Dec 29 | College Football Playoff Semifinal | Clemson

[NorthDakota]

How was gilman not graded out one of our highest with 18 tackles

Got torched on a touchdown

 

[gfviperman]

Were the Replay Booth Officials from the SEC or ACC?

 

[BobbyMac]

Were the Replay Booth Officials from the SEC or ACC?

SEC

 

[ACamp1900]

Were the Replay Booth Officials from the SEC or ACC?

Even the replay analyist had a “I hate dem Catholics” southern twang to him,....

 

[Circa]

Even the replay analyist had a “I hate dem Catholics” southern twang to him,....

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/3o7TKLQ9P5idp11hvi" width="480" height="480" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/maradona-diego-el-3o7TKLQ9P5idp11hvi">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[Irishize]

Wow, someone from ESPN who gets it:

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...-football-playoff-simply-create-more-blowouts

 

[ulukinatme]

Wow, someone from ESPN who gets it:

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...-football-playoff-simply-create-more-blowouts

If you're an Irish fan, you should be hoping for a playoff expansion, not remaining at 4 teams. 4 teams generally means we have to run the table to get to the playoff, and that's nearly impossible most seasons. We needed a lot of luck in both 2012 and 2018 to make it happen. At 11-1 you have to hope that two out of the three Power 5 Champs have 2 losses or more, and there's no guarantee one of those don't get in ahead of us or that a runner up like Georgia doesn't sneak ahead.

Aside from just qualifying for the playoff, you also have to look at potential matchups. What if Alabama were to face Georgia again in the first round of an 8 team playoff and they manage to slip up? More games in the playoff means more chances for the king to take a fall. Sure, it means it's one more game that we would have to win too, but I would take my chances against a three team playoff with the chance Alabama/Clemson slips up in the first two rounds rather than face one of those two again. If the Playoff era has shown us anything it's that those two are in a league by themselves and everyone else is pretty much on the outside looking in. The more opportunities for them to have a bad night, the better. Saban doesn't want the playoff to expand, that should tell you everything you need to know.

 

[Legacy]

Graphing Clemson vs. Notre Dame: Brian Kelly was right — it’s a lot closer than it seemed
(RollBamaRoll)

The Irish lost, but they weren’t dominated.

He also graphed the Alabama-Oklahoma game:
Graphing the Tide vs. Oklahoma: Not remotely as close as the score

The Tide could name its score

 

[OhioIrish31]

If you're an Irish fan, you should be hoping for a playoff expansion, not remaining at 4 teams. 4 teams generally means we have to run the table to get to the playoff, and that's nearly impossible most seasons. We needed a lot of luck in both 2012 and 2018 to make it happen. At 11-1 you have to hope that two out of the three Power 5 Champs have 2 losses or more, and there's no guarantee one of those don't get in ahead of us or that a runner up like Georgia doesn't sneak ahead.

Aside from just qualifying for the playoff, you also have to look at potential matchups. What if Alabama were to face Georgia again in the first round of an 8 team playoff and they manage to slip up? More games in the playoff means more chances for the king to take a fall. Sure, it means it's one more game that we would have to win too, but I would take my chances against a three team playoff with the chance Alabama/Clemson slips up in the first two rounds rather than face one of those two again. If the Playoff era has shown us anything it's that those two are in a league by themselves and everyone else is pretty much on the outside looking in. The more opportunities for them to have a bad night, the better. Saban doesn't want the playoff to expand, that should tell you everything you need to know.

If they ever go to eight teams it would probably include the (5) conference champions, a Group of Five team, and two 'next best' teams. I've heard people say that right now we have four chances to get in but with expansion we would only have two. I agree that in the current scheme we have to run the table in order to get in...not sure it gets any easier with 8 teams.

 

[Irishize]

Graphing Clemson vs. Notre Dame: Brian Kelly was right — it’s a lot closer than it seemed
(RollBamaRoll)


He also graphed the Alabama-Oklahoma game:
Graphing the Tide vs. Oklahoma: Not remotely as close as the score

I think Bama will win comfortably over Clemson

 

[Irishize]

If they ever go to eight teams it would probably include the (5) conference champions, a Group of Five team, and two 'next best' teams. I've heard people say that right now we have four chances to get in but with expansion we would only have two. I agree that in the current scheme we have to run the table in order to get in...not sure it gets any easier with 8 teams.

I agree. Depending on your seeding, what’s to say ND wouldn’t end up playing tOSU, Clemson & then Bama? That’s an impossible gauntlet after a 12 game season that is filled w/ all FBS schools.

 

[ulukinatme]

If they ever go to eight teams it would probably include the (5) conference champions, a Group of Five team, and two 'next best' teams. I've heard people say that right now we have four chances to get in but with expansion we would only have two. I agree that in the current scheme we have to run the table in order to get in...not sure it gets any easier with 8 teams.

If we're 11-1, and all the Conference Champions are already in, who is going in before us? Maybe SEC runner up and that's probably it. If we're 10-2 we don't belong anyway.

I agree. Depending on your seeding, what’s to say ND wouldn’t end up playing tOSU, Clemson & then Bama? That’s an impossible gauntlet after a 12 game season that is filled w/ all FBS schools.

But there's more chances for 'Bama or Clemson to trip before the final game. 8 games means every team is playing the same gauntlet more or less. More opportunities for chaos, and we need some chaos to avoid continuous repeats of Bama vs. Clemson. Keep in mind that even though we're playing all FBS teams, the conference champions are playing one more game to make up for their FCS opponents.

 

[Irish#1]

If we're 11-1, and all the Conference Champions are already in, who is going in before us? Maybe SEC runner up and that's probably it. If we're 10-2 we don't belong anyway.

I think we use this season as our focal point. These things are cyclical. The Pac 12, B1G and ACC were down this year, but who's to say they won't have two teams worthy next year or the year after?

 

[ACamp1900]

I've been all for shitting or getting off the pot with the ACC from day one... join and make Clemson the on field template. FSU won't be down forever and us, Clemson and FSU should be more than enough to give the conference any immediate future respect it may not have currently,... just my thoughts. It'll also be nice to play for something other than 'natty or bust' every year.

 

[Free Manera]

I've been all for shitting or getting off the pot with the ACC from day one... join and make Clemson the on field template. FSU won't be down forever and us, Clemson and FSU should be more than enough to give the conference any immediate future respect it may not have currently,... just my thoughts. It'll also be nice to play for something other than 'natty or bust' every year.

I'm kind of there too. I love the independence for preserving rivalries. But at the same time, in the playoff setup, if ND loses a game it's like the season is a waste. Having a conference championship to play for could 1. jump them back into playoff discussion and 2. in years with 2-4 losses, leave something to play for.

 

[Irish YJ]

I've been all for shitting or getting off the pot with the ACC from day one... join and make Clemson the on field template. FSU won't be down forever and us, Clemson and FSU should be more than enough to give the conference any immediate future respect it may not have currently,... just my thoughts. It'll also be nice to play for something other than 'natty or bust' every year.

Miami will be back too.

We'd fit in nicely to the Coastal ACC. ND and Miami in the Coastal, and Clemson and FSU in the Atlantic.

Love some things about independence, but also the thought of the ACC is pretty attractive. The landscaped has changed, and will continue to change.

 

[Legacy]

I, for one, would have little interest in a conference Notre Dame who would be subject to the ACC's (or any conference) determination on televised games and, which would regionalize our appeal. Notre Dame students come from all states as well as internationally. Trading our football autonomy for a debatable better chance at making the playoffs, a bigger revenue disbursement for being a conference member, and abandoning playing national opponents is a non-starter and reduces interest in football. This would be a one way street with almost all the advantages to the ACC. They play a nine game conference schedule. We have long-term contracts with USC, Stanford (alternating for annual West Coast games) and Navy. That would be our non-conference schedule without any flexibility. Dropping Stanford, for instance, would let us put one game we could schedule annually. That's the reality of conference life.

Ideally, the number of teams in a conference should be reduced in number, following the NFL divisional model, and have less "intra-division" games - say six games - and rotating scheduling inter-division teams, e.g. Pac 12 v ACC for four games. That also would let teams that historically have regional rivalries like Texas and Texas A&M schedule each other annually. Build in an independence and flexibility instead of all the restrictions. That would have a greater national audience and answer questions about which teams deserve to be in a playoff. Prove it on the field in the regular season.

Only then would college football become more of a national game than of regional interest. Looking at it from our opponents standpoints, what interest would an ACC Notre Dame be to a Texas or Oklahoma have in scheduling ND?

 

[ulukinatme]

If we bring Navy with us, we could probably still keep USC/Stanford on the schedule right?

 

[Free Manera]

I, for one, would have little interest in a conference Notre Dame who would be subject to the ACC's (or any conference) determination on televised games and, which would regionalize our appeal. Notre Dame students come from all states as well as internationally. Trading our football autonomy for a debatable better chance at making the playoffs, a bigger revenue disbursement for being a conference member, and abandoning playing national opponents is a non-starter and reduces interest in football. This would be a one way street with almost all the advantages to the ACC. They play a nine game conference schedule. We have long-term contracts with USC, Stanford (alternating for annual West Coast games) and Navy. That would be our non-conference schedule without any flexibility. Dropping Stanford, for instance, would let us put one game we could schedule annually. That's the reality of conference life.

Ideally, the number of teams in a conference should be reduced in number, following the NFL divisional model, and have less "intra-division" games - say six games - and rotating scheduling inter-division teams, e.g. Pac 12 v ACC for four games. That also would let teams that historically have regional rivalries like Texas and Texas A&M schedule each other annually.

Only then would college football become more of a national game than of regional interest. Looking at it from our opponents standpoints, what interest would an ACC Notre Dame be to a Texas or Oklahoma have in scheduling ND?

1. I don't think this is a valid concern anymore because every game will be televised nationally regardless. Even 15 years ago independence was much more important on this issue. Every ND away game is on nationally now, and those have nothing to do with the NBC contract because they are on ABC/ESPN/Fox.

2. ND can still schedule nationally with their OOC schedule. Keep USC and Navy, drop Stanford, then schedule strategically in other locales with the other OOC game. ND will already be playing in Florida, Georgia, SC, NC, Virginia, etc. every year, so the all important recruiting hotbed of the Southeast is covered. Just need to work in games in Texas, the midwest, maybe Louisiana every few years and you can cover all the bases. I do think conferences may start reducing the number of conference games in the future too, so that would help.

3. Conference championships are not just about having something to play for or getting into the playoffs. They are great exposure, build a culture of playing in big games, another opportunity to recruit, etc. There is not much downside to playing in a conference championship - unless you lose and it costs you a playoff spot, in which case you didn't belong anyway (would've happened this year probably).

 

[GowerND11]

I, for one, would have little interest in a conference Notre Dame who would be subject to the ACC's (or any conference) determination on televised games and, which would regionalize our appeal. Notre Dame students come from all states as well as internationally. Trading our football autonomy for a debatable better chance at making the playoffs, a bigger revenue disbursement for being a conference member, and abandoning playing national opponents is a non-starter and reduces interest in football. This would be a one way street with almost all the advantages to the ACC. They play a nine game conference schedule. We have long-term contracts with USC, Stanford (alternating for annual West Coast games) and Navy. That would be our non-conference schedule without any flexibility. Dropping Stanford, for instance, would let us put one game we could schedule annually. That's the reality of conference life.

Ideally, the number of teams in a conference should be reduced in number, following the NFL divisional model, and have less "intra-division" games - say six games - and rotating scheduling inter-division teams, e.g. Pac 12 v ACC for four games. That also would let teams that historically have regional rivalries like Texas and Texas A&M schedule each other annually. Build in an independence and flexibility instead of all the restrictions. That would have a greater national audience and answer questions about which teams deserve to be in a playoff. Prove it on the field in the regular season.

Only then would college football become more of a national game than of regional interest. Looking at it from our opponents standpoints, what interest would an ACC Notre Dame be to a Texas or Oklahoma have in scheduling ND?

I enjoy independence, and I agree in staying independent, but you're really just spewing party line shit. You think if ND joined a conference, it would lose the ability to attract students from around the country and internationally? Seems like the Ivy League schools still do well, academically, despite only playing in the Northeast for football. Playing national opponents is a non-starter?...
1950, ND played 66% of its games against teams in the Midwest/Mid Atlantic (really barely any difference when you consider those two in the Mid Atlantic are Pitt and Navy).
1965, ND plays 60% of it's games in this region.
1973, ND plays 55%.
1983, 55%, PLUS BC.
1997, 50% plus BC again.

The fact is, MOST of the time ND has had a regional schedule outside of USC. I could have included the games against, GT, UNC, FSU, Miami (All ACC teams), etc that were eastern seaboard teams. We're national because of the Army games in NYC and USC.

And to the Bold... they play 8 games

 

[ab2cmiller]

Now's the time to join a conference since we have the oh so important rivalry trophies.

 

[BobbyMac]

No ACC. Just wait for the NCAA implosion when the Top 64ish teams take their ball and go home. Then ND will be a part of whatever that ends up being... or they'll bail with their then $17+ Billion endowment and join the Smarty Pants Football Conference.

 

[Legacy]

Not "spewing the party line" unless you mean the majority of Notre Dame fans. We get all our games scheduled because of the NBC contract and ESPN wants to pick up our away games because of our current scheduling.

I would agree that historically a bit over half the games could be considered regional. We had room in 1997 to schedule Michigan State, Purdue, Michigan, Pittsburgh as well as USC and Stanford. Not sure how the math of twelve games results in a figure of 55%, but that is not the point. If one is also saying that 50% of our games were not regional, I also agree to that.

National interest in college football is generated by national games, not restricting yourself to a region and some easy games and one rival. I have no interest in seeing an annual game against NC State or Duke or Wake Forest but would rather see Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, as well as USC and Stanford annually and, in the future, Ohio State, Alabama, Texas A&M on their campuses, as well as Big Ten schools, etc. Playing Navy in Ireland, Jacksonville, San Diego, etc. or playing home and home games against non-conference national teams is what drives ESPN to televise them.

There is a reason that a home game for ND ACC opponents in Blacksburg, Clemson, Miami, Tallahassee sells out because ND does not play there every other year and that games in Austin, Ann Arbor, Chicago, L.A., NYC, Athens, etc. are some of the hottest tickets for their season ticket holders as well as our Irish nation spread across our country. I'd also like some flexibility to schedule private schools like Wake, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rice, etc as well as the Navy, USC, Stanford annually.

Conferences as now composed are restrictive in nature and not at all either in ND's or their fans interest.

 

[GowerND11]

Not "spewing the party line" unless you mean the majority of Notre Dame fans. We get all our games scheduled because of the NBC contract and ESPN wants to pick up our away games because of our current scheduling.

I would agree that historically a bit over half the games could be considered regional. We had room in 1997 to schedule Michigan State, Purdue, Michigan, Pittsburgh as well as USC and Stanford. Not sure how the math of twelve games results in a figure of 55%, but that is not the point. If one is also saying that 50% of our games were not regional, I also agree to that.

National interest in college football is generated by national games, not restricting yourself to a region and some easy games and one rival. I have no interest in seeing an annual game against NC State or Duke or Wake Forest but would rather see Georgia, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, as well as USC and Stanford annually and, in the future, Ohio State, Alabama, Texas A&M on their campuses, as well as Big Ten schools, etc. Playing Navy in Ireland, Jacksonville, San Diego, etc. or playing home and home games against non-conference national teams is what drives ESPN to televise them.

There is a reason that a home game for ND ACC opponents in Blacksburg, Clemson, Miami, Tallahassee sells out because ND does not play there every other year and that games in Austin, Ann Arbor, Chicago, L.A., NYC, Athens, etc. are some of the hottest tickets for their season ticket holders as well as our Irish nation spread across our country. I'd also like some flexibility to schedule private schools like Wake, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rice, etc as well as the Navy, USC, Stanford annually.

Conferences as now composed are restrictive in nature and not at all either in ND's or their fans interest.

We played 11 games in 1997, excluding the bowl game which was a rematch with LSU...

We've already been playing in those regions you described here. ND, even if it hasn't been playing Duke every year, has had schedules set up to play (I'm talking pre ACC agreement) the likes of Duke, UNC, South Carolina, GT, Miami, Pitt, Cuse, BC, FSU, WVU, etc in close rotation.

College football is having a hard time selling out right now regardless of who is playing who, but you'd be lying if you don't think the likes of VT, FSU, Clemson, etc. wouldn't be drooling at knowing they'd have a guaranteed sell out every other year (or so) with ND.

Notre Dame schedules Army, and it's on national TV if it's an away game. Notre Dame could play @Utah St and ESPN would find a way to get it on TV. It doesn't matter who WE are scheduling, it's that WE are scheduled. If you want a schedule as you described of only playing the top programs, ND is not going to have smart scheduling to set itself up for a Natty in the current landscape.

Again, I'm not an advocate for moving towards the ACC full time, but let's not overreact and say that if we did, ND would suddenly not be on TV, couldn't recruit, etc.

 

[Irishize]

I think if ND joins the ACC full time, I’d like to see them keep SC as their yearly rivalry. Then, then they can mix in Stanford & Navy periodically. Stanford’s history w/ ND pales in comparison to SC (or even UM & Sparty) & there’s no rule that says academic schools have to face eaach other. To me, it’d make an occasional bowl game vs them more interesting. Navy is in a conference now, too; wo they’d understand that ND would have to adjust their schedule and take a few years off.

 

[Sea Turtle]

No ACC. Just wait for the NCAA implosion when the Top 64ish teams take their ball and go home. Then ND will be a part of whatever that ends up being... or they'll bail with their then $17+ Billion endowment and join the Smarty Pants Football Conference.

This in spades.

 

[IrishFaninTX]

I've been all for shitting or getting off the pot with the ACC from day one... join and make Clemson the on field template. FSU won't be down forever and us, Clemson and FSU should be more than enough to give the conference any immediate future respect it may not have currently,... just my thoughts. It'll also be nice to play for something other than 'natty or bust' every year.

My thoughts, too. I like the mystique of being Independent but I think being in a conference might help with recruiting. What kid wants to commit knowing it's CFP or nothing? I'm actually surprised we recruit as well as we do

 

[Irish#1]

Join the B1G in the west. We'd be playing for a conference title pretty much every year and pissing Fitzgerald off annually.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

No ACC. Just wait for the NCAA implosion when the Top 64ish teams take their ball and go home. Then ND will be a part of whatever that ends up being... or they'll bail with their then $17+ Billion endowment and join the Smarty Pants Football Conference.

I think a lot of the fanbase's frustration with our admin comes from the fact that ND manages the program with an eye toward what's best for the University as a whole first, and only secondarily toward what's best for the team, winning, etc. Those two perspectives often overlap, but in some important areas, they don't. For example, I can't think of a single instance where another blue blood program has essentially self-sanctioned itself out of relevance, whereas ND has done it multiple times throughout our history, whenever the program threatened to subordinate the University to itself.

For instance, if ND managed its program like other schools do, we long ago would have joined the B1G. Less travel, easier schedule, more winning, more incremental achievements like division and conference championships to point to between playoff runs, etc. But as others have pointed out, that would regionalize the program and significantly undermine its ability to advertise the University, keep our far-flung alumni associations engaged, etc. So we maintain our independence, recruit nationally, and travel a lot more than is strictly necessary. That's not what a program interested in maximizing its win % and playoff chances would do, but that's because that's never been ND's top priority.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

The top 64ish will leave so they can _______________ which they don't/can't get in the current alignment.