I'm waiting for college administrators and TV executives to realize that Notre Dame simply doesn't have the value it once did. There is no current college football player who has seen Notre Dame win a national title. The biggest Notre Dame game they can remember was when Reggie Bush pushed Matt Leinert into the endzone and the new recruits weren't even in middle school when that happened. Next year's freshman weren't even alive last time Notre Dame beat a ranked team in a bowl game. Notre Dame's value is falling. They aren't worth conferences bending over backwards to be associated with them. There was a time the Miami Dolphins were one of the premiere franchises in the NFL. That is no longer the case with a 30 year Super Bowl drought and a 11 year long drought of no playoff wins have taken their toll. The same thing is happening to Notre Dame. They still are certainly worth placement in a top conference but the days of special treatment and being able to operate any way they want outside of the system but still enjoy the perks of it should be over.

Agree that Notre Dame just isn't worthy in terms of on-field success.
This seems to almost elevate Notre Dame to being a conference unto themselves.... why would a conference help facilitate that, without getting something in return from ND ?

I'm wondering what was agreed upon in the [don't call it BCS] meetings....

We know:
There will be 6 bowls ... they will share semi-finals, so every year there will be 4 bowls featuring 8 teams irrelevant to the NC.
The group decided that the Rose gets to be in the mix (and they pair B1G - PAC)
Champs bowl will be one of the six (they pair SEC-Big XII)
Orange is apparently now in (they will feature ACC).....

At the BCS meeting, it was not announced that the Orange was in. How was this decided ?
How do 3 other bowl games get to be part of the 6 ? We all assume Fiesta, Sugar, and probably Cotton will be in.
One of those may grab the Champs bowl pairing, so that potentially leaves one more....
Will there be a bidding process ?

Are these other bowls permitted to / not permitted to lock up agreements with other #2 (or #3) rep from SEC / Big XII / B1G / PAC / ACC ?
Here's why I ask that...
In terms of attractive match-ups, the next best pairing might be next-best B1G vs. next- best SEC, next-best PAC vs. next-best Big XII, etc.
Why are we not seeing such pairings being announced right now ?
Did the [BCS committee] decide that may is not permitted, since the big 5 would then fill up the 6 bowl games and not offer any opportunity for
any BE / MAC / SB / CUSA / MWC / Indep (ND, BYU, Army, Navy, Idaho, NMSU) ?
Are there any guarantees about, say, any team in Top 10 being guaranteed to play in a big 6 bowl ?
So a Big 6 bowl may only be allowed to make arrangements with conference champs ahead of time, and the Rose, Champs, and Orange have snagged the
only ones that will provide decent ratings. They other bowls MAY have to maintain an at-large status, that will likely be filled with teams from the Big 5
conferences about 7 yars of the 8 that a given bowl is not hosting a semi-final.

I think maybe the Orange Bowl doesn't want to get stuck with an 12-0, 11-1 team from a minor conference that doesn't sell tickets, when a 10-2 Notre Dame team
would fill the stadium.

The other possibility is that the ACC is now essentially in charge of the Orange bowl and is using it as a carrot to help ND football be relevant in exchange for the ACC extracting some future concessions from Notre Dame...
(what would that be / Future mebership ?)

Good comments hickory_cornhusker & tute79.

Not sure why it involved ACC Presidents attending the meeting with ND. If it's solely about the OB format, it would seem Swarbrick, Swofford, and the Chair of the OB committee could hash all that out. And all have staff to hammer out the details.
Maybe some added plea or exploration was involved. The ACC tends to hold things close to the vest and delivers a press release when something is settled.

There's only one way I read presidential presence at these kind of meetings: membership talk. But at this point, it's due diligence for the Irish. Any kind of move will likely go before a faculty senate, the BoT, student/alumni associations, and potentially others, where I suspect, much like what happened in '99 with the B1G, talk will get pretty emotional and maybe a bit ugly. The point will be: at least the Irish had the conversations and obtained information it may need to make decisions for the future. If some deep-pocketed old fogey of an alumni/booster asks the question about "putting thought" into this matter, Notre Dame's representation could confidently answer "yes."

Article out of South Bend with comments from ND AD regarding various topics at http://www.wndu.com/sports/ndfootball/h ... 69115.html

Great find, Freaked !

Not just Notre Dame blather, but he explained the bowl situation !

Rose, Champs, Orange are contract bowls.... Orange has the right to select the ACC champs opponent, apparently.
There will be 3 other bowls with 6 bowl slots 'at-large' presumably selected by committee.
We know the 4 semi-final slots are selected by committee, slots in another bowl may be the same.

What has yet to be announced:
Where wil the Champs Bowl be played (Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton, Other ?, Rotated ?)
What are the other 3 Bowl games (Sugar and Fiesta for sure, unless one of those absorbs the Champs Bowl match-up).
That leaves one or two others in the mix.

What hasn't been explained or thought out:
When a "Contract Bowl" (Rose, Champs, or Orange) hosts a semi-final,
(let's use the Rose Bowl for example), where does its Big Ten - PAC12 match-up go ?

Maybe they do something like:
Pair the Rose and Fiesta.
Pair the Orange and Capitol One (I think that's in Orlando (?))
Pair the Sugar and Cotton (the Champs is always hosted by those two).
Any year the Rose, Orange, or Sugar/Cotton get a Semi-Final, the paired bowl gets the the Contract match-up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... nuary-bowl

Another reason that Notre Dame may have to choose a conference sooner or later.

http://www.southernpigskin.com/sec/view ... erfect-fit

Opinions about Notre Dame and the ACC being a good match have become more trendy of late. However, the emphasis of Notre Dame must negotiate now from a strong position of power is largely an empty suggestion since there is no urgency or immediate incentive for Notre Dame to pursue a move right now if it means relinquishing fb independence.

To urge that Notre Dame should DEMAND this, and also DEMAND that from the ACC, is amusing. So the ACC should "Big Eastize" itself to be ingratiated with Notre Dame?

To have "SEC" in a blog script, and to ever suggest (which was not done) the SEC would do anything similar is absurd; but the ACC is vulnerable enough to bring on Notre Dame and be it's permanent sychophant?
The SEC did not take a similar tact (offering the kitchen sink and all) in discussions with Texas before----rather, they just married her sister (Texas A&M). While Notre Dame may not have a full sister, is it worth it for the ACC to be open to every Notre Dame DEMAND? If the ACC does not have a position of strength beyond luring former all-sports BE schools, then why open oneself to exploitation to the level it compromises the fabric of the conference? Swofford and company are not ignorant enough to take risks to that level and potentially lose some core members just to have some expensive deal to accommodate Notre Dame's association with demands in some fashion.

Example: Notre Dame can independently pick their conference opponents and determine where to play, neutral sites and all? ACC should say, "no thanks, you are offered to be one of us, not above us".

I'm thinking along the same lines: if Notre Dame wants to join a conference that will put them in a solid academic conference, in the south for recruiting, maintain and build TV presence in the northeast...then just join the ACC. Especially given that in joining, it would likely mean Uconn or a longer shot, Rutgers, would join as well. No need for the ACC to look at football-only members, should be all or nothing.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

SOME of the blogger's points are well-taken.

He seemed ot miss the announcement that the proposed Big Ten - PAC contest (to have started in 2017) were cancelled (largely because USC (and maybe a few others)) needed more flexibility in scheduling their 3 OOC games.
USC wanted to play ND, another premier team, and a "softie", and one of those would be displaced by the Big Ten opponent.

If Notre Dame were to join the ACC (as part of the ACC going to 16), Notre Dame would be within their rights to make certain demands regarding divisional line-up.
The ACC could respond by agreeing to Notre Dame's demands, or tell them to take a hike.
If the ACC insisted on their own preferred arrangement, Notre Dame could say "No, thanks !"

If the ACC added two "northern" teams, they could un-do their zipper (sounds sexual !) and ND could align with BU,'Cuse, Pitt, UConn/Rutgers, Md, Va, VaTech, and play a rival (maybe GaTech).

Agree, any school coming into a larger conference would want to know which division they would be a member of and have solid input into any revised division. The number of conference games to be played and cross-division rivals would be something any current and newcomer would want to know before changes/additions are made.

What the conference should not do, is take actions in behalf of one school, that gives the school an added advantage over conference competition. For example, if Notre Dame would insist on 6 home conference games out of 8 or 9, whereby others are only allowed 4, or five in rotating years, that would offer an edge to Notre Dame. The same is true how "neutral sites" would be administered. If the host school agreed to a neutral site in lieu of game at the home stadium, that is between the school and Notre Dame, and should not be a mandate unless afforded to all conference members that would seek such.
Notre Dame which has played recently at Wake Forest, may say it would be losing added revenue to play in a 30+K stadium every other year, whereby their own stadium is 80+K. But 2 for 1 stuff is a frequent out-of-conference practice, usually involving a big name for 2, and offering the lesser name to have the bigger name visit their stadium.

In conference divisions, one can be stronger than others. In the SEC, for example, the west division has been stronger of late. And obviously, some members have tougher conference schedules than others. But the rules about the number of games, the home and away formats, are structured to be consistent.

I can't see Notre Dame coming into the ACC as a full competitor for the ACC fb Championship, and be allowed special accommodations per the number of games and dictate where they are to be played. Even with TV contracts and special tier rights, that can get unbalanced in a hurry. Such was part of the controversy as to why some of the B12 schools left for elsewhere not long ago. The B12 had to do some re-thinking and take some actions on this to assure it's survival and status. So having a school with a top marquee name can divide a conference if the build-in inequities become too profound; revenue disbursements and otherwise.

CBS's Dennis Dodd article on how the Irish could be frozen out of bowl games starting in 2014 if they do not finish in the Top 12.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... wo-seasons

Easy to see Notre Dame getting frozen out if the are not in a conference considering how the Conferences are now starting to take control of the bowl games. Swarbrick may be forced to choice because it's hard to imagine Notre Dame finishing in top 12 playing USC, Michigan, Michigan State, Stanford, etc. every year then adding a Oklahoma or a Texas on top of that.

Maybe the Irish can make their own deal with Humanitarian Bowl.

ND will make a deal with the BE.

Pretty sure the Humanitarian Bowl has now been transformed into the FAMOUS IDAHO POTATO BOWL.
As Dave Barry would say: "I am not making this up !"

Yet ANOTHER benefit of having Boise State in the Big East....

I think with UCF, Memphis, Boise, and SDSU in the Big East football mix, the BE should have no problem placing the local team in the:
Florida Citrus Bowl, Liberty Bowl, Famous Idaho Potato Bowl, or Poinsetia Bowl.

Dare I forget the natural tie-in between USF and the Beef O'Brady Bowl ?