Why Would Notre Dame Drop Michigan?

that NBC is cool with this.  When I say cool with this, I mean willing to pump millions of dollars into the school.

NBC with the Michigan series was either guaranteeed a USC game at home or Michigan.  Both huge football traditional powerhouses with large fan and alumni bases.  Now NBC is guaranteed USC on odd number years and uh Stanford on the evens?

I know ND may demand that FSU be scheduled instead, but  I still think thats a step down in potential tv draw from Michigan.  Also, I thought the ACC was choosing the scheudule each year.

I know I hate NBC because of the announcer and how they manage to shove a commerical into every posession change and heck after every kickoff Saturday.

Also  ND broke up with Michigan the same way a 5th grade girl does with her boyfriend.  Calling LSU freak.

double post

Sorry, there are some interesting facts and trivia in there, and I do agree with you. Notre Dame is overhauling their scheduling playbook in an effort to make the Final Four. However their logic is flawed, and the ACC played right into it. 

What I don't understand is this: at the end of the 2014 season a selection committee is going to choose four teams to play in the semifinal game. By all accounts these four teams will probably be conference champions, with two possible exceptions: A situation like Alabama last year where a conference runner-up simply outshines all other candidates; or a Notre Dame team with an 11-1 or 12-0 record. So every year the "pool" of candidates for final four is going to be one of the five major conference champions, a really, really good runner up that could be considered better than all but one or two conference champs, and ND (or in a flukey year, an unbeated MWC or Big East champ). That's 7-8 teams vying for 4 spots. 

On the surface it seems like ND might be trying to reduce that "pool" by 1. Are they really thinking that the committee will consider the ACC champ OR Notre Dame? What if Notre Dame and Florida State both go 11-1, and weren't on each other's schedule so there was no  head-to-head game. What if the committee takes the SEC, Big 12 and Pac 12 champs and ND and FSU or vying for that fourth spot? How does the ACC feel about this?

Anyway, it seems like ND's move to the ACC is driven by the glaring proof over the last 16 years of the BCS that they will never sniff the national champtionship game again as a true independent. They think that this half-baked conference affiliation will help their cause with this committee, which now holds all the cards. I just don't understand fully how they think aligning with the ACC helps. Where it WILL help -- and I think the ACC knows this -- is a scenario where they become full members and win the conference at 11-1 or 12-0.

As far as scheduling, I don't think you'll see many more Oklahomas or Texases on ND's schedule. It'll be MSU, Navy, ACC teams, USC, Stanford, and a couple "beatable" one-offs like (cough cough) USF or Tulsa. It came down to USC or Michigan and they decided to keep Michigan on. Having them both on the schedule along with at least a Clemson or FSU or Va Tech was going to be just too much to handle. 

Regarding not joining a conference, I'm pretty sure ND not wanting to join the Big Ten is for a bunch of non-football reasons way more important than not wanting to be tied down to the midwest.

This will make it all the more enjoyable to beat them in a bowl game soon!

Say more about this owl.  What reasons?

fairly obvious. They ARE gonna need some guaranteed wins on the schedule. ND is seeing a sliver of daylight right now after being on the ropes for 24 years--they're running for it. 

"Well, Notre Dame - a school with a proud of being independent in football (which makes absolutely no sense to me!)"

Funny, that made absolutely no sense to me either.

I'm sure in several years when the NCAA gets a finalized playoff system in place and ND doesn't have to worry about finishing 11-1 or 12-0 to make the limited playoff format they will want to resume the series. My guess is by 2020 we will have another decade agreement playing a home and away series with ND in the non conference schedule. I don't mind playing them every year but I think I'm ready for a break! I remember when the series resumed after a long hiatus in '78. Everyone was so excited about reviving the ND series and I'm sure the same will occur again in the future.

The computer scientist in me gives you +1 for using two "=" signs to denote equality.

I like this analysis.

as john kryk talks in his book about the mich-nd rivalry, notre dame learned to play football from michigan, was a tiny regional school that begged to play michigan in the early days to build prestige, and then as they got better at football, translated that to national visibility. 

now, in today's world, they probably want to continue to play on the coasts for continued exposure both for athletic and academic recruiting purposes. i completely agree that playing michigan state is their chance to keep a regional rivalry going that they dominate rather than playing one that has traditionally spoiled their shot at an undefeated season 50% of the time in september

ND couldn't join the Big Ten because the league would never buy the half-assed "partial membership" the pathetic Big East and the almost as pathetic ACC went for.  ND wants to hold onto its NBC deal and the money it gets and doesn't share.  And ND wants a softer schedule that makes it more likely it can run the table now and then and be in the mix for the BCS bowls.  Spurning the Big Ten and dropping Michigan from the schedule (while keeping Purdue and MSU) is wholly consistent with ND's financial self-interest.  It's their right to do that.  Just don't insult our intelligence by pretending this is something other than a financially-driven decision.

didn't know about this beforehand. More importantly, having ND on our schedule was kind of a pain. They were crappy before, so it was fine, but going forward, they will be pretty good to very good. That limits us.

We have 4 non-conference games per season (maybe 3 if the B1G goes to 9 games). Ideally, I would like 2 cupcakes, 1 top 5-15 team and 1 team ranked 25-35. That plus OSU, MSU, Wisconsin/Iowa is a pretty solid schedule. Having ND (5-15 team) plus Alabama (1-5 team) in a year where MSU and OSU are better is just too much. Add in an annoying surprise good team (maybe Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin) and our schedule becomes the toughest in the nation.

It's obvious that the Irish can't play five ACC teams per year, maintain all of their current rivalries, and still have seven home games a year (the standard for most FBS teams).

There was no way Notre Dame would drop Purdue. It's an in-state rivalry, and it's the Big Ten team they've played the most often. And more than any other school on their schedule, Purdue really needs the game. Purdue would be really screwed if the Irish dropped them. Of course, you're right that it's close to an automatic win on the Irish schedule, so Notre Dame doesn't mind playing it, just as much as Purdue (economically) doesn't mind that they almost always lose.

Michigan State is already off the Irish schedule in 2014-2015, so dropping them wouldn't have solved their problem, insofar as clearing away the space to play five ACC teams per year. The Michigan State deal is also more flexible, because going forward it's structured as 4-on, 2-off, as opposed to the Michigan deal, which is every year aside from a 2018-19 hiatus.

As you've noted, the pesky Spartans have given the Irish fits. In the last 15 years, the Spartans have actually beaten Notre Dame more often than Michigan has. So it's kind of silly to suggest that Notre Dame is scared of Michigan.

Several people have noted that the Michigan-Notre Dame game was the highest-rated game of the weekend. Notre Dame needs games like that to make their NBC TV contract more valuable. For that reason (among others), I suspect that Notre Dame will be back on the Michigan schedule sooner than most people think. Brandon clearly likes the game, and Swarbrick's letter sounded like he is very open to rescheduling it.

1.  Notre Dame is no longer a football independent.  

At best, given its five game per year agreement with the ACC, Notre Dame can best be considered a semi-independent in football.  The ACC also tells ND which five teams it will play each season, so ND has to work with the conference to get the type of schedule it wants in the long term.

2.  Notre Dame has a four-game agreement to play Texas starting in 2015 and 2016.  If they had kept the agreement with UT and UM, ND would have started those seasons with back-to-back games with the Longhorns and the Wolverines.  Strategically speaking, that's not a smart way to start any season, especially one with a four-game playoff at the tail end.

In essence, ND has replaced Michigan with Texas for at least the 2015/6 seasons.  

3.  The ACC is a mixed bag of programs right now.  Florida State looks like they've gotten back to their old swagger and Clemson plus Virginia Tech are looking good as well.  Miami-FL (which plays ND later this year) is due for some major sanctions, so they may go back into a tail spin here shortly.

Here are the other 10 teams in the ACC from north to south:  Boston College, Syracuse,  Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, N. Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech.  To be frank, none of them are screaming out "football power" at this time.  ND will likely be playing each of these teams at least twice over the next four years.

4.  Is NBC happy about this?  While the UM-ND game has had big ratings, the other thing that has helped is that the game is played early in the season when the hype and expectations are still in place.  What we've seen in the past is that ND's television ratings drop off during the season once they start playing the season and when they play the types of teams listed in the second part of (3) above.

If ND puts together a consistent double digit winning program, then NBC will probably be okay with this move.  If not, then the ratings for some future ND-Duke or ND-Wake Forest game played in South Bend isn't going to look so good.

5.  If Notre Dame is going to continue playing seven home games (or six home games and one neutral site game that would count as a home game), it doesn't have much scheduling flexibility.  ND will have to have two home-and-home contests with the four games it can schedule (since 5 ACC games plus Navy, USC and Stanford cover the other eight slots) in order to get those seven home games.

Right now, those home-and-home slots will be going to Purdue and Michigan State (who has a four-year on, two year off agreement with MSU) plus another team TBD for a two-year home and home series when ND isn't playing MSU.  ND will then have two buy-in games each year.  So this is how its sets up:

Five ACC Games (alternating year of two or three at home)

USC, Stanford, Navy

Purdue, Michigan State and another home-and-home series when not playing MSU (say a team like Brigham Young or maybe a team from the Big XII or SEC).

Two Buy in Games from the Moutain West, etc.

What this means for ND is that they'll get perhaps three marquee opponents per year--USC, one of the major ACC teams (ex. FSU) and one other major opponent when they're not playing MSU.  They'll also have a number of good teams on the schedule as well in Stanford, MSU and some of the mid-level ACC teams, but the schedule isn't going to be a killer.

That said, if a Notre Dame team runs the gamut and goes 12-0 (or even 11-1), they'll certainly be considered for the four-team playoff.  Lacking a conference championship game essentially puts them in the same boat as the Big XII Conferece, and no one thinks that if a team from that conference goes 12-0 or 11-1 that it will be exempted from the playoff.

I had just assumed that the Michigan contract was the easiest to get out of...?

I could be wrong.  I also want to believe that they're conceding the midwest to Hoke and Meyer, and look to recruit from the Southeast instead.

saying that nd "dropped michigan" is true in the short term, but i doutbt its what nd wants in the long term. given 5 acc games, usc, stanford and navy...that leaves 4 games and its pretty hard to imagine 3 of those being the b1g year in and year out. so, nd most likely wants to cut back to 1-2 b1g games per year.

nd has a history with msu, purdue and michigan. the ideal scenario from nd's perspective is to rotate, at least, those three teams (with an osu, psu, northwestern, etc.) mixed in there. but, if nd has a relationship in perpetuity with michigan, that means that they'll have very little room for the rest of the b1g. 

my guess is that nd wants a rotation of 2 b1g teams per year with most of those games going to msu, purdue and michigan and occasionally another b1g thrown in there. nd does not want to play michigan every year, because it limits what they have room to do with the rest of the b1g. nd probably does want to play regularly - maybe 4 or 5 out of every 10 years. michigan is a meaningful rival for nd and an obvious opponent, and i doubt nd wants to write them off forever.

this, by the way, seems like a reasonable scenario for um  as well — given that the conference schedule has expanded if um plays nd every year (particularly if nd sucks less) — there isn't much room for any meaningful non-conference opponents.  

including Golic today that Michigan, Purdue, and MSU will all be in the same boat- that ND will play each of them on a rotating basis. I don't know where they get that, but I sure do hear it consistently. (I assume Golic is closer to the AD than the others.) Ours was the first shoe to drop, perhaps because of the contract details and the chance to pull off that extra home game stunt.

Full disclosure - I'm an ND alum, and have lived in SE Michigan my entire life.  I got a grad degree from MSU and I'm enrolled in another grad program at UM-Dearborn.  So, I'm not just some arrogant ND slappy - I know that we've had a not great 15 years out in the wilderness.  I'm also not here to flame or troll or engage in internet combat, but I do feel compelled to add my $0.02 from the ND side of things.

The OP is pretty accurate in his reasoning.  The fact of the matter is that ND needs to maintain its national presence - it's our comparative advantage.  There are no other schools that have a national footprint like we do, and we can go play anywhere in the nation and sell out a stadium.  Without that footprint, we'd fall to a Northwestern-level football program.  This is why joining the BIG was never a legitimate option for us - it would isolate us as a midwestern school.

The ACC also makes more sense from a cultural standpoint, as there are numerous other small private schools, and also religiously-affiliated schools.  We'd be a fish out of water in the research-institution dominated BIG.  We simply don't fit in with the mission or academic strengths of the other BIG schools.

So, that's the cliff notes version of why the ACC made more sense for us.  The deal to play 5 teams every year isn't so bad or even much of a departure from our past schedules when you consider that we've regularly played 1-2 teams against traditional ACC teams and another 2-3 games against new ACC (and former Big East teams) like Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, etc.

So why are we dropping Michigan, and not (yet) Purdue or Michigan State?  Quite frankly, it's rooted in history.  Not to be pedantic (and I relize that using the word pedantic automatically makes me pedantic), but our shared history goes back a LONG way - I think I may have heard something about UM teaching ND how to play football, you guys ever hear that story?  Anyways, after ND beat UM for the first time Yost dropped us, refused to schedule ND for 30ish years, and blackballed us from the Big 10.  After two games in the 40s there was another 35 year break.  So even though our history goes back 125 years, we didn't play for 70+ of those.  Further, Yost's blackballing was the thing that led to ND having to barnstorm across the nation.  On the other hand, we've played Purdue consistently for decades, and MSU and ND also have a more institutionally-chummy shared history (not to be confused with our relationship with MSU fans these days).

So when it came time to decide which BIG team to drop, I suspect that our closer ties to Purdue and MSU outweighed carried the day against our contentious history with UM.  There are undeniable benefits to the ND-UM matchup, and I'll be very sad to see the game go as a regular event, but I think the historical aspect skewed the final calculus.  What I DO suspect is that we'll move to more of a rotating list of BIG teams to fill 1 or 2 scheudle slots.  We have a 4-on 2-off rotation with MSU starting soon, which probably helped their case for staying on the schedule, but also would certainly allow for future games against UM as part of a BIG rotation.  I hope that is the case.  At any rate, having 1-2 BIG games a year is definitely to our benefit and, emotional reactions aside, also to the benefit of the BIG teams we play.

As a final thought - I don't think this is about watering down our schedule.  We have early-season games scheduled against Texas in 2015, 2016, 2019, and 2020 which effectively replace the UM game those years.  We also added Oklahoma to this year and next years' schedule as a possible replacement for UM when there was uncertainty about the future of the UM-ND series a few years ago.  I'm sure we'll end up with replacements that are lower quality than UM in some seasons, but not as a general rule.

This ended up a lot longer than I wanted it to despite the fact that I didn't cover some aspects of things in the interest of "brevity."  I'll go put on my asbestos suit now, so flame away if you'd like.

ND lost to two MIchigan teams full of underclassmen during the RR era, and lost to a first-year Michigan coach last year.  They needed six turnovers to beat Michigan once in four years and only beat them by a touchdown, despite all of the turnovers.

ND knows, deep in their hearts, that the series is bad for them.  They want to schedule easier teams.  In other words, they are afraid of Michigan.