Time for new partner: Big 10 or SEC?

[OrlaNDomer]

Sure, since you so politely asked. When it comes down between two teams, the analysis, and therefore the lobbying, is inevitably comparative. And in the ACC's effort there is no way to avoid emphasizing its member's best case, which is its head-to-head win over ND. It is this emphasis that you characterize as running down, antagonizing, and demeaning, and I think such a characterization is over-the-top. I'm confident that the ACC was unhappy to be in this position, which it was put into the moment the Committee signaled it was going to protect an unworthy Alabama, and of course the ACC had zero to do with that protection and for obvious reasons probably argued against it. But once Alabama was in, the ACC's duty to its member informed its behavior, and it was not going to demean and antagonize it by not honoring its duty. I don't blame ND for feeling jobbed. It was. But it was not jobbed by the ACC. It was jobbed by the Committee's decision to protect Alabama. The bottom line is that while both Miami and ND imperfect resumes, both had good cases and deserved invitations. It was Alabama that didn't.

The ACC's job is to protect the interest of it's members. If pissing off ND hurts the long-term interest of it's members it is failing to do it's job.

ACC makes $4M by getting Miami in the playoff, another $4M by winning the first game, and an additional $6M if they make it to the semi-final (long-shot but sure, let's assume that). So ACC would make $14M off this playoff split between 17 members is less than $1M or less than the impact of playing ND a single time at home. Enjoy your Duke home games vs ECU, Temple, and USF when ND, FSU, and Clemson blow up what remains of this once prestigious conference.

 

[Huntr]

What? Change the tiebreaker rules mid-season or after the fact? You cannot seriously mean that.

They can put whoever they want in the ACCCG. Who's gonna complain?

ACC fans?

No one cares, most of you guys don't even show up to your own home games.

 

[stlnd01]

Sure, since you so politely asked. When it comes down between two teams, the analysis, and therefore the lobbying, is inevitably comparative. And in the ACC's effort there is no way to avoid emphasizing its member's best case, which is its head-to-head win over ND. It is this emphasis that you characterize as running down, antagonizing, and demeaning, and I think such a characterization is over-the-top. I'm confident that the ACC was unhappy to be in this position, which it was put into the moment the Committee signaled it was going to protect an unworthy Alabama, and of course the ACC had zero to do with that protection and for obvious reasons probably argued against it. But once Alabama was in, the ACC's duty to its member informed its behavior, and it was not going to demean and antagonize it by not honoring its duty. I don't blame ND for feeling jobbed. It was. But it was not jobbed by the ACC. It was jobbed by the Committee's decision to protect Alabama. The bottom line is that while both Miami and ND imperfect resumes, both had good cases and deserved invitations. It was Alabama that didn't.

Not going to argue with you about this, especially if you don't believe in paragraphs.

But the ACC NEVER targeted Bama (or Oklahoma) in their pro-Miami posts (which began well before Bama and ND were flipped in the rankings). Only Notre Dame (and to a lesser extent BYU).
They fueled the narrative of Notre Dame vs. Miami, when in reality both ACC teams were better playoff candidates than either SEC team. Notre Dame and Miami should have been a united front arguing for two of the three spots over Alabama. Instead the ACC chose to target their partner.
That's the problem here.

 

[stlnd01]

They can put whoever they want in the ACCCG. Who's gonna complain?

ACC fans?

No one cares, most of you guys don't even show up to your own home games.

And, yeah, the only people who would have been upset about the ACC giving Miami a spot in the CCG was Duke's 12 football fans.

 

[Mike Petrik]

The ACC's job is to protect the interest of it's members. If pissing off ND hurts the long-term interest of it's members it is failing to do it's job.

ACC makes $4M by getting Miami in the playoff, another $4M by winning the first game, and an additional $6M if they make it to the semi-final (long-shot but sure, let's assume that). So ACC would make $14M off this playoff split between 17 members is less than $1M or less than the impact of playing ND a single time at home. Enjoy your Duke home games vs ECU, Temple, and USF when ND, FSU, and Clemson blow up what remains of this once prestigious conference.

Well, I agree that the ACC should think long-term in protecting and advancing the interests of its members. You seem to be asserting that the ACC has a pivotal long-term benefit by having a "partnership" with ND since it is that relationship that will save the conference. Okay, but I doubt that is the case. The prospects of the conference are tied to improvement in its football programs. That is it.

 

[OrlaNDomer]

Well, I agree that the ACC should think long-term in protecting and advancing the interests of its members. You seem to be asserting that the ACC has a pivotal long-term benefit by having a "partnership" with ND since it is that relationship that will save the conference. Okay, but I doubt that is the case. The prospects of the conference are tied to improvement in its football programs. That is it.

Fair, but you’re wrong. Keeping ND out of the SEC and Big 10 is the most obvious way to keep the ACC from falling apart.

 

[Mike Petrik]

Not going to argue with you about this, especially if you don't believe in paragraphs.

But the ACC NEVER targeted Bama (or Oklahoma) in their pro-Miami posts (which began well before Bama and ND were flipped in the rankings). Only Notre Dame (and to a lesser extent BYU).
They fueled the narrative of Notre Dame vs. Miami, when in reality both ACC teams were better playoff candidates than either SEC team. Notre Dame and Miami should have been a united front arguing for two of the three spots over Alabama. Instead the ACC chose to target their partner.
That's the problem here.

If that is true, then you have a very fair complaint.
But I'm skeptical, chiefly because such a strategy really would have been contrary to the ACC's self-interest.
More likely, the ACC understood that the SEC was going to protect Alabama well before the actual "flip," and responded accordingly.
That die was cast internally earlier than any public ranking.
Sorry about the lack of paragraphs. I'm trying to do better.

 

[Mike Petrik]

Fair, but you’re wrong. Keeping ND out of the SEC and Big 10 is the most obvious way to keep the ACC from falling apart.

And that is a fair point, but I think the likelihood of the SEC or B1G accepting ND as a partial member is about the same as the likelihood of ND relinquishing its independence.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

If that is true, then you have a very fair complaint.
But I'm skeptical, chiefly because such a strategy really would have been contrary to the ACC's self-interest.
More likely, the ACC understood that the SEC was going to protect Alabama well before the actual "flip," and responded accordingly.
That die was cast internally earlier than any public ranking.
Sorry about the lack of paragraphs. I'm trying to do better.

That's the point! ND was like "WTF bro." Pete B texted and called Jim about it and they only proceeded to continue to do it.

 

[IrishTusker]

What? Change the tiebreaker rules mid-season or after the fact? You cannot seriously mean that. But I do think they are likely to change the rules now, though I would note the other conference tiebreaker rules are not meaningfully different. On its face the rules seem pretty fair, but all rules are imperfect and can lead to uncomfortable results. I'd also note that no one would be complaining if Duke's out of conference schedule had included any of JMU's opponents instead of Tulane, Illinois and Connecticut.

The Big Ten did that in 2020 to protect OSU. The alternative is likely going to cost ACC members a lot of money, so yeah, it might have been prudent to do that. The ACC is a middling league, and it shouldn't act like the Big Ten or SEC. And it should have seen that this could also create a rift with ND.

To be clear, the change should have happened in the October or something, when it was clear this would be a problem (after Miami lost two games). ND beat writers were discussing this at that point, i.e., that ND should want Miami to end up in the ACCCG and might get screwed if they aren't. So the fix didn't need to happen only a week ago.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Sure, since you so politely asked. When it comes down between two teams, the analysis, and therefore the lobbying, is inevitably comparative. And in the ACC's effort there is no way to avoid emphasizing its member's best case, which is its head-to-head win over ND. It is this emphasis that you characterize as running down, antagonizing, and demeaning, and I think such a characterization is over-the-top. I'm confident that the ACC was unhappy to be in this position, which it was put into the moment the Committee signaled it was going to protect an unworthy Alabama, and of course the ACC had zero to do with that protection and for obvious reasons probably argued against it. But once Alabama was in, the ACC's duty to its member informed its behavior, and it was not going to demean and antagonize it by not honoring its duty. I don't blame ND for feeling jobbed. It was. But it was not jobbed by the ACC. It was jobbed by the Committee's decision to protect Alabama. The bottom line is that while both Miami and ND imperfect resumes, both had good cases and deserved invitations. It was Alabama that didn't.

But the ACC had this behavior for 4+ weeks prior to the final seeding. Before Alabama had been shown to all but have a predetermined place set. Miami can do what it wants and how it wants. It earned that right by beating ND. The ACC chose to single out ND only, and in nearly every comparison it released when attempting to earn it's spot in the 12.

Why not compare Miami to Alabama? Or Oklahoma? Why not release something showing how well ND had done since it's premier member (Miami this year) beat them on opening day to strengthen the optics of their win? Why join the chorus of those focusing the light on ND as undeserving while the political maneuvering of the powerbrokers was occurring? Again, this is a business partner yes?

Imagine we run companies and enter an agreement that confers a mutual benefit. Obviously, your company doesn't take out ads to undercut/malign or injure my business and in turn, my company returns the favor. Our sales/purchasing power is improved by our agreement as we're not attempting to undercut one another, etc. But then you decide that you really need to pump up one of your brands for sales and a recent consumer report documents it won in head to head testing based on point totals.

Instead of simply runnings ads promoting where you shine, you repeatedly point out how my product is inferior because of testing and how yours is the same price or cheaper. Now, you've changed the dynamics of our relationship. I call you up and ask, "why are you targeting me all of a sudden?" You apologize and say, "it's just business. I've got a product that I need to sell while the market is hungry for it and I have stakeholders telling me they want to see increased profits."

Ok, fine. Those are the dynamics. The relationship has been fundamentally altered. We started at one place, now we're at another.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Sure, since you so politely asked. When it comes down between two teams, the analysis, and therefore the lobbying, is inevitably comparative. And in the ACC's effort there is no way to avoid emphasizing its member's best case, which is its head-to-head win over ND. It is this emphasis that you characterize as running down, antagonizing, and demeaning, and I think such a characterization is over-the-top. I'm confident that the ACC was unhappy to be in this position, which it was put into the moment the Committee signaled it was going to protect an unworthy Alabama, and of course the ACC had zero to do with that protection and for obvious reasons probably argued against it. But once Alabama was in, the ACC's duty to its member informed its behavior, and it was not going to demean and antagonize it by not honoring its duty. I don't blame ND for feeling jobbed. It was. But it was not jobbed by the ACC. It was jobbed by the Committee's decision to protect Alabama. The bottom line is that while both Miami and ND imperfect resumes, both had good cases and deserved invitations. It was Alabama that didn't.

so here’s something the conference could have done:

Rather than play the ND Miami game nonstop on the ACC network all week, it could have played three games in rotation:

Florida State - Alabama
Miami - Florida State
Miami - Notre Dame

The conference could have then issued statements about how Miami and Alabama had a common opponent, about how the ACC had a winning record against SEC teams this year, etc…maybe even in addition to all the material it put out about the h2h with ND.

That’s making the case for Miami. That’s advocating for the conference. Just playing the ND game on repeat, and just releasing info graphics about ND and h2h, is making the case against ND.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

The ACC hasn't won a men's basketball championship since 2019. FSU and Miami ain't what they was in football, and now Clemson is showing cracks.

The partnership with ND is one of the hands that feeds. Why bite at it? Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[OrlaNDomer]

And that is a fair point, but I think the likelihood of the SEC or B1G accepting ND as a partial member is about the same as the likelihood of ND relinquishing its independence.

The only way to force ND into a conference is by making it harder to make the playoffs as an independent…. Which is what the ACC just did.

 

[stlnd01]

If that is true, then you have a very fair complaint.
But I'm skeptical, chiefly because such a strategy really would have been contrary to the ACC's self-interest.
More likely, the ACC understood that the SEC was going to protect Alabama well before the actual "flip," and responded accordingly.
That die was cast internally earlier than any public ranking.
Sorry about the lack of paragraphs. I'm trying to do better.

Beyond the obvious of getting one (or ideally two) core teams into the CFP, it's not really clear to me how the ACC perceives its self-interest here.

Maybe Phillips sees this as a long game to force ND to join in full. Maybe the league office resents us as much as some of its football coaches seem to. Maybe they really had cut a deal with ESPN to benefit the SEC.

I don't know. What I do know is that, for weeks, the ACC fueled an either/or narrative between Notre Dame and Miami when, from the moment Oklahoma beat Bama in the sloppiest fashion imaginable and they're both going 10-2, the messaging should have been "wow both those SEC teams suck while Miami and Notre Dame are legit title contenders." Even if you know the die is cast, you have to fight the fight.

Instead here we are. Good luck.

And thanks for the paragraphs.

 

[IrishTusker]

Sure, since you so politely asked. When it comes down between two teams, the analysis, and therefore the lobbying, is inevitably comparative. And in the ACC's effort there is no way to avoid emphasizing its member's best case, which is its head-to-head win over ND. It is this emphasis that you characterize as running down, antagonizing, and demeaning, and I think such a characterization is over-the-top. I'm confident that the ACC was unhappy to be in this position, which it was put into the moment the Committee signaled it was going to protect an unworthy Alabama, and of course the ACC had zero to do with that protection and for obvious reasons probably argued against it. But once Alabama was in, the ACC's duty to its member informed its behavior, and it was not going to demean and antagonize it by not honoring its duty. I don't blame ND for feeling jobbed. It was. But it was not jobbed by the ACC. It was jobbed by the Committee's decision to protect Alabama. The bottom line is that while both Miami and ND imperfect resumes, both had good cases and deserved invitations. It was Alabama that didn't.

The ACC didn't want to attack Alabama because that would have upset ESPN and the SEC, and made collusion against ND impossible. That collusion is the main issue, not the mean tweets.

 

[NDohio]

Late November next year would be a good time to hand deliver another letter like we did to Michigan.

I know it can’t happen this quickly, but making an announcement with about two minutes left in the first half of the National Championship game this year would be so awesome.

 

[InKellyWeTrust]

Sure, since you so politely asked. When it comes down between two teams, the analysis, and therefore the lobbying, is inevitably comparative. And in the ACC's effort there is no way to avoid emphasizing its member's best case, which is its head-to-head win over ND. It is this emphasis that you characterize as running down, antagonizing, and demeaning, and I think such a characterization is over-the-top. I'm confident that the ACC was unhappy to be in this position, which it was put into the moment the Committee signaled it was going to protect an unworthy Alabama, and of course the ACC had zero to do with that protection and for obvious reasons probably argued against it. But once Alabama was in, the ACC's duty to its member informed its behavior, and it was not going to demean and antagonize it by not honoring its duty. I don't blame ND for feeling jobbed. It was. But it was not jobbed by the ACC. It was jobbed by the Committee's decision to protect Alabama. The bottom line is that while both Miami and ND imperfect resumes, both had good cases and deserved invitations. It was Alabama that didn't.

I thought you are a Duke fan? Why do you come here to argue for Miami and an incompetent commissioner?

There is nothing you can possibly say that will enlighten us. We have looked and analyzed the information available and have come to the conclusion the committee colluded to keep a team out that was capable of winning a championship. If you don't agree, thats fine, but you arent going to convince anyone here otherwise.

 

[ab2cmiller]

ACC arguing the case for Miami against ND, Bama, BYU, Texas ---- nobody blinks an eye
ACC argues solely against ND ---- We got a problem
ACC argues solely against ND and does a 48 hour marathon of the ND vs Miami game ---- Have you lost your freaking mind

 

[AvesEvo]

The ACC's job is to protect the interest of it's members. If pissing off ND hurts the long-term interest of it's members it is failing to do it's job.

ACC makes $4M by getting Miami in the playoff, another $4M by winning the first game, and an additional $6M if they make it to the semi-final (long-shot but sure, let's assume that). So ACC would make $14M off this playoff split between 17 members is less than $1M or less than the impact of playing ND a single time at home. Enjoy your Duke home games vs ECU, Temple, and USF when ND, FSU, and Clemson blow up what remains of this once prestigious conference.

I don't know what is a lot of money to these teams, is $4 million anything a lot? Is $10 million?

 

[ThePiombino]

I don't know what is a lot of money to these teams, is $4 million anything a lot? Is $10 million?

It's even less than that. That $4 million gets spread across the entire conference.

 

[irish4ever]

Don't do a fuckin' thing related to ESPN (or ABC) ... that's the ACC (cut all ties) and the SEC.

 

[LifelongFan]

Yeah what do we actually lose by joining the Big Ten? Our "independence" is just playing a half-ACC schedule.

Join Big Ten on condition that we play USC every year, what do we lose? Probably end up with 4x marquee games a year as long as we keep scheduling teams like Bama/Texas/etc. out of conference in September.

EDIT: I guess the biggest thing we would lose, hypothetically, is the NBC deal but not sure how relevant that is if NBC is already tied in to the Big Ten. We are "independent" in name only right now.

This is pretty much it. I want to join the Big 10 because the schedule is boring. Besides USC, September is the only competitive games. Boston College would be a good game if they invested in athletics but I have a feeling they could drop to D3 before reinvesting.

Give me Midwestern and west coast teams before North Carolina State, Duke, or Virginia. If moving to the Big 10 would let Miami and GT move as well, all the better. The ACC is so boring.

 

[ACamp1900]

lol

Sure, since you so politely asked. When it comes down between two teams, the analysis, and therefore the lobbying, is inevitably comparative. And in the ACC's effort there is no way to avoid emphasizing its member's best case, which is its head-to-head win over ND. It is this emphasis that you characterize as running down, antagonizing, and demeaning, and I think such a characterization is over-the-top. I'm confident that the ACC was unhappy to be in this position, which it was put into the moment the Committee signaled it was going to protect an unworthy Alabama, and of course the ACC had zero to do with that protection and for obvious reasons probably argued against it. But once Alabama was in, the ACC's duty to its member informed its behavior, and it was not going to demean and antagonize it by not honoring its duty. I don't blame ND for feeling jobbed. It was. But it was not jobbed by the ACC. It was jobbed by the Committee's decision to protect Alabama. The bottom line is that while both Miami and ND imperfect resumes, both had good cases and deserved invitations. It was Alabama that didn't.

The ACC should have lobbied for both,… and easily could have.

 

[ab2cmiller]

The ACC should have lobbied for both,… and easily could have.

They should not have lobbied for us. We are not a member for football. Comments like this is why other fan bases think ND is egotistical.

They should've argued for Miami but without only targeting Notre Dame.

Short sighted decision that they won, but could have significant long term consequences.

 

[Rizzophil]

I truly think the terrible ACC refs were in on it too. They were beyond terrible this year. I have no doubt that the conference wanted to bring ND down.

I want out of the ACC just for that fact alone. lol

But I do agree that the time to stop being an independent is when we are screwed by the College Playoff. And that literally just happened. It's time to leave the ACC one way or another. And that whole conference will be worse for it too.

 

[ACamp1900]

They should not have lobbied for us. We are not a member for football. Comments like this is why other fan bases think ND is egotistical.

They should've argued for Miami but without only targeting Notre Dame.

Short sighted decision that they won, but could have significant long term consequences.

In that they could have said, this shouldn’t be a ND vs Miami thing,… why are five sec teams in when they largely didn’t play one another?? They could have at least tried to shift the focus instead of going along with eSECpn’s narrative

 

[ab2cmiller]

In that they could have said, this shouldn’t be a ND vs Miami thing,… why are five sec teams in when they largely didn’t play one another?? They could have at least tried to shift the focus instead of going along with eSECpn’s narrative

Agreed. It seems like they should've been targeting Bama for sure given that they were between us at the time and they were the ones taking the last spot when the ACC started setting their scopes on us.

 

[RDU Irish]

Fact is - nobody in that room was lobbying for us. ND ground game got caught flat footed. Our PR team blows. Confusing Ivory Tower with High Ground in their approach across the board.

 

[IrishLax]

In that they could have said, this shouldn’t be a ND vs Miami thing,… why are five sec teams in when they largely didn’t play one another?? They could have at least tried to shift the focus instead of going along with eSECpn’s narrative

The most under-covered story is that SEC was actually ass this year. The Big Ten had 3x teams better than all of their teams, and then ND/Texas Tech are also top tier. Georgia is very good. Everyone else is mediocre and really has no shot whatsoever to win a title and they got FIVE of them in because they only play 8 conference games which juices their records. Have Alabama play Texas, have Oklahoma play Vanderbilt, have Georgia play TAMU, and have Ole Miss play TAMU and see what their records are.

The ACC has/had similar problems with lack of cross play, but at least they play 9 games.