Discouraging, But you Never Can Tell...

[Sea Goat]

Obviously, I and many, many other ND fans disagree with you on the "natural home" being the Big Ten.

 

[BC1978]

This is the same pattern beginning to emerge in the ACC. First its SU and BC playing games at neutral sites to accomodate the domers. Then its "well yeah, we agreed to play five, but this year we won't". There won't be many people surprised if more games are switched in the future just as Wake did for next, or to see more neutral site games as ND desires.

This is just an intellectually dishonest statement.

As has been mentioned many times in this thread, BC is not playing a neutral site game to accomodate ND in 2015. That was originally scheduled as an ND Home Game!! ND approached BC and asked that it be part of the Shamrock series and played in Boston. That's a win for BC. The game was supposed to be in South Bend (as the prior game was played in Chestnut Hill). The next game BC/ND game played after 2015 will be in Chestnut Hill.

SU played ND at the Meadowlands NOT at ND's insistence, but rather, as has been widely reported, because SU wanted the game there as part of its NYC branding strategy.

ND IS playing 5 ACC games a year. One year they only play 4 due to prior scheduling commitments but the following year they offset that by playing 6 ACC games and 5 every year after that. That was part of the Agreement.

You are factually wrong on each of your points.

 

[billybud]

To show how ND is already falling back on it's old Big East ways despite protests otherwise--the game against BC at Fenway was accomplished for Notre Dame by ND reneging on its guarantee of five games next season. They've already altered the scheduling. Wake Forest had to move its scheduled game to 2015 to accomodate ND.

It will be amusing to watch over the coming years as more ACC teams "agree" to play neutral site games with the domers despite the proclamations that this isn't happening.

Notre Dame, with the help of the ACC, plays six games the next season...

Six games...plus four..equals ten for two years...it was an adjustment.

 

[buckaineer]

You can not shape historical facts to make your version of history match your beliefs. ND never agreed to home and homes with the entire BE. NEVER. At one point they were negotiating for the 2 home, 1 neutral game with I believe 3 teams per year but that was never agreed upon. BC, Pitt, UWV and Cuse were all against it. RU was for it since they could still play in NJ. And ND was worried about losing too many games with their "traditonal" rivals (which they of course gave up with the ACC deal - MI). So the deal dies. That is when the 10 game Uconn series got negotiated with no home games for Uconn at the Rent. The only thing ND did for the BE in FB was bring some bowl affiliations to the conference. And they were first choice for those bowls in most years.

Notre Dame agreed to play all BE teams on a rotating basis-home and home-three per year. They never honored that agreement. They later changed it to only playing BE schools if they would agree to a neutral site game and two at Notre Dame. RU and UConn who just upgraded stadiums and spent millions in state to do so declined the offer. I believe UConn played one ND game @ ND--which they won. USF also played one at ND with no return--which they also won. RU refused. WVU was never offered any games and neither was UL or UC to my knowledge. It is not shaping historical facts to present the facts of the matter. ND played Pitt home-home and also SU was scheduled for one home-home series.

The Big East lost multiple bowls while ND was sharing agreements including the Gator which they had prior to the deal with ND. They also lost the Sun Bowl, the Music City and a bowl in Phoenix and California. ND was not influential in getting any new bowls for the league, in fact the Champs state ND inclusion was not a necessity, but the commissioner signed them on anyway. ND took several bowls from deserving BE member WVU and they will take bowls away from deserving ACC members starting next season.

 

[billybud]

Bucky is a BGN poster (WVU boards)...he has a virulent dislike of the ACC and a zealously positive view of the Big 12.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. We all have our own viewpoint.

But, like many fans of former Big East teams. he is not a fan of Notre Dame because of the way that the Big East's experience with the Irish turned out.

And, I can't say that I blame them..

 

[buckaineer]

Bucky is a BGN poster (WVU boards)...he has a virulent dislike of the ACC and a zealously positive view of the Big 12.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. We all have our own viewpoint.

But, like many fans of former Big East teams. he is not a fan of Notre Dame because of the way that the Big East's experience with the Irish turned out.

And, I can't say that I blame them..

Thanks billybud--you are an ACC poster -possibly on the payroll-with a virulent dislike of the BIG 12 and a zealously positive view of the ACC.

Since you felt I needed qualification rather than letting people decide for themselves what they think of me and my posts, I thought a return of the favor was in order.


As for Notre Dame I am posting the facts of the matter--you've injected your own interpretations of that which I don't claim.

 

[WestHartHusk]

No written agreement, Buck. Kevin White verbally told the BE commissioner after the 2003 raid that ND would "play 3 BE schools per year".

ND never said it would play ALL BE football schools nor did it say WHERE the games were to be played.

ND tried to schedule UConn and Rutgers but those schools stuck to their guns on a home/home series, which ND declined.

The ACC has a written contract that mandates that ND play five ACC games, ND provides the open dates and the ACC schedules the schools/venues.

Big difference.

This was my point earlier in the thread - complete and total institutional hypocracy. I can guarantee that when ND made that "promise" they relied on their religious mandate to convince others (other Catholic schools no less) to accept it. Then they defend the hypocracy by saying "it wasn't in writing." Bull$hit. And just to cap it all off, when the league they destroyed splintered, they abandoned the Catholic schools because they couldn't offer them as much as the ACC could.

And don't even get me started about the "offer" ND made to UConn. Play 5 games at ND, and 5 games (split gate) in NY/Boston, with 0 in CT.

 

[06029]

Notre Dame agreed to play all BE teams on a rotating basis-home and home-three per year. They never honored that agreement. They later changed it to only playing BE schools if they would agree to a neutral site game and two at Notre Dame. RU and UConn who just upgraded stadiums and spent millions in state to do so declined the offer. I believe UConn played one ND game @ ND--which they won. USF also played one at ND with no return--which they also won. RU refused. WVU was never offered any games and neither was UL or UC to my knowledge. It is not shaping historical facts to present the facts of the matter. ND played Pitt home-home and also SU was scheduled for one home-home series.

The Big East lost multiple bowls while ND was sharing agreements including the Gator which they had prior to the deal with ND. They also lost the Sun Bowl, the Music City and a bowl in Phoenix and California. ND was not influential in getting any new bowls for the league, in fact the Champs state ND inclusion was not a necessity, but the commissioner signed them on anyway. ND took several bowls from deserving BE member WVU and they will take bowls away from deserving ACC members starting next season.

There was never a formal executed agreement. It was under discussion but never put in writing and was never a binding commitment on ND. When it came to formalizing, ND wanted the 2 for 1. As posted above, it was a crappy thing to do by ND to never follow thru but it was equally as bad on the BE for not forcing it. At least the ACC has a binding agreement in writing with no 2 for 1.

I agree with you that ND took bowls away from a lot of deserving BE teams. It will happen in the ACC too. But the ND tie in was important to the Gator, Champs, and Liberty. I think they also brought a Cotton Bowl tie in that was to take effect in 2013. The Sun left after they had taken ND. Same I think with Music City.

ND was a leech on the BE and is a tic on the ACC. Both are blood sucking parasites that if you do not remove can cause big problems. The tic just goes slower.

 

[billybud]

Bucky...I have long ago proclaimed who I am and where my interests lie...

But I am not an ACC guy...don't particularly care for the ACC...just a place for FSU to play....

Heck, last season, half of FSU's conference schedule consisted of old Big East teams.

Like a lot of FSU guys, I think that we really don't fit well in the ACC.

We aren't in the top 50 (US News and WR), we aren't basketball oriented, we don't play men's soccer nor lacrosse...

We are barbeque eating, bourbon drinking SEC type heathens trapped with the Biffs and their oxford cloth shirts and chinos....who make small talk about the coming basketball season as the game goes on...they merrily sip their Chardonnay and occasionally take a desultory look at the scoreboard.

 

[btstimpy]

ND does what is 100% best for themselves and it is always tied to revenue. If they are forced into a conference, they will need a conference that: 1) gives them the most revenue; and, 2) makes the most competitive sense. The B1G and SEC will fit the first but the long history ND has with many of the B1G schools is why I see it as their natural home. The ACC will never generate the revenue with ND that the B1G would generate with ND. I also think Delaney can sell a better TV package than Swofford. Plus, after becoming an after thought in Hockey East, ND will look at the B1G Hockey as place where they can win. And in the end, it is all about the money for ND and every other school.

This here is a probably a dream that Jim Delaney has, but that about all it is. What Notre Dame wants for football is to physically play football games in as many major markets nationally as possible on a regular basis. When I say markets, I'm talking Boston, New York, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Washington, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago. Accomplishing this is easiest as an independent, but with the membership in the ACC they pickup Boston, New York, Washington, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Miami. They cover Chicago themselves and Los Angeles and San Francisco with USC/Stanford. Notre Dame will never accomplish this with the Big Ten, natural or not. Therefore, it remains only a dream that Jim Delany has. That won't change. While Minneapolis, Iowa City, Lincoln, Springfield, Bloomington, West Lafayette, Madison, and Lansing are nice, they don't cut it for what Notre Dame wants.

 

[upstater]

This here is a probably a dream that Jim Delaney has, but that about all it is. What Notre Dame wants for football is to physically play football games in as many major markets nationally as possible on a regular basis. When I say markets, I'm talking Boston, New York, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Washington, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago. Accomplishing this is easiest as an independent, but with the membership in the ACC they pickup Boston, New York, Washington, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Miami. They cover Chicago themselves and Los Angeles and San Francisco with USC/Stanford. Notre Dame will never accomplish this with the Big Ten, natural or not. Therefore, it remains only a dream that Jim Delany has. That won't change. While Minneapolis, Iowa City, Lincoln, Springfield, Bloomington, West Lafayette, Madison, and Lansing are nice, they don't cut it for what Notre Dame wants.

They negotiated seriously to join the B1G a decade ago--the president's idea. Quashed by alums and the board.

They have only talked about joining one conference for football: the B1G.

With the ACC they pick up Boston, New York, Pittsburgh? You can't be serious. ND has always been in these areas. Always. Nothing the ACC has in these areas means anything to ND. You also totally skipped cities like Detroit, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington DC is in the B1Gs territory as well.

 

[buckaineer]

This here is a probably a dream that Jim Delaney has, but that about all it is. What Notre Dame wants for football is to physically play football games in as many major markets nationally as possible on a regular basis. When I say markets, I'm talking Boston, New York, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Washington, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago. Accomplishing this is easiest as an independent, but with the membership in the ACC they pickup Boston, New York, Washington, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Miami. They cover Chicago themselves and Los Angeles and San Francisco with USC/Stanford. Notre Dame will never accomplish this with the Big Ten, natural or not. Therefore, it remains only a dream that Jim Delany has. That won't change. While Minneapolis, Iowa City, Lincoln, Springfield, Bloomington, West Lafayette, Madison, and Lansing are nice, they don't cut it for what Notre Dame wants.

The Big Ten isn't trying to obtain Notre Dame. They are trying to get new markets for exposure and recruiting in growing areas where they don't currently have any teams. They want to add AAU schools, large land grant institutions in contiguous areas. Gordon Gee-former Ohio State president talked of creating a sort of a geographic T via adding in the east.

 

[btstimpy]

They negotiated seriously to join the B1G a decade ago--the president's idea. Quashed by alums and the board.

They have only talked about joining one conference for football: the B1G.

With the ACC they pick up Boston, New York, Pittsburgh? You can't be serious. ND has always been in these areas. Always. Nothing the ACC has in these areas means anything to ND. You also totally skipped cities like Detroit, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington DC is in the B1Gs territory as well.

You haven't been listening to Jack Swarbrick obviously. In every discussion he as about this subject, he specifically mentions the ACC presenting opportunity for playing in Boston, New York, and Pittsburgh. And he's doing it too (at Fenway with Boston College, at Met Life with Syracuse, at Heinz Field with Pitt). And in the ACC he also talks about at Grant Field with Georgia Tech, at Dolphins stadium with Miami. He doesn't talk about the cities I skipped. He seemed more than giddy to drop Detroit, and if they want Ohio, he'll be pushing the ACC to add Cincinnati. I haven't seen it yet. And I don't hear anything about the B1G from anyone associated with Notre Dame football from the school to the fans. They may have looked at it in the past, but not now.

 

[btstimpy]

The Big Ten isn't trying to obtain Notre Dame. They are trying to get new markets for exposure and recruiting in growing areas where they don't currently have any teams. They want to add AAU schools, large land grant institutions in contiguous areas. Gordon Gee-former Ohio State president talked of creating a sort of a geographic T via adding in the east.

Gordon Gee's T has been turned into an I real quick. And then Ohio State got rid of Gordon Gee, or he left anyway. He's back at West Virginia.

 

[Fishy]

Notre Dame can play in New York, Boston and and Pittsburgh without the ACC. They play in Texas and near as I can tell they didn't have to join the Big 12 to do it.

Notre Dame is simply not interested in joining a conference and the Big Ten was never going to offer them the 'have your cake and eat it, too' deal the ACC did.

 

[Fishy]

Notre Dame is playing at Temple in a few years so obviously, they're pushing the ACC to invite the Owls.

 

[CL82]

It so hard to dislike Edsall right after watching this video.

The win at ND was a reminder of what we were like when we were a program on the rise. It will good to get back to that under HCBD.

 

[btstimpy]

You guys are drinking the koolaid. That's for sure. ND played Pitt for ages. The ACC is irrelevant. ND has played Philly, they've played Washington. They go to Happy Valley. The ACC is totally irrelevant in all of this.

Yes. They have been playing all over the country as an independent for years. They want to continue to do that, but they also wanted a home in a conference for basketball, lacrosse, soccer, etc. Apparently they didn't want to keep doing what they were doing with all of those teams tucked away in the AAC. So to put the non-football programs in a P5 conference, they could choose Big XII, B1G, or ACC. The PAC12 and SEC aren't realistic. Which of the Big XII, B1G, or ACC gives them them most access to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Washington, Charlotte, Miami, Pittsburgh, Dallas, etc knowing they now had to give up at least some football independence? They were not given a Big East offer from any of the Big XII, B1G, or ACC. The Big XII and ACC offered partial. The B1G did not offer partial.

With partial on the table, the B1G is out. They have their hubris about standing firm, and they can now watch Notre Dame drop Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue. They will all tell you that the B1G is so wonderful Notre Dame will be crawling back.

The Big XII offered them Dallas. The Big XII offered them recruiting access to Texas. The ACC gets them Boston, Pittsburgh, New York, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, and Washington, DC. The ACC also gets them recruiting access to Georgia and Florida. The choice was not hard. But they could have gone with Georgetown and Villanova sure to keep doing what they were doing. But they'd be trying to shop around for a bowl deal outside the BCS like BYU and Navy have. They didn't want to do that. Then they addressed the Texas situation by signing a 4 game series with Texas.

What does the ACC get out of this? The Gator Bowl, the Capital One Bowl, a home Notre Dame game for each team every 6 years, and about $2 million per year for each school. Plus Notre Dame doesn't have bad basketball, soccer, and lacrosse. The ACC gets another good team in each of those league schedules. Will it last forever? It will for 15 years or so.

 

[UPitt]

I don't think anyone blames ND for cutting and running and making selfish deals. What bugs people is the background stuff that ND shouldn't have been involved in, which is the 2003-2004 split, and then assuming the presidency while double dealing.

Do you despise Notre Dame?

I personally think Notre Dame did many positive things for the Big East. They helped secure better bowls, and only could be chosen to play in one bowl game a year. They brought a competetive mens and womens bbasketball program into the conference.

I think it is far fetched to blame Notre Dame for the Big East collapse. When the power conference model changed and the Big East model no longer aligned with it, the Big East was dead in the water. What the Big East lacked most of all was not having a "blue blood" or "cornerstone" football school or two. Miami and VT were competetive programs, but they are likely middle of pack ACC schools for carrying the weight of that conference. Pitt, SU, RU, BC, and WVU were required to shoulder much of the Big East load and most would agree that they are middle to lower of the pack in their respective P5 conferences. Asking though seven schools, along with Big East new comers Ville, UC, and UConn (football) to field a product as valuable as the other major conferences was an unreasonable expectation.

 

[btstimpy]

Notre Dame is playing at Temple in a few years so obviously, they're pushing the ACC to invite the Owls.

Notre Dame doesn't appear to be sponsoring anyone for the ACC to invite at the moment. But Philadelphia won the bid to host the ACC Men's lacrosse tournament this year and next year at PPL Park, wherever that is. So Notre Dame gets to show off its lacrosse in Philadelphia too.

 

[btstimpy]

Notre Dame can play in New York, Boston and and Pittsburgh without the ACC. They play in Texas and near as I can tell they didn't have to join the Big 12 to do it.

Notre Dame is simply not interested in joining a conference and the Big Ten was never going to offer them the 'have your cake and eat it, too' deal the ACC did.

Like I posted in another reply, Notre Dame could have stayed with the AAC for all sports except football and continued to play all those places as an independent. They chose to join a P5 conference instead, which required them to give up the independence of at least 5 football games. Now ask yourself which P5 conference lets them continue to play in those places along with Miami and Atlanta using the 5 games they gave up?

With the AAC they would not have been required to give up 5 games and continued to play those places sure. And they'd have the AAC bowl lineup too. Same as before.

 

[huskymedic]

... and only could be chosen to play in one bowl game a year.

 

[Fishy]

Are you drunk?

Why would they have stayed in the AAC? Do you think they're looking forward to sending their volleyball team to Tulsa next year?

Of course not - they packed their bags and went to the one P5 conference where they could dictate terms.

 

[btstimpy]

Are you drunk?

Why would they have stayed in the AAC? Do you think they're looking forward to sending their volleyball team to Tulsa next year?

Of course not - they packed their bags and went to the one P5 conference where they could dictate terms.

There were two P5 conferences that offered the partial football. And they went to the P5 conference where they could still play in those cities that I referenced. The ACC was not the only option.

 

[btstimpy]

View attachment 5077

With all of the bowl games locked into conferences, where do you think they will be able to play? If BYU makes a bowl and it is not BCS, it's the Poinsettia Bowl baby. That's it.

I should have said play in the same bowl game every year rather than saying one bowl game a year. That's what I meant.