(06-28-2019 03:54 PM)Statefan Wrote:  There are too many conference games now. Most are boring. Good intersection P-5 games are something rarer. I'd rather watch NC State play Penn State, UCLA, or Illinois than watch State play WF, BC, or Syracuse year after year.

I can understand State not wanting to play Wake Forest, they never seem to be able to beat them, BUT WAIT State can't seem to ever beat Penn State either (State losing 17 out of 19 contest with the Nittany Lions).

(06-28-2019 10:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:00 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 05:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:26 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Ready for my latest, craziest, half baked idea? First, it involves conference autonomy to pass, allowing all conferences to dictate the terms of their conference champion. After you accept that fact, go divisionless and use the best mock schedule that you dreamers have dreamed up. But here is the change in deciding who gets to go the ACCCG: Instead making everyone play the same number of conference games, allow other teams to schedule 1 or 2 extra and STILL count. The 2 teams with the most ACC wins reps in Charlotte, hypothetically Notre Dame could also rep. So you are encouraged, but not forced to play a 9 (or even a 10) game conference schedule.

I like it. I always wonder what the ACC would do to determine the top two teams for a championship game if the complete deregulation happens. It must have something to do with ND games.

The complete deregulation will help the ACC most and that's why other conferences don't let that happen.

Don't you remember the ACC proposed a COMPLETE deregulation?
Don't you remember the ACC NEVER said what it would do if the compete deregulation passed?
Don't you remember the Big Ten and the SEC voted down the ACC's proposal mainly because they don't know what the ACC would do?

So the burning question is what the ACC actually would do if the complete deregulation actually passes? If it's simply a divisionless format, why don't they just say it? Something fishy here. Don't you think?

Personally I think it has something to do with the ND games. Maybe the ACC wants to count the ND games as conference games. Or maybe as a tie-breaker. Or maybe ND wants to participate the ACC championship. We never know at this point. But that doesn't mean the ACC is happy with the current setup. In fact, the ACC wanted to make a change (maybe a radical change, but we never know).

Sweet Baby Jesus.....ND doesn't want its football program in a conference, any conference.

If it ever did join a football conference, it will only be (against its will) with a proverbial gun to its head if the playoffs become legally restricted to conference champs only.


That.....is.....the....only....way.....ND football...will.....join....a....conference.

Jack Swarbrick has said this in interviews at least five times recently. ND STRONGLY wants to be a football independent, indefinitely.

ND is perfectly happy with the ND/ACC relationship as it is. That is why it agreed to the current legal structure through 2035, including a GOR.

It doesn't want to participate in the ACC championship game.

Can you point to one whisper of a mention, rumor, gastric expulsion, or shimmering mirage that says or hints that ND wants to do so?

If it did, it would just join in full instead of some harebrained cockamamie scheme.

(06-29-2019 06:01 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 03:54 PM)Statefan Wrote:  There are too many conference games now. Most are boring. Good intersection P-5 games are something rarer. I'd rather watch NC State play Penn State, UCLA, or Illinois than watch State play WF, BC, or Syracuse year after year.

I can understand State not wanting to play Wake Forest, they never seem to be able to beat them, BUT WAIT State can't seem to ever beat Penn State either (State losing 17 out of 19 contest with the Nittany Lions).

From 1965 to 1981 we played PSU in 2-1 fashion.

In 67 we lost 13-8 and it cost us a major bowl
in 73 we lost 35-39 and it cost us the Gator Bowl
in 74 we won 12-7
In 75 we won 15-14
In 77 we lost 21-17
In 78 we lost 19-10
In 1979 we lost 9-7 on a no time fg that they kicked into a howling north wind from 54 yards and it cost us the Gator Bowl
In 1980 we lost 21-13
In 1981 we lost 22-15

For much of the 50's, 60's, 70', and 80's many of our best players came from Pa as were were able to recruit and keep kids that were second on PSU's and Pitt's wish list.

The games were almost always exciting and there is no shame losing to Penn State. Beat WF, no matter how good they are and you get nothing. Same for UNC and Duke. NCSU is a big game for WF for reasons that go back over 100 years. NC State no longer sees the game that way, especially the players so ours sleep walk through the first half and by the time the yet again realize that Wake has a good team, we have to press ourselves to win. It's a pride game for them and we don't show equal courtesy and therefore get what we deserve because of our lack of respect.

We made a crucially bad coaching hire after Bo Rein left for LSU and the series was ended in the early 80's. Debbie Yow was not going to attempt to schedule a game against James Franklin - the man she wanted coaching Maryland instead of the Fridge.

NC State is a high risk, low reward game for top P-5's. Going back the last 20 years we beat Texas in Texas. We had Ohio State beat twice and failed to punch the winning score into the end zone under Phillip Rivers. Oklahoma State and LSU backed out on us. Tennessee backed out on us and then agreed only to play in their backyard of Atlanta on a Friday afternoon on the Labor Day weekend. Since we no longer control our schedule we are hesitant to attempt to schedule another top 10-15 program since we already have to play FSU and Clemson and the league office might give us all three in consecutive weekends.

I don't think Texas Tech, Mississippi State, Vandy, and BYU will back out, but if we played academically analogous schools in other conferences they would be the likes of Michigan State, Maryland, Auburn, LSU, TAMU, ASU, Oregon State, UCLA, and Oklahaoma State. What Big 10 wants to risk a game with NC State? NC State and MD will not play football again for two generations. Auburn will not agree to come to Raleigh, nor will LSU, they will want to play in Atlanta.

It's for these reasons that Penn State is missed.

(06-29-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 10:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:00 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 05:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:26 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Ready for my latest, craziest, half baked idea? First, it involves conference autonomy to pass, allowing all conferences to dictate the terms of their conference champion. After you accept that fact, go divisionless and use the best mock schedule that you dreamers have dreamed up. But here is the change in deciding who gets to go the ACCCG: Instead making everyone play the same number of conference games, allow other teams to schedule 1 or 2 extra and STILL count. The 2 teams with the most ACC wins reps in Charlotte, hypothetically Notre Dame could also rep. So you are encouraged, but not forced to play a 9 (or even a 10) game conference schedule.

I like it. I always wonder what the ACC would do to determine the top two teams for a championship game if the complete deregulation happens. It must have something to do with ND games.

The complete deregulation will help the ACC most and that's why other conferences don't let that happen.

Don't you remember the ACC proposed a COMPLETE deregulation?
Don't you remember the ACC NEVER said what it would do if the compete deregulation passed?
Don't you remember the Big Ten and the SEC voted down the ACC's proposal mainly because they don't know what the ACC would do?

So the burning question is what the ACC actually would do if the complete deregulation actually passes? If it's simply a divisionless format, why don't they just say it? Something fishy here. Don't you think?

Personally I think it has something to do with the ND games. Maybe the ACC wants to count the ND games as conference games. Or maybe as a tie-breaker. Or maybe ND wants to participate the ACC championship. We never know at this point. But that doesn't mean the ACC is happy with the current setup. In fact, the ACC wanted to make a change (maybe a radical change, but we never know).

Sweet Baby Jesus.....ND doesn't want its football program in a conference, any conference.

If it ever did join a football conference, it will only be (against its will) with a proverbial gun to its head if the playoffs become legally restricted to conference champs only.


That.....is.....the....only....way.....ND football...will.....join....a....conference.

Jack Swarbrick has said this in interviews at least five times recently. ND STRONGLY wants to be a football independent, indefinitely.

ND is perfectly happy with the ND/ACC relationship as it is. That is why it agreed to the current legal structure through 2035, including a GOR.

It doesn't want to participate in the ACC championship game.

Can you point to one whisper of a mention, rumor, gastric expulsion, or shimmering mirage that says or hints that ND wants to do so?

If it did, it would just join in full instead of some harebrained cockamamie scheme.

I didn't say ND would join the ACC, did I?

If ND doesn't want to participate in the ACC championship game, that's fine. The ACC won't/can't force ND to do something it doesn't want. By the way, counting the ND games as conference games for the ACC record keeping will not impact ND in any way and ND cannot really do anything about it.

The ACC is not going to...

1. have unequal number of conference games in FB
2. add in ND FB games to count towards conference records

End of discussion. Next issue!

(06-29-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 10:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  ...So the burning question is what the ACC actually would do if the complete deregulation actually passes? If it's simply a divisionless format, why don't they just say it? Something fishy here. Don't you think?

Personally I think it has something to do with the ND games. Maybe the ACC wants to count the ND games as conference games. Or maybe as a tie-breaker. Or maybe ND wants to participate the ACC championship. We never know at this point. But that doesn't mean the ACC is happy with the current setup. In fact, the ACC wanted to make a change (maybe a radical change, but we never know).

Sweet Baby Jesus.....ND doesn't want its football program in a conference, any conference.

If it ever did join a football conference, it will only be (against its will) with a proverbial gun to its head if the playoffs become legally restricted to conference champs only.


That.....is.....the....only....way.....ND football...will.....join....a....conference.

Jack Swarbrick has said this in interviews at least five times recently. ND STRONGLY wants to be a football independent, indefinitely.

ND is perfectly happy with the ND/ACC relationship as it is. That is why it agreed to the current legal structure through 2035, including a GOR.

It doesn't want to participate in the ACC championship game.

Can you point to one whisper of a mention, rumor, gastric expulsion, or shimmering mirage that says or hints that ND wants to do so?

If it did, it would just join in full instead of some harebrained cockamamie scheme.

Soooo..... when do you think Notre Dame will go all-in on ACC football?

(06-29-2019 02:27 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 10:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:00 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 05:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  I like it. I always wonder what the ACC would do to determine the top two teams for a championship game if the complete deregulation happens. It must have something to do with ND games.

The complete deregulation will help the ACC most and that's why other conferences don't let that happen.

Don't you remember the ACC proposed a COMPLETE deregulation?
Don't you remember the ACC NEVER said what it would do if the compete deregulation passed?
Don't you remember the Big Ten and the SEC voted down the ACC's proposal mainly because they don't know what the ACC would do?

So the burning question is what the ACC actually would do if the complete deregulation actually passes? If it's simply a divisionless format, why don't they just say it? Something fishy here. Don't you think?

Personally I think it has something to do with the ND games. Maybe the ACC wants to count the ND games as conference games. Or maybe as a tie-breaker. Or maybe ND wants to participate the ACC championship. We never know at this point. But that doesn't mean the ACC is happy with the current setup. In fact, the ACC wanted to make a change (maybe a radical change, but we never know).

Sweet Baby Jesus.....ND doesn't want its football program in a conference, any conference.

If it ever did join a football conference, it will only be (against its will) with a proverbial gun to its head if the playoffs become legally restricted to conference champs only.


That.....is.....the....only....way.....ND football...will.....join....a....conference.

Jack Swarbrick has said this in interviews at least five times recently. ND STRONGLY wants to be a football independent, indefinitely.

ND is perfectly happy with the ND/ACC relationship as it is. That is why it agreed to the current legal structure through 2035, including a GOR.

It doesn't want to participate in the ACC championship game.

Can you point to one whisper of a mention, rumor, gastric expulsion, or shimmering mirage that says or hints that ND wants to do so?

If it did, it would just join in full instead of some harebrained cockamamie scheme.

I didn't say ND would join the ACC, did I?

If ND doesn't want to participate in the ACC championship game, that's fine. The ACC won't/can't force ND to do something it doesn't want. By the way, counting the ND games as conference games for the ACC record keeping will not impact ND in any way and ND cannot really do anything about it.

No, ND would not care about that at all, but it is an equal non-starter, I believe.

Why in the hell would Florida State want ND's games against, say, Clemson, to count as a "conference game"?

The teams that ND does not play that year...there would be 9 of them...would want that, why?

Do you have a hint from anyone in the ACC (Commissioner, college president, AD, coach, long time broadcaster or anyone else) that suggests this is not an idea from outside the orbit of Neptune?

No dog in that fight, just curious.

The 5-game scheduling agreement between the ACC and Notre Dame benefits the ACC from a revenue perspective (attendance, ticket prices, tv ratings, ACCN distribution, etc.), but is not and should not be confused with ACC football championships - those are strictly non-conference games.

P.S. If you're wondering how the contract benefits Notre Dame, I submit it's (a) having quality opponents in weeks 6 through 12, and (b) having access to non-New Year's Day bowls.

(06-29-2019 05:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 08:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 10:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  ...So the burning question is what the ACC actually would do if the complete deregulation actually passes? If it's simply a divisionless format, why don't they just say it? Something fishy here. Don't you think?

Personally I think it has something to do with the ND games. Maybe the ACC wants to count the ND games as conference games. Or maybe as a tie-breaker. Or maybe ND wants to participate the ACC championship. We never know at this point. But that doesn't mean the ACC is happy with the current setup. In fact, the ACC wanted to make a change (maybe a radical change, but we never know).

Sweet Baby Jesus.....ND doesn't want its football program in a conference, any conference.

If it ever did join a football conference, it will only be (against its will) with a proverbial gun to its head if the playoffs become legally restricted to conference champs only.


That.....is.....the....only....way.....ND football...will.....join....a....conference.

Jack Swarbrick has said this in interviews at least five times recently. ND STRONGLY wants to be a football independent, indefinitely.

ND is perfectly happy with the ND/ACC relationship as it is. That is why it agreed to the current legal structure through 2035, including a GOR.

It doesn't want to participate in the ACC championship game.

Can you point to one whisper of a mention, rumor, gastric expulsion, or shimmering mirage that says or hints that ND wants to do so?

If it did, it would just join in full instead of some harebrained cockamamie scheme.

Soooo..... when do you think Notre Dame will go all-in on ACC football?

Tuesday, July 1, 2742.

(06-30-2019 06:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The 5-game scheduling agreement between the ACC and Notre Dame benefits the ACC from a revenue perspective (attendance, ticket prices, tv ratings, ACCN distribution, etc.), but is not and should not be confused with ACC football championships - those are strictly non-conference games.

P.S. If you're wondering how the contract benefits Notre Dame, I submit it's (a) having quality opponents in weeks 6 through 12, and (b) having access to non-New Year's Day bowls.

Also:

(a) Basketball, baseball and Olympic sports in the ACC (would not be there without the five football games);

(b) Full ACC Network profits share (Ditto);

© Football recruiting exposure (games/eyeballs in ACC venues, plus tell recruit's parents "You can see Junior play without going all the way to South Bend,") in the Southeast USA;

(06-30-2019 08:17 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 06:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The 5-game scheduling agreement between the ACC and Notre Dame benefits the ACC from a revenue perspective (attendance, ticket prices, tv ratings, ACCN distribution, etc.), but is not and should not be confused with ACC football championships - those are strictly non-conference games.

P.S. If you're wondering how the contract benefits Notre Dame, I submit it's (a) having quality opponents in weeks 6 through 12, and (b) having access to non-New Year's Day bowls.

Also:

(a) Basketball, baseball and Olympic sports in the ACC (would not be there without the five football games);

(b) Full ACC Network profits share (Ditto);

© Football recruiting exposure (games/eyeballs in ACC venues, plus tell recruit's parents "You can see Junior play without going all the way to South Bend,") in the Southeast USA;

Other ways the ACC benefits:
Adds another good-traveling fan base when negotiating bowl tie-ins (evidenced by new deal with high-paying Holiday Bowl and previously with high-paying Pinstripe Bowl).
ACC also benefits from ND basketball (which has earned more NCAA units than about half of the ACC teams) and other sports.
In many NCAA votes, it's like having more influence than other P5s because ND gets a separate vote on many things.

(06-30-2019 09:13 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:17 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 06:24 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The 5-game scheduling agreement between the ACC and Notre Dame benefits the ACC from a revenue perspective (attendance, ticket prices, tv ratings, ACCN distribution, etc.), but is not and should not be confused with ACC football championships - those are strictly non-conference games.

P.S. If you're wondering how the contract benefits Notre Dame, I submit it's (a) having quality opponents in weeks 6 through 12, and (b) having access to non-New Year's Day bowls.

Also:

(a) Basketball, baseball and Olympic sports in the ACC (would not be there without the five football games);

(b) Full ACC Network profits share (Ditto);

© Football recruiting exposure (games/eyeballs in ACC venues, plus tell recruit's parents "You can see Junior play without going all the way to South Bend,") in the Southeast USA;

Other ways the ACC benefits:
Adds another good-traveling fan base when negotiating bowl tie-ins (evidenced by new deal with high-paying Holiday Bowl and previously with high-paying Pinstripe Bowl).
ACC also benefits from ND basketball (which has earned more NCAA units than about half of the ACC teams) and other sports.
In many NCAA votes, it's like having more influence than other P5s because ND gets a separate vote on many things.

I would argue that the ACC was going to get the Pinstripe Bowl, with or without ND, who has played in that bowl exactly one time. I cant speak on the Holiday Bowl. But the BIG and ACC were going to get that bowl because both leagues had multiple teams who are in that Geographic area and are used to playing in the cold.

(06-29-2019 02:46 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  The ACC is not going to...

1. have unequal number of conference games in FB
2. add in ND FB games to count towards conference records

End of discussion. Next issue!

Never is a long time. I'm old enough to remember Bill Brill writing in the Greensboro N&R that VT would never be allowed back into the league.

Pure independence is not ND's ultimate goal. The ability to play a national schedule is the ultimate goal. A visit to the west coast every year. The ability to an SEC or B12 every year. The ability to keep Navy. The ability to play in Florida, etc., etc.

The ability to provide some variety to their fans.

The ACC is not large enough, nor structured in such a way at this time to allow for that. It likely never will be large enough or structured like that, but never? Never is a long time.

(06-30-2019 01:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 02:46 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  The ACC is not going to...

1. have unequal number of conference games in FB
2. add in ND FB games to count towards conference records

End of discussion. Next issue!

Never is a long time. I'm old enough to remember Bill Brill writing in the Greensboro N&R that VT would never be allowed back into the league.

Pure independence is not ND's ultimate goal. The ability to play a national schedule is the ultimate goal. A visit to the west coast every year. The ability to an SEC or B12 every year. The ability to keep Navy. The ability to play in Florida, etc., etc.

The ability to provide some variety to their fans.

The ACC is not large enough, nor structured in such a way at this time to allow for that. It likely never will be large enough or structured like that, but never? Never is a long time.

The context of this thread isn't about whether ND will be a normal member of the ACC in FB. Instead, it is about some goofy idea of the existing 14 ACC FB members counting games against ND as part of the league record and using it as part of deciding who plays in the ACC FB championship game. Also, about having unequal number of conference games in FB being counted.

The ACC is not going to count a non-member's games into the conference W-L records. The only chance the ACC is ever going to allow unequal number of conference games in FB will be if a new program joins and it takes a few years to get their schedules adjusted. That shouldn't be a problem in present tense.

I recall when GT entered the ACC, the Jackets didn't play Maryland until a few years into playing almost an entire-ACC round robin schedule like everyone else. GT had long-term contracts back in the day with Tennessee, Auburn, and Alabama, among others that it could not and would not end for the sake of playing at the time 7 ACC games. That was an exception that I don't see happening again in the future. GT of course ended its annual games with Auburn and Tennessee (much to the dismay of many old time fans) around '85-'86 time frame and Maryland came onto the schedule to complete equal 7 conference games with the rest of the ACC at the time.

And, just curious, VPI&SU being allowed "back into the league"? Which league are you or Brill talking about? Bill Brill...GRHS! He was a credit to his profession and the ACC.

(06-30-2019 01:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 02:46 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  The ACC is not going to...

1. have unequal number of conference games in FB
2. add in ND FB games to count towards conference records

End of discussion. Next issue!

Never is a long time. I'm old enough to remember Bill Brill writing in the Greensboro N&R that VT would never be allowed back into the league.

Pure independence is not ND's ultimate goal. The ability to play a national schedule is the ultimate goal. A visit to the west coast every year. The ability to an SEC or B12 every year. The ability to keep Navy. The ability to play in Florida, etc., etc.

The ability to provide some variety to their fans.

The ACC is not large enough, nor structured in such a way at this time to allow for that. It likely never will be large enough or structured like that, but never? Never is a long time.

https://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2019/...-team.html

(06-30-2019 02:09 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 01:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 02:46 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  The ACC is not going to...

1. have unequal number of conference games in FB
2. add in ND FB games to count towards conference records

End of discussion. Next issue!

Never is a long time. I'm old enough to remember Bill Brill writing in the Greensboro N&R that VT would never be allowed back into the league.

Pure independence is not ND's ultimate goal. The ability to play a national schedule is the ultimate goal. A visit to the west coast every year. The ability to an SEC or B12 every year. The ability to keep Navy. The ability to play in Florida, etc., etc.

The ability to provide some variety to their fans.

The ACC is not large enough, nor structured in such a way at this time to allow for that. It likely never will be large enough or structured like that, but never? Never is a long time.

The context of this thread isn't about whether ND will be a normal member of the ACC in FB. Instead, it is about some goofy idea of the existing 14 ACC FB members counting games against ND as part of the league record and using it as part of deciding who plays in the ACC FB championship game. Also, about having unequal number of conference games in FB being counted.

The ACC is not going to count a non-member's games into the conference W-L records. The only chance the ACC is ever going to allow unequal number of conference games in FB will be if a new program joins and it takes a few years to get their schedules adjusted. That shouldn't be a problem in present tense.

I recall when GT entered the ACC, the Jackets didn't play Maryland until a few years into playing almost an entire-ACC round robin schedule like everyone else. GT had long-term contracts back in the day with Tennessee, Auburn, and Alabama, among others that it could not and would not end for the sake of playing at the time 7 ACC games. That was an exception that I don't see happening again in the future. GT of course ended its annual games with Auburn and Tennessee (much to the dismay of many old time fans) around '85-'86 time frame and Maryland came onto the schedule to complete equal 7 conference games with the rest of the ACC at the time.

And, just curious, VPI&SU being allowed "back into the league"? Which league are you or Brill talking about? Bill Brill...GRHS! He was a credit to his profession and the ACC.

1. The ACC was willing to give GT a few years to transition from independent to full football member, and are you trying to tell me they wouldn't be as patient with Notre Dame?

2. VT was a member of the old Southern Conference along with Maryland, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest and Clemson; this was shortly before the ACC was formed.

(06-30-2019 02:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 02:09 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 01:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 02:46 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  The ACC is not going to...

1. have unequal number of conference games in FB
2. add in ND FB games to count towards conference records

End of discussion. Next issue!

Never is a long time. I'm old enough to remember Bill Brill writing in the Greensboro N&R that VT would never be allowed back into the league.

Pure independence is not ND's ultimate goal. The ability to play a national schedule is the ultimate goal. A visit to the west coast every year. The ability to an SEC or B12 every year. The ability to keep Navy. The ability to play in Florida, etc., etc.

The ability to provide some variety to their fans.

The ACC is not large enough, nor structured in such a way at this time to allow for that. It likely never will be large enough or structured like that, but never? Never is a long time.

The context of this thread isn't about whether ND will be a normal member of the ACC in FB. Instead, it is about some goofy idea of the existing 14 ACC FB members counting games against ND as part of the league record and using it as part of deciding who plays in the ACC FB championship game. Also, about having unequal number of conference games in FB being counted.

The ACC is not going to count a non-member's games into the conference W-L records. The only chance the ACC is ever going to allow unequal number of conference games in FB will be if a new program joins and it takes a few years to get their schedules adjusted. That shouldn't be a problem in present tense.

I recall when GT entered the ACC, the Jackets didn't play Maryland until a few years into playing almost an entire-ACC round robin schedule like everyone else. GT had long-term contracts back in the day with Tennessee, Auburn, and Alabama, among others that it could not and would not end for the sake of playing at the time 7 ACC games. That was an exception that I don't see happening again in the future. GT of course ended its annual games with Auburn and Tennessee (much to the dismay of many old time fans) around '85-'86 time frame and Maryland came onto the schedule to complete equal 7 conference games with the rest of the ACC at the time.

And, just curious, VPI&SU being allowed "back into the league"? Which league are you or Brill talking about? Bill Brill...GRHS! He was a credit to his profession and the ACC.

1. The ACC was willing to give GT a few years to transition from independent to full football member, and are you trying to tell me they wouldn't be as patient with Notre Dame?

2. VT was a member of the old Southern Conference along with Maryland, UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest and Clemson; this was shortly before the ACC was formed.

1. Of course the ACC would do that. It's the exception I referenced with GT. Once again, the context of this goofy thread idea is that ND is NOT a member of the ACC in FB but its games with existing FB members should count towards the 5 or 6 teams who play them? Not going to happen. Apples and oranges discussion regarding ND's games counting as a non-member and whether the ACC would accommodate ND's entrance with FB...though, that is extremely unlikely as well. As Terry pointed out, one of the only things that would push ND to be a FB member of the ACC is if the Irish were somehow blocked out of the playoffs as an independent. I don't see that happening and in fact the early returns from the playoff system is that ND has direct access to the playoffs given they go 11-1/12-0 and play a challenging schedule (as they normally do).

2. Yes, I'm familiar with the old Southern Conference. There was a bunch of schools in it way way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when. More than just teams who formed the ACC as you know I realize. If Brill is referencing that, then OK. Kinda strange, but OK. "Back in the league" makes it sound like the Southern Conference breakaway was back in the 70's or something. Glad nobody was holding it against VPI&SU in joining the ACC for alliances from 70 years ago.

(06-30-2019 02:09 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 01:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 02:46 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  The ACC is not going to...

1. have unequal number of conference games in FB
2. add in ND FB games to count towards conference records

End of discussion. Next issue!

Never is a long time. I'm old enough to remember Bill Brill writing in the Greensboro N&R that VT would never be allowed back into the league.

Pure independence is not ND's ultimate goal. The ability to play a national schedule is the ultimate goal. A visit to the west coast every year. The ability to an SEC or B12 every year. The ability to keep Navy. The ability to play in Florida, etc., etc.

The ability to provide some variety to their fans.

The ACC is not large enough, nor structured in such a way at this time to allow for that. It likely never will be large enough or structured like that, but never? Never is a long time.

The context of this thread isn't about whether ND will be a normal member of the ACC in FB. Instead, it is about some goofy idea of the existing 14 ACC FB members counting games against ND as part of the league record and using it as part of deciding who plays in the ACC FB championship game. Also, about having unequal number of conference games in FB being counted.

The ACC is not going to count a non-member's games into the conference W-L records. The only chance the ACC is ever going to allow unequal number of conference games in FB will be if a new program joins and it takes a few years to get their schedules adjusted. That shouldn't be a problem in present tense.

I recall when GT entered the ACC, the Jackets didn't play Maryland until a few years into playing almost an entire-ACC round robin schedule like everyone else. GT had long-term contracts back in the day with Tennessee, Auburn, and Alabama, among others that it could not and would not end for the sake of playing at the time 7 ACC games. That was an exception that I don't see happening again in the future. GT of course ended its annual games with Auburn and Tennessee (much to the dismay of many old time fans) around '85-'86 time frame and Maryland came onto the schedule to complete equal 7 conference games with the rest of the ACC at the time.

And, just curious, VPI&SU being allowed "back into the league"? Which league are you or Brill talking about? Bill Brill...GRHS! He was a credit to his profession and the ACC.

The ACC was not a "new" conference. It was not sold that way or formed that way. It was formed by the defacto ejection of the smaller schools plus VT and WVa. It's no different that what happened with the Pacific Conference in the 1950's with the old PCAA coming apart at the seems due to several member's cheating and then coming back together without Montana or Idaho.

VT was specifically blackballed by MD, UVa, and Clemson. But this is a wasted discussion if your personal knowledge of the ACC only goes back a couple of decades.

(06-30-2019 01:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 02:46 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  The ACC is not going to...

1. have unequal number of conference games in FB
2. add in ND FB games to count towards conference records

End of discussion. Next issue!

Never is a long time. I'm old enough to remember Bill Brill writing in the Greensboro N&R that VT would never be allowed back into the league.

Pure independence is not ND's ultimate goal. The ability to play a national schedule is the ultimate goal. A visit to the west coast every year. The ability to an SEC or B12 every year. The ability to keep Navy. The ability to play in Florida, etc., etc.

The ability to provide some variety to their fans.

The ACC is not large enough, nor structured in such a way at this time to allow for that. It likely never will be large enough or structured like that, but never? Never is a long time.

Not "pure" independence. That ended with the five game ACC deal.

But, I think you vastly underestimate the extreme desire at ND to NOT have football join a conference. It is not just scheduling.

(06-30-2019 04:24 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 02:09 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 01:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 02:46 PM)Wear Purple Wrote:  The ACC is not going to...

1. have unequal number of conference games in FB
2. add in ND FB games to count towards conference records

End of discussion. Next issue!

Never is a long time. I'm old enough to remember Bill Brill writing in the Greensboro N&R that VT would never be allowed back into the league.

Pure independence is not ND's ultimate goal. The ability to play a national schedule is the ultimate goal. A visit to the west coast every year. The ability to an SEC or B12 every year. The ability to keep Navy. The ability to play in Florida, etc., etc.

The ability to provide some variety to their fans.

The ACC is not large enough, nor structured in such a way at this time to allow for that. It likely never will be large enough or structured like that, but never? Never is a long time.

The context of this thread isn't about whether ND will be a normal member of the ACC in FB. Instead, it is about some goofy idea of the existing 14 ACC FB members counting games against ND as part of the league record and using it as part of deciding who plays in the ACC FB championship game. Also, about having unequal number of conference games in FB being counted.

The ACC is not going to count a non-member's games into the conference W-L records. The only chance the ACC is ever going to allow unequal number of conference games in FB will be if a new program joins and it takes a few years to get their schedules adjusted. That shouldn't be a problem in present tense.

I recall when GT entered the ACC, the Jackets didn't play Maryland until a few years into playing almost an entire-ACC round robin schedule like everyone else. GT had long-term contracts back in the day with Tennessee, Auburn, and Alabama, among others that it could not and would not end for the sake of playing at the time 7 ACC games. That was an exception that I don't see happening again in the future. GT of course ended its annual games with Auburn and Tennessee (much to the dismay of many old time fans) around '85-'86 time frame and Maryland came onto the schedule to complete equal 7 conference games with the rest of the ACC at the time.

And, just curious, VPI&SU being allowed "back into the league"? Which league are you or Brill talking about? Bill Brill...GRHS! He was a credit to his profession and the ACC.

The ACC was not a "new" conference. It was not sold that way or formed that way. It was formed by the defacto ejection of the smaller schools plus VT and WVa. It's no different that what happened with the Pacific Conference in the 1950's with the old PCAA coming apart at the seems due to several member's cheating and then coming back together without Montana or Idaho.

VT was specifically blackballed by MD, UVa, and Clemson. But this is a wasted discussion if your personal knowledge of the ACC only goes back a couple of decades.

My knowledge of the ACC goes back to the 70's. Again, none of what you are talking about is being debated or challenged in this thread.