I have never seen this discussed at length anywhere except for this poster.
The most discussion I have seen is what the Notre Dame AD has said about USC.
This Big 10 dude goes on and on and on and on.
How much will being a 5th seed at best
- Thread starter Patrirish
- Start date
The most discussion I have seen is what the Notre Dame AD has said about USC.
This Big 10 dude goes on and on and on and on.
ND is certainly an Indiana school and that's fine and doesn't require defending. But the winner of the ND/Purdue game -- unless Purdue steps up to ND's level -- is unlikely to be regarded in the same light as the winner of the UM/OSU game or Alabama/Auburn or Texas/Oklahoma. For example, who cares who wins the Ole Miss/Mississippi State game?
What's needed is something that will stoke the imagination of a larger audience than the State of Indiana.
I think ND's natural EPIC RIVAL besides USC is -- and has been since 1978 -- MICHIGAN. ND/UM wouldn't surpass OSU/UM but it could still be THE GAME for ND. Just as USC remained THE GAME for UCLA despite the USC/ND rivalry. You need a certain degree of parity and a history of bad blood for a rivalry game to spark national interest. In many ways, what two schools have been more neck and neck than ND and UM over the last 40 years or so? Game for game, it's been an even more thrilling rivalry than the one with USC.
The other team I would consider would be Penn State. Joe Paterno absolutely hated ND, particularly for allegedly "stealing" Rocket, Ricky Watters, Allen Pinkett and others. Plus, PSU has always felt that ND has gotten more accolades over the years than it deserved. When ND won the NC in 73 with an 11-0 recored, PSU finished SIXTH in the voting despite a 12-0 record. So, there's animosity historically there as well.
When ND inked its HALF-PREGNANT ACC deal, UM more or less mocked it for ending their almost annual series. Well, wouldn't it be great for ND to be able to challenge UM to resume it?
The only possible negative with either UM or PSU might be that -- given the Big Ten's realignment -- playing ND on an annual basis might be as unattractive for the same reason as it looks like it might be for USC. In other words, WHO NEEDS ANOTHER TOUGH GAME?
If that were the case, then I'd like to see ND look to Miami, assuming Miami makes it fully back. And they may.
We'll see.
Well, as you said, "WHO NEEDS ANOTHER TOUGH GAME?" With the advent of the 12-team playoff, there is an entirely new calculus for football scheduling. A team that finishes in the top three in the Big Ten or SEC is probably in the playoff, and a win over an OOC heavyweight wouldn't help much but a loss would be counterproductive. For that reason, I doubt that Michigan or Penn State would be interested in an annual series with ND. And Michigan already has Ohio State and Michigan State while Penn State prides itself on being “unrivaled.” It is the only Big Ten school that opted to schedule no annual rivals and they use the word “unrivaled” in their football marketing.
I mentioned that the Purdue-ND series is 84 games. Michigan is 38 and Penn State is 19. The Miami series is 27 and lop-sided for ND, 18-8-1, plus the ACC is unstable and trapped in a nasty TV contract. Going forward I believe we’ll see the 35 schools (Big Ten, SEC, ND) with top dollar TV payouts dominate and the others will fall further behind.
How the expanded College Football Playoff will redefine success around the Big Ten
By Scott DochtermanJul 29, 2024
INDIANAPOLIS — Big Ten programs qualified for the four-team College Football Playoff nine times in the format’s 10 years, including both Ohio State and Michigan in 2022. If the 12-team CFP format that debuts this fall had been in place during that decade, the league’s number of participants would have swelled to 29.
The biggest hypothetical beneficiary? Penn State. The Nittany Lions never appeared in the four-team CFP, even after winning the Big Ten championship in 2016. Had the 12-team tournament existed over that time frame, Penn State’s CFP Top 25 finishes would have seen them qualify six times, including both of the last two seasons.
Instead, Penn State registered five New Year’s Six bowl appearances over that span, locked in a purgatory of good-but-not-satisfying football. Now the Nittany Lions — and many of their conference colleagues — will have an expanded opportunity at a national title even if they don’t win a Big Ten championship.
“We’ve been talking a lot to our team about understanding the difference of a possible 17-game season like you better understand what that means,” Penn State coach James Franklin told BTN. “Not only, ‘OK, what do we (have) to do to get into the playoffs,’ but what can we do to get into the playoffs and be in an advantageous situation?”
The expanded Playoff will provide clarity for Penn State and many Big Ten programs on what defines a successful season, unlike the ambiguity of a non-Playoff bowl appearance.
“Right now the goal is to get in the playoffs,” Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz said. “It’s the next goal for this year. Be one of 12.”
The days of celebrating a major bowl invitation have faded for most top programs. Since the four-team CFP began in 2014, the remaining New Year’s Six games retained some of their prestige, but their appeal and importance to fans, media and participants waned over time. No. 10 Michigan State and No. 12 Pittsburgh were matched in the 2021 Peach Bowl to cap off breakthrough seasons for both programs, but Pittsburgh quarterback Kenny Pickett, Michigan State running back Kenneth Walker III and other key players opted out. Had the Panthers and Spartans met in a CFP matchup, it’s possible both stars would have chosen to participate.
Advertisement
Current Wisconsin coach Luke Fickell guided Cincinnati into the four-team CFP field in 2021. It was the first time a non-power conference program qualified, and it came one year after the Bearcats finished an unbeaten season ranked No. 8. Fickell also served as an assistant at Ohio State for 15 years, during which time the Buckeyes made the national championship game four time. There’s heavy interest in every Ohio State game, but Fickell noticed a change in the stakes.
“Just being in the playoffs those several times and then being in some of those really good bowl games that weren’t the playoffs, there was an incredibly different vibe,” Fickell said. “It’s not like the game is different, right? It’s not like it’s because the crowd is louder. No, but it’s the coverage. It’s the attention.
“It’s going to do a lot of different things for us. It’s going to help hopefully with a lot of the guys that are opting out. You’re in the playoffs, you have an opportunity. It’s going to alleviate a lot of those things. It’s going to create a greater buzz over a longer period of time, and ultimately give a lot more people an opportunity to be playing their best ball at the end of the year and have a chance to win it all.”
The Buckeyes had seven appearances in the 10 years of the four-team CFP but would have earned trips every season with a 12-team field. Michigan’s three bids would have jumped to five. But for programs outside blue-blood status, where great seasons ended in Big Ten championship heartbreak, a Playoff appearance could redefine legacies.
Iowa and Wisconsin had unbeaten seasons halted in the Big Ten title game by a combined nine points during the four-team era and were left out of the field. As the No. 5 team in 2015, Iowa would have played host to AAC champion Houston in a mid-December first-round tilt. In 2017, the No. 6 Badgers would have faced Washington at Camp Randall Stadium. Wisconsin would have hosted opening-round games three times from 2016 through 2019. Instead, neither school qualified for the CFP.
Pac-12 teams combined for three CFP appearances (Washington two, Oregon one) over the last 10 years, but with a 12-team field, the league’s total would have soared to 17. The Huskies and Ducks each would have made four appearances, while USC would have made three.
Michigan State secured its lone CFP spot in 2015 with a three-point win against Iowa in the Big Ten title game. In a 12-team field, the Spartans also would have qualified in 2014 and 2021. In its best season in more than 50 years, Indiana would have participated as a No. 11 seed in 2020. Instead, the Hoosiers played in the Outback Bowl.
The New Year’s Six bowls will become even more relevant under the new playoff structure. The top four conference champions receive first-round byes, while the bottom eight squads (seven at-large teams and the fifth highest ranked conference champion) play games on campuses Dec. 20-21 this year. On Dec. 31 and Jan. 1, the four conference champions will face the four first-round winners at the Peach, Fiesta, Rose and Sugar Bowls. Then on Jan. 9-10, the Orange and Cotton Bowls host semifinal games. Atlanta will host the title game on Jan. 20.
Ferentz has guided Iowa to eight 10-win seasons, and an expanded field would have led to CFP trips in 2002, 2009 and 2015. The Hawkeyes were on the edge in 2003, 2004, 2020 and 2021. Ferentz considered the four-team Playoff implemented in 2014 a half-measure and would have preferred a larger field right away, but not because his team would have benefitted in 2015.
“What I didn’t like about going from two to four, it really de-emphasized the importance of the bowl structure,” Ferentz said. “There’s so many good stories in college football. If we can win 12, or as many as possible out of 12, and if we deserve it, we’ll get a good reward and whatever that may be. And it’s probably going to be different this year than it was, two years ago or three years ago, but the challenge is winning. That’s a hard thing.”
For Big Ten teams that finished on the wrong side of the four-team Playoff bubble, their seasons often faded into history and ended modestly. While Fickell holds that “nobody’s going to define what success looks like,” even a major bowl victory didn’t provide a spotlight to those 12- or 13-win seasons like a Playoff bid will.
“When it’s expanded to 12, there’s just a sense of throughout the season that we can still get to that point,” said Northwestern coach David Braun, who helped North Dakota State win two FCS titles as defensive coordinator. “The Las Vegas Bowl this year was an incredible experience for our guys. But there’s still something different about the thought of as the season winds down, there’s still chance to get to the playoffs where the national championship is still on the table. It’s pretty special.”
Your analysis is likely RIGHT. Because, as with other aspects of the game that a more intensive approach to PLAYOFF FORMATTING is de-emphasizing, out of conference RIVALRY GAMES may become much less a feature for the reasons you cite.
But I wasn’t addressing that so much as your idea of an annual ND-Purdue Thanksgiving weekend game in Indianapolis as a way of offsetting USC’s leaving the schedule, whether as an annual opponent or even for longer absences – WERE EITHER TO HAPPEN. As I’ve already indicated, I’d be surprised if that did it for me. Others may disagree.
YET, should BIG TEN TEAMS still be willing to play ND on a regular or semi-regular basis, I would encourage any overtures from UM and PSU above all.
Since 1978, when the series was resumed, ND and UM are 16-16-1, with NINETEEN of those games decided by 7 points or less. In the case of PSU, the series since 1981, when the teams started playing more regularly, is 9-9-1 with 6 of those games decided by 7 points or less.
If those aren’t two sets of almost PERFECTLY MATCHED RIVALS, then I don’t know which teams are. And regardless of what PSU may claim about being “UNRIVALED.” To me, that’s just their way of claiming FIRST AMONG EQUALS stature, something ND often likes doing when it cites academics and/or independence as evidence of the INNATE SUPERIORITY of its own football program.
Neither of which arguments do I buy.
In the end, I don’t care if ND winds up with a “NEW” traditional rival or not. The game has changed so dramatically since 1955 when I watched my first ND-USC game on a 12-inch black and white TV that I’ve come to expect CHANGE UPON CHANGE.
Just follow the money.
That is undoubtly true but once upon a time, ND-Purdue was a big as it gets. Prior to the 1968 game, there were two polls - AP and UPI. In one poll Purdue was #1, ND #2 and in the other poll it was vice versa. I watched that game, live. The entire game is in the link below.
You and I are pretty long in the tooth but neither of us go back to the Knute Rockne era. Way back then, the only Big Ten team that would play ND every year was Purdue and most of the Big Ten schools refused to play ND at all, and notably Michigan. Michigan and ND did not play one game between 1902 and 1942 and storied Michigan coach Fielding Yost publicly boycotted ND from joining the Big Ten because it was a Catholic school.
Last edited:
Sure, but that was THEN, right?
Where is Purdue now, and where have they been since Drew Brees was there? One barely ranked team in 20 years.
By the same token, the Fielding Post issue is about 100 years old. By now, it must be irrelevant, no? I mean if ND people are still throwing darts at photos of Fielding Yost, then I'm not sure I have my finger on the pulse of the times. Whereas, UM and ND have been BITTER, BITTER rivals since 1978 when the series finally kicked into gear.
If you think there's high demand out there for ND-Purdue on Thanksgiving weekend, particularly as a legitimate consolation prize to no more USC-ND, all the best to you in spiriting that ahead. Truly. But if something really positive doesn't happen real fast with Purdue football -- something game-changing -- it's not something I'll be clamoring for.
Times change.
Last edited:
There was a time when they Notre Dame vs Purdue rivalry was very significant in terms of Notre Dame’s seasons.
Unfortunately, for Purdue and for the rivalry, Purdue’s football fortunes have fallen over the years.
Purdue needs to enhance their football stature to make the rival meaningful again
Notre Dame never figured out Purdue’s pass rush causing Hanratty to throw off his back foot most of the time. ND never figured out how to defend Purdue’s sweep.
Turnovers certainly hurt ND
What was interesting was how shallow the kickoffs were, not one of them came close to getting into the end zone.
This just shows how much soccer style kicking improved the kicking game
As a much younger person, I followed this series closely, largely becuase most of the time that Purdue won, IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO. And I found that EXTREMELY ANNOYING.
Between 1954 and 1969, Notre Dame went 5-11 against Purdue. Twice during that period, Purdue won three games in a row and four out of five. One of the things that propelled Purdue past ND in those years was consistently superior QB play, principally from Len Dawson, Bob Griese and Mike Phipps. Years later, Drew Brees went 2-2 against ND.
Despite being considered a rival, Purdue never attained the same rival-stature as USC or UM as it was seldom in the running for an NC while ND often was -- even as UM and USC have been in many of the years ND has played them. Instead, Purdue was the kind a rival that often foiled ND the same way BC and Stanford did for a while, consistently beating ND when not expected to.
To me, the most important rivals -- unlike Purdue, BC and Stanford -- are the ones which are ALSO NC CONTENDERS. Besides UM and USC, two other schools that have met this criteria are Miami and before that, MSU.
In fact, the MSU rivalry is an extremely interesting one.
Between 1897 and 1921, ND beat MSU (originally called Michigan Agricultural) in 13 out of 15 seasons, allowing a GRAND TOTAL OF 13 POINTS. Yet, starting in 1950, two years after resuming the series and just as Leahy's run was ending, MSU won 12 out of the next 14 games, during which stretch it fielded teams that finished first, once; second, three times; third, twice; eighth, once; ninth, twice; and fifteenth, once.
Despite the one-sided results and the often one-sided scores that produced them -- AS WELL AS AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE OF THEM -- MSU became a SERIOUS RIVAL as it was as responsible as any opponent for blowing ND out of the water AS A PREMIER PROGRAM in the late 50's and early 60's. It even beat good ND teams in the early and mid 50's.
But then, thanks largely to Ara and Holtz, ND again flipped the script, winning -- following the EPIC 10-10 tie in 66 -- 24 of the next 28 games. And after MSU won five in a row -- ALL AGAINST EARLY-SEASON RANKED BOB DAVIE TEAMS -- ND has gone 8 and 6 in the last 14 encounters.
But again, just how good a program has MSU been in recent years? Well -- five ranked teams over the last two decades. So-so. And does the intensity factor when playing MSU currently stack up to what it's been in recent years in games vs. UM and/or USC? Maybe at times, but, overall, I'd say NO. So, to me, ND's two paramount rivals remain UM and USC, and it would be MOST BENEFICIAL in my opinion to continue playing both of them.
Assuming that's possible.
No, I don't think there is high demand for ND-Purdue on Thanksgiving weekend. That would clearly be a default for ND compared to the USC-ND rivalry. Purdue wouldn't be ND's Plan B, it would be more like Plan E or F. On the other hand, it may come to that. It looks like USC wants out plus Michigan and Penn State are facing the same Big Ten schedules that USC is.
You mentioned Miami as a possibility but they're in the rotation with the other ACC schools so I'm not sure how that would be resolved, especially with the ACC on such shaky ground for the next few years. Plus that series with Miami was pretty ugly. That wasn't a good rivalry like USC. It was nasty.
So while there may be no high demand for a ND-Purdue on Thanksgiving weekend, be aware that the USC-ND game has lost much of its luster over the years. It was only the # 25 most viewed college football game last year and had merely one third the viewers of the Ohio State-Michigan game. So how would ND-Purdue rate compared to ND-USC? Well, we can find out this coming season.
I agree that the same scheduling issue that may have USC heading for the door could very well likely face UM and PSU. But, frankly -- and this is SPECULATION on my part -- I think they're both made of STERNER STUFF than USC. In both cases, I think there's a deeper sense of COMBATIVENESS and AGGRESSION and a greater willingness to RISK playing ND to PROVE A POINT. Both schools hate even the mere suggestion that they should EVER play second-fiddle to ND. So, I think they would both remain open to persuasion to playing ND at least now and then.
As for USC itself and the state of the rivalry, I agree with you there as well. It's BY NO MEANS what it was in the 60's and 70's which was its heyday. Nor what it was during first the Holtz and, later, Carroll years. To a certain extent, Brian Kelly's containment of USC as part of ND's reemergence has been responsible for that. In addition, USC seems to have fallen out of step with itself, even to the point of hiring Lincoln Riley, who I'm not sure best suits its style. Another flier on my part, but that's my sense of it.
And as for your Purdue idea, I will not dispute that it has a certain ELEGANCE. It's creative. Trouble is, it's more POETIC than PRACTICAL. And as someone who has both written poetry and underwritten multi-million dollar structured finance deals, I've had a front row seat as to how DIFFERENT poetry and practicality are.
But here's MY question:
If I'm wrong and teams such as UM and PSU forego playing ND -- meaning that it can no longer GENERATE PIVOTAL RIVALRIES due to conference considerations that preclude the MORE DESIRABLE CONTENDING TEAMS from being available -- how can ND remain among the POOL OF ELITE TEAMS without joining a conference itself? ND -- in order to continue to market itself AS ITSELF -- needs premier competition. So, as PLAYOFF-MINDEDNESS fully takes off, how does ND not shut the door on itself by remaining independent?
I'll be watching to see how this develops.
Last edited:
You don't replace SC with some team that had a good coach in the 1960s. We would simply schedule some other teams for that slot.
That is exactly what this discussion has been about. Who are "some other teams" who want to diminish their chances of making the playoffs by scheduling an annual series with Notre Dame?
And then if you play it out to its furthest potential conclusion -- what ELITE CALIBER TEAMS does ND play AT ALL should they all BE LOCKED INTO CONFERENCES that are tied into a ZERO-SUM playoff arrangment. Forget rivalry games, how about just finding APPROPRIATE OPPONENTS?
And isn't this EXACTLY by degrees what is happening?
Should ND choose to remain independent in the face of this, WHAT STELLAR PROGRAMS will stand beside it and choose similarly?
This is a structural change of SEA-CHANGE proportions. And I can't see how at some point ND can do otherwise than choose to be IN or OUT. And the decision is entirely ND's. Sail with the prevailing winds -- which are likely the ONLY WINDS -- or WHAT?
My take?
ND needs to be fully invested in how CFB is now structured more than CFB needs ND. And the proof of that is in the nature of the structure itself. It's bascially sealing off the option of ROGUE DEER still belonging to the herd. Or put another way, time for ND to stop being an "associate" and instead become a "MADE MAN."
Hey, it's one ALREADY in all but NAME.
Once there's an IRONCLAD CONFERENCE-BASED playoff structure, independence doesn't work.
THERE'S NO PLACE FOR IT.
I doubt anyone wants an annual series. However, scheduling is not going to be a major problem. We were able to schedule Texas, A&M, anOSU, Bama etc at a time when a loss would be a major setback in the national title race. Now that the CFP has expanded to the point that contenders get at least two mulligans on losses it will simply be a matter of finding open dates to drum interest in their less-relevant regular seasons.
No no no. ND was able to schedule Texas A&M, OSU, Bama etc at a time when a loss would NOT be a major setback in the national title race. The 12-team playoff begins this year and USC is already screaming to dump ND from the schedule.
This is what’s wild to me. Programs and people somehow think that a loss is less of a setback during a 2 team and 4 team playoff compared to a 12 and 14 team playoff. There are 12-14 teams but now you can’t schedule more difficult opponents? The schedule must get softer?
How does that make sense? It’s not true. Lincoln Riley is just a wuss. I sure hope that’s not how this trends.
Say you’re right that no one may want an annual series – and I would agree that that’s highly possible. But does that not alone detract from ND’s aura, appeal and overall attractiveness – especially for younger fans growing into the game, not to mention recruits? Because isn’t a lot of what makes ND – ND – those more intense rivalry games, no matter with whom and no matter over how long a period?
There have been long-standing rivalries that have come, gone and/or persisted. But there have also been ones that, while annual, flared up for shorter periods, as with BC and Stanford, which were then discontinued, cut back due to conference commitments or simply became less intense as given teams became less competitive.
Yet, no matter what kind of rivalry it’s been, they’ve all been good box office as well as good for ND’s reputation either at the time or to this day.
Remove that feature from ND’s on-field product, is it not immediately materially diminished? And then, HOW DO YOU OFFSET THAT?
Which leads to your second point on being able to schedule good enough teams enough of the time.
Frankly, I don’t think that’s something either of us can predict. But I can see at least one scenario that would make it unattractive for the better teams to want to play Notre Dame in that if they lost and also DIDN’T WIN THEIR CONFERENCE, it could hurt them, record-wise, in making the playoff as an other-than-conference-winner.
It's like the old REMO GAGGI line in the movie, CASINO . . .
WHY TAKE A CHANCE?
ND was denied admission to the Big Ten in 1895, 1908 and 1926. That’s how much it felt it NEEDED to be in a conference. But then, ironically, what made it a legendary program despite that SNUB was its going out and successfully dominating a NATIONAL SCHEDULE, becoming in the process the game’s preeminent power up until Frank Leahy’s retirement.
In the beginning, it was difficult for ND to find opponents, but two things helped: 1) The rivalry games that developed with Army, Nebraska, Pitt, Navy and USC – to be followed by others over time – and 2) the fact that there were MANY MORE INDEPENDENTS during that era whom ND could schedule here and there as needed. In fact, the entire northeast was teeming with independents -- Army, Navy, Syracuse, PSU and Pitt to name the most notable. And they were all strong teams.
Today it’s practically 100% conferences. So, even if ND goes hunting for new opponents, 1) where will it find them if the better teams duck them and 2) will those it can sign up be appropriate for the kind of competition ND wishes to engage with? To me, it seems nothing short of an IDEAL FORMULA for scheduling second-rate teams. At least, when ND first went on the road back in 1913, the available competition was FIRST-RATE and there were no scheduling impediments other than travel time and expenses.
But then, if ND joins a conference, THIS ALL GOES AWAY.
It’s either that or it continues to regard itself as a CONFERENCE OF ONE in the hope that that will provide adequate traction. I mean, how do you continue to depend on a network of opponents that have aligned themselves in a certain way so as to determine as efficiently as possible the best team, and yet, you refuse to comply with the basic format of that alignment?
WHAT OTHER TEAM DOES THIS?
To me, ND’s putting its program ahead of the sport. How long it can afford to do that without it coming back to bite its butt is for me the main question.
Quoting you twice, there was indeed a sea change in conference alignment and “playoffs uber alles.”
Every team in the Big Ten and SEC is going to have a much tougher schedule going forward. The Big Ten added three heavyweights and the SEC added Texas and Oklahoma. In both conferences, there is simply no way to avoid 3-4 tough conference opponents, there may be five or six.
At the same time access to the playoffs has gotten much easier, specifically for the teams that finish 2-3-4 in the Big Ten/SEC and the conference championship game losers of the Big XII and ACC. Now a 9-3 Penn State that finishes third in the Big Ten is probably getting into the playoffs unless they scheduled ND and ended up third in the Big Ten but 8-4. So it boils down to Lincoln Riley’s logic – why not drop ND and schedule Fresno State instead?
I agree.
Where is the ASSET VALUE in playing ND in a conference-dominated world that runs according to the parameters you've described? In fact, it becomes an OUTRIGHT LIABILITY. If it's all about QUALIFYING, ND becomes nothing more than a potential IMPEDIMENT. And for ND, that's the quickest path to IRRELEVANCY.
And I'll quote myself as well:
Once there's an IRONCLAD CONFERENCE-BASED playoff structure, independence doesn't work.
You're either on the bus or you're off it. And this should become clearer over the next several seasons. Plus, I can't believe that ND's new athletics director isn't keenly aware of this and thinking hard about it. And if I were him, I'd have a transition plan handy in my bottom drawer.
Because in the end, I don't think ND wishes just to FADE AWAY or return to playing teams like North Divisin High as it did in 1905.
1) As per usual, you're all nuts
2) In the short term, this playoff structure will benefit ND as they SHOULD be in the playoff just about every year. But that's going to shift at some point because they're going to start being even more penalized than they have been in the past for not playing a conference championship game.
If ND has 1 (or 2) losses and team(s) in conference championship games have the same amount of losses, those that lose and now have 1 more loss than ND are still going to be looked at favorably by comparison due to ND not playing that game. Comparing conference teams to each other, it will matter. But comparing a conference team to ND, they'll basically throw the result out for the loser AND the winner will benefit.
In the current structure, any more than 1 loss will start to be more and more doubtful as to whether or not they make the playoff as time goes on. Yes there are 8 more spots now, but it's pretty easy to see how those 8 spots are going to lean to the conferences as time goes on.
They still have their independence, and that's fine and all. But at SOME POINT the other 100+ teams that are playing on a different field are going to be like "screw these guys, they need us more than we all need them."
2) In the short term, this playoff structure will benefit ND as they SHOULD be in the playoff just about every year. But that's going to shift at some point because they're going to start being even more penalized than they have been in the past for not playing a conference championship game.
If ND has 1 (or 2) losses and team(s) in conference championship games have the same amount of losses, those that lose and now have 1 more loss than ND are still going to be looked at favorably by comparison due to ND not playing that game. Comparing conference teams to each other, it will matter. But comparing a conference team to ND, they'll basically throw the result out for the loser AND the winner will benefit.
In the current structure, any more than 1 loss will start to be more and more doubtful as to whether or not they make the playoff as time goes on. Yes there are 8 more spots now, but it's pretty easy to see how those 8 spots are going to lean to the conferences as time goes on.
They still have their independence, and that's fine and all. But at SOME POINT the other 100+ teams that are playing on a different field are going to be like "screw these guys, they need us more than we all need them."
Again citing your earlier comments, once upon a time there were a bevy of Division I college football independents: Penn St, Miami, Cuse, many others. Last week there were three: ND, UConn and UMass. UMass has since joined the MAC so there are now two.
This sounds ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE to me as I agree that OVER TIME, ND's bargaiing power will ERODE.
But, reverting to my own point -- and QuixOte, I believe, is making it as well -- why would ANY conference team that's a legitimate contender want to play ANY OUT OF CONFERENCE POWER IN-SEASON AT ALL? How does that INURE TO ITS BENEFIT?
Don't all out of conference games now simply become exhibition games that get scheduled on the basis of how probably they will result in a WIN? Non-conference games are now PADDING or BUFFERS. There's no way anyone wants to create a LIABILITY out of them. And playing the kind of teams ND has had since 2017 would certainlty qualify as a LIABILITY if someone is trying to get to a conference game to get to a playoff.
As you point out, the current system has BOUGHT ND TIME. But in the long run, if college football consists of a hundred and change teams that are in conferences and two or three that are not, and if that lopsided arrangement then requires some kind of continual BAROQUE restructuring of playoff eligibility rules to ACCOMMODATE ND -- IT SIMPLY WON'T FLY.
I can't see how the SMART PLAY is for ND to remain independent. To me, that would look remarkably like a SELF-LIQUIDATION strategy.
ND isn't bigger than the game. Does it wish to remain a compettitive force in it or a BELOVED RELIC?
Last edited:
Time and inevitabiity have been working against ND for a while. And in recent years, the pace has picked up.
There have always been conferences, but as you point out, there were also dozens of independents. Conferences then became dominant. Then they started realigning. And the further realignment proceeded, the more it did so WITHOUT REGARD TO REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS. That wasn't good for ND because it meant that the idea of the INTERSECTIONAL RIVALRY was now passe, when in fact, ND, as the only truly EXTRA-REGIONAL power, had built much of its reputation on it.
Worse, not only was everyone now playing everyone from somewhere else -- that had already started -- but it was also now true of teams EVEN WHEN PLAYING WITHIN THEIR OWN CONFERENCES. A system with an unwieldy number of teams that of necessity had evolved on a REGIONAL BASIS had now adopted something close to a CONTINENTAL PRO SPORTS MODEL. And with the result that you now have Silicon Valley Stanford crossing the country a half dozen times a year to play teams from areas once referred to as Tobacco Road. That wasn't happening 30 years ago.
Then came playoffs.
And now, what's looming are playoffs STRICTLY TIED TO CONFERENCE PERFORMANCE. Meaning that the pro sports model is now even more BAKED IN and for the same reason -- namely that playoff games exist to generate more interest as well as to extend the season and, hence, ensure MORE MONEY FOR ALL.
So, how does ND emerge from this?
There may be one possible outcome that could allow it to REMAIN INDEPENDENT as it would eliminate the possibility of a future SCHEDULING DILEMMA.
It would require that the body that winds up governing the sport -- assuming it doesn't continue to be the NCAA -- TAKES OVER SCHEDULING, doing it the same way as is done in pro sports.
One way this could work is that in addition to playing their conference games, teams would then have to play an equal number of games against both the better teams in the sport and the worse ones. Who, outside of its conference opponents, a team would actually play would depend on an algorhithmic formula applied to, on one hand, the better teams and, on the other, to the weaker ones.
This way everyone would have to play both tougher and weaker teams NOT OF THEIR CHOOSING. ND, because of its SEMI-CONFERENCE AFFILIATION with the ACC would have its "CONFERENCE GAMES" just like everyone else, and so would be equally ELIGIBLE to participate -- even as a SEMI-INDEPENDENT, which, despite the current tendency to AIR-BRUSH this distinction, it is now.
Whether or not something like this might eventuate, I've no idea. But, at the very least, it points to one thing. The more ND finds a way to REMAIN WITHIN THE MAINSTREAM OF THE SPORT, the more secure its future.
Last edited:
No he is just getting something backwards. He does that a bit. If there are teams no longer scheduling ND it is because their conference commitments have risen.
I thought I replied to this. We just find new opponents.
Also we can use the same logic if it mattered. Why schedule USC when it is so much easier to get to the playoffs vs SMU.
The problem with using a centralized NFL-like scheduling scheme in college football is that each conference and ND have their individual TV deals whereas the NFL controls both scheduling and TV deals. That's why Northwestern will make three times more money from football than FSU in 2024. If the NCAA went to centraliuzed scheduling, they would also need to equalize TV payouts, which is hard to imagine at this point.
My question remains: WHICH OPPONENTS?
You regard SMU as the functional equivalent of USC? If so, fine, but it wouldn't be my first pick.
Trouble is, if the better teams -- the ones more desirable to play and if possible beat -- are more concerned with staying away from ND which UNIQUELY can derail their records and, hence, their chances to make it to the playoffs as a non-conference-winner entrant, then the quality of ND's competetion WILL DECLINE. And that's not good.
My view is that ND should do everything it can to MAXIMIZE its chances of playing ELITE TEAMS. Yet more and more, those teams are now paired up against each other IN CONFERENCES. They don't NEED ND. They have each other. But ND needs THEM as it's NOT IN THE CLUB.
Assuming that scheduling remains solely the prerogative of teams themselves, it's a situation in which ND could have LESS AND LESS LEVERAGE.
If ND wishes to play the better teams, my take is that it should GO WHERE THEY ARE by joining a conference. If not immediately, SOON.
Besides, it's already practically part of one in all but name.
It's TIME.
I take your points, and I don't expect it to happen either for the reasons you cite. At least, not any time soon. But in theory, it could all be rehashed, albeit at GREAT EXPENSE.
I was just looking for a way out for ND to what we've been discussing as a VERY REAL POTENTIAL SCHEDULING DILEMMA.
I do believe, though, that at some point the whole college football apparatus -- kit and caboodle -- will fly under ONE UNIFIED FLAG -- just as is the case with all major pro sports.
Greater concentration of power goes hand and hand with increased MONETIZATION, and college football is already a LONG WAY DOWN THAT ROAD.
I believe that Notre Dame’s key to scheduling success lies in their ability to consistently remain a top 10 team. Winning a national championship would certainly brighten their prospects for years to come
There’s a huge difference between managing 32 teams and 134 teams
And there’s a huge structural difference between 32 owners and a confederation made up of 134 teams
So, you don't think there will be a problem scheduling teams that from a playoff appearance perspective have nothing to gain by playing ND other than a possibly highly rated win, while at the same time risking -- on a more objective, numbers-based criterion -- missing a playoff appearance opportunity by losing to them?
In other words, if in fact USC ducks ND going forward for exactly the reason I've suggested -- and it's rumored that they might -- might not other teams of their ilk and facing the same kind of in-conference competition do likewise?
My whole point is that once you have conferences and playoffs so tightly interconnected, why bother with independents, when, as I see it, they do little for you when you beat them, while retaining the ability to have a much more negative impact if you lose to them?
BOTTOM LINE: WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF PLAYING ND IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT?
I simply don't see it. Not even for ACC teams as wins over ND don't count as CONFERENCE WINS. But then, they have no choice becasue of ND's semi-affiliated status.
I'm wondering if CFB WORLD hasn't MOVED ON.
Last edited:
Funny story but Frenso State did better against SC than our green jerseys in 2005. If they had only 4 turnovers then perhaps they knock SC out of the BCSCG.
omg it ate another one of my posts.
Any 10 win team can get into the playoffs. Another program gains crowds and a prime time tv slot by scheduling ND, same as it ever was.
I mentioned SMU because it is past time ND started associating with schools that match its profile and stop pretending about Stanford.
We'll keep playing ACC teams under the current arrangements; maybe we could increase the number from 5 to 6, if we have any issues scheduling. But I doubt we'd have trouble finding opponents from the Big Ten. If USC were to grant Riley's wishes and drop the annual ND game, I'm sure some other Big Ten teams would love to play us instead. Fans still want to see big games during the regular season. Teams like Michigan State, Iowa or Wisconsin would love to play us more often.
Although one issue with the Big Ten is that rule they have that they only schedule OOC games in September. So the number of games we could play versus them will always be limited by that.
Playing Notre Dame has proven to be a revenue enhancer for almost every school that schedules Notre Dame on their home field.
Hence, the need for Notre Dame to consistently remain in the top 10
Unfortunately, it’s all about the money
I heard on the radio recently that TAM is predicting a record home crowd for the Notre Dame game.
Not surprised.
Thanks for posting this, and I hope MANY MEMBERS here watch it.
But, to be honest, I think it's more than just Colin Cowherd and a few of us here WHO ARE STARTING TO GET THIS.
If tradition isn't its ACTUAL MEAL TICKET, MONEY TRUMPS IT every time. Because out of any realignment of ANYTHING, NEW TRADITIONS EMERGE. As, basically, LIFE GOES ON.
And it takes only a GENERATION AND A HALF for that to happen. The ND of Rockne and Leahy -- THE ALMOST ALL-DOMINANT ND -- died with my father. The ND of Ara and Holtz will DIE WITH ME. And I would venture that ND, the CONFERENCE MEMBER, lies in the not too distant future.
Because in the meantime, USC'S DILEMMA is not just limited to USC. If a team is part of the SEC or Big Ten, what point is there in playing ND. You already have YOUR HANDS FULL, even as playing ND gets you NOTHING.
IT'S A RISK NOT WORTH TAKING.
Last edited:
Similar threads
