So the SEC wants ND to join a conference

[btstimpy]

It basically goes to game theory - it's in all major conferences interest to limit ND's access as much as possible as an independent but they also realize the national pull ND has and doesn't want them to join as a full FB member if it's not their own conference.

Since no one conference can trust the others enough to put a united front against ND, they will have a seat at the table for the foreseeable future. SEC has a harder stance against ND because they realize that there's 0% chance that ND will join the SEC if ever pushed to join full time.

The only thing that will probably force a change is if conferences get so big that a 10 game conference schedules become the norm (a pretty big if that's at least a few decades off) - probably not going to happen for at least another 20 years if ever.

With Notre Dame playing 5 games per year against ACC teams, that's only 3 games away from full membership. With ND fans and viewers seeing ACC teams that often as well as the rest of the viewing public, it's going to look like ND is in the ACC to the casual viewer anyway. The only thing Notre Dame is doing is depriving itself of the Conference Championship Game opportunity to have flexibility in scheduling those 3 games.

If Notre Dame does decide to join a conference down the road, it will be the ACC. ND wants access to the East and access to the South for recruiting which is where the ACC is. They're already in the Midwest, so they don't need access there. That rules out the Big Ten. They don't have much affinity with the plains states ruling out the Big XII, and the PAC 12 is too far away. The SEC won't give them the East. Then you have the whole private school/public school thing which makes the ACC attractive to Notre Dame as well.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Here's the thing that Spurrier doesn't get apparently. Notre Dame is a national brand. Florida, Texas, Alabama and all the rest just are not national brands on the same level. You might want them to be. You might wish they were, but they just are not. And that is the reason they get treated like all the other conference commissioners. In the ratings game, the SEC might beat out Notre Dame, but no individual SEC team could go head to head over the course of a season. Nobody watches the Longhorn network outside of Austin, and if some numbers are to be believed, few in Austin watch it. there is no "national" market for Florida, and surely none for South Carolina! And that,ol ball caoch, is the reason Notre Dame gets treated as it does.

When all of this began ~ 21 years ago (Bowl Coalition to Bowl Alliance to BCS) The only way to get the bowl committees (save the Rose) to buy in was to have ND front and center in the cartel. Things have changed over the years (the meeting that kept the last football playing version of the BE in the BCS also cut ND's take by 75%) and today if the choices were to cut an independent ND out of the national title picture or risk losing the entire SEC (a conference that is as clearly the best in college football as the NBA is in North American basketball) the choice would be easy as the general public would not view a BCS (or whatever the successor cartel would call itself) championship game that the SEC was not a part of as the true national title game. The other major conferences and most bowl committees would be forced to line up behind the SEC.

 

[TerryD]

Any ND team in the last 12 years with three losses or fewer got invited to a BCS bowl. That would be 100% of the time.

Not true. ND has never made a BCS bowl with three losses, ever.

In 2002, ND went 9-2 and failed to get a BCS bid. It went to the Gator Bowl.

ND scheduled Texas and Oklahoma recently. ND went 3-0 against the Big Ten last year.

ND is not "scared" of the Big Ten. ND just doesn't like the Big Ten as a home, doesn't want to be regionalized and doesn't want to play football in a conference.

It wants to be independent and play games all over the country.

 

[GopherHawk]

TerryD - No one said that ND was scared of the B1G. ND could have joined if they wanted. I am glad they didn't. They don't fit in the B1G. While they are a very good school they have a different mission than the B1G schools.

The point some of us are making is the conferences are starting to line up against ND's independent status. ND has continually given up something to stay at the table. Once there is nothing left to give up, they will need to make a tough decision. They have 12 years on the CFP before they will have to give up something else.

 

[freescooter]

if the choices were to cut an independent ND out of the national title picture or risk losing the entire SEC (a conference that is as clearly the best in college football as the NBA is in North American basketball) the choice would be easy as the general public would not view a BCS (or whatever the successor cartel would call itself) championship game that the SEC was not a part of as the true national title game. The other major conferences and most bowl committees would be forced to line up behind the SEC.

Not entirely true I think. While the SEC is overall the top league if it were to somehow or other back out of the national championship tournament, and the tournament went on anyway, it would be screwed. The national champion would stillbe recognized and the SEC owuld be questioned about its true interest in the game. Furthermore, while it is the best conference, it isn't the most powerful conference. That is the Big 10 and it isn't even close. In part it is a function of its history. In part it is a function of its members and it is part a function of the power of the various institutions outside the world of college athletics.

 

[Sea Goat]

Not true. ND has never made a BCS bowl with three losses, ever.

In 2002, ND went 9-2 and failed to get a BCS bid. It went to the Gator Bowl.

ND scheduled Texas and Oklahoma recently. ND went 3-0 against the Big Ten last year.

ND is not "scared" of the Big Ten. ND just doesn't like the Big Ten as a home, doesn't want to be regionalized and doesn't want to play football in a conference.

It wants to be independent and play games all over the country.

I apologize for the length of my post, but there is a lot to say!

Here's the long term problem for ND - the ACC will get sick of ND's "favored nations" status. First, it's clear ND brings nothing else to the table in athletics. (Under achieving hoops etc.) The ACC will find that ND wants everything on their terms. The ACC powers will start to resent the millions that ND makes on it's own account and doesn't share. Do you think Duke, UNC etc. feel that ND really adds anything to the ACC beyond 5 football games a year? (Well, academically it balances Louisville!) The fact is, that in the old BE (a/k/a The Holy Roman Empire) ND could pretty much do as it pleased because half the conference didn't even play football. Not true in the ACC - we now know football drives its bus.

As of now, ND remains convinced by it's own propaganda, that it alone can remain independent and maintain a choice OOC schedule. After the debacle in Miami last January, can we all agree a better BCS game would have been a rematch between Georgia and 'Bama? The stark difference between the SEC and the "favored nation" was clear to all. ND didn't belong on the same field with "Bama. ND will likely go the ACC when full-time conference life becomes inevitable, because it fits their mold for decent competition with no week to week heavy lifting. I think full-time conference life will become inevitable for ND because of the B1G and most importantly, the SEC will get their way. Spurrier comments show that the SEC is on this issue. (I don't think Spurrier went off reservation here, BTW.) And we all know, that the SEC is the keystone to any worthwhile playoff system. If the SEC were to decide now that it is unacceptable for ND to remain independent then change would come

ND doesn't want into the SEC or the B1G because they could not take the week in, week out grind of a real power conference schedule. The fact is that ND could not go week to week, year to year in the SEC or the B1G and have the success it had this year. ND will get away with doing so in the ACC because of the weak sisters sprinkled throughout the conference. As of now, ND would have 3-4 tough games out of the entire ACC field and they won't have to play them every year. Imagine a projected schedule for ND in the SEC or the B1G. Week in and week out, it would be brutal. (@ A&M, home to SC, @ Georgia, home to Florida, @ Alabama etc. Are you kidding me?) ND would be an after-thought in such a conference. ND would be marginalized as national power. ND doesn't want to take that risk. ND would rather play a handful of tough games each year and then start lobbying for a playoff spot because of a gaudy record. While ND may not be "scared" of any conference, they are realistic. ND knows that its relevance would cease if they had the tough and consistent competition that the SEC or the B1G would provide year in, year out.


That is why ND wants to remain independent - end of story.

 

[Husky25]

ND scheduled Texas and Oklahoma recently. ND went 3-0 against the Big Ten last year.

One year does not a trend make especially when that team goes undefeated until the NC game.

From 2006 -2011, Notre Dame played either 3 or 4 games each season vs. the Big Ten. In those games they are 10-10 including 1-5 vs Michigan and 3-3 vs Michigan St. (13-10 if 2012 is included).

Notre Dame is 9-7 (.563) over that same span vs. current ACC teams against 8 teams (13-7, including 2012 against 9 teams), including Georgia Tech, Miami, BC (losses came during the Matty Ice era), Pitt (BE), Duke and Wake, Cuse (BE), FSU (lost a bowl game, i.e. unscheduled), and UNC.

Not one game vs. Virginia Tech.

 

[larryredbull]

I apologize for the length of my post, but there is a lot to say!

Here's the long term problem for ND - the ACC will get sick of ND's "favored nations" status. First, it's clear ND brings nothing else to the table in athletics. (Under achieving hoops etc.) The ACC will find that ND wants everything on their terms. The ACC powers will start to resent the millions that ND makes on it's own account and doesn't share. Do you think Duke, UNC etc. feel that ND really adds anything to the ACC beyond 5 football games a year? (Well, academically it balances Louisville!) The fact is, that in the old BE (a/k/a The Holy Roman Empire) ND could pretty much do as it pleased because half the conference didn't even play football. Not true in the ACC - we now know football drives its bus.

As of now, ND remains convinced by it's own propaganda, that it alone can remain independent and maintain a choice OOC schedule. After the debacle in Miami last January, can we all agree a better BCS game would have been a rematch between Georgia and 'Bama? The stark difference between the SEC and the "favored nation" was clear to all. ND didn't belong on the same field with "Bama. ND will likely go the ACC when full-time conference life becomes inevitable, because it fits their mold for decent competition with no week to week heavy lifting. I think full-time conference life will become inevitable for ND because of the B1G and most importantly, the SEC will get their way. Spurrier comments show that the SEC is on this issue. (I don't think Spurrier went off reservation here, BTW.) And we all know, that the SEC is the keystone to any worthwhile playoff system. If the SEC were to decide now that it is unacceptable for ND to remain independent then change would come

ND doesn't want into the SEC or the B1G because they could not take the week in, week out grind of a real power conference schedule. The fact is that ND could not go week to week, year to year in the SEC or the B1G and have the success it had this year. ND will get away with doing so in the ACC because of the weak sisters sprinkled throughout the conference. As of now, ND would have 3-4 tough games out of the entire ACC field and they won't have to play them every year. Imagine a projected schedule for ND in the SEC or the B1G. Week in and week out, it would be brutal. (@ A&M, home to SC, @ Georgia, home to Florida, @ Alabama etc. Are you kidding me?) ND would be an after-thought in such a conference. ND would be marginalized as national power. ND doesn't want to take that risk. ND would rather play a handful of tough games each year and then start lobbying for a playoff spot because of a gaudy record. While ND may not be "scared" of any conference, they are realistic. ND knows that its relevance would cease if they had the tough and consistent competition that the SEC or the B1G would provide year in, year out.


That is why ND wants to remain independent - end of story.

The Big Ten is not any stronger at the middle and bottom than the ACC. Your telling me that Northwestern, Purdue, Minnestota, Iowa, Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois, and Indiana are strong competition? Please!! No different than the "weak sisters" that you mention. For a group that bashes ESPN, you sure are drinking the Kool aid on the Big 10

 

[Sea Goat]

The Big Ten is not any stronger at the middle and bottom than the ACC. Your telling me that Northwestern, Purdue, Minnestota, Iowa, Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois, and Indiana are strong competition? Please!! No different than the "weak sisters" that you mention. For a group that bashes ESPN, you sure are drinking the Kool aid on the Big 10

Redbull, let's stay on message - where in my post do I mention ESPN?

Simple question - could ND compete in the SEC? Another simple question - year in, year out is the group of Mich, OSU, PSU, Nebraska better than the elite of the ACC? Look at this year, the B1G has 5 teams in the preseason top 25 and the ACC has 1, Clemson. The answers to the above questions are very simple.

Also, Redbull - regarding the B1G; it would never let ND join as a "favored nation". ND would have to grind it out week to week. While it would have some lesser foes than it would in the SEC, it would be faced with the prospect of playing more consistent and capable competition.

Anyways, the ACC made the deal with ND because it felt it had to - simple as that. ND wanted the deal to find a home for its marginal Olympic sports. A marriage made in heaven (or some such place)!

 

[Drew]

The Big Ten is not any stronger at the middle and bottom than the ACC. Your telling me that Northwestern, Purdue, Minnestota, Iowa, Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois, and Indiana are strong competition? Please!! No different than the "weak sisters" that you mention. For a group that bashes ESPN, you sure are drinking the Kool aid on the Big 10

Iowa went to the Orange Bowl three years ago. Northwestern is going to start this season in the Top 25 (10-3, 5-3 last year). You act like Rutgers isn't at least a "solid" team year in and year out who has put talent into the NFL pretty regularly the past 7 or 8 years. Illinois was in the Rose Bowl in the past 5 years. Most of those programs mentioned are far superior to Wake Forest, BC, Duke, etc.

 

[larryredbull]

Redbull, let's stay on message - where in my post do I mention ESPN?

Simple question - could ND compete in the SEC? Another simple question - year in, year out is the group of Mich, OSU, PSU, Nebraska better than the elite of the ACC? Look at this year, the B1G has 5 teams in the preseason top 25 and the ACC has 1, Clemson. The answers to the above questions are very simple.

Also, Redbull - regarding the B1G; it would never let ND join as a "favored nation". ND would have to grind it out week to week. While it would have some lesser foes than it would in the SEC, it would be faced with the prospect of playing more consistent and capable competition.

Anyways, the ACC made the deal with ND because it felt it had to - simple as that. ND wanted the deal to find a home for its marginal Olympic sports. A marriage made in heaven (or some such place)!

My reference to ESPN is a question on where exactly the idea that the Big10 is stronger top to bottom than the ACC. I would agree that the top of the Big 10 is stronger than the ACC but I don't agree that the middle and bottom teams are any stronger or weaker than the ACC. Looking at a sample schedule ND would never play all of the top tier in the Big 10 every year. They would play a mix of all levels. So could ND compete in the Big 10 every year. I would say its likely

ND would have a hard time competing consistently in the SEC. I believe top to bottom the SEC is a stronger league. However the same thing was said about TAMU and they had a great year last year. Time will tell if that was a fluke or real.

The Big 10 would only take ND as a full member I agree. The ACC took them because they needed the association with ND but the terms were much more favorable than the previous Big East terms (5 games against rotating ACC members, ACC members get much more TV money, etc). I would expect that ACC will force the membership issue at some point if they are able to.

 

[Sea Goat]

My reference to ESPN is a question on where exactly the idea that the Big10 is stronger top to bottom than the ACC. I would agree that the top of the Big 10 is stronger than the ACC but I don't agree that the middle and bottom teams are any stronger or weaker than the ACC. Looking at a sample schedule ND would never play all of the top tier in the Big 10 every year. They would play a mix of all levels. So could ND compete in the Big 10 every year. I would say its likely

ND would have a hard time competing consistently in the SEC. I believe top to bottom the SEC is a stronger league. However the same thing was said about TAMU and they had a great year last year. Time will tell if that was a fluke or real.

The Big 10 would only take ND as a full member I agree. The ACC took them because they needed the association with ND but the terms were much more favorable than the previous Big East terms (5 games against rotating ACC members, ACC members get much more TV money, etc). I would expect that ACC will force the membership issue at some point if they are able to.

We're getting somewhere now - the only entities that can force ND to join a conference are the true power conferences. The ACC is not in that group. I say if the SEC, the B1G and the PAC-12 all delivered the message to ND that it is put-up or shut-up conference-wise then they would join the ACC. The ACC probably needs ND more than the other way around at this point. Heck, ND could have joined the new BE for its Olympic sports and have a clean slate of football scheduling each year. Until the likes of the SEC say "no mas" to ND on participating in the playoff system w/o power conference affiliation, ND will play the ACC like a fiddle.

 

[larryredbull]

Iowa went to the Orange Bowl three years ago. Northwestern is going to start this season in the Top 25 (10-3, 5-3 last year). You act like Rutgers isn't at least a "solid" team year in and year out who has put talent into the NFL pretty regularly the past 7 or 8 years. Illinois was in the Rose Bowl in the past 5 years. Most of those programs mentioned are far superior to Wake Forest, BC, Duke, etc.

You picked middle programs in the Big Ten vs bottom programs in the ACC. Indiana hasnt had a winning record since 2007. Minnesota has a similar record, and, up until last year, Northwestern was a middle to lower team. Coming in, Maryland hasnt really been good since the early 2000's and Rutgers is middling at best.

On the other side for the ACC, UVA, NC State, and Ga Tech have had middling success over the past few years. UNC and Miami have been down due to sanctions but both look to contend this year and bringing in Louisville will help at the top. Syracuse and Pitt have had success in the past but it will be interesting to see what they can do in the ACC.

 

[Drew]

You picked middle programs in the Big Ten vs bottom programs in the ACC. Indiana hasnt had a winning record since 2007. Minnesota has a similar record, and, up until last year, Northwestern was a middle to lower team. Coming in, Maryland hasnt really been good since the early 2000's and Rutgers is middling at best.

On the other side for the ACC, UVA, NC State, and Ga Tech have had middling success over the past few years. UNC and Miami have been down due to sanctions but both look to contend this year and bringing in Louisville will help at the top. Syracuse and Pitt have had success in the past but it will be interesting to see what they can do in the ACC.

i chose those teams cause those are the ones you mentioned in your original post. you said they weren't any better than the "weak" sisters of the ACC. I say they are. I made points to try to prove that.

 

[Husky25]

Granted, this is only my opinion, but the Big Ten has quantity as well as quality over the ACC, especially at the top.

Elites (Ceiling = National Champs, Floor = Upper Middle Tier):
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State

Upper Middle Tier (Ceiling: Rose Bowl/NC, but to a much lesser chance than those above; Floor Lower Middle Tier)
Nebraska
Penn State
Wisconsin

Lower Middle Tier (Ceiling: Non-BCS NYD Bowl, Floor: Dregs)
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Minnesota
Northwestern
Rutgers

Dregs (Ceiling, pre Christmas bowl game Floor:_____)
Purdue
Indiana

The ACC looks like this to me:
Elites (Ceiling = National Champs, Floor = Upper Middle Tier):
Clemson
Florida State
Va. Tech

Upper Middle Tier (Ceiling: BCS, but to a much lesser chance than those above; Floor Lower Middle Tier)
Georgia Tech
Louisville

Lower Middle Tier (Ceiling: Non-BCS NYD Bowl, Floor: Dregs)
Miami
North Carolina
NC State
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Virginia

Dregs (Ceiling: The No one gives a Bowl. Floor: No one cares either)
BC
Duke
Wake Forest

 

[larryredbull]

We're getting somewhere now - the only entities that can force ND to join a conference are the true power conferences. The ACC is not in that group. I say if the SEC, the B1G and the PAC-12 all delivered the message to ND that it is put-up or shut-up conference-wise then they would join the ACC. The ACC probably needs ND more than the other way around at this point. Heck, ND could have joined the new BE for its Olympic sports and have a clean slate of football scheduling each year. Until the likes of the SEC say "no mas" to ND on participating in the playoff system w/o power conference affiliation, ND will play the ACC like a fiddle.

You are confusing Power in voting with Power in money. The Big 10 and the SEC do trump the ACC in terms of money largely because of the size of their schools and viewer area. The Pac-12 has the west coast to themselves, no one is challenging them.

Your saying that if the SEC and the Big 10 want to make ND join a conference that they can just do it and thats not exactly true. The would need either the Pac-12 or the Big 12 to come along with them. By the same token if the ACC, SEC, and Pac-12 (or Big-12) stated the same thing they could make it happen as well. Thats just political power.

 

[larryredbull]

Granted, this is only my opinion, but the Big Ten has quantity as well as quality over the ACC, especially at the top.

Elites (Ceiling = National Champs, Floor = Upper Middle Tier):
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State

Upper Middle Tier (Ceiling: Rose Bowl/NC, but to a much lesser chance than those above; Floor Lower Middle Tier)
Nebraska
Penn State
Wisconsin

Lower Middle Tier (Ceiling: Non-BCS NYD Bowl, Floor: Dregs)
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Minnesota
Northwestern
Rutgers

Dregs (Ceiling, pre Christmas bowl game Floor:_____)
Purdue
Indiana

The ACC looks like this to me:
Elites (Ceiling = National Champs, Floor = Upper Middle Tier):
Clemson
Florida State
Va. Tech

Upper Middle Tier (Ceiling: BCS, but to a much lesser chance than those above; Floor Lower Middle Tier)
Georgia Tech
Louisville

Lower Middle Tier (Ceiling: Non-BCS NYD Bowl, Floor: Dregs)
Miami
North Carolina
NC State
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Virginia

Dregs (Ceiling: The No one gives a Bowl. Floor: No one cares either)
BC
Duke
Wake Forest

Thats just it its all opinion. Some observations

You put Mich State in the elites but they have only been really good in the last few years. Throughout the 2000's they were mainly a middling team.

Same with Ga Tech Mostly middling over the past 10 years. Again Wake Forest is at the bottom and right now I agree but they did go to the Orange Bowl not too long ago.

At the top I agree that the Big 10 is stronger but the middle to the bottom is mearly opinion.

 

[UPitt]

Look at this year, the B1G has 5 teams in the preseason top 25 and the ACC has 1, Clemson. The answers to the above questions are very simple.

Please provide a source for these rankings.


-Look at the Sporting News Top 25 below. I'm pretty sure you will find 4 B1G teams listed and 3 ACC teams listed. You also will find Louisville (ACC team starting in 2014) and Notre Dame (ACC associate member) listed in the Top 25.
-Or look at the SI preseason top 25. You will find the same results with the B1G listing 4 teams and the ACC listing 3 teams. Louisville and Notre Dame are also listed.
-Or if you want to look at elite top 15 teams in the SI preseason poll, the B1G and ACC each list 2 teams in the top 15. Future ACC member Louisville and associate member Notre Dame are in the top 15 as well.
-Or, look at the ESPN top preseason top 15 teams. B1G has OSU and Mich. ACC has Clemson and FSU. Louisville and Notre Dame are also ranked in the top 15.

I agree that the B1G has some strong teams at the top, but an ACC with Louisville and Notre Dame would be competetive with B1G this fall.

Sporting News Preseason Top 25:

25. Ole Miss Rebels
24. Wisconsin Badgers
23. Oregon State Beavers
22. Miami Hurricanes
21. Nebraska Cornhuskers
20. UCLA Bruins
19. Oklahoma Sooners
18. Florida State Seminoles
17. Baylor Bears
16. LSU Tigers
15. Boise State Broncos
14. Texas Longhorns
13. Michigan Wolverines
12. Georgia Bulldogs
11. Louisville Cardinals
10. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
9. Clemson Tigers
8. Oregon Ducks
7. Texas A&M Aggies
6. Oklahoma State Cowboys
5. Ohio State Buckeyes
4. Florida Gators
3. South Carolina Gamecocks
2. Stanford Cardinal
1. Alabama Crimson Tide

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...-preseason-rankings-top-25-2013-sporting-news
http://gamedayr.com/gamedayr/2013-sporting-news-college-football-preseason-top-25-rankings/
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130507/post-spring-top-25/
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ate-buckeyes-take-top-spot-latest-2013-top-25

 

[Husky25]

The Middle-downward of the Big Ten would routinely beat the middle-downward of the ACC.

Northwestern, Illinois, and Iowa could all be moved up a level IMO.

 

[Sea Goat]

Please provide a source for these rankings.


-Look at the Sporting News Top 25 below. I'm pretty sure you will find 4 B1G teams listed and 3 ACC teams listed. You also will find Louisville (ACC team starting in 2014) and Notre Dame (ACC associate member) listed in the Top 25.
-Or look at the SI preseason top 25. You will find the same results with the B1G listing 4 teams and the ACC listing 3 teams. Louisville and Notre Dame are also listed.
-Or if you want to look at elite top 15 teams in the SI preseason poll, the B1G and ACC each list 2 teams in the top 15. Future ACC member Louisville and associate member Notre Dame are in the top 15 as well.
-Or, look at the ESPN top preseason top 15 teams. B1G has OSU and Mich. ACC has Clemson and FSU. Louisville and Notre Dame are also ranked in the top 15.

I agree that the B1G has some strong teams at the top, but an ACC with Louisville and Notre Dame would be competetive with B1G this fall.

Sporting News Preseason Top 25:

25. Ole Miss Rebels
24. Wisconsin Badgers
23. Oregon State Beavers
22. Miami Hurricanes
21. Nebraska Cornhuskers
20. UCLA Bruins
19. Oklahoma Sooners
18. Florida State Seminoles
17. Baylor Bears
16. LSU Tigers
15. Boise State Broncos
14. Texas Longhorns
13. Michigan Wolverines
12. Georgia Bulldogs
11. Louisville Cardinals
10. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
9. Clemson Tigers
8. Oregon Ducks
7. Texas A&M Aggies
6. Oklahoma State Cowboys
5. Ohio State Buckeyes
4. Florida Gators
3. South Carolina Gamecocks
2. Stanford Cardinal
1. Alabama Crimson Tide

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-fo...-preseason-rankings-top-25-2013-sporting-news
http://gamedayr.com/gamedayr/2013-sporting-news-college-football-preseason-top-25-rankings/
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130507/post-spring-top-25/
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9214725/ohio-state-buckeyes-take-top-spot-latest-2013-top-25[/quote]

I used ESPN and missed current ACC member, FSU - my bad. (Breakdown by conference - SEC - 6, B1G - 5, Big-12 - 5, PAC-12 - 4, ACC - 2, AAC - 1, Boise and ND) Louisville is in the dreaded AAC for this year, probably gets the BCS bid and may do something nationally. (Can the world stand an AAC national champion, if only for 1 year?)

In case, you missed the point of the post, it's about teams that ND would face in a 5 game ACC schedule. I also make the assumption that ND will never be in the ACC for football unless compelled. We are talking about teams in the ACC conference they could face that are rated and the ACC has 2 according to ESPN. At this stage, it is as valid a reference as any. So it makes sense that ND would join the ACC if compelled because generally it would be perceived as an easier conference for them to dominate.

If you want to quibble about the point re: the B1G, fine. What do you say about the SEC, though? I think we started talking about how Spurrier spoke up at SEC media day and said ND should be in a conference. I think Spurrier and others think that a 10-2 SEC team is more battle tested than an ND team that runs the table by playing some tough games, but not week in and week out.

 

[Husky25]

Who are the Ole Miss Rebels? Is that a CFL team? From what state do they come? They can't be known nationally as a nickname can they? That is so small time. I'll bet they suck.

#BleedMagenta

 

[Sea Goat]

Screwed up the transmission - my response should be above.

 

[larryredbull]

Screwed up the transmission - my response should be above.

I don't think anyone is arguing about the SEC being above everyone else. You would be hard pressed to find a CFB statistic that the SEC isn't leading over the last 10 years.
The argument was around the Big Ten being on the same level. One of the only ways to really compare this is bowl games. Last year The Big 10 was 2-5, The SEC 6-3, the Big 12 4-5, and the ACC 4-2.

 

[woomba]

The match ups differ by conference so the bowl win-loss records by itself isn't a great metric.

If you want to push bowl records, here's a fun one:


BCS Wins by Conference, ordered by total appearances

Big Ten : 12-14
SEC : 17-8
Pac : 13-7
Big 12 : 9-11
ACC : 3-13
Big East : 8-7
MWC : 3-1

It's a good thing the ACC was able to win a BCS bowl against a MAC team, otherwise they would've ranked 7th in BCS wins after the Mountain West.

 

[RS9999X]

Here's the thing that Spurrier doesn't get apparently. Notre Dame is a national brand. Florida, Texas, Alabama and all the rest just are not national brands on the same level.s.

Spurrier gets it. He doesn't like it that's all. NBC is still willing to pay ND's separate contract. That's the beef.

 

[larryredbull]

The match ups differ by conference so the bowl win-loss records by itself isn't a great metric.

If you want to push bowl records, here's a fun one:


BCS Wins by Conference, ordered by total appearances

Big Ten : 12-14
SEC : 17-8
Pac : 13-7
Big 12 : 9-11
ACC : 3-13
Big East : 8-7
MWC : 3-1

It's a good thing the ACC was able to win a BCS bowl against a MAC team, otherwise they would've ranked 7th in BCS wins after the Mountain West.

Going forward I think you will see a different set of results. For one, all of those Big East teams that won are now in other conferences (some in the ACC). Its very clear that over the past 10 years the supposed leaders of the ACC (Clemson, Fla State Miami, VA Tech) havent lived up to the hype for a variety of reasons (FSU hung on to Bobby too long, Miami bad coaching and self imposed sanctions, Clemson bad coaching). It would be unwise to bet that that will happen in the next 10 years as well.

 

[woomba]

Going forward I think you will see a different set of results. For one, all of those Big East teams that won are now in other conferences (some in the ACC). Its very clear that over the past 10 years the supposed leaders of the ACC (Clemson, Fla State Miami, VA Tech) havent lived up to the hype for a variety of reasons (FSU hung on to Bobby too long, Miami bad coaching and self imposed sanctions, Clemson bad coaching). It would be unwise to bet that that will happen in the next 10 years as well.

Perhaps - then again, you can make similar arguments about any other conference.

What I do know is that neither Syracuse nor Pitt do much to strengthen the conference in FB. Louisville is still a question mark for long term success. Those 3 schools combined have gone 9-10 in bowls this past decade, so my expectation is more of the same unless FSU & Miami suddenly start dominating again.

 

[freescooter]

Spurrier gets it. He doesn't like it that's all. NBC is still willing to pay ND's separate contract. That's the beef.

the "apparently" was meant to imply sarcasm. Obviously it did not...

 

[freescooter]

Perhaps - then again, you can make similar arguments about any other conference.

What I do know is that neither Syracuse nor Pitt do much to strengthen the conference in FB. Louisville is still a question mark for long term success. Those 3 schools combined have gone 9-10 in bowls this past decade, so my expectation is more of the same unless FSU & Miami suddenly start dominating again.

I actually have a bit of a different view. I suspect that Louisville, Pitt and Syracuse will likely dominate the ACC, at least initially. After a few years they will probably fall to the level of their opponents, but in the early going they will do what BC, Virginia Tech and Miami, and for that matter Florida State all did when they came into the league. Because quite honestly, the ACC is just not that good a football league. As they would say of it in Texas, it's all hat no cattle. even their best team, Florida state regularly gets whooped up on by average programs. Virginia Tech was selected for a BCS bowl because the organizers wanted to insure that they had a team a very average Michigan team would beat. So I could very easily see even a shulb program like Pitt move into the ACC and be pretty successful, maybe even challenge for a conference title, at least a division title in the next year or so. If you look at the ACC experience of the earlier Big East teams, in 2004 Va Tech finished 1st, Miami 2nd. 2005 FSU beat Va Tech. 2006 Wake and GT played. 2007 Va Tech over BC. 2008 Va Tech over BC, 2009 GT title vacated. 2010 VaTech, 2011 Clemson beat VaTech, 2012 FSU over GT. so since the former big East teams joined they have had a team win or make the championship game almost every year. Only 3 years without a former big East team in the game. and in 2004 there was no title game but they finished 1-2. In their early years I even expect Syracuse and Pitt, the definitions of ordinary to challenge. Louisville will be the next VaTech in that league. A serious contender every year in the league, ordinary as can be out of it.

 

[TerryD]

TerryD - No one said that ND was scared of the B1G. ND could have joined if they wanted. I am glad they didn't. They don't fit in the B1G. While they are a very good school they have a different mission than the B1G schools.

The point some of us are making is the conferences are starting to line up against ND's independent status. ND has continually given up something to stay at the table. Once there is nothing left to give up, they will need to make a tough decision. They have 12 years on the CFP before they will have to give up something else.

Husky 25 did up thread. That is what I was responding to.

Seagoat, you are completely wrong on why ND is an independent. It has everything to do with tradition, history, its self view as the national, Catholic university, its alumni being spread out all over the country, not wanting to be "regionalized" for recruiting and exposure, etc...

Its alumni will revolt (just like they did in 1999) if ND considers full football conference affiliation, for the above reasons. The athletic department is not worried about some "conference grind".

But, you will believe whatever you believe. We just disagree.