-06. I didn't really pay much attention to that and I am a big ND baseball fan. I do recall vividly ND's participation in the 2002 College World Series, though.

The school obviously puts up the banners but I think that the fans sort of shrug at conference titles.

To me, conference championships are kind of a necessary evil, merely a stepping stone required by the conferences to get to the post-season.

So, though I obviously cannot vouch or speak for all, I think that the focus would very likely remain the same for ND fans.

I don't think that ND fans are wired to think that much about conference titles. Just my opinion.

Players do. Its gives them something to play for.

In any event, ND is a conference member for everything but football.

Lol, ok Captain Obvious.

Well you are the one talking about women's basketball when the issue is football.

(04-23-2018 08:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 01:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  Not true at all. The brand is definitely diminished. Now they may still be the top brand, but they aren't what they were 30 years ago.

Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

(04-23-2018 07:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 06:23 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  That makes sense, but IMO it also highlights why Notre Dame might worry about its pay falling way behind the B1G: Pay is an indicator of prestige/status, and ND could worry about its prestige/status dropping even if in a material sense, the money it is getting via the NBC deal is more than adequate.

E.g., even if he is being paid many millions and is thus materially very well off, when a star pro athlete finds out he is getting paid significantly less than another star he regards as his peer/rival, that often is irksome, not just because of the tangible dollars involved, but because it seems to message that he isn't as highly valued as the other guy, hence isn't as good, etc. There's an ego dimension to it, and that works for schools too.

I just don't buy the notion that Notre Dame is above the fray and doesn't worry about such things, tends to its own knitting and doesn't care what the neighbors are getting, or think. IMO, everyone worries about stuff like that.

(04-22-2018 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm not sure about that. First, Notre Dame hasn't won a national title in 30 years, or even an NY6 bowl in 25 years. And yet the brand and program is as powerful as ever, so that doesn't seem to hinge on winning those titles.

Second, even if ND was in a conference, would the focus change? Would anyone at ND get excited about an ACC or B1G title? I don't think so, it would remain "national title or bust".

As an ND fan, I value the two recent basketball Elite 8 finishes much, much more than the ACC Championship.

In hockey, I value the two straight Frozen Fours much more than ND winning the Big Ten regular season and conference championships in its first year in the league.

ND women's basketball failed to win the ACC title but won the national championship.

The focus wasn't and isn't on the lack of a conference title, obviously. Failure to win the conference title ended up meaning nothing.

ND baseball won six Big East championships in a row from 2000-06. I didn't really pay much attention to that and I am a big ND baseball fan. I do recall vividly ND's participation in the 2002 College World Series, though.

The school obviously puts up the banners but I think that the fans sort of shrug at conference titles.

To me, conference championships are kind of a necessary evil, merely a stepping stone required by the conferences to get to the post-season.

So, though I obviously cannot vouch or speak for all, I think that the focus would very likely remain the same for ND fans.

I don't think that ND fans are wired to think that much about conference titles. Just my opinion.

Players do. Its gives them something to play for.

In any event, ND is a conference member for everything but football.

Lol, ok Captain Obvious.

Well you are the one talking about women's basketball when the issue is football.

Not that I owe you any explanation, but there was a post I responded to, asking if conference championships would change the focus of Irish fans.

I responded with concrete examples of actual conference championships by ND that did not mean too much to me as opposed to Frozen Fours and Elite 8's, that the focus of this ND fan (and I assumed others) had not changed because of conference championships.

(04-23-2018 03:41 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Notre Dame will be fine without conference mega-bucks. As much as I dislike ND (and it's fans), Notre Dame is unlike any other university in the country, with it's following and devotion. Whatever University you throw out there, ND's following is broader and deeper nationwide. And Notre Dame alum support the Irish in ALL sports, not just football or basketball.

+2

Not a fan of ND either but what a following. That will not change anytime soon.

(04-23-2018 11:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 09:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  Not true at all. The brand is definitely diminished. Now they may still be the top brand, but they aren't what they were 30 years ago.

Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

You are over-rating ND of 30 years ago and underrating them today. Their brand appeal hasn't changed much during that time.

Ohio State, USC, Alabama, Oklahoma - all were close to ND as brands in 1988, and all are now as well.

30 years ago, ND was the biggest football brand, and they still are today. But it was never ND and the rest are dwarfs. The other elite blue bloods were close then, as they are now.

Notre Dame under Rockne: Mythic appeal
Notre Dame under Leahy: Icon of football
Notre Dame under Parseghian: An elite among elites.
Notre Dame under Devine: A top program.
Notre Dame under Holtz: Still waking up the echoes.
Notre Dame under Kelly: Clinging to the memory.

Have they fallen much since Holtz? No.
Have they fallen much since Parsehian? You Betcha!
Have they fallen much since Leahy? Absolutely!
Have they fallen much since Rockne? Terminal Velocity!

Plot the trajectory between each of those coaches listed and you tell me what direction they have been headed since the 20's. The question about Notre Dame is not whether they are a valuable and recognized brand? They are. The question is how does the public revere them? They don't. And therein lies the difference. The Notre Dame of my grandfather was the darling of the nation. One of my grandfathers was Baptist and a school teacher in the South and he followed the Irish faithfully and on the Radio. Notre Dame of my father was probably a notch above Alabama of today in national appeal and the ability to garner a national t-shirt following and evoke strong emotions both positive and negative. Notre Dame today is a private religious school from Indiana that is still followed nationally but is simply a shadow of what it was 100 years ago, or even 60 years ago. There are more people today but they carry nowhere near the % of followers they've had in their storied past.

So they are an old and recognized brand, but they are no longer what pops into people's minds when they speak of current elite football programs.

You forgot Notre Dame under bob Davie hahahahaha

(04-23-2018 09:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 08:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 01:51 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 07:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-22-2018 03:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Wow ...

Notre Dame was heads above everyone else 30 years ago as far as brand. Nobody compared. As I recall the numbers, Notre Dame got a $35 million TV contract when the whole CFA was $100 million. When they left, ABC just took $35 million out of the CFA contract. Notre Dame was worth more than half of what the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, WAC and the Independents were combined (Big 10 and Pac 10 had a separate TV contract). Now, Alabama gets better TV ratings. Ohio St. is catching up. The SEC and Big 10 get more TV money per school. The Big 12 and Pac 12 get close on a per school basis.

(04-23-2018 07:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-23-2018 06:23 AM)TerryD Wrote:  As an ND fan, I value the two recent basketball Elite 8 finishes much, much more than the ACC Championship.

In hockey, I value the two straight Frozen Fours much more than ND winning the Big Ten regular season and conference championships in its first year in the league.

ND women's basketball failed to win the ACC title but won the national championship.

The focus wasn't and isn't on the lack of a conference title, obviously. Failure to win the conference title ended up meaning nothing.

ND baseball won six Big East championships in a row from 2000-06. I didn't really pay much attention to that and I am a big ND baseball fan. I do recall vividly ND's participation in the 2002 College World Series, though.

The school obviously puts up the banners but I think that the fans sort of shrug at conference titles.

To me, conference championships are kind of a necessary evil, merely a stepping stone required by the conferences to get to the post-season.

So, though I obviously cannot vouch or speak for all, I think that the focus would very likely remain the same for ND fans.

I don't think that ND fans are wired to think that much about conference titles. Just my opinion.

Players do. Its gives them something to play for.

In any event, ND is a conference member for everything but football.

Lol, ok Captain Obvious.

Well you are the one talking about women's basketball when the issue is football.

Not that I owe you any explanation, but there was a post I responded to, asking if conference championships would change the focus of Irish fans.

I responded with concrete examples of actual conference championships by ND that did not mean too much to me as opposed to Frozen Fours and Elite 8's, that the focus of this ND fan (and I assumed others) had not changed because of conference championships.

And in those sports conference championships mean less than in football because everybody goes to the playoffs, so its no surprise it doesn't mean much to you.

(04-25-2018 07:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  And in those sports conference championships mean less than in football because everybody goes to the playoffs, so its no surprise it doesn't mean much to you.

I agree with both of you. I agree with Terry D because Notre Dame's culture is that of an independent, which by definition puts no value on a conference title. So it makes perfect sense that he and other ND fans have little use for them.

On the other hand, IMO, an SEC or a B1G or a PAC football title is no joke, it's a genuine achievement well worth hanging a banner and printing t-shirts over. It's a big deal, because as you say, historically, it hasn't been 'just' a feeder to a playoff. For over 100 years, it was the biggest title a school could actually win on the field.