Clemson-Notre Dame to announce 12 year schedule deal

[Chip]

I get it. But we do typically play a strong in conference slate, last season being the exception.

I guess I’m thinking that as long as we’re playing Clemson, SMU, Miami, FSU, etc. more often than not in a season, and we’re scheduling one strong OOC game, I don’t need to see ND too.

Once we’re in a left behind ACC devoid of those top tier teams then line up the Irish.

Doesn't really need to be ND for me. But I just no longer fear lining up home and homes with big name programs (certainly in non-ND scheduling arrangement years). Would be nice to see some opponents that we've either never seen or haven't in a while.

I think the 2025 schedule is a unicorn. I wouldn't expect to ever see a heavyweight at a relatively neutral location plus @ND, plus @Miami, plus @ Clemson, plus @SMU in the same season ever again.

 

[rrlbees]

I agree with this. Dabo is/has been a great coach and recruiter but ignoring the portal year after year may be his downfall. They have an almost SEC level fanaticism for their team but it would seem their dynasty (much like Alabama's) is on fumes right now and a down year or two then nationally they're just another team. Notre Dame has to fill their schedule every year so maybe they're counting on this and hoping Dabo retires.

Believe it or not, Dabo may be warming up to the portal just a little bit. He took a few this year.

 

[JDemo]

It is for 5 games a year. Pretty sure this agreement, like anything ND does, is going to be to their advantage. The extra games against Clemson will surely count as part of the 5 games per year, which is why I expect SU and all other ACC schools will now play ND less during the time frame of this agreement.

Though as others have pointed out, the ACC might not exist through the entire length of this agreement…..

Was trying to grasp from the article how it would impact the annual 5 games but it contradicts itself. Have a feeling you may be right about us getting screwed out of some home games.

Clemson and Notre Dame are already scheduled to play in 2027, 2028, 2031, 2034 and 2037, and the new agreement will overlap with those dates. A source confirmed the annual games will also count toward Notre Dame's required five games vs. ACC opponents. All games in the series would remain on the schedule regardless of Clemson's future conference affiliation, however.

2 paragraphs later:

The Notre Dame agreement, which remained unchanged after the ACC added Cal, Stanford and SMU prior to the 2024 season, will be one part of those discussions. The Irish currently play Stanford annually in addition to the new Clemson deal, and other ACC schools are eager to use the league's contract with Notre Dame to maximized their ratings and create marquee TV matchups. The ACC confirmed Tuesday that Stanford and Clemson's new games vs. the Irish would not count against the five-game requirement Notre Dame has with the league.

 

[suorange08]

Was trying to grasp from the article how it would impact the annual 5 games but it contradicts itself. Have a feeling you may be right about us getting screwed out of some home games.

Clemson and Notre Dame are already scheduled to play in 2027, 2028, 2031, 2034 and 2037, and the new agreement will overlap with those dates. A source confirmed the annual games will also count toward Notre Dame's required five games vs. ACC opponents. All games in the series would remain on the schedule regardless of Clemson's future conference affiliation, however.

2 paragraphs later:

The Notre Dame agreement, which remained unchanged after the ACC added Cal, Stanford and SMU prior to the 2024 season, will be one part of those discussions. The Irish currently play Stanford annually in addition to the new Clemson deal, and other ACC schools are eager to use the league's contract with Notre Dame to maximized their ratings and create marquee TV matchups. The ACC confirmed Tuesday that Stanford and Clemson's new games vs. the Irish would not count against the five-game requirement Notre Dame has with the league.

I think it's saying that the games already scheduled by the ACC count for the 5 game minimum and the ones that ND and Clemson schedule on their own do not count.

 

[WoadBlue]

I don't think the ACC will be around in 12 years anyway. and 50/50 that I will be.

Then you're highly unlikely to ever support anything that could save the ACC.

 

[sutomcat]

Was trying to grasp from the article how it would impact the annual 5 games but it contradicts itself. Have a feeling you may be right about us getting screwed out of some home games.

Clemson and Notre Dame are already scheduled to play in 2027, 2028, 2031, 2034 and 2037, and the new agreement will overlap with those dates. A source confirmed the annual games will also count toward Notre Dame's required five games vs. ACC opponents. All games in the series would remain on the schedule regardless of Clemson's future conference affiliation, however.

2 paragraphs later:

The Notre Dame agreement, which remained unchanged after the ACC added Cal, Stanford and SMU prior to the 2024 season, will be one part of those discussions. The Irish currently play Stanford annually in addition to the new Clemson deal, and other ACC schools are eager to use the league's contract with Notre Dame to maximized their ratings and create marquee TV matchups. The ACC confirmed Tuesday that Stanford and Clemson's new games vs. the Irish would not count against the five-game requirement Notre Dame has with the league.

Does it surprise me that there is widespread confusion over how this will work? No. That is how the ACC does things. But it does sound like there is a chance we retain all our existing games with ND. Not sure if that is great for the program. But if we really have 3 home games with ND coming, it is great for season ticket sales and added revenue. ND sells tickets. Not quite as much as Michigan or Penn State but more than any ACC school.

 

[WoadBlue]

Agreed it’s not what’s driving ND. But it’s the ACC allowing certain members to circumvent the ND “rotation” scheduling agreement in order to grant those teams preferential treatment and more favorable (likely) results.

Isn’t a conference supposed to stand up for all programs equally? Or are we past that?

Have you figured out yet that TV deals are NOT paid based on games won - every game played has both a Winner and Loser. They are based, only, on TV viewers. That means that any time ND plays Wake, that game will draw many fewer viewers than ND. vs Clemson, or FSU or Miami, or even Stanford. So ND vs. Clemson is worth FAR more to ESPN, or any other network than ND vs. Wake.

So why will ESPN want ND vs Wake when it can get ND vs Clemson?

Yes indeed, the ACC faces an existential crisis. Either the ACC makes really tough hard-nosed moves, or else the ACC will either be as dead as the SWC or else as permanently weakened and lowered as the Pac.

Agains, I assert with no doubt that when it gets to a final set off programs left in the Top Tier, however may conferences it may have, there are schools currently in the ACC that will not make the cut. Both Vandy and Northwestern will make it, if their leagues say so. But the ACC has nothing close to such power.

 

[kcsu]

Does it surprise me that there is widespread confusion over how this will work? No. That is how the ACC does things. But it does sound like there is a chance we retain all our existing games with ND. Not sure if that is great for the program. But if we really have 3 home games with ND coming, it is great for season ticket sales and added revenue. ND sells tickets. Not quite as much as Michigan or Penn State but more than any ACC school.

From what im hearing this deal is accretive to the current deal. Also, even if a few teams leave the ACC the league will continue. It will add teams and if SU stays on this path, we might actually have a better chance to make the dance without Clemson FSU and possibly a few others in our way. At the end of the day its about having a chair when the music stops and i believe the ACC will.

 

[JDemo]

I think it's saying that the games already scheduled by the ACC count for the 5 game minimum and the ones that ND and Clemson schedule on their own do not count.

Ahh yes that makes sense.

 

[Chris02M]

It is for 5 games a year. Pretty sure this agreement, like anything ND does, is going to be to their advantage. The extra games against Clemson will surely count as part of the 5 games per year, which is why I expect SU and all other ACC schools will now play ND less during the time frame of this agreement.

Though as others have pointed out, the ACC might not exist through the entire length of this agreement…..

https://x.com/ADavidHaleJoint/status/1919744590053023805?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1919744590053023805%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

 

[longtimefan]

Isn’t the new profit sharing deal based on TV eyeballs? Doesn’t the ensure that Clemson, Miami, ND and possibly a couple others are creating a “blockade” to protect their viewership even INSIDE ACC scheduling? ND was supposed to rotate games with members. Now certain, select members will be locked in?

That was my conclusion after reading some of the details in the agreement that accompanied the dropping of the lawsuits by FSU, Clemson, and the ACC.

 

[WoadBlue]

From what im hearing this deal is accretive to the current deal. Also, even if a few teams leave the ACC the league will continue. It will add teams and if SU stays on this path, we might actually have a better chance to make the dance without Clemson FSU and possibly a few others in our way. At the end of the day its about having a chair when the music stops and i believe the ACC will.

You assume that the ACC left behind will have more power than the Pac left behind and be allowed a team in the playoffs. Why do you assume that? Every sign from especially SEC but also BT is that each would be very happy with a 2 conference upper tier for football, meaning nobody else gets any shot at playing against them when money matters. And if between them they can get what all they want from the ACC , there will be nothing left for them to care about in any ACC any more than in today's Pac.

Are you assuming that SEC and BT will no longer add teams? If so, why? Can you not see that if they totally run and exclusively benefit from an upper tier of just them that they get more than if the upper tier is closed event 4 leagues? Do you think their greed is now satiated? If so, why would it be until they have everything?

My assessment: Either the ACC gets stronger in the ways that make football wealth and power, or the ACC future is either to become the next SWC (today dead) or the next new Pac (survive in name as a less than Major conference).

Every ACC member that could get into SEC or BT would do so to avoid even the fate of being the next new Pac.

 

[Eric15]

Used to be we need to schedule lighter so we could make a bowl game. But bowl games are kinda stupid now, player turnover is off the charts. So we might as well make the games more appealing to the fans and TV.

I really hope we're officially past the "let's schedule as easy as humanly possible so we can sneak into a mid-December Tuesday at 2 pm bowl game that half our players will sit out of" chapter of SU fandom.

 

[Chip]

I really hope we're officially past the "let's schedule as easy as humanly possible so we can sneak into a mid-December Tuesday at 2 pm bowl game that half our players will sit out of" chapter of SU fandom.

 

[721Comstock]

I really hope we're officially past the "let's schedule as easy as humanly possible so we can sneak into a mid-December Tuesday at 2 pm bowl game that half our players will sit out of" chapter of SU fandom.

Counterpoint: a W is a W.

And L’s are L’s.

We want as many of the former as possible, and as few of the latter.

More W’s are always better.

More W’s also leads to being ranked.
Being ranked is waaaay better than not being ranked.

There is no bonus or extra credit for degree of difficulty of the W’s.

Nor any moral victories from playing tough teams close while taking an L.

I’d prefer 8-9-10 W’s with a few vs. cupcakes & soupcans,
Than 6-6 (or worse!! 5-7) but we played some big name teams.

 

[Eric15]

Counterpoint: a W is a W.

And L’s are L’s.

We want as many of the former as possible, and as few of the latter.

More W’s are always better.

More W’s also leads to being ranked.
Being ranked is waaaay better than not being ranked.

There is no bonus or extra credit for degree of difficulty of the W’s.

Nor any moral victories from playing tough teams close while taking an L.

I’d prefer 8-9-10 W’s with a few vs. cupcakes & soupcans,
Than 6-6 (or worse!! 5-7) but we played some big name teams.

At this point, all I care about is making the playoff. I want to make sure we schedule strategically enough where if we go 10-2, our SOS is strong enough that we can make the field. Resumes are put under the microscope with SOS, SOR, Top 25 wins, etc. So in that sense, all wins are absolutely not all created equal.

And from a purely emotional standpoint, we still reminisce on this board decades later about the legendary near misses like 92 Miami and 98 Tennessee or 99 Michigan. And even though the 1984 season overall was a dud, that Nebraska game lives on forever. That's part of what makes college football so great. Regular season games aren't just a "going through the motions" to get to the playoffs like say baseball is. They mean something by themselves.

I've always been a fan of the 1-2-1 non-conference scheduling format. One blockbuster game to fill the Dome and get the pulse up, two manageable mid-major opponents, and one FCS to work the kinks out.

 

[SURules]

Counterpoint: a W is a W.

And L’s are L’s.

We want as many of the former as possible, and as few of the latter.

More W’s are always better.

More W’s also leads to being ranked.
Being ranked is waaaay better than not being ranked.

There is no bonus or extra credit for degree of difficulty of the W’s.

Nor any moral victories from playing tough teams close while taking an L.

I’d prefer 8-9-10 W’s with a few vs. cupcakes & soupcans,
Than 6-6 (or worse!! 5-7) but we played some big name teams.

Look at Indiana last year. They played a cupcake schedule and ended up in the playoffs because of it. I like playing good teams but still need a few cupcakes.

 

[TerryD]

I get the desire to do his from Clemson's perspective. But I don't see the appeal for ND.

12 years is a lonnnnng time to be locked in to a deal with a school in South Carolina who's brand is only resonant when they're a championship-caliber team.

Unless ND has reason to believe in a near-term future where scheduling with the B1G and SEC will get much more difficult.

It is a response to USC threatening to end the annual series.

It is designed to help ND's SOS and playoff chances.

It is being done to help keep ND football independent.

 

[TerryD]

It is for 5 games a year. Pretty sure this agreement, like anything ND does, is going to be to their advantage. The extra games against Clemson will surely count as part of the 5 games per year, which is why I expect SU and all other ACC schools will now play ND less during the time frame of this agreement.

Though as others have pointed out, the ACC might not exist through the entire length of this agreement…..

Which universities decide to do deals that are not to their advantage ???

 

[sutomcat]

Which universities decide to do deals that are not to their advantage ???

Cazenovia. St Rose, Wells. There are a lot of them.

Not dissing ND for acting in their own self interest.

Eat or be eaten.

But for the record, Syracuse stayed in the Big East a lot longer than they could have because they believed in the conference and what was best for the region and their long time partners in the conference.

 

[oldpinepoint]

But for the record, Syracuse stayed in the Big East a lot longer than they could have because they believed in the conference and what was best for the region and their long time partners in the conference.

that worked out ok, but hindsight is 20/20

 

[baggerbob]

that worked out ok, but hindsight is 20/20

Not really because BC got all those good years in the ACC while the Big East fell apart.

 

[WoadBlue]

Counterpoint: a W is a W.

And L’s are L’s.

We want as many of the former as possible, and as few of the latter.

More W’s are always better.

More W’s also leads to being ranked.
Being ranked is waaaay better than not being ranked.

There is no bonus or extra credit for degree of difficulty of the W’s.

Nor any moral victories from playing tough teams close while taking an L.

I’d prefer 8-9-10 W’s with a few vs. cupcakes & soupcans,
Than 6-6 (or worse!! 5-7) but we played some big name teams.

More Ws against nobodies means nothing. More games that have large TV audiences means more value.