JoePa is looking at YOU, ND...

[Van]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4118848

Sure, he mentioned Syracuse, Rutgers and Pitt by name, but that's just code for "Notre Dame."



Those other three teams are already in a conference; a conference with an even number of teams.

ND is the bloody obvious choice, and JoePa is right about everything he said. The Big 10 does need to play beyond Thanksgiving, same as everyone else.

[PSUFAN]

He's not right about Bowden, IMO. Academic fraud should be punished by the forfeiture of games. He's making the argument because of their friendship.

[Van]

Why academic fraud, bot not other othings? Should a coach's past record always be under review, based on the actions of his players?

I guess I'm fine with Bowden losing those wins, provided every coach loses theirs too, for the same thing; provided every other coach loses wins, any time one of their players gets suspended, expelled or otherwise caught cheating.

[Mr T]

He's not right about Bowden, IMO. Academic fraud should be punished by the forfeiture of games. He's making the argument because of their friendship.

No, he is making the argument because FSU did everything it should have when it found out kids were cheating in Intro to Music for three semesters. It investigated and reported what they found to the NCAA, while punishing themselves by stripping schollies across the whole athletic dept. The NCAA would've never knew if FSU didnt say anything.

I guess the Noles should have pulled the USC, Patriots, Barry Bonds, OJ, ect. and just deny everything, all the while sweeping it under the rug.

[Sky]

Yeah, that ^^^ is an interesting point. If honesty isn't rewarded, why would teams want to be honest in the future when so many other (possible) infractions are never reported and get ignored.

I think academic dishonesty should carry penalities but only if the NCAA treats everyone the same.

[Left Seater]

Plus this cheating wasn't just in the athletic department. From what I understand the prof hadn't changed his exams in 5 years and copies of the exam were being passed around all over campus.

This is no different than Greeks keeping test banks of all the old tests from each prof in a file for you to use anytime you need.

[King Crimson]

Plus this cheating wasn't just in the athletic department. From what I understand the prof hadn't changed his exams in 5 years and copies of the exam were being passed around all over campus.

This is no different than Greeks keeping test banks of all the old tests from each prof in a file for you to use anytime you need.

for a prof to keep using the same exams in "today's digital age" of highly organized, easily reproduced and disseminated (often for a fee provided by many services), incredibly efficient panoply of undergraduate cheating options.....is almost incomprehensible to me.

[Mr T]

Plus this cheating wasn't just in the athletic department. From what I understand the prof hadn't changed his exams in 5 years and copies of the exam were being passed around all over campus.

This is no different than Greeks keeping test banks of all the old tests from each prof in a file for you to use anytime you need.

Bingo!

Just a old professor who got tired of making new tests. Everyone has had a teacher like that. Everyone who took the class got an A, athlete or not.

The athletes who took the class all have to take the class over again and lost credit for the class.

I love how ESPN came at the Noles like they were trying to sweep this under the rug. Fucking Hilarious. As soon as FSU found out about it, the administration was all over it and contacted the NCAA of their findings.

If FSU should be punished for anything, it should be telling the truth. Who the fuck does that?

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/165712

[Terry in Crapchester]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4118848

Sure, he mentioned Syracuse, Rutgers and Pitt by name, but that's just code for "Notre Dame."



Those other three teams are already in a conference; a conference with an even number of teams.

ND is the bloody obvious choice, and JoePa is right about everything he said. The Big 10 does need to play beyond Thanksgiving, same as everyone else.

Either you're substituting your own opinion for JoePa's, or you didn't read that article as carefully as you think you did.

Coupla factors to consider here.

First, Penn State is something of a geographic orphan in the Big Ten -- the only eastern school in a midwestern conference. Understandable, then, that JoePa might want another eastern school to join the conference. If any of these schools joined the Big Ten, they'd be a lock to play Penn State on an annual basis, so Penn State would have an eastern road trip as a conference game no less than once every other year.

ND is a slightly different animal. They have a significant fanbase in the east, so there's some affinity there, of course. But that's where it ends. A road trip to ND is still a road trip to the midwest. And unlike the other three schools, there's no guarantee that ND would be an annual conference opponent for Penn State; in fact, what we do know suggests an opposite conclusion.

Second, and perhaps even more telling, there is this . . .

Asked what sort of response he had received, Paterno raised his eyebrows in a facial shrug.

"You know, it's a conference that's dominated by a couple of people," Paterno said. "If I start talking, they're polite, but they snicker.

"They don't know I know they're snickering, but they're polite. ...I wish I were younger and going to be around [another] 20 years."

C'mon. Do you really think that if JoePa were suggesting that the Big Ten pursue ND, TPTB in the Big Ten would "snicker" at him? Puh-leeze. Those people would sell their children (or maybe it's grandchildren at this point) to gypsies if that would guarantee that ND would join the Big Ten. The only possible reason they might "snicker" at JoePa for suggesting that ND join the Big Ten is if they realize that pursuit of ND in this regard is an exercise in futility.

In the final analysis though, whether I agree with you on JoePa's point is moot. A few things to consider, though.

As far as ND joining the Big Ten goes, never say never, but don't hold your breath (how's that for stringing cliches together?). We've been down this road before. I don't think I have to post the reasons for that again, but I'll do it if I have to. In any event, "the Big Ten will get a CCG if ND joins" is not a reason for ND to join. It may be a reason for the Big Ten to pursue ND (although, of course, if a CCG is the only reason, the Big Ten doesn't really need ND. All it really needs is a warm body -- Temple or Miami of Ohio would fit the bill quite nicely), but it's not a reason for ND to join the Big Ten. As for Pitt, Rutgers or Syracuse, 2009 is not 2003. The Big East has upped its exit fee considerably since those days -- $5 million or 5 years notice (back in 2003, those numbers were $1 million and 1 year, respectively), so it'll be a little harder to pry any of those teams away from the Big East than it was for the ACC to pry away Miami, Va Tech and Fredo back in '03.

And while we're on the topic of Big East exit fees, they might apply to ND as well, given that ND plays most sports other than football in the Big East. Of course, in ND's case there's a slightly easier way around that. ND could join the Big Ten initially as a football-only member, delaying entry in other sports for five years. The Big Ten probably would go along with that much in concessions to get ND to join. Then again, ND's athletic department probably wouldn't want to have to deal with its two revenue sports playing in different conferences, even if only for a short-term period of time.

I agree with JoePa to a limited point, though: the Big Ten needs to play later in the season for its own good. But I'm not sure that a CCG is the way to go. You yourself have been critical of CCG's as applied to other conferences, why would your take be different with respect to the Big Ten? As it is, both the Big East and the Pac-10 play into the first week of December without a CCG. Why couldn't the Big Ten do the same?

What I'd like to see, admittedly from a somewhat selfish perspective . . .

The Big Ten permits its members to play into the first week of December. ND signs a new deal with both Sparty and Purdue. Those schools alternate with ND on its schedule every other year. One plays a two-year home-and-home with ND in September, the other plays ND the first week in December in a geographically appropriate, weather-neutral neutral site game (Sparty in Ford Field in Detroit, Purdue in Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis). After two years, the schools switch off. So in a four-year period, both Sparty and Purdue get a home-and-home vs. ND in September, and two neutral site games vs. ND in the first week in December.

What's not to like about that? ND gets on the schedule the first week in December (and another bye week in the process, btw), gets a compelling neutral site game (compared to Washington State in San Antonio, anyway), and some much-needed flexibility in its schedule for September, all without joining a conference or sacrificing a traditional rival from its schedule. The Big Ten, meanwhile, gets one of its schools into a high-profile game for the first week in December.

Of course, it makes too much sense, so it probably won't happen.

[Van]

-CCGs are completely bogus, unless they're played to break a tie in the conference.

-Whether it's by adding another member and adding a CCG or simply by playing later on the schedule, the Big 10 needs to play as late in the year as everybody else.

-ND will be in a conference, within ten years. I hope it's the Big 10, and it certainly ought to be the Big 10, but I fear ND won't have the balls to do it, not when they can better hope to rule the roost in the weaker Big East. The Big East makes less geographic sense and less "traditional rivals" sense, but there's less competition there, so hey, wtf...

[Terry in Crapchester]

-CCGs are completely bogus, unless they're played to break a tie in the conference.

So why advocate so strongly for the Big Ten to get one?

-Whether it's by adding another member and adding a CCG or simply by playing later on the schedule, the Big 10 needs to play as late in the year as everybody else.

I don't have a problem with this. Of course, they don't need to add ND to do it.

-ND will be in a conference, within ten years. I hope it's the Big 10, and it certainly ought to be the Big 10, but I fear ND won't have the balls to do it, not when they can better hope to rule the roost in the weaker Big East. The Big East makes less geographic sence and less "traditional rivals" sense, but there's less competition there, so hey, wtf...

I disagree with the basic premise here. Independence has been good for ND, and it would take some pretty compelling arguments to get ND away from independence.

Even if I'm wrong, it'd take an awful lot of fence-mending to get ND into the Big Ten, assuming there are other options available to ND. As I've stated elsewhere, ND is to the Big Ten as Penn State is to the Big East, only on a much greater scale and over a much longer period of time.

As for the "rule the roost" argument, imho the off-field aspect of that is an even greater consideration, if it comes down to a choice for ND between the Big Ten and the Big East. As you're aware, most conferences have 1-2 members who have so much pull within the conference that they might as well be independents except for the conference scheduling requirement. In the Big East, ND would be that school. In the Big Ten, that role is already occupied by Michigan and tOSU, who guard it vigilantly and would expect ND to "know their place" in the Big Ten. I suspect that in the Big Ten, ND would find itself on the losing end of a number of 11-1 and 10-2 votes (occasionally we might get Northwestern or Penn State to go along with us).

Btw, if you truly want ND in a conference, Kevin White was your friend, and you probably should be mourning his departure. I suspect he wanted nothing more than to have his crowning professional accomplishment read "He successfully steered Notre Dame's transition into a football conference." Hell, he almost put us in the ACC a few years back, and imho, the NCAA bailed him out of the mess his own incompetence had created when it determined that the ACC couldn't hold a CCG with 11 members. If you're looking at things from a geographic and "traditional rivals" sense, the ACC makes less sense for ND than does the Big East. ND's "traditional rivals" in the ACC -- Georgia Tech and Miami (I'm not counting Fredo here since they essentially replaced ND as the ACC's 12th member) -- were no longer rivals with ND once they joined the ACC (in fact, the ND-Georgia Tech series ended because Georgia Tech's entrance into the ACC precluded their availability for a continued series with ND).

[Van]

Like I said, the Big 10 needs to play later into the year, with a high visibility game. That's why they need a CCG, which was JoePa's point. In order to play a CCG they require the addition of one more team to the conference. Otherwise, bare minimum, they need to park that Ohio St-Michigan game and all their Rivalry Week games on the same day as the SEC CCG.

Other than that, you're again trotting out the same weak arguments you always trot out, whenever talk of ND joining a conference comes up. It always boils down to the same thing: It's either not "tradition" (who cares?), "fences need mending" (who cares?) or it's not 1000% to ND's advantage (who cares?)...

Nobody cares. Find a way.

It's as if ND is unwilling to do it unless they can flat out rape someone. They have to have their asses kissed. They don't want to have to earn anything. They want the ultimate sweetheart deal, and the path of least resistance, no matter what. They want who they were in the leather helmet days to forever give them carte blanche to call the shots, into eternity.

In the meantime, they're becoming obsolete. It's been twenty years since they were on top, and they've barely gotten a sniff since. The game is passing them by.

Just join a conference, and quit looking for the puss way out. ND doesn't belong in a conference with W. Virginia, South Florida, Louisville, Connecticut and Rutgers. Hell, South Florida doesn't even belong in that conference.

ND is a traditional stone age power, located in the heart of the midwest. South Bend, Indiana, is clearly Big 10 Country. ND needs to join a conference, and that conference is clearly the Big 10, not the Big East. All the excuses for not doing it, all the excuses for the Big East over the Big 10, it's all whining, excuse making and rationalizations.

ND needs to wake up and realize it's the 21st century. Nobody needs to kiss their ring.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Other than that, you're again trotting out the same weak arguments you always trot out, whenever talk of ND joining a conference comes up. It always boils down to the same thing: It's either not "tradition" (who cares?), "fences need mending" (who cares?) or it's not 1000% to ND's advantage (who cares?)...

And you're trotting out the same weak arguments you make every time you suggest ND should join a conference. Everyone else does it (who cares?). For that matter, you don't even stop at ND should join a conference, you go one step farther: ND must join the Big Ten. The weak argument there? ND is in Big Ten country (Who cares? The Big Ten tried to kill ND football, remember? Besides, ND has a national fan base and a national alumni/student body base, unlike most if not all of the other members of the Big Ten.)

It's as if ND is unwilling to do it unless they can flat out rape someone. They have to have their asses kissed. They don't want to have to earn anything. They want the ultimate sweetheart deal, and the path of least resistance, no matter what. They want who they were in the leather helmet days to forever give them carte blanche to call the shots, into eternity.

If it were all about the path of least resistance, consider what I said earlier about Kevin White and the ACC. Yes, the ACC is down right now. But that was back in 2003. In hindsight, I suppose you could argue that FSU had started its downward spiral, given that they didn't win the conference in '01 and had a lackluster ranking in '02, despite winning the conference title. But in '03 they finished the regular season #7 in the final regular-season BCS rankings. At the time, it certainly looked like '01 and '02 were just a brief downward cycle, and the 'Noles were getting back on track in '03. Miami? Yeah, they were down fro wire-to-wire rankings in '01 and '02 (until the Fiesta Bowl), but they were still Top 10 (#9, to be precise) in '03. In '03, nobody foresaw either program, let alone both, taking an extended downward turn.

In fact, it was quite the opposite. In the wake of the ACC expansion, there was talk of the ACC emerging as the new power in college football. There was even (fleeting) talk of taking away the Big East's automatic BCS bid and giving the ACC a second automatic BCS bid. It is against this backdrop that Kevin White, the foremost advocate of conference membership for ND football, sought to join the ACC. This despite the following facts:

- There are no ACC member schools within 600 miles of ND's campus.
- The ACC primarily services the region of the country (i.e., the South) where ND's fanbase traditionally is weakest.
- Only two ACC member schools (Georgia Tech and Miami) had as many as 20 all-time matchups vs. ND. Neither of those had played a substantial number of matchups vs. ND as a member of the ACC. Georgia Tech's series with ND had died as a result of its membership in the ACC and resulting additional commitments. Miami was a new member of the ACC, and Miami's series with ND had ended on, for ND, somewhat bitter terms.

Imho, White's decision to pursue the ACC was based on the following factors:

- He determined that ND could not survive, long-term, as an independent; alternatively, he did not want ND to be independent (disagree with him on either/both points).
- He figured (incorrectly, as it turned out) that the Big East would not survive the ACC raid, at least not as a BCS-level conference.
- He figured (correctly, I think) that it would be easier to sell ND's fanbase on membership in the ACC than on membership in the Big Ten.

And like I said, this was 2003, not 2009. As big a pussy as White was/is, his pursuit of the ACC had nothing to do with path of least resistance, at least not as far as the BCS was concerned.

If path of least resistance were ND's mantra, ND probably would be pursuing football membership in the Big East. Like I said in the other thread, Big East membership likely would give ND a path of even less resistance to the BCS than they have now. But that's not what's happening, now is it?

Spin it all you want, but ND's aversion to the Big Ten (driven primarily by ND's fanbase, btw) has nothing to do with path of least resistance. It has everything to do with the traditional treatment ND has received from the Big Ten, and with the sort of treatment NDFan reasonably would expect to receive going forward, if ND were to become a member of the Big Ten.


Barring a dramatic change in circumstances, ND isn't going to join the Big Ten. Not. Gonna. Happen.

The sooner people realize that, the better.

ND needs to wake up and realize it's the 21st century. Nobody needs to kiss their ring.

It's not about getting their ring kissed. At least in the case of the Big Ten, it's about not wanting to set themselves up with a miserable existence for the foreseeable future. Why would any school want to join a conference where they see themselves, for the foreseeable future, on the short end of a number of 11-1 and 10-2 votes?

[MuchoBulls]

Hell, South Florida doesn't even belong in that conference.

So I guess Miami shouldn't have been either?

[King Crimson]

Hell, South Florida doesn't even belong in that conference.

So I guess Miami shouldn't have been either?

you have to remember Van's a Pac-10 guy. and when the Pac-8 added the Arizona schools, Tempe and Tucson were much closer to the Pacific Ocean than they are now.

and according to the formation of the Big XII lore, both UT and CU were approached by the Pac.....since they are coastal schools.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Hell, South Florida doesn't even belong in that conference.

So I guess Miami shouldn't have been either?

Further on this, I'm pretty sure the Big East specifically wanted a school in Florida. That was the primary reason USF got the nod over, say, ECU, Marshall, Memphis or even Bowling Green or Miami of Ohio.

As for ND's geography, Cincinnati, Louisville and DePaul (not a football member) are all members of the Big East as well. Last time I checked, all of those schools were located in states that are geographically contiguous to the state in which ND is located.

Van, you need to brush up on ND's history with the Big Ten before you pontificate on such topics. This site, while not complete, is a good place to start. The Big Ten had its chance to get ND, there can't be much question on that. Sometimes, when a window of opportunity closes, it closes permanently.

[Van]

Hell, South Florida doesn't even belong in that conference.

So I guess Miami shouldn't have been either?

Of course not. Look at a map. Look at each school's history. Look at the culture of each school. Miami had no business being in the Big East. Miami (and Florida) should be in the SEC. Bare minimum, because of Georgia Tech, they should've always been in the ACC, but the SEC makes more sense.

[Van]

you have to remember Van's a Pac-10 guy. and when the Pac-8 added the Arizona schools, Tempe and Tucson were much closer to the Pacific Ocean than they are now.

They're both reasonably close to USC and UCLA, yes. They're both a helluva lot closer to those schools than South Florida is to Connecticut or Rutgers; in terms of miles, athletic history and school culture. Huge Arizona schools joining the Pac made sense. South Florida being lumped in with northeastern schools, or Notre Dame?

That never made any sense.

[Van]

Terry, the path of least resistance for ND is to remain an independent, so that's what they're doing. This gives them (by far) the easiest road to the BCS. The path of second least resistance would be to join the Big East, so that's where the talk of them joining a conference seems to be centered.

Now, ask yourself: If by joining the Big 10 ND would find themselves always being on the wrong end of 10-2 or 11-1 conference votes, what does that say about ND, and the positions they take?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Hell, South Florida doesn't even belong in that conference.

So I guess Miami shouldn't have been either?

Of course not. Look at a map. Look at each school's history. Look at the culture of each school. Miami had no business being in the Big East. Miami (and Florida) should be in the SEC. Bare minimum, because of Georgia Tech, they should've always been in the ACC, but the SEC makes more sense.

If you're going to make that argument, then at least be consistent.

By that argument, Penn State has no business in the Big Ten. They are an eastern school playing in a midwestern conference. Their traditional rivals -- Pitt, West Virginia, even Syracuse -- are all in the Big East.

They haven't played Pitt since they joined the Big East. Instead, they're stuck playing the likes of Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern . . .

For that matter, they don't even have a true rival in the Big Ten. I don't care what TPTB in the Big Ten say, the Land Grant Bowl (i.e., Penn State-Michigan State) is not a rivalry. It's a manufactured rivalry, at best. And conferences can't manufacture rivalries, they have to develop naturally between teams. Penn State-Michigan State just doesn't have the feel of a rivalry, on either side. And I doubt it ever will.

The only school in the Big Ten with which Penn State conceivably could develop a rivalry is Ohio State. Problem is, tOSU already has a rival: Michigan. And that's not about to change. In fact, it wouldn't change even if Penn State were to win 50 straight Big Ten titles, and Michigan were to suffer through 50 straight 3-9 seasons.

As I've said before, Penn State was my #2 team when I was a kid. I was always clear that ND was #1 and Penn State was #2, but Penn State was #2, ahead of everyone else except ND. If I were pressed to pick a #2 team now, I'd probably still go with Penn State based on previous sentiment. But the gap between #1 and #2 has widened considerably since I was a kid. Seems to me that by joining the Big Ten, in terms of rivalries Penn State has relegated itself to, in a best case scenario, Michigan's sloppy seconds. If I were a Penn State fan, or even still as much of a Penn State fan as when I was a kid, that would piss me off.

Also, Boston College has no business in the ACC. They're a northern school playing in a southern conference. Per mapquest, the closest geographic ACC member to Fredo (Maryland) is about 430 miles away. That's opposed to about 90 miles away from the closest Big East rival (UConn).

Traditional rivalries? Fuggeddabouditt. The Big East has Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, and the chance to develop new rivalries with Rutgers and UConn. In the ACC, Fredo didn't even manage to land in the same division as its most historically significant rival (Miami).

If you're going to use this argument, you need to use it consistently across the board, not merely to pick off the Big East. And I would submit that the geographic arguments as to these schools are stronger than they are as to ND. ND certainly has a much stronger fanbase beyond the immediate proximity of its campus than does Fredo. And at least on a proportional basis, the same comparison applies between ND and Penn State.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Terry, the path of least resistance for ND is to remain an independent, so that's what they're doing. This gives them (by far) the easiest road to the BCS. The path of second least resistance would be to join the Big East,

You're wrong about that. The difference between the two (independence vs. Big East membership) is the difference between a Top 8 finish and the Big East championship.

As I've set out before, if history is any guide, it should be easier, in most years, to win the Big East than to finish in the Top 8. A look at final BCS rankings for Big East conference champs over the last five years (final regular-season BCS ranking in parentheses):

2004: Pitt (21)
2005: West Virginia (11)
2006: Louisville (6)
2007: West Virginia (9)
2008: Cincinnati (12)

Granted, BCS rankings don't always coincide with conference standings, 2001 Big XII and 2002 Pac-10 out front told me so. Still, more often than not, they do, at least insofar as the conference champ is also the highest ranked team from the conference. Based on that assumption, ND could have won the Big East in three out of the last five years with less than a Top 8 finish. By contrast, they only would've needed to finish higher than #8 once in the last five years to win the Big East.

Now, ask yourself: If by joining the Big 10 ND would find themselves always being on the wrong end of 10-2 or 11-1 conference votes, what does that say about ND, and the positions they take?

I never said that ND would always be on the wrong end of 10-2 or 11-1 Big Ten conference votes. In fact, I don't think that would be the case. I think TPTB in the Big Ten are smart enough to choose their battles, and they'd let ND win a few, on minor points to those schools (one possibility I cited previously would be a delay in joining the Big Ten in sports other than football). But when ND butted heads with tOSU and Michigan and it really mattered to those schools, there's no way ND would come out on top.

What that says, to me, is that ND wouldn't get much respect as the new kid on the block in a conference which, traditionally speaking, has been antagonistic toward ND. Tell me, how many times do you think ND would wind up on the wrong end of 8-1 or 7-2 votes as a member of the Big East?

[Van]

Exactly. The Big East represents the path of least resistance, compared to the Big 10. Notre Dame wouldn't have to earn anything. They'd expect to walk right in and have the say-so in the Big East. In the Big 10 they wouldn't instantly be accorded king of the hill status, nor should they be, and that's just not acceptable to them.

As for PSU being in the Big 10 and BC being in the ACC, instead of both being in the Big East, you won't get any argument from me on that one. They should both be in the Big East. Hard to criticize them, though, for going to tougher conferences. We can't get ND to do it, even when it makes nothing but sense for them to do it.

Oh, and if Michigan went 3-9 for fifty straight years and PSU won the Big 10 for fifty straight years you can bet your ass that PSU would replace Michigan as OSU's main rival. Then again, it'd be a one way rivalry. PSU wouldn't consider anybody a rival, not if they were winning fifty straight titles.

A team eventually ceases to be considered a rival, if they're never competitive.

[Terry in Crapchester]

You could certainly make an argument that the Big East is tougher than the ACC now. In fairness, of course, hindsight is 20/20, and it certainly didn't look that way back when BC made the jump in '03.

For that matter, though, the closest ND came to actually joining a football conference was the ACC in '03, and back then, the ACC looked to be tougher than the Big Ten as well. So that argument doesn't really apply against ND, if it doesn't apply against BC.

And if you're going to make the argument that the strength of a conference should be gauged based on its strongest member (an argument which benefits your conference, btw), it's worth noting that West Virginia has finished in the Top 15 of the final regular-season BCS rankings three of the last four seasons. Without looking it up, I'd guess that the list of schools who can make that claim is a short one.

[Van]

Who cares? It's West Virginia. Nobody really takes them seriously, playing in a watered down conference which is completely bereft of D. Even last year, when they were one choke against Pitt away from playing OSU, nobody thought shit about them.

The Big 10 is a known quantity. You can set your watch to them. They're one of CF's four major food groups, along with southern football, western football and dustbowl football. They've always gotten a lot more respect than the Big East, and that was especially true back in '03.

[Terry in Crapchester]

The Big 10 is a known quantity. You can set your watch to them. They're one of CF's four major food groups, along with southern football, western football and dustbowl football. They've always gotten a lot more respect than the Big East, and that was especially true back in '03.

Doesn't matter. In '03 ND was set to join the ACC, not the Big East. And back then, the ACC looked to be a tougher conference than the Big Ten.

[Van]

What doesn't matter is this talk of ND trying to join the ACC in '03. They didn't, and why not? You can bet it wasn't because the ACC wouldn't have 'em. ND didn't join, and no doubt it was their call not to join, and no doubt it was because they didn't receive enough of a sweetheart deal.

Also, in '03 you're looking at a Big 10 team as the reigning national champ. Michigan hadn't gone into the tank. Iowa was coming off a BCS bowl game appearance. I don't think it's so easy to say that the ACC was better than the Big 10, and the Big 10 was still the Big 10.

Doesn't matter anyway. ND didn't seriously consider joining either conference.

Btw, it's May, and here we are, talking BTPCF.

[Terry in Crapchester]

What doesn't matter is this talk of ND trying to join the ACC in '03. They didn't, and why not? You can bet it wasn't because the ACC wouldn't have 'em. ND didn't join, and no doubt it was their call not to join, and no doubt it was because they didn't receive enough of a sweetheart deal.

Here's what I know.

ND and the ACC were in serious discussions about ND joining the ACC back in '03 after the ACC admitted Miami and Virginia Tech, but before BC joined. The basic premise was that ND would join for basketball and other sports immediately, but joining in football would be delayed, possibly by as much as a decade. In the interim, ND was to play up to four games vs. ACC teams in football per year (which might explain the recent home-and-home series with both Georgia Tech and North Carolina, as well as the one-off with Duke. First time, btw, that ND and Georgia Tech had met in the regular season since Georgia Tech became a full-fledged ACC member.) The discussions were serious enough that Killian characterized it as a "done deal" on TOT at the time.

I also know that the ACC petitioned the NCAA for permission to hold a CCG with 11 teams, and was denied.

Here's what I think happened, based on what I know.

ND and the ACC had a deal in principle for ND to join the ACC. The deal would have provided for ND to enter in football on a delayed basis, and was contingent upon the ACC being able to hold a CCG in the interim. When the ACC was denied permission to hold a CCG with 11 members, the two sides went back to the drawing board on the issue of the timing of ND's football entrance into the conference. The two sides reached an unbreachable impasse on that issue, and the deal died as a result (hence, my earlier reference to the NCAA bailing Kevin White out of a mess caused by his own incompetence).

In any event, I think even you would have to admit that, at least on geographic grounds, the ACC would've been even a worse fit for ND than would the Big East. Per mapquest, there are two Big East football schools within a 4.5 hour drive from ND (granted, those two schools -- Cincinnati and Louisville -- weren't members of the Big East in '03, but it was the worst-kept secret in the BTPCFB world that they were the schools the Big East would pursue to replace the ones they lost to the ACC). By contrast, per mapquest the nearest ACC member school to ND is about a 9.5 hour drive from ND. ND also has a significant fanbase within the northeast, a considerably lesser fanbase in the south. ND would have been a northern, Catholic, inland school competing in a southern, mostly non-Catholic, mostly coastal conference. In short, within the ACC, ND would have been like the eccentric uncle that nobody wants around, but everybody tolerates only because he's filthy rich. Under the circumstances, I'm glad that ND didn't join the ACC as it turned out. But

Against that backdrop, it's telling, I think, as to the relationship between ND and the Big Ten, that the closest ND actually ever came to joining a football conference was with the ACC. Btw, there are rumors on the interwebs that the divisional alignment ultimately adopted by the ACC was the divisional alignment to which it had agreed with ND, with BC taking what would have been ND's place. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it's certainly an indivator of how serious the discussions actually were (and it's also an indicator of the fact that White typically negotiated from a standpoint of weakness. Of the three traditional football powers, geographically speaking it made more sense to put FSU and Miami in the same division, and ND in the other. Instead, ND would have been in the same division with one of them.)

I don't think it's so easy to say that the ACC was better than the Big 10, and the Big 10 was still the Big 10.

I do recall talk about taking away the Big East's automatic bid and giving a second automatic bid to the ACC. Was that premature? In hindsight, certainly. Was it the result of an attempted ACC powergrab? Perhaps. But in any event, I don't recall any discussion about a second automatic BCS bid going to the Big Ten.

Doesn't matter anyway. ND didn't seriously consider joining either conference.

We don't know the answer to this for certain, of course. But based on what I do know, I believe that, but for the NCAA's decision not to allow the ACC to hold a CCG with 11 members, ND would be a member of the ACC today.

Btw, it's May, and here we are, talking BTPCF.

On that point, at least, we agree.

[MuchoBulls]

They're both a helluva lot closer to those schools than South Florida is to Connecticut or Rutgers; in terms of miles.

I knew your point of contention would be the distance in miles. USF is no further from it's conference mates than say Arizona to Washington or Washington State.

The Big East is a young conference in terms of football and Miami went a long way in pushing the league up the ladder. I can easily admit that USF was very fortunate to be chosen for Big East membership because of the location and the television market, but we also were building our football program the right way and in a very short amount of time. We haven't had much success in basketball in the league as of yet, but neither did Miami for a while (they didn't win a game in their first or second season in the Big East I believe).

While we still have to travel a good deal, it's much better than what we would have had staying in C-USA.

[Terry in Crapchester]

They're both a helluva lot closer to those schools than South Florida is to Connecticut or Rutgers; in terms of miles.

I knew your point of contention would be the distance in miles. USF is no further from it's conference mates than say Arizona to Washington or Washington State.

Along those lines, per mapquest . . .

Driving distance from Tucson, AZ (Univ. of Arizona) to Seattle, WA (Univ. of Washington): 1609 miles.
Driving distance from Tampa, FL (USF) to Syracuse, NY (Syracuse): 1273 miles.

Both figures rounded to nearest whole mile.

So at the extreme end, USF is no worse off (and probably a little better off) than Arizona, in terms of geographic ties to its conference members. Of course, there are some schools in the Pac-10 that are much closer to Arizona than any other school in the Big East is to USF.

As Mucho said, USF was building its program the right way, and has come a long way in a relatively short time. I'm also pretty sure the Big East wanted a program in Florida, all other things being held equal. That being said, if BC had not jumped to the ACC, i.e., if the ACC had added ND, or just a warm body (somebody like Temple or ECU) in place of BC, I don't think USF would've wound up in the Big East. It became a numbers game, and the Big East wouldn't have needed USF had BC stayed.

[MuchoBulls]

As Mucho said, USF was building its program the right way, and has come a long way in a relatively short time. I'm also pretty sure the Big East wanted a program in Florida, all other things being held equal. That being said, if BC had not jumped to the ACC, i.e., if the ACC had added ND, or just a warm body (somebody like Temple or ECU) in place of BC, I don't think USF would've wound up in the Big East. It became a numbers game, and the Big East wouldn't have needed USF had BC stayed.

You're spot on there. BC's move was the only chance USF had. It also helps from a football recruiting standpoint to have a team in FL in the Big East. It would be a much tougher sell for that teams up north if you couldn't promise 2 trips to FL over the course of time they may play there.

[Van]

You can't compare the Washington schools being in the Pac 10 to dumping South Florida in the Big East. The western states don't have nearly the number of programs that are found in the east. In order to create the original Pac 8 they had to go all up and down the Pacific coast just to find eight teams.

Besides, the Washington schools are "Pacific coast" schools, they're original members and at least in terms of Washington it is a representative school, compared to the other schools in the Pac 10. It fits in, with everyone else.

South Florida? They have absolutely nothing in common with the other members of the Big East, and there are a buttload of other teams between South Florida and UConn. South Florida should be with Florida Atlantic, Florida International and all those Sunbelt teams.

[Terry in Crapchester]

You can't compare the Washington schools being in the Pac 10 to dumping South Florida in the Big East. The western states don't have nearly the number of programs that are found in the east. In order to create the original Pac 8 they had to go all up and down the Pacific coast just to find eight teams.

Besides, the Washington schools are "Pacific coast" schools, they're original members and at least in terms of Washington it is a representative school, compared to the other schools in the Pac 10. It fits in, with everyone else.

[Schmick]Cut BTPCF down to 64 schools, and make sure 50 of those schools are in California. Not only would that enable all the California kids to play at home, it would solve your problem too.[/Schmick]

On a more serious note, the comparison to USF was with the Arizona schools, not the Washington schools. Arizona and Arizona State both were Johnny-come-latelys, relatively speaking, to the Pac-10.

South Florida? They have absolutely nothing in common with the other members of the Big East, and there are a buttload of other teams between South Florida and UConn.

Yes, but as has been stated elsewhere, South Florida was desirable to the Big East in a manner that schools such as ECU, Marshall and Temple were not. Still other schools between UConn and South Florida were members of the ACC. The Big East needed that eighth team to maintain Division I-A status.

South Florida should be with Florida Atlantic, Florida International and all those Sunbelt teams.

I'll agree that the geographical issues of the various conferences occasionally defy logic. But this is taking geographic consistency to its idiotic extreme. Such a conference alignment would only hurt USF. In fact, they had a more favorable conference alignment than that back when they were still in C-USA.

Since you've been talking about ND joining a conference, it's worth pointing out that the closest FBS school, geographically speaking, to ND is Western Michigan. Should ND play in a conference with Western Michigan?

[Van]

Don't be intentionally obtuse. ND shares a small state with two Big 10 teams. ND is a Big 10 level program; a Big 10 level school. ND's "home" city, Chicago, is a Big 10 city.

South Florida belongs in the Sunbelt. That's the type of school they are, that's where they're located and that's the type of football program they are.

Arizona and ASU made perfect sense, for the Pac 10. They're right there, geographically, and they're similar types of schools and programs. Now, had you instead included them in the old SWC, that would've been fine too. That would've also made sense.

Just don't stick them in the MAC, which is basically the geographic/school compatibility equivalent of sticking South Florida in the Big East.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Don't be intentionally obtuse.

i wasn't. I was just trying to make a point: where slavish devotion to geography eventually will take you.

South Florida belongs in the Sunbelt. That's the type of school they are, that's where they're located and that's the type of football program they are.

You don't get it, do you? South Florida was in a better conference, athletically speaking, than the Sun Belt even before the Big East came calling.

Don't like South Florida in the Big East? Take it up with the NCAA. It was the NCAA who expanded the minimum number of teams in a DI-A conference from six to eight, right at the same time the ACC took three teams from the Big East. Like I said, it was a numbers game.

You can't, nor have you even tried to, name a school which: (a) would've been a better athletic fit for the Big East than USF; and (b) would've been gettable for the Big East at the time the Big East needed to find a team. Truth is, I can't either.

[Van]

Don't be intentionally obtuse.

i wasn't. I was just trying to make a point: where slavish devotion to geography eventually will take you.

Yes, you were. The Pac 10 didn't choose San Jose St and UC Davis, just because they were centrally located. With Arizona and ASU it wasn't just about location. They were commensurate schools and programs, as well as being a natural geographic fit.

ND joining Western Michigan's conference, whatever it is, would not be a commensurate pairing. The leap you're attempting to make there is absurd. The locale of ND is a perfect fit for the Big 10. ND is a perfect fit as a world class school, with a rich tradition of athletics. They're a perfect fit for the Big 10. They're way too big to be in W. Michigan's conference.

Indiana and Purdue are more than close enough, as are Wisky, Michigan and Michigan St. Ohio St isn't exactly far away, either.

With Indiana, Purdue and Iowa to the south and west, OSU and PSU to the east and quite a few schools to the north ND is literally surrounded by Big 10 schools. For ND to be in a conference other than the Big 10 is just stupid. They belong there more than PSU.

South Florida belongs in the Sunbelt. That's the type of school they are, that's where they're located and that's the type of football program they are.

You don't get it, do you? South Florida was in a better conference, athletically speaking, than the Sun Belt even before the Big East came calling.

YOU don't get it. I'm talking about what should be, not what is.

Don't like South Florida in the Big East? Take it up with the NCAA. It was the NCAA who expanded the minimum number of teams in a DI-A conference from six to eight, right at the same time the ACC took three teams from the Big East. Like I said, it was a numbers game.

Great. We've already established that Penn St should be in the Big East, as should BC.

This really isn't that difficult, Terry. Whip out a map, go with traditional rivalries, go with natural future rivalries and go with commensurate schools/programs.

Aligning this shit up correctly all across the country would take ten minutes.

You can't, nor have you even tried to, name a school which: (a) would've been a better athletic fit for the Big East than USF; and (b) would've been gettable for the Big East at the time the Big East needed to find a team. Truth is, I can't either.

Penn St and BCU belong in the Big East. Drop South Florida into a southern conference, where they belong. Pick one more eastern school to give the Big East ten schools. Maybe some scabdick like Temple.

We've done this before, Terry. Don't make me realign the entire country again, to where the conferences all make sense.

:twisted:

[MuchoBulls]

South Florida belongs in the Sunbelt. That's the type of school they are.

We've already been a member of the Sun Belt a long time ago and we're not that type of school any longer. While I do not disagree with using geography to set up conferences, USF is much closer to UF, FSU, and Miami in terms of perception than we are to UCF, FIU and FAU.

[Terry in Crapchester]

YOU don't get it. I'm talking about what should be, not what is.

All right, we can do that too. I'll start with one general question, followed by a few specifically tailored to ND and the Big Ten.

SHOULD the NCAA step in to mandate certain conference alignments, when it has thus far taken a complete hands-off approach on that question?

SHOULD Notre Dame be interested in joining a conference which twice rejected it for membership, and then, on more than one historic occasion, has gone out of its way to antagonize ND's football program?

SHOULD a school which has built its fanbase more on an unofficial position as National Catholic U. rather than on the basis of geography make a decision which doubtless will affect its football program for years to come solely on the basis of geography?

SHOULD any school give up free and clear revenue from a national TV contract voluntarily, without any compensation?

SHOULD Notre Dame accept annual matchups with one school whom they haven't played in my lifetime and another school whom they haven't played in my mother's lifetime, when those matchups eliminate the possibility of annual matchups with several other schools in that conference who would be more natural rivals?

SHOULD Notre Dame abandon 120 years of tradition solely because an anonymous poster on the interwebs, who by his own admission isn't even a ND fan, btw, thinks they belong in the Big Ten?

[Van]

YOU don't get it. I'm talking about what should be, not what is.

All right, we can do that too. I'll start with one general question, followed by a few specifically tailored to ND and the Big Ten.

SHOULD the NCAA step in to mandate certain conference alignments, when it has thus far taken a complete hands-off approach on that question?

Yes. The current conference alignments suck. Scheduling sucks. The entire system should be blown up. That's what should happen.

SHOULD Notre Dame be interested in joining a conference which twice rejected it for membership, and then, on more than one historic occasion, has gone out of its way to antagonize ND's football program?

Yes. ND rejected the Big 10's overtures, every bit as much as if not far more than the Big 10 rejected ND.

When ND doesn't join a conference, after "serious talks" have been initiated about ND joining that conference, it's ND's fault. It's on them. The offer was there. They just didn't take it, because it wasn't enough of a sweetheart deal for them.

This isn't 1947 any longer. ND belongs in a conference, and that conference is clearly the Big 10. I don't give a rat's ass about past perceived slights. I don't give a rat's ass about which teams ND does and doesn't prefer to play in the Big 10.

ND needs to wake up and join a conference. They need to stop whining about all the special treatment they always feel entitled to receive.

SHOULD a school which has built its fanbase more on an unofficial position as National Catholic U. rather than on the basis of geography make a decision which doubtless will affect its football program for years to come solely on the basis of geography?

Yes. That's a total non sequitur argument. There are Catholics in the Big 10. Where ND resides and which conference their football team plays in has nothing to do with their being "Catholic U."

ND and BC will retain those titles, regardless.

All these arguments are lame. Join the modern world. Quit looking for the easiest path, which has left you grasping at straws for twenty years now. Get in a conference. Get in the obvious right conference, which is the Big 10.

SHOULD any school give up free and clear revenue from a national TV contract voluntarily, without any compensation?

It's arguments like these that truly engender hatred towards ND.

Quit looking for special deals. Take your tv money with you. You're not going to suddenly lose national tv expsoure, just by joining the Big 10. If you're worth watching, and worth selling to NBC as a marketable product, you and NBC will work it out. Regardless, ND is never going to lack for tv exposure, and tv revenue, especially not when they're in the Big 10.

ND doesn't need this special deal they have. Quit clinging to crap like this.

SHOULD Notre Dame accept annual matchups with one school whom they haven't played in my lifetime and another school whom they haven't played in my mother's lifetime, when those matchups eliminate the possibility of annual matchups with several other schools in that conference who would be more natural rivals?

Yes. Quit whining about these stupid match ups. It's a conference. You'll play everybody in the conference, no less than two years apart. You're already creating stupid match ups like San Diego St, Syracuse and North Carolina. You can play Wisconsin and Illinois too, especially if by doing so you get annual match ups with Ohio St and Penn St.

Being independent isn't doing you any good. You're sinking into irrelevancy, and with your current trend of annually dumbing down your schedule as much as possible you're going to continue your slide.

Sack up, and quit looking to cherry pick everything: schedules, tv contracts, conferences, teams you'll play within conferences, etc. Just sack up, already. Beat people. Earn it.

SHOULD Notre Dame abandon 120 years of tradition solely because an anonymous poster on the interwebs, who by his own admission isn't even a ND fan, btw, thinks they belong in the Big Ten?

Because of that? No. Because it's the right thing for them to do? Yes. They abandon tradition when it's in their best interests to do so.

Remaining independent and attempting to build back credibility on the back of Kansas style scheduling isn't in their best interests. Being overexposed pussies isn't in their best interests.

Army isn't their big national rival any more. Harkening back to The Gipper doesn't get it done. Lou Holtz slobbering about them on tv isn't getting it done. Tradition isn't getting it done. What they're doing is broken. It's time to fix it.

This isn't just a Charlie Weis/Ty Willingham era problem, either. ND hasn't done squat in twenty years, and they're trending down, not back up.

The shit is broken. To borrow a horrible catch phrase from your fraudulent idol, it's time for change. Quit clinging to the past, get rid of your horrible embarrassment of a coach and join the Big 10.

Beat teams. Earn it.

[Terry in Crapchester]

SHOULD the NCAA step in to mandate certain conference alignments, when it has thus far taken a complete hands-off approach on that question?

Yes. The current conference alignments suck. Scheduling sucks. The entire system should be blown up. That's what should happen.

If you're talking about blowing up the whole system and starting from scratch, that's one thing. But in the real world, that won't happen.

For the NCAA to step in and mandate a particular conference affiliation for Notre Dame, and for Notre Dame alone, is another thing altogether.

SHOULD Notre Dame be interested in joining a conference which twice rejected it for membership, and then, on more than one historic occasion, has gone out of its way to antagonize ND's football program?

Yes. ND rejected the Big 10's overtures, every bit as much as if not far more than the Big 10 rejected ND.

You don't know much about the history between these two, do you?

ND very much wanted to be part of the Big Ten in the early 20th century. The Big Ten (actually, its predecessor) rejected them twice, once in 1909 and again in 1924. What's more, on both occasions they rejected ND because ND was a Catholic school, which at the time was pretty much ND's entire raison d'etre. It wasn't until 1999 that ND got an opportunity to return the favor.

When ND doesn't join a conference, after "serious talks" have been initiated about ND joining that conference, it's ND's fault. It's on them. The offer was there. They just didn't take it, because it wasn't enough of a sweetheart deal for them.

Don't be so black-and-white. A deal is made when it's in the best interests of both sides to make a deal. When it's not, it usually works out for the best, for both sides, if one or the other, or both, walk away from it.

SHOULD a school which has built its fanbase more on an unofficial position as National Catholic U. rather than on the basis of geography make a decision which doubtless will affect its football program for years to come solely on the basis of geography?

Yes. That's a total non sequitur argument.

No it isn't. College football has become an increasingly regionalized game over the past twenty years or so, and that's directly attributable, at least in part, to the decline of the independents. ND has been one of the few schools, even arguably the only one, to buck that trend.

ND has a national fan base, a national alumni/student base, and recruits its football team on a national basis. Joining the Big Ten, by contrast, would pigeonhole us as a midwestern team. Even if there were no other arguments against joining the Big Ten, that alone would be enough.

ND and BC will retain those titles, regardless.

That you would even lump BC in with ND in that regard shows how important it is for ND not to do anything which jeopardizes, even in the least, their position in that regard. Yes, BC is another Catholic school that plays FBS level football, but that's as far as it goes. From an historical standpoint, they shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as ND.

SHOULD any school give up free and clear revenue from a national TV contract voluntarily, without any compensation?

It's arguments like these that truly engender hatred towards ND.

Quit looking for special deals. Take your tv money with you. You're not going to suddenly lose national tv expsoure, just by joining the Big 10. If you're worth watching, and worth selling to NBC as a marketable product, you and NBC will work it out. Regardless, ND is never going to lack for tv exposure, and tv revenue, especially not when they're in the Big 10.

ND doesn't need this special deal they have. Quit clinging to crap like this.

You obviously don't know the specifics of the last set of negotiations between ND and the Big Ten. The Big Ten has made it clear that ND can't have its own TV deal as a member of the Big Ten. Best case scenario, they might allow us to complete our obligations under an existing deal, so that we're not facing a breach of contract lawsuit from NBC.

SHOULD Notre Dame accept annual matchups with one school whom they haven't played in my lifetime and another school whom they haven't played in my mother's lifetime, when those matchups eliminate the possibility of annual matchups with several other schools in that conference who would be more natural rivals?

Yes. Quit whining about these stupid match ups. It's a conference. You'll play everybody in the conference, no less than two years apart. You're already creating stupid match ups like San Diego St, Syracuse and North Carolina. You can play Wisconsin and Illinois too, especially if by doing so you get annual match ups with Ohio St and Penn St.

That's my whole point. Under the alignment favored by both Michigan and Ohio State (which, btw, goes against the way you think it should be, as I pointed out in another thread), ND gets an annual matchup with both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wisconsin hasn't played ND in my lifetime. Minnesota hasn't played ND in my mother's lifetime. And there's little or no evidence to suggest that ND's fanbase would embrace either of these schools as a natural rival.

By contrast, let's look at some of the schools in the other division, shall we?

Purdue: Continuous series since 1946.
Penn State: Only northeastern school in the Big Ten, so they'd take on significant importance for ND if ND were to join the Big Ten. Not to mention that a ND-Penn State rivalry would provide a significant counterweight to Michigan-Ohio State in the Big Ten (although that's certainly reason enough for both Michigan and Ohio State not to support the development of such a rivalry).
Ohio State: A traditional power located in a geographically contiguous state. The fact that these two teams have met only five times all-time, and only twice prior to 1995, only adds to the intrigue.
Indiana: An in-state rival, once a frequent opponent.

Hell, you could even throw Illinois into the mix. After all, both schools have Chicago as more or less the center of gravity of their fanbase.

So, with all of that to choose from, we instead get annual matchups with Minnesota and Wisconsin? Thanks, but no thanks.

Part of the problem with the Big Ten is that it ain't exactly the most egalitarian place around. There's Michigan and Ohio State, and then there's everyone else. And everyone else is expected to know their place.

Problem is, ND ain't Minnesota, ain't Northwestern, ain't Illinois, hell, ND ain't even Iowa. So what have Michigan and Ohio State done that gives them the right to treat ND as if they are? Why should ND assume the position?

[Van]

If you're talking about blowing up the whole system and starting from scratch, that's one thing. But in the real world, that won't happen.

Any other completely superfluous "Sincerely, MA," comments you wish to add?

Didn't I already say that I'm talking about "should be," not "is"?

Yes, Terry, I know this won't happen. We can't even get a reasonable process put in place to crown a national champion. I'm well away that we aren't going to see the blowing up of the entire structure of BTPCF.

You don't know much about the history between these two, do you?

ND very much wanted to be part of the Big Ten in the early 20th century. The Big Ten (actually, its predecessor) rejected them twice, once in 1909 and again in 1924. What's more, on both occasions they rejected ND because ND was a Catholic school, which at the time was pretty much ND's entire raison d'etre.

:rolleyes handjob:

Jesus, Terry, come off it. Who gives a fuck about 1909 and 1924?? Stop using lame arguments like this. It really makes you look desperate to avoid reality.

1999 is relevant, and that's when ND pulled an ND. You can bet your ass the Big 10 didn't reject ND in 1999 at all, much less because they're Catholic.

Don't be so black-and-white. A deal is made when it's in the best interests of both sides to make a deal. When it's not, it usually works out for the best, for both sides, if one or the other, or both, walk away from it.

It's how "best interests" are defined, that defines ND. They don't go for anything that doesn't afford them special "sweetheart deal" privileges.

College football has become an increasingly regionalized game over the past twenty years or so, and that's directly attributable, at least in part, to the decline of the independents. ND has been one of the few schools, even arguably the only one, to buck that trend.

So what? The point was your lame point about the need to retain the Catholic connection. ND doesn't need to be independent to retain their Catholic reputation around the country.

ND has a national fan base, a national alumni/student base, and recruits its football team on a national basis.

Catholics are also found all over the nation. Nobody gives a rat's ass about their football conference independence, not in terms of their Catholic pull. One has nothing to do with the other. If ND joins a conference, any conference, it won't affect their Catholic pull.

Joining the Big Ten, by contrast, would pigeonhole us as a midwestern team. Even if there were no other arguments against joining the Big Ten, that alone would be enough.

:rolleye handjob, again:

That's just stupid. ND is already pigeonholed as a midwestern team, because they are a midwestern team. Everybody knows it, including their nationally scattered alumni, every recruit they ever attempt to sign and every executive at NBC. Joining a conference won't change their "national" status. It'll simply give them a little more national credibility.

Not that any of that matters, in the least.

That you would even lump BC in with ND in that regard shows how important it is for ND not to do anything which jeopardizes, even in the least, their position in that regard. Yes, BC is another Catholic school that plays FBS level football, but that's as far as it goes. From an historical standpoint, they shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as ND.

:rolleyes handjob, yet again:

Crap like this just doesn't matter. BC and ND are the two most noteworthy Catholic school football programs. ND is more noteworthy than BC. So what? It doesn't matter. We're talking football, not Catholicism, which is pure nonsense anyway, especially as it's being applied to this discussion.

The Big Ten has made it clear that ND can't have its own TV deal as a member of the Big Ten. Best case scenario, they might allow us to complete our obligations under an existing deal, so that we're not facing a breach of contract lawsuit from NBC.

That's all you should expect, or require. You don't need your own network deal. You're probably not getting another network deal anyway, not at the rate you're going. NBC isn't going to re-up with a completely irrelevant team, which, at the rate you're going, is what you're fast becoming.

Under the alignment favored by both Michigan and Ohio State (which, btw, goes against the way you think it should be, as I pointed out in another thread), ND gets an annual matchup with both Minnesota and Wisconsin. Wisconsin hasn't played ND in my lifetime. Minnesota hasn't played ND in my mother's lifetime. And there's little or no evidence to suggest that ND's fanbase would embrace either of these schools as a natural rival.

By contrast, let's look at some of the schools in the other division, shall we?

Purdue: Continuous series since 1946.
Penn State: Only northeastern school in the Big Ten, so they'd take on significant importance for ND if ND were to join the Big Ten. Not to mention that a ND-Penn State rivalry would provide a significant counterweight to Michigan-Ohio State in the Big Ten (although that's certainly reason enough for both Michigan and Ohio State not to support the development of such a rivalry).
Ohio State: A traditional power located in a geographically contiguous state. The fact that these two teams have met only five times all-time, and only twice prior to 1995, only adds to the intrigue.
Indiana: An in-state rival, once a frequent opponent.

Hell, you could even throw Illinois into the mix. After all, both schools have Chicago as more or less the center of gravity of their fanbase.

So, with all of that to choose from, we instead get annual matchups with Minnesota and Wisconsin? Thanks, but no thanks.

Part of the problem with the Big Ten is that it ain't exactly the most egalitarian place around. There's Michigan and Ohio State, and then there's everyone else. And everyone else is expected to know their place.

Problem is, ND ain't Minnesota, ain't Northwestern, ain't Illinois, hell, ND ain't even Iowa. So what have Michigan and Ohio State done that gives them the right to treat ND as if they are? Why should ND assume the position?

Yeah, all your scheduling arguments hold water. Really, they do. They're very compelling, in the face of all these scintillating, tradition laden match ups you've been scheduling as an independent.

San Diego St is way more pleasing than Illinois, to the Traditionalists. Your mom was a huge fan of that lore laden ND-SDSU rivalry. It was almost as special to her as the epic ND-N. Carolina rivalry. Wisconsin? They don't hold a candle to the next group of far-flung cupcakes you schedule...all to appease the ND Traditionalists, of course.

Just admit it. You need to be treated as if you're special, even though you no longer are. You're just a good Catholic school, who plays football. That's it. At this point you're not even the best football program among the Catholic schools. Even BC is lapping you.

If all this floats your boat, hey, keep being special.