Recent Comments
OK, so like a lot of you I like this move. I think it shows some forward thinking from Swofford and the ACC. Remember, at ACC kickoff Swofford softened a hardline on partial membership. I don't think Notre Dame will be able to survive as an independent in college football's new regime. The Irish realize it, and so does the ACC. Ultimately, I think this is the first step in a transition that will lead to them being the 15th member of the ACC.
Their tradition adds football credibility to the ACC, and yes I know they've done squat recently, but that's how college football works. I'm most interested in seeing how this plays out with the TV networks. Does ESPN land Notre Dame full time, or does NBC/Notre Dame/ACC strike a deal?
It looks like the idea was to effectively trap ND in the ACC, so if they realize they need a conference, it will be the ACC.
Not thrilled about sharing bowl tie-ins, but at least it's non-BCS.
The one thing I cannot wrap my head around is this; could this lead to an ACC/ND Orange Bowl? Or does this agreement scratch that idea? A BCS bowl vs. a pseudo-conference opponent seems weird.
The year(s) I hope we play both OSU and Norte Dame in the same season. Result= my head asplode.
Thank you. The film work that Joe and BillDozer provides makes these pieces much better than last year.
I am just moving into our new house and the game was on while the moving truck was here and no Internet yet, so I listened to it via a radio app on mt iPhone. First time I've seen this play and it makes me oh so happy.
-great job by the o-line that play
-Dunn throws a good block in for Fuller as well
Good stuff!!
Also look at this in the context of what we've passed over to get it. We could have had Rutgers and WVU and a much bigger TV contract, forced the other 3 power conferences to go to 16 and excluded everyone else from the postseason. Instead we get 5 irrelevant games.
It's a power play and regardless of whether ND joins fully at some point, it strengthened the ACC's position. Considering the Big12 contract that was inked recently, it was time to make some kind of move. With a $50 million exit fee, no one is going anywhere. A basketball move? Nah -- more like a move to protect the conference. From what I've read, ND will be included in the ACC's NON-BCS bowl deal ... NON-BCS
The dilemma now is locking in an opponent for the Orange Bowl that has teeth. Maybe lock in #2 B1G, #2 Big-12, or #2 SEC -- sucks to get the scraps but it is what it is
Notre Dame is an independent in football and currently have a pretty good deal with Big East Conference through their bowl agreements and an automatic bid by finishing in the top 8.
If the ACC gives ND a similar bowl agreement, then what would be the advantage to ND to join the ACC in football?
that ND will fully join once the NBC contract dries up?
Personally I like the move. At least 5 FB games guaranteed for the foreseeable future just brings potential for more marquee games (primetime slots) and good exposure. Plus I would love the VT-ND matchups. (And ND-FSU and the return of Convicts vs Catholics.)
But we can be patient, can't we?
It's not like the ACC tv deal will be renegotiated before ND goes full ACC
We'll have to see what the deal is with TV rights for the 5 ACC football games. My gut is ND keeps them under its NBC contract and the ACC gets screwed. Regardless, with the exception of BC, all of ND's valuable games (USC, Navy, Michigan, Michigan State) will not benefit the ACC. Yet another basketball-focused move.
I highly doubt it will lead to full membership because ND's motivation is precisely not to lose those valuable traditional rivalry games. That is where all their TV value comes from.
This is a home run for ND; they get all the benefits of being independent and of being in a stable conference. Swofford is now going to be on ND's side of the table when it's time to negotiate playoff inclusion. Though if they are forced to become a full conference member to participate in the football postseason I would still expect them to go to the Big 10 because that's the only way they can preserve most of their rivalry games.
the ACC viable with a 50 million exit fee F$U and Clemson are not going anywhere. Once the playoff starts then the Acc can worry about getting them in all the way along with one more team
We definitely agree that the best players should play, regardless of class or age. I think that approach yields the best product on the field, and helps with recruiting--see Pete Carrol at USC. I just don't know if Gibson and Farris have done enough on the field to say they're better than the players ahead of them. The coaches have the benefit of being at practice while we don't, so who knows what's happening behind closed doors. At the very least, it's good to know they're progressing, because we'll have to depend on them next season.
if they do fully join, we are uneven...this might start another round of realignment war.
Big east is slowly walking away with it's tail between its legs.
My thinking exactly
Pardon my ignorance; I know ND is a money/tradition/large fanbase pull, but what does this mean for the ACC exactly? And how will they fit in the existing divisions for the non-football sports?
If it doesn't, eff that.
I am not going to advocate for any particular back. I don't think any of the backs have been given an opportunity to get into the flow of the game in the 1st quarter of either game this season. Coleman is small and has game breaking speed and cuts, but he is a MUCH better runner on the interior on fast quick hitting plays than he is on the jet sweeps. Holmes is more patient, and tends to be tougher to tackle, but neither are going to make anyone forget about Earl Campbell.
To me, Holmes should be getting 20 carries minimum a game, with much less read option and more pistol counter dives and zone plays, especially early in the game. Then the playcallers have to have a "gut feeling" as to when the defense is a little fatigued, and that is when you spring Coleman. Then you come back to Holmes when you have a lead in the 4th quarter.
Gregory and Scales don't belong in the discussion. Hence a frustration point with Shane Beamer. I appreciate their hard work, but the best players should play. This isn't little league where everybody gets a trophy.
Is it just me or does Sunseri have no idea that he is not the only player on the field. He has zero field awareness in the pocket and does not feel the blitz or any pressure in any dropbacks in the film above. Our front 7 should be licking there chops for turnover opportunities in this game. Also great analysis Joe!
Farris has shown problems at center (likely because he has been getting work at guard spots as well as center.) Based on his work in the spring, I was not high on Farris. He looked top heavy and not particularly athletic. However, the Peay film tells a different tale. The snapping issue aside (and Miller has had some snaps that have messed up the timing of plays as well), Farris got significantly more push up front after he was inserted into the game than Miller was getting against the fresher Peay front.
With Gibson, I appreciate the level of competition and the fact that they were worn down. At the same time, he was dominant against Austin Peay (even if they were tired) and Wang wasn't. Wang's inability to be dominant against such poor competition is a huge red flag, and justification for the discussion about other options. The fact that Newsome suggests Arkema is almost neck and neck with Wang when Arkema had an absolute disaster of a series with the starters in the 1st quarter only confirms that, and based on what I have seen, Gibson is a far superior talent to Arkema.
Bigger, stronger, faster. If they want dominance up front, they have to put their five most dominant blockers on the field and let them make mistakes and learn. We have a mountain of evidence to show that the safety blanket approach doesn't work.
YOU KNOW HOW I DOES
at tailback, and they probably not only told him what he may have wanted to hear...but like French said...they may have seen something they really liked.
The coaches have also talked about him playing both ways. Is that possible for those two positions? If so, is it more advantageous to start him at RB or LB?
It's frustrating because we need two of Edmunds. He's the best tailback prospect we currently have (Harris and/or Green may be better) and our best LB prospect. I would have preferred they committed to Edmunds at tailback to start with, saying something like "He's an elite talent, gotta play him" as justification of moving him ahead of Holmes. He would have been a great complement to JCC. But, if he's redshirting, for 2013 the team will likely be better with him at LB and allow Harris and/or Green to push Holmes.
As you pointed out, Gibson had a great game against Austin Peay, but it was against Austin Peay. He came in fresh late in the game while everyone else was fatigued, and he didn't play on Monday night. Before I'm as bullish as you, I'd like to see him dominate like that against a I-A team.
And, I am getting to the point where if he could learn to snap better, I'd play Farris over Miller. I am getting sick of Miller not getting push against good nose tackles.
Farris will never play center unless he can snap better than what he did against Peay. The last sentence doesn't come off sounding too well.
yeah you're right. I reread it and we are saying the same thing. Sorry about that.
In career, relationships, and football...if you aren't happy, leave. I was the biggest fan of moving to the SEC earlier this summer, contingent upon Clemson and FSU leaving that is. The instability of the landscape was too much for my tastes. This is a good thing.
Any ideas on what exit fee would apply to Notre Dame? Reason I ask is would it be financially feasible to even consider bolting to the B1G for any reason if they had the same fee looming? I thought you could be an independent in football and conference member in other sports, but then their only option is to join ACC in football, stay independent, or leave the ACC altogether for another conference...which has to result in some financial penalty for them, but I can't see ND agreeing to a full exit fee of $50 million.