Notre Dame to look at ACC before Big 10

Submitted by hart20 on September 20th, 2011 at 12:38 AM

ESPN is reporting on their ticker that while Notre Dame prefers to stay independent in football and in the Big East in all other sports, if Notre Dame was forced to join a conference, they would look at the ACC before the Big 10. 

 

Haven't found a link yet, but I'll post one as soon as I find it.

 

To me, this makes no sense. What rivals do ND have in the ACC? There's Boston College,Georgia Tech and Miami, and Pitt. Of those, BC and Pitt are the only rivalries that I'd consider real.The ND-Michigan and ND-MSU rivalries dwarf the ND-Pitt and ND-BC rivalries.ND plays Purdue every year too. And they play Penn St. and Northwestern occasionally. Notre Dame to  the ACC just doesn't make much sense.

Comments

Hardware Sushi

September 20th, 2011 at 8:48 AM ^

I think one of the reasons this is so tough to follow is that ESPN is attempting to manipulate A LOT of people here. Most of the Texas news reported by ESPN the last month has turned out to be false or misleading and I wouldn't be surprised about a lot of the ACC news.

ESPN couldn't let the Big Ten get ahold of ND and/or Texas because the BTN is essentially the only non-ESPN competitor in the marketplace. We'll see how it turns out, but I think ND to the ACC is a lot more ESPN smoke than anything.

Indiana Blue

September 20th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^

to accept the notion that if nd finishes with 3 or fewer losses, then nd will be declared the ACC champion and get the automatic BCS bowl berth  -  regardless of who they lose to or where they finish in the ACC standings.

ND knows the B1G is simply too tough in football ( ND  - returning to glory ... since 1993 )

Go Blue!

BlueDragon

September 20th, 2011 at 12:43 AM ^

Rejecting her traditional suitor conference, ND flounced from the room with greatest indignity.  Striding purposefully across the now-silent marble Louvre courtyard, ND was followed by a gaggle of Pitt and Syracuse, giggling and whispering.

funkywolve

September 20th, 2011 at 12:46 AM ^

Football wise they might feel they have a better chance for success.  After VaTech and FSU, the ACC is fairly average football wise.  Not that the Big Ten is having a banner year this year but if ND joins the Big Ten they're either looking at being in a division with either Nebraska, Michigan, Iowa, MSU or OSU, PSU and Wisky.

SFBlue

September 20th, 2011 at 12:52 AM ^

This seems right to me.  ND knows it would finish near the bottom of the Big 10 every year, while at the same time it would erode its recruiting base, whereas joining the ACC gives ND not only an easier schedule, but a chance to expand their national footprint, and recruit more extensively in the south and southeast. 

IMO, the Big 10 missed the boat on this one, and should have been having sub rosa discussions with OU and Texas after they landed Nebraska.  Now, there is a realistic possibility that there could be three conferences with the same (if not bigger) national footprint, and national appeal. 

Swazi

September 20th, 2011 at 2:56 AM ^

Texas probably doesn't even consider the B1G an option, since it makes no sense at all.  They aren't going to want to travel that far for all their road games (sans Nebraska and maybe Iowa), and no one (sans those teams) are going to want to travel down to Texas.

bacon

September 20th, 2011 at 6:26 AM ^

Texas is thinking about joining the PAC-12 and playing the majority of their road games two time zones away from their fan base. I think that's worse then traveling to michigan or psu. On the otherhand, Texas wants to keep the longhorn network, which is one big reason not to join the big 10. Stupid tv contracts.

wolverine1987

September 20th, 2011 at 1:32 PM ^

near the bottom of the B10 every year." While I agree with your conclusion re: Texas and Oklahoma, and also that the ACC may have certain advantages for them, what exactly have you seen the last few years to make you think the B10 is clearly superior (other than perhaps Wisc. and OSU) to ND? 

ak47

September 20th, 2011 at 12:52 AM ^

I posted this in another thread but their was a rivals article talking about how the ACC made the most sense for ND because so much of their fanbase is east coast and with the current population trends the midwest is a bad place to be.  The article also said that ND doesn't really need to worry about money since they have rich ass boosters so the difference between the BIG and ACC just wouldn't matter to them.  Throw in the idea that if the ACC were to start a network like the big ten and ND was part of the conferenence they would have boston, new york, chicago, indy, and the dc/baltimore markets.  Thats three of the four biggest media markets in the country plus major markets in boston and indy.  Throw in having FSU and Miami and all of florida gets included.  Thats some serious money/exposure waiting to be made.  Not to mention 22 of ND's players are from ACC states, they need to maintain their presence there and joining the BIG would eliminate that. Honestly the more I think about it the only reason ND would be a better fit in the BIG is geography, the rest of the profile of the school matches the ACC.

LJ

September 20th, 2011 at 1:14 AM ^

I don't buy the NYC and DC TV markets argument.  Who is watching college football in these cities?  If NYU moved into D1 football and joined the Big 10, we wouldn't suddenly have the New York TV market.  New Yorkers wouldn't give a shit about NYU football, just like they don't give a shit about Rutgers.

Frankly, this realignment stuff doesn't worry me too much, aside from the fact that a 16-team conference would suck since you barely play teams from the other division.  If there are 4 16-team conferences, I'd be just fine being in the weakest one competitively, since the system would almost certainly turn into an 8-team playoff with the conferences championships as the first round.  Rankings would no longer matter, so being in the weakest conference would be an advantage.  Of course the bigger programs bring in more money, but I have a hard time thinking that the Big 10 is going to struggle financially with such massive fan bases and historic followings.

dnak438

September 20th, 2011 at 8:09 AM ^

of schools like ND and Michigan. I recently met with a representative from LSA and she said that outside of Chicago and Michigan, the biggest Michigan alumni groups are in DC and NYC. There are enough alumni there that they can pressure the cable networks to carry the channels.

SC Wolverine

September 20th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^

I am sure that this is all valid.  But if ND goes to the ACC aren't they just punting on the validity of their football program as a true power?  That would be pretty humiliating for them, I think.  Still, people have a tendency to cut off their nose to spite their face and many ND people would probably like to do that with respect to the Big Ten.

ak47

September 20th, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^

FSU was the predominat football power for a period in the 90's.  The ACC is fine in football and if FSU and miami get good again and clemson actually starts capitilizing on crazy recruiting its actually a solid football conference.  Just because FSU and miami are struggling right now doesn't mean anything, if this was happening in the late 90's FSU and miami would be huge football draws.

WolvinLA2

September 20th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^

First of all, I don't buy the argument that because they have rich boosters they don't need more money. Rich people care about money more than poor people do - they want more.

Also, I heard on the radio today that ND likes the ACC better because the ACC will let them be more autonomous. They will let them keep their NBC deal and maybe not ask for full revenue sharing. The Big Ten will make them play by the same rules as everyone else.

WolverBean

September 20th, 2011 at 1:10 AM ^

A sad but readily apparent truth of the Great Conference Shuffle is the irrelevance of rivalries in driving realignment. Nebraska to the B1G was the last nail in an already gutted Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry, and OU is now willing to give up Texas too (they may still end up together but they're acting independently). Utah and BYU are no longer conference-mates, nor are Texas and TAMU. In an environment like this, a minor rivalry like ND-Purdue doesn't even merit consideration. And as long as ND gets to keep SC (YTUSC) on its schedule, I suspect they could care less what happens to the rest of their rivalry games.

jcgold

September 20th, 2011 at 1:17 AM ^

Texas-OU has only been a conference game for about 15 years.  They played that game as a non-conf up until the mid ninties, when the Big 12 was formed.

They'll keep playing it after regardless.  There's too much money at stake.

mikoyan

September 20th, 2011 at 1:21 AM ^

Personally, I think the great conference shuffle is a pre-cursor to a new Bowl Coalition.  The BCS ends in 2016, right?  If there are 3 or 4 16 Team Conferences, that would be in a position to develop a playoff.  Hell, that group might be in a good position to tell the NCAA to pound salt. 

Frank Drebin

September 20th, 2011 at 8:08 AM ^

I agree that people need to stop thinking that everything will stay the same after conference armageddon. There is a very good chance that the BCS is blown up, or at least completely redefined. I think that there would be a great chance for an 8 or 16 game defacto playoff when all said and done. Also, people need to stop thinking that  just because conferences are saying that they will play 8 or 9 conference games that this will be set in stone with superconferences. How do we know that we won't go to 10 games or more. If they say to hell with the NCAA, will all of the teams that aren't in superconferences even be realistic options anymore? Maybe we only play teams from the B1G going forward and intertwine this with playoffs and slimmed down and restructured bowl schedule. I also don't think that these superconferences are going to go to 2 8 team divisions where you have protected rivalry games and never play other schools. I would bank on 4 pods with 4 teams in each. You would have your primary rivals in your pod and then play 2 teams from each of the other pods, while rotating one off your schedule each year and home and homes on a rotating basis (ie Wisky and PSU as an out of pod game one year, and Wisky and Purdue the next, then Purdue and IU the next, etc.) This will allow you to play all teams more than once per decade and you won't have to worry about protected rivalry games always creating unbalanced schedules. The bottom line is that people need to stop believing that the status quo will remain the same after all of this change. When superconferences come, more change will come with it.

ToledoWolverine

September 20th, 2011 at 1:10 AM ^

This whole realignment has me tottally disgusted. How in the name of Hypocrisy can the powers-that-be in college football, sanction and suspend, teams and players for receiving improper benefits, i.e. free tats and loaner cars, when at the same time they are throwing age old rivalries and traditions right into the shitter for the expressed purpose of making more money? I swear they are not even trying to hide the fact that this is all a money grab. It used to be that money being the predominant factor in anything and everything about college athletics was a dirty little secret. Billion dollar TV contracts are ok, but paying the players would ruin the game? Give me a fucking break, the game is ruined, if not already, we are speeding in that direction.

 

I can't wait to watch the 2016 Big East/Big 12 championship game between South Florida and Iowa State played in New Jersey sponsored by Exxon.

Anonymosity

September 20th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^

I can't wait either- the winner of that game will move on to one of the eleven MasterCard BCS games- probably the American Airlines Bowl Presented By Bud Light, which will be played in Indianapolis, whereas the loser will likely play in the John Deere-Walmart New Orleans Honda Classic.

zeda_p

September 20th, 2011 at 1:12 AM ^

Ah, ESPN. 

Is it true? Perhaps. Does it matter? Not really. All that's relevant to The Network is you're talking about it and tuning in. 

Dolla Dolla Dolla Bills Yo.

Seattle Maize

September 20th, 2011 at 2:24 AM ^

The more I read this stuff from ESPN, the more I think that they are really pushing their own agenda with this conference realignment.  There stuff is so incredibally one sided.  Their latest article on ESPN.com states that "OU and Texas have been authorized to act on the PAC12" when really they were authorized to pursue expansion opportunites (not specifically the PAC12).  The rumor on the Northwestern rivals board about Texas and Notre Dame potentially coming to the B1G came from a source that I bet is just as or more reliable than any of the "sources" that ESPN is claiming has Texas to the ACC or PAC12 or Notre Dame to the ACC yet has gotten literally no circulation by ESPN.  If Notre Dame went to the ACC, I see it as a major cop out as they will be doing this to face lesser competition. 

los

September 20th, 2011 at 1:13 AM ^

Conference realignment has nothing to do with rivalries or demographic considerations. It has to do with money... or better put, with greed. ND can go f* itself for all I care. The Big 10 is one of, if not the most, stable Conference in the land due to its stable of quality, tradition rich treams and system of equal sharing. ND probably wants to go to the ACC so that it can have a beter chance of winning... they won't win as much in the B1G.