If the Big 12 falls apart we will not pick up UC unless ESPN wants to give the B1G the middle finger so to speak.

Your legal status with the ACC is irrelevant. As evidenced by you entry into the ACC, even ND recognizes deals in it's own interest.

(07-11-2018 05:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:10 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 12:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:19 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  I look at the SEC and you see rivalry games left and right during the regular season. Aside from FSU/Miami, Clemson/FSU and Clemson/UL, there isn't as much in the ACC. Getting WVU will bring back Pitt/WVU. Adding Cincy gives you UL/Cincy. Those were interesting games that commanded viewers. Obviously games against ND have generated classics and I have no doubt Texas would set up some classic games as well. But the ACC needs to add programs(s) that will peak interest each week.

So not during rivalry week? UNC-UVA, UNC-NCSU/Duke (depends), Duke-Wake, Wake-NCSU, SU-Pitt, Clemson-GT, Clemson-NCSU (I don’t care what one poster on the internet says-it’s a rivalry), Duke-GT.

As for Texas, they should be all-sports or nothing. They are not Notre Dame.

Come on man, let's be honest. From a football perspective none of those match ups will draw interest on a national level and regionally it isn't a slam dunk. Not in football. Is there potential? Sure. But only GaTech/Clemson would move the needle. Once upon a time maybe Pitt/Cuse but those days have passed. UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake and State would need to become 10 win programs on the regular for the next decade or two in order to draw national interest. Just being honest.

Do agree with the Texas statement... no more partial members.

Then you're saying it isn't the rivalries that are important, it's how good the teams are? I don't think a lot of the SEC rivalries move the needle nationally, especially ones involving Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Missouri (do they even have a rival). Even Florida and Tennessee, which I consider blue bloods, have been flailing away the last few years.

Dude, you listed a bunch of football match ups that barely moves the needle regionally, aside from maybe Clemson/GaTech. Not one of those match ups are on par with LSU/Bama, UF/UGa, UGa/Auburn, Tenn/Bama. Tenn/UF. Hell, USCe/UGa generate more national interest than any of the match ups you listed. These regular season games have morphed into rivalries. And, they bring national interest and they are typically highlighted as a game of the week. Let's be honest about this.

(07-11-2018 08:34 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 05:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:10 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 12:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 11:19 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  I look at the SEC and you see rivalry games left and right during the regular season. Aside from FSU/Miami, Clemson/FSU and Clemson/UL, there isn't as much in the ACC. Getting WVU will bring back Pitt/WVU. Adding Cincy gives you UL/Cincy. Those were interesting games that commanded viewers. Obviously games against ND have generated classics and I have no doubt Texas would set up some classic games as well. But the ACC needs to add programs(s) that will peak interest each week.

So not during rivalry week? UNC-UVA, UNC-NCSU/Duke (depends), Duke-Wake, Wake-NCSU, SU-Pitt, Clemson-GT, Clemson-NCSU (I don’t care what one poster on the internet says-it’s a rivalry), Duke-GT.

As for Texas, they should be all-sports or nothing. They are not Notre Dame.

Come on man, let's be honest. From a football perspective none of those match ups will draw interest on a national level and regionally it isn't a slam dunk. Not in football. Is there potential? Sure. But only GaTech/Clemson would move the needle. Once upon a time maybe Pitt/Cuse but those days have passed. UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake and State would need to become 10 win programs on the regular for the next decade or two in order to draw national interest. Just being honest.

Do agree with the Texas statement... no more partial members.

Then you're saying it isn't the rivalries that are important, it's how good the teams are? I don't think a lot of the SEC rivalries move the needle nationally, especially ones involving Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Missouri (do they even have a rival). Even Florida and Tennessee, which I consider blue bloods, have been flailing away the last few years.

Dude, you listed a bunch of football match ups that barely moves the needle regionally, aside from maybe Clemson/GaTech. Not one of those match ups are on par with LSU/Bama, UF/UGa, UGa/Auburn, Tenn/Bama. Tenn/UF. Hell, USCe/UGa generate more national interest than any of the match ups you listed. These regular season games have morphed into rivalries. And, they bring national interest and they are typically highlighted as a game of the week. Let's be honest about this.

Well, your post did't really make sense to me and that's what I addressed in my last post. It appeared you were talking about actual rivalry games, not made for TV match-ups.

When UNC was doing well under Davis that created a whole slew of TV games. I don't think Fedora is the guy to get the Heels back there. I like the future at Miami, and I think they'll be a national player again. Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Louisville will continue their trajectory, but I'm not sure about FSU.

Cincinnati and West Virginia are NOT going to move the needle, better football by our current membership is.

If they choose by TV markets again it will more than likely be Texas schools added if ND stays partial.

(07-11-2018 09:44 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  If they choose by TV markets again it will more than likely be Texas schools added if ND stays partial.

I don't doubt that Texas will be on the radar, but I don't see them giving up their network nor do I see the ACC adding another partial member. Rice, SMU, and Houston have been available for years and there has never been indication the ACC had any interest to get into Texas with any mid-level Texas program, so I doubt TCU will magically change that when their GOR is over.

Also, unlike TAMU, TCU likes being associated with Texas and Baylor so they really have no reason to join an east coast/northeast conference.

(07-11-2018 07:28 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your legal status with the ACC is irrelevant. As evidenced by you entry into the ACC, even ND recognizes deals in it's own interest.

Irrelevant? Lol. ND best interests are now enshrined in that legal status.

ND has consistently made moves since 1991 to preserve football independence (NBC deal, Big East deal, ACC deal).

Every one of these moves was made to maintain that indy position. If ND was primarily interested in the most TV money, like you think, it would already be in the Big Ten.

ND has always declared that it strongly believes that football independence is in its own best interests.

Your arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to that position.

(07-12-2018 06:23 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 09:44 PM)7thHeaven Wrote:  If they choose by TV markets again it will more than likely be Texas schools added if ND stays partial.

I don't doubt that Texas will be on the radar, but I don't see them giving up their network nor do I see the ACC adding another partial member. Rice, SMU, and Houston have been available for years and there has never been indication the ACC had any interest to get into Texas with any mid-level Texas program, so I doubt TCU will magically change that when their GOR is over.

Also, unlike TAMU, TCU likes being associated with Texas and Baylor so they really have no reason to join an east coast/northeast conference.

Texas as a partial is the only way the ACC would want them.
TCU is academically aligned with the ACC. They have good football and baseball and have recently invested heavily (Jamie Dixon) in basketball. Located in DFW it's easy and cheap travel in-and-out. Also gives more of a toe hold in the Texas market to insure the market that the ACC is a long term player there.
Remember that TCU had already joined the Big East and paid to get out to join the Big 12 without ever playing a game.

(07-12-2018 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 07:28 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your legal status with the ACC is irrelevant. As evidenced by you entry into the ACC, even ND recognizes deals in it's own interest.

Irrelevant? Lol. ND best interests are now enshrined in that legal status.

ND has consistently made moves since 1991 to preserve football independence (NBC deal, Big East deal, ACC deal).

Every one of these moves was made to maintain that indy position. If ND was primarily interested in the most TV money, like you think, it would already be in the Big Ten.

ND has always declared that it strongly believes that football independence is in its own best interests.

Your arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to that position.

The Notre Dame mystique is more valuable to the ACC with the Irish as a partial football member than they would be if they were to join in full. That partial status will not change until the current contract has expired, and maybe not after then.

(07-12-2018 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  Texas as a partial is the only way the ACC would want them.
TCU is academically aligned with the ACC. They have good football and baseball and have recently invested heavily (Jamie Dixon) in basketball. Located in DFW it's easy and cheep travel in-and-out. Also gives more of a toe hold in the Texas market to insure the market that the ACC is a long term player there.
Remember that TCU had already joined the Big East and paid to get out to join the Big 12 without ever playing a game.

(07-12-2018 07:28 AM)XLance Wrote:  The Notre Dame mystique is more valuable to the ACC with the Irish as a partial football member than they would be if they were to join in full. That partial status will not change until the current contract has expired, and maybe not after then.

These might be some of the most insightful things you've ever posted, X. Spot on!

(07-12-2018 07:34 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  Texas as a partial is the only way the ACC would want them.
TCU is academically aligned with the ACC. They have good football and baseball and have recently invested heavily (Jamie Dixon) in basketball. Located in DFW it's easy and cheep travel in-and-out. Also gives more of a toe hold in the Texas market to insure the market that the ACC is a long term player there.
Remember that TCU had already joined the Big East and paid to get out to join the Big 12 without ever playing a game.

(07-12-2018 07:28 AM)XLance Wrote:  The Notre Dame mystique is more valuable to the ACC with the Irish as a partial football member than they would be if they were to join in full. That partial status will not change until the current contract has expired, and maybe not after then.

These might be some of the most insightful things you've ever posted, X. Spot on!

Why is Texas more valuable as a partial member? Texas football would be the only reason to be interested in them. The Longhorns are a headache to deal with, as evident in the Pac article posted on the Conference Realignment Board. Texas is one of the few schools that can commandeer their own P5 conference, and they can do that with or without Oklahoma. Especially now with the CCG requirements being relaxed.

Dixon played at TCU, so the opportunity for him to come home was a major factor. It wasn't like they went out and got a top-tier coach with their commitment to basketball only.

(07-11-2018 09:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 08:34 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 05:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:10 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 12:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  So not during rivalry week? UNC-UVA, UNC-NCSU/Duke (depends), Duke-Wake, Wake-NCSU, SU-Pitt, Clemson-GT, Clemson-NCSU (I don’t care what one poster on the internet says-it’s a rivalry), Duke-GT.

As for Texas, they should be all-sports or nothing. They are not Notre Dame.

Come on man, let's be honest. From a football perspective none of those match ups will draw interest on a national level and regionally it isn't a slam dunk. Not in football. Is there potential? Sure. But only GaTech/Clemson would move the needle. Once upon a time maybe Pitt/Cuse but those days have passed. UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake and State would need to become 10 win programs on the regular for the next decade or two in order to draw national interest. Just being honest.

Do agree with the Texas statement... no more partial members.

Then you're saying it isn't the rivalries that are important, it's how good the teams are? I don't think a lot of the SEC rivalries move the needle nationally, especially ones involving Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Missouri (do they even have a rival). Even Florida and Tennessee, which I consider blue bloods, have been flailing away the last few years.

Dude, you listed a bunch of football match ups that barely moves the needle regionally, aside from maybe Clemson/GaTech. Not one of those match ups are on par with LSU/Bama, UF/UGa, UGa/Auburn, Tenn/Bama. Tenn/UF. Hell, USCe/UGa generate more national interest than any of the match ups you listed. These regular season games have morphed into rivalries. And, they bring national interest and they are typically highlighted as a game of the week. Let's be honest about this.

Well, your post did't really make sense to me and that's what I addressed in my last post. It appeared you were talking about actual rivalry games, not made for TV match-ups.

When UNC was doing well under Davis that created a whole slew of TV games. I don't think Fedora is the guy to get the Heels back there. I like the future at Miami, and I think they'll be a national player again. Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Louisville will continue their trajectory, but I'm not sure about FSU.

Cincinnati and West Virginia are NOT going to move the needle, better football by our current membership is.

How does a rivalry develop? If you can answer that question, then you would understand the point I was making. The SEC has the benefit of having a slew of games that are not only made for TV match ups but also home grown rivalries. Tenn/Bama game was not just about great football but also a rivalry due to reporting of each other programs to the NCAA in order to gain a recruiting edge over each other. UF/Tenn, UF/UGa, UF/USCe due to Spurrier and excellent football. All of this was accomplished over time but the programs also maintained a level of football that none of the Tobacco Roads schools can or could. For those SEC programs or any football programs that maintain football excellence, there isn't a qualified statement of when Butch had UNC playing well or Sheridan had State playing well or whomever at Duke or whomever at Wake. A statement to point to a time when the program was good for a very brief amount of time. And this time usually spans 1 to 3 years. 4 if your lucky. That is why I said what I said. When and if the Tobacco Road schools can maintain the same level of excellence in football that they have in bball AND there are 9 - 10 win seasons strung together beyond 2-3 year period, then we can start listing those games as potential made for TV match-ups tat football fans will want to see. UL/Clemson is approaching a must see status. Their games have been nail biters that come down to the last minutes. If this history continues, then the ACC will have another version of FSU/Miami.

I love my alma mater but I am not going to look at the football situation behind Carolina Blue glasses. By the way, loved Butch and the talent he assembled but for the price that the boosters stepped up to get him, 8 win seasons were not the results I was expecting. I wanted Mack Brown era results (the years after the 1st two years)

(07-12-2018 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 07:28 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your legal status with the ACC is irrelevant. As evidenced by you entry into the ACC, even ND recognizes deals in it's own interest.

Irrelevant? Lol. ND best interests are now enshrined in that legal status.

ND has consistently made moves since 1991 to preserve football independence (NBC deal, Big East deal, ACC deal).

Every one of these moves was made to maintain that indy position. If ND was primarily interested in the most TV money, like you think, it would already be in the Big Ten.

ND has always declared that it strongly believes that football independence is in its own best interests.

Your arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to that position.

You claimed that if the Texas associated with the ACC in football, brining along TCU, that ND would not be inclined to add a 6th ACC game in order to also benefit from the constant exposure in Texas:

You said:

I am not so sure that ND will give the ACC that suggested sixth game.

I said:

Of course you will because the 6th game will be you and Texas.


I doubt you would turn down the following:


6 ACC games with TCU, Tulane, CU, Miami, FSU, UNC, WF, Duke, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCSU and GT
1 Game with Texas
1 Game with Navy
1 Game with USC
I Game with Stanford
2 Games with scrubs or the B10, or SEC, etc.

That puts Notre Dame playing a school form Los Angeles, San Francisco, Texas, NC, and DC every year, every other year you will play Miami or FSU, you will be playing Pitt, Syracuse, and BC every third year.

In all ND gets Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, DC, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Raleigh, New York and New Orleans. If that's not the national schedule, what is?

You said:

It gives more to the ACC and chips away at independence. It takes one more game from ND's control in scheduling.

For those reasons, I think that you would find great resistance from ND to this idea.


That claim is not supported by ND's past actions. Like any other creature that has a set of self interests, ND makes decisions based on it's self interests. It's not the money, it's the bi-annual appearance in Catholic rich Texas.

If ND could join a conference that consisted of Pitt, Navy, Texas, USC, Stanford, NW, Purdue, and Miami - you would. However such a conference does not exist, so you angle for the next best thing.

(07-12-2018 09:31 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 09:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 08:34 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 05:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:10 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  Come on man, let's be honest. From a football perspective none of those match ups will draw interest on a national level and regionally it isn't a slam dunk. Not in football. Is there potential? Sure. But only GaTech/Clemson would move the needle. Once upon a time maybe Pitt/Cuse but those days have passed. UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake and State would need to become 10 win programs on the regular for the next decade or two in order to draw national interest. Just being honest.

Do agree with the Texas statement... no more partial members.

Then you're saying it isn't the rivalries that are important, it's how good the teams are? I don't think a lot of the SEC rivalries move the needle nationally, especially ones involving Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Missouri (do they even have a rival). Even Florida and Tennessee, which I consider blue bloods, have been flailing away the last few years.

Dude, you listed a bunch of football match ups that barely moves the needle regionally, aside from maybe Clemson/GaTech. Not one of those match ups are on par with LSU/Bama, UF/UGa, UGa/Auburn, Tenn/Bama. Tenn/UF. Hell, USCe/UGa generate more national interest than any of the match ups you listed. These regular season games have morphed into rivalries. And, they bring national interest and they are typically highlighted as a game of the week. Let's be honest about this.

Well, your post did't really make sense to me and that's what I addressed in my last post. It appeared you were talking about actual rivalry games, not made for TV match-ups.

When UNC was doing well under Davis that created a whole slew of TV games. I don't think Fedora is the guy to get the Heels back there. I like the future at Miami, and I think they'll be a national player again. Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Louisville will continue their trajectory, but I'm not sure about FSU.

Cincinnati and West Virginia are NOT going to move the needle, better football by our current membership is.

How does a rivalry develop? If you can answer that question, then you would understand the point I was making. The SEC has the benefit of having a slew of games that are not only made for TV match ups but also home grown rivalries. Tenn/Bama game was not just about great football but also a rivalry due to reporting of each other programs to the NCAA in order to gain a recruiting edge over each other. UF/Tenn, UF/UGa, UF/USCe due to Spurrier and excellent football. All of this was accomplished over time but the programs also maintained a level of football that none of the Tobacco Roads schools can or could. For those SEC programs or any football programs that maintain football excellence, there isn't a qualified statement of when Butch had UNC playing well or Sheridan had State playing well or whomever at Duke or whomever at Wake. A statement to point to a time when the program was good for a very brief amount of time. And this time usually spans 1 to 3 years. 4 if your lucky. That is why I said what I said. When and if the Tobacco Road schools can maintain the same level of excellence in football that they have in bball AND there are 9 - 10 win seasons strung together beyond 2-3 year period, then we can start listing those games as potential made for TV match-ups tat football fans will want to see. UL/Clemson is approaching a must see status. Their games have been nail biters that come down to the last minutes. If this history continues, then the ACC will have another version of FSU/Miami.

I love my alma mater but I am not going to look at the football situation behind Carolina Blue glasses. By the way, loved Butch and the talent he assembled but for the price that the boosters stepped up to get him, 8 win seasons were not the results I was expecting. I wanted Mack Brown era results (the years after the 1st two years)

BC/VT was on the way to that level when the schools played in back-to-back ACC CGs, but then BC athletics went full retard for a few years and Frank Beamer just got old. Of the cross-division games I don't see any approaching FSU/Miami, tbh. Divisional games like UL/Clemson and VT/Miami could get there, along with Clemson/FSU (of course!) and FSU/Louisville. GT/VT was also heading that way (and may still get there). Pitt and Syracuse are still works in progress, but both have nice upset wins to build on already. They just need to win their OOC games to validate those conference wins.

(07-12-2018 07:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:34 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  Texas as a partial is the only way the ACC would want them.
TCU is academically aligned with the ACC. They have good football and baseball and have recently invested heavily (Jamie Dixon) in basketball. Located in DFW it's easy and cheep travel in-and-out. Also gives more of a toe hold in the Texas market to insure the market that the ACC is a long term player there.
Remember that TCU had already joined the Big East and paid to get out to join the Big 12 without ever playing a game.

(07-12-2018 07:28 AM)XLance Wrote:  The Notre Dame mystique is more valuable to the ACC with the Irish as a partial football member than they would be if they were to join in full. That partial status will not change until the current contract has expired, and maybe not after then.

These might be some of the most insightful things you've ever posted, X. Spot on!

Why is Texas more valuable as a partial member? Texas football would be the only reason to be interested in them. The Longhorns are a headache to deal with, as evident in the Pac article posted on the Conference Realignment Board. Texas is one of the few schools that can commandeer their own P5 conference, and they can do that with or without Oklahoma. Especially now with the CCG requirements being relaxed.

Dixon played at TCU, so the opportunity for him to come home was a major factor. It wasn't like they went out and got a top-tier coach with their commitment to basketball only.

X is correct in this - TCU is who would make a good addition, and the least partial association with Texas is desirable because of their ego. An ego that is worse than Carolina and ND ego combined but backed up with infinite money.

(07-12-2018 09:31 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 09:04 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 08:34 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 05:07 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 04:10 PM)Indytarheel Wrote:  Come on man, let's be honest. From a football perspective none of those match ups will draw interest on a national level and regionally it isn't a slam dunk. Not in football. Is there potential? Sure. But only GaTech/Clemson would move the needle. Once upon a time maybe Pitt/Cuse but those days have passed. UVA, UNC, Duke, Wake and State would need to become 10 win programs on the regular for the next decade or two in order to draw national interest. Just being honest.

Do agree with the Texas statement... no more partial members.

Then you're saying it isn't the rivalries that are important, it's how good the teams are? I don't think a lot of the SEC rivalries move the needle nationally, especially ones involving Kentucky, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Missouri (do they even have a rival). Even Florida and Tennessee, which I consider blue bloods, have been flailing away the last few years.

Dude, you listed a bunch of football match ups that barely moves the needle regionally, aside from maybe Clemson/GaTech. Not one of those match ups are on par with LSU/Bama, UF/UGa, UGa/Auburn, Tenn/Bama. Tenn/UF. Hell, USCe/UGa generate more national interest than any of the match ups you listed. These regular season games have morphed into rivalries. And, they bring national interest and they are typically highlighted as a game of the week. Let's be honest about this.

Well, your post did't really make sense to me and that's what I addressed in my last post. It appeared you were talking about actual rivalry games, not made for TV match-ups.

When UNC was doing well under Davis that created a whole slew of TV games. I don't think Fedora is the guy to get the Heels back there. I like the future at Miami, and I think they'll be a national player again. Clemson, Virginia Tech, and Louisville will continue their trajectory, but I'm not sure about FSU.

Cincinnati and West Virginia are NOT going to move the needle, better football by our current membership is.

How does a rivalry develop? If you can answer that question, then you would understand the point I was making. The SEC has the benefit of having a slew of games that are not only made for TV match ups but also home grown rivalries. Tenn/Bama game was not just about great football but also a rivalry due to reporting of each other programs to the NCAA in order to gain a recruiting edge over each other. UF/Tenn, UF/UGa, UF/USCe due to Spurrier and excellent football. All of this was accomplished over time but the programs also maintained a level of football that none of the Tobacco Roads schools can or could. For those SEC programs or any football programs that maintain football excellence, there isn't a qualified statement of when Butch had UNC playing well or Sheridan had State playing well or whomever at Duke or whomever at Wake. A statement to point to a time when the program was good for a very brief amount of time. And this time usually spans 1 to 3 years. 4 if your lucky. That is why I said what I said. When and if the Tobacco Road schools can maintain the same level of excellence in football that they have in bball AND there are 9 - 10 win seasons strung together beyond 2-3 year period, then we can start listing those games as potential made for TV match-ups tat football fans will want to see. UL/Clemson is approaching a must see status. Their games have been nail biters that come down to the last minutes. If this history continues, then the ACC will have another version of FSU/Miami.

I love my alma mater but I am not going to look at the football situation behind Carolina Blue glasses. By the way, loved Butch and the talent he assembled but for the price that the boosters stepped up to get him, 8 win seasons were not the results I was expecting. I wanted Mack Brown era results (the years after the 1st two years)

I’m really not sure what you’re trying to argue with me about. I told you where I was coming from as far as “traditional rivalries” are concerned. If UNC is good to excellent, then they will have marquee games because the “brand” transcends beyond basketball. Let’s just say ESPN would not hinder the Heels if they’re playing great football.

As for TCU, I understand they are a private school in a large market with sustained success under one football coach. Is that reason to cut the pie? I say no. Other people say yes. So far the ACC has said no.

(07-12-2018 07:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:34 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  Texas as a partial is the only way the ACC would want them.
TCU is academically aligned with the ACC. They have good football and baseball and have recently invested heavily (Jamie Dixon) in basketball. Located in DFW it's easy and cheep travel in-and-out. Also gives more of a toe hold in the Texas market to insure the market that the ACC is a long term player there.
Remember that TCU had already joined the Big East and paid to get out to join the Big 12 without ever playing a game.

(07-12-2018 07:28 AM)XLance Wrote:  The Notre Dame mystique is more valuable to the ACC with the Irish as a partial football member than they would be if they were to join in full. That partial status will not change until the current contract has expired, and maybe not after then.

These might be some of the most insightful things you've ever posted, X. Spot on!

Why is Texas more valuable as a partial member? Texas football would be the only reason to be interested in them. The Longhorns are a headache to deal with as evident in the Pac article posted on the Conference Realignment Board. Texas is one of the few schools that can commandeer their own P5 conference, and they can do that with or without Oklahoma. Especially now with the CCG requirements being relaxed.

Dixon played at TCU, so the opportunity for him to come home was a major factor. It wasn't like they went out and got a top-tier coach with their commitment to basketball only.

You have answered your own question.

It’s more than just the school, it’s all about money. Dallas and Houston are both top ten TV markets.

(07-12-2018 10:19 AM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 06:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-11-2018 07:28 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Your legal status with the ACC is irrelevant. As evidenced by you entry into the ACC, even ND recognizes deals in it's own interest.

Irrelevant? Lol. ND best interests are now enshrined in that legal status.

ND has consistently made moves since 1991 to preserve football independence (NBC deal, Big East deal, ACC deal).

Every one of these moves was made to maintain that indy position. If ND was primarily interested in the most TV money, like you think, it would already be in the Big Ten.

ND has always declared that it strongly believes that football independence is in its own best interests.

Your arguments to the contrary are irrelevant to that position.

You claimed that if the Texas associated with the ACC in football, brining along TCU, that ND would not be inclined to add a 6th ACC game in order to also benefit from the constant exposure in Texas:

You said:

I am not so sure that ND will give the ACC that suggested sixth game.

I said:

Of course you will because the 6th game will be you and Texas.


I doubt you would turn down the following:


6 ACC games with TCU, Tulane, CU, Miami, FSU, UNC, WF, Duke, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, UVa, VT, NCSU and GT
1 Game with Texas
1 Game with Navy
1 Game with USC
I Game with Stanford
2 Games with scrubs or the B10, or SEC, etc.

That puts Notre Dame playing a school form Los Angeles, San Francisco, Texas, NC, and DC every year, every other year you will play Miami or FSU, you will be playing Pitt, Syracuse, and BC every third year.

In all ND gets Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, DC, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Raleigh, New York and New Orleans. If that's not the national schedule, what is?

You said:

It gives more to the ACC and chips away at independence. It takes one more game from ND's control in scheduling.

For those reasons, I think that you would find great resistance from ND to this idea.


That claim is not supported by ND's past actions. Like any other creature that has a set of self interests, ND makes decisions based on it's self interests. It's not the money, it's the bi-annual appearance in Catholic rich Texas.

If ND could join a conference that consisted of Pitt, Navy, Texas, USC, Stanford, NW, Purdue, and Miami - you would. However such a conference does not exist, so you angle for the next best thing.

You seem to know very little about ND.

The Irish WOULD NOT join the hypothetical conference you list.

They would say no to that proposed conference for football in about two minutes.

To repeat...ND does not want to "limit itself" by putting their football program into a conference...any conference. They have said this repeatedly over the years up to right now.

ND just had a home/home with Texas. They could set up more if they wanted to.

BTW, ND has played 2 "Shamrock Series" games...moving a home game away from ND Stadium.....in San Antonio, Texas.

Look for more such Texas (and other) ND "home games" in the future.

(That is three ND games in Texas since 2009 as a football independent....almost your proposed "bi-annual games in Texas").

Why, then, does it need to do what you propose? It doesn't and won't.

That is one way ND uses independence and scheduling flexibility to play where they want exposure.

ND is not going to join a football conference and is not very likely to agree to an ACC sixth game (I believe they already said "No" to the ACC in the recent past on this issue).

(07-12-2018 01:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:57 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:34 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 07:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  Texas as a partial is the only way the ACC would want them.
TCU is academically aligned with the ACC. They have good football and baseball and have recently invested heavily (Jamie Dixon) in basketball. Located in DFW it's easy and cheep travel in-and-out. Also gives more of a toe hold in the Texas market to insure the market that the ACC is a long term player there.
Remember that TCU had already joined the Big East and paid to get out to join the Big 12 without ever playing a game.

(07-12-2018 07:28 AM)XLance Wrote:  The Notre Dame mystique is more valuable to the ACC with the Irish as a partial football member than they would be if they were to join in full. That partial status will not change until the current contract has expired, and maybe not after then.

These might be some of the most insightful things you've ever posted, X. Spot on!

Why is Texas more valuable as a partial member? Texas football would be the only reason to be interested in them. The Longhorns are a headache to deal with as evident in the Pac article posted on the Conference Realignment Board. Texas is one of the few schools that can commandeer their own P5 conference, and they can do that with or without Oklahoma. Especially now with the CCG requirements being relaxed.

Dixon played at TCU, so the opportunity for him to come home was a major factor. It wasn't like they went out and got a top-tier coach with their commitment to basketball only.

You have answered your own question.

Notre Dame doesn't play football in a conference and doesn't have designs to commandeer their own. Texas on the other hand, already runs their own league and reaps the benefits of having their own network. There really is no incentive for them to join the ACC.