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

[SubZero]

I'm not sure Rutgers football was better than BC. They had no heart.

There's no way we would have lost to Rutgers by 30 points like we did to BC. And unlike Rutgers, even we would have scored against most of their Big 10 opponents.

 

[CL82]

There's no way we would have lost to Rutgers by 30 points like we did to BC. And unlike Rutgers, even we would have scored against most of their Big 10 opponents.

We would have lost to the little sisters of the poor by thirty. That game is probably the absolute nadir of Connecticut football.

 

[dayooper]

I appreciate this post for the insight into what really matters. Sports money is a pittance compared to what comes from tuition paying out of state students. When David Boren was talking expansion and what OU needed, this is what he was talking about. They need smart, out of state students, and the limited footprint of the Big XII was hindering their "advertisement" to that wider audience. Sports is just the marketing arm for these universities. New England is the most target rich environment in the country for high school students.

Michigan already has way more appeal than OU could ever hope to have in the NorthEast. But visibility could be even better. I think it would actually help schools like Wisconsin, Purdue and Minnesota more. If UConn was in the B1G, I think several B1G schools would see increases in applications from New England, aside from whatever sports related TV benefits accrue.

Great Post, both Sea Blue and Husky Hawk. What many people who discuss this don't understand is that getting students on to campus is real reason for the sports. Michigan has a fair amount of appeal with undergrad students in the NE, but can always use more.

The interest in the NE can be seen in how many kids come from the area. Look at the student population of Michigan by state. It tells a lot of where UM is and where it might want to go. (From UM office of Undergrad Admissions Student Profile Link, as of October 2016).

Midwest
Michigan - 16,488
Illinois - 1487
Ohio - 573

North East
NY - 1635
NJ - 964
Penn - 396
Mass - 363
Conn - 356

Mid Atlantic
Maryland - 403
Virginia - 227
NC - 76

South East
Florida - 359
Georgia - 111

West
Texas - 205
Cali - 1423

There a ton of people in the NE and UConn can help deliver more. It's a priority to get and keep getting students from NY, NJ, Mass and Conn. It's why I think UConn is in play for the Big10. Michigan would love Virginia and UNC just so they can recruit those large states, but the ACC has them locked up for a foreseeable time. The best they can do is keep pushing Maryland, OSU and Michigan in the DC area. Hopefully it will trickle down into Northern Virginia.

Where they can make a huge jump is in Texas. Obviously Texas is the big fish here, but they aren't biting. Placing Oklahoma in the Big10 would put the Dallas-FT Worth market squarely in the Big10 sights. Recruiting students from that area would be a boon for Michigan and the other schools. Oklahoma would benefit by placing their brand in the Midwest and North East. National games with OSU, Michigan, PSU and Nebraska would help each school immensely.

It's all about the general student population and getting those kids to campus

 

[SubZero]

Why would New England students go dumpster diving at a state school like Michigan when there are plenty more of better options in their home area for the same or cheaper tuition. Going to Michigan for out of state students is expensive.

 

[CTGoonie]

15 won't work because you must have a round robin competition between the divisions. You can't have round robin divisions with three divisions of five. Unless you can come up with a way to have two equal divisions play a round robin schedule with 15 teams, it doesn't work.

BTW - The Big10 pushed to keep that rule in place.

The rule just states the championship game has to be between the top 2 teams or the division winners after round robin divisional play. There is nothing that says you have to have just 2 divisions. You could do 3 divisions and the 2 top ranked teams play in the championship game.

 

[huskyrob1]

And then we got ACC posters coming here saying we'd be the only viable #16. And no one said expansion is done. 1+1=2?

The Big Ten is looking at us even without the AAU affiliation. I know that for a fact. And here we have you saying we're staying in the AAC. Some of you are way out there.

Way out there in troll land. Lol

 

[Zissou]

The rule just states the championship game has to be between the top 2 teams or the division winners after round robin divisional play. There is nothing that says you have to have just 2 divisions. You could do 3 divisions and the 2 top ranked teams play in the championship game.

There actually is a clause that says 2 divisions - subparagraph 1 below. Alternatively, the top two teams from a full round-robin conference schedule (subparagraph 2) can't work for a 15 team conference because it is more games in the regular season than allowed. Your 3 division scenario doesn't work.

Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game either:
(1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or
(2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular season competition among all members of the conference.

 

[Zissou]

15 won't work because you must have a round robin competition between the divisions. You can't have round robin divisions with three divisions of five. Unless you can come up with a way to have two equal divisions play a round robin schedule with 15 teams, it doesn't work.

See above. You can have a 15 team conference with one 8 team division and one 7 team division.

You don't need a full round robin schedule between divisions, just within each division division.

Note the subparagraph 1 wording "a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible)"

This even number thing is an urban myth, frequently spouted. Imparnumerophobia.

 

[CTGoonie]

There actually is a clause that says 2 divisions - subparagraph 1 below. Alternatively, the top two teams from a full round-robin conference schedule (subparagraph 2) can't work for a 15 team conference because it is more games in the regular season than allowed. Your 3 division scenario doesn't work.

Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game either:
(1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or
(2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular season competition among all members of the conference.

Where are you getting this language from? The official release from the NCAA reads "Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference."

I don't see where it mentions two divisions. Plus as @Zissou mentions if it does include that wording you can have 1 division of 7 and 1 of 8. Either way the point remains that the ACC could add a 15th school at any time if it wanted to. The ACC network would very easily be carried on basic cable in CT if UConn were invited...

 

[SubZero]

Where are you getting this language from? The official release from the NCAA reads "Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference."

I don't see where it mentions two divisions. Plus as @Zissou mentions if it does include that wording you can have 1 division of 7 and 1 of 8. Either way the point remains that the ACC could add a 15th school at any time if it wanted to. The ACC network would very easily be carried on basic cable in CT if UConn were invited...

The voices in his head told him that.

 

[huskymedic]

5/15/17:

Dick Weiss‏ @HoopsWeiss 56m 56 minutes ago
tim brando of fox reporting notre dame in conversations to become full time acc member.

Tim Brando‏ @TimBrando 13m 13 minutes ago
Replying to @HoopsWeiss
Let's pump the breaks here Hoops! I've stated there have been discussions, informal yes, but it's my strong opinion it's a matter of time.

5/18/17:

Tim Brando‏ @TimBrando 1h 1 hour ago
Noticed Brian Kelly told Rotary Club His Dept. "Values Independence". A statement that belies comments privately & on record in past to me.

Tim Brando‏ @TimBrando 1h 1 hour ago
I'll repeat one last time. There was NEVER a report by me. So ND bloggers and local television stations. I answered a ? on a radio show..ok?

Tonight:

Tim Brando‏ @TimBrando 22m22 minutes ago
I repeat the notion that no discussions about full membership have taken place are simply wrong. They had to take place. Context matters.

 

[billybud]

Where are you getting this language from? The official release from the NCAA reads "Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference."

I don't see where it mentions two divisions. Plus as @Zissou mentions if it does include that wording you can have 1 division of 7 and 1 of 8. Either way the point remains that the ACC could add a 15th school at any time if it wanted to. The ACC network would very easily be carried on basic cable in CT if UConn were invited...

How do you play a round robin between "all members of the conference" when you have 14 members?

You must either have two divisions playing round robin and their champs meet...or have all members of the conference play round robin and the top two in standings meet.

 

[Zissou]

The voices in his head told him that.

or the current NCAA Manual

 

[Zissou]

How do you play a round robin between "all members of the conference" when you have 14 members?

You must either have two divisions playing round robin and their champs meet...or have all members of the conference play round robin and the top two in standings meet.

exactly

 

[CTGoonie]

How do you play a round robin between "all members of the conference" when you have 14 members?

You must either have two divisions playing round robin and their champs meet...or have all members of the conference play round robin and the top two in standings meet.

Again where are you getting that language? The post above with the language straight from the NCAA says "round-robin competition in each division". "Each division" not "all members of the conference".

 

[billybud]

The ONLY change in the rule was to allow a conference with fewer than 12 teams to have a CCG if they played round robin...

...the ACC did want to have multiple divisions, but the Big 12 amendment only allowed for the round robin play and CCG if fewer than 12.

The language has always stated that there must be a "round robin in each division". But it also defines that there must be two divisions.

The previous rule stated that conferences needed a minimum of 12 members to play a championship game between two division winners. The new rule will allow any conference with fewer than 12 members to hold a championship game between the top two teams in the standings as long as it plays a round-robin schedule, regardless of whether there's a divisional alignment.

 

[billybud]

PLUS...Goonie....if you carefully read the language that you posted..it does say that the conference championship game must be between the division winners....

Can't have a CCG if you have more than two division champs.

the only alternate passed was a round robin conference with less than 12 members having a CCG with it's two top teams.

 

[CTGoonie]

The ONLY change in the rule was to allow a conference with fewer than 12 teams to have a CCG if they played round robin...

...the ACC did want to have multiple divisions, but the Big 12 amendment only allowed for the round robin play and CCG if fewer than 12.

The language has always stated that there must be a "round robin in each division". But it also defines that there must be two divisions.

The previous rule stated that conferences needed a minimum of 12 members to play a championship game between two division winners. The new rule will allow any conference with fewer than 12 members to hold a championship game between the top two teams in the standings as long as it plays a round-robin schedule, regardless of whether there's a divisional alignment.

Maybe I'm a lawyer in another life but all it says is "between two division winners" not that there must be only two divisions. You could have three divisions play a round-robin schedule within their division and then the top two division winners play in the championship. The top 2 are chosen using the national rankings (1 division winner will miss out on the championship game). Probably won't happen but I was just curious if it was possible. Nothing I've seen from the NCAA says otherwise.

 

[billybud]

LOL....Well..I am retired....but in a past life...etc.

You must look at the rule itself...not the casual or offhand discussion of it...

The amendment that was passed...NCAA Division I Proposal 2015-81-1....

Intent: To amend Proposal No. 2015-81, to specify that to be exempted from the limit on the number of contests, a conference championship game shall be either (1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or (2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

The rule, in its amended form...

17.10.5.2 Annual Exemptions.

17.10.5.2.1 Bowl Subdivision. In bowl subdivision football, the maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following:

[17.10.5.2.1-(a) unchanged.]

(b) Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game either:

(1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or

(2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

[17.10.5.2.1-(c) through 17.10.5.2.1-(h) unchanged.]


Legislative Services Database - LSDBi

 

[CTGoonie]

Well that settles it then, thanks for the link. Three divisions are not possible. 1 division with 7 schools and another with 8 seems unlikely as well due to the round-robin requirement.

 

[CL82]

LOL....Well..I am retired....but in a past life...etc.

You must look at the rule itself...not the casual or offhand discussion of it...

The amendment that was passed...NCAA Division I Proposal 2015-81-1....

Intent: To amend Proposal No. 2015-81, to specify that to be exempted from the limit on the number of contests, a conference championship game shall be either (1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or (2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

The rule, in its amended form...

17.10.5.2 Annual Exemptions.

17.10.5.2.1 Bowl Subdivision. In bowl subdivision football, the maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following:

[17.10.5.2.1-(a) unchanged.]

(b) Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game either:

(1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or

(2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

[17.10.5.2.1-(c) through 17.10.5.2.1-(h) unchanged.]


Legislative Services Database - LSDBi

Have to agree with @CTGoonie you are apply a condition (two divisions) from option 1 to the option 2. You can have multiple divisions so long as there is round robin play and the CCG is between the two highest teams in the standings.

The goal of this provision was to prevent a small conference from cherry picking the teams that go to the CCG. If you use the standings or the division champs where there are only two divisions, the CCG participants are automatic and not subject to gerrymandering.

 

[billybud]

my God man....don't go into law or regulation/rule review

It reads pretty plainly..

Two options..and you can do EITHER one or the other...

1...have two divisions and conduct a round robin in each division...

or

2....have a CCG between the top two teams...FOLLOWING A FULL ROUND ROBIN REGULAR SEASON COMPETITION AMONG ALL MEMBERS OF A CONFERENCE..

It is not round robin between assorted members of the conference...it is round robin AMONG ALL members.....


I truly believe that you read it as a round robin in each division if you have more than two divisions......but the language does not say that....round robin among all members means that all members play each other.

 

[CL82]

I truly believe that you read it as a round robin in each division if you have more than two divisions.but the language does not say that....round robin among all members means that all members play each other.

If you are directing this at me, then you believe incorrectly.
The point you seem to be missing is that a conference could have more that two divisions so long as they still have true round robin play.

(I think you retired just in time. You are cranky in your old age.)

 

[billybud]

You have to have round robin play among all conference members....even the Big 10 didn't do that with 11 members...

Yeah...you could have 4 divisions of four members in a conference of 16...or three divisions of four in a 12 team conference....but all teams would still have to play EVERYBODY IN THE CONFERENCE ROUND ROBIN....so...

That lets out every conference but the Big 12....all others would have to play 13 members in a 12 game season.

Not cranky at all....maybe impatient...

But it is either option 1...two divisions... each completing a round robin divisional schedule...

or option 2.....play everybody in the conference round robin and pick your two top teams.


Doesn't matter if you want to divide up into multiple divisions more than just two...you then must play the entire conference...so it makes no sense to have divisions.

 

[Zissou]

Well that settles it then, thanks for the link. Three divisions are not possible.

As reality sets in...

1 division with 7 schools and another with 8 seems unlikely as well due to the round-robin requirement.

You're still not getting the round robin requirement when there are two divisions. The requirement is within the division. The 7 team division has 6 round robin games within the division. The 8 team division has 7 round robin teams within the division. There can be additional conference games cross division. The division winners play for the conference title. An odd number of conference members is not difficult.

 

[CTGoonie]

As reality sets in...



You're still not getting the round robin requirement when there are two divisions. The requirement is within the division. The 7 team division has 6 round robin games within the division. The 8 team division has 7 round robin teams within the division. There can be additional conference games cross division. The division winners play for the conference title. An odd number of conference members is not difficult.

I do get it. I just said it's unlikely to have unbalanced divisions due to the inevitable complaining that will arise when the schedules are not made equally.

 

[Zissou]

I do get it. I just said it's unlikely to have unbalanced divisions due to the inevitable complaining that will arise when the schedules are not made equally.

Schedules are not made equally now. Look at the SEC and cross division play. Or look at the ND scheduling within the ACC.

Divisions not balanced by 1 team is a very small issue.

 

[CTGoonie]

Schedules are not made equally now. Look at the SEC and cross division play. Or look at the ND scheduling within the ACC.

Divisions not balanced by 1 team is a very small issue.

That is true but yet all P-5 conferences have an even number of teams. I'll still hold out hope that the ACC adds UConn even without ND. That is a better possibility than ND joining fulltime with UConn being #16.

 

[Zissou]

That is true but yet all P-5 conferences have an even number of teams. I'll still hold out hope that the ACC adds UConn even without ND. That is a better possibility than ND joining fulltime with UConn being #16.

When Penn State joined the B1G they were the 11th team. They stayed at 11 for two decades. It's just not that big of a deal to have an even number.

ND is not joining the ACC full time for football. The ACC could just add UConn as a singular add. It probably won't happen, but it won't be because of odd or even numbers.

 

[SubZero]

Just like ND never joining the ACC, UCONN will never join the newest version of the Big East.