(04-09-2021 02:45 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 10:56 AM)nole Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 10:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(04-08-2021 10:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I don't think there's much more the ACC commissioner can do. The reason we haven't gone to 9 conference games before is it wasn't worth the $3 million per school that would replace what football schools get from a marquee OOC game.

The way VT is scheduling now, I'd welcome another ACC game. Our OOC football scheduling has been atrocious under Whit Babcock.

Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.

Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy

Nole,

Im not trying to be a jerk here but I always get the sense that you hate the ACC, similar to a former Clemson poster here. If you dont like the ACC, why do you care if the ACC goes away? FSU is going to wind up in a P5 conference no matter what. So why do you keep lamenting about the revenue differential?

Solid question honestly.

I don't hate the ACC. I just don't think FSU fits in the ACC. I think FSU changed itself to try and fit and the end result is 4 straight years of budget cuts, a sub.500 football program for years on end, and a program that lost who forgot who it is.

Most importantly, I don't think FSU can remain nationally relevant in football in the ACC anymore. We are surrounded by competitors that have a $20 million a year head start in revenue and that is about to jump to $30-$40 million a year head start.

I don't know I agree with you in a few areas:

*There will be a P5 moving forward. I don't believe this. Dead weight will be cut. You MIGHT have a P2-3. Tops eventually. Some in the ACC might maybe they all die a slow death.

*FSU will find a home in a power conference? Maybe...as I noted above. I think the current strategy will be killing off a great number of "power conference" teams. Not certain at all FSU will find a home. Just as likely, or more so, that it's left out in the could.

Lastly, every year with revenue gaps this large is not insignificant. Take say 10 SEC schools in the southeast near FSU. If they are at $40 million a year revenue gap for say 10 years compared to FSU....that is $400 million.

Lamenting the revenue gap is acknowleding that reality....it has permanent impact....not temporary. It isn't just an annual blimp on the budget report....it will have permanent impact.

With regards to FSU finding a home in a power conference (assuming the ACC disbands or loses significant stature)...IMO, it would take a confluence of incredibly unlikely events for FSU to ever be relegated. FSU is far-and-away the most valuable property in the ACC. It’s an athletic brand that conferences and the media love because it creates value (synergies) wherever it competes. Of all ACC members, Notre Dame is the only other program that has sufficient brand value to guarantee its future stature in college athletics.

Theoretically (not suggesting that this scenario will happen), the SEC could somehow swap-out Missouri and Vanderbilt, in exchange for UT-Austin and Oklahoma. This mythical scenario would significantly increase the overall value of each SEC member. Yet FSU would still be able to further enhance the SEC’s value...because FSU has an excellent football tradition, ideal institutional fit and profile, as well as success in other sports.

There is now an opportunity for FSU and Clemson to exert even more influence over the entire ACC. It doesn’t help that, relative to other ACC schools, FSU football has been a soap opera for the past four years. Money could be the future problem for FSU, but the lack of money didn’t create FSU’s current mess. Would division-less scheduling be a good way to improve FSU’s attractiveness? Would making a division switch be a better alternative? How do we encourage ND to schedule more financially meaningful ACC games? FSU is actually in a relatively strong position to further build its brand value.

(04-09-2021 10:29 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Might I suggest bake sales and split the pot raffles. .

Good idea. Those would probably bring in more money than adding Cincinnati.

Florida State was blessed with a legendary coach for 30 years or something around there. I heard the other day they finished in the top 5 for like 15 years in a row or something crazy. Now their fans just need to face the fact they’re back to being a basketball school.

(04-10-2021 01:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  Florida State was blessed with a legendary coach for 30 years or something around there. I heard the other day they finished in the top 5 for like 15 years in a row or something crazy. Now their fans just need to face the fact they’re back to being a basketball school.

I remember Otto Petty cost us a NCAA Championship.

(04-10-2021 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 11:03 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think if you break ACC schools down based on football value to the conference you can get the following 5 tiers:

1 - Worth 3X to conference inventory Clemson, Florida State, ND

2 - Worth 1.5X to conference inventory Miami, UNC, VT, GT, Louisville

3 - Pays for themselves NC State, Syracuse, Pitt

4 - Slight drain perhaps .75X Virginia, Wake Forest, BC

5 - Huge drain zero value Duke

I think the fastest way for the ACC to get to $40-42 million per school is to have Duke, UVa, WF, and BC stop playing conference football. That would leave Syracuse, Pitt, VT, UNC, NC State, Clemson, Louisville, GT, FSU, and Miami and the conferences football programs. The other four could opt out of the image or employment payments that are down the road in football and perhaps partner with Army and Navy to account for 5 games. WF and NC State and Duke/UVa and UNC will still play - just not for conference standings. Finding who wants to drop back on football is the key thing I think.

Perhaps the ACC should institute minimum spending and attendance numbers for football. No full football member shall average less than 30,000 fans - else they have to drop to non-football status. Eventually raise that to 40,000.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...nimum.html

What Duke spends on Football is irrelevant. How many sit in the stands is irrelevant.

Within the cozy confines of the greater Research Triangle area there are only 2,000,000 people with an easy in and out drive time to a sporting event. NC State has about 420,000 football seats to sell and about 360,000 basketball tickets to sell. Carolina has 300,000 football tickets and 400,000 basketball tickets to sell. Duke sells about 165,000 basketball tickets and has 250,000 football tickets to sell. (Remember Duke and UNC tend to play just 6 home games a year). That nearly a million football tickets for sale and over 900,000 basketball tickets to sell.

The Carolina Hurricanes have 800,000 hockey tickets to sell in the same metro.

It doesn't matter how good Duke football is, it CAN NOT draw an average of 12-15K fans over an above it's undergraduate student base which is 6800 students.

At an NC State football game most fans arrive 2-3 hours early for a tailgate that many times is more important to them than the actual game (you will see this effect at the start of the 3rd quarter). Tailgating is not so much thing at UNC as are the pre-game buffet and cocktail hours - again many fans go to see their friends that sit in seats near them. At Duke only basketball matters to their ego and the reason they keep Cameron Indoor is because they know that actual demand for season tickets is probably no more than 12K versus the 7500 they actually sell.

Basketball on Tobacco Road was not built on Sunday night games and week night games with a 9:00 PM tip. For decades State rarely played a home football game in the daytime in the month of September due to the heat. When Duke Football was a national contender the actual season did not start until the last week of September. Duke did not start a season before the third week of September until 1966.

No amount of pressure is going return Duke to the football school it was from the 1930's until 1962.

Here is an example of what Jim Phillips is talking about...and it needs to change.

NCSU and FSU have their spring games on the ACCN today.

NCSU starts at 1pm but doesn't air on time thanks to Cuse vs UVa women's lacrosse. Instead of moving the lacrosse game to ACCNX, they instead move football there. To make matters worse, those that go to ACCNX can't find the game BECAUSE IT ISN'T LISTED. This is an idiotic decision on behalf of the ACCN.

Oh but it gets better. At 3pm, the ACCN announces it will move the spring game back to ACCNX in order to air UNC vs Notre Dame women's lacrosse.....that just so happened to be in a rain delay!

So they couldn't move the UVa/Cuse game to ACCNX....but they could move the football....TWICE.

So, again, until this conference starts putting football first, this is the type of crap will happen. No way in hell the SEC would have pulled that stunt today.

ACC programs want these spring games televised in part to help recruiting....and our brilliant network suits instead chose to air another sport.

Absolutely moronic

(04-10-2021 12:13 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 02:45 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 10:56 AM)nole Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 10:50 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Yeah I would take an extra $3M and one additional ACC game. Some schools will not like this idea, though.

Is it nice...sure. Does it solve the ACC's revenue issue? Not even close.

Headed toward a P2 and a p3 with some exceptions (Texas, Notre Dame, Oregon) who are independently wealthy

Nole,

Im not trying to be a jerk here but I always get the sense that you hate the ACC, similar to a former Clemson poster here. If you dont like the ACC, why do you care if the ACC goes away? FSU is going to wind up in a P5 conference no matter what. So why do you keep lamenting about the revenue differential?

Solid question honestly.

I don't hate the ACC. I just don't think FSU fits in the ACC. I think FSU changed itself to try and fit and the end result is 4 straight years of budget cuts, a sub.500 football program for years on end, and a program that lost who forgot who it is.

Most importantly, I don't think FSU can remain nationally relevant in football in the ACC anymore. We are surrounded by competitors that have a $20 million a year head start in revenue and that is about to jump to $30-$40 million a year head start.

I don't know I agree with you in a few areas:

*There will be a P5 moving forward. I don't believe this. Dead weight will be cut. You MIGHT have a P2-3. Tops eventually. Some in the ACC might maybe they all die a slow death.

*FSU will find a home in a power conference? Maybe...as I noted above. I think the current strategy will be killing off a great number of "power conference" teams. Not certain at all FSU will find a home. Just as likely, or more so, that it's left out in the could.

Lastly, every year with revenue gaps this large is not insignificant. Take say 10 SEC schools in the southeast near FSU. If they are at $40 million a year revenue gap for say 10 years compared to FSU....that is $400 million.

Lamenting the revenue gap is acknowleding that reality....it has permanent impact....not temporary. It isn't just an annual blimp on the budget report....it will have permanent impact.

With regards to FSU finding a home in a power conference (assuming the ACC disbands or loses significant stature)...IMO, it would take a confluence of incredibly unlikely events for FSU to ever be relegated. FSU is far-and-away the most valuable property in the ACC. It’s an athletic brand that conferences and the media love because it creates value (synergies) wherever it competes. Of all ACC members, Notre Dame is the only other program that has sufficient brand value to guarantee its future stature in college athletics.

Theoretically (not suggesting that this scenario will happen), the SEC could somehow swap-out Missouri and Vanderbilt, in exchange for UT-Austin and Oklahoma. This mythical scenario would significantly increase the overall value of each SEC member. Yet FSU would still be able to further enhance the SEC’s value...because FSU has an excellent football tradition, ideal institutional fit and profile, as well as success in other sports.

There is now an opportunity for FSU and Clemson to exert even more influence over the entire ACC. It doesn’t help that, relative to other ACC schools, FSU football has been a soap opera for the past four years. Money could be the future problem for FSU, but the lack of money didn’t create FSU’s current mess. Would division-less scheduling be a good way to improve FSU’s attractiveness? Would making a division switch be a better alternative? How do we encourage ND to schedule more financially meaningful ACC games? FSU is actually in a relatively strong position to further build its brand value.

If you mean additional games over the five per year, that is extremely unlikely.

Ironically, the 2020 season convinced many ND alumni/fans/boosters/administrators to become even more pro-independence.

(Not the result many ACC fans thought, but is the case)

If you mean neutral site games or away games in larger NFL stadiums, sure, ND loves those.

Otherwise, I am not sure how ND could schedule "more financially meaningful" ACC games

(04-10-2021 01:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 10:29 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Might I suggest bake sales and split the pot raffles. .

Good idea. Those would probably bring in more money than adding Cincinnati.

The bakes sales comment was pretty funny but this was a hilarious retort!

(04-10-2021 03:56 PM)YouPeople Wrote:  Here is an example of what Jim Phillips is talking about...and it needs to change.

NCSU and FSU have their spring games on the ACCN today.

NCSU starts at 1pm but doesn't air on time thanks to Cuse vs UVa women's lacrosse. Instead of moving the lacrosse game to ACCNX, they instead move football there. To make matters worse, those that go to ACCNX can't find the game BECAUSE IT ISN'T LISTED. This is an idiotic decision on behalf of the ACCN.

Oh but it gets better. At 3pm, the ACCN announces it will move the spring game back to ACCNX in order to air UNC vs Notre Dame women's lacrosse.....that just so happened to be in a rain delay!

So they couldn't move the UVa/Cuse game to ACCNX....but they could move the football....TWICE.

So, again, until this conference starts putting football first, this is the type of crap will happen. No way in hell the SEC would have pulled that stunt today.

ACC programs want these spring games televised in part to help recruiting....and our brilliant network suits instead chose to air another sport.

Absolutely moronic

Nailed it.

(04-10-2021 02:38 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(04-10-2021 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-09-2021 11:03 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I think if you break ACC schools down based on football value to the conference you can get the following 5 tiers:

1 - Worth 3X to conference inventory Clemson, Florida State, ND

2 - Worth 1.5X to conference inventory Miami, UNC, VT, GT, Louisville

3 - Pays for themselves NC State, Syracuse, Pitt

4 - Slight drain perhaps .75X Virginia, Wake Forest, BC

5 - Huge drain zero value Duke

I think the fastest way for the ACC to get to $40-42 million per school is to have Duke, UVa, WF, and BC stop playing conference football. That would leave Syracuse, Pitt, VT, UNC, NC State, Clemson, Louisville, GT, FSU, and Miami and the conferences football programs. The other four could opt out of the image or employment payments that are down the road in football and perhaps partner with Army and Navy to account for 5 games. WF and NC State and Duke/UVa and UNC will still play - just not for conference standings. Finding who wants to drop back on football is the key thing I think.

Perhaps the ACC should institute minimum spending and attendance numbers for football. No full football member shall average less than 30,000 fans - else they have to drop to non-football status. Eventually raise that to 40,000.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2020/...nimum.html

What Duke spends on Football is irrelevant. How many sit in the stands is irrelevant.

Within the cozy confines of the greater Research Triangle area there are only 2,000,000 people with an easy in and out drive time to a sporting event. NC State has about 420,000 football seats to sell and about 360,000 basketball tickets to sell. Carolina has 300,000 football tickets and 400,000 basketball tickets to sell. Duke sells about 165,000 basketball tickets and has 250,000 football tickets to sell. (Remember Duke and UNC tend to play just 6 home games a year). That nearly a million football tickets for sale and over 900,000 basketball tickets to sell.

The Carolina Hurricanes have 800,000 hockey tickets to sell in the same metro.

It doesn't matter how good Duke football is, it CAN NOT draw an average of 12-15K fans over an above it's undergraduate student base which is 6800 students.

At an NC State football game most fans arrive 2-3 hours early for a tailgate that many times is more important to them than the actual game (you will see this effect at the start of the 3rd quarter). Tailgating is not so much thing at UNC as are the pre-game buffet and cocktail hours - again many fans go to see their friends that sit in seats near them. At Duke only basketball matters to their ego and the reason they keep Cameron Indoor is because they know that actual demand for season tickets is probably no more than 12K versus the 7500 they actually sell.

Basketball on Tobacco Road was not built on Sunday night games and week night games with a 9:00 PM tip. For decades State rarely played a home football game in the daytime in the month of September due to the heat. When Duke Football was a national contender the actual season did not start until the last week of September. Duke did not start a season before the third week of September until 1966.

No amount of pressure is going return Duke to the football school it was from the 1930's until 1962.

That's fine. I really just want a defensible reason why two of the four teams in NC should be bumped down to non-football membership.

With regard to creating more financially meaningful ACC-ND games...

Last season was a media ratings bonanza for ESPN and NBC. Hopefully the one-time, first-time-ever, all-in Fighting Irish conference membership was the start of more calculated risk taking. The pandemic allowed all parties to fully experience the benefits and costs of an expanded conference membership...I don’t believe any party lost in the one-time arrangement.

Maybe the occasional neutral site scheduling is an option for creating better ratings and value...that could be a low risk scheduling approach. Maybe experiment with 4 games for 3 seasons and 8 games every fourth season...that is a medium risk scheduling approach. Paradoxically, ND could actually gain scheduling flexibility in certain years while the ACC could gain a more robust membership in other years. The point is that the media and fans love one-time events...therefore, create events that generate excitement.

(04-11-2021 10:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  With regard to creating more financially meaningful ACC-ND games...

Last season was a media ratings bonanza for ESPN and NBC. Hopefully the one-time, first-time-ever, all-in Fighting Irish conference membership was the start of more calculated risk taking. The pandemic allowed all parties to fully experience the benefits and costs of an expanded conference membership...I don’t believe any party lost in the one-time arrangement.

Maybe the occasional neutral site scheduling is an option for creating better ratings and value...that could be a low risk scheduling approach. Maybe experiment with 4 games for 3 seasons and 8 games every fourth season...that is a medium risk scheduling approach. Paradoxically, ND could actually gain scheduling flexibility in certain years while the ACC could gain a more robust membership in other years. The point is that the media and fans love one-time events...therefore, create events that generate excitement.

This is probably the kind of thinking that's needed. Good post!

(04-11-2021 10:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  With regard to creating more financially meaningful ACC-ND games...

Last season was a media ratings bonanza for ESPN and NBC. Hopefully the one-time, first-time-ever, all-in Fighting Irish conference membership was the start of more calculated risk taking. The pandemic allowed all parties to fully experience the benefits and costs of an expanded conference membership...I don’t believe any party lost in the one-time arrangement.

Maybe the occasional neutral site scheduling is an option for creating better ratings and value...that could be a low risk scheduling approach. Maybe experiment with 4 games for 3 seasons and 8 games every fourth season...that is a medium risk scheduling approach. Paradoxically, ND could actually gain scheduling flexibility in certain years while the ACC could gain a more robust membership in other years. The point is that the media and fans love one-time events...therefore, create events that generate excitement.

I think that trying to sell the idea to ND of 8 ACC games in any one (non-Covid) season would be a very tough sell.

Its not very likely to happen.

As for your bolded text (and as I wrote in another thread), the reaction many ND fans had to playing ten ACC games in 2020 was not the one that ACC fans expected.

It felt awfully constrictive and repetitive to ND fans who welcomed and felt liberated by a return to an independent football schedule.

In 2020, ND proved it could compete for a conference title and make the playoffs as a conference member.

It proved it could do that. Check that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

But, ND's "reward" for going undefeated in the ACC regular season and beating Clemson was.....having to play and beat Clemson a second time.

In 2018, ND went undefeated in the regular season and made the playoffs as an independent.

It also proved it could do that. It also checked that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

In retrospect, ACC membership in 2020 didn't really help ND's playoff chances all that much. Seems a wash, at best.

The argument that conference membership presented an "easier" path for ND to make the playoffs took a dent.

Ironically, 2020 has led many at ND to more strongly embrace football independence.

(04-11-2021 12:07 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 10:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  With regard to creating more financially meaningful ACC-ND games...

Last season was a media ratings bonanza for ESPN and NBC. Hopefully the one-time, first-time-ever, all-in Fighting Irish conference membership was the start of more calculated risk taking. The pandemic allowed all parties to fully experience the benefits and costs of an expanded conference membership...I don’t believe any party lost in the one-time arrangement.

Maybe the occasional neutral site scheduling is an option for creating better ratings and value...that could be a low risk scheduling approach. Maybe experiment with 4 games for 3 seasons and 8 games every fourth season...that is a medium risk scheduling approach. Paradoxically, ND could actually gain scheduling flexibility in certain years while the ACC could gain a more robust membership in other years. The point is that the media and fans love one-time events...therefore, create events that generate excitement.

I think that trying to sell the idea to ND of 8 ACC games in any one (non-Covid) season would be a very tough sell.

Its not very likely to happen.

As for your bolded text (and as I wrote in another thread), the reaction many ND fans had to playing ten ACC games in 2020 was not the one that ACC fans expected.

It felt awfully constrictive and repetitive to ND fans who welcomed and felt liberated by a return to an independent football schedule.

In 2020, ND proved it could compete for a conference title and make the playoffs as a conference member.

It proved it could do that. Check that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

But, ND's "reward" for going undefeated in the ACC regular season and beating Clemson was.....having to play and beat Clemson a second time.

In 2018, ND went undefeated in the regular season and made the playoffs as an independent.

It also proved it could do that. It also checked that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

In retrospect, ACC membership in 2020 didn't really help ND's playoff chances all that much. Seems a wash, at best.

The argument that conference membership presented an "easier" path for ND to make the playoffs took a dent.

Ironically, 2020 has led many at ND to more strongly embrace football independence.

Just brainstorming...it has to be a win-win for all parties.

You do bring-up one issue where the ACC and Notre Dame will likely be in conflict...CFP selection. IMO the ACC should partner with the BIG and PAC to demand even more importance given to conference champions.


BTW - the sentence “In retrospect, ACC membership in 2020 didn’t really help ND’s playoff chances all that much” is hilarious revisionist history. All P5 conferences limited or prevented OOC scheduling in 2020. It takes hubris to suggest that ND is above playing a meaningful regular season in order to make the playoffs. I guess you only remember the 52-0 win over USF as your legitimate 2020 regular season.

(04-11-2021 01:05 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 12:07 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 10:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  With regard to creating more financially meaningful ACC-ND games...

Last season was a media ratings bonanza for ESPN and NBC. Hopefully the one-time, first-time-ever, all-in Fighting Irish conference membership was the start of more calculated risk taking. The pandemic allowed all parties to fully experience the benefits and costs of an expanded conference membership...I don’t believe any party lost in the one-time arrangement.

Maybe the occasional neutral site scheduling is an option for creating better ratings and value...that could be a low risk scheduling approach. Maybe experiment with 4 games for 3 seasons and 8 games every fourth season...that is a medium risk scheduling approach. Paradoxically, ND could actually gain scheduling flexibility in certain years while the ACC could gain a more robust membership in other years. The point is that the media and fans love one-time events...therefore, create events that generate excitement.

I think that trying to sell the idea to ND of 8 ACC games in any one (non-Covid) season would be a very tough sell.

Its not very likely to happen.

As for your bolded text (and as I wrote in another thread), the reaction many ND fans had to playing ten ACC games in 2020 was not the one that ACC fans expected.

It felt awfully constrictive and repetitive to ND fans who welcomed and felt liberated by a return to an independent football schedule.

In 2020, ND proved it could compete for a conference title and make the playoffs as a conference member.

It proved it could do that. Check that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

But, ND's "reward" for going undefeated in the ACC regular season and beating Clemson was.....having to play and beat Clemson a second time.

In 2018, ND went undefeated in the regular season and made the playoffs as an independent.

It also proved it could do that. It also checked that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

In retrospect, ACC membership in 2020 didn't really help ND's playoff chances all that much. Seems a wash, at best.

The argument that conference membership presented an "easier" path for ND to make the playoffs took a dent.

Ironically, 2020 has led many at ND to more strongly embrace football independence.

Just brainstorming...it has to be a win-win for all parties.

You do bring-up one issue where the ACC and Notre Dame will likely be in conflict...CFP selection. IMO the ACC should partner with the BIG and PAC to demand even more importance given to conference champions.


BTW - the sentence “In retrospect, ACC membership in 2020 didn’t really help ND’s playoff chances all that much” is hilarious revisionist history. All P5 conferences limited or prevented OOC scheduling in 2020. It takes hubris to suggest that ND is above playing a meaningful regular season in order to make the playoffs. I guess you only remember the 52-0 win over USF as your legitimate 2020 regular season.

Your last paragraph made zero sense to me.

ND played a meaningful independent schedule in 2018.

ND played a meaningful conference schedule in 2020.

What I meant is that ND proved it could do it either way, as an independent and as a conference member, not to diss what the ACC did for ND last season.

(In other words, the old argument that ND HAD to join a conference to make the playoffs or that it presented an "easier" path than independence took a big hit in ND fans' minds).

It was the same, or as I said a "wash" as to whether conference membership or independence was the better playoff route.

(ND finished both regular seasons undefeated, ND made the playoffs both times)

No "hubris" here, at least regarding my last post.

P.S. My original point is that the old "conventional wisdom" was that once ND tasted the benefits of conference membership it would abandon independence. That, ironically, has also taken a big hit due to ND's conference membership in 2020, even though ND had great success as a conference member.

The early returns are that the exact opposite effect has occurred.

(04-11-2021 01:10 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 01:05 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 12:07 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 10:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  With regard to creating more financially meaningful ACC-ND games...

Last season was a media ratings bonanza for ESPN and NBC. Hopefully the one-time, first-time-ever, all-in Fighting Irish conference membership was the start of more calculated risk taking. The pandemic allowed all parties to fully experience the benefits and costs of an expanded conference membership...I don’t believe any party lost in the one-time arrangement.

Maybe the occasional neutral site scheduling is an option for creating better ratings and value...that could be a low risk scheduling approach. Maybe experiment with 4 games for 3 seasons and 8 games every fourth season...that is a medium risk scheduling approach. Paradoxically, ND could actually gain scheduling flexibility in certain years while the ACC could gain a more robust membership in other years. The point is that the media and fans love one-time events...therefore, create events that generate excitement.

I think that trying to sell the idea to ND of 8 ACC games in any one (non-Covid) season would be a very tough sell.

Its not very likely to happen.

As for your bolded text (and as I wrote in another thread), the reaction many ND fans had to playing ten ACC games in 2020 was not the one that ACC fans expected.

It felt awfully constrictive and repetitive to ND fans who welcomed and felt liberated by a return to an independent football schedule.

In 2020, ND proved it could compete for a conference title and make the playoffs as a conference member.

It proved it could do that. Check that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

But, ND's "reward" for going undefeated in the ACC regular season and beating Clemson was.....having to play and beat Clemson a second time.

In 2018, ND went undefeated in the regular season and made the playoffs as an independent.

It also proved it could do that. It also checked that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

In retrospect, ACC membership in 2020 didn't really help ND's playoff chances all that much. Seems a wash, at best.

The argument that conference membership presented an "easier" path for ND to make the playoffs took a dent.

Ironically, 2020 has led many at ND to more strongly embrace football independence.

Just brainstorming...it has to be a win-win for all parties.

You do bring-up one issue where the ACC and Notre Dame will likely be in conflict...CFP selection. IMO the ACC should partner with the BIG and PAC to demand even more importance given to conference champions.


BTW - the sentence “In retrospect, ACC membership in 2020 didn’t really help ND’s playoff chances all that much” is hilarious revisionist history. All P5 conferences limited or prevented OOC scheduling in 2020. It takes hubris to suggest that ND is above playing a meaningful regular season in order to make the playoffs. I guess you only remember the 52-0 win over USF as your legitimate 2020 regular season.

Your last paragraph made zero sense to me.

ND played a meaningful independent schedule in 2018.

ND played a meaningful conference schedule in 2020.

What I meant is that ND proved it could do it either way, as an independent and as a conference member, not to diss what the ACC did for ND last season.

(In other words, the old argument that ND HAD to join a conference to make the playoffs or that it presented an "easier" path than independence took a big hit in ND fans' minds).

It was the same, or as I said a "wash" as to whether conference membership or independence was the better playoff route.

(ND finished both regular seasons undefeated)

No "hubris" here, at least regarding my last post.

P.S. My original point is that the old "conventional wisdom" was that once ND tasted the benefits of conference membership it would abandon independence. That, ironically, has also taken a big hit due to ND's conference membership in 2020, even though ND had great success as a conference member.

The early returns are that the exact opposite effect has occurred.

I think the big thing that should have been learned was a one loss ND is more likely to get the go ahead from the ACC than it would from INDY.

(04-11-2021 01:45 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 01:10 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 01:05 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 12:07 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 10:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  With regard to creating more financially meaningful ACC-ND games...

Last season was a media ratings bonanza for ESPN and NBC. Hopefully the one-time, first-time-ever, all-in Fighting Irish conference membership was the start of more calculated risk taking. The pandemic allowed all parties to fully experience the benefits and costs of an expanded conference membership...I don’t believe any party lost in the one-time arrangement.

Maybe the occasional neutral site scheduling is an option for creating better ratings and value...that could be a low risk scheduling approach. Maybe experiment with 4 games for 3 seasons and 8 games every fourth season...that is a medium risk scheduling approach. Paradoxically, ND could actually gain scheduling flexibility in certain years while the ACC could gain a more robust membership in other years. The point is that the media and fans love one-time events...therefore, create events that generate excitement.

I think that trying to sell the idea to ND of 8 ACC games in any one (non-Covid) season would be a very tough sell.

Its not very likely to happen.

As for your bolded text (and as I wrote in another thread), the reaction many ND fans had to playing ten ACC games in 2020 was not the one that ACC fans expected.

It felt awfully constrictive and repetitive to ND fans who welcomed and felt liberated by a return to an independent football schedule.

In 2020, ND proved it could compete for a conference title and make the playoffs as a conference member.

It proved it could do that. Check that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

But, ND's "reward" for going undefeated in the ACC regular season and beating Clemson was.....having to play and beat Clemson a second time.

In 2018, ND went undefeated in the regular season and made the playoffs as an independent.

It also proved it could do that. It also checked that box. Nobody can use that argument against ND again. Done.

In retrospect, ACC membership in 2020 didn't really help ND's playoff chances all that much. Seems a wash, at best.

The argument that conference membership presented an "easier" path for ND to make the playoffs took a dent.

Ironically, 2020 has led many at ND to more strongly embrace football independence.

Just brainstorming...it has to be a win-win for all parties.

You do bring-up one issue where the ACC and Notre Dame will likely be in conflict...CFP selection. IMO the ACC should partner with the BIG and PAC to demand even more importance given to conference champions.


BTW - the sentence “In retrospect, ACC membership in 2020 didn’t really help ND’s playoff chances all that much” is hilarious revisionist history. All P5 conferences limited or prevented OOC scheduling in 2020. It takes hubris to suggest that ND is above playing a meaningful regular season in order to make the playoffs. I guess you only remember the 52-0 win over USF as your legitimate 2020 regular season.

Your last paragraph made zero sense to me.

ND played a meaningful independent schedule in 2018.

ND played a meaningful conference schedule in 2020.

What I meant is that ND proved it could do it either way, as an independent and as a conference member, not to diss what the ACC did for ND last season.

(In other words, the old argument that ND HAD to join a conference to make the playoffs or that it presented an "easier" path than independence took a big hit in ND fans' minds).

It was the same, or as I said a "wash" as to whether conference membership or independence was the better playoff route.

(ND finished both regular seasons undefeated)

No "hubris" here, at least regarding my last post.

P.S. My original point is that the old "conventional wisdom" was that once ND tasted the benefits of conference membership it would abandon independence. That, ironically, has also taken a big hit due to ND's conference membership in 2020, even though ND had great success as a conference member.

The early returns are that the exact opposite effect has occurred.

I think the big thing that should have been learned was a one loss ND is more likely to get the go ahead from the ACC than it would from INDY.

Don't forget, ND was undefeated in both regular seasons.

The only reason it had a loss at all in 2020 was that it had to play Clemson again even though it had the better record and had beat Clemson a month before that.

That loss only occurred precisely BECAUSE of conference membership and the conference rules concerning the championship game.

That is not nearly enough of an "incentive" for ND to pull the plug on football independence.

ND people really never expect to make the playoffs with one loss going forward.

They think that last year was the anomaly due to Covid, not the standard.

They take away the idea of why even play that extra game and risk that loss when you don't have to do so.

Terry, I get that most ND fans want to avoid playing a healthy Clemson team.

(04-11-2021 05:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Terry, I get that most ND fans want to avoid playing a healthy Clemson team.

Yep!

(04-11-2021 05:39 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-11-2021 05:22 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Terry, I get that most ND fans want to avoid playing a healthy Clemson team.

Yep!

ND just scheduled home/home series recently with Georgia, Texas A&M, Ohio State and Alabama, but is "afraid" of playing a heathy Clemson?

Yeah, right. Not a chance. Its just that football conference membership did not seem that appealing to ND. That was the point.

Look, the current status quo is a good one for both sides, but the uptake is that ND is not joining the ACC for football.

If insults or jibes makes that feel better, then by all means.