(10-18-2020 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 09:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:29 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  "Yankee" is still considered an insult from Southerners to Northerners? I'm a Northerner and don't find the term offensive at all. If anything, it's something to take pride in.

As long as we're using 19th century lingo, I think Muskie in turn should refer to Bearcat as "Johnny Reb". Although Ohio and Illinois are not part of the South, so anyone living in either of those states is a "Yankee" too.

I think it was intended as an insult. The great irony is that while my college sports loyalties rest with schools in Ohio since that’s where I’m from, culturally and politically I am far more Southern in my leanings.

(10-15-2020 04:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 12:45 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  I used to believe ND would de-emphasize if the changes that are coming happened. But this season showed me how much ND is attached to football. We're one of the big pushers to getting the season going.

Northwestern and Vandy, Wake Forest would be my guesses for de-emphasizing

It also proved to Notre Dame, that today it is not possible to rely on others that do not have a vested interest in your survival.
USC-no
Stanford-no
Navy-yes
ACC-yes

When the chips were down, the ACC, like Navy before them had Notre Dame's back.
Loyalty can not be purchased, only honored and cherished.

You way overstate things, Lance.

The U.S. Navy actually saved Notre Dame, the institution itself, from having to close down in World War II.

The ACC accommodating ND's football program in scheduling for one season, while appreciated, is not in the same universe.

You inclusion of Southern Cal and Stanford in your statement is another bit of hyperbole, as Quo aptly points out.

Your point is taken, but there's something else in Lance's statement that needs to be analyzed.

The ACC did do a favor for Notre Dame and that's important, but it's his earlier statement that's more relevant. The ACC depends on Notre Dame for survival and is willing to lend them a hand any which way they can. It's not that USC or Stanford did anything wrong, but whether intentionally or unintentionally, they were not structurally capable of ensuring Notre Dame played a season. The ACC was.

In other words, you can't always depend upon the kindness of strangers, but you can depend on the loyalty of those who need you.

In the end, that does make a difference.

That is not "loyalty". What you describe is merely self-interest.

Lance wants a Knighthood or a lifelong commitment from a one year scheduling accommodation.

His inclusion of the ACC with the U.S. Navy showed his stripes.

He is saying that ND owes the ACC a lifelong debt.

I say that is hyperbole.

(10-18-2020 08:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 09:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 12:29 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  "Yankee" is still considered an insult from Southerners to Northerners? I'm a Northerner and don't find the term offensive at all. If anything, it's something to take pride in.

As long as we're using 19th century lingo, I think Muskie in turn should refer to Bearcat as "Johnny Reb". Although Ohio and Illinois are not part of the South, so anyone living in either of those states is a "Yankee" too.

I think it was intended as an insult. The great irony is that while my college sports loyalties rest with schools in Ohio since that’s where I’m from, culturally and politically I am far more Southern in my leanings.

(10-15-2020 04:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 12:45 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  I used to believe ND would de-emphasize if the changes that are coming happened. But this season showed me how much ND is attached to football. We're one of the big pushers to getting the season going.

Northwestern and Vandy, Wake Forest would be my guesses for de-emphasizing

It also proved to Notre Dame, that today it is not possible to rely on others that do not have a vested interest in your survival.
USC-no
Stanford-no
Navy-yes
ACC-yes

When the chips were down, the ACC, like Navy before them had Notre Dame's back.
Loyalty can not be purchased, only honored and cherished.

You way overstate things, Lance.

The U.S. Navy actually saved Notre Dame, the institution itself, from having to close down in World War II.

The ACC accommodating ND's football program in scheduling for one season, while appreciated, is not in the same universe.

You inclusion of Southern Cal and Stanford in your statement is another bit of hyperbole, as Quo aptly points out.

Your point is taken, but there's something else in Lance's statement that needs to be analyzed.

The ACC did do a favor for Notre Dame and that's important, but it's his earlier statement that's more relevant. The ACC depends on Notre Dame for survival and is willing to lend them a hand any which way they can. It's not that USC or Stanford did anything wrong, but whether intentionally or unintentionally, they were not structurally capable of ensuring Notre Dame played a season. The ACC was.

In other words, you can't always depend upon the kindness of strangers, but you can depend on the loyalty of those who need you.

In the end, that does make a difference.

That is not "loyalty". What you describe is merely self-interest.

Lance wants a Knighthood or a lifelong commitment from a one year scheduling accommodation.

His inclusion of the ACC with the U.S. Navy showed his stripes.

He is saying that ND owes the ACC a lifelong debt.

I say that is hyperbole.

I don't think you quite caught me. I understood your original point, but what I think Lance is saying is that self-interest makes bedfellows. No, it's not technically loyalty, but practiced often enough, they breed each other. It's the reason Notre Dame joined up with the ACC in the first place.

Self-interest makes this all go around, I agree with that. With that said, the reason ND plays Navy is wholly different in the grand scheme of things. I get that, but I'm not talking about that relationship. Maybe Lance is, I don't know. Either way, hyperbole or BS aside, the setup with the ACC this year is just a microcosm. The two entities have been working together for a while and that will likely continue for some time. Self-interest, practiced often enough, leads to loyalty.

If ND ever joins the ACC in full one day, it won't be because of loyalty, understood. But self-interest from USC and Stanford's perspective this year obviously didn't lead to ensuring Notre Dame could play a season. It's the sum of all the instances working together. What other instances might occur over the next 10-15 years that will cement the relationship?

(10-18-2020 11:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 08:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 09:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-13-2020 01:09 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think it was intended as an insult. The great irony is that while my college sports loyalties rest with schools in Ohio since that’s where I’m from, culturally and politically I am far more Southern in my leanings.

(10-15-2020 04:55 AM)XLance Wrote:  It also proved to Notre Dame, that today it is not possible to rely on others that do not have a vested interest in your survival.
USC-no
Stanford-no
Navy-yes
ACC-yes

When the chips were down, the ACC, like Navy before them had Notre Dame's back.
Loyalty can not be purchased, only honored and cherished.

You way overstate things, Lance.

The U.S. Navy actually saved Notre Dame, the institution itself, from having to close down in World War II.

The ACC accommodating ND's football program in scheduling for one season, while appreciated, is not in the same universe.

You inclusion of Southern Cal and Stanford in your statement is another bit of hyperbole, as Quo aptly points out.

Your point is taken, but there's something else in Lance's statement that needs to be analyzed.

The ACC did do a favor for Notre Dame and that's important, but it's his earlier statement that's more relevant. The ACC depends on Notre Dame for survival and is willing to lend them a hand any which way they can. It's not that USC or Stanford did anything wrong, but whether intentionally or unintentionally, they were not structurally capable of ensuring Notre Dame played a season. The ACC was.

In other words, you can't always depend upon the kindness of strangers, but you can depend on the loyalty of those who need you.

In the end, that does make a difference.

That is not "loyalty". What you describe is merely self-interest.

Lance wants a Knighthood or a lifelong commitment from a one year scheduling accommodation.

His inclusion of the ACC with the U.S. Navy showed his stripes.

He is saying that ND owes the ACC a lifelong debt.

I say that is hyperbole.

I don't think you quite caught me. I understood your original point, but what I think Lance is saying is that self-interest makes bedfellows. No, it's not technically loyalty, but practiced often enough, they breed each other. It's the reason Notre Dame joined up with the ACC in the first place.

Self-interest makes this all go around, I agree with that. With that said, the reason ND plays Navy is wholly different in the grand scheme of things. I get that, but I'm not talking about that relationship. Maybe Lance is, I don't know. Either way, hyperbole or BS aside, the setup with the ACC this year is just a microcosm. The two entities have been working together for a while and that will likely continue for some time. Self-interest, practiced often enough, leads to loyalty.

If ND ever joins the ACC in full one day, it won't be because of loyalty, understood. But self-interest from USC and Stanford's perspective this year obviously didn't lead to ensuring Notre Dame could play a season. It's the sum of all the instances working together. What other instances might occur over the next 10-15 years that will cement the relationship?

There was one time when Jim Delaney forbid the entire Big Ten from playing Notre Dame. It didn't work because Michigan State and Purdue defied the order. What if a Pac 12 commish decides to put a similar order in place for the PAC 12, to help out the Big Ten?? That is possible.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

(10-19-2020 04:32 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 11:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 08:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 09:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You way overstate things, Lance.

The U.S. Navy actually saved Notre Dame, the institution itself, from having to close down in World War II.

The ACC accommodating ND's football program in scheduling for one season, while appreciated, is not in the same universe.

You inclusion of Southern Cal and Stanford in your statement is another bit of hyperbole, as Quo aptly points out.

Your point is taken, but there's something else in Lance's statement that needs to be analyzed.

The ACC did do a favor for Notre Dame and that's important, but it's his earlier statement that's more relevant. The ACC depends on Notre Dame for survival and is willing to lend them a hand any which way they can. It's not that USC or Stanford did anything wrong, but whether intentionally or unintentionally, they were not structurally capable of ensuring Notre Dame played a season. The ACC was.

In other words, you can't always depend upon the kindness of strangers, but you can depend on the loyalty of those who need you.

In the end, that does make a difference.

That is not "loyalty". What you describe is merely self-interest.

Lance wants a Knighthood or a lifelong commitment from a one year scheduling accommodation.

His inclusion of the ACC with the U.S. Navy showed his stripes.

He is saying that ND owes the ACC a lifelong debt.

I say that is hyperbole.

I don't think you quite caught me. I understood your original point, but what I think Lance is saying is that self-interest makes bedfellows. No, it's not technically loyalty, but practiced often enough, they breed each other. It's the reason Notre Dame joined up with the ACC in the first place.

Self-interest makes this all go around, I agree with that. With that said, the reason ND plays Navy is wholly different in the grand scheme of things. I get that, but I'm not talking about that relationship. Maybe Lance is, I don't know. Either way, hyperbole or BS aside, the setup with the ACC this year is just a microcosm. The two entities have been working together for a while and that will likely continue for some time. Self-interest, practiced often enough, leads to loyalty.

If ND ever joins the ACC in full one day, it won't be because of loyalty, understood. But self-interest from USC and Stanford's perspective this year obviously didn't lead to ensuring Notre Dame could play a season. It's the sum of all the instances working together. What other instances might occur over the next 10-15 years that will cement the relationship?

There was one time when Jim Delaney forbid the entire Big Ten from playing Notre Dame. It didn't work because Michigan State and Purdue defied the order. What if a Pac 12 commish decides to put a similar order in place for the PAC 12, to help out the Big Ten?? That is possible.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

Actually, something like that was tried a few years ago, and Stanford and Southern Cal refused to go along with it to keep their series with ND.

(10-19-2020 04:32 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 11:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 08:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-15-2020 09:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You way overstate things, Lance.

The U.S. Navy actually saved Notre Dame, the institution itself, from having to close down in World War II.

The ACC accommodating ND's football program in scheduling for one season, while appreciated, is not in the same universe.

You inclusion of Southern Cal and Stanford in your statement is another bit of hyperbole, as Quo aptly points out.

Your point is taken, but there's something else in Lance's statement that needs to be analyzed.

The ACC did do a favor for Notre Dame and that's important, but it's his earlier statement that's more relevant. The ACC depends on Notre Dame for survival and is willing to lend them a hand any which way they can. It's not that USC or Stanford did anything wrong, but whether intentionally or unintentionally, they were not structurally capable of ensuring Notre Dame played a season. The ACC was.

In other words, you can't always depend upon the kindness of strangers, but you can depend on the loyalty of those who need you.

In the end, that does make a difference.

That is not "loyalty". What you describe is merely self-interest.

Lance wants a Knighthood or a lifelong commitment from a one year scheduling accommodation.

His inclusion of the ACC with the U.S. Navy showed his stripes.

He is saying that ND owes the ACC a lifelong debt.

I say that is hyperbole.

I don't think you quite caught me. I understood your original point, but what I think Lance is saying is that self-interest makes bedfellows. No, it's not technically loyalty, but practiced often enough, they breed each other. It's the reason Notre Dame joined up with the ACC in the first place.

Self-interest makes this all go around, I agree with that. With that said, the reason ND plays Navy is wholly different in the grand scheme of things. I get that, but I'm not talking about that relationship. Maybe Lance is, I don't know. Either way, hyperbole or BS aside, the setup with the ACC this year is just a microcosm. The two entities have been working together for a while and that will likely continue for some time. Self-interest, practiced often enough, leads to loyalty.

If ND ever joins the ACC in full one day, it won't be because of loyalty, understood. But self-interest from USC and Stanford's perspective this year obviously didn't lead to ensuring Notre Dame could play a season. It's the sum of all the instances working together. What other instances might occur over the next 10-15 years that will cement the relationship?

There was one time when Jim Delaney forbid the entire Big Ten from playing Notre Dame. It didn't work because Michigan State and Purdue defied the order. What if a Pac 12 commish decides to put a similar order in place for the PAC 12, to help out the Big Ten?? That is possible.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

On the other hand,

Notre Dame and Purdue played every year until 2014 and haven't played since (they will play six times between 2021 and 2028).

Notre Dame and Michigan State haven't played since 2017 and won't play again until 2026.

Notre Dame and Michigan played last year but they aren't scheduled to play until 2033!

2013 was the last time Notre Dame played all three of their traditional Big Ten rivals (Michigan, Purdue, and Michigan State, in three consecutive weeks). All three of these schools played Notre Dame in 2010, 2011, and 2012 as well. In 2014, they did not play Michigan State but played Northwestern. In 2015, Notre Dame did not play a Big Ten team in the regular season (they played Ohio State Jan. 1, 2016 in the Fiesta Bowl). They played Michigan State in 2016 and 2017 and Michigan in 2018 and 2019.

So while the Big Ten didn't completely boycott or refuse to play Notre Dame, they are definitely playing the Irish less often these days. Of the three, only Purdue has any meaningful long term future with Notre Dame. Maybe the nine game schedule also is contributing to the three not playing the Irish as often though.

In addition to Purdue, Notre Dame has Wisconsin in Chicago next year as well as Ohio State home and away in 2022 and 2023. So Notre Dame will play at least one Big Ten team every year between now and 2028 (they are scheduled to play Purdue 2021 and 2024-2028). Will they make up the game in Green Bay? I don't know how ticket distribution is for the games but TV for the game in Chicago is under the Big Ten's control and the game in Green Bay would have been under Notre Dame/NBC's control. I would assume Notre Dame would want to get the Wisconsin game in Green Bay back eventually for TV reasons.

Notre Dame will have to accept that they won't be playing Big Ten teams as often ... or you can always join our conference in football ... as a FULL member, nine games a year.

ND chose to break off the long standing Big Ten games because of the ACC commitment. Also, Michigan is not a traditional rival to the degree MSU and Purdue are. Northwestern was more of a traditional opponent until the annual game was discontinued in the late 70’s. Michigan sort of replaced Northwestern on the schedule, but not annually.

(10-19-2020 06:43 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-19-2020 04:32 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 11:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 08:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-18-2020 03:52 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Your point is taken, but there's something else in Lance's statement that needs to be analyzed.

The ACC did do a favor for Notre Dame and that's important, but it's his earlier statement that's more relevant. The ACC depends on Notre Dame for survival and is willing to lend them a hand any which way they can. It's not that USC or Stanford did anything wrong, but whether intentionally or unintentionally, they were not structurally capable of ensuring Notre Dame played a season. The ACC was.

In other words, you can't always depend upon the kindness of strangers, but you can depend on the loyalty of those who need you.

In the end, that does make a difference.

That is not "loyalty". What you describe is merely self-interest.

Lance wants a Knighthood or a lifelong commitment from a one year scheduling accommodation.

His inclusion of the ACC with the U.S. Navy showed his stripes.

He is saying that ND owes the ACC a lifelong debt.

I say that is hyperbole.

I don't think you quite caught me. I understood your original point, but what I think Lance is saying is that self-interest makes bedfellows. No, it's not technically loyalty, but practiced often enough, they breed each other. It's the reason Notre Dame joined up with the ACC in the first place.

Self-interest makes this all go around, I agree with that. With that said, the reason ND plays Navy is wholly different in the grand scheme of things. I get that, but I'm not talking about that relationship. Maybe Lance is, I don't know. Either way, hyperbole or BS aside, the setup with the ACC this year is just a microcosm. The two entities have been working together for a while and that will likely continue for some time. Self-interest, practiced often enough, leads to loyalty.

If ND ever joins the ACC in full one day, it won't be because of loyalty, understood. But self-interest from USC and Stanford's perspective this year obviously didn't lead to ensuring Notre Dame could play a season. It's the sum of all the instances working together. What other instances might occur over the next 10-15 years that will cement the relationship?

There was one time when Jim Delaney forbid the entire Big Ten from playing Notre Dame. It didn't work because Michigan State and Purdue defied the order. What if a Pac 12 commish decides to put a similar order in place for the PAC 12, to help out the Big Ten?? That is possible.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk

On the other hand,

Notre Dame and Purdue played every year until 2014 and haven't played since (they will play six times between 2021 and 2028).

Notre Dame and Michigan State haven't played since 2017 and won't play again until 2026.

Notre Dame and Michigan played last year but they aren't scheduled to play until 2033!

2013 was the last time Notre Dame played all three of their traditional Big Ten rivals (Michigan, Purdue, and Michigan State, in three consecutive weeks). All three of these schools played Notre Dame in 2010, 2011, and 2012 as well. In 2014, they did not play Michigan State but played Northwestern. In 2015, Notre Dame did not play a Big Ten team in the regular season (they played Ohio State Jan. 1, 2016 in the Fiesta Bowl). They played Michigan State in 2016 and 2017 and Michigan in 2018 and 2019.

So while the Big Ten didn't completely boycott or refuse to play Notre Dame, they are definitely playing the Irish less often these days. Of the three, only Purdue has any meaningful long term future with Notre Dame. Maybe the nine game schedule also is contributing to the three not playing the Irish as often though.

In addition to Purdue, Notre Dame has Wisconsin in Chicago next year as well as Ohio State home and away in 2022 and 2023. So Notre Dame will play at least one Big Ten team every year between now and 2028 (they are scheduled to play Purdue 2021 and 2024-2028). Will they make up the game in Green Bay? I don't know how ticket distribution is for the games but TV for the game in Chicago is under the Big Ten's control and the game in Green Bay would have been under Notre Dame/NBC's control. I would assume Notre Dame would want to get the Wisconsin game in Green Bay back eventually for TV reasons.

Notre Dame will have to accept that they won't be playing Big Ten teams as often ... or you can always join our conference in football ... as a FULL member, nine games a year.

I know that you are a Big Ten centric guy, but you have it completely backwards.

It was ND's decision to stop playing Big Ten teams. It was caused by ND's partial scheduling deal with the ACC in 2012.

For instance, there was the infamous letter that Jack Swarbrick hand delivered to Michigan's AD right before a ND/Michigan game, cancelling the rest of the series.

I don't have the inclination to find the old links for you, but Michigan fans were aghast at this and there were comments by the Purdue and Michigan State AD's at the time lamenting the loss of the annual series

ND could not play the Big Ten teams and the 5 ACC games per year and Southern Cal and Stanford and Navy, etc..

Something had to give and ND decided to punt on the annual Big Ten games.