UVA AD says ACC should consider partial for Notre Dame

[Scooch]

Let's not fool ourselves, ND is the reason for the problems in the BE.
Do we need them in the ACC for part 2?
Either all in or out.

ND wasn't on the first page of problems with the Big East.

 

[supp]

Teel as we've seen is well-connected to the ACC office. This article might have been floated as a trial balloon to see what the constituency thinks (along with an endorsement from a significant figure but not an ACC decision-maker so they can plausibly deny the ND partial invite if necessary later on).

I could live with the partial invite IF ND held up its end of the bargain. They had a similar deal with the BE but never played the games they said they would and weren't prepared to play the whole conference (just Pitt and the tri-state teams). If they agree to a partial invite, there needs to be a minimum of 5 games a year rotating through the conference. They don't get a free ride to the Orange Bowl and no stealing the secondary bowl tie-ins. There should also be some guarantee on ND's part that they will participate and pay into whatever academic consortium the conference puts together. I think if you want ND to eventually join a conference, you've got to make it so that it becomes increasingly difficult for them pull out from it in the future. I don't think you'll get ND to agree to a 5-year plan for deciding on whether to to become a full member or leave. The arm-twisting doesn't seem to work, as the B10 has seen.

Finally, if this re-opens the ESPN contract for negotiation, then I think that's another major point in the favor of partial membership.

 

[DoctorBombay]

 

[Tom Frey]

I think the ACC would be foolish not to add ND in all sports outside of football, for the simple fact that the landscape of college football is changing by the day.

And once ND realizes it cannot be a sustainable entity without being in a conference in football, they will make the no-brainer choice to join the ACC in football.

Agreed, people need to remember the big east failed because half the members were non-football not just ND. Just don't let them vote on anything.

 

[Scooch]

Agreed, people need to remember the big east failed because half the members were non-football not just ND. Just don't let them vote on anything.

That's also not why the Big East failed.

Think harder, people.

 

[omniorange]

That's also not why the Big East failed.

Think harder, people.

I'll play.

The top three reasons why the Big East failed as a football conference, imho,

1) It had one King in Miami
2) It had three programs that performed at Duke level during the 90s - Rutgers, Temple, and Pitt
3) Reason 2 and it's only King on probation when the TV contracts were being negotiated resulted in a bad, bad TV contract

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Scooch]

I'll play.

The top three reasons why the Big East failed as a football conference, imho,

1) It had one King in Miami
2) It had three programs that performed at Duke level during the 90s - Rutgers, Temple, and Pitt
3) Reason 2 and it's only King on probation when the TV contracts were being negotiated resulted in a bad, bad TV contract

Cheers,
Neil

My snarky reply was more about disputing the idea that it was having a bunch of non-football playing schools that caused the demise of the league. Rather, it wasn't the existence of these schools, but their oversized influence that was a problem.

But those are all good reasons. Neil, when did the Big East renew it's football deal during that time? 1999? 2001? I'm drawing a blank and the Google isn't helping.

 

[omniorange]

My snarky reply was more about disputing the idea that it was having a bunch of non-football playing schools that caused the demise of the league. Rather, it wasn't the existence of these schools, but their oversized influence that was a problem.

But those are all good reasons. Neil, when did the Big East renew it's football deal during that time? 1999? 2001? I'm drawing a blank and the Google isn't helping.

Unfortunately, I think the bb schools "influence" was mostly on SU (and to a lesser extent BC and Pitt) which killed any chance the football schools had of exercising their influence to the fullest.

As for the second Big East contract, it was signed in March of 2000 but mostly negotiated during 1999. Best piece I could find on the topic is from a TechSidelines blog/article:

http://www.techsideline.com/columns/2000/stewart11.htm?PHPSESSID=7b6e796b9af4db80905593e251585cc0

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Scooch]

As for the second Big East contract, it was signed in March of 2000 but mostly negotiated during 1999.

That's what I figured. In 1999 VaTech played for the national title, and Miami was ranked 15th.

I think the BE's problem was that it just had a poor perception, largely fueled by Miami stumbling in the mid-90s when they got hit with probation, along with (sadly) SU's back-to-back thumpings in BCS games representing the conference. And the positive of VaTech emerging as a national player, was offset by the utter garbage at the bottom of the conference (Rutgers, Temple and Pitt for a few seasons).

 

[omniorange]

That's what I figured. In 1999 VaTech played for the national title, and Miami was ranked 15th.

I think the BE's problem was that it just had a poor perception, largely fueled by Miami stumbling in the mid-90s when they got hit with probation, along with (sadly) SU's back-to-back thumpings in BCS games representing the conference. And the positive of VaTech emerging as a national player, was offset by the utter garbage at the bottom of the conference (Rutgers, Temple and Pitt for a few seasons).

Yeah, but you know, better than most how these things go. The ratings from 1996 through 1999 would have been used against the league, which is why the total value of the contract went down.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Scooch]

Yeah, but you know, better than most how these things go. The ratings from 1996 through 1999 would have been used against the league, which is why the total value of the contract went down.

Cheers,
Neil

Oh for sure. I didn't mean to suggest that perception wasn't valid. The BE has also had a knack for mistiming everything. I think if they cut a deal in, say, 2002 instead of 2000 they would have done a bit better financially.

 

[arbitragegls]

...and so it goes day by day. If you recall, the Notre Dame issue is under review by both the ACC and Notre Dame. As my source has indicated previously, the ACC is looking to tie Notre Dame into the conference...and if not all in then severe penalty if over a time frame football does not come in..say 5 years...but no more. The reason why we do not have an Orange Bowl partnership with Notre Dame and others is that neither the ACC nor Notre Dame has yet backed away from their position. However, I do believe Swofford did give a signal at media day and UVA Littlepage reinforced partial membership may be under review...but as indicated penalties if not all in in a reasonable time frame. In reality, the Penn State blow up has given both the ACC and Notre Dame more time to think this knot through...I am being told the time frame for moving one way or another is around a couple of weeks.

 

[Tom Frey]

My snarky reply was more about disputing the idea that it was having a bunch of non-football playing schools that caused the demise of the league. Rather, it wasn't the existence of these schools, but their oversized influence that was a problem.

But those are all good reasons. Neil, when did the Big East renew it's football deal during that time? 1999? 2001? I'm drawing a blank and the Google isn't helping.

So you disagree with my post earlier but say the same thing in this post. The number of non-football schools and ND voting on football, outnumbered the football schools, that was thier oversized influence, they didn't get any extra votes. The non-football teams would always vote as one and ND voted down the tv contracts because it would mean more competion in thier bidding process.

If you bring in ND as a non voting member, and give thier olympic sports a home, in a couple of years after the confrence dance has settled down you could have some leverage on them to join.

 

[DoctorBombay]

So you disagree with my post earlier but say the same thing in this post. The number of non-football schools and ND voting on football, outnumbered the football schools, that was thier oversized influence, they didn't get any extra votes. The non-football teams would always vote as one and ND voted down the tv contracts because it would mean more competion in thier bidding process.

If you bring in ND as a non voting member, and give thier olympic sports a home, in a couple of years after the confrence dance has settled down you could have some leverage on them to join.

Isn't this one of the main reasons the BE went belly up? Why would the ACC go down the same road?
If they decide to do this, that shows that the FSU/Clemson/Md/GT rumors have some major validity.
We might've jumped from one sinking ship to another!

 

[arbitragegls]

^+1 more so for your comments on WVU board and conversation...big difference vs. BE is that the ACC is not giving in on certain conditions. Also, Bball only teams do not overide the football schools...there are no only bball teams as yet in the ACC...well maybe one sooner than you think...but it will be an interesting contract with penalties...just saying.

 

[DezisOrange]

I hate ND...in everything! I feel that we have already seen how this partial membership crap helped revive a dead BB program, turn there Lax into a power player, make girls BB a power while we've floundered (tho change is comin), and their fooball team continue to suck while getting a bowl bid from the BE whilst only playing a game or two in conference a season (or whatever the deal is). I've always hated the deal no matter how rational it may be because...did i mention?...I HATE ND! Now we ate crow in the BE because we needed them (arguably to me) and the hope was poor BE FB if we are nice they'll join us someday and save the league. I TIRE of people who think that they will ever do anything thats not in their own interests! IN OR OUT! The ACC doesn't have to be the beggars that we were, so don't even offer or 'consider' anything less. People we've seen this movie before and you already know the ending! Give them an out and they never join anything ever(FB), we of all people should know that! I dare say no beneft of their FB involvement in the BE equaled what all the rest of their programs gained as full members. We got hosed (far as I'm concerned), and there is no need to get hosed again. ND choose a conference, I don't care which it is. But the ACC should not ever consider helping your other programs by allowing FB to remain independant. Did I mention that I hate ND?