(08-10-2023 08:32 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:06 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:01 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  FWIW - I like the suggestion that HokieMark made on his blog…

If Notre Dame wants Stanford and California in the ACC, move the deal to six annual games. In exchange the ACC improves scheduling diversity and recruiting access to ND by changing the rotation format to:
- 1 annual game against a California school (rotating through Stanford and Cal)
- 1 annual game against a Florida school (rotating through Florida State and Miami)…helps ESPN, NBC and FSU
- 4 annual games rotate equally against the other ACC programs (a simple and balanced 6 year H&H rotation)

No

Lol that's a better arrangement than ND already has.

I do not want Cal or Stanford rotated. I hate those games. UCLA would be better. Florida is fine, but the tie Stanford and Cal sucks. 6 games locked up is bad.

But UCLA does Nothing for the ACC where with Stanford and CAL in the ACC would

(08-11-2023 06:41 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:32 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:06 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:01 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  FWIW - I like the suggestion that HokieMark made on his blog…

If Notre Dame wants Stanford and California in the ACC, move the deal to six annual games. In exchange the ACC improves scheduling diversity and recruiting access to ND by changing the rotation format to:
- 1 annual game against a California school (rotating through Stanford and Cal)
- 1 annual game against a Florida school (rotating through Florida State and Miami)…helps ESPN, NBC and FSU
- 4 annual games rotate equally against the other ACC programs (a simple and balanced 6 year H&H rotation)

No

Lol that's a better arrangement than ND already has.

I do not want Cal or Stanford rotated. I hate those games. UCLA would be better. Florida is fine, but the tie Stanford and Cal sucks. 6 games locked up is bad.

But UCLA does Nothing for the ACC where with Stanford and CAL in the ACC would

Okay? A sixth game attached just does not make sense. We were dropping Stanford anyway in the future which allows us flexibility..

(08-11-2023 06:48 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:41 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:32 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:06 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  No

Lol that's a better arrangement than ND already has.

I do not want Cal or Stanford rotated. I hate those games. UCLA would be better. Florida is fine, but the tie Stanford and Cal sucks. 6 games locked up is bad.

But UCLA does Nothing for the ACC where with Stanford and CAL in the ACC would

Okay? A sixth game attached just does not make sense. We were dropping Stanford anyway in the future which allows us flexibility..

Yep! Stanford comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2024 season.
Interestingly, USC also comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2026 season.

I guess a traditional rival was getting in the way of flexibility, too.

(08-11-2023 06:56 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:48 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:41 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:32 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:29 PM)esayem Wrote:  Lol that's a better arrangement than ND already has.

I do not want Cal or Stanford rotated. I hate those games. UCLA would be better. Florida is fine, but the tie Stanford and Cal sucks. 6 games locked up is bad.

But UCLA does Nothing for the ACC where with Stanford and CAL in the ACC would

Okay? A sixth game attached just does not make sense. We were dropping Stanford anyway in the future which allows us flexibility..

Yep! Stanford comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2024 season.
Interestingly, USC also comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2026 season.

I guess a traditional rival was getting in the way of flexibility, too.

USC is going on, STanford was always in flux.

(08-11-2023 06:59 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:56 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:48 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:41 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:32 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  I do not want Cal or Stanford rotated. I hate those games. UCLA would be better. Florida is fine, but the tie Stanford and Cal sucks. 6 games locked up is bad.

But UCLA does Nothing for the ACC where with Stanford and CAL in the ACC would

Okay? A sixth game attached just does not make sense. We were dropping Stanford anyway in the future which allows us flexibility..

Yep! Stanford comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2024 season.
Interestingly, USC also comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2026 season.

I guess a traditional rival was getting in the way of flexibility, too.

USC is going on, STanford was always in flux.

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/notre-dame/

(08-11-2023 07:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:59 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:56 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:48 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:41 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  But UCLA does Nothing for the ACC where with Stanford and CAL in the ACC would

Okay? A sixth game attached just does not make sense. We were dropping Stanford anyway in the future which allows us flexibility..

Yep! Stanford comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2024 season.
Interestingly, USC also comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2026 season.

I guess a traditional rival was getting in the way of flexibility, too.

USC is going on, STanford was always in flux.

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/notre-dame/

I am aware, but they will continue on. I know our schedules and discussions by both AD's really well.

(08-11-2023 06:35 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Swarbrick was tone deaf and should have kept his mouth shut and not given an interview.

However, lets all be real here.

ND is pushing this for one reason only, to help protect its football independence.

It wants to prop up the ACC as an instrument to keep ND football out of any conference.

ND's independence is protected if the ACC continues to exist if FSU and Clemson leave.

It is not the goal to "save" anyone else, not Stanford and not Cal and not the ACC in its present form.

Chipping away at independence further by adding a sixth game against a single conference is not something that will protect independence.

So, if this expansion fails, well, it fails. Worth a (long) shot by Swarbrick.

Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

A 6th game is pretty much full membership at this point. The already quasi-indy relationship becomes even more convoluted. At that point we really are just being stubborn and in my mind what we're fighting for is peanuts.

A 6th game is pretty much full membership at this point[

This is a ridiculous comment. Almost as obtuse as some of the comments made by myopic FSU boosters.



In the same way that FSU has illogical, knee jerk reactionaries who run their mouth big and loud before they think, ND has its share of religiously justified exceptionalists. The big difference is ND has plenty of money to back up its mouth unlike FSU. Once you have become convinced you are God's chosen school, it's difficult to do anything with the masses.

ND, Stanford, and FSU all three have displayed a degree of egoism that you don't see coming out of Alabama and Ohio State.

(08-11-2023 07:14 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:35 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Swarbrick was tone deaf and should have kept his mouth shut and not given an interview.

However, lets all be real here.

ND is pushing this for one reason only, to help protect its football independence.

It wants to prop up the ACC as an instrument to keep ND football out of any conference.

ND's independence is protected if the ACC continues to exist if FSU and Clemson leave.

It is not the goal to "save" anyone else, not Stanford and not Cal and not the ACC in its present form.

Chipping away at independence further by adding a sixth game against a single conference is not something that will protect independence.

So, if this expansion fails, well, it fails. Worth a (long) shot by Swarbrick.

Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

A 6th game is pretty much full membership at this point. The already quasi-indy relationship becomes even more convoluted. At that point we really are just being stubborn and in my mind what we're fighting for is peanuts.

A 6th game is pretty much full membership at this point[

This is a ridiculous comment. Almost as obtuse as some of the comments made by myopic FSU boosters.



In the same way that FSU has illogical, knee jerk reactionaries who run their mouth big and loud before they think, ND has its share of religiously justified exceptionalists. The big difference is ND has plenty of money to back up its mouth unlike FSU. Once you have become convinced you are God's chosen school, it's difficult to do anything with the masses.

ND, Stanford, and FSU all three have displayed a degree of egoism that you don't see coming out of Alabama and Ohio State.

Cool, just say no to number 6.

(08-11-2023 06:59 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:56 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:48 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:41 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-10-2023 08:32 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  I do not want Cal or Stanford rotated. I hate those games. UCLA would be better. Florida is fine, but the tie Stanford and Cal sucks. 6 games locked up is bad.

But UCLA does Nothing for the ACC where with Stanford and CAL in the ACC would

Okay? A sixth game attached just does not make sense. We were dropping Stanford anyway in the future which allows us flexibility..

Yep! Stanford comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2024 season.
Interestingly, USC also comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2026 season.

I guess a traditional rival was getting in the way of flexibility, too.

USC is going on, STanford was always in flux.

STanford was always in flux.

Do you lie to the priest in confessional? I bet you don't, so why lie here.

(08-11-2023 07:16 AM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:59 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:56 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:48 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:41 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  But UCLA does Nothing for the ACC where with Stanford and CAL in the ACC would

Okay? A sixth game attached just does not make sense. We were dropping Stanford anyway in the future which allows us flexibility..

Yep! Stanford comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2024 season.
Interestingly, USC also comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2026 season.

I guess a traditional rival was getting in the way of flexibility, too.

USC is going on, STanford was always in flux.

STanford was always in flux.

Do you lie to the priest in confessional? I bet you don't, so why lie here.

Oh no, but the series was always one that was not guaranteed to continue. Stanford is a newer rival and almost forced. Most ND fans will/would be happy if it was gone.

(08-11-2023 07:07 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 07:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:59 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:56 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:48 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  Okay? A sixth game attached just does not make sense. We were dropping Stanford anyway in the future which allows us flexibility..

Yep! Stanford comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2024 season.
Interestingly, USC also comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2026 season.

I guess a traditional rival was getting in the way of flexibility, too.

USC is going on, STanford was always in flux.

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/notre-dame/

I am aware, but they will continue on. I know our schedules and discussions by both AD's really well.

Are you privy to the inner workings of both the Notre Dame and Southern Cal athletic departments?
Are you even Notre Dame graduate?

(08-11-2023 07:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 07:07 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 07:05 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:59 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:56 AM)XLance Wrote:  Yep! Stanford comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2024 season.
Interestingly, USC also comes off of Notre Dame's schedule after the 2026 season.

I guess a traditional rival was getting in the way of flexibility, too.

USC is going on, STanford was always in flux.

https://fbschedules.com/ncaa/notre-dame/

I am aware, but they will continue on. I know our schedules and discussions by both AD's really well.

Are you privy to the inner workings of both the Notre Dame and Southern Cal athletic departments?
Are you even Notre Dame graduate?

Nope, not a grad, didn't make it :( . Any how, i do know how to read and know how important the game is to USC and ND.

I deleted so I would not have to go to confession. May peace be upon you..

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Swarbrick was tone deaf and should have kept his mouth shut and not given an interview.

However, lets all be real here.

ND is pushing this for one reason only, to help protect its football independence.

It wants to prop up the ACC as an instrument to keep ND football out of any conference.

ND's independence is protected if the ACC continues to exist if FSU and Clemson leave.

It is not the goal to "save" anyone else, not Stanford and not Cal and not the ACC in its present form.

Chipping away at independence further by adding a sixth game against a single conference is not something that will protect independence.

So, if this expansion fails, well, it fails. Worth a (long) shot by Swarbrick.

Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

Here's how this sounds to non-Irish fans:
"We want the ACC to survive, but if they were on fire we wouldn't do so much as pee on them."

(08-11-2023 08:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Swarbrick was tone deaf and should have kept his mouth shut and not given an interview.

However, lets all be real here.

ND is pushing this for one reason only, to help protect its football independence.

It wants to prop up the ACC as an instrument to keep ND football out of any conference.

ND's independence is protected if the ACC continues to exist if FSU and Clemson leave.

It is not the goal to "save" anyone else, not Stanford and not Cal and not the ACC in its present form.

Chipping away at independence further by adding a sixth game against a single conference is not something that will protect independence.

So, if this expansion fails, well, it fails. Worth a (long) shot by Swarbrick.

Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

Here's how this sounds to non-Irish fans:
"We want the ACC to survive, but if they were on fire we wouldn't do so much as pee on them."

Wonder if any ACC Ref’s read these boards ?

(08-11-2023 09:28 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 08:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Swarbrick was tone deaf and should have kept his mouth shut and not given an interview.

However, lets all be real here.

ND is pushing this for one reason only, to help protect its football independence.

It wants to prop up the ACC as an instrument to keep ND football out of any conference.

ND's independence is protected if the ACC continues to exist if FSU and Clemson leave.

It is not the goal to "save" anyone else, not Stanford and not Cal and not the ACC in its present form.

Chipping away at independence further by adding a sixth game against a single conference is not something that will protect independence.

So, if this expansion fails, well, it fails. Worth a (long) shot by Swarbrick.

Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

Here's how this sounds to non-Irish fans:
"We want the ACC to survive, but if they were on fire we wouldn't do so much as pee on them."

Wonder if any ACC Ref’s read these boards ?

They get their marching orders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqANJsY8...e=emb_logo

(08-11-2023 06:35 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Swarbrick was tone deaf and should have kept his mouth shut and not given an interview.

However, lets all be real here.

ND is pushing this for one reason only, to help protect its football independence.

It wants to prop up the ACC as an instrument to keep ND football out of any conference.

ND's independence is protected if the ACC continues to exist if FSU and Clemson leave.

It is not the goal to "save" anyone else, not Stanford and not Cal and not the ACC in its present form.

Chipping away at independence further by adding a sixth game against a single conference is not something that will protect independence.

So, if this expansion fails, well, it fails. Worth a (long) shot by Swarbrick.

Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

A 6th game is pretty much full membership at this point. The already quasi-indy relationship becomes even more convoluted. At that point we really are just being stubborn and in my mind what we're fighting for is peanuts.

No, a 6th game versus an expanded ACC that newly includes a highly desired rival is hardly full football membership. In fact, it’s the same scheduling arrangement that Notre Dame has scheduled as a football independent for the past decade.

Notre Dame still keeps its own media deal and its traditional schedule flexibility. The real challenge to Notre Dame’s football independence is occurring via NBC’s demand of 3 or 4 dedicated games versus B1G opponents. Notre Dame doesn’t benefit from away games versus B1G opponents the way that ND benefits from all games versus ACC opponents.

Notre Dame could probably make this arrangement as a temporary 6 year deal, so that ND gains longer term independence (flexibility) when it tries to negotiate its subsequent media deal. Bottom line, Swarbrick’s plea on “behalf” of CaliStan was a crass self-interested leeching attempt by Notre Dame.

(08-11-2023 09:28 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 08:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Swarbrick was tone deaf and should have kept his mouth shut and not given an interview.

However, lets all be real here.

ND is pushing this for one reason only, to help protect its football independence.

It wants to prop up the ACC as an instrument to keep ND football out of any conference.

ND's independence is protected if the ACC continues to exist if FSU and Clemson leave.

It is not the goal to "save" anyone else, not Stanford and not Cal and not the ACC in its present form.

Chipping away at independence further by adding a sixth game against a single conference is not something that will protect independence.

So, if this expansion fails, well, it fails. Worth a (long) shot by Swarbrick.

Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

Here's how this sounds to non-Irish fans:
"We want the ACC to survive, but if they were on fire we wouldn't do so much as pee on them."

Wonder if any ACC Ref’s read these boards ?

Well, I wouldn't put it so indelicately....

(08-11-2023 10:18 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:35 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Swarbrick was tone deaf and should have kept his mouth shut and not given an interview.

However, lets all be real here.

ND is pushing this for one reason only, to help protect its football independence.

It wants to prop up the ACC as an instrument to keep ND football out of any conference.

ND's independence is protected if the ACC continues to exist if FSU and Clemson leave.

It is not the goal to "save" anyone else, not Stanford and not Cal and not the ACC in its present form.

Chipping away at independence further by adding a sixth game against a single conference is not something that will protect independence.

So, if this expansion fails, well, it fails. Worth a (long) shot by Swarbrick.

Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

A 6th game is pretty much full membership at this point. The already quasi-indy relationship becomes even more convoluted. At that point we really are just being stubborn and in my mind what we're fighting for is peanuts.

No, a 6th game versus an expanded ACC that newly includes a highly desired rival is hardly full football membership. In fact, it’s the same scheduling arrangement that Notre Dame has scheduled as a football independent for the past decade.

Notre Dame still keeps its own media deal and its traditional schedule flexibility. The real challenge to Notre Dame’s football independence is occurring via NBC’s demand of 3 or 4 dedicated games versus B1G opponents. Notre Dame doesn’t benefit from away games versus B1G opponents the way that ND benefits from all games versus ACC opponents.

Notre Dame could probably make this arrangement as a temporary 6 year deal, so that ND gains longer term independence (flexibility) when it tries to negotiate its subsequent media deal. Bottom line, Swarbrick’s plea on “behalf” of CaliStan was a crass self-interested leechin ughg attempt by Notre Dame.

Sure, just like what every school does at all times in conference realignment.

(08-11-2023 10:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 10:18 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:35 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:02 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Swarbrick was tone deaf and should have kept his mouth shut and not given an interview.

However, lets all be real here.

ND is pushing this for one reason only, to help protect its football independence.

It wants to prop up the ACC as an instrument to keep ND football out of any conference.

ND's independence is protected if the ACC continues to exist if FSU and Clemson leave.

It is not the goal to "save" anyone else, not Stanford and not Cal and not the ACC in its present form.

Chipping away at independence further by adding a sixth game against a single conference is not something that will protect independence.

So, if this expansion fails, well, it fails. Worth a (long) shot by Swarbrick.

Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

A 6th game is pretty much full membership at this point. The already quasi-indy relationship becomes even more convoluted. At that point we really are just being stubborn and in my mind what we're fighting for is peanuts.

No, a 6th game versus an expanded ACC that newly includes a highly desired rival is hardly full football membership. In fact, it’s the same scheduling arrangement that Notre Dame has scheduled as a football independent for the past decade.

Notre Dame still keeps its own media deal and its traditional schedule flexibility. The real challenge to Notre Dame’s football independence is occurring via NBC’s demand of 3 or 4 dedicated games versus B1G opponents. Notre Dame doesn’t benefit from away games versus B1G opponents the way that ND benefits from all games versus ACC opponents.

Notre Dame could probably make this arrangement as a temporary 6 year deal, so that ND gains longer term independence (flexibility) when it tries to negotiate its subsequent media deal. Bottom line, Swarbrick’s plea on “behalf” of CaliStan was a crass self-interested leechin ughg attempt by Notre Dame.

Sure, just like what every school does at all times in conference realignment.

No, there is a huge difference that you pointed out in a prior post. Swarbrick publicly advocated for the expansion calling it the right thing to do…ND wants to be seen as the sponsor (White Knight) of the expansion and force other ACC members to figure out the logistical and financial fortunes of a slightly weaker football conference.

Swarbrick and Notre Dame lose credibility unless his statement is supported by his actions.

(08-11-2023 10:48 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 10:33 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 10:18 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 06:35 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(08-11-2023 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  Are you saying that even if adding a sixth conference game could guarantee that Notre Dame could continue to be "independent" for another 20 years, that in your opinion it's not worth it? Isn't that a bird in the hand scenario?

The other Notre Dame poster would rather be playing USC and UCLA on a rotating basis?
If the ACC fails, are you going to be happy playing in the B1G....lots of money and absolutely no control.
Ceding a chip might be preferable than losing your soul.
Just a thought.

A 6th game is pretty much full membership at this point. The already quasi-indy relationship becomes even more convoluted. At that point we really are just being stubborn and in my mind what we're fighting for is peanuts.

No, a 6th game versus an expanded ACC that newly includes a highly desired rival is hardly full football membership. In fact, it’s the same scheduling arrangement that Notre Dame has scheduled as a football independent for the past decade.

Notre Dame still keeps its own media deal and its traditional schedule flexibility. The real challenge to Notre Dame’s football independence is occurring via NBC’s demand of 3 or 4 dedicated games versus B1G opponents. Notre Dame doesn’t benefit from away games versus B1G opponents the way that ND benefits from all games versus ACC opponents.

Notre Dame could probably make this arrangement as a temporary 6 year deal, so that ND gains longer term independence (flexibility) when it tries to negotiate its subsequent media deal. Bottom line, Swarbrick’s plea on “behalf” of CaliStan was a crass self-interested leechin ughg attempt by Notre Dame.

Sure, just like what every school does at all times in conference realignment.

No, there is a huge difference that you pointed out in a prior post. Swarbrick publicly advocated for the expansion calling it the right thing to do…ND wants to be seen as the sponsor (White Knight) of the expansion and force other ACC members to figure out the logistical and financial fortunes of a slightly weaker football conference.

Swarbrick and Notre Dame lose credibility unless his statement is supported by his actions.

Well, then Swarbrick loses credibility and life goes on.