Is there anything more arrogant that ND Football? I mean arrogant AND entitled?!
They are going to review their scheduling after "falling out of this season's race with two November losses."
Here's an idea ND. WIN those games. If anOSU was knocked out because of a 31 point loss to Iowa, what makes the golden domers believe they had a legit shot after going to Miami and losing 41-8.
They have always controlled their own scheduling, and aren't bound by conference norms. So they get fit in where they can. Want to have a little more normalcy to it? Um, join the ACC. I mean Wake in November sounds pretty good the week before USC doesn't it?
Kelly goes on to say he knows the fans are upset because ND didn't make the playoffs. Again, win your games and the problem is solved. Seems like some deflecting is going on instead of looking at the real problem.
Comments
I absolutely hate the bowl deal we have with them that apparently followed the ACC from Big East.
The whole ND/ACC deal stinks for the ACC. The entire deal is predicated on the fact that the ACC is going to get some huge payday because of our "association" with ND when the ACC network goes online. This is fiction, as only ND road ACC games apply- and not every one of those is going to be against Clemson, FSU, and VT. So does anyone really believe ESPN is going to shell out a huge amount of money to the ACC for ND at Wake/Cuse/UNC/Duke/GT? nope. So in exchange for that fairy tale, ND gets the best basketball conference in the country for their teams and still keeps all of their football money. Terrible deal for the ACC.
The ACC Network is for more than just football. ND is good at other sports, too.
True, but ESPN does not pay a premium for nor care about Women's tennis. And If swofford can not negotiate a great basketball TV package- even without ND hoops, he needs to be replaced immediately. Football drives the bus in terms of TV revenue- in a big way.
The ACC gets 5 games a year with Notre Dame, so it's not like they didn't get anything out of it. What opponent in any given season for any ACC team is more apt to sell out or sell tickets than Notre Dame? Before this deal, VT had NEVER played Notre Dame in football. Now they've played them once, will play them again this year, and have them scheduled for future seasons. It's a premium game, even in a down year for them.
Notre Dame gets sweetheart deals because they're Notre Dame. It's not like that's the only thing unfair about college football. I mean, the SEC has two teams in the college football final game.
Yes, the ACC got "something", but it's still very lopsided. Virginia Tech could have scheduled an equity opponent if ND did not have a deal with the ACC. ND has not been consistently great for 30 years. They have fired coaches, gone 3-9 recently, etc etc.
yes, ND has not been great lately. But beating a down team gets you a lot more good press than beating an up and coming team like, say, UCF. You beat UCF and the story is about how they weren't really good, they just had an easy conference schedule. You beat a crap ND team and people are talking about how you came back from 17 down against a storied program. And I can guaruntee a lot more people are watching at home or paying to get tickets to a game against ND, no matter how down they are, than would watch against UCF.
It might not have been the best deal, but I think we still came out on top.
Absolutely the ND name has cache- probably as much as ever, you are right. And having went up there last year for our game against them, the atmosphere and town of south bend on game weekend blows away anything I have seen in the ACC- Clemson included. So of course I would prefer them over UCF, Boise, FAU, etc. But as Whit has shown, he is perfectly capable of scheduling a Penn State, Michigan, OSU, etc. THOSE schools are equity opponents compared to ND. If our TV deal is on par with the B1G or even Big 12, then yes, perhaps we came out on top- but I honestly doubt it will approach those levels.
or schools like Wisconsin who technically have scheduled with us, but keep pushing off when those games happen? No thanks, I'd rather lock in ND by contract than some wishy washy agreement with an "equity opponent" who can back out whenever is convenient for them.
No, but ND at Wake/Cuse/UNC/Duke/GT is a lot better than ODU or Mercer at Wake/Cuse/UNC/Duke/GT. The Notre Dame deal forced some of these ACC teams to actually play an out of conference team with a pulse.
The ACC is getting the long end of the stick with the ND deal. Period.
I hear this a lot, but I never really hear an argument for it other than talking about the old Big East deal or general "fuck ND" sentiment. When actually discussing the structure of the ACC's bowl agreement with ND, I find it hard to find anything to be all that upset about.
The ACC Football twitter kept promoting ND's bowl game yesterday as well. They didn't stop after several comments about ND not being in the ACC for football. The account just added a line about ND being part of ACC's "selection process."
https://twitter.com/ACCFootball/status/947975857812983808
They aren't in the conference, but they participate in revenue sharing. The ACC made money off ND's bowl game. Promoting that game makes business sense.
And the ACC ran its "bring your A game" ads during the Citrus Bowl too ... definitely acting the part of ND representing the ACC at least to a minimal extent. (Not like ND reciprocates that love, but still...)
Well of course they're deflecting, they're Notre Dame. It's what they do.
Who here thinks Notre Dame would have beaten either Georgia or Alabama? Or for that matter Georgia?
Bueller? BUELLER?
In terms of how they played yesterday, Oklahoma, UGA and Bama are on an entirely different level than ND. ND was benching QBs and looking lost for much of their game against LSU. ND is not an elite team.
UCF would have skull fucked ND
leg for 'skull fucked' and also for skull fucking nd.
One question that's not answered by the article -- what exactly is ND reviewing in regards to their schedule? Are they looking at changing some opponents, or are they just looking to adjust the order in which the games are played?
Look at USC this season. One of the downfalls to their season was playing 12 games in a row with no bye. If they had a bye somewhere during the season, maybe they win one of those games they lost. USC isn't in position to avoid that type of scheduling, but Notre Dame has more control over their schedule.
I read it as two fold... 1. perhaps spinkle in a G5 team more regularly to replace a Michigan State. and 2., yes try to figure out a way not to schedule Clemson, Stanford, FSU type teams back to back. Kelly was clearing taking a shot at the SEC weekend before the traditional rivalries where Bama plays Mercer, and Auburn plays citadel, etc.
Reading between the lines, they believed that if they went into mid-October with 2 losses, they could have moved up in the order and possibly made the playoffs if they won their last 6 or 7 games. That's what it sounds like to me with the line (paraphrasing) After 2 losses in November and dropping out of the playoff race.
Either way, they aint a playoff team!
Because of Notre Dame's continued desire for conference independence, they need to schedule like 2017 to prove they may be a playoff team. Join the ACC as a full member, and they may not have to schedule USC and Stanford every year.
Their 2018 schedule may actually be more challenging as a whole, with overall improvement in opponents. Having to go to Wake and Northwestern is slightly more difficult than BC and UNC were. That stretch of @Wake, Stanford, @VT, and Pitt may be interesting for them.
Northwestern will practically be a home game for them. Chicago is full of ND fans, and nobody in the city gives a shit about Northwestern football.
Northwestern probably will be ranked when they play next year.
Yeah, definitely not discounting the quality of opponent. Just making an observation that they will not be playing in a hostile road environment for that game.
I understand the Notre Dame hate especially when stuff like this comes up.
But if you actually think the ACC is better off without Notre Dame (or even just the "football association" as it currently stands) you are absolutely kidding yourself with blind ND hatred. The ACC needs them way more than they need the ACC whether you want to admit that to yourselves or not.
I don't get this logic. The ACC was a conference for 60 years before ND joined- and a very successful one at that. The ACC "needs" ND basketball?? I disagree. The ACC may lose the citrus bowl without ND's association- so what? That certainly wouldn't "kill" the league. The ACC is a clear power 5 conference without ND- they were for many years.
Maybe "need" was the wrong word. They obviously could exist without them, and quite well. But they benefit from the association a lot more than Notre Dame does, and would easily be worse off without it.
It would be nice if they joined the conference in football but the ACC is in no position to make that demand and Notre Dame has little to gain from it.
only in the short term. ND has the ACC by the nut sack in network deal.
How so? I don't know the details of the deal.
http://www.thekeyplay.com/comment/625023#comment-625023
I was late to replying to your, and others, comments in the previous discussion so I think my rant went largely unnoticed. That or no one cared, which is also plausible.
anyway, there you go. This is how ND has the ACC by the short and curlies.
I'm not seeing the connection in this whole "Notre Dame has the ACC by the balls" thing.
per your linked comment, your logic seems to go like this.
1. Notre Dame is a valuable brand.
2. ESPN's deal with the ACC recognizes #1 by paying more $ per game with Notre Dame inventory included
3. Notre Dame has the ACC by the balls because of #2
Last I checked, the deal they made with the ACC locks Notre Dame into ACC affiliation until 2037. That is very valuable thing to the ACC, certainly not a "ND has the ACC by the balls" situation. The ACC can now say, "Hey ESPN, our ACC TV Product is more valuable we have some guaranteed Notre Dame games now, so pay us more money", and on top of that ACC schools build brand prestige by playing a good opponent regularly. Everybody profits. ND gets some road game money, a path to bowl games, and ACC average $$ improves.
The fact that ESPN is willing to pay more for a conference deal that includes some Notre Dame inventory is not shocking. Everyone already knows Notre Dame is a much more valuable football TV Product / Brand than average ACC school. That's not sneaky, nor is it a surprise. It is in fact, why it makes sense that the ACC wants Notre Dame as a member so badly that they'll allow Notre Dame to have a partial membership in the first place.
per your linked comment, in 2025 the playoff is up for being revamped and Notre Dame's NBC contract expires. You give two scenarios for playoff eligibility in 2025: 1) status quo eligibility rules 2) conference champions only
If scenario #1 comes to play, they'll stay independent and renew with NBC or pick up another TV partner who offers more.. all based on their current brand value in 2025 and projected value going forward. Their deal with the ACC helps establish that value, sure... but ultimately this does nothing to diminish the value of ND's affiliation to the ACC. It's still a good thing for us to have some ND games in our inventory. (Not as good as ND fully joining the conference though)
If scenario #2 comes to play (unlikely but let's go with it for now) and only conference champs are eligible for the FBS playoff, then Notre Dame will want to join a conference for football, and they're contractually obligated to join the ACC through 2037. Per ACC rules, conference members share revenue equally. I'm not seeing any situation in which this is bad for the ACC, because more Notre Dame football games will be included in our TV package, increasing the average value of ACC football games = more $$ for every conference member. Perhaps even more money for Notre Dame too, depending on what the TV networks are willing to offer them to remain independent.
You seem to think that somehow Notre Dame will be exempt from the ACC's equal-sharing rules, stating "Now who here thinks Notre Dame will be nice again and leave the now tens of millions on the table for the rest of the ACC to share? Hell fucking NO." That implies some future deal making, some golden wool over Swoffords eyes taking place during future negotiations about Notre Dame joining fully for football that would give Notre Dame special status among full ACC members... not something that Notre Dame has already done to "have the ACC by the short & curlies" at the current time.
And again, ACC members share revenue equally. Notre Dame can't go anywhere else until 2037, so they won't have access to the football championship for over a decade if they don't accept the ACC's standards for membership.
TLDR;
Notre Dame does not have the ACC by the balls.
The ACC wants Notre Dame as a partial/full member because that increases the ACC's average prestige, competitiveness and revenue.
The ACC requires full members to share TV/bowl revenue equally.
A highly valued Notre Dame is a good thing for the ACC, not a negative - even as only a partial member.
I don't think it, they already are exempt. Their NBC contract exempts all those games from any deal with ACC.
Why would they give up the extra value at that point in a revenue share deal? because they are nice and want to share? Because they are worried about not being in a conference? No way. Business is Business. And if they aren't in the ACC they will find a home somewhere. Would a 50 million buyout be that difficult for ND to overcome? No again. They have that money in the cracks of their sofa right now.
You're assuming that ND will just go along with a revenue share deal they aren't contracted or obligated to. And by that time the value of the ACC network which is already inflated due to the greater value of ND being involved will need to retain them, or suffer losses. You don't run a network and lose your most valuable asset, so the ACC will be in the a weaker bargaining position than ND. That's the circumstances as they stand right now. Not even considering future value if ND becomes relevant again or somehow wins a championship.
why wouldn't they renegotiate those terms? Hell, the ACC renegotiated terms with ESPN when ND came into play.
No business of any significance operates the way you suggest. ND will not leave money on the table again.
In summary: By the balls my friend.
False. By 2025. Tech will have rattled off 7 straight national championships and will be the ACC network's most valuable asset. It's science.
Notre Dame is currently not a football member of the ACC, of course their football games are theirs to sell as they see fit. All their other sports (edit: except Hockey) are subject to the same revenue sharing conditions that apply to the rest of the ACC.
IF Notre Dame brings their football program into the ACC, they'd be subject to the same conditions as every other member. IF they join. That's the negotiation. A) Join or B) Do Not Join. Notre Dame is quite happy to pick B.. they value independence in football to the point where they'll take less money. To them they're not leaving money on the table. They're buying independence for their football team. They want a good conference for their other sports and there's no better option than the ACC.
It would take something like no at-large bids for the playoffs to make them re-think that strategy. Or a stratospheric revenue gap between ND and full conference members that puts them at a competitive disadvantage. They're already behind by $5+ million vs a full ACC member per season - before ACC Network revenues really kick in. In 2015 full ACC members got a $26.2 million payout for all sports, ND got $6.2 million, indicating that the football portion of the payout is approximately $20 million and that when you total it up, approximately 75% of revenues were from football. Notre Dame's NBC deal pays them $15 million a year for 7 home games, for a total of $21.6 million
You referenced this gap in your comment on the other thread, somehow rationalizing that Notre Dame is ditching $50+ million of football money over 10 years (2015-2025) to stay independent because that somehow in 2025 NBC is going to be inspired to offer them a quantum leap in revenue for football? How about they're willing to pay that to maintain independence in football.
As for their basketball / Olympic sports being the crutch holding up the ACC Network... please. Their presence is a value-add for the upcoming channel, but certainly isn't a make-or-break kind of thing. The football games on the ACC network are going to dwarf the value brought by basketball which will dwarf the value brought by Olympic Sports.
The upcoming $100-150 million per year generated by the ACC Network will be split similar to the existing revenue share payouts.... Football $$$ to Football members. Basketball/Olympic $ to everyone. To keep it simple, and really favorable to Notre Dame.. let's say the figure for the initial ACC Network revenues is $100 million per season (because one thing Swofford does suck at is negotiating with ESPN). The existing revenues in 2015 were about 75% football, 25% basketball/other. Figure football will have smaller slice of the ACC Network pie, lets again keep it simple and make it a 50-50 split. (likely it will favor football more like 60-40). So $50 million of football revenue will be divided up by 14 full members, for a net of +3.6 million each. $50 million of basketball/Olympic will be split up by all 15 schools, for a net of +3.3 million each. So there's still a gap in favor of full members. As ACC Network revenues rise, that gap will get larger and larger.
So if the ACC Network channel existed in 2015 we'd see approximately
$33.1 million for full members & $9.5 million for Notre Dame
And before you say that in 2025 NBC is going to offer Notre Dame more money for their basketball & Olympic sports than the ACC will, you should consider that an independent basketball team gets pennies compared to a half dozen premier and half dozen good programs that partner up and play a ton of compelling games against each other. Put it this way, a 15 team ACC generating $10 million per member in basketball & Olympic sports would mean a solo Notre Dame alone would get about $1 million, max. Their basketball & Olympic teams have to be in a conference to to multiply their value, and there is no better conference for them than the ACC. The BIG10 might seem like an option, but they've already rebuffed a partial-member Notre Dame and are raking in the cash without ND on board.
It was your comment that said I "seem to think that somehow Notre Dame will be exempt" so yes, as I said, of course their games are theirs to sell as they see fit. And while Notre Dame is a great athletics program football is paramount, all other sports combined do not measure up to their football program. Also while all other sports are subject to the same rev share conditions, the football games that are exempt, and my point, are not. That is clear.
This is the crux of our disagreement. You seem to believe that Notre Dame is somehow bound to share all their exempt games the same way as the existing conditions for non-exempt games. The fact is they are not bound. In any way. IF the join: You're argument is that they will automatically assimilate the same conditions for the exempt home games. My argument is that they will not agree to that because they are much more valuable than other ACC home games.
If the Playoff Commission changes policy to only include Conference Champions they MUST join (the ACC or another league). So it's not about buying independence in any way. They are clearly leveraging until the point where it's clear what the Playoff Commission decides. They leveraged:
a) the ACC's need of a heavy weight to secure the network it desperately needed to provide a home for it's other sports, save hockey and football, and
b) an ability to justify a valuation for it's home games when it either renegotiates it's current deal as an independent or a new deal with ACC (or other league) in the future.
No. It would take a decision by the Playoff Committee to decide only Conference Champions can be in playoffs. Which is precisely what they are waiting for.
where did I say this?
correct which is why they won't agree to the same terms of the revenue share for their exempt games. Because the value will dwarf that of other ACC home games.
If you as a business owner have a product that is more valuable than other similar products would you freely give that value up? That makes zero business sense.
This is how valuation works:
Opening Valution: The ACC network's value was significantly increased with the presence of ND, even without their home games.
Justifying the Valuation: From 2019 to 2025, 6 years, the valuation of the ACC network will be a proven model at whatever number it is in 2025. Since ND significantly increased the opening valuation it was already proved to be more valuable. Therefore at the time of 2025 the valuation of ND will not be the same as other teams it will be more. It already is, without the home games. IF ND were compelled to join, due to the decisions of the playoff committee, THEN the addition of their home games will exponentially increase ND's value in the ACC network. Not only for the ACC but, and this is the critical point, for Notre Dame.
Renegotiated Value: This is where Notre Dame will get the return it leveraged with lost revenue because, again, it's home games are exempt from the current contract and they are under no compulsion in any way to agree to shared revenue for these exempt games.
The agreement Swofford signed proved they were initially more valuable, will set the curve of the network valuation and, therefore, give ND a higher value than all other ACC teams to the network. And you think ND will simply hand that value over to the ACC for it's exempt games? Again, this is not how any business of significance is managed.
Now, as you often coined, "and before you say": then the ACC would never agree to that and compel them or force them out. By that time the ACC would never be able to do that. ND will be it's most valuable asset, as it is now, only much, much more so. The losses it would suffer due to it's most valuable asset leaving the network would be tremendous.
So at the time of 2025, IF they are compelled to join, ND will be in the driving seat to renegotiate its terms to include their exempt home games into the ACC network and they will not share.
Sorry, I simply do not agree that the ACC will have break their equal-share rule to get Notre Dame into the conference for football. There's two main reasons...
1) If Notre Dame is even considering joining the ACC for football it means that they have to join a P5 conference to access the Playoffs/Championship. Money isn't the issue for them and probably won't be in 2025. They wouldn't dick around trying to get an uneven share of revenue when their only path to a football title is through the ACC.
2) They would already be seeing a big boost in revenue just joining the ACC in football and being a equal-share full member. Even under the current ESPN/ABC/Raycom TV contracts with no adjustments Notre Dame would see their football TV revenue rise. Factor in an adjusted TV contract, adjusted ACC Network contract and Notre Dame would get quite a bit more than they do now, and the rest of the ACC would benefit as well.
Not sure why the ACC Network deal being more valuable with an occasional Notre Dame @ ACC game is such a big factor for you.. the same thing applied to our ESPN/ABC/Raycom football TV deal. Are you saying that Swofford should not have pursued more dollars for the ACC Network when he had a more valuable package to sell? That would be remarkably dumb even for him.
Notre Dame's football $$ value in 2025 will be determined by their ratings / viewership over the next few years, not by how much perceived value they added to the ACC Network contract in 2017.
(sorry if reading snarky. not trying to be but reread my posts and can see if its coming off that way)
again, you seem to think that businesses freely share money. We disagree here. The ACC is not entitled to their home games. So why would they simply agree to share those equitably when they are more valuable?
It's a factor because that's how valuations work.
No. the opposite. Swofford should have and did pursue more dollars, just as Notre Dame will when it comes time for them to renegotiate.
again, not how valuations work. Notre Dame has a value. The network has a separate but related value. A value that is inflated due to the addition of Notre Dame. in 2025 it is not a perceived value, it is a proven value. not sure why you don't understand that concept.
How about this:
You have a collection of 12 baseball cards. They form a set. All 11 have the same value but the 12th is deemed at its date of issuance, more valuable. Together that set of 11 is pretty valuable, but with that 12th card that same set is much more valuable.
Now over the next 6 years the value of your set of 11 has remained the same proportionally to the others. (eg. they were worth $100 and now each $1000) but that 12th card.... well, that 12th card was more valuable at the start and over time its valuation had a steeper curve (eg. $200 and now $2500). And while the other cards have proportionally increased in value this card has exponentially increased in value, because a) it was more valuable at the start and b) you have the set.
This results in a disproportionate rate of value amongst the set of 12. The set's value with the 12th card is not $12,000 nor is it $13,500 (proportional to the other 11), rather it has an exponential of the 12th card's value + the fact that the set of 12 are intact, so the resulting value for the complete set is (for example) $20,000.
Now lets say, Notre Dame is a business (which they are) and you are the CEO of that business. You have to manage your business for the benefit of your stakeholders over anything else, and in ND's case they have very powerful stakeholders. You are telling me that you as CEO of this company are willing to share the exponential difference in value that you bring as the 12th card equitably? Does this make any business sense to you?
Business is Business, and ND is extremely smart at this game. They will not share equitably. The contract will be renegotiated because they have the power to force it to be.
I think you're making a big leap with this exponential value gain theory. Notre Dame is a more valuable football brand than NC State, but that difference won't be exponentially greater in 2025 than it is today. ACC + Notre Dame is not some magical set that multiples the league's value by 10.
I absolutely agree that a group of teams is more valuable than each team individually. Just look at the ACC with football dregs like Boston College and Wake Forest and UVA... bringing in more football TV money per school than Notre Dame the marquee of marquee brands brings in on its own. And the ACC is on the low end of P5 revenues.
If they were actually trying to maximize TV revenue they need to join a conference, and if they were free agents they could shop around and see who would offer them the best deal, maybe even get a bigger than equal share of TV/Bowl revenues, but they're not free agents. More importantly, their fans don't want to join a conference. At least not while they have a path to the playoffs without being in one. Their fans love being independent. Joining a conference just to juice TV revenues would hurt their alumni donations. hurt their attendance, hurt their TV audience (lower TV dollars in the future) Overall revenues likely down. It's a non-starter for them to join a conference just for TV revenues.
On the flip side, if ND's motivation to join a conference is not financial but competitive (much more likely to be the case because they have shown a willingness to give up millions of TV dollars to remain independent) then their fans aren't likely to be pissed (at Notre Dame about it anyway) and the ACC holds even more leverage to maintain their membership standards because they have what ND needs and contractually the ACC is their only option. If they don't stick to their agreement with the ACC and try to break the contract and join another conference... well they just opened themselves up to a lawsuit for Notre-Dame sized damages, and lose any income from basketball until 2036. It's not a winning move for Notre Dame to try and take their ball and go home. Their options are basically status quo or join the ACC for football. In 2036 they can try re-negotiating but the ACC isn't going to vote for unequal sharing.
sorry, too much of what you just said is factually untrue. I'm not sure you have read up on this enough.
valuation is not a theory. In this case the inflated value of Notre Dame has already been proven. there is no theory here. Swofford got about $17.1 million per school before ND, then with ND got an additional $19 million on top of that which was distributed to all school, including ND, and gave each school an additional $1.3 million each. ND's value is already exponentially more. It's been set in the existing contract. not theory, fact.
what? they are free agents now. how can you say they aren't? Are they full members of the ACC? No. Do they fully participate in ACC sports, most importantly football, that is the primary economic driver? No. Have they signed away their grant of rights entirely to the ACC? No.
Their existing contract proves they are still free agents. hell, you said previously that the "bought their independence" by leaving money on the table.
Never said otherwise. What I said was they have leveraged the ACC to get what they want until 2025 when the Playoff Committe makes decision if only conference champions will be allowed into playoffs. Google it, there are many articles about this.
not even remotely. They aren't in the ACC because they need the ACC. They could have gotten in to other conferences if they wanted. To say otherwise is unrealistic.
incorrect. what lawsuit are you talking about? every ACC school has an exit penalty. They would simply pay it. No lawsuit would ever be filed. this is the reported $50 million, which they certainly can afford to pay, except that the real ACC exit fee is actually calculated as three years' worth of per-school conference distributions, Which for Notre Dame is less than every other school, so it's exit fee is actually less than every other school.
no way. you're not recognizing the facts as they are. The ACC network cannot afford losing Notre Dame. It is not the other way around. even if the Playoff Committee decided only conference champions can enter the playoffs Notre Dame is not limited to only the ACC. They could join almost any conference it wished and they would all want ND.
In the existing contract negotiations the ACC coaches nearly all made a statement the ND should be required to play full slate of ACC games. They still got their way and Swofford allowed it because ultimately ND would not join if they didn't get what they wanted, and Swofford and ACC needed the network. Why do you think it will be different in the future? there is zero evidence of this. All the evidence proves otherwise.
A few final points here..
1) The value added from Notre Dame playing a regular slate of ACC games was not all attributable to Notre Dame. It was the guaranteed inventory of high quality OOC opponent for 2-3 teams, plus the enormous TV ratings from marquee vs marquee match-ups like Notre Dame vs FSU, Clemson, and Miami. Big TV ratings from storied match-ups like that don't happen without marquee teams on both sides. Swap the ACC for the AAC and that deal is worth no where near as much. It's not strictly a Notre Dame valuation. Also it includes a brand association value. There's a value of Notre Dame being associated with your league that doesn't grow when Notre Dame gets more involved.
2) The not-a-free-agent analogy refers to Notre Dame football looking to join a conference. When it comes to conference membership they are not free agents in any sense of the definition. They are contractually obligated to join the ACC for football, should they decide to have their football team join a conference before 2037. The rest of their sports (except hockey) are already in the ACC and subject to the Grant-of-Rights agreement that lasts until 2037 and are not free agent status either.
3) There is no exit fee from the Grant-of-Rights agreement that I'm aware of. Previous to the GoR the ACC briefly had a $50 million exit fee. The GoR replaced the exit fee system. If your school leaves the ACC before the GoR expires, your TV inventory and TV revenue stays with the ACC and your games are still aired by ESPN (or perhaps resold to your new conference's TV partners) Makes you a lot less attractive to potential poachers. Fair point that for Notre Dame is on the hook for quite a bit less $ per year than for full-member ACC schools. But the football agreement is separate from the GoR and the ACC would certainly have grounds to sue and to get paid if Notre Dame violates that contract and joins another conference for football before 2037.
4) The reality is that the ACC is making far more football money off the current arrangement than Notre Dame is. Notre Dame = 1.3 million, Rest of ACC = 18.2 million. Would ACC football coaches like even more games against Notre Dame? Sure. But football coaches aren't athletic directors for a reason - they're focused on their own little world, not on the big picture. (Ironically for those football coaches,, if Notre Dame joined for football, half the conference would play them far less frequently than they do now, even with a 9 game conference schedule) For what the conference is giving up right now, the AD's and presidents are satisfied that they're getting a good deal in return. That's why Swofford says the league is happy with the status quo.
5) The ACC Network cable channel will see maybe 1 live Notre Dame football @ ACC school game per year. Under the current scheduling arrangement with Notre Dame. ACC gets to air only 2-3 Notre Dame away games per season and any really big/valuable match-ups are going to ABC or ESPN where the audience (and therefore payday) is the biggest. The ND games that fall to the ACC network boost it's value sure, but there aren't many of them and their loss wouldn't be a killer to a network that is already established. ESPN is launching the ACC Network in 2019 and negotiating carriage as a bundle with all their networks.
Anyway, we seem to be just going around and around here.
It's not an argument so much as how things work. Either Notre Dame surrenders their home game TV rights to the ACC, or they don't join the conference. The NBC deal will be grandfathered in if ND joins before that runs out. But as soon as it's up, the ND home games will go to ESPN.
Navy is going through the exact same thing right now. They had a deal with CBS that ran through this year, which was grandfathered in when they joined the American. Next year, that deal is up and their rights revert to the conference, so the games will be on ESPN.
Navy is not Notre Dame. Notre Dame is a heavy ingrained with the Comcast corporate family who's priimary market is Chicago region. Comcast who owns NBC. It's not as simple as the Navy deal.
And when did Notre Dame ever do things the same as "how things work"? The existing ACC contract proves this to be false. They do things their way. And when push comes to shove they are the bigger beast at the negotiating table than the ACC.
I get how this is a sweetheart deal for ND. I just don't get why it's so bad for the ACC. The ACC did get something. 5 Marquee games with Notre Dame every year, and an exclusive on them if they should decide to join a conference before 2037. I like that VT gets to play Notre Dame. I don't mind if ND gets to share in the revenue for those games.
Overall I don't mind ND in the ACC. I like playing them in football. But IMO Swofford gave up too much in his negotiations as I outlined. He was playing the short game and ND was playing the long game. I also don't mind they share revenue, but my point is I believe they will demand more than their share and why wouldn't they? They have a 5 home game bargaining chip that the ACC network will/does desperately want.
I think Swofford was playing the long game.
I don't understand the hatred on him, as he's managed to successfully navigate the ACC into the P5 as a football power. Not the strongest, but also not the weakest. I see the Notre Dame deal as an asset overall, not as a strategic blunder. Notre Dame gets something, too, which is why it works.
Any competent Commissioner could have navigated a conference with FSU, Miami, Clemson and ACC basketball into the P5. Is that really an accolade?
My comments made above to Orion work here too. Definitely was not playing the long game.
but agree to disagree.
Notre Dame typically has one of the hardest schedules in FBS. No one can fault them for their OOC. This is not newsworthy.
I'm not entirely sure I agree with that assessment, especially since Notre Dame has no conference to have an OOC schedule.
Here's ND's SOS from 2014-2017 (ACC scheduling) compared to the following P5 teams over the same period. All use the NCAA's listing for SoS. Schedules are listed in year order, so 2014 is first.
USC, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Alabama, VT
2014-2017
ALA: 7, 1, 2, 15.
-Avg: 6.25
OSU: 4, 45, 4, 5
-Avg: 14.5
USC: 49, 8, 21, 31
-Avg: 27.25
ND: 34, 26, 80, 2
-Avg: 35.5
OKL: 58, 21, 31, 43
-Avg: 38.25
VT: 31, 99, 61, 61.
-Avg: 68
Continued in next post due to length.
Please don't vomit at our SoS the last four years, but you'll notice that ND is only fourth among the six teams I listed and two of those teams have much tougher schedules than Notre Dame's. Sure, you can blame it on adding in five ACC teams a year but here's how things pan out over the ten years prior to ACC scheduling (2004-2013). Again, listed in year order:
OKL: 11, 1, 44, 22, 1, 3, 12, 7 ,15 ,35
-Avg: 15.2
VT: 19, 18, 33, 2, 18, 12 ,41, 24, 36, 10
-Avg: 21.3
ALA: 61, 50, 69, 18, 35, 2, 9, 5, 19, 40
-Avg: 30.8
ND: 7, 52, 34, 30, 89, 50, 4, 32, 4, 23
-Avg: 32.5
USC: 18, 9, 7, 73, 38, 54, 65, 44, 35, 44
-Avg: 38.7
OSU: 25, 4, 24, 38, 6, 24, 57, 58, 74, 56
-Avg: 39.4
One more comparative post to go.
So you can see Notre Dame really isn't scheduling any differently than most teams. Worse, three of their worst seasons have come against their weakest schedules -- 7-6 in 2008 (89th), 6-6 in 2009 (50th) and 4-8 last year (80th). And when they are playing a top-25 schedule? 0.703 winning percentage in 5 seasons. The Irish's winning percentage over the last 14 years? 0.606 and two seasons where the Irish are a combined 7-17.
In comparision the Hokies fared much better over the last fourteen years, with a 0.695 winning percentage. Seven of those years were against a top-25 schedule, where the Hokies have a 0.741 winning percentage. While the Hokies have 0 losing seasons and our three worst seasons (2012, 2014, 2015) were against a 36th, 31st and (ugh!) 99th schedule strength.
The Hokies also only have three seasons where their schedule strength is outside of the top-40, only one of which is in the bottom half of the FBS compared to the Irish's four such seasons, two of which are in the bottom half of the FBS.
As far as the winning percentages for the last fourteen years, in real terms:
* ND averaged a record of 7.90- 5.10
* Against a top-25 schedule strength, ND averaged a record of about 9.15-3.85
* VT averaged a record of 9.04-3.96
* Against a top-25 schedule strength, VT averaged a record of 9.64-3.36
TL;DR?
Notre Dame's schedule isn't that tough despite being able to schedule whomever they want, and the Irish are under performing against similar (or weaker) schedules to some of the top teams in each Power Five conference
Without getting into strength of schedule numbers, here's what is most commonly known about ND's schedule -- they don't play FCS teams. So right there, they're already one up on almost every other P5 school (except for most of the Big Ten).
Every year, they have 5 ACC games, 2 Pac-12 games (USC and Stanford), and 1 G5 game (Navy). Over the last three years, they have split the other 4 games as 2 G5 and 2 P5 teams (in 2015, they had six ACC games). In 2014, they only had 4 ACC games, with 4 P5 games and 1 G5 game.
In other words, each of the last three years has had 9 P5 teams on the schedule and 3 G5. 2014 had 10/2.
Obviously, not all P5 or even G5 schools are equal, but no one can really control that.
So, replace ND with almost any other P5 school and you have the same statements...
Eh . . . They're better than most.
Last summer, I started looking at the last six years worth of schedules for a blog post. I got distracted by the season, and haven't gotten around to all of the number crunching (mostly the Big Ten). But the short version is that Notre Dame is at the higher end of the average in terms of making their schedule. USC and Texas being at the top of the list, and the SEC West weighing down the bottom.
Good points, but I should clarify that I default, in a case like this, to the name on the jerseys.
Playing Michigan, Stanford, USCw? That...kinda counts in my book as a good opponent, even if they have a down year.
I guess I end up using the categorization that if you're playing a true brand in the sport, then I don't care if they happened to have a down year. For example, I don't fault Alabama for playing FSU this year - that was a really good OOC opponent, even if FSU had a down year.
Stuff like that
Give me a bit. Had a nice long post NCAA basketball style with resumes to prove how 'name doesn't matter' and a bad team is a bad team, even with 5-star talent, and half the post went missing on me so I have to rework it :(
Just Google loluva football, duh
Oh no, I don't disagree with you that a bad team is a bad team - but since teams schedule the games before knowing whether their opponent is going to be bad or not, I'd rather see a schedule including teams like Michigan State, USCw, Stanford, and UGA.
That was a part of ND's non-ACC schedule this year. Without knowing how good any of those brand-name teams were this year, I won't ever ever ever criticize that schedule.
ND's non-ACC schedule next year is:
Sept. 1 Michigan
Sept. 8 Ball State
Sept. 15 Vanderbilt
Sept. 29 Stanford
Oct. 27 Navy (San Diego)
Nov. 3 at Northwestern
Nov. 24 at USC
Michigan, USCw, Stanford. I'm not criticizing this schedule either, and I have no idea yet whether any of those teams will be any good or not. Notre Dame is attempting to have a really good non-ACC schedule, and I'm ok with that.
Meanwhile, up in Wisconsin...
Western Kentucky
New Mexico
BYU
ALL OF THESE GAMES ARE PLAYED AT HOME. I absolutely WILL blame Wisconsin for this sh!t OCC schedule. I don't even need data on how many five-star players are on these teams to tell you this is a BAD OCC schedule.
I have over 50 years of dislike for the Golden Domers reinforced by 40 years living in the Chicago burbs. So my comment is deeply thought out. Put your football team in the ACC or get the f.....k out!
I also find it funny that a team that (prior to this season) was technically ranked in the top 25 at the end of the season 1 time since 2007, (edit: not 2017.) They had to vacate all of their wins in 2012 and 2013, so even though they were ranked...that doesn't count to me.
Well it would be impossible to do it more than once...
shiz. my bad. 2007. That bomb cyclone will get after ya.
I am not really a Notre Dame hater, although I mostly root against them.
I think they are simply realizing that their schedule of rivalry games (USC, Stanford, Navy, Michigan State, etc) isn't helping them make the playoffs.
I think "designer schedules" are always going to be heavily scrutinized for a non-conference team, and they are making a mistake if they simply replace tough rivalry games with creampuffs. The best route for them to the playoffs is to join the ACC.
The implied changes to their approach sucks, I enjoy the hell out of rooting for Navy when they play.
The Navy-ND game isn't going anywhere.
I think the first step is ND wishes they didn't have Miami/Navy/Stanford in consecutive weeks to finish the season. Perhaps move Navy earlier, and play either Temple or Miami (OH) that week.