Is the ACC's relationship with ND worth it?

gtphd said:
If ND was a full member of the ACC for football, it would be "either ND or Clemson" not "both ND and Clemson". That fourth spot would be filled by the Dwags as a result.
Click to expand...
Not after they get beat by Bama in the SECCG. And if they happened to beat Bama, who would you rather make it to the playoff: Bama or ND. Seriously.
 
Yukonwreck said:
We get ample exposure from Clempsen, recently FSU, Lamar Jackson, Miami, and yes even Georgia Tech's triple option offense. We don't need Notre Dame and need to have them become a full member of the conference or be gone. I can't think of any advantage we gain from the current "arrangement". No one in the media, or in the country for that matter look at Notre Dame football as having any affiliation with the ACC. Notre Dame however gets five easy wins a year.
Click to expand...
First time that I can remember agreeing with you.
 
BuzzLaw said:
We give up a lot of the money share as I understand it. Sorry, but ND is not so big a draw it deserves elite and unique status. Join like everyone else or gtfo
Click to expand...

Money share of what?
 
andrew said:
I like it. We don't just get to play them in Atlanta once in a while; we also get to go up to South Bend, which is a fantastic trip for anyone who likes college football.

Maybe we don't get a hell of a lot out of it, but we also don't really give up anything, either. Essentially we get to see a bunch of ACC OOC games against ND, and that's a good thing to me.
Click to expand...


Please.

We now play n.d. LESS here or there than when we were Independent.

But I would rather schedule an SEC team than those hypocrites anyway.

To answer the OPs question - Yes.

It is worth it to n.d. but shows up the ACC as a bunch of clowns.

n.d. is laughing at the ACC every day.
 
andrew said:
Money share of what?
Click to expand...
Think of it this way: why would ND remain independent if the money was all the same? They’ve got a sweet setup. They make more money than the Wake Forests of the world. So they want the benefits of being in a conference, but they don’t want to share in the rewards.

Do you really think it’s about something other than money?
 
BuzzLaw said:
Think of it this way: why would ND remain independent if the money was all the same? They’ve got a sweet setup. They make more money than the Wake Forests of the world. So they want the benefits of being in a conference, but they don’t want to share in the rewards.

Do you really think it’s about something other than money?
Click to expand...
That doesn't appear responsive to the question, counselor.

And on that same theory – that no party would enter into a deal unless it was financially advantageous – the deal is good for the ACC too.
 
BuzzLaw said:
Think of it this way: why would ND remain independent if the money was all the same? They’ve got a sweet setup. They make more money than the Wake Forests of the world. So they want the benefits of being in a conference, but they don’t want to share in the rewards.

Do you really think it’s about something other than money?
Click to expand...

Eventually the money won’t be as advantageous for ND, they’ll join the conference fully, and the ACC will go shopping for another team. The only question is if this happens before or after the next round of conference expansion.
 
BuzzLaw said:
Think of it this way: why would ND remain independent if the money was all the same? They’ve got a sweet setup. They make more money than the Wake Forests of the world. So they want the benefits of being in a conference, but they don’t want to share in the rewards.

Do you really think it’s about something other than money?
Click to expand...

That doesn't really answer my question. You said we give up a lot of the money share -- what money share are we giving up here compared to if they weren't a member at all?

I understand it would be better for the ACC if they were a full member, but that's not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is it better to have them as a partial member, or better to not have any affiliation with them?

I see this as a win-win where both us and Notre Dame benefit. Sure, ND may have the better of it, but that doesn't mean it's not good for us as well.

texstinger said:
Please.

We now play n.d. LESS here or there than when we were Independent.

But I would rather schedule an SEC team than those hypocrites anyway.

To answer the OPs question - Yes.

It is worth it to n.d. but shows up the ACC as a bunch of clowns.

n.d. is laughing at the ACC every day.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not really sure how that is relevant. We haven't been independent for fifty years. The choice isn't, "Have Notre Dame as a partial member or let us be independent where we get to play them every year." We absolutely play them more often with this arrangement than if they weren't a member of the ACC at all.
 
andrew said:
That doesn't really answer my question. You said we give up a lot of the money share -- what money share are we giving up here compared to if they weren't a member at all?

I understand it would be better for the ACC if they were a full member, but that's not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is it better to have them as a partial member, or better to not have any affiliation with them?

I see this as a win-win where both us and Notre Dame benefit. Sure, ND may have the better of it, but that doesn't mean it's not good for us as well.



Again, I'm not really sure how that is relevant. We haven't been independent for fifty years. The choice isn't, "Have Notre Dame as a partial member or let us be independent where we get to play them every year." We absolutely play them more often with this arrangement than if they weren't a member of the ACC at all.
Click to expand...

Relevant because you implied it was a good thing their phony ACC membership allowed us the chance to play them every so often. Big deal.
 
texstinger said:
Relevant because you implied it was a good thing their phony ACC membership allowed us the chance to play them every so often. Big deal.
Click to expand...

I didn't imply it, I directly stated it. I like playing Notre Dame. It gets us great TV exposure, they are usually overrated so we have a good shot to knock off a high-profile team, and visiting their stadium is a really fun experience.

In terms of opponents I like to play, they definitely rank high on the list. I'm not sure what's bad about getting to play them.
 
BuzzLaw said:
Think of it this way: why would ND remain independent if the money was all the same? They’ve got a sweet setup. They make more money than the Wake Forests of the world. So they want the benefits of being in a conference, but they don’t want to share in the rewards.

Do you really think it’s about something other than money?
Click to expand...

The reward is the ACC gets guaranteed national broadcasts for its teams. That’s huge. You’re really underscoring that importance in the scheme of being competitive in today’s climate.

Just ask PAC 12 football and basketball how exposure can be equally as valuable as $$$. You can hardly find those guys on TV anymore and their brand and competiveness are showing that.


ND likes it because they have a home for non football, reduces headaches of finding suitable opponents in football, and they get to partner academically with like minded institutions.

Win-win.
 
No need for the Fisheaters to be in the ACC. Go to Big 10 or some other conference in the center of the country. Hate UGA and ND the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top