Notre Dame to ACC

[Left Seater]

Link?

And if true the Big East holds their breath again.

[MuchoBulls]

Link?

And if true the Big East holds their breath again.

Further proof at how ESPN is doing everything in their power to kill the Big East.

I wouldn't be surpirsed if a rumor I heard a few weeks ago comes to fruition. The rumor was ND going to the ACC for all sports other than football, the ACC then taking UConn and Rutgers, and then the Big 12 taking Louisville and USF/Cincinnati. Pretty sure the Big 12 would take Cincinnati over us.

[Left Seater]

How exactly is ESPN trying to kill the Big East?

I think you outline above about further moves is spot on. UConn will be the next team to move to the ACC and at that point the Big East will be dead for the most part.

I wouldn't be so sure though about Cincy over USF though. USF doesn't have the tradition of Cincy, but their upside is higher. Further I am sure Stoops and Brown would love to make more inroads to recruiting Florida. Plus kids are more excited about playing in Florida that Cincy for sure.

[Van]

If they're not moving into the ACC for football, then who cares? So, what, their mid-pack hoops team switches from the Big East to the ACC? That's the story here?

[SunCoastSooner]

Link?

And if true the Big East holds their breath again.

Further proof at how ESPN is doing everything in their power to kill the Big East.

I wouldn't be surpirsed if a rumor I heard a few weeks ago comes to fruition. The rumor was ND going to the ACC for all sports other than football, the ACC then taking UConn and Rutgers, and then the Big 12 taking Louisville and USF/Cincinnati. Pretty sure the Big 12 would take Cincinnati over us.

I think DeLoss would push Cincinnati as well. Which I just don't get. USF has one of the largest enrollments in the country and will bring in the Florida market. USF has infinitely more upside than Cincy.

[Screw_Michigan]

Obviously - NBC has a lot of say in the football. A minimum of 5 games per year says that they are in with football as well, despite what they say.

No, it doesn't. Please explain yourself without the use of foodstuffs, Tubby.

[Screw_Michigan]

ill bring in the Florida market

:?

What, exactly, is the "Florida market?"

[SunCoastSooner]

ill bring in the Florida market

:?

What, exactly, is the "Florida market?"

44,000 students and the Tampa/St. Petersburg market isn't something to scoff at.

[MuchoBulls]

How exactly is ESPN trying to kill the Big East?

I think you outline above about further moves is spot on. UConn will be the next team to move to the ACC and at that point the Big East will be dead for the most part.

I wouldn't be so sure though about Cincy over USF though. USF doesn't have the tradition of Cincy, but their upside is higher. Further I am sure Stoops and Brown would love to make more inroads to recruiting Florida. Plus kids are more excited about playing in Florida that Cincy for sure.

Marinatto and Pittsburgh's president said no to the ESPN contract extension last season. A short time after that Pittsburgh and Syracuse are gone, TCU gets out, WVU bolts, and now ND gets out. Boston College's AD was on records saying that ESPN precipitated these moves and why BC told EPSN that there would be no way he would vote UConn into the ACC.

That's how ESPN killed the Big East.

[Left Seater]

I don't put much stock into that story. TCU was only going to the Big East for AQ status. When the Big XII came calling that was a much better fit and offered the same thing.

I also don't see ESPN being able to dictate terms to ND to change their olympic sports conf.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I was in court all day yesterday. A few thoughts in no particular order:

1. I have mixed emotions about the move. Why that is should become apparent later.

2. For basketball, this was a good move. I have been of the opinion that, in recent years, the Big East was the best basketball conference in the country. But that was about to change, with West Virginia having left the conference and Pitt and Syracuse moving to the ACC as of next year.

3. It's a great move for olympic sports. The ACC is probably the best conference in the country for olympic sports, and certainly is the best fit for ND's olympic sports, everything else held equal. In particular, the ACC's lacrosse conference just got enough members to get NCAA recognition, and it is undoubtedly the strongest college conference in the nation in any sport. From an historical perspective, ND is probably the weak sister of that conference, and ND is still a Top 10 program (although much closer to the bottom of the Top 10 than the top) all-time.

4. For football, not so much. A five-game per season commitment to the ACC is just too much. At that point, we just about might as well become a full-fledged conference member. Educated guess is that the five-game commitment is based on the unwritten rule that we play three games per year against Big East teams, as 3/8 = 5/14, approximately. That being said, that's a flimsy basis for that arrangement. In reality, we haven't played three games against the Big East in a season since 2003. Two games per season against the Big East is closer to the truth since then, and that's with Pitt as a more-or-less annual. In the ACC, with no annual opponent (see below), four games per season would have been more than sufficient, and three might even have been enough. Throw in the possibility of a matchup against the ACC champ in the Orange Bowl, and we're up to six games per year against the ACC, with (at random, anyway) roughly a 36% chance of the Orange Bowl being a regular-season rematch if we're the opponent.

5. Word is that every ACC member will play ND at least once every three years. The only way to accomplish that is to divide the ACC into four groups of three members and one group of two members. So neither BC nor Pitt will be an annual for ND going forward. I'm surprised BC, in particular, agreed to this arrangement. I would be shocked if the two-member pairing was anything other than either Florida State/Miami (traditional powers among ACC members, would guarantee ND a game in Florida every other season) or BC/Pitt (traditional rivals).

6. My biggest fear is something that both Lefty and Mucho alluded to, but didn't quite finish. I think the ACC's next move will be to offer UConn, followed shortly thereafter by an ultimatum to us: we're either all the way in or all the way out. Particularly with the exit fee now reportedly climbing to $50 million, I would hope there's at least some out for us in the form of waiver of the exit fee (and a whole lot more than that, for that matter). I'd feel much more comfortable about this move if either Georgetown or St. John's were coming with us.

7. On the subject of UConn, I don't agree entirely with Lefty that a defection by UConn will kill the Big East. I don't think UConn has that much leverage, and I think the remaining Big East football schools will stick together if for no other reason than none of them has a better option available. That being said, I think defections by Louisville and UConn would kill the Big East as a basketball conference, at least as we know it. With UConn, Louisville and ND all gone, I don't see any reason for the basketball schools to stay together with the football schools, so the basketball schools would probably break off and form a new conference along with a few of the higher-profile members from the Atlantic 10 (Xavier and Dayton would be definites, they might also include schools such as Saint Louis, St. Joe's, and maybe Butler and/or VCU if they're willing to not be an all-Catholic conference).

8. As for the rest of our football schedule, I've heard we'll retain Navy, USC and Stanford. I suspect we'll keep Michigan and rotate Purdue and Sparty with one another. That leaves two games per year TBD -- not really a great situation for a fan base (the internet version thereof, anyway) clamoring for a more diverse schedule.

9. I've also heard that the goal is to move to the ACC by next season. If football is part of the deal immediately, I don't think that'll be possible. Our football schedule for next year is set, and the only ACC member on next year's schedule is Pitt. We'd have to buy out four opponents for next year, as well as one OOC opponent for each of four other ACC members, not to mention paying who knows how many other schools to move games so that everything fits into the schedule. That seems to me a rather expensive proposition, particularly when a hike in the Big East exit fee is factored in, relative to the benefits received.

10. As far as future ACC opponents on ND's schedule look like, so far we have . . .

2014: vs. Syracuse at Meadowlands, PITT, 2 games TBD (would have to buy out one opponent)
2015: WAKE FOREST, @ Pitt, SYRACUSE, @ BC (would have to buy out one opponent)
2016: MIAMI, PITT, BC, 2 games TBD
2017: SYRACUSE, @ Miami, 3 games TBD
2018: BC, 6 games TBD (4 vs. ACC)
2019: @ BC, 6 games TBD (4 vs. ACC)
2020: None scheduled, 7 games TBD (5 vs. ACC)

So unless future ACC opponents are willing to give up some slots to other conference members, we'll need quite a bit of time before we can implement the three-year rule.

11. Many ND fans seem to think that there's a common culture between ND and the ACC, pointing to the large number of private schools in the ACC, and also arguing that schools like UVa and UNC are "run more like private schools" (whatever the hell that means -- last I checked, though, both schools gave both admissions priority and tuition breaks to in-state residents, which is pretty much how public universities in this country are run). I'm not so optimistic about that, though. For most of its history, the ACC has been a southern conference, and although the recent expansions have been in the north (more on that later), I think it remains a southern conference at heart. When (not if) a rift arises between the southern old guard members and the northern "young Turks," I expect ND to receive the lion's share of the blame, if for no other reason than ND makes a much more convenient scapegoat than does BC, Pitt or Syracuse.

12. I have to admit, I was rooting for the ACC to go down in flames. I see the ACC as responsible for much of the recent conference musical chairs. One could make an argument that the expansion last decade was necessary to shore up the conference, since Florida State was threatening to bolt for the SEC unless the ACC added a CCG. The most recent grab, however, was strictly for the purpose of weakening a competitor. And now we've more or less ratified that move by joining them. I know Swarbrick has to do what's best for ND, and I wouldn't expect anything else, but it still sickens me a little.

13. It may be anathema to point this out in my neck of the woods, but . . .

This turn of events shows Jim Boeheim for the putz he is. When Syracuse left for the ACC, on his way out the door he blamed Syracuse's departure on ND's football independence. Less than a year later, however, his school votes in favor of extending membership to ND in its new conference under substantially similar terms to ND's membership in the Big East. Ponderous . . .

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'm not reading all that.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Another point: the ND homer boards are alive this morning with conspiracy theories that this is the first step to joining a conference. That may be true, but I don't think it's for the reasons they state.

They seem to think that this was a secret idea by the ND administration to have ND dip its toe into a conference. I don't think so.

Over the past 15-20 years, regardless of changes in personnel, ND's administration has shown an uncanny ability to fuck up a single-car parade. And Swarbrick has been adamant, albeit politically correct, about maintaining ND's independence. I think it's just plain ineptness here. I think Swarbrick and Jenkins were so eager to get ND basketball and olympic sports into the ACC, and so ecstatic when the ACC eased up on its full membership requirement, that they didn't even notice that the ACC had eaten their lunch on the football portion of the deal. In short, Swarbrick and Jenkins got outfoxed, badly, by a bunch of good ol' boys. And I fear that the worst of it is yet to come (see point #6 in my post above).

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Or that.

[MuchoBulls]

I also don't see ESPN being able to dictate terms to ND to change their olympic sports conf.

I agree in regards to ND, but I doubt this is over. I still see them trying to persuade the ACC to take another Big East program.

I still believe the Big 12 will add 2 Big East teams before the Big East signs a new TV deal.

Funny how all this comes down during the exclusive window ESPN has to negotiate with the BIg East on a TV contract.

[Goober McTuber]

I think we need a separate forum for discussing all things Notre Dame.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Terry could just send PMs to himself.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I also don't see ESPN being able to dictate terms to ND to change their olympic sports conf.

I agree in regards to ND, but I doubt this is over. I still see them trying to persuade the ACC to take another Big East program.

I'm not 100% convinced that ESPN is so actively involved in all of this, but if that's true, that would be a way to kill ND's deal with NBC and get them into the ACC package. As I said before, the ACC could add UConn then drop an ultimatum on ND. I hope that never happens, but I fear it will.

I still believe the Big 12 will add 2 Big East teams before the Big East signs a new TV deal.

I know SunCoast was saying a little while back that Louisville to the Big XII is all but dead. Of course, that was back when it looked like the Big XII might raid the ACC for Florida State and others. With the ACC having strengthened its hand, and the Big East's hand further weakened, perhaps this is back on the table.

[MuchoBulls]

I think it's most certainly back on the table.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Only if the Big XII really really wants a CCG and/or the networks make it worth their while. Louisville strikes me as not a particularly good fit for the Big XII (primarily commuter school, relatively low home attendance for football games). BYU and/or Boise State might be better options for the Big XII should it choose to expand, although both have problems of their own that complicate things.

[Left Seater]

Good read Terry.

I also agree that UConn will be offered and will move to the ACC soon. I don't see how ND can fulfill the football end of things for at least a few years. As you pointed out they would have to buy out too many schools, but stranger things have happened. Also, the ACC exit fee of $50 million is a done deal. My understanding of the language is that ND would have to pay the full amount to leave the conf.

I think one of the reasons ND agrees to this on the football side is that it gives ND much better bowl options if their aren't in the playoffs. ND will also be included in ACC bowls the next two seasons.

In Houston this morning the UH AD was interviewed and he stated that the Big East may no longer be the best home for UH athletics. The host asked him about the possibility of a new conference with UH, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, UT San Antonio, Texas State and LA Tech. The AD was noncommittal but said UH would be looking at all options. He also alluded to the fact that if a UConn were to go that would force their hand.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Good read Terry.

I also agree that UConn will be offered and will move to the ACC soon.

I think it'll happen eventually, although perhaps not right away. I think it'll probably be another two years or so.

I don't see how ND can fulfill the football end of things for at least a few years. As you pointed out they would have to buy out too many schools, but stranger things have happened.

I think it's feasible as early as 2014, although not next season.

Also, the ACC exit fee of $50 million is a done deal. My understanding of the language is that ND would have to pay the full amount to leave the conf.

My concern, as I mentioned earlier, is that the ACC will offer UConn and then present ND with an ultimatum. I would hope that if that were to happen, that would void the exit fee or at least a substantial portion of it. We'd be in a bad enough position were that to happen. I sincerely hope Swarbrick did his due diligence and that we never find ourselves in that position. Swafford has said that the ACC has no intentions of pursuing UConn, but I'm still taking that with a grain of salt.

I think one of the reasons ND agrees to this on the football side is that it gives ND much better bowl options if their aren't in the playoffs. ND will also be included in ACC bowls the next two seasons.

Maybe, but ND already was, and remains, in the pool of potential opponents for the Orange Bowl. And while I don't think a final decision has been made, I think the threshold ND will have to meet to be considered for that game will be lesser than their current threshold for selection to the BCS. My best guess is that it would take a 8-4 record and perhaps a Top 20 ranking.

ND also will bolster the ACC bowl game package, given that many ACC teams don't travel particularly well to bowl games. There's a famous aerial shot on the interwebs of a half-empty stadium for the ACC CCG between Va Tech and BC. ND travels well and also draws good TV ratings. But I'm not sure if ND will ever factor into the bowl game package without going 7-5 or 6-6, unless there's a limit placed on the number of times ND can appear in the Orange Bowl. I suspect that's eventually what we'll see -- ND eligible for the Orange Bowl at 8-4 but limited to no more than 1-2 Orange Bowl appearances in a four-year span.

In Houston this morning the UH AD was interviewed and he stated that the Big East may no longer be the best home for UH athletics. The host asked him about the possibility of a new conference with UH, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, UT San Antonio, Texas State and LA Tech. The AD was noncommittal but said UH would be looking at all options. He also alluded to the fact that if a UConn were to go that would force their hand.

That would be better for travel, no doubt. But it's a much worse conference, athletically speaking, than the current Big East. There's also the issue of TV revenue, as well as revenue to be generated by the playoff. I suspect everyone will eventually get some share of that revenue, although the shares will not be divided equally.

And after chewing over ND's move to the ACC some more, I think the most objectionable aspect is not the five-game commitment to the ACC, but the fact that ND has no say-so over who they'll be playing from the ACC. According to Swarbrick, ND will be handing over a list of dates that it has available, and the ACC will then determine who and where we'll be playing. As someone at ND Nation pointed out, it's one thing for the coach to say, "Give me the schedule," but quite another for the athletic director to do that. If the long-term goal is to force us into a conference, it certainly would be possible for the ACC to frontload our schedule with less desirable opponents. Also, we'll be playing all ACC schools on a more-or-less equal basis, despite the fact that not all ACC schools are equally desirable as opponents. This is only my opinion, and I obviously don't have any control over this, but if it were up to me, this is how a five-game schedule against the ACC would work:

-One game every year against Pitt. Pitt ranks in the top five all-time among ND opponents. Only Navy, Purdue, USC and Sparty have played ND more often.

-One game every year against Florida State or Miami. They're the two marquee programs in the conference, and this arrangement also would guarantee us a road trip to Florida every other year.

-One game every year against one of the remaining northern schools -- BC/Maryland/Syracuse.

-One game every year against one of the Tobacco Road schools -- Duke/UNC/NCSU/Wake.

-One game every year against one of the remaining schools -- Clemson/Ga Tech/UVa/Va Tech.

This would give us two games a year against northern schools, one game a year against the Florida schools, and two games a year against the remaining southern schools. I'd stagger the schedule so that it was relatively balanced from year-to-year, i.e., I would make sure we didn't play UVa (the weakest team in their grouping) in the same year as either Duke or Wake.

Imho, that gives us a more desirable schedule, while at the same time, it doesn't drastically penalize any of the ACC members. The schools in the most unfavorable categories still play ND once every four years on average, as opposed to once every three years on average under the current arrangement.

[Roger_the_Shrubber]

Terry,

When you use the words "we",and "us" it makes you look like a fool.

"We" think you never played for ND. Most of "us" know when you say that crap, it makes you look like an idiot.

Notre Dame can go to hell.

[M Club]

When you use the words "we",and "us" it makes you look like a fool.

Bwah, like clockwork. Never fail to look stupid when calling someone else stupid.

"We" are all praying that "you" drive "your" wheelchair off a cliff.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Terry,

When you use the words "we",and "us" it makes you look like a fool.

"We" think you never played for ND. Most of "us" know when you say that crap, it makes you look like an idiot.

Notre Dame can go to hell.

I thought the generally-accepted rule of thumb around here was that it was permitted for alums of the school in question to use "we" and "us." Isn't that supported, more or less, by your sig?

[WolverineSteve]

I think it's a totally pussified move for a conference to allow partial entry. I mean we all tried a little game called "just the tip" with our first girlfriends and how did that end up? Either all or nothing, that's how! Next thing you know either she's crying or your blue balled....it's a no-win deal.

[King Crimson]

I think it's a totally pussified move for a conference to allow partial entry. I mean we all tried a little game called "just the tip" with our first girlfriends and how did that end up? Either all or nothing, that's how! Next thing you know either she's crying or your blue balled....it's a no-win deal.

sure, but the ACC fotball-wise is in a world of hurt...it's a blueblood basketball conference that's tried mightily to be relevant in football which, for better or worse, is driving this realignment train with ad revenue. hoops is nothing, look at the proposed breakup of the Big XII and Pac flirtation. Kansas is one of the top hoops programs in the nation, a member school in AAU....would the Big Ten (alleged criterion)...EVER have taken KU over Nebraska (which lost it's AAU status)? the Pac didn't want Kansas either....they were willing to take Texas Tech and Ok State to get OU and Texas...despite a lot of loud clamoring about "Academics" as well...when they could have but didn't offer AAU Kansas and pair them up with UCLA for a mammoth all-timer hoops tradition.

but hoops doesn't pay any bills anymore. they'll take ND's tip, even though i agree it's weak. contact high, maybe, they think will turn into revenue.

[Screw_Michigan]

I thought the generally-accepted rule of thumb around here was that it was permitted for alums of the school in question to use "we" and "us." Isn't that supported, more or less, by your sig?

MSU grads aren't allowed to refer to ND as "we."

[Dinsdale]

I thought the generally-accepted rule of thumb around here was that it was permitted for alums of the school in question to use "we" and "us." Isn't that supported, more or less, by your sig?

I believe the Schmickjam rule of thumb is to use "we" and "us" in reference to even the team you are rooting for in any given game, even if you don't care who wins.

Personally, I believe "we" and "us" apply to anyone who helps pay the bills for their rooting interest.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I thought the generally-accepted rule of thumb around here was that it was permitted for alums of the school in question to use "we" and "us." Isn't that supported, more or less, by your sig?

MSU grads aren't allowed to refer to ND as "we."

I'm not a Michigan State grad.

But in any event, I can't for the life of me figure out why you have such a problem with people who didn't attend ND rooting for ND, and you don't seem to have that problem for other schools. You certainly don't have it for Sparty. Come to think of it, I wish Sparty had accepted you back in the day, you might not be as bitter as you are now.

[Van]

He's referring to Killian, and it's still a stupid rule. Screwball never played for the Nats yet I'm sure he has no problem with referring to them as "we" whenever he doesn't feel like qualifying it.

[PSUFAN]

I thought the generally-accepted rule of thumb around here was that it was permitted for alums of the school in question to use "we" and "us." Isn't that supported, more or less, by your sig?

I believe the Schmickjam rule of thumb is to use "we" and "us" in reference to even the team you are rooting for in any given game, even if you don't care who wins.

Personally, I believe "we" and "us" apply to anyone who helps pay the bills for their rooting interest.

I agree. I think fans that back programs year after year have every reason to use "we". The programs definitely benefit from this emotional attachment in many ways. Emotional attachments are what make sports (especially college sports) compelling.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I think it's a totally pussified move for a conference to allow partial entry. I mean we all tried a little game called "just the tip" with our first girlfriends and how did that end up? Either all or nothing, that's how! Next thing you know either she's crying or your blue balled....it's a no-win deal.

sure, but the ACC fotball-wise is in a world of hurt...it's a blueblood basketball conference that's tried mightily to be relevant in football which, for better or worse, is driving this realignment train with ad revenue. hoops is nothing, look at the proposed breakup of the Big XII and Pac flirtation. Kansas is one of the top hoops programs in the nation, a member school in AAU....would the Big Ten (alleged criterion)...EVER have taken KU over Nebraska (which lost it's AAU status)? the Pac didn't want Kansas either....they were willing to take Texas Tech and Ok State to get OU and Texas...despite a lot of loud clamoring about "Academics" as well...when they could have but didn't offer AAU Kansas and pair them up with UCLA for a mammoth all-timer hoops tradition.

but hoops doesn't pay any bills anymore.

You've got a point, but it goes beyond that even.

Both the ACC and the Big XII have sought to limit their vulnerability to poaching by other conferences, albeit through different means. In the Big XII, it's by way of a "poison pill" provision in the TV negotiations that gives the Big XII rights to all Tier I and Tier II matchups for a school for five years after they leave the conference (thereby making those schools considerably less desirable to the new conference). In the ACC, they've sought to raise the exit fee to unaffordable levels.

Recall that when the ACC added Pitt and Syracuse last year, they raised the fee from $10 million to $20 million. Then over the summer, Florida State, Clemson and others flirted with the Big XII. I think the ACC decided that the exit fee needed to be higher, and the only prospective member who could raise the needle enough to justify the increase to $50 million was ND. Before that, the ACC's position on ND had been all or nothing. I think that's the reason they budged.

As to Steve's point, however, if the move toward superconferences continues, you'll see more schools, not less, that don't have all their sports in the same conference, although granted, in most cases we'll be talking about olympic sports. As it is, West Virginia men's soccer is now playing in the MAC (which is a better conference for men's soccer than football, although still a step down from the Big East), and Missouri had to move their wrestling program to a new conference, since the Meatgrinder doesn't sponsor wrestling.

[Terry in Crapchester]

He's referring to Killian,

Yes, I know, although he mentioned it after I, not Killian, got called out for it.

and it's still a stupid rule. Screwball never played for the Nats yet I'm sure he has no problem with referring to them as "we" whenever he doesn't feel like qualifying it.

Certainly for students/alums, the justification for "we" and "us" as applies to the school we attended greatly outweighs the same thing on the professional level.

As I've pointed out on more than one occasion, the largest colleges and universities in the country have about 50-60,000 students at any given time. By contrast, the smallest metropolitan areas that support professional sports at the highest level have populations ten times that amount. So there's a much more intimate connection to the athletic program of the school you attended than there can possibly be to a professional sports team (excluding low-level minor-league baseball/hockey or the like) that happens to play in the city where you live.

[Van]

Green Bay's population is five million? Sacramento has six million people?

It's all bullshit. Most any serious fan thinks of his team as 'we.' It doesn't matter whether it's a pro or college team. It's his team.

[Terry in Crapchester]

I said 10 times, not 100 times.

10 times 50-60,000 = 500-600,000.

[Screw_Michigan]

Screwball never played for the Nats

Never realized the Washington Nationals issued undergraduate degrees.

[Van]

I said 10 times, not 100 times.

10 times 50-60,000 = 500-600,000.

[Van]

Screwball never played for the Nats

Never realized the Washington Nationals issued undergraduate degrees.

When it comes to rooting for sports teams, what does that have to do with anything? Some fourteen-year-old kid from Austin can't consider the Texas Longhorns his team and refer to them as 'we' with his buddies simply because he never received a degree from the University of Texas? His father who has followed them since he was a child and who bleeds Burnt Orange can't either?

Nonsense. If you've supported something all your life, whether it's a sports team, a political party or a set of religious beliefs, you're perfectly within any non self-important douchebag—this is where you need to take a good look in the mirror—rights to refer to that entity as 'we.'

[M Club]

I agree. I think fans that back programs year after year have every reason to use "we". The programs definitely benefit from this emotional attachment in many ways. Emotional attachments are what make sports (especially college sports) compelling.

not to mention most of us watch our teams with friends who are also fans. "we" is the obvious pronoun in a collective setting.

the only people who have a serious problem with "we" are insecure douchebags who predate hipsters in their obsession with pointless exclusivity or think they've honed in on some niggling linguistic point about who actually constitutes "we." the only use of "we" that raises my eyebrows is the hitherto could-give-a-fuck fan who suddenly starts asking about "our" next game only after the team's in line for a championship or something.