non-trolling. and try to exchange meaningful information and opinions, even when we disagree. this board will be no better if we run off ND fans and their perspectives.

demilitarized zone. There are posters from other ACC schools who provide good input. Plenty of other forums for sniping IMHO.

My recent experience has been that we have two ND fans who frequent this board. One is generally respectful and, though I might disagree with him from time to time, is generally a useful contributor to the dialogue. One has behaved like a jerk and, as far as I am concerned, is welcome to take his golden dome and go home. We don’t give UVa fans special treatment. I see no reason to give Notre Dame fans better treatment than we give UVa.

It is your board. I am just a visitor. No quarter or special favors requested.

you wear a shirt, you have shoes on, you don't paw at the waitresses...

They have diverted attention away from that to this year missing the playoff. Wait until an SEC or B1G or any other FBS school gets ranked higher in the playoff rankings, and NEGOTIATION Dame gets in instead of them. They run circles around the SEC, B1G, ACC, B12 and the new G6 and negotiate ridiculous deals for themselves. They could have said any school in the top 12 gets in, but NOOOO, it's only if NEGOTIATION Dame that gets in, in that circumstance, but we are talking about something else. So while they have diverted the attention away from that incredible fact, everyone is attacking them for something else. I don't like it, but it is amazing they can do that. ** Edited by Stech at 12/15/2025, 10:41:37 AM

P-4 conference champs are required to get a bid. Which would have been Duke this year. If the playoff expands to 16, then ND's deal is null and void.

... keep a 2 loss or less ND out of a 16 team playoff. They may even try some special gymnastics to put in a 3 loss ND.

makes for good message board fodder and the playoffs/tourneys generally result in good TV and substantial money. However, the only thing they really decide is which team can get hot over a condensed time period, win its games and be crowned the designated national champion. Sometimes those processes even identify the best team, more often I think in football than basketball.

David Teel knows his stuff and I’m pretty sure he is right on this one.

At first, I thought it didn't make much sense. But I figured that some schools that might make a playoff at-large bid would have an incentive not to boost ND's SOS by canceling the series. You just don't want to be that #11 team when ND is at #12. For example, should Texas keep ND games? See below. ___________ Texas vs. Notre Dame Series Could Be in Danger After Controversial Rule Change Texas head coach Steve Sarkisian already confirmed during Early Signing Day that the Longhorns will keep Ohio State (2026) and Michigan (2027) on the non-conference schedule for the next two seasons but said anything else is "up for discussion." Could the rule change be the final straw in Texas' decision to cancel the series with Notre Dame? "I think anything beyond that is up for discussion," Sarkisian said. "CDC and I've already had that discussion, we need to take a good, hard look at what our non-conference schedule looks like beyond the next two years." The rule change is certainly ironic considering recent comments made by Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua that compared this year's controversial rankings to "musical chairs at some fifth grade birthday party.

He has an axe to grind after ND kicked him out of their locker room after last year's title game. He posted the original article....all unsourced, no names, no links, no nothing. The rest of the internet ran with his "article"....regurgitating what he claimed. I think it is made up.

out of the playoffs because of head to head. Remember one loss ND and undefeated Cincy? ND, at the end of the season was clearly the better team, but head to head kept them on the sidelines. Same with Miami, as I'm not seeing anyone really saying that ND should have gotten in over Miami. To me, Miami over ND was a no brainer. The real controversy is BYU who was ranked ahead of both of them, and got penalized for the championship game. ** Edited by Big12 guy at 12/15/2025, 1:02:17 PM

In 1989, ND won all of its games except one against Miami. Both ended up with one loss. ND was told "Head to head matters more than anything"/ In 1993, ND went 11-1, losing to BC but beating FSU head to head. FSU and ND both finished 11-1. ND was told "Head to head isn't determinative, it doesn't matter more than anything, you have to look at the whole season". In 2025, ND was told "Head to head matters more than anything"..............

No other sport bases playoff berths on a subjective determination of what team is “best.” The NFL doesn’t. MLB doesn’t. No one does but college football. Everyone else bases playoff berths on what team is most deserving, generally based on who has the best record with reasonably comparable schedules. It’s why a comparatively mediocre team like Tampa Bay or Carolina will make the NFC playoffs and a subjectively “better” team like Detroit will be left out. Selecting playoff teams based on the subjective judgment of which team is “best” invariably leads to bias and preference and other improper considerations entering the picture. Take 1993. Notre Dame has no legitimate claim to the 1993 national championship. Neither did Florida State, which won it. It’s true that the Irish beat the Seminoles in South Bend on November 13. And then lost in South Bend to a Boston College team that won its eighth straight game on November 20. The same BC team that West Virginia beat in Boston on November 26. The upshot is that 11-0 Nebraska, champion of the Big 8, should have played 11-0 West Virginia, champion of the Big East, for the national championship in the Orange Bowl. Not Florida State. As WVU coach Don Nehlen put it, “we beat the team (BC), that beat the team (ND), that beat the team (FSU), you know what I mean?” But FSU was a bigger brand than WVU, and Bobby Bowden was the media’s darling who had yet to win a championship after being thwarted many times (usually by Miami). So WVU got screwed and Nebraska lost to FSU in a game played in Florida. Not having a real chance to win it all, and it being a time before made-up claims to national championships (ala UCF and others) was socially acceptable, WVU’s team had a good time on Bourbon Street and got destroyed by Florida in the Sugar Bowl. That 1993 WVU team was not as good as the 1988 team that lost the national championship to the Irish in the Fiesta Bowl (a game in which QB Major Harris separated his shoulder on the first offensive series). But it earned a chance to play for the title. And either the Mountaineers or the Cornhuskers should have finished 12-0 and deservingly won the title. It didn’t happen because Tom Osborne and Don Nehlen and their teams were not as popular as Bobby Bowden and his team. So the subjective criteria of “best” gets repeatedly manipulated by the media and the pollsters from year to year, and it looks inconsistent because different explanations are used to justify what amounts to a popularity contest. In real life it is exceedingly rare for there to be three teams, much less four, that deserve a chance to play for a national championship and have a genuine chance to win it. Virginia Tech played and lost narrowly to the one that probably precipitated the multi-team playoff, 2004 Auburn. This was before the ESPN promotion of the SEC had fully taken off and Auburn was the rare SEC team that could lose a popularity contest - in that instance, to blue bloods USC and Oklahoma. Notre Dame has no gripe. A two-loss team cannot be said to “deserve” a shot at the championship and the Irish clearly were not even deemed to be among the three or four “best” teams. This was a debate about who were the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th best teams. That Notre Dame was left out is notable only because the Irish almost never get the shaft. Far more often, Notre Dame plays a role in giving another team the shaft - like Michael Vick and the 2000 Hokies, who should have gotten the Fiesta Bowl bid awarded to an outmatched but more popular Irish team. Until all programs - including Notre Dame - are in some kind of conference or super league or other similar confederation that lends itself to a selection process that takes subjective determinations of “best” out of the picture, there will be inconsistent results - and not coincidentally, something for the media to talk about. Notre Dame had a good team and a good year. Not great, but good enough that its fans should be pleased instead of engaging in the wretched whining too many have exhibited. The abysmal behavior of Notre Dame’s leadership has sent a poor message to its fans and supporters. Like the kids in the gym of Hickory High, Notre Dame fans should be proud of what their team is, and not concern themselves with what it is not. ** Edited by Tailgate Guru at 12/15/2025, 7:35:58 PM ** Edited by Tailgate Guru at 12/15/2025, 7:39:49 PM

take much of the subjectivity out of the process, but the advantage (home games and bye's) will always go toward the media numbers. You are correct in that ND with two losses didn't have a great year, and by no means should they be guaranteed a shot for the national championship. The same can be said abut a 2 loss Miami, or a 3 loss Alabama. The big stink about ND from where I'm sitting, isn't that they didn't get into the playoffs, but how their conference partner threw them under the bus.

nod over ND because of head to head. That isn't the point I'm trying to convey. In a nut shell, I'm saying that the ACC is much better off being associated with ND, than they would be without them. From my meager perspective, the ACC should be doing everything they can to strengthen that relationship, yet many want to throw them out of the conference. I think that is absolutely nuts, short sighted, and if ND leaves, the ACC is doomed. (that's all)

If you’re going to keep repeating that b.s., take it somewhere else. This narrative has been debunked by virtually every voice in America that is not already in bed with the Irish. You are a guest here. Don’t wear out your welcome.

I will without any animosity. I do see myself as a guest, and I'm not sure what set you off. ND's gripe has been about how the ACC handled the Miami/ND issue leading up to the selection of the schools for the playoffs. That is ND's gripe, not mine. They are the ones complaining, and all the articles I have read is that they feel like they were thrown under the bus. FIRST time I have ever written that, so i have not been repeating the b.s. as you say. Maybe you are just a tad emotional about the issue?

It doesn’t matter whether you are repeating yourself or someone else. You are perpetuating a b.s. narrative. We all know how the Bevacqua followers feel. The rest of the world has considered and mostly rejected that narrative. No further discussion of that narrative is required. No one threw Notre Dame under the bus. The ACC supported a football member after years of sitting on its thumbs. It may have done it in a clumsy, ham-handed way. But it also didn’t put its commissioner on television to claim it deserved seven bids so that it could get its undeserving, fourth and fifth best teams in the field. It’s the way the game is played in this ridiculous CFP world we live in. Just like running up the score to put 70 on the board against a so-called ACC “partner” is fair game. Notre Dame, for once in memory, got screwed by the system. All because there is a debate whether it might be the 8th, 9th, 10th or 11th best team in the country. Not because it is a legitimate contender for a national championship. Not because it deserves a shot. It isn’t and it doesn’t. So spare us more b.s. about what the ACC did to poor little Notre Dame. Go to Syracuse instead and help pull all those golden cleats out of all those Orange arses. ** Edited by Tailgate Guru at 12/16/2025, 9:06:02 AM

did ND make public statements on the issue? Their beef was NOT that they didn't get in the playoffs from everything that I have read, including their public statements - yet they have a beef - why? Me thinks you are definitely not a fan of ND football.

I don’t care much about Notre Dame football one way or the other. I don’t think Notre Dame is a true national power anymore but it has a very good program. The Irish don’t cheat and at least up until recently they have tried to make sure the athletes actually get the education they were promised. Notre Dame gets privileged treatment mostly because of things that happened at least 40 or 50 years ago and because there are still, for now, people around who remember some of it. Some of their fans are arrogant jerks, the same of which can be said of fans from Georgia to UVa to Texas to USC to many points in between. We all recognize and understand this. My objection is to an athletic director who is trying to create talking points through a false narrative and, in the process, stirring up his constituents to the point that they think and do and say ridiculous things too. If Notre Dame is concerned about the CFP process and how it gets along with its ACC “partners,” it can start by not running up the score to beat a hapless Syracuse team 70-7. It can start by honoring its bowl agreement; after all, bowls may be a relic of the past but so is all the nostalgia that surrounds Notre Dame. ** Edited by Tailgate Guru at 12/16/2025, 1:49:21 PM

with the selection committee based on previous rankings then a perfect storm broke: uva lost the ACC title game, head to head became a factor, ACC has a problematic tie-breaker so you get a five loss champion, the ACC mildly lobbied for a full member etc etc... ND's posturing about the ACC is about something else; they want out of scheduling arrangement and are trying to demonstrate "harm", which is laughable. If the ACC commish was a rhesus monkey, he would've advocated for Miami over ND. Maybe they have some kind of sub-rosa deal with the SEC, which is doubtful. God know the Big 10 won't give them any kind of preferential treatment. If they want to leave ok, the ACC shouldn't kick ND out though, make the process protracted and as costly as possible. It's not like they've been a great partner.

...wherin ND was not a "great partner" with the ACC. ND has fulfilled every requirement of its membership agreements with the conference.

on the ACC, if a hall of fame sportswriter with numerous contacts in every ACC athletic department can be believed; this recent "we won't be ignored" Glenn Close BS over the ACC advocating for a full member over ND for the playoff; the lack of gratitude for the ACC gifting you a season in 2020 all come to mind. Look, this deal was never going to work longterm. These half-in-half-out relationships never do. It's best for all concerned at this point for ND and the ACC to go their separate ways in a negotiated settlement. As emotionally satisfying be as it would for this whole deal to end in a bloody vindictive divorce, just let the lawyers hash it out. ** Edited by mancunian at 12/16/2025, 2:15:50 PM

how much it would cost them to leave the conference if that is what they desire. I am 100% sure they could afford it if that is what they wanted to do, so why go through the charade? If they are trying to demonstrate "harm", I agree 100% that it is laughable. Do you think it might be 2030 coming up, and FSU, Clemson and UNC have made waves that they will leave the conference? If so, ND may not have a choice but to leave, as the ACC is diminished without those brands.

different configuration by the early 2030s, so maybe that's their thinking; help the ACC implode so they get out for nothing. Or they want out on the cheap and believe they can negotiate a better deal. I dunno. I do think ND will have trouble getting good games late in the season without a deal with someone. I said this arrangement was a bad idea back in 2014 when it was negotiated and it looks like I was right. Differing interests, agendas, unequal treatment leads to resentment. These kind of things never really work.

correct or not. For example, Clemson was the #12 seed in last year's Playoffs and it was ranked #16 in the final Playoff Poll. FWIW Alabama was ranked #11 and missed out on the Playoffs. This season Tulane and JMU were both ranked outside the Top 11. While Notre Dame, ranked #11, and BYU, ranked #12, missed the Playoffs. It may be too early to tell if any trend is forming about the #11 seed being the kiss of death in terms of not making the Playoffs. However, to have the #11 ranked team miss the 12-team playoffs for a second year in a row could be significant.

Why should non-champions play for a championship? Why should an independent program with even a single loss be permitted to compete for a national championship when it failed against a schedule of its own choosing? Admittedly, conferences have grown too large and resulted in imbalanced schedules that can tend to disadvantage teams like Miami and give undue advantage to teams like UVa, as occurred this year. But that doesn’t make Duke’s championship less legitimate than a non-championship season played against a schedule that was almost entirely within Notre Dame’s control.

There are other independents. You guys won the battle for sure, but defending it with Conference Championship automatic qualifiers is weak when if you wanted that, you would have joined a conference. Like you always say, if it’s better go independent, if you really wanted a Conference qualifier you would join a conference. PS We all know that ND and the SEC want all the money and are aiming at eliminating Conference Qualifiers.

Did anyone other than ND ask for this and push for it?

** Edited by TerryD at 12/15/2025, 4:09:48 PM

** Edited by TerryD at 12/15/2025, 4:10:04 PM

the final Playoff Poll, then I wonder if that would open the door wider for potential claims that process violates antitrust laws. Specifically the odds of a G5/6 team finishing ranked in the Top 12 is extremely low. Also, the standards for voting a P5/6 team in the Top 12 is completely different than for a P2/4 team because the criteria is really more subjective than objective. You might even be able to say what currently exists within the FBS now may be very similar to how parts of the country operated during the Jim Crow Era. I don't know how the courts would view a "separate, but equal" defense as justification for limiting the access of G5/6 teams to the FBS Playoffs.

exception. Then again, I am not in favor of the P2s receiving multiple automatic bids when all 10 FBS conferences currently don't receive them now. If the P2s want multiple automatic bids, then give every FBS conference an automatic bid and we'll talk about how many extra bids you can have for the Playoffs. Likewise, I don't think it is a good idea to eliminate automatic bids because then it becomes to easy to exclude the G5/6/(now 8?) from the field.

Every FBS conference should receive an automatic bid to the FBS Playoffs, but there are currently not enough spots and still satisfy ESPN's desire to maximize the number of P2 teams that make the field. If the FBS Playoffs continues to expand the number of teams in the field, then eventually I do think every conference will receive an automatic bid. It would be no different than how every conference, who wants a bid, currently receives an automatic bid to the NCAA DI Football Playoffs.

The Big Ten and the SEC want 4, the ACC is hoping for two. How are they different than ND's? Your justification doesn't fly if non-champion conference schools qet an AQ.

answered the question based on the current conditions. The multi-bid qualifiers that is being proposed for next version is nothing more than a money grab by the conferences. In that regards, it is no different than Notre Dame because everyone is jockeying for the largest slice as possible from the money pie.

said anybody in the top 12 is in, fine, but that's not what is says. We don't need more Unprofessional Wrestling in College Football, I don't care what it does for the TV ratings.

of the equation, I would 100% agree with you. Looking around however, fair doesn't count anymore.

currently being generated in sports gambling today, it is possible that is now the driving factor or at least the lead factor to motivate ESPN to instruct/influence the conferences to push certain narratives. Particularly since ESPN has its hands in that cookie jar too.

** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 12/15/2025, 1:50:22 PM

And end scheduling deal. Then when the CFP can be redone, make football conference membership a requirement.

And Notre Dame is not Temple.

It has my complete endorsement

I actually suspect that was part of the strategy for FSU last year. Try to get the ACC to vote to kick them out. It would save them a lot of time and money if it had happened, which is why it actually sounds like a reasonable strategy to me. ** Edited by HokieAl at 12/15/2025, 1:06:56 PM

more that the entire content of WF, Cuse, SMU, Calford, BC, and Duke combined. What are you guys thinking?

The value is overrated. But talk of kicking ND out is foolish.

or they wouldn't have made the deal...or they would have negotiated differently...or they are very poor negotiators... pick one It isn't some philanthropic gesture by ND to the ACC...that's laughable... They NEED the games (it isn't just a home for non revs) or they wouldn't have made the deal...as we are so often reminded...they have plenty of money...if they didn't need the games they could have scheduled a few more outside of the ACC with NBC ...they could have used the extra money to just buy a home for the non-revs and left their precious independent football out of it... Call their bluff. ** Edited by RTFC at 12/15/2025, 11:32:28 AM

the ACC games, but ND? I don't buy that argument. If they left tomorrow, they might have difficulties for a few years, but ask yourself - would Miami turn down a scheduling agreement like Clemson? Or anyone else? Those contracts could easily be written where they happen in October of November - EASILY.

The SEC schools play FCS schools in week 11 because the conference allows it. They can just as easily disallow it. Kinda like the Big Ten is not inclined to give USC a season-ending game against Notre Dame. November is Notre Dame’s scheduling problem. Can ND fill those dates? Yes, but not with a better slate than the ACC currently provides - unless another conference gives them the same deal the ACC did. The ACC can easily muster the votes necessary to keep Clemson or any other member from playing Notre Dame in November or at any other time it wants to set aside for conference play. It’s not that hard. So can the other leagues.

stop a member institution from scheduling ND later in the season? As an example, FSU signs a scheduling agreement with ND for November games for the next 10 years. The ACC then "votes" to prohibit the games. How do you think FSU would react? Same with Michigan, or LSU. Would the BIG and SEC prohibit those games? FOX and ESPN I'm sure would like to broadcast those games. I think this is where ND is headed. A series of long term contracts to solidify a portion of their schedule with matchups the networks will line up to broadcast, and bring a sense of SOS for ND moving forward. I don't think ND needs a conference in football, they need a conference in their other sports. The Catholics in the Big East fit like a glove.

They wouldn't have to "vote", teams already have defined conference obligations. Other conference members aren't going to sit around while some teams get better drawing games without getting a piece of that. Do you think the B12 would let TT or KU out of conference games to pad their own schedule with big draws without some type of compensation to the conference? Assuming the ND/ACC agreement stays intact - big if - the new Clemson agreement - in the years that Clemson was scheduled to play ND as part of the ACC deal anyway - that game counts as one of the ND/ACC games that year - it doesn't prevent Clemson from participating in, or fulfilling, their conference obligations. And can be readily cooked into the ACC conference schedule. You are right, ND does fit in the northeast for non revs. So, if these late season games with ND are such a big draw (no one is saying they wouldn't be profitable and media desirable) - and there is another good option for their non revs - why hasn't ND been scheduling these big late season games with B1G and SEC now instead of the ACC agreement? You think they didn't think of that before they signed the ACC agreement? and now conferences are bigger and requiring more conference games... ND plays a minimum of 5 ACC games a year - occasionally 6 Why? Shouldn't they just get a B1G, SEC or even B12 team to take that game late in the year? They have ONE scheduled Oct/Nov game (outside of the ACC, USC and Navy agreements) in the next five years. Why? No one is saying ND wouldn't be able to play football without the ACC agreement, that's stupid - and they don't NEED a conference - but right now they do NEED the long term scheduling agreements to fill out their late season schedule with P4 teams. Those are going to be increasingly very hard to get and remain independent. Can that change? Of course. But it will require changes in other P4 team's conference obligations - and that is a much bigger pull - one that, IMHO, ND doesn't have the leverage for anymore - without a complete blowup of all CFB scheduling.

media deal was negotiated - then the ACCN. It was the richest of the media deals, and ND needed a place to put their non revs. At the time, the ACC was the perfect fit. The Big East as we know them today, did not exist. The ACC was solidified as a top power 5 conference. To me, it seemed like a no brainer that the ACC and ND came to an understanding, as many of their historic "rivals" if you will, were in the ACC. I could be wrong, but I really don't think that ND needed the football schedule "fillers" at the end of the season like many on here think. I think that they leveraged those games to get into the ACC for their basketball and non revs. It made perfect sense - a win win if you will. Then, ...., the Big East was formed, the PAC imploded, the "P2" consolidated most of the blue bloods into two conferences for the media money, and we now have an expanded playoff system that pays a ton of money. Add in that the ACC is stuck with their once rich media deal until 2036, the FSU and Clemson debacle, and uneven revenue distribution - things are precarious at best for the ND/ACC relationship. Too much has changed in such a short period of time for anything to be taken for granted. It was the 10 year scheduling agreement with Clemson that got my attention. Sure, they count towards the agreement where it fits, but then you have the years where it doesn't fit. If ND leaves the ACC (not a prediction), then they will continue to play Clemson every year, whether they count or not. It's probably one of the most significant developments that has taken place, and it's often over looked. If they can do that with Clemson, they can do that with any ACC school, and if they can do that with the top football brands in the ACC, then they can do that with any B12 school, or any ACC school for that matter. It is entirely possible that they enter into an agreement with USC as well, and if they do that, Purdue, MSU, Michigan, and other traditional "rivals" would certainly sign on to that, or at least consider it. Add in Navy and Stanford (as an example), it is my contention that they would not have difficulty rounding out their schedule. It would just take a few years because of the existing contracts. As far as the SEC, pretty sure LSU would sign on to that. Don't know about other top teams in the SEC or BIG for that matter, as while they schedule ND from time to time, the history just isn't there.

It is not what people on here think. It is what realistic ND fans espouse. Right now, one of Clemson's conference "obligations" is to play ND every so often - yes, they like that obligation. Playing ND in the future outside of that may not be possible in late season games because, if the ND/ACC agreement breaks, Clemson will have other late season conference obligations. and you still didn't answer why they aren't doing so now...because the conference teams have late season obligations - occasional one offs? sure. But not enough for consistent schedules far enough in advance. ND's and other team's future schedules show this. I'm done.

that would turn down a late season ND game - not one. 2030 is approaching quickly, and contracts will be altered to bring more value to the media companies. You might be right, but I certainly wouldn't bet the house on it.

It happens already. This is not a novel concept. It is what prompted ND’s deal with the ACC in the first place. And the policy is not about “freezing out” Notre Dame. It’s about managing and fulfilling television contracts. ** Edited by Tailgate Guru at 12/16/2025, 7:18:59 AM

In fact the 72 games of the schools you mentioned dwarfs it too, can we agree on that too?

agree that it's close?

-tee to get in the playoff starting next year. Next year if the exact same thing happened, Miami that beat them would be left out, and hardly anybody is talking about it. That's just what they wanted, they could not be more pleased with themselves.

..that ND should just sit in a corner quietly when the rug was pulled out on them at the last moment is ridiculous. I would submit that no school, administration or fanbase would be quiet and act like good little soldiers if that happened to them.

he thought he was doing was a terrible look. It was the ESPN/SEC machine. Not the ACC. He went after the ACC because he knows they aren't in any position to truly fight back, even when he was wrong. He should be embarrassed.

right up to the point they filed a lawsuit.

these guys have really set fire to their rep.