(03-25-2014 06:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 09:17 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...I'm going to go way outside the box here, and suggest a solution to several problems all these parties have... Move NC State and Wake Forest to the SEC.

How is this good for the ACC? It gives the SEC a presence in NC, and does nothing to improve the ACC. It is a net gain by the SEC and a net loss to the ACC. It's a loss for NC State and Wake Forest too. We are going to pay you the same money, sever your relationship with your traditional rivals, put you in a conference where you can never compete for a title, and you will likely be a sacrificial lamb and everyone's Homecoming game. If ESPN proposed anything like this the ACC would have a reasonable case for tortuous interference.

OK, I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you, Shannon Panther, but your misspelling is FUNNY!

tor·tious ˈtôrSHəs adjective LAW - constituting a tort; wrongful. (tortious interference)
tor·tu·ous ˈtôrCHo͞oəs adjective - full of twists and turns. (a tortuous road)

Tortuous road in beautiful Morocco

(03-25-2014 07:21 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 06:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 09:17 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...I'm going to go way outside the box here, and suggest a solution to several problems all these parties have... Move NC State and Wake Forest to the SEC.

How is this good for the ACC? It gives the SEC a presence in NC, and does nothing to improve the ACC. It is a net gain by the SEC and a net loss to the ACC. It's a loss for NC State and Wake Forest too. We are going to pay you the same money, sever your relationship with your traditional rivals, put you in a conference where you can never compete for a title, and you will likely be a sacrificial lamb and everyone's Homecoming game. If ESPN proposed anything like this the ACC would have a reasonable case for tortuous interference.

OK, I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you, Shannon Panther, but your misspelling is FUNNY!

tor·tious ˈtôrSHəs adjective LAW - constituting a tort; wrongful. (tortious interference)
tor·tu·ous ˈtôrCHo͞oəs adjective - full of twists and turns. (a tortuous road)

Tortuous road in beautiful Morocco

While there is a risk that my explanation may be torturous to some, I'll give it a try.

The ACC sees several benefits. Granted, none of them are blockbusters, but I don't think there are many home runs left for awhile in realignment. First, this strengthens the ACC in football, even as it brings the SEC down ever so slightly to our level. Since Florida State joined the ACC and the BE started a football conference, five schools have had the poorest cumulative conference records. With this move, all but one of those will have left for other P5 conferences.

Second, this move creates four more winnable OOC games a year against the P5. It also eases some of the scheduling and governance issues that are the result of the NC centric nature of the original ACC. It enables all four NC schools to maintain their traditional rivalries with each other in both football and basketball. At the same time, with 2 fewer schools, it increases the relative frequency of marquee basketball matchups for the ACC. And it takes two schools out of the rotation for Notre Dame football games, benefitting those that remain.

Financially, it's close to a wash for everybody. If ESPN reduces the ACC payout by 2/14 of their contract and increases the SEC payout by 2/14 of theirs, the remaining 26 schools stay whole, while NC State and Wake each get $3 million a year more - the price ESPN pays to get a foothold in the NC market for the SEC. There may be a small boost in third tier revenues for regional broadcasts of the intrastate OOC games, but I don't understand the details of those media deals to say for certain.

As for State and Wake, besides the financial benefit it's harder to find reasons to want to do this. For Wake, they were going to be a doormat in football no matter which league they are in. At least they'll be paid better. In basketball, they are marginally more competitive in the SEC than the new and improved ACC. State is as well. And while State will surely struggle in football initially, a move to the SEC would likely strengthen their recruiting in time - primarily at the expense of UNC, which would be an added bonus. Overall, I believe State has been hurt more than they have been helped by being in the same conference as UNC.

(03-25-2014 06:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 09:17 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...I'm going to go way outside the box here, and suggest a solution to several problems all these parties have... Move NC State and Wake Forest to the SEC.

How is this good for the ACC? It gives the SEC a presence in NC, and does nothing to improve the ACC. It is a net gain by the SEC and a net loss to the ACC. It's a loss for NC State and Wake Forest too. We are going to pay you the same money, sever your relationship with your traditional rivals, put you in a conference where you can never compete for a title, and you will likely be a sacrificial lamb and everyone's Homecoming game. If ESPN proposed anything like this the ACC would have a reasonable case for tortuous interference.

OK, I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you, Shannon Panther, but your misspelling is FUNNY!

tor·tious ˈtôrSHəs adjective LAW - constituting a tort; wrongful. (tortious interference)
tor·tu·ous ˈtôrCHo͞oəs adjective - full of twists and turns. (a tortuous road)

I appreciate the humor. I actually spelled it correctly. Unfortunately, my autocorrect does not share my large vocabulary. Gotta love technology.

(03-25-2014 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  While there is a risk that my explanation may be torturous to some, I'll give it a try.

The ACC sees several benefits. Granted, none of them are blockbusters, but I don't think there are many home runs left for awhile in realignment. First, this strengthens the ACC in football, even as it brings the SEC down ever so slightly to our level. Since Florida State joined the ACC and the BE started a football conference, five schools have had the poorest cumulative conference records. With this move, all but one of those will have left for other P5 conferences.

I disagree. Your analysis does not account for the long run effects. There are kids who would choose NC State over UNC because they want to play in the SEC. We are seeing this occur with Texas A&M. That could diminish UNC and Duke over time.

Quote:Second, this move creates four more winnable OOC games a year against the P5.

Who is to say they will be ACC OOC games?

Quote:It also eases some of the scheduling and governance issues that are the result of the NC centric nature of the original ACC.

I think this is overblown. When schools had the option to escape this issue, only Maryland left and they got a $30 million bribe to go.

Quote:It enables all four NC schools to maintain their traditional rivalries with each other in both football and basketball. At the same time, with 2 fewer schools, it increases the relative frequency of marquee basketball matchups for the ACC. And it takes two schools out of the rotation for Notre Dame football games, benefitting those that remain.

No guarantee the schools will continue their annual rivalries. There was a time when I couldn't imagine a football schedule without Penn State and WVU on it. We last played Penn State in 2000 and the Backyard Brawl is on indefinite hiatus. Notre Dame would attempt to reduce the number of games to 4. They would argue that 4 games allows them to play everyone every 3 years as the 5 games for 14 did.

Quote:Financially, it's close to a wash for everybody. If ESPN reduces the ACC payout by 2/14 of their contract and increases the SEC payout by 2/14 of theirs, the remaining 26 schools stay whole, while NC State and Wake each get $3 million a year more - the price ESPN pays to get a foothold in the NC market. There may be a small boost in third tier revenues for regional broadcasts of the intrastate OOC games, but I don't understand the details of those media deals to say for certain.

Here is where our real differences lie. You make the mistaken assumption that TV revenue is the only revenue that is generated by a conference. There are NCAA BB Tourney credits, bowl games, and conference prestige that can be monetized. What you are suggesting would reduce the ACC to a vassal of the SEC. The B1G would smell blood in the water and try to diminish the ACC by cherry picking the best schools. The B1G is already in bed with Fox. For ESPN it is financial suicide. They would be diminishing one property for another and opening the diminished partner to further damage. They have an investment in the ACC, they are not going to diminish it. If the ACC starts a network there would be a tangible loss of negotiating power in those markets lost by the shift of teams.

Quote:
As for State and Wake, besides the financial benefit it's harder to find reasons to want to do this. For Wake, they were going to be a doormat in football no matter which league they are in. At least they'll be paid better. In basketball, they are marginally more competitive in the SEC than the new and improved ACC.

You do realize that Wake played in several ACC Championship games in the last decade, don't you? I would argue that while difficult, history suggests that it is not impossible in the ACC. In the ACC they are in a conference with a mix of public and private institutions. Meanwhile in the SEC there is one other private school and it is Vandy. A great season at Vandy is 6-6 and a bowl game.

Quote:
State is as well. And while State will surely struggle in football initially, a move to the SEC would likely strengthen their recruiting in time - primarily at the expense of UNC, which would be an added bonus. Overall, I believe State has been hurt more than they have been helped by being in the same conference as UNC.

It is good for NC State, but why is losing recruits good for UNC? All you have enumerated is why this is a good deal for the SEC. It is a bad deal for the ACC. It allows another competitor into ACC markets, and does not expand our footprint. The ACC would do better to bring in WVU and Cinci to lock the B12 out of our footprint.

(03-24-2014 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  ...I'm going to go way outside the box here, and suggest a solution to several problems all these parties have... Move NC State and Wake Forest to the SEC.

(03-24-2014 09:17 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  How is this good for the ACC? It gives the SEC a presence in NC, and does nothing to improve the ACC.

(03-25-2014 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  The ACC sees several benefits...

First, this strengthens the ACC in football, even as it brings the SEC down ever so slightly to our level. Since Florida State joined the ACC and the BE started a football conference, five schools have had the poorest cumulative conference records. With this move, all but one of those will have left for other P5 conferences.

I get this - jettison 2 of the worst football teams; in fact, I'm not sure why the SEC would agree to it!

(03-25-2014 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  Second, this move creates four more winnable OOC games a year against the P5. It also eases some of the scheduling and governance issues that are the result of the NC centric nature of the original ACC. It enables all four NC schools to maintain their traditional rivalries with each other in both football and basketball. At the same time, with 2 fewer schools, it increases the relative frequency of marquee basketball matchups for the ACC. And it takes two schools out of the rotation for Notre Dame football games, benefitting those that remain.

So far, so good...

(03-25-2014 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  Financially, it's close to a wash for everybody. If ESPN reduces the ACC payout by 2/14 of their contract and increases the SEC payout by 2/14 of theirs, the remaining 26 schools stay whole, while NC State and Wake each get $3 million a year more - the price ESPN pays to get a foothold in the NC market for the SEC. There may be a small boost in third tier revenues for regional broadcasts of the intrastate OOC games, but I don't understand the details of those media deals to say for certain.

2 words: No. Way. If the ACC ever agrees to let a team jump to the SEC, it should be with the understanding that the ESPN contract remains the same as it was for 14 teams. In other words, the teams which stay behind must get a pay raise (about $3M/yr)

(03-25-2014 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  As for State and Wake, besides the financial benefit it's harder to find reasons to want to do this. For Wake, they were going to be a doormat in football no matter which league they are in. At least they'll be paid better. In basketball, they are marginally more competitive in the SEC than the new and improved ACC. State is as well. And while State will surely struggle in football initially, a move to the SEC would likely strengthen their recruiting in time - primarily at the expense of UNC, which would be an added bonus. Overall, I believe State has been hurt more than they have been helped by being in the same conference as UNC.

This is probably all true, but I doubt Wake or State would buy it!

(03-25-2014 12:32 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:15 AM)ken d Wrote:  While there is a risk that my explanation may be torturous to some, I'll give it a try.

The ACC sees several benefits. Granted, none of them are blockbusters, but I don't think there are many home runs left for awhile in realignment. First, this strengthens the ACC in football, even as it brings the SEC down ever so slightly to our level. Since Florida State joined the ACC and the BE started a football conference, five schools have had the poorest cumulative conference records. With this move, all but one of those will have left for other P5 conferences.

I disagree. Your analysis does not account for the long run effects. There are kids who would choose NC State over UNC because they want to play in the SEC. We are seeing this occur with Texas A&M. That could diminish UNC and Duke over time.

I expressly accounted for this. I listed it as a reason NC State might consider doing this. But I don't see this as a conference plus or minus. It makes State slightly more competitive in the SEC and makes an already mediocre UNC a little weaker in the ACC. Its effect on either conference as a whole would be minimal.

Quote:Second, this move creates four more winnable OOC games a year against the P5.

Who is to say they will be ACC OOC games?

That was part of my original premise - that UNC and Duke would continue to schedule State and Wake in football and basketball. Without that, this doesn't happen. And as I said, even with it it is a real longshot.

Quote:It also eases some of the scheduling and governance issues that are the result of the NC centric nature of the original ACC.

I think this is overblown. When schools had the option to escape this issue, only Maryland left and they got a $30 million bribe to go.

Quote:It enables all four NC schools to maintain their traditional rivalries with each other in both football and basketball. At the same time, with 2 fewer schools, it increases the relative frequency of marquee basketball matchups for the ACC. And it takes two schools out of the rotation for Notre Dame football games, benefiting those that remain.

No guarantee the schools will continue their annual rivalries. [see above] There was a time when I couldn't imagine a football schedule without Penn State and WVU on it. We last played Penn State in 2000 and the Backyard Brawl is on indefinite hiatus. Notre Dame would attempt to reduce the number of games to 4. They would argue that 4 games allows them to play everyone every 3 years as the 5 games for 14 did.

Quote:Financially, it's close to a wash for everybody. If ESPN reduces the ACC payout by 2/14 of their contract and increases the SEC payout by 2/14 of theirs, the remaining 26 schools stay whole, while NC State and Wake each get $3 million a year more - the price ESPN pays to get a foothold in the NC market. There may be a small boost in third tier revenues for regional broadcasts of the intrastate OOC games, but I don't understand the details of those media deals to say for certain.

Here is where our real differences lie. You make the mistaken assumption that TV revenue is the only revenue that is generated by a conference. There are NCAA BB Tourney credits, bowl games, and conference prestige that can be monetized. What you are suggesting would reduce the ACC to a vassal of the SEC. The B1G would smell blood in the water and try to diminish the ACC by cherry picking the best schools. The B1G is already in bed with Fox. For ESPN it is financial suicide. They would be diminishing one property for another and opening the diminished partner to further damage. They have an investment in the ACC, they are not going to diminish it. If the ACC starts a network there would be a tangible loss of negotiating power in those markets lost by the shift of teams.

I made no such assumption. But I would argue that on balance these programs have contributed less to those revenue streams than they have removed in the form of payouts, and are likely to continue to do so in the future.

Quote:
As for State and Wake, besides the financial benefit it's harder to find reasons to want to do this. For Wake, they were going to be a doormat in football no matter which league they are in. At least they'll be paid better. In basketball, they are marginally more competitive in the SEC than the new and improved ACC.

You do realize that Wake played in several ACC Championship games in the last decade, don't you? I would argue that while difficult, history suggests that it is not impossible in the ACC. In the ACC they are in a conference with a mix of public and private institutions. Meanwhile in the SEC there is one other private school and it is Vandy. A great season at Vandy is 6-6 and a bowl game.

Quote:
State is as well. And while State will surely struggle in football initially, a move to the SEC would likely strengthen their recruiting in time - primarily at the expense of UNC, which would be an added bonus. Overall, I believe State has been hurt more than they have been helped by being in the same conference as UNC.

It is good for NC State, but why is losing recruits good for UNC? All you have enumerated is why this is a good deal for the SEC. It is a bad deal for the ACC. It allows another competitor into ACC markets, and does not expand our footprint. The ACC would do better to bring in WVU and Cinci to lock the B12 out of our footprint.

Who said it was good for UNC? For any deal to work, both sides have to feel like they benefited. See my comments above on this topic.

(03-21-2014 02:47 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ACC expansion??

The first obvious choice is Notre Dame, and I think they eventually come around...the old ND fogeys on this board disagree, but ND fans will soon enough relish new rivals in FSU, Miami, Clemson, etc., and then the ND administration will make the move. No one will miss Michigan and Purdue games....

The next good choice is probably West Virginia. As other posters have mentioned, I think West Virginia would probably jump just to be within a geographical grouping that makes sense. Had they not jumped to the Big XII, would they be ACC already? They add a bit of football muscle as well as instant rivalries with Pitt and Virginia Tech.

I like UConn and Cincinnati, but I think they have a hard time getting in unless other teams leave...if you start seeing the SEC and Big 10 poaching the ACC, UConn and Cincinnati will be in for sure.....

I would like to see the market feasibility on Tulane and Houston....assuming there was ever an ACC network. If conference networks take off (which I'm starting to question if they will or not....), then you'd be able to add two nice size markets with Tulane and Houston.

Lastly, Navy would fit nicely in a package with Notre Dame, if they were ever offered as a deal by the Irish.

Well, I am 56 years old, so I guess that I qualify as an "old fogey".

But, do you see many young ND whippersnappers on this board or any ACC team or conference board? Any? Few? How many?

Not many? Why is that?

That is because not many ND fans, young or old, like the idea of or have much interest in any conferences, including the ACC.

Hell, there were not that many ND fans on Big East boards, and ND was a partial member of that conference since 1995.

ND fans exist in their own little independent world. They don't really want to be bothered with conference stuff.

Some cared about missing Michigan, but that has since largely dissipated. Games with Texas, Oklahoma and Arizona State have taken that slot.

Nobody really cares about missing Purdue games.

They were just somebody to play. Only Southern Cal and Navy are "untouchables" on ND's schedules.

If ND were in the Big East and Michigan and Purdue were dropped, ND would have to find replacements. That doesn't mean that ND fans would rush to embrace a conference.

Michigan/ND was a big game, but that "rivalry" was only from 1978 because of Michigan's refusal to play ND for decades.

ND's main "rivals" right now are Southern Cal, Navy and Stanford (a relatively new one, but one that helps with California recruiting and is viewed as an "aspirational peer", to quote the long gone Father Edmund "Monk" Malloy).

Pitt is a long standing rival. BC has some history with ND. ND never had to join a conference to play those schools.

ND and Miami had a rivalry in the Eighties when both were independent. ND and FSU played a pretty big game in 1993 and several games since then.

Conference membership is not required for those games. They played Miami two years ago in Soldier Field as a home game for ND and an OOC road game for Miami.

This idea that ND will somehow "come around" is wishful thinking. Why would they? What great tangible benefit would full membership bring that ND does not already have, either by being independent and/or by playing five ACC games a year?

The ACC would be better off making any expansion plans that do not include the hope that ND will opt for full membership.

That way, there might be less bitterness among some ACC fans when ND does not "come around" as they anticipated (despite ND reaffirming independence in public statements and saying "This far but no further" about its ACC arrangement).

(03-25-2014 01:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:47 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ACC expansion??

The first obvious choice is Notre Dame, and I think they eventually come around...the old ND fogeys on this board disagree, but ND fans will soon enough relish new rivals in FSU, Miami, Clemson, etc., and then the ND administration will make the move. No one will miss Michigan and Purdue games....

The next good choice is probably West Virginia. As other posters have mentioned, I think West Virginia would probably jump just to be within a geographical grouping that makes sense. Had they not jumped to the Big XII, would they be ACC already? They add a bit of football muscle as well as instant rivalries with Pitt and Virginia Tech.

I like UConn and Cincinnati, but I think they have a hard time getting in unless other teams leave...if you start seeing the SEC and Big 10 poaching the ACC, UConn and Cincinnati will be in for sure.....

I would like to see the market feasibility on Tulane and Houston....assuming there was ever an ACC network. If conference networks take off (which I'm starting to question if they will or not....), then you'd be able to add two nice size markets with Tulane and Houston.

Lastly, Navy would fit nicely in a package with Notre Dame, if they were ever offered as a deal by the Irish.

Well, I am 56 years old, so I guess that I qualify as an "old fogey".

But, do you see many young ND whippersnappers on this board or any ACC team or conference board? Any? Few? How many?

Not many? Why is that?

That is because not many ND fans, young or old, like the idea of or have much interest in any conferences, including the ACC.

Hell, there were not that many ND fans on Big East boards, and ND was a partial member of that conference since 1995.

ND fans exist in their own little independent world. They don't really want to be bothered with conference stuff.

Some cared about missing Michigan, but that has since dissipated. Nobody really cares about missing Purdue games.

They were just somebody to play. Only Southern Cal and Navy are "untouchables" on ND's schedules.

If ND were in the Big East and Michigan and Purdue were dropped, ND would have to find replacements. That doesn't mean that ND fans would rush to embrace a conference.

Michigan/ND was a big game, but that "rivalry" was only from 1978 because of Michigan's refusal to play ND for decades.

ND's main "rivals" right now are Southern Cal, Stanford (another new one) and Navy. Pitt is a long standing rival. BC has some history with ND.

ND and Miami had a rivalry in the Eighties when both were independent. ND and FSU played a pretty big game in 1993 and several games since then.

Conference membership is not required for those games. They played Miami two years ago in Soldier Field as a home game for ND and an OOC road game for Miami.

This idea that ND will somehow "come around" is wishful thinking. Why would they? What great tangible benefit would full membership bring that ND does not already have, either by being independent or by playing five ACC games a year?

The ACC would be better off making any expansion plans that do not include the hope that ND will opt for full membership.

Terry, I think that there is a very human reason so many ACC fans still hold out hope that ND will "come around". We have a self esteem problem. For most of the ACC's existence, it has been poor in football. Then, for a while, it got to be "not too bad". Now, we are close to being "good" - we are better than the G5 and we are gaining on the rest of the P5.

Like all humans, we want to be loved, and to feel wanted. We don't like being rejected. And when we are rejected, we need to feel that "it isn't us - it's them" that is the problem. We are worthy of being wanted, so surely ND will see that one day.

We don't like hearing "she's just not that into you". Denial is a powerful force.

(03-25-2014 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 01:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:47 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ACC expansion??

The first obvious choice is Notre Dame, and I think they eventually come around...the old ND fogeys on this board disagree, but ND fans will soon enough relish new rivals in FSU, Miami, Clemson, etc., and then the ND administration will make the move. No one will miss Michigan and Purdue games....

The next good choice is probably West Virginia. As other posters have mentioned, I think West Virginia would probably jump just to be within a geographical grouping that makes sense. Had they not jumped to the Big XII, would they be ACC already? They add a bit of football muscle as well as instant rivalries with Pitt and Virginia Tech.

I like UConn and Cincinnati, but I think they have a hard time getting in unless other teams leave...if you start seeing the SEC and Big 10 poaching the ACC, UConn and Cincinnati will be in for sure.....

I would like to see the market feasibility on Tulane and Houston....assuming there was ever an ACC network. If conference networks take off (which I'm starting to question if they will or not....), then you'd be able to add two nice size markets with Tulane and Houston.

Lastly, Navy would fit nicely in a package with Notre Dame, if they were ever offered as a deal by the Irish.

Well, I am 56 years old, so I guess that I qualify as an "old fogey".

But, do you see many young ND whippersnappers on this board or any ACC team or conference board? Any? Few? How many?

Not many? Why is that?

That is because not many ND fans, young or old, like the idea of or have much interest in any conferences, including the ACC.

Hell, there were not that many ND fans on Big East boards, and ND was a partial member of that conference since 1995.

ND fans exist in their own little independent world. They don't really want to be bothered with conference stuff.

Some cared about missing Michigan, but that has since dissipated. Nobody really cares about missing Purdue games.

They were just somebody to play. Only Southern Cal and Navy are "untouchables" on ND's schedules.

If ND were in the Big East and Michigan and Purdue were dropped, ND would have to find replacements. That doesn't mean that ND fans would rush to embrace a conference.

Michigan/ND was a big game, but that "rivalry" was only from 1978 because of Michigan's refusal to play ND for decades.

ND's main "rivals" right now are Southern Cal, Stanford (another new one) and Navy. Pitt is a long standing rival. BC has some history with ND.

ND and Miami had a rivalry in the Eighties when both were independent. ND and FSU played a pretty big game in 1993 and several games since then.

Conference membership is not required for those games. They played Miami two years ago in Soldier Field as a home game for ND and an OOC road game for Miami.

This idea that ND will somehow "come around" is wishful thinking. Why would they? What great tangible benefit would full membership bring that ND does not already have, either by being independent or by playing five ACC games a year?

The ACC would be better off making any expansion plans that do not include the hope that ND will opt for full membership.

Terry, I think that there is a very human reason so many ACC fans still hold out hope that ND will "come around". We have a self esteem problem. For most of the ACC's existence, it has been poor in football. Then, for a while, it got to be "not too bad". Now, we are close to being "good" - we are better than the G5 and we are gaining on the rest of the P5.

Like all humans, we want to be loved, and to feel wanted. We don't like being rejected. And when we are rejected, we need to feel that "it isn't us - it's them" that is the problem. We are worthy of being wanted, so surely ND will see that one day.

We don't like hearing "she's just not that into you". Denial is a powerful force.

I guess that I can understand that. But it is not a rejection of the ACC.

It is a rejection of playing football in any conference. Hell, ND would have made a mint in the Big Ten and repeatedly said "Heck, no".

ND will not join the Big 12, SEC or Pac 12 in football, either.

It is an ND thing. It has nothing to do with the ACC. In fact, if ND really wanted to or had to join any conference in full, it would be the ACC. ND even signed a contract through 2027 to that effect.

But, they don't want to and they don't have to. So, they won't.

I can't understand why people can't wrap their head around the idea that ND thinks that football independence or freedom from football conference association is a central part of the school's identity, not just its sports profile.

ND thinks that hitching its football team (its marketing arm, really) to any conference will hurt its status, identity and self image as the national Catholic university in America.

It goes well beyond sports.

(03-25-2014 01:55 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 01:26 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-21-2014 02:47 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  ACC expansion??

The first obvious choice is Notre Dame, and I think they eventually come around...the old ND fogeys on this board disagree, but ND fans will soon enough relish new rivals in FSU, Miami, Clemson, etc., and then the ND administration will make the move. No one will miss Michigan and Purdue games....

The next good choice is probably West Virginia. As other posters have mentioned, I think West Virginia would probably jump just to be within a geographical grouping that makes sense. Had they not jumped to the Big XII, would they be ACC already? They add a bit of football muscle as well as instant rivalries with Pitt and Virginia Tech.

I like UConn and Cincinnati, but I think they have a hard time getting in unless other teams leave...if you start seeing the SEC and Big 10 poaching the ACC, UConn and Cincinnati will be in for sure.....

I would like to see the market feasibility on Tulane and Houston....assuming there was ever an ACC network. If conference networks take off (which I'm starting to question if they will or not....), then you'd be able to add two nice size markets with Tulane and Houston.

Lastly, Navy would fit nicely in a package with Notre Dame, if they were ever offered as a deal by the Irish.

Well, I am 56 years old, so I guess that I qualify as an "old fogey".

But, do you see many young ND whippersnappers on this board or any ACC team or conference board? Any? Few? How many?

Not many? Why is that?

That is because not many ND fans, young or old, like the idea of or have much interest in any conferences, including the ACC.

Hell, there were not that many ND fans on Big East boards, and ND was a partial member of that conference since 1995.

ND fans exist in their own little independent world. They don't really want to be bothered with conference stuff.

Some cared about missing Michigan, but that has since dissipated. Nobody really cares about missing Purdue games.

They were just somebody to play. Only Southern Cal and Navy are "untouchables" on ND's schedules.

If ND were in the Big East and Michigan and Purdue were dropped, ND would have to find replacements. That doesn't mean that ND fans would rush to embrace a conference.

Michigan/ND was a big game, but that "rivalry" was only from 1978 because of Michigan's refusal to play ND for decades.

ND's main "rivals" right now are Southern Cal, Stanford (another new one) and Navy. Pitt is a long standing rival. BC has some history with ND.

ND and Miami had a rivalry in the Eighties when both were independent. ND and FSU played a pretty big game in 1993 and several games since then.

Conference membership is not required for those games. They played Miami two years ago in Soldier Field as a home game for ND and an OOC road game for Miami.

This idea that ND will somehow "come around" is wishful thinking. Why would they? What great tangible benefit would full membership bring that ND does not already have, either by being independent or by playing five ACC games a year?

The ACC would be better off making any expansion plans that do not include the hope that ND will opt for full membership.

Terry, I think that there is a very human reason so many ACC fans still hold out hope that ND will "come around". We have a self esteem problem. For most of the ACC's existence, it has been poor in football. Then, for a while, it got to be "not too bad". Now, we are close to being "good" - we are better than the G5 and we are gaining on the rest of the P5.

Like all humans, we want to be loved, and to feel wanted. We don't like being rejected. And when we are rejected, we need to feel that "it isn't us - it's them" that is the problem. We are worthy of being wanted, so surely ND will see that one day.

We don't like hearing "she's just not that into you". Denial is a powerful force.

I guess that I can understand that. But it is not a rejection of the ACC.

It is a rejection of playing football in any conference. Hell, ND would have made a mint in the Big Ten and repeatedly said "Heck, no".

ND will not join the Big 12, SEC or Pac 12 in football, either.

It is an ND thing. It has nothing to do with the ACC. In fact, if ND really wanted to or had to join any conference in full, it would be the ACC. ND even signed a contract through 2027 to that effect.

But, they don't want to and they don't have to. So, they won't.

I can't understand why people can't wrap their head around the idea that ND thinks that football independence or freedom from football conference association is a central part of the school's identity, not just its sports profile.

ND thinks that hitching its football team (its marketing arm, really) to any conference will hurt its status, identity and self image as the national Catholic university in America.

It goes well beyond sports.

Perfectly said...
A lot of people are setting themselves up to be resentful and angry at ND because we didn't follow their plan of full membership.

Personally, I think there's a lot to be gained by playing Notre Dame 5 games/year OOC. If ND wins a game, at least the ACC had a stronger schedule; if the ACC team wins, it's usually a good win and, at any rate, it doesn't add an OOC loss to the league. Besides, it's a guarantee of 5 national TV games most every year. I'm fine with the status quo.

(03-25-2014 03:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Personally, I think there's a lot to be gained by playing Notre Dame 5 games/year OOC. If ND wins a game, at least the ACC had a stronger schedule; if the ACC team wins, it's usually a good win and, at any rate, it doesn't add an OOC loss to the league. Besides, it's a guarantee of 5 national TV games most every year. I'm fine with the status quo.

The status quo with ND will change if the ACC adds one or more traditional ND partners, and with the passage of time as ND fans become used to the ACC. The "traditional ND partner" is the issue as well as them being able to have at least 4 if not 5 OOC games a year.

This is not going to happen but if you woke up one morning and Texas, Navy, USC, and Stanford were in the ACC, then ND would be playing for the ACC title.

Notre Dame partners are well known and not secret at all - Navy, USC, Stanford, Texas, Purdue, Michigan State, and to a lesser degree OU and perhaps BYU.

Any ND "fan" who says otherwise is just giving a knee-jerk response.

However, you can't underestimate the mountain that the ACC has to climb to put two ND partners into the ACC instead of just one. So when a ND person says it will not happen, they are making a smart bet based on the mountain the ACC has to climb.

When did Texas become a uber partner for us? We're friendly but a lot of that friendship was because Deloss Dodd and Swarbrick are friends .. our relationship with their new AD isn't really good. When @ ASU when we had a pretty big issue with him.

What is the wonderful, tangible benefit that ND would gain by joining the ACC in full?

I really don 't see what it will give ND that it doesn't already have.

ND is not interested in football conference titles.

I don't think those schools you mention are joining the ACC.

Even so, ND already plays most of them.

P.S. I really don't think that ND cares all that much about Purdue.

(03-25-2014 03:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Personally, I think there's a lot to be gained by playing Notre Dame 5 games/year OOC. If ND wins a game, at least the ACC had a stronger schedule; if the ACC team wins, it's usually a good win and, at any rate, it doesn't add an OOC loss to the league. Besides, it's a guarantee of 5 national TV games most every year. I'm fine with the status quo.

This...it is a win...win for the ACC & Notre Dame.

(03-25-2014 10:24 PM)TerryD Wrote:  What is the wonderful, tangible benefit that ND would gain by joining the ACC in full?

None, right now, or even in the foreseeable future.

But there was a time not too long ago when giving up 62.5% of Notre Dame's football independence would have sounded ludicrous. So I'm not sure why anyone is so confident things will be one way or the other down the road.

I envy Notre Dame, I wish Pitt could go back to being independent. The Eastern schools basically had a scheduling alliance anyway and you have more flexibility on playing schools that aren't your rivals. Of course, there's a less than zero percent chance of football conferences ever going away

Who would we invite?

1. Notre Dame: unlikely. They complain too much.
2. Tulane: unlikely. Even though they are smart, they suck at football.
3. ???
4. Profit! jk, not really