(11-22-2011 07:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 12:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If ND joins the ACC, I would prefer to see Rutgers over UCONN. I assume they would do pods, and they would give ND a special exemption to allow them to play 7 or 8 conference games while the rest of the conference would be locked into 9 (or 10?) conference games.

IMO, the pods would look like this:

Northeast
Notre Dame
Boston College
Syracuse
Rutgers

Mid Atlantic
Pitt
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech

Tobacco Road
North Carolina
NC State
Wake
Duke

Southeast
Fla State
Clemson
Georgia Tech
Miami

Once again we see the discussion on how much Pod Divisions make sense. With the ACC and ND in the camp of organizations that are pro pod divisions the clock ticks again towards that change in NCAA rulings.

Pod divisions will require a a four team playoff at the end of the season in order for the pods to mean anything. Coach K from Duke was correct in his assessment that Pods alone are a silly thing and perhaps Bball will just have to deal with it because I'm sorry Coach K but Basketball plays in the world that Football creates.

(11-22-2011 12:54 PM)solohawks Wrote:  If AQ status were eliminated so would Notre Dame's special AQ qualification. No way any conference shares its Fiesta/Sugar/Orange spot w/ Notre Dame unless Notre Dame is a full conference member. By not being in a conference Notre Dame could lose access to Fiesta/Sugar/Orange Bowls, who will take some form SEC 1, SEC 2, Big 12 1, Big 12 2, Pac 12 2, Big 10 2, and ACC 1. The Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange cannot afford to run the risk that Notre Dame will be 6-6 or worse and guarantee them an annual spot. Doesn't really have access to the Rose Bowl now so I did not include them as w/o AQ rules they will go back to Pac 12 Champ V Big 10 Champ.

There was a reason Notre Dame packaged their bowl eligibility w/ the Big East, because no big time bowl will affiliate w/ just 1 team. Its too risky. The reward is great but it is just not worth the risk when their the no risk options guarantee near similar/only slightly less rewarding results.

I hadn't even thought about this change in the BCS AQ system being the final straw that breaks the Irish back. Good thinking on that one. +1

(11-22-2011 12:56 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 12:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If ND joins the ACC, I would prefer to see Rutgers over UCONN. I assume they would do pods, and they would give ND a special exemption to allow them to play 7 or 8 conference games while the rest of the conference would be locked into 9 (or 10?) conference games.

No pods, they said no pods
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/krz...ea-for-acc
Pods =

Coach K is right except that when new rules come in for Pod divisions they will include a four team conference playoff where the winner of each Pod goes into the Playoff and for the Tobacco Road Pod of North Carolina teams that is Awesome for them. The state of North Carolina will ALWAYS have a team in the ACC playoff. If that were to happen Coach K would find his voice muted.

(11-22-2011 01:10 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 12:56 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 12:40 PM)miko33 Wrote:  If ND joins the ACC, I would prefer to see Rutgers over UCONN. I assume they would do pods, and they would give ND a special exemption to allow them to play 7 or 8 conference games while the rest of the conference would be locked into 9 (or 10?) conference games.

No pods, they said no pods
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/accnow/krz...ea-for-acc
Pods =

You don't have to use pods for BB. But for FB it makes a lot more sense than trying to work with 2 divisions of 8. The problem you will have with 16 schools in a conference is playing everyone in the conference in a reasonable amount of time. The idea of scheduling with rotating pods makes it easier to ensure everyone plays each other in a reasonable amount of time. There would not be return trips in a reasonable time frame, but it would beat trying to make it all work with only 2 divisions. The Duke BB coach set up a strawman in the article about "winning your pod". It wouldn't work that way because the pods would be designed to make "new" divisions every single season for FB. BB can do whatever in scheduling, I don't care.

Exactly.

I really am enjoying seeing another reason spring up for 16 team conferences with four team pod divisions. That makes it something the SEC, PAC and ACC would push for. We in the B1G would have to jump on the bandwagon in order to maintain.

My understanding of the pod scenario wasn't that you'd have 4 4 team divisions and a 4 team playoff, but two 8 team divisions that rotate which pods are in each division every few years so you don't play a cross divisional opponent at home once every 10+ years.

Years 1-2 A/B C/D, Years 3-4 A/C B/D, years 5/6 A/D, B/C and so on. At minimum, you'd have a home and home vs. the 12 teams not in your pod every 6 years + whatever cross divisional games get included.

(11-23-2011 10:07 AM)bronconick Wrote:  My understanding of the pod scenario wasn't that you'd have 4 4 team divisions and a 4 team playoff, but two 8 team divisions that rotate which pods are in each division every few years so you don't play a cross divisional opponent at home once every 10+ years.

Years 1-2 A/B C/D, Years 3-4 A/C B/D, years 5/6 A/D, B/C and so on. At minimum, you'd have a home and home vs. the 12 teams not in your pod every 6 years + whatever cross divisional games get included.

Yes, you are correct. That is what the talk was in order to make it happen for the PAC in order to make it feasible for some of their institutions to vote for the Texoma-4 to join.

It is my opinion that such is nothing but a transition step. It makes much more sense at that point to pressure the NCAA to allow a 16 team pod division conference to set up permanent 4 team divisions and allow them to add an extra week to the end of the season for such conferences to have their own four team playoff. Those extra games would be during a non season week so network demand to air them would be high and so would the price. It would be a win win scenario for every conference that could move to 16 teams.

It is just a matter of taking the next step towards permanent four team divisions. That is why I am happy to see the discussion now moving that way with the ACC too. The SEC is just as close. With three major conferences at that point it makes me hopeful that we will move in that direction.

So yes, you are right.

(11-23-2011 08:03 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 04:37 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 03:30 AM)wildthing202 Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 01:31 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  But why does every ACC expansion thread become an UConn thread? Why rehash the same arguments as 1-2 months ago? If the Huskies join the ACC so be it, if they don't so be it.

Probably because the UConn fans think that #16 in the ACC is theirs to lose since Penn St. is in the B1G for at least the next 2 decades thanks to the TV rights being signed over.

I hear ya but the pissing contest is getting old... fast.

That's what happens when you have a bipolar Pollyanna who gets his panties twisted into his private spot every time someone dares to mention that maybe Rutgers is a better get for the ACC than UCONN.

Yeah, he cares nothing about whether his school goes to the ACC, and he could care less if UCONN was originally going in with SU or not. However...it takes him two seconds to pull up an article outlining how backroom dealings screwed UCONN over and Pitt "stole their rightful place" in the ACC. In reality, he cares deeply about UCONN not making the cut for the ACC - so much so that he pounces on the first opinion piece he can find that supports his favorite narrative.

Truly sad. This guy needs to somehow find closure so that he can move on.

Actually Miko, all of the posts mentioning UConn in the first four pages of this thread are from non-UConn fans.

I started this thread, and never mentioned UConn in my posts. The thread's original point was that Notre Dame may in fact be talking to the ACC.

I know you've had your 3,000 post meltdown and don't like to deal with facts anymore, but please don't lump the rest of us (UConn fans) in with one poster.

I'm sure the other Pitt fans wouldn't appreciate being lumped in with you when you go on a bender and have one of your recent meltdowns...

BTW, I don't think your "bipolar Pollyanna" and "panties twisted into his private spot" comments meet the mods' instructions for you to tone it down, do you?

(11-23-2011 10:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 10:07 AM)bronconick Wrote:  My understanding of the pod scenario wasn't that you'd have 4 4 team divisions and a 4 team playoff, but two 8 team divisions that rotate which pods are in each division every few years so you don't play a cross divisional opponent at home once every 10+ years.

Years 1-2 A/B C/D, Years 3-4 A/C B/D, years 5/6 A/D, B/C and so on. At minimum, you'd have a home and home vs. the 12 teams not in your pod every 6 years + whatever cross divisional games get included.

Yes, you are correct. That is what the talk was in order to make it happen for the PAC in order to make it feasible for some of their institutions to vote for the Texoma-4 to join.

It is my opinion that such is nothing but a transition step. It makes much more sense at that point to pressure the NCAA to allow a 16 team pod division conference to set up permanent 4 team divisions and allow them to add an extra week to the end of the season for such conferences to have their own four team playoff. Those extra games would be during a non season week so network demand to air them would be high and so would the price. It would be a win win scenario for every conference that could move to 16 teams.

It is just a matter of taking the next step towards permanent four team divisions. That is why I am happy to see the discussion now moving that way with the ACC too. The SEC is just as close. With three major conferences at that point it makes me hopeful that we will move in that direction.

So yes, you are right.

If that were to be approved, it would drive another round of expansion. Expansion seems to be a dirty word in the news these days. Everyone has an article about the evils of expansion and how it is taking food off of the tables of children in Africa or some such horrors.

So I think a conference would have to get to 16, then ask. Not ask for permission then get there.

(11-23-2011 10:20 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 10:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 10:07 AM)bronconick Wrote:  My understanding of the pod scenario wasn't that you'd have 4 4 team divisions and a 4 team playoff, but two 8 team divisions that rotate which pods are in each division every few years so you don't play a cross divisional opponent at home once every 10+ years.

Years 1-2 A/B C/D, Years 3-4 A/C B/D, years 5/6 A/D, B/C and so on. At minimum, you'd have a home and home vs. the 12 teams not in your pod every 6 years + whatever cross divisional games get included.

Yes, you are correct. That is what the talk was in order to make it happen for the PAC in order to make it feasible for some of their institutions to vote for the Texoma-4 to join.

It is my opinion that such is nothing but a transition step. It makes much more sense at that point to pressure the NCAA to allow a 16 team pod division conference to set up permanent 4 team divisions and allow them to add an extra week to the end of the season for such conferences to have their own four team playoff. Those extra games would be during a non season week so network demand to air them would be high and so would the price. It would be a win win scenario for every conference that could move to 16 teams.

It is just a matter of taking the next step towards permanent four team divisions. That is why I am happy to see the discussion now moving that way with the ACC too. The SEC is just as close. With three major conferences at that point it makes me hopeful that we will move in that direction.

So yes, you are right.

If that were to be approved, it would drive another round of expansion. Expansion seems to be a dirty word in the news these days. Everyone has an article about the evils of expansion and how it is taking food off of the tables of children in Africa or some such horrors.

So I think a conference would have to get to 16, then ask. Not ask for permission then get there.

It is going to happen either way. Give the Pac and it's newly coveted championship game two to three years and the buzz around it will calm down to a normal level and then again there will be talk about bringing in the Texoma-4 to counter whatever moves will have been made by the ACC and SEC. We are now seeing talk of the ACC possibly picking up Notre Dame and a 16th. When that happens we will have that conference with 16 that could push for what I am speaking of.

If it happens then all of a sudden that coveted championship game is made even better with a playoff week before it. The Pac will quickly expand and so will the SEC and the B1G makes moves based upon money and there is big money in a playoff week. That is two big conference games before the championship. It is a win win for these premier conferences and they drive the NCAA ship.

(11-22-2011 06:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 06:26 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 06:23 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Why in the world is there so much friction between BC and UConn? With the sheer amount of people crammed into New England, there should be more than enough talent to sustain both programs. What am I missing?

Little man mentality. BC can't compete with UCONN. We have owned them in sports other than football. UCONN sued BC AD Flipper personally and he holds that grudge now and probably forever. Since he is part of the ACC expansion committee along with his buddy Shalalala from Miami, I am sure they used their influence to block UCONN. UCONN owns state of CT. BC can't even own its hometown Boston.

Last night's BC basketball vs. UMASS: 82 BC 46. ACC must love them beagles.

To be fair to BC, I don't think it's a "little man mentality". It's simply protecting their turf in the same way that Ohio State wouldn't let Cincinnati into the Big Ten, Florida wouldn't let FSU into the SEC, Villanova wouldn't let Temple into the Big East, etc. For Flipper, it might be personal. For BC overall, though, it's business.

This is why Northeastern college football is just never going to come back, and the Big East's efforts to leverage its market presence there were always doomed to fail. You just cannot get a critical mass of recruits to play that far north. Although it's still pretty good, even PA recruits are declining. The sport is popular where the players are, and they just aren't in the Northeast.

(11-23-2011 09:33 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 09:24 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  If ND agrees to join the ACC, they will be making the choice on who the 16th school will be, not the ACC. That choice could well be a certain school that happens to be located near a harbor and which boasts an awful lot of boats.

Navy?

San Diego State. :D

(11-23-2011 09:38 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Am I reading this correctly, Navy is now being tossed around by some folks on this board as a possibility for the ACC?

Yeah Notre Dame will be able to heavily influence who 16 is but that is influencing who 16 is from a list of possibilities. I wouldn't put Navy on a list of possibles that the ACC would admit.

I wouldn't even think Navy would pick up the phone if the ACC called. TBH

If the unfortunate (to me) event of joining a football conference occurs, I cannot think of any school that ND would care enough about (except maybe Navy for football only) to insist upon as the #16 ACC member.

Rutgers? UConn? I don't see ND caring one way or another.

Who else is even a possibility? I can't think of any.

(11-23-2011 11:20 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 09:33 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 09:24 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  If ND agrees to join the ACC, they will be making the choice on who the 16th school will be, not the ACC. That choice could well be a certain school that happens to be located near a harbor and which boasts an awful lot of boats.

Navy?

San Diego State. :D

Well played sir. Well played. Saw this an hour ago and I'm still laughing.

(11-23-2011 02:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  If the unfortunate (to me) event of joining a football conference occurs, I cannot think of any school that ND would care enough about (except maybe Navy for football only) to insist upon as the #16 ACC member.

Rutgers? UConn? I don't see ND caring one way or another.

Who else is even a possibility? I can't think of any.

The ACC doesn't take teams for only one sport. They don't take teams for all but one sport either. It's all in or don't come at all...

Oh, I know. I just can't think of any other school that would matter one bit to Notre Dame.

Notre Dame likes being INDY & playing in the Big East...as long as they can get their own TV deal. If that changes then watch out...NOTO Dame can start taking bids from conferences, maybe ESPN will throw a bone...Whoever gets them, it will surely rival the PAC 12 deal or surpass it.

I think the ACC is a perfect fit for Notre Dame. ND is seen as a northeast type school with large fanbases in NYC, Boston, etc. The ACC is adding Syracuse and has Boston College. They have a rivalry with Pitt, Miami and somewhat with GT. Also Notre Dame would likely be in a north division with a favorable path to an ACC title and the BCS. Also the association with top flight academics like UNC, Duke, Wake, UVA, BC, Maryland, GT, etc. An easier path for the Irish. Also the basketball factor...the ACC would hands down be the best conf. in hoops. The Big Ten would be tougher.

If the ACC lands Notre Dame...it should end up having the largest TV deal. Remember ND is also close to Chicago as well.
The ACC would also essentially be the Ivy League of BCS conferences.

(11-23-2011 04:28 PM)JKMPirate78 Wrote:  I think the ACC is a perfect fit for Notre Dame. ND is seen as a northeast type school with large fanbases in NYC, Boston, etc. The ACC is adding Syracuse and has Boston College. They have a rivalry with Pitt, Miami and somewhat with GT. Also Notre Dame would likely be in a north division with a favorable path to an ACC title and the BCS. Also the association with top flight academics like UNC, Duke, Wake, UVA, BC, Maryland, GT, etc. An easier path for the Irish. Also the basketball factor...the ACC would hands down be the best conf. in hoops. The Big Ten would be tougher.

If the ACC lands Notre Dame...it should end up having the largest TV deal. Remember ND is also close to Chicago as well.
The ACC would also essentially be the Ivy League of BCS conferences.

With Notre Dame and Syracuse for all sports you probably have sizable chunk of sports fans in NYC interested in the ACC. Notre Dame helps with a lot of East coast cities.

I will tell you this with certainty! The ACC will expand with two teams from the following group... Notre Dame, UConn, Rutgers, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF.

(11-23-2011 04:50 PM)army56mike Wrote:  I will tell you this with certainty! The ACC will expand with two teams from the following group... Notre Dame, UConn, Rutgers, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF.

I think you can reduce it to Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn (as backup if they can't get ND). USF, Louisville and Cincy have no chance whatsoever.

(11-23-2011 04:53 PM)JKMPirate78 Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 04:50 PM)army56mike Wrote:  I will tell you this with certainty! The ACC will expand with two teams from the following group... Notre Dame, UConn, Rutgers, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF.

I think you can reduce it to Notre Dame, Rutgers and UConn (as backup if they can't get ND). USF, Louisville and Cincy have no chance whatsoever.

Yep, but they'll still come from the group I presented.

i hadn't even thought of navy...putting notre dame in a division with pitt, miami, bc, georgia tech, and navy would definitely ease some of their scheduling concerns. If taking navy got Notre Dame on board, the ACC would have to consider it. Plus Navy playing UMD on an annual basis would be good for the conference as well