Has anyone changed their perspective on being an ACC member after this season?
- Thread starter BloodOfIrish
- Start date
NO, BUT THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM IQ REQUIREMENT FOR POSTING !
DITTO READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS !
The above post is intellectually dishonest, either that or you’re just obtuse.
So Ohio State plays ND, Texas, Oregon, Washington Alabama and Georgia, but they don’t play any one of those schools twice in any year except 2025 when they play Texas and Washington.
ND plays anout 5 to 7 non-ACC teams EVERY YEAR !
ND would have to abandon their non-ACC schedule if they joined the ACC.
Here’s your absurd and dishonest analogy.
Ohio State schedule of notable non-conference games.
2021. Oregon
2022. ND
2023. ND
2024. Washington
2025. Texas & Washington
2026. Texas
2027. Alabama
2028. Alabama
2029
2030. Georgia
2031. Georgia
Now take a look at ND’s schedule for each of those year and take note of the numerous non-ACC teams that ND plays.
And you want to compare ONE (1) non-conference game per year with 5-7 non-conference games a year ? ? ?
That‘s about as disingenuous as you can get. !
If ND had gone to the Cotton Bowl against undefeated #1 Texas on January 1 1971 and won and then gone back to No Bowls, ND football would have entered a period of stagnation that almost certainly would have led to a decline that could not have corrected without going back to playing in bowls. ND choosing Bowls got the best decade of football since the 1940s.
Now that ND football has played not merely a full conference schedule but one with more conference games than would be played in a normal season, reverting will always mean questions and doubts. More recruits, for example, will begin asking about playing a full conference schedule, because they play for district/sectional/regional championships that lead to state championships. Any time there is a glitch with ND scheduling non-ACC games, more and more journalists will question ND football being roughly half a member of the ACC. And you can bet your last thin dime that people on the playoff committee who have backgrounds that are non-ACC, especially Big Ten people but also Pac and SEC and Big 12, will find it very easy to keep any 1 loss ND team out.
The hardcore No Football Conference ND fans predicted several very bad things should ND ever make that move, just as the anti-bowls ND fans predicted doom should ND start playing bowl games. One of the most common predictions was that ND playing a full slate of ACC teams would lose TV audience. I assume most of you - it should be all of you - know that ND's TV viewership this year was its biggest in 14 years.
It is fairly easy to keep an 8 game league slate with 15 members if you play without divisions. That would leave everyone with 4 OOC games. For ND, that would mean it would be very easy to keep SC and Navy as annual games.
Just like going bowling was in ND's future in the late 1960s, ND as a full member of a conference in football is coming. It simply is the all but necessary step for the age.
Your premise is totally FALSE. Quantify as a percentile, those fans that were anti-bowl.
Every fan I knew was in favor of playing in bowls.
I never knew of any fans who were anti-bowl, and I don’t think you know any either.
If there were any, they might have totaled less than 1 %
And none of them predicted doom, that’s pure B.S. on your part.
I don’t know of any anti-conference fans that stated that ND would lose its TV audience..
I think that may be your view, but I don’t know of anyone who shares it.
Winning and COVID-19 may be responsible for increased viewership.
It would be interesting to see how many ND grads favor joining a conference and comparing the results to the same question to non-ND grads.
well said.
Follows right up there with everyone that said ND would be worse off for having a videoscreen or turf. And other modernizations. Conferences are just part of that next mile for ND at this point
Don't understand why this poster keeps insisting that there was an anti-bowl contingent among ND fans. This is just not accurate.
Since this thread seems to have revived, I'll bring up a question I was thinking of last week: Why do so many people assume that a conference championship game would help Notre Dame get into the playoff? Look at the matchups in the ACC Title game since the playoff started:
2014: (2)FSU vs (12) Ga Tech
2015: (1) Clem vs (8) UNC
2016: (3) Clem vs (19) Va Tech
2017: (1) Clem vs (7) Miami
2018: (2) Clem vs (NR) Pitt
2019: (3) Clem vs (22) UVA
I see 7 instances there where a team that's already in the playoff risks being knocked out by playing the extra game. I see only 2 cases where a team on the outside could possibly climb itself into the playoff with a win.
2014: (2)FSU vs (12) Ga Tech
2015: (1) Clem vs (8) UNC
2016: (3) Clem vs (19) Va Tech
2017: (1) Clem vs (7) Miami
2018: (2) Clem vs (NR) Pitt
2019: (3) Clem vs (22) UVA
I see 7 instances there where a team that's already in the playoff risks being knocked out by playing the extra game. I see only 2 cases where a team on the outside could possibly climb itself into the playoff with a win.
It gets worse. A #4 team might have to beat their best opponent again in a CCG rematch. That knocks the opponent down and then the champ has no quality win.
Clemson was already on the schedule of an independent ND, so you cannot chalk up that game's TV ratings to "conference membership". That game would have had the same big ratings even if ND was playing as an independent.
The BC game had the backdrop of ND just defeating Clemson, would they let down, plus the Phil Jurkovic "revenge" angles.
Again, I am not sure that "conference membership" was the viewership driver in that game. I tend to think not.
The ACC Championship game is no benefit to ND this year. It would already have clinched the #2 spot in the playoffs as an independent this year. Being undefeated in the ACC this year and beating Clemson gained ND very little.
The reward? Having to play Clemson again and possibly hurt ND's playoff situation. Gee, thanks.
The all ACC schedule this year, while appreciated due to Covid, was pretty blah and boring for ND fans, compared to the original 2020 independent schedule.
Look, it is pretty clear that ND is going back to being a football independent as soon as Covid lets it, as frustrating as that must be to ACC diehards like yourself.
woad 1:
I assume most of you - it should be all of you - know that ND's TV viewership this year was its biggest in 14 years.
woad 2:
And you can bet your last thin dime that people on the playoff committee who have backgrounds that are non-ACC, especially Big Ten people but also Pac and SEC and Big 12, will find it very easy to keep any 1 loss ND team out.
Terry:
The all ACC schedule this year, while appreciated due to Covid, was pretty blah and boring for ND fans, compared to the original 2020 independent schedule.
Answer to woad 1:
There is no way the ACC was responsible for the viewership increase this year. It's because they went undefeated and they were good, tough Notre Dame football of old, and they are fun to watch.
Answer to woad 2:
I've posted on this way back and many here have as well, we pretty much know that a 1-loss ND doesn't get into the playoffs and probably due to not playing in a CCG. This year, again, we are undefeated and we've played enough good teams that as Indy, we'd be done playing and probably in. Now
But, this year ironically, we have to expose ourselves to 1 more game, potential injury, virus, and loss by playing a CCG. Go figure because in a 1-loss year, we'd love to play one more game in a Conf. Championship to be assured we'd get in the playoff like all the other teams get as an opportunity.
In such an odd year, what do you chalk it up to that ND gets in with 1-loss (because again, typically we don't get in with 1-loss)? Is it because we lose to the #3 team? Is it because the only loss was to a Conf. Champ? Is it the shakeout of who beat who and had 1-loss, as well? SOS? etc.
Answer to Terry:
Except for maybe the first game and last game (which is only Syracuse from ACC) This season was not boring or blah. South Florida was GM 1, so not to be boring - finally ND football! Ratings!I enjoyed the hell out of it and a glimpse into what we got this year. Yea, Wisc. would've been fun to see, but turned out they were not good and probably would hurt the SOS.
I assume most of you - it should be all of you - know that ND's TV viewership this year was its biggest in 14 years.
woad 2:
And you can bet your last thin dime that people on the playoff committee who have backgrounds that are non-ACC, especially Big Ten people but also Pac and SEC and Big 12, will find it very easy to keep any 1 loss ND team out.
Terry:
The all ACC schedule this year, while appreciated due to Covid, was pretty blah and boring for ND fans, compared to the original 2020 independent schedule.
Answer to woad 1:
There is no way the ACC was responsible for the viewership increase this year. It's because they went undefeated and they were good, tough Notre Dame football of old, and they are fun to watch.
Answer to woad 2:
I've posted on this way back and many here have as well, we pretty much know that a 1-loss ND doesn't get into the playoffs and probably due to not playing in a CCG. This year, again, we are undefeated and we've played enough good teams that as Indy, we'd be done playing and probably in. Now
But, this year ironically, we have to expose ourselves to 1 more game, potential injury, virus, and loss by playing a CCG. Go figure because in a 1-loss year, we'd love to play one more game in a Conf. Championship to be assured we'd get in the playoff like all the other teams get as an opportunity.
In such an odd year, what do you chalk it up to that ND gets in with 1-loss (because again, typically we don't get in with 1-loss)? Is it because we lose to the #3 team? Is it because the only loss was to a Conf. Champ? Is it the shakeout of who beat who and had 1-loss, as well? SOS? etc.
Answer to Terry:
Except for maybe the first game and last game (which is only Syracuse from ACC) This season was not boring or blah. South Florida was GM 1, so not to be boring - finally ND football! Ratings!I enjoyed the hell out of it and a glimpse into what we got this year. Yea, Wisc. would've been fun to see, but turned out they were not good and probably would hurt the SOS.
The issue of independence necessarily means considering who the traditional rivals are. Ranked in order of priority....I think its:
1. Navy
2. USC
3. Stanford
You have the revolving door of MSU, Michigan, Purdue, BC.....and thats about it.
I don't see how ND can join the ACC and keep the above 3 on the schedule each year....maybe alternate Stanford and USC.
Navy is carved in stone.
If ND joins the ACC, only Navy is a sure thing.
1. Navy
2. USC
3. Stanford
You have the revolving door of MSU, Michigan, Purdue, BC.....and thats about it.
I don't see how ND can join the ACC and keep the above 3 on the schedule each year....maybe alternate Stanford and USC.
Navy is carved in stone.
If ND joins the ACC, only Navy is a sure thing.
Any schedule without a game against USC is not a good schedule, IMO.
the schedule this year has been a snooze fest outside of UNC and Clemson. I say stay independent, makes for a better schedule IMO.
Sorry but our tv ratings (which, outside of Clemson were not that great) are a product of covid cancellations restricting the viewer's options. In a normal year we get plenty of tv viewers playing a night game @USC, Clemson, SEC team, Michigan etc.
It works fine for Ohio State and Alabama when they're 11-1.
It works fine for Ohio State and Alabama when they're 11-1.
So I guess you are okay with a meager 5 snooze fests per year (or about 40% of a schedule) with the ACC, which perhaps you consider independent? And don't forget that snooze fest with Navy.
USC could still be scheduled if we joined the SEC (which is the one conf. I'd be in favor of joining right away).
We were almost done with this conversation. lol
Yes. I think some rotation of Auburn, Fla, LSU, Alabama, UGA, Miss St, Tenn...3 or 4 of those per year and USC, Stanford, (Navy I suppose but would be totally fine with dropping) it would be a pretty exciting schedule every year. And I know you prefer tougher schedules.
Hey, even tied in for 5 games as pseudo independence in the SEC might help us with the SOS and perhaps consideration when having 1-loss.
(at least until Fla St and Miami and Pitt come back around to Clemson and UNC level - and even until recently UNC was never known for football)
So yes, I would've preferred we join SEC for 5 games, wouldn't you over ACC?
So what if I posit the idea that they got in because they were in a conference (1) and that has traditionally been strong so their SOS was factored in (2), whereas, the ND 5-game tie-in is typically viewed as weaker than B10 and SEC, and therefore the 1-loss snub was because of weaker SOS conference tie-in games and lower ranked opponents?
I'll ask you the same question I asked NDSMC: Would you rather our 5-game commitment be to playing games against the SEC or ACC?
1. I would reply it's their Buckeye and Bama helmet, not the conference full of other helmets. You can compare them with all the 1 loss teams that didn't make despite their P5 membership.
2. I don't see any value in that.
Perfect if you never want Notre Dame to sniff the playoff again, that schedule is ridiculous and no program in the right mind would ever do that.
I'm really glad you're not AD.
Yeah, I am a fan of tough schedules. But while I wouldn't have any issue adding SEC schools as opponents on our schedules, joining the SEC makes no sense at all to me. We don't have the win at all costs philosophy that seems to be commonplace in the SEC.
Well, you didn't really answer my question which is, knowing we have to commit to 5-games in a conference, would you prefer to stay put against ACC, or, would you prefer the 5-games be played against SEC?
Playing Stanford, USC, and Navy while being in the SEC would be incredibly stupid. There's a reason why SEC teams rarely if ever play even Power 5 teams in the non conference. It's because the SEC is very tough and they don't have to.
Also nobody is going to care how strong your schedules are if you go 8-4 every year. I'm a fan of winning, decent schedules, but also schedules built around putting Notre Dame in the best position to win the national title.
No way Notre Dame will ever join the SEC either it's a horrific fit both in image and academics. Location as well, pretty much a bad idea all around.
ND can schedule better as an independent. Our schedule this year would have had far more quality opponents then what we got with the ACC. Just my opinion. No need to get upset.
In a 15 team ACC, an 8 game conference schedule will be kept. The reason is that 4 ACC members (Clemson, FSU, GT, Louisville) end their seasons Thanksgiving weekend against an in-state rival in the SEC. That means they only have 3 games to schedule each year. None of them will want to go to 9 ACC games.
In a 15 team league, you must play without divisions, like this year. That means, first, that any chance of a team losing the playoff because of losing the CCG to a team with 3 or 4 losses is gone. The two best teams always will meet in the CCG.
It also means that nobody will play 7 ACC teams every year. Everybody will play everybody often. The best plan would be to have each team have 2 annual rivals. That means that there will be 12 teams left to play. Those teams can be divided into two groups of 6. Each of those groups will be played twice every four seasons. So, everybody will play 2 teams every year and 12 teams twice over every four year period.
That leaves everybody with 4 OOC games per year. ND-SC is the largest and most important inter-sectional rivalry in the sport. It must be maintained, including the way it has been played (in Oct when in South Bend and Thanksgiving weekend when in LA) - assuming that the Pac will continue to allow that scheduling.
Navy is most important to ND football because Navy will play ND anywhere. ND football has no need to ever play teams from anywhere if ND can play periodic neutral site games in those regions/states. In other words, ND needs to play in TX every few years, but ND has no need to play either Longhorns or Aggies, nor Horned Frogs nor Bears. ND can meet its TX needs by playing Navy in Houston.
Stanford is not the same as SC and Navy, the two teams that ND has played most. Stanford is a recent rival, created as such to have a game to end the season in 'warm' weather in the years when SC plays at ND in Oct. So Stanford is not a Must Keep Annual Game as SC and Navy are. What Stanford provides (ending every season away from Sound Bend in good weather and playing in CA other than LA) can be provided in other ways.
The game has changed a great deal since ND last won a National Championship - 1988. I am among a large, and growing, group that says that ND cannot win a National Championship in football now unless it becomes a full conference member and gets in the habit of fighting to win a conference championship.
If any of you think that the worst can't happen, that this streak of more than 30 years of no ND National Championship can't continue much longer and that ND cannot lose any more status, should ponder how the nation would respond to UNC fans chirping about being a unique blueblood if our last basketball National Championship came in 1988.
If you cannot give up things that are not truly essential to your ability to reach greatness in order to avoid nearly worst case scenarios, then you are part and parcel of the bad that continues.
The SEC would never do that. The SEC does not care a jot about schools like ND (small, private). The Big Ten does not care about such schools either, but it might make such a deal now thinking it would hurt ACC football. If ND is stupid enough to have anything to do with the BT, it is stupid enough to blow its own foot off in the name of getting to top football glory.
ND football can never again be a true independent. That is the first fact to face. ND is now a 5/8ths member of ACC football. It is the only such deal that work well for the whole of ND's athletics department. The issue is whether ND football can become better by competing for football championships.
that's a strange thing to post today. We tried conference membership and it worked strongly against us. It was a detriment to our path to win a national title. No need to wonder any longer.
How did it work as a detriment? If ND wasn’t in the ACC would they magically be able to beat Clemson and Alabama. It in no way hurts ND’s chances to win a title.
Bringing Notre Dame into the ACC was the biggest fail for John Swofford in his tenure. Allowing them to be in the other sports, and free lance in football, was like allowing the ACC to be Notre Dame's mistress. The ACC was hoping, and selling their soul, the ND would realize that their chances are better to make the playoffs in a conference. Then, in the last week or so, the word gets out that ND has no interest in joining the ACC for football. I understand that they next ACC Commissioner is will be encouraged by the presidents and AD's to look at this relationship closely, to see if it is in the best interest. I have they sever this relationship in all sports, and the ACC goes to add Cincinnati and someone else, or just keeps it at 14 members. And, it that happens, good luck in making the CFP in the future. You want to ask the BIG-10 if you can sit at the table. I always thought that the BIG-10 was a much better fit for ND. I will miss our little rivalry though. Good luck in the future.
Grady, I know we could all be accused of having too much time on our hands when we post on a team message board - but this is next level stuff. You just waited two full weeks to get your little zinger in. Wow.
We would have been 12-0 (likely) and in the Rose Bowl at #2 instead of a Bama sacrifice in the Sugar.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Football 2024 Season Opener at Texas A&M set for prime time on ABC- Latest: NWI_Irish96