(03-12-2018 11:26 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 10:24 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  I like the conference makeup. Given time, new rivalries will develop and be as strong, if not stronger than those that were lost. I wish we didn't have a partial member, be it Notre Dame or any other school. It was a good solution and Notre Dame or neither would have done it. Notre Dame could have conceivably gone to the nBE and had 100% football independence. They chose the ACC because it benefited them to the point of giving up 5 football games. It benefited the ACC or they would have not agreed to it either.

Don't discount the importance in ND's decision of its need to find P5 opponents during the conference play portion of the football season and its need to obtain strong bowl affiliations. With the Big Ten moving to a nine game conference schedule, ND's traditional games with Michigan, MSU and Purdue were going to be forced into the first three weeks of the season, the only weeks when many other P5 opponents have availability in their schedule, thereby precluding series like the recent ones with Texas and Georgia. The ACC was willing to give ND opponents in the middle of the conference schedule for any week that ND requests an opponent. I'm sure that ND would have preferred to make it four games, but this basic arrangement was necessary to allow ND to maintain a P5 level schedule moving forward. Just ask BYU how difficult it is to do without such an arrangement.

Those Big Ten games were always (for years and years--way before 9 game Big Ten conference schedules ) in the first three weeks of the season, but your point about late November games and minor bowl bids is a valid one.

Those (and games in the Southeast for exposure/football recruiting) were major reasons why ND joined the ACC.

The truth is, it all started going to hell when South Carolina left. One more thing. GOT OFF MY LAWN!