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

[d1reality]

BC you mean? Actually with BC it's worse, football is bad enough, men's and women's basketball are jokes.

BC was 7-6 in football 2016, with a bowl victory. Would say their 24 wins and 3 bowl appearances in last 4 years would be considered a tad better than what is happening on the gridiron for the Huskies. Get real.

 

[uconnbaseball]

BC was 7-6 in football 2016, with a bowl victory. Would say their 24 wins and 3 bowl appearances in last 4 years would be considered a tad better than what is happening on the gridiron for the Huskies. Get real.

BC fans largely despise Addazio, and for good reason: he wins just enough to avoid getting fired, but that program is going nowhere. Just because they have been less awful than UConn doesn't mean they are remotely good.

Throw in the historical suckage in basketball and you have a real peach of an athletic program.

 

[BUConn10]

BC fans largely despise Addazio, and for good reason: he wins just enough to avoid getting fired, but that program is going nowhere. Just because they have been less awful than UConn doesn't mean they are remotely good.

Throw in the historical suckage in basketball and you have a real peach of an athletic program.

In 2017, if your not in the P5 you don't matter, and if you are no matter how bad you are everything will still be generally peachy. That's the problem with this whole P5 ordeal, it is artificially putting a group of programs on a higher tier/pedestal and nothing they can or can't do really affects them or their bottom line. Everyone else, especially us is out of luck.

 

[SubZero]

In 2017, if your not in the P5 you don't matter, and if you are no matter how bad you are everything will still be generally peachy. That's the problem with this whole P5 ordeal, it is artificially putting a group of programs on a higher tier/pedestal and nothing they can or can't do really affects them or their bottom line. Everyone else, especially us is out of luck.

What's hurting us is now that the teams in the P5 and average value of each has been established for each conference, there will be no school that gets invited to join their party unless they bring more the current average value. And it's ESPN and other networks that will determine what each school is worth. Obviously we didn't generate the average value of the Big 12 schools otherwise we'd be there today.

 

[Adios]

BC fans largely despise Addazio, and for good reason: he wins just enough to avoid getting fired, but that program is going nowhere. Just because they have been less awful than UConn doesn't mean they are remotely good.

Throw in the historical suckage in basketball and you have a real peach of an athletic program.

Part of the top tier in college hockey now, though. It would take wrecking the Hockey East to make them irrelevant in hockey. Which probably may not happen in our lifetimes.

Schools recognize that hockey is one of the sports that has the most allure to the rich kids.

 

[huskyrob1]

BC was 7-6 in football 2016, with a bowl victory. Would say their 24 wins and 3 bowl appearances in last 4 years would be considered a tad better than what is happening on the gridiron for the Huskies. Get real.

Averaging six wins a year against football teams like Duke, UNC, Virginia, Cuse, and Pitt is embarrassing, no matter how you spin it.

 

[LoyalFanCT]

There is no question that the ACC would benefit (financially and in other ways) from having UConn as a member and the ACC is the only P5 conference that makes sense for UConn -- at least for now.

 

[dayooper]

There is no question that the ACC would benefit (financially and in other ways) from having UConn as a member and the ACC is the only P5 conference that makes sense for UConn -- at least for now.

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.

 

[buddy]

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.

I would venture to say, preexisting rivalries and geographic contiguity make the ACC the most sensible conference for UConn. The best conference for UConn far and away would be the B1G, but lack of AAU status, contiguity, and partner to go with UConn, make it even more remote as a possibility. We can hope and dream, but after all of this time, it seems that such is only that..a dream. I do believe that both conferences would benefit financially by adding UConn. I have now discontinued my cable sports package which included the BTN. There really was no need for me to continue to pay for it. Hopefully, others will follow suit and it will wake up the B1G to give CT a look. I don't know if ACCN will be a cable network or streaming, but I will also not pay for that as long as UConn is not a part of it.

 

[Ldandy]

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.

Not the only one but certainly the best one. The reasons are obvious. It is a crying shame that Uconn is not currently a member of the league already. For that matter throw in West Virginia as well.

Pod 1 BC, Uconn, Cuse, Ville
Pod 2 Pitt, WVU, VPI, UVA
Pod 3 UNC, Duke, NCSU, WF
Pod 4 Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

Everyone gets to play a pod with schools they share both geography and rivalries with. You rotate the pods so that every school gets to play every other one over the course of a few seasons. It also makes sense from a conference standpoint not to lock into a situation where there is a long term competitive imbalance. This is currently seen in The B1G East v. West, and was famous in the old Big 12 North v. South Title Games. Last but not least Notre Dame can continue to play just the tip with the conference if they choose to.

 

[billybud]

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.

 

[CTGoonie]

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.

Dan Wolken had a column recently about how the SEC should get rid of divisions. I informed him about how the round-robin rule would prevent them from having a championship game under that format. His response was that he believes that rule could be changed again rather quickly if the SEC wanted to.

 

[billybud]

The problem with divisions in a 14 team conference is that you go 12 years between visits from a member of the other division and 6 years between games....

It is difficult to develop any real feel of being connected in a conference when you play so seldom. The SEC groans about scheduling as does the ACC.

Would FSU like to play GT in Atlanta more than once every 12 years (Atlanta has the largest concentration of alumni and is closest rival) rather than play in Syracuse or Boston? You bet.

Auburn points out that the majority of their out of state students come from Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina...all in the SEC East.

 

[Seaa Blue]

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

Wasn't the problem that the ACC didn't really present an "idea" other than "let the conference decide". The gamesmanship of positioning a champion for inclusion in the playoffs would quickly get out of control.

 

[billybud]

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

I also don't think that the ACC had agreed, among themselves, about a methodology for deriving who would play in a CCG. But they did want an open hand.

 

[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...