Report: Notre Dame in Talks to Join ACC as Full Member

[Seaa Blue]

I think that Swofford wanted to hide his hand....if the Irish were in play...it would get a "NO" from the B1G..

I don't think the Irish get much air time at the Big Ten office now days. What they do and how they are positioned in the ACC just isn't all that interesting. Now, the concept of "pods" is interesting, and needs to be discussed. Anything that requires a rule change is obviously a topic of interest. "Deregulation," because the current system doesn't suit a particular conference isn't likely to fly and is of interest to more than just Delany.

 

[LoyalFanCT]

Can I ask why the ACC is the only P5 conference that makes sense for UConn? Not trying to be rude, I'm not sure why that is.

uconn is not going to get into AAU any time soon. so B10 is unlikely. B12 is a conference most of whose members are far away from the Northeast. That leaves ACC.

 

[dayooper]

I like the pods...I like regionality of opponents.

Blame Delaney for nixing the idea that the ACC had put forth...that would have allowed pods or more than two divisions.

Maybe...Delaney was worried that by playing five ACC games, Notre Dame could be put in a pod...and if they were a pod winner and highly ranked...possibly be slotted for an ACC Championship game. The "open architecture" of having the authority to develop one's own championship methodology that the ACC put forward, had to cause some hiccup somewhere in the Big 10.

You can still have rotating Pods. We've been over this before. You can play everyone in a conference twice in a span of six years. You just change the divisions every two years. Again, let's say The Big10 goes to 20 (you can do this with 16 too) with Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas Tech, UConn and WVU (just using these six as an example, not say that this is plausible). You set up you "Pods" with regionality and rivalry. It might look like this:

Pod 1: UConn, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, WVU
Pod 2: Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana, Purdue
Pod 3: Illinois, NW, Wisky, Minny, Iowa
Pod 4: Nebraska, Kansas, TTU, Oklahoma, Texas

Years one and two:

Division 1: UConn, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, WVU, Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana, Purdue
Division 2: Illinois, NW, Wisky, Minny, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, TTU, Oklahoma, Texas

Years three and four:

Division 1: UConn, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, WVU, Illinois, NW, Wisky, Minny, Iowa
Division 2: Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana, Purdue, Nebraska, Kansas, TTU, Oklahoma, Texas

Years five and six:

Division 1: UConn, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, WVU, Nebraska, Kansas, TTU, Oklahoma, Texas
Division 2: Michigan, MSU, OSU, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, NW, Wisky, Minny, Iowa

You keep the regionality of the conference with your permanent games, but you play everyone. The only stipulation in the CCG rule is that you play everyone in your division. It doesn't say that the divisions stay the same every year. You play everyone in your division. Then, after two years, your division changes. With the above plan, you have nine games in your division, so all of the conference games count.

 

[dayooper]

UConn is not going to get into AAU any time soon. so B10 is unlikely. B12 is a conference most of whose members are far away from the Northeast. That leaves ACC.

Eh, I'm not sure AAU is a requirement now (or that it ever was).

 

[Rufus]

Michigan State was not in the AAU at the time the Spartans joined the B1G. They joined the AAU about 15 years AFTER joining the B1G.

 

[SubZero]

All tis UCONN in the B1G talk is nothing more than idiots trolling us.

 

[Pat125]

I like the pods...I like regionality of opponents.

Blame Delaney for nixing the idea that the ACC had put forth...that would have allowed pods or more than two divisions.

Maybe...Delaney was worried that by playing five ACC games, Notre Dame could be put in a pod...and if they were a pod winner and highly ranked...possibly be slotted for an ACC Championship game. The "open architecture" of having the authority to develop one's own championship methodology that the ACC put forward, had to cause some hiccup somewhere in the Big 10.

My understanding is that one conference does not have veto power, so any blame would also have to be shared with Sankey, Scott, and/or Bowlsby. In fact, I believe a majority, and perhaps all of the other P5 conferences opposed Swofford's proposal. I don't know if Delany or the others are "worried" about Notre Dame. Besides, I cannot imagine any ACC football institution would even think of allowing a non-member of a sport be eligible for their conference championship. But if this is actually a concern, perhaps next time around, Swofford's proposal could include the requirement that only members of the conference, and members who play the same number of conference games as the majority of the members (and at least 8 games) are eligible for the conference championship.

In the meantime Swofford can blame himself and the members for not coming up with scheduling in which teams play each other at least once every two years. For example, this can be done with pods. Pods A and B have 4 teams, and Pods C and D have 3 teams. Then have divisions of Pods A,C and Pods B,D one year and Pods A,D and Pods B,C the next year. Even with an 8 conference game schedule, teams still have two conference games outside their division.

Pod A: UNC, NC St, Duke, WF
Pod B: Clem, GT, Miami, FSU
Pod C: UVa, VT, 'Ville*
Pod D: Pitt, Syr, BC

This is just one example. I'm sure they can come up with something instead of making excuses and blaming others.

* or replacement institution if they continue to blatantly commit several types of Level I violations.

 

[billybud]

ACC teams already have a permanent crossover...a must do to preserve rivalries like FSU-Miami, North Carolina-NC State. Then add in a permanent in-state SEC rival like FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and GT have and Notre Dame every third year and there is not much room

Anyhoo...the Big Ten submitted a amendment that altered the proposed legislation that would allow a conference to match its two strongest teams...to one that left the current legislation almost intact...except letting a conference play a full round robin (Big 12 rule) and match the two best teams....

There will be no pods....not in the next 10 years.

From ESPN....

But what is most interesting is how this whole process played out. Most folks nationally shrugged their shoulders when the ACC first proposed the deregulation idea. What changed between March 2014 and November 2015, when the Big Ten decided the bigger conferences would be better off keeping a division format? While it is understandable that commissioners like Delany want as much uniformity as possible among Power 5 conferences, there is no way to get there.

Not when the SEC, ACC and Big Ten have 14 members, the Pac-12 has 12 and the Big 12 has 10.

Not when the SEC and ACC stay at eight conference games and the others have nine.

Not when the ACC has a unique scheduling partnership with Notre Dame. Not when the ACC and SEC have built in cross-conference rivalries that must always be played. Not when scheduling philosophies differ from conference to conference (to play or not to play FCS, that is the question!)

So what if the ACC wanted to potentially get rid of divisions somewhere down the line as a way to play league teams more often and determine its championship game the way it wants? In December, Delany told ESPN.com’s Heather Dinich, “I don't want unintended consequences. I don't want to wake up one morning and see some odd structure that's unfamiliar.”


That would be pods.

 

[billybud]

The ACC has blamed no one...the press has outlined Delaney as the vocal opponent of such a rule change and the Big Ten as the amendment provider.

Deregulation could have allowed the ACC to realign into three divisions, sending the two highest ranked to the title game. It might have allowed teams to skip one or two divisional opponents each season, rather than being bound to a round robin. Most intriguingly, the ACC could have dropped divisions altogether, creating a schedule of three set annual opponents and five rotating opponents, sending the two highest ranked to the conference championship game.

BUT....it was philosophical in nature...and the ACC may not have acted on it...only thought that any conference should be able to decide their champion in a fashion that they choose...The league and Swofford have been very cool about the whole thing.

“I’m not sure it affects our league whether it passes or not. Our support has been philosophical in nature. Conferences should have autonomy and complete autonomy,” Swofford said. “The likelihood of us changing anything is very minimal based on the conversations we’ve had the last couple of years.”

We will have two divisions for the rest of my life (albeit that may not be a long time).

Why?

Because if you desire uniformity among leagues, and those leagues and AD's are basically conservative about a major organizational change, the likelihood of a change from the status quo is not great in the shorter term.

 

[dayooper]

ACC teams already have a permanent crossover...a must do to preserve rivalries like FSU-Miami, North Carolina-NC State. Then add in a permanent in-state SEC rival like FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and GT have and Notre Dame every third year and there is not much room

Anyhoo...the Big Ten submitted a amendment that altered the proposed legislation that would allow a conference to match its two strongest teams...to one that left the current legislation almost intact...except letting a conference play a full round robin (Big 12 rule) and match the two best teams....

There will be no pods....not in the next 10 years.

From ESPN....

But what is most interesting is how this whole process played out. Most folks nationally shrugged their shoulders when the ACC first proposed the deregulation idea. What changed between March 2014 and November 2015, when the Big Ten decided the bigger conferences would be better off keeping a division format? While it is understandable that commissioners like Delany want as much uniformity as possible among Power 5 conferences, there is no way to get there.

Not when the SEC, ACC and Big Ten have 14 members, the Pac-12 has 12 and the Big 12 has 10.

Not when the SEC and ACC stay at eight conference games and the others have nine.

Not when the ACC has a unique scheduling partnership with Notre Dame. Not when the ACC and SEC have built in cross-conference rivalries that must always be played. Not when scheduling philosophies differ from conference to conference (to play or not to play FCS, that is the question!)

So what if the ACC wanted to potentially get rid of divisions somewhere down the line as a way to play league teams more often and determine its championship game the way it wants? In December, Delany told ESPN.com’s Heather Dinich, “I don't want unintended consequences. I don't want to wake up one morning and see some odd structure that's unfamiliar.”


That would be pods.

We have been over this before. There would still be two divisions, it's just the divisions change. It's still a round robin set up, it's just the divisions would change. If you want it to be worded different, than we can just say the divisions change every two years. There is nothing in the rule book that says divisions have to remain the same.

The Big10 has had an aversion to permanent cross-overs since the horrible Legends and Leaders fiasco. Giving Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State and Wisconsin permanent cross-overs loses money for the other schools. They would play those schools less and lose their guaranteed sellout.

What the Big10 was afraid of was that conferences would pick their best team and a decent team so the potential playoff participants would beat the other up. Listen, if FSU and North Carolina were both undefeated, the ACC could put up a another team against UNC. Theoretically, UNC would whip them good and the ACC could make claim of having two undefeated teams where they didn't play each other. Would the ACC do that? I don't know, but that's the reasoning behind the rule. It stops a conference from gaming the system to have two undefeated teams.

 

[billybud]

Who tells the Big 12 what teams play in the CCG?

The NCAA Rule does....it states top two in standings...easy to do whether three divisions, no divisions, pods, etc. Top two in standings..

The tiebreakers might get long and involved (like the Big Ten's were with 11 members)...but it is workable.

And still, the Big Ten had co champs in 2010, 2008, 2005, 2004, 2002, 2000, 1999, 1998. 1997, 1996.

The conference had the right to decide just who would represent the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl....

In 1999 that was a BCS Bowl....

"Wisconsin ended up in a three way tie for first place in the Big Ten with Michigan and Ohio State. All three teams had 7-1 conference records and were conference co-champions. Michigan had defeated Wisconsin 27-10 in "The Big House". Wisconsin and Ohio State did not meet. At the time, the Big Ten awarded the Rose Bowl invitation to the tied team which had gone the longest period of time without an invitation: Michigan had been in the 1998 Rose Bowl, Ohio State had been in the 1997 Rose Bowl, while Wisconsin had last been in the 1994 Rose Bowl."

 

[billybud]

Got it wrong plain wrong on the year re Wisconsin, Rose Bowl, that year. was 1998..the Bowl was January 1999


The year was 1998

Wisconsin went to the Rose...7-1

Ohio State...7-1 went to the Sugar

Michigan...7-1...went to the Citrus

 

[Seaa Blue]

That Rose Bowl thingy is a private venture between the Big Ten and Pac. Every once in a while we play nice and cooperate with BCS/Playoff nonsense.

As Delany suggested to the SEC and Big 12: "get your own game". And so they did.

 

[billybud]

The point is...there is room for flexibility.

 

[billybud]

Not a lot of difference between choosing who plays for a conference championship and choosing who represents the conference as champion (as Big Ten did with Rose Bowl).

It is easy to say that the top two in standings...and then let the conference set up a tie breaker methodology...

 

[Pat125]

ACC teams already have a permanent crossover...a must do to preserve rivalries like FSU-Miami, North Carolina-NC State. Then add in a permanent in-state SEC rival like FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and GT have and Notre Dame every third year and there is not much room

Anyhoo...the Big Ten submitted a amendment that altered the proposed legislation that would allow a conference to match its two strongest teams...to one that left the current legislation almost intact...except letting a conference play a full round robin (Big 12 rule) and match the two best teams....

There will be no pods....not in the next 10 years.

From ESPN....

But what is most interesting is how this whole process played out. Most folks nationally shrugged their shoulders when the ACC first proposed the deregulation idea. What changed between March 2014 and November 2015, when the Big Ten decided the bigger conferences would be better off keeping a division format? While it is understandable that commissioners like Delany want as much uniformity as possible among Power 5 conferences, there is no way to get there.

Not when the SEC, ACC and Big Ten have 14 members, the Pac-12 has 12 and the Big 12 has 10.

Not when the SEC and ACC stay at eight conference games and the others have nine.

Not when the ACC has a unique scheduling partnership with Notre Dame. Not when the ACC and SEC have built in cross-conference rivalries that must always be played. Not when scheduling philosophies differ from conference to conference (to play or not to play FCS, that is the question!)

So what if the ACC wanted to potentially get rid of divisions somewhere down the line as a way to play league teams more often and determine its championship game the way it wants? In December, Delany told ESPN.com’s Heather Dinich, “I don't want unintended consequences. I don't want to wake up one morning and see some odd structure that's unfamiliar.”


That would be pods.

You seem to have a penchant for completely missing the point in posts you respond to. The two of us who mentioned pods mentioned it in the context of having two divisions in which each division's teams play each other. And the division winners play in the championship game. No semi-finals, no wild cards, etc. The only difference is that divisions change every year (or every other year). This does not appear to violate the current rules, and you made no attempt to show that was the case. Everything you quoted did not address the points we made and repeated information we already knew. The other point you blew off was that the crossover rivalries are preserved in my sample "pods." In fact, they wouldn't even be crossover. Again, for the umpeenth time, there will still be two divisions.

 

[billybud]

I understand your method...

I do not understand the problem with having the two teams, highest in standings, play each other in a CCG (without a conference wide round robin)....regardless of how the divisions look every year.

 

[SubZero]

No surprise Maryland fans come here to discuss conference championships because they know they will NEVER win one in the B1G.

 

[dayooper]

I understand your method...

I do not understand the problem with having the two teams, highest in standings, play each other in a CCG (without a conference wide round robin)....regardless of how the divisions look every year.

In idealistic college sports world, you are correct. The problem is we don't live in an idealistic world. We live in a world where sexual assault is covered up, prostitutes are used to recruit kids (to the point where they are almost forced on a kid), team Doctors are allowed free reign with any checks or balances, streroid use is rampant, kids are given thousands of dollars to play for schools, universities provide classes where you don't have to go to class or do anything and a governing body that has little or no power to investigate. Pardon me if I don't think these schools and conferences can't trust themselves.

Swofford should have laid his rules out on how the CCG participants would have been chosen. As far as we know, he didnt. Just as I wouldn't trust Jim Delany, Larry Scott, or any conference commissioner, I wouldn't trust Swofford.

You bring up the 1999 Rose Bowl. While the Big10 wasn't trying to get two teams in the Rose Bowl, I'll explain that situation. It was standard procedure at that time (going back to when the only bowl game allowed was the Rose Bowl) that when there was a tie, the team that hadn't been to the Rose Bowl the longest got to go. There was a three way tie between Michigan, OSU and Wisconsin. Head to head didn't work because Michigan beat Wisconsin and OSU beat Michigan. Wisconsin and OSU didn't play. SinceMichigan had gone the year prior and OSU had gone the year before, Wisconsin was the choice. The last time Wisconsin went was 1994.

 

[Pat125]

No surprise Maryland fans come here to discuss conference championships because they know they will NEVER win one in the B1G.

I assume you mean football. Anyway, my point here had nothing to do with whether my team will ever get to a football conference championship game in the Big Ten, although I hope that will happen in my lifetime. I do my best to not be shameless in plugging my team on another board, but if my participation in this discussion went over the line, I will not particpate in this discussion further, and apologize if I did.

 

[Pat125]

I understand your method...

I do not understand the problem with having the two teams, highest in standings, play each other in a CCG (without a conference wide round robin)....regardless of how the divisions look every year.

Assuming that you really do understand now, then I would be interested in hearing why my proposal is worse than the cuurent ACC scheduling. Or if you still think it will be not allowed, please provide a link that shows that divisions cannot be changed from year to year. Thanks.

 

[dayooper]

No surprise Maryland fans come here to discuss conference championships because they know they will NEVER win one in the B1G.

Just as an FYI, I think Maryland will be competitive in the Big10 East in a couple of years. DJ Durkin can coach and recruit. If he stays at Maryland, they will be a good team with the talent that's available there. If Durkin leaves, all bets are off.

 

[billybud]

Assuming that you really do understand now, then I would be interested in hearing why my proposal is worse than the cuurent ACC scheduling. Or if you still think it will be not allowed, please provide a link that shows that divisions cannot be changed from year to year. Thanks.

And I would like you to tell me why, other than some moralistic preaching, having just the two teams highest in the standings play in the CCG can't be done. Leaves flexibility.

Can't be any worse than..."hey, it's our turn, you guys went last" when a conference could decide who represented as champion in the Rose.

One problem with your illustration is that you would have Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, and VT playing together in a division every other year...the powerhouse football teams in the same division. It probably was off your head...but it would make a very uneven field.

The Atlantic vs Coastal is already off balance with FSU, Clemson, and Louisville.

It's preseason and there is no real measures that exist preseason...but using the ESPN 2017 Power Index...

#4, #7, #14, #16...the highest power ranking ACC teams...would play in the same division....along with #31 and #37.

If, that year, you are Duke, Wake, UNC, NC State, Pitt, Syracuse and BC in the other division....your chances of playing in the ACC CCG are really enhanced. Just like they would be in the Big Ten if you could skip both Ohio State and Michigan.

It is a system almost designed to put a weaker team in the CCG.

 

[Pat125]

And I would like you to tell me why, other than some moralistic preaching, having just the two teams highest in the standings play in the CCG can't be done. Leaves flexibility.

Can't be any worse than..."hey, it's our turn, you guys went last" when a conference could decide who represented as champion in the Rose.

One problem with your illustration is that you would have Clemson, FSU, Miami, Louisville, and VT playing together in a division every other year...the powerhouse football teams in the same division. It probably was off your head...but it would make a very uneven field.

The Atlantic vs Coastal is already off balance with FSU, Clemson, and Louisville.

It's preseason and there is no real measures that exist preseason...but using the ESPN 2017 Power Index...

#4, #7, #14, #16...the highest power ranking ACC teams...would play in the same division....along with #31 and #37.

If, that year, you are Duke, Wake, UNC, NC State, Pitt, Syracuse and BC in the other division....your chances of playing in the ACC CCG are really enhanced. Just like they would be in the Big Ten if you could skip both Ohio State and Michigan.

It is a system almost designed to put a weaker team in the CCG.

Now that you addressed my point and not strawmen, I am happy to respond to your point. First of all, I get your point that you believe my proposal will be worse. Fair enough. Maybe my proposal could be adjusted to have more balance while maintaing protected rivalries. Perhaps the ACC tried and could not get sufficient agreement. In the meantime, it kind of sucks that some conference teams only get to play each other every six years, just like the SEC.

Now to your point. As far as I know, the conference gets to decide tiebreaking procedures for division winners, just as they have decided tiebreaking procedures for conference winners before there were divisions. So I don't see what your issue is there. I personally do not have a problem with your proposals. For example, they can get rid of divisions, allowing for more flexible scheduling, and have the top two play each other. Or have three divisions, and the top two division winners play each other. At least if there are concrete additional models proposed, you have a better chance of two other commissioners going along with you.

I agree with the majority of the P5 commissioners who don't want to be surprised with some inane way of choosing a conference champion. Otherwise, should a nonconference member like Notre Dame be eligible for an ACC championship? If so, could they eligible for the BIg Ten championship if they go 2-0 against the Big Ten? I think there needs to be some control.