https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ial-change

The issues with the 12-team format began well before January. During ACC Kickoff in July, coaches heard a presentation from Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick about the 12-team model that he, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby and Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson developed.

But multiple coaches said they were not given much in the way of detail or information about how it would affect the regular season, number of games played, academic schedules, the holidays or bowls outside the playoff.

"Jack tried to swindle us into going for it. That thing got squashed back at ACC media day," one source said.

Without much in the way of detail, coaches were asked to poll their players for their preferences. North Carolina coach Mack Brown and Clemson coach Dabo Swinney both said their players were against a 12-team playoff format because they worried about how many games they would have to play. Phillips cited both coach and player responses on the health and safety questions as one reason the league did not want to vote just yet on expansion.

In a recent interview with ESPN, Brown said, "The people that were selling the 12-team playoff didn't do us any favors, because they didn't explain to us what it meant, and I didn't do our players any favors because I asked them what they thought, and I really didn't have any parameters to tell them. So I don't think that vote was really valid, because I didn't give them information.

You can always trust ND......to protect its football independence.

Every single time.

Nobody else will.

Who can ND trust or expect to support its efforts to stay independent? No one. ND is on its own there.

So, why does ND act in its own self interest? Because it has to in order to protect independence.

Besides, the coaches aren't decision makers anywhere (except the ACC, apparently).

So some football coaches didn't get every possible angle or detail from Swarbrick at a talk at an "ACC Kickoff" ...in July.

Oh, the horror of it all. Tar and feather that man or string him up !!! The things people get all worked up about....

(I still think the playoffs end up at 12 teams when the dust settles.)

(02-11-2022 09:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You can always trust ND......to protect its football independence.

Every single time.

Nobody else will.

Who can ND trust or expect to support its efforts to stay independent? No one. ND is on its own there.

So, why does ND act in its own self interest? Because it has to in order to protect independence.

Besides, the coaches aren't decision makers anywhere (except the ACC, apparently).

So some football coaches didn't get every possible angle or detail from Swarbrick at a talk at an "ACC Kickoff" ...in July.

Oh, the horror of it all. Tar and feather that man or string him up !!! The things people get all worked up about....

(I still think the playoffs end up at 12 teams when the dust settles.)

Terry D, Swarbrick said all that was necessary. The selling point was singular, the trebling of cash, which I'm sure the ACC is allergic to, and not in need of, right?

You are not however without a potential ally. Should FOX take all Big 10 rights, or should CBS land their T1, ESPN will champion your independence because it puts them in the major Northern Midwestern cities w/o the B1G and nothing is more dependable than mutual self interest.

If you've been paying attention you'd know by now: the ACC is, apparently, allergic to cash.

(02-11-2022 09:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You can always trust ND......to protect its football independence.

Every single time.

Nobody else will.

Who can ND trust or expect to support its efforts to stay independent? No one. ND is on its own there.

So, why does ND act in its own self interest? Because it has to in order to protect independence.

Besides, the coaches aren't decision makers anywhere (except the ACC, apparently).

So some football coaches didn't get every possible angle or detail from Swarbrick at a talk at an "ACC Kickoff" ...in July.

Oh, the horror of it all. Tar and feather that man or string him up !!! The things people get all worked up about....

(I still think the playoffs end up at 12 teams when the dust settles.)

They didn't get anything but 12 teams. That's no details, not every possible detail. Depending on how the schools are selected there are ACC schools that may change OOC scheduling patterns.

Quote:Notre Dame....a partner you can trust?

Are you proposing that the ACC should ask Notre Dame to leave the conference?

If not, what are you proposing?

Lance was absolutely "sure" that ND football had a "secret deal" to join the ACC at some point.

The people who thought like Lance were certain that the ND administration had agreed to pull the wool over the eyes of "clueless" (mostly older) ND alumni and fans and secretly "ease them in" to the idea of full membership over a fairly short period of time.

It was all merely a matter of time.

(a totally ludicrous idea on its face but one that had circulated in ACC circles since 2003. Its been ten years since the ND/ACC deal and football is still not included)

He thought that ND football would save the ACC from the decisions of schools like North Carolina who self inflicted the current woes on the ACC.

Now that it is clear to them that ND football is not going to join the ACC in the foreseeable future (especially after ND fan reaction to 2020), he has turned on the Irish and disses them every chance he gets.

I have seen similar sentiments from Pitt, Virginia Tech and Syracuse fans, among others, and coaches like Pat Narduzzi. They all want ND to surrender football independence to help offset the money gap that they now face (and largely created with their own decisions).

They are angry at ND for not immediately doing so. There are lots of anti-ND posts from ACC fans. This is the root cause of it, not saving the ACC from its self inflicted problems, not joining in football but instead supporting a playoff proposal that would strengthen ND's football independence.

So, they post every negative ND thing that they find.

They forget that all ACC schools willingly agreed to contracts with ND for partial membership through 2036 and that the inclusion of ND into the ACC in 2012 went a long way towards conference stability, the GOR and the ACC Network (which everyone in the ACC wanted at the time).

They also all forget that ND announced loudly and clearly up front that football would never be included.

They now want to tear up all of the contracts the conference has signed with ND since 2012. Who should not "trust" whom ??

Lance now claims that he doesn't want ND football in the ACC, a total reversal of his prior claims. I suspect sour grapes.

(We even had a long standing bet over this, I think from 2012 or so. He took the position that ND football would join, I took the opposite side of that bet)


P.S. Without looking at the ACC bylaws and the various ND/ACC contracts, I am not sure about the legal/contractual effect of the ACC asking ND to leave the conference. However, I would be surprised to find out that ND's lawyers didn't protect the school in case of a unilateral breach of those contracts by the ACC.

P.P.S. Would the ACC be a stronger or weaker conference if ND left? Would ESPN be happy or unhappy with such a prospect ??

(02-12-2022 08:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Lance was absolutely "sure" that ND football had a "secret deal" to join the ACC at some point.

The people who thought like Lance were certain that the ND administration had agreed to pull the wool over the eyes of "clueless" (mostly older) ND alumni and fans and secretly "ease them in" to the idea of full membership over a fairly short period of time.

It was all merely a matter of time.

(a totally ludicrous idea on its face but one that had circulated in ACC circles since 2003. Its been ten years since the ND/ACC deal and football is still not included)

He thought that ND football would save the ACC from the decisions of schools like North Carolina who self inflicted the current woes on the ACC.

Now that it is clear to them that ND football is not going to join the ACC in the foreseeable future (especially after ND fan reaction to 2020), he has turned on the Irish and disses them every chance he gets.

I have seen similar sentiments from Pitt, Virginia Tech and Syracuse fans, among others, and coaches like Pat Narduzzi. They all want ND to surrender football independence to help offset the money gap that they now face (and largely created with their own decisions).

They are angry at ND for not immediately doing so. There are lots of anti-ND posts from ACC fans. This is the root cause of it, not saving the ACC from its self inflicted problems, not joining in football but instead supporting a playoff proposal that would strengthen ND's football independence.

So, they post every negative ND thing that they find.

They forget that all ACC schools willingly agreed to contracts with ND for partial membership through 2036 and that the inclusion of ND into the ACC in 2012 went a long way towards conference stability, the GOR and the ACC Network (which everyone in the ACC wanted at the time).

They also all forget that ND announced loudly and clearly up front that football would never be included.

They now want to tear up all of the contracts the conference has signed with ND since 2012. Who should not "trust" whom ??

Lance now claims that he doesn't want ND football in the ACC, a total reversal of his prior claims. I suspect sour grapes.

(We even had a long standing bet over this, I think from 2012 or so. He took the position that ND football would join, I took the opposite side of that bet)


P.S. Without looking at the ACC bylaws and the various ND/ACC contracts, I am not sure about the legal/contractual effect of the ACC asking ND to leave the conference. However, I would be surprised to find out that ND's lawyers didn't protect the school in case of a unilateral breach of those contracts by the ACC.

P.P.S. Would the ACC be a stronger or weaker conference if ND left? Would ESPN be happy or unhappy with such a prospect ??

I didn't write the article, it was ESPN's senior ACC writer, Andrea Adelson.
It appears as if most of the disappointment emits from ESPN.

Notre Dame to eventually join the ACC was and is a means to an end. It looked good on paper and made sense in a symbiotic kind of way.

It was on a cultural level that things just don't fit.
The old adage that "familiarity breeds contempt" may have some validity in this instance, also.

Sometimes it's smart to realize a mistake, before it's too late.

(02-14-2022 06:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2022 08:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Lance was absolutely "sure" that ND football had a "secret deal" to join the ACC at some point.

The people who thought like Lance were certain that the ND administration had agreed to pull the wool over the eyes of "clueless" (mostly older) ND alumni and fans and secretly "ease them in" to the idea of full membership over a fairly short period of time.

It was all merely a matter of time.

(a totally ludicrous idea on its face but one that had circulated in ACC circles since 2003. Its been ten years since the ND/ACC deal and football is still not included)

He thought that ND football would save the ACC from the decisions of schools like North Carolina who self inflicted the current woes on the ACC.

Now that it is clear to them that ND football is not going to join the ACC in the foreseeable future (especially after ND fan reaction to 2020), he has turned on the Irish and disses them every chance he gets.

I have seen similar sentiments from Pitt, Virginia Tech and Syracuse fans, among others, and coaches like Pat Narduzzi. They all want ND to surrender football independence to help offset the money gap that they now face (and largely created with their own decisions).

They are angry at ND for not immediately doing so. There are lots of anti-ND posts from ACC fans. This is the root cause of it, not saving the ACC from its self inflicted problems, not joining in football but instead supporting a playoff proposal that would strengthen ND's football independence.

So, they post every negative ND thing that they find.

They forget that all ACC schools willingly agreed to contracts with ND for partial membership through 2036 and that the inclusion of ND into the ACC in 2012 went a long way towards conference stability, the GOR and the ACC Network (which everyone in the ACC wanted at the time).

They also all forget that ND announced loudly and clearly up front that football would never be included.

They now want to tear up all of the contracts the conference has signed with ND since 2012. Who should not "trust" whom ??

Lance now claims that he doesn't want ND football in the ACC, a total reversal of his prior claims. I suspect sour grapes.

(We even had a long standing bet over this, I think from 2012 or so. He took the position that ND football would join, I took the opposite side of that bet)


P.S. Without looking at the ACC bylaws and the various ND/ACC contracts, I am not sure about the legal/contractual effect of the ACC asking ND to leave the conference. However, I would be surprised to find out that ND's lawyers didn't protect the school in case of a unilateral breach of those contracts by the ACC.

P.P.S. Would the ACC be a stronger or weaker conference if ND left? Would ESPN be happy or unhappy with such a prospect ??

I didn't write the article, it was ESPN's senior ACC writer, Andrea Adelson.
It appears as if most of the disappointment emits from ESPN.

Notre Dame to eventually join the ACC was and is a means to an end. It looked good on paper and made sense in a symbiotic kind of way.

It was on a cultural level that things just don't fit.
The old adage that "familiarity breeds contempt" may have some validity in this instance, also.

Sometimes it's smart to realize a mistake, before it's too late.

That familiarity and contempt well and truly works both ways, Lance.

Why should ND care if ESPN is "disappointed" ?? ND football has a contract with NBC, not ESPN.

Isn't the ACC itself pretty "disappointed" with ESPN anyways?

That "mistake" is set by contractual obligations on both sides through 2036 or until the ACC implodes, whichever comes first.

"a cultural level" is your code for:

"Damn, ND meant it all along when it always said that football will not join. For whatever reason, I just didn't believe what they constantly said. I am now mad at them for telling the truth the entire time."

It wasn't a means to a football end on ND's part, ever.

The current relationship was the end game from ND's vantage point.

The Irish always wanted the ACC only for the current setup and not for permanent football membership.

(02-14-2022 06:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2022 08:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Lance was absolutely "sure" that ND football had a "secret deal" to join the ACC at some point.

The people who thought like Lance were certain that the ND administration had agreed to pull the wool over the eyes of "clueless" (mostly older) ND alumni and fans and secretly "ease them in" to the idea of full membership over a fairly short period of time.

It was all merely a matter of time.

(a totally ludicrous idea on its face but one that had circulated in ACC circles since 2003. Its been ten years since the ND/ACC deal and football is still not included)

He thought that ND football would save the ACC from the decisions of schools like North Carolina who self inflicted the current woes on the ACC.

Now that it is clear to them that ND football is not going to join the ACC in the foreseeable future (especially after ND fan reaction to 2020), he has turned on the Irish and disses them every chance he gets.

I have seen similar sentiments from Pitt, Virginia Tech and Syracuse fans, among others, and coaches like Pat Narduzzi. They all want ND to surrender football independence to help offset the money gap that they now face (and largely created with their own decisions).

They are angry at ND for not immediately doing so. There are lots of anti-ND posts from ACC fans. This is the root cause of it, not saving the ACC from its self inflicted problems, not joining in football but instead supporting a playoff proposal that would strengthen ND's football independence.

So, they post every negative ND thing that they find.

They forget that all ACC schools willingly agreed to contracts with ND for partial membership through 2036 and that the inclusion of ND into the ACC in 2012 went a long way towards conference stability, the GOR and the ACC Network (which everyone in the ACC wanted at the time).

They also all forget that ND announced loudly and clearly up front that football would never be included.

They now want to tear up all of the contracts the conference has signed with ND since 2012. Who should not "trust" whom ??

Lance now claims that he doesn't want ND football in the ACC, a total reversal of his prior claims. I suspect sour grapes.

(We even had a long standing bet over this, I think from 2012 or so. He took the position that ND football would join, I took the opposite side of that bet)


P.S. Without looking at the ACC bylaws and the various ND/ACC contracts, I am not sure about the legal/contractual effect of the ACC asking ND to leave the conference. However, I would be surprised to find out that ND's lawyers didn't protect the school in case of a unilateral breach of those contracts by the ACC.

P.P.S. Would the ACC be a stronger or weaker conference if ND left? Would ESPN be happy or unhappy with such a prospect ??

I didn't write the article, it was ESPN's senior ACC writer, Andrea Adelson.
It appears as if most of the disappointment emits from ESPN.

Notre Dame to eventually join the ACC was and is a means to an end. It looked good on paper and made sense in a symbiotic kind of way.

It was on a cultural level that things just don't fit.
The old adage that "familiarity breeds contempt" may have some validity in this instance, also.

Sometimes it's smart to realize a mistake, before it's too late.

You didn't write the article, but you created a thread about it, highlighting a quote that suggested Jack Swarbrick had "swindled" the ACC. I didn't see any disclaimer from you that you didn't believe any of this article.

If Dabo Swinney and Mack Brown are complaining that they knew nothing more about this proposal than that it would involve 12 teams, then shame on them. The rest of the world were quickly apprised of the broad structure of this proposal. It may or may not be true that their players and coaches opposed the idea. But to suggest that somehow they were swindled is ludicrous on its face.

I get that you think adding Notre Dame to the ACC under the current terms was a mistake. But the ACC members and ESPN whose opinion actually counts don't agree with you. Get over it.

(02-14-2022 06:43 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:16 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2022 08:13 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Lance was absolutely "sure" that ND football had a "secret deal" to join the ACC at some point.

The people who thought like Lance were certain that the ND administration had agreed to pull the wool over the eyes of "clueless" (mostly older) ND alumni and fans and secretly "ease them in" to the idea of full membership over a fairly short period of time.

It was all merely a matter of time.

(a totally ludicrous idea on its face but one that had circulated in ACC circles since 2003. Its been ten years since the ND/ACC deal and football is still not included)

He thought that ND football would save the ACC from the decisions of schools like North Carolina who self inflicted the current woes on the ACC.

Now that it is clear to them that ND football is not going to join the ACC in the foreseeable future (especially after ND fan reaction to 2020), he has turned on the Irish and disses them every chance he gets.

I have seen similar sentiments from Pitt, Virginia Tech and Syracuse fans, among others, and coaches like Pat Narduzzi. They all want ND to surrender football independence to help offset the money gap that they now face (and largely created with their own decisions).

They are angry at ND for not immediately doing so. There are lots of anti-ND posts from ACC fans. This is the root cause of it, not saving the ACC from its self inflicted problems, not joining in football but instead supporting a playoff proposal that would strengthen ND's football independence.

So, they post every negative ND thing that they find.

They forget that all ACC schools willingly agreed to contracts with ND for partial membership through 2036 and that the inclusion of ND into the ACC in 2012 went a long way towards conference stability, the GOR and the ACC Network (which everyone in the ACC wanted at the time).

They also all forget that ND announced loudly and clearly up front that football would never be included.

They now want to tear up all of the contracts the conference has signed with ND since 2012. Who should not "trust" whom ??

Lance now claims that he doesn't want ND football in the ACC, a total reversal of his prior claims. I suspect sour grapes.

(We even had a long standing bet over this, I think from 2012 or so. He took the position that ND football would join, I took the opposite side of that bet)


P.S. Without looking at the ACC bylaws and the various ND/ACC contracts, I am not sure about the legal/contractual effect of the ACC asking ND to leave the conference. However, I would be surprised to find out that ND's lawyers didn't protect the school in case of a unilateral breach of those contracts by the ACC.

P.P.S. Would the ACC be a stronger or weaker conference if ND left? Would ESPN be happy or unhappy with such a prospect ??

I didn't write the article, it was ESPN's senior ACC writer, Andrea Adelson.
It appears as if most of the disappointment emits from ESPN.

Notre Dame to eventually join the ACC was and is a means to an end. It looked good on paper and made sense in a symbiotic kind of way.

It was on a cultural level that things just don't fit.
The old adage that "familiarity breeds contempt" may have some validity in this instance, also.

Sometimes it's smart to realize a mistake, before it's too late.

That familiarity and contempt well and truly works both ways, Lance.

Why should ND care if ESPN is "disappointed" ?? ND football has a contract with NBC, not ESPN.

Isn't the ACC itself pretty "disappointed" with ESPN anyways?

That "mistake" is set by contractual obligations on both sides through 2036 or until the ACC implodes, whichever comes first.

"a cultural level" is your code for:

"Damn, ND meant it all along when it always said that football will not join. For whatever reason, I just didn't believe what they constantly said. I am now mad at them for telling the truth the entire time."

It wasn't a means to a football end on ND's part, ever.

The current relationship was the end game from ND's vantage point.

The Irish always wanted the ACC only for the current setup and not for permanent football membership.

I agree, I think we increasingly see that ND valued the deal for what it is, while for the ACC it was a desperate means to a Fantasy Island ending - getting ND to join and preserve the failing ACC. De plane isn't coming, Texas is headed to the SEC, and they've got no more moves to make. All they can do now is wave the GoR in everyone's face, for however long that lasts. It is 5,250 days until 6/30/2036 but I don't think we're going to have to wait that long...

It never ceases to amaze me how many ACC fans take the "all or nothing" stance with Notre Dame. If we're honest, the current deal IS beneficial to the ACC. The problem is not primarily with Notre Dame, it's with the rest of the ACC. Football has not been as valuable as it needs to be, and lately, neither has men's basketball. That's not an Irish problem - it's an ACC problem. The ACC can't continue to negotiate with ESPN, Notre Dame, the Orange Bowl, and seemingly everyone else, from a position of weakness, then expect to get a good deal... at some point, you have to deliver a better product!

I can sympathize with the ACC on this. I think the ACC entered into the present arrangement with the idea that this was a transitionary step towards integrating ND into a full 8 game conference schedule when the tv deal was up for renewal in 2037. They went into the deal knowing there was a 4 team playoff that was supposedly placing an emphasis on including conference champions (the sham committee has clearly abandoned this criteria so they can stick 2 SEC teams in).

ND went and served as an architect of a plan that was going to derail the 4 team arrangement that the ACC liked.

ND only looks out for ND. Unless you’re USC or Navy they don’t care about you as a rival either (and they keep those games because USC offers SoCal recruiting and Navy’s usually an easy win and acquiesces to playing “home” games in NFL stadiums full of Fighting Irish fans.

(02-14-2022 12:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It never ceases to amaze me how many ACC fans take the "all or nothing" stance with Notre Dame. If we're honest, the current deal IS beneficial to the ACC. The problem is not primarily with Notre Dame, it's with the rest of the ACC. Football has not been as valuable as it needs to be, and lately, neither has men's basketball. That's not an Irish problem - it's an ACC problem. The ACC can't continue to negotiate with ESPN, Notre Dame, the Orange Bowl, and seemingly everyone else, from a position of weakness, then expect to get a good deal... at some point, you have to deliver a better product!

1. Notre Dame did not cause the Big East to collapse and won't be the cause of an ACC collapse. But Notre Dame does suffer from being the Flying Dutchman of College Football. They get sweetheart deals for sports other than football from conferences with inherent weaknesses which ND's other sports don't help and which ND football only enhances marginally. The result is it delays the demise of their host but doesn't prevent it. Therefore, they board less seaworthy vessels which then sink, and ND gets a bad rep about it.

2. What you say about the state of ACC sports product is true and NIL will only make it worse, but not because the ACC is incapable of solid NIL interest, but because athletes connect success with NIL likelihood and exposure and will seek higher profile programs because of it. So instead of leveling the competition for talent it actually tilts it more. This will make producing better product less and less likely.

3. It is this acceleration of gap which will propel us toward larger conferences and more consolidation as brands race for these groups like those on the deck of the Titanic raced for un-lowered lifeboats. The SEC and B1G 10 don't have do anything right at this moment, they only have to look strong. When they do something right it is magnified by the perceived threat everywhere else.

4. The ACC's issues are not those of the past 15 years. Their issue was the same as the Big 8's, and the SWC's. They were too late, and too comfortable, and too small as a market when the ramification of OU/UGa vs the NCAA were recognized. Football was freed of the NCAA to make money, and market size became a thing in an independent of the NCAA, conference centered world. Football no longer shared the stage with Hoops, they owned it. The SEC, PAC, and B1G prospered initially. The ACC made some moves, but not enough, and still wrongly focused on the sport which didn't make the most money.

5. There's a truck load of "what if" threads around here and most are a bit cheesy. Yet nobody to date has really zeroed in on an important what if question. "What if basketball had been freed of the NCAA at the same time Football was?"

If it had been the Big 10 would be the super conference the SEC is now. The ACC and Big East would have survived. The Big 12 and SEC would have likely merged as both spent more on hoops. And the PAC 12 would have remained balanced.

It should be noted that one pretentious crap for brains commissioner and smart TV which could measure actual viewers and how long they watched is what damaged the PAC 12 and smart TV also put the brakes on ACC value.

If the ACC and PAC want to change their fate, they should be spearheading the demise of the NCAA's hold on hoops value instead of defending it over some misguided notion of nostalgia.

Adelson's article wasn't about an ACC all or nothing stance re: Notre Dame.

I did not suggest that Swarbrick had tried to swindle the ACC, nor did I endorse that view, the article was simply re-printed with a phrase highlighted, something I found unusual and very disturbing.

I do find swindle and interesting and sinister description attributed to "a source". It wasn't that; Jack had "misled", or "tried to pull a fast one", or even "tried to pull the wool over our eyes", but swindle (to intentionally cheat or defraud).

That's a pretty serious accusation, and one that would not inspire trust in any future dealings.

(02-14-2022 01:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I can sympathize with the ACC on this. I think the ACC entered into the present arrangement with the idea that this was a transitionary step towards integrating ND into a full 8 game conference schedule when the tv deal was up for renewal in 2037. They went into the deal knowing there was a 4 team playoff that was supposedly placing an emphasis on including conference champions (the sham committee has clearly abandoned this criteria so they can stick 2 SEC teams in).

ND went and served as an architect of a plan that was going to derail the 4 team arrangement that the ACC liked.

ND only looks out for ND. Unless you’re USC or Navy they don’t care about you as a rival either (and they keep those games because USC offers SoCal recruiting and Navy’s usually an easy win and acquiesces to playing “home” games in NFL stadiums full of Fighting Irish fans.

Except that the ND/ACC relationship is between two sophisticated parties with lawyers, consultants, etc...

Everyone seems to forget that ND told the ACC loud and clear (and often) up front....before the contracts were signed.....that football was not going to join.

(It told the Big East the same exact thing in 1995)

ND never believed that there was a "transitionary step" and told the ACC this up front. ND signed the deals as negotiated and that is all it signed up for.

If the ACC didn't listen to that plain language and instead engaged in a fantasy or fairy tale of self delusion, against all disclosures, then that is on the ACC, not ND.

The relationship between ND and the ACC is transactional and is established through a series of contracts. It is simply a business deal.

ND has lived up to and honored every term of every contract. It is the ACC who signed the deals, then groused about them and now is angry that it signed them.

Too damn bad. Those contracts are binding and run for 15 more years. If the ACC wants to unilaterally breach those contracts and pay ND damages for doing so, I guess that is an option. I don't see how that will help the ACC, though.

ND is not an ACC member for football and in fact ND football is a third party with regards to the ACC.

It owes no duty to the ACC to lessen its chances to stay independent by supporting a playoff expansion that favors the ACC and limits ND.

ND only looks out for ND's independence. Certainly and appropriately. Nobody else supports ND in this, in fact, most everyone else is hostile to the idea.

So, ND has to look out for itself here. Who else can it look to for such support? No one.

Do you know the story about the U.S. Navy saving ND from closing down during World War II? Do you know that, in gratitude, ND told Navy it would play it every year forever unless/until Navy wanted out of that deal ?

ND has honored that deal since 1945 because Navy wants it to do so.

Do you know that it is Navy's sole choice to play its ND "home" games in NFL stadiums to increase its take at the gate?

Do you know how much of Navy's budget comes from the ND game, both in TV rights and in ticket sales?

So, yeah....ND doesn't care about anyone else. Right.

Do you know that ND began playing USC in 1926 because the Big Ten tried to boycott and kill ND's football program and ND had to barnstorm across the country to counter that attempt by the Big Ten to kill ND football?

Do you know that ND holds USC in high regard and considers the Trojans its greatest rival because it agreed to play ND back then?

Take your Big Ten glasses off.

(02-14-2022 01:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  Adelson's article wasn't about an ACC all or nothing stance re: Notre Dame.

I did not suggest that Swarbrick had tried to swindle the ACC, nor did I endorse that view, the article was simply re-printed with a phrase highlighted, something I found unusual and very disturbing.

I do find swindle and interesting and sinister description attributed to "a source". It wasn't that; Jack had "misled", or "tried to pull a fast one", or even "tried to pull the wool over our eyes", but swindle (to intentionally cheat or defraud).

That's a pretty serious accusation, and one that would not inspire trust in any future dealings.

That term is complete and total horse$hit, no matter who thought of it.

(02-14-2022 12:57 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  It never ceases to amaze me how many ACC fans take the "all or nothing" stance with Notre Dame. If we're honest, the current deal IS beneficial to the ACC. The problem is not primarily with Notre Dame, it's with the rest of the ACC. Football has not been as valuable as it needs to be, and lately, neither has men's basketball. That's not an Irish problem - it's an ACC problem.

Starting with the addition of Florida State, the ACC has tried to move from being a southern version of the original (and current) Big East into a football conference that could roll with the SEC. They have moved the needle quite a bit but may have hit the ceiling. There will never be 50,000-plus fans and mountains of football booster money at Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, etc. Essentially, the SEC has one Vanderbilt while the ACC has a bunch of them.

(02-14-2022 01:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. Notre Dame did not cause the Big East to collapse and won't be the cause of an ACC collapse. But Notre Dame does suffer from being the Flying Dutchman of College Football. They get sweetheart deals for sports other than football from conferences with inherent weaknesses which ND's other sports don't help and which ND football only enhances marginally. The result is it delays the demise of their host but doesn't prevent it. Therefore, they board less seaworthy vessels which then sink, and ND gets a bad rep about it.

2. What you say about the state of ACC sports product is true and NIL will only make it worse, but not because the ACC is incapable of solid NIL interest, but because athletes connect success with NIL likelihood and exposure and will seek higher profile programs because of it. So instead of leveling the competition for talent it actually tilts it more. This will make producing better product less and less likely.

3. It is this acceleration of gap which will propel us toward larger conferences and more consolidation as brands race for these groups like those on the deck of the Titanic raced for un-lowered lifeboats. The SEC and B1G 10 don't have do anything right at this moment, they only have to look strong. When they do something right is magnified by perceived threat everywhere else.

Really nailed it with those three points.

Notre Dame won't have too much of a problem hammering out a football schedule as long as the ACC as we know it remains intact.

But, again, what happens if say Clemson and/or FSU jump on an opportunity to join the SEC? And then UNC, UVA and Duke begin to look toward the B1G? And the expanded SEC and expanded B1G both play 9-game conference schedules, leaving no room for (or interest in) mid- and late-season games against an opponent with the stature of the Irish?

Does Notre Dame stay put and make the best of a scheduling alliance with a dwindling number of marquee football programs in a (likely) back-filled ACC? Would the school's administration and fan base be content with a schedule filled with games against the likes of Pitt and Boston College and Syracuse to go with annual matchups with USC, Navy and Stanford?

I ask because I don't know Notre Dame's "mindset" well enough to say.

And how might a "less glamorous" home schedule impact an upcoming TV renewal or deal, dollars-wise?

ND's seven-game home schedule next season consists of Marshall, Cal, Stanford, UNLV, Syracuse, Clemson and BC. Some years will, on paper, look better and some may not. Regardless, how much money will a media partner be willing to shell out strictly for rights to 7 home football games against a schedule like that?

Notre Dame might not belong to football conference, but I think Irish football may end up being affected by realignment just about as much as anyone when it's all said and done.

(02-14-2022 01:57 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Those contracts are binding and run for 15 more years. If the ACC wants to unilaterally breach those contracts and pay ND damages for doing so, I guess that is an option. I don't see how that will help the ACC, though.

Well-written post

Re: the paragraph above: Much more likely the ACC will be the "victim" of lawyering and finagling that ends long agreements in which the parties don't see eye to eye. The clock is ticking on that as we speak ...