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

Tater

September 20th, 2011 at 1:14 AM ^

If ND does join the ACC, then B1G teams should immediately refuse to play them anymore.  Lately, though, Michigan would be doing them a favor by cancelling. 

1464

September 20th, 2011 at 9:52 AM ^

Boy, I remember the 90's.  We dominated OSU.  Good thing things never change.  Also, I don't think he thinks that beating ND is bad.  At least, I don't think that stance was ever submitted in his post.

jcgold

September 20th, 2011 at 1:15 AM ^

They think its a better fit in terms of demographics, recruiting, markets, and academics.  They see themselves more like Duke and Wake than M and Iowa.  They also don't want to play 9 conference games, and be forced to give up playing Navy, USC, Stanford, and BC.

I also think its stupid.  ND is all about tradition.  If you are going to join a conference, why not join the one that gives you the best chance at maintaining that tradition?  Granted, joining the B1G with 9 conference games means you give up a home game every other year to keep playing USC/Navy, but ND has never really cared about money anyway.  Joining the ACC would upset more ND fans then joining the B1G.

On the other hand, it may give us more breaks in the ND contract:  Georgia anyone?

Needs

September 20th, 2011 at 7:20 AM ^

They also have to deal with the least knowledgable fanbase in college football, a fan base who thinks it's still 1988 and that the college football world revolves around ND. Most of their fans have no idea how the new world of conference networks and tv scheduling works, because they've been sheltered from it with their increasingly irrelevant presence on NBC.

Their only strong point is that academically, they fit better in the ACC than the Big 10 (BC, Wake) than they do in the Big Ten's research focus. The faculty at ND's going to be pissed if this comes to fruition, though. Rather than having the resources of a bunch of schools in the immediate proximity (especially U of C and NU, since about half the ND faculty live in Chicago anyway) the closest affiliate would be Pitt.

M-Dog

September 20th, 2011 at 1:37 AM ^

If we stand pat at 12 as a conference, are we in danger of losing a second BCS or Playoff spot?  Who makes and enforces a rule like that? 

Seattle Maize

September 20th, 2011 at 2:30 AM ^

I think we will always have a BCS spot.  The thing that really would concern me if we dont hit a home run in this next round of expansion is that the B1G could end up being behind the SEC, ACC and PAC16 in terms of competitvness and therefore prestige.  I really do see this as a critical time for the B1G because we could end up anywhere from the best to the 4th best athletic conference in college football. 

turtleboy

September 20th, 2011 at 1:37 AM ^

because some of their basketball rivals are shifting conferences, but all of the money comes from football. Tickets, tv deals, merchandise, bowl games, basketball can't hold a candle to football revenues and after their tv deal expires they'll have to jump into bed with someone because they won't get a favorable renewal. If they went to the ACC would they schedule Michigan, MSU, Purdue, USC, and a military academy every year for their non-conference games? They don't fit in the B1G in either academics, or research, they just have a big fanbase. Mizzou is a better fit all around, but doesn't have the historic rivalries ND does with us.

bluebyyou

September 20th, 2011 at 7:15 AM ^

ND couldn't schedule the teams you listed.  That would be five out of conference games.  Assuming they were to play an eight game conference schedule, they would have to drop at least one of those games anyway.  The would probably drop at least a few of the games, if not all of them, although playing Michigan gives them a big stage.

Remember, too, that in a couple of years the B1G is going to a nine game conference schedule.  That, in and of itself, may cause some of the teams to rethink whom they play, although with a playoff system, a couple of out of conference losses really won't impact your chance of playing for the NC.  It is all about winning your conference.

I think Delaney blew this one big time.  The ACC had timed expansion just right and the B1G will get what is left.

Smikal

September 20th, 2011 at 1:53 AM ^

For the B1G to expand at this point. "Because everyone else is" is only a valid reason if we are asking why we should do drugs with BlueDragon and JimLahey.  With four marquee brands, what does going to 16 do for anyone?

maizenbluenc

September 20th, 2011 at 6:28 AM ^

while pitt and syracuse - the two closest contiguous academic and sports fits in the big east were swiped by the acc, and now we should stand around while the best of the big 12 and nd are acquired? then what, when the acc, sec, and pac all head to 16 with the picks of the litters?

Huma

September 20th, 2011 at 8:23 AM ^

The only way expansion of the B1G makes sense is if you can boost average revenue per team - adding Texas and ND could probably do that and significantly increase the total pie for all B1G teams to share. Adding almost any other schools will just increase the number of teams while leaving the size of the pie roughly the same or only slightly increased - thus decreasing each team's average share of B1G revenue. This is why we might just be better off staying at 12

M-Dog

September 20th, 2011 at 9:24 AM ^

The other reason it would make sense is if it gets you a second guaranteed BCS or Playoff team if that comes to pass. 

Otherwise if TX and ND are off the table and being a 16 team conference does not get you any extra BCS/Playoff slots, there is no compelling reason to do it. 

Although, Delaney has stressed shifting demographics out of the rust belt and to the south.  If we stay where we are, it's rust belt city.  However, there aren't any really good options left to expand southward or even eastward. 

 

Geary_maize

September 20th, 2011 at 2:01 AM ^

Sure, ND would be a great football addition, but from the academic side of things, they bring absolutely nothing. Weak graduate programs, not part of the AAU, and very little reseach whatsoever. I know that doesn't matter to a lot of us, but if we bring in a school that actually contributes to the CIC, that would be a LOT more helpful towards the school, the students, alumni, and eventually athletics as well. Think about it, Michigans research expenditure was 3 billion that past 5 years. Thats roughly 6~7 times our football revenue. 

We're the Big 10. ND would be nice, but if they want to go elsewhere, hey, be my guest.

One more thing, this may be a negotiating ploy to get a better offer from the B1G.

ChiCityWolverine

September 20th, 2011 at 2:46 AM ^

I like the current B1G, but unfortunately I'm not sure doing nothing is the right play. Whether he acts now or reacts based on the climate, Delaney needs to decide on at least 1 more splash addition IMO to have in his back pocket in case the chips really start falling into superconferences. Texas seems out of the question what with the LHN and its alpha-dog mentality. That leaves Delaney with OU or ND. He must choose which is better for the conference: a meh academic large state school with a powerhouse football program or a high academic Catholic school with a historic football program.

Pair Delaney's favored choice with Missouri, who I think is a good fit that should work as a mid-tier program with decent academics and solid athletics that delivers the St Louis and Kansas City markets, and I think we have a viable long-term league. Problem is, the SEC may swipe Missouri, the ACC may swipe ND, the Pac may swipe OU, and there's still the possibility that ND remains independant or OU doesn't want in the B1G.

M-Dog

September 20th, 2011 at 9:32 AM ^

If we stay where we are, we lock ourselves into a permanant "Rust Belt" conference with a declining population.  All of the other major conferences - ACC, SEC, PAC 16 - would be in high-growth demographic areas.

Problem is, there aren't any good options left to go southward or even eastward if the ACC and Pac 16 now have the compelling ones truely locked up.

 

BlueVoix

September 20th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^

That's actually not true, numbers wise.  From 2000 to 2010, only the state of Michigan in the Midwest lost population (and it was only a -.6% drop).  Most other states had growth of between 3.0 and 7.0%.  The national average was 9.7%, so the rustbelt isn't keeping up.  But the so-called sunbelt was absolutely nailed by the recession.

Bluestreak

September 20th, 2011 at 3:05 AM ^

and West Virginia.

Both are academically sound and maybe interested in joining the BIG Ten. Maryland maybe another opportunity - good academics and reasonable football.

Blue in Seattle

September 20th, 2011 at 3:47 AM ^

Here is the link about Pitt and Syracuse applying to the ACC

ESPN link

The NY Times article describes everything except Pitt and Syracuse as speculation, even stating that the Pac 12 would have a hard time figuring out how adding teams makes them more money.  It's true Texas and Oklahoma are looking around, but that is different than having a conference accept them.

So this seems like everything about ND is just people speculating that now is the time when they will be forced to pick, and if you are going to write that, seems hard not to make some guesses.  What is interesting about the Pac 12 accepting Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State is that the Pac 12 essentially would have eaten the best of the Big 12 that remained.  If it works financially to increase everyone's amount of pie (slices are smaller so the pie has to get a lot bigger) then you almost have the new Big 8 (CU, Utah, Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and slam Arizona and Arizona State in there) versus the Pac 8 (all of California plus Oregon and Washinton) as the two divisions.  The Pac 12 already plays 9 conference games, so that's everyone in the division plus two cross division games.  The could even have a geographicaly relevant naming of the divisions (kind of) in Mountains versus Coast.

But I just don't see how that gets the Pac 12 enough revenue, unless ESPN is ready to deliver and Texas is willing to play nice.  Of course one way to increase Conference Revenue is to have a 3 game conference playoff from the winners of 4 4-team divisions.  That's the only way I see it ending up as actually growing that Conference Revenue Pie.

LSAClassOf2000

September 20th, 2011 at 5:46 AM ^

Notre Dame is probably considering the ACC because it doesn't want to be a midde-of-the-road team in other conferences, as it probably would  be most years in the B1G. I mean, it's Notre Dame, right? I am sure that's what they are thinking. 

wildbackdunesman

September 20th, 2011 at 6:11 AM ^

The B1G should just black list Notre Dame.  Michigan never signed the contract with them last I heard so it is an easy out.

 

Notre Dame doesn't have the graduate programs/research to be in the CIC.  Their faculty senate once voted heavily to join us (they wanted the CIC membership), but they had to preserve their 'independence.'

 

If they are in the ACC, I don't want to play them every year.  If we go to 16 team super conferences then we'd probably move to 9 conference games and with only 3 OOC games - why play ND every year?  Let's get variety.  Play Georgia, Tennessee, Boston College, USC, Washington, etc....

orobs

September 20th, 2011 at 7:01 AM ^

Sorry, but no way this happens. This whole thing is about money, and the ACC currently makes less than the B1G, PAC 12 and SEC. Now, if the ACC let's them keep their NBC deal, that's a whole other story.

Wolvie3758

September 20th, 2011 at 7:05 AM ^

Screw em Once and For all.....Stop scheduling them as well...I have NO prob dropping ND from all sports scheduling and in Football replacing them with one Big name school Every year...We DONT need ND and Im sick of their arrogance and special treatment they get...ND hasnt  been relevant in football in Decades so why all the special attention ???

 

What have they done to deserve it?//NOTHING.....GET LOST ND

friendlyNeighb…

September 20th, 2011 at 7:12 AM ^

dollars are going to be the key. i'd be shocked if nuances like the likelihood of conference championships have much to do with anything. if nd joins a conference, it'll be the one that offers the best bottom line deal. 

M-Dog

September 20th, 2011 at 9:37 AM ^

Not true.  if it was about conference money, they would have joined the B1G years ago.  ND has plenty of money from other sources.  They will do what is the best for their football "brand" (yeesh, thanks DB).  That is independence first.  If that is no longer viable, they will not just go to the B1G because of money.  Other major factors will come into play. 

AMazinBlue

September 20th, 2011 at 8:13 AM ^

Notre Dame can't win 9 games playing 7 patsies per season, how in the hell could they survive some combination of UM, OSU, Wisc, Neb and PSU every year?  The ACC is a weaker football conference and they may let ND keep their football "independence".

If ND goes to the ACC, I hope every school in the B1G says, "screw you."  AS Bo said so many years ago, Notre dame needs us, more than we need ND.

We might want to grab Mizzou and Kansas while they are available.  It would bolster the basketball marqee while keeping the football about even.

Losing PSU would be a killer.  I never saw Pitt going to ACC.

Six Zero

September 20th, 2011 at 8:27 AM ^

seems to have an overall delusional understanding of itself with regards to the college football landscape.  The relevance they assign to themselves seems to be frozen in 1992 when they were a traditional Top 5 football power.  It must be fun to be the apple of your own eye.

08mms

September 20th, 2011 at 8:37 AM ^

I suppose in this brave new world it is more likely they could leverage their reputation for a disproportionate slice of ad dollars in the inevitable ACC network instead of taking an egalitarian dividend in the B10.