A hypothical. If ND leaves the ACC, does anyone think
for one second that ACC schools would not schedule them? I call BS on that.
Give me one ACC school that would not schedule ND if they left the conference, just ONE.
111 Replies
S
Stech
5mo
but with the recent love fest between ND and the SEC, when the real fight for the playoff spot should have been Bama and Miami, I think Sankey will keep kissing up to ND and probably schedule them in November. It might even be why SEC reportedly wants two historically Basketball Schools in UVA and UNC, but lately with the B1G the best football conference, more money than the SEC, the Northern Out of State students willing to pay very high tuition, and keeping with their academic elite, they may lose them to the B1G.
** Edited by Stech at 2/12/2026, 8:53:14 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
5mo
do certain B12 schools if they can’t get November games from the SEC & B1G. I think Sankey is kissing up to ND for a reason, but it will be interesting to see if he can get any SEC schools to play them in November. Maybe the bottom of the SEC, but we will see.
PS You are as big of an ND fan as there is on this board lately. Why do you love them so much?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TerryD
5mo
He is willing to do whatever he can to do so.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
SMU Pony
5mo
I would have to think if push came to shove and they were forced to pick one, they'd prefer the Big Ten over the SEC. Better geographic fit, rekindle several traditional rivalries (Michigan, MSU, USC) and keep the ability to play a national schedule with the four west coast schools
(In response to this post by TerryD)
S
Stech
5mo
The two problems for ND is if either the SEC or B1G expand, which many think the announcements will happen in ~2029, then they both will have more teams to schedule, making it harder for ND to schedule them. The other problem is that the traditional powers of the SEC probably would rather not play ND in November because of a possible late loss and injuries that time of year.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
5mo
Maintaining football independence is the priority at ND, it will do anything/everything to keep it.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
5mo
will likely leave the ACC for the P2, maybe even be announced in 2029. I think the tide may have turned to UVA and UNC to the B1G more than the SEC right "now". Way better fit as far as Academics (to keep some faculty happy), getting northern out of state students who will pay more, more money earned than the SEC athletically, competing in other sports, and the B1G has won 3 straight National Championships in football with 3 different schools.
However, now that Virginia Tech is off the sideline and ready to step up again with money and hires, and I think the SEC has been the better fit for athletics. So honestly I could see Virginia Tech and Notre Dame continuing our upcoming matchups. Our AD recently said, that some schedules will change, but was adamant about us keeping the Notre Dame games.
All that said, things change so fast, it could all turn on a dime and here comes the Super League as a P1.🤷♂️
** Edited by Stech at 2/12/2026, 2:43:54 PM
(In response to this post by TerryD)
5mo
the former Big East schools. I think they will stick to their footprint, and schedule the likes of Pitt, GT, Miami, and maybe add a B12 school or two.
The SEC schools would continue to schedule them, and even going to 9 conference games will not deter some of the more traditional ND opponents like LSU. Do not discount non blue blood schools of the BIG as well.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
5mo
USC-w saying no to November, is probably a sign that the B1G doesn't plan to play them in November, or at least the Blue Bloods. The SEC lower tier teams might play them, but I don't think you are fully understanding the 9 conference schedule impact at all the P4. Play ND early, sure, but the blue bloods might have them scheduled, but like USC-w and say earlier or not at all, I would not be so sure like you are that is a slam dunk the blue bloods will play them in November. You clearly look out for ND, but these schools are looking out for themselves. The 9 game conference schedule combined with not wanting to lose in November to have a better chance to play in the playoff, I think is bigger than you are making it out to be. It could take some time, but USC-w has already started that precedented, and the USC ND has unbelievable history. BYU and ND does not and it will not make up for that game.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
think it is as much of an issue as some of you do.
No one can replace a USC/ND match up. USC may have the luxury of not wanting a top opponent at the end of the season, but blue bloods have that option.
If you are not a blue blood however, an OOC game with ND is desirable. The ACC does it as a conference. I have no doubt that there are schools willing to do it as well.
(In response to this post by Stech)
5mo
assumption that the ACC schools are "happy" about the ACC scheduling their game against Notre Dame late in the season. I'm not sure you can make that assumption. Especially since it is well established that the ACC is doing it out of necessity since Notre Dame is a non-football member. If you look at Notre Dame's schedule prior to joining the ACC in 2013, you won't find too many examples where they played ACC schools in November (going back to 2000).
Wake 2011 and 2012
UMD 2011 (Shamrock Series)
Duke 2007 (appears to be a money game)
UNC 2006 Note: the game at UNC was played 10/11/08
FSU 2003 Note: the game at FSU was played 10/26/02
I do believe there is a reason for it. Especially when you look at who Notre Dame scheduled during that same time period. If I were to describe Notre Dame's scheduling pattern for late October and November, then I would say it consisted of 2-3 former Big East Football Conference schools, Navy, Stanford/USC at the end of the year, and a variety of schools to fill in the remaining gaps. FWIW Tennessee has been the only SEC school willing to play Notre Dame in October (or November) during that time period. If Notre Dame decides to leave the ACC at some point in the future, then I think a couple things are likely to happen.
1. Unlikely to see too many ACC schools agree to play Notre Dame in late October and/or November unless the Notre Dame game is played in a week the ACC school was originally going to have a bye and the ACC school moved the bye to a different week. Basically the ACC school is not going to actively pursue a game against Notre Dame late in the regular season because any reward is not worth the risk.
2. Notre Dame will enter into some sort of scheduling arrangement with a conference or two or three to ensure they will have guaranteed opponents late in the regular season.
3. I don't think the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC will agree to the arrangement, but the Big XII and the other FBS conference might. Particularly if some schools want their bye week in late October or early November and it creates an odd number of teams from a conference scheduling standpoint. Basically 1 other team would be forced to take their bye week that same week or be forced to find an OOC game because of the another conference member wanted its bye week late in the season.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
of ND having a scheduling relationship with a conference are over. They in all likelihood, would schedule long term agreement with individual schools, not conferences. Even I will admit that ND has worn out it's welcome in the ACC, and I think you are right in that schools won't be rushing to fill in ND's scheduling gaps in the short term.
A 12 year agreement is a long time, and that agreement has value to Clemson if they were to make a play for the SEC. The same can be said for any school aspiring to be invited to the P2. While I have no way of knowing the specifics of the Clemson agreement, if ND were to make those long term commitments in the future, I can't imagine it wouldn't include contractual obligations to have some of those games in October and November.
The recent 2 game scheduling of BYU in '26 and '27 caught my attention as well. It was announced in December, and the B12 just scheduled the conference games around it. Pretty short notice.
If you take the top 5 BIG and SEC schools, they EXPECT to get into the playoffs every year, and may not take the chance on a loss to ND. i don't think you could make that argument for the mid to lower tier schools in those conferences.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 2/12/2026, 4:29:52 PM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
5mo
schools. However, it doesn't mean those agreements will result in late regular season games on a consistent basis. Don't be surprised if the vast majority, maybe even all, the games against Clemson end up in September and early October. You might see 1 or 2 games in the series played in late October because another ACC school has a bye that week and Clemson either has to use that week as its bye or play an OOC game. However, I don't see Clemson agreeing to play Notre Dame in November because there is too much at stake to take that risk. At least until the Playoff Committee starts to reward teams for late season OOC losses against marquee names. Right now, Alabama is the only example where the Playoff Committee has rewarded a team with a late season loss.
As far as the mid to lower tier schools go, the same logic the top tier teams use to limit the number of "difficult" late season OOC games will be used by those schools too. Basically all the schools want to put themselves in the best position to potentially earn a playoff bid that season or a bowl bid because they can't predict how good or bad they will be in that season. So the best path for those schools is to play their required P4 opponent in September or early October at the latest unless you final game of the season is against your OOC rival. If you lose the game, then you can minimize the damage because you still have plenty of games left on the schedule to achieve either goal. Whereas a late season OOC loss will likely knock you out of contention for a playoff bid because there aren't enough games left to recover from it. It may or may not impact the bowl bid situation going into the game. If the team is not already bowl eligible going into the game, then it will put even more pressure into winning the remaining games on the schedule. Most likely the games will be conference games unless you are one of the ACC schools who has a SEC rival.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
Just ask Miami.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
5mo
games to recover from the loss. Whereas a loss in November means you have anywhere from 0 to maybe 3 games (include the CCG) left on the schedule to try to recover from the loss. ADs and HCs have no control over their conference schedule. However, they have 100% control over their OOC.
If Kansas has a choice to play at Notre Dame in either Week 2 or Week 12 (out of a 15-week regular season), then I can guarantee you that the AD and HC will pick Week 2 over 90% of the time. The reason is simple too. The worse case scenario (aka a loss to Notre Dame) says that Kansas has a minimum of 10 more games to play after Week 2 to put them in a position to earn at least an at-large bid to the FBS Playoffs. Whereas after Week 12, Kansas only has 3 more games which may not be enough time depending on how the other teams do around them. Even playing in the Big XII CCG may not be enough to recover from the loss. It is risk analysis 101.
I'm not sure why you referenced Miami for 2 reasons. First, Miami played Notre Dame in Week 1 (Aug. 31) last season, not late in the season. Second, Miami has no control over when it plays Notre Dame because the ACC has complete control given the ACC's "special" relationship with Notre Dame. Even after the ACC agreed to let Notre Dame play Clemson, FSU, and Miami more frequently, the ACC still retained at least some control over which weeks the games will be played in to minimize the risk of scheduling conflicts.
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 2/12/2026, 9:28:17 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
them across the finish line in qualifying for the playoffs. If that game was later in the season, it would have counted the same.
If KU (good example) was offered a one and one with ND assuming that ND had a need to schedule November games, KU would not be given the choice between week 2 or week 12. In the bigger picture, the assumption is that teams will lose to ND, so they need time to "recover", so it's too risky to schedule them in November. To me, that just doesn't make sense, as a late season win would give a stronger case to get into the playoffs.
Watch SMU's game this year. If they are ranked 18th as they are now, that ND game would be huge for them to get an at large. Just the kind of game you need on your schedule if you are not already a blue blood.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
5mo
OOC schedule. If Kansas is looking to fill out its 2027 OOC and it has received input from the Big XII on when the likely dates for the conference games, then for discussion sake let's assume Kansas has these dates available to play OOC games.
2027 regular season schedule is 13 weeks (Sept 1 - Nov 27 with CCGs played Dec 1 - 3)
Sept 4 (Week 1) -
Sept 11 (Week 2) -
Sept 18 (Week 3) -
Nov 6 (Week 10) - The reason Nov 6 is available is because K-State is currently the only other Big XII team with an open date that week and Kansas is scheduled to play K-State on Oct 15 (Week 7).
If the Big XII is playing a 9-game conference schedule and teams are only allowed to have 1 bye week because there are only 13 weeks in the 2027 regular season schedule, then Kansas has a "choice" to either take the bye week in September or Week 10. I guarantee that HC's preference is to take it in Week 10 because taking it in September when the team should be the healthiest provides no benefit. Particularly if Kansas can't move a conference games to Week 1-3 because the Big XII opponents all have OOC games already scheduled on those dates. What I am saying is that when Kansas' AD talks to Notre Dame's AD the conversation will play out something like this.
Kansas AD: Notre Dame, we are looking for a Week 2 opponent. Is Notre Dame interested in a game?
Notre Dame AD: Unfortunately, Notre Dame already has an opponent scheduled for that date. However, we are looking for a Week 10 opponent. Is Kansas interested?
At that point in the conversation Kansas AD may or may not say that date is available. Especially if the HC has already told the AD that he doesn't want to have a bye week in September. The conversation may have to be paused so the Kansas AD can have time to get the HC on board. If the HC is still not on board with the idea, then the AD either has to go against his HC's wishes or turn down Notre Dame's offer.
As far as the Miami-Notre Dame game goes, the recovery time for the losing team will always be the difference. If a team is going to lose a game, then it is ALWAYS better to lose earlier in the season than later in the season. The reason is the same; more recovery time. Notre Dame had 11 more games left on the schedule to recover from the Miami loss. Notre Dame would have recovered from it if ESPN had not played the office politics card to get Alabama into the FBS Playoffs through the back door. Whereas if Notre Dame had lost to Miami in Week 10, then it would have had only 3 more games to try to recover from the loss to Miami.
So you are telling us that if you are a HC and your team just lost a marquee game that has taken your team out of contention for a FBS Playoff bid, then you would rather have 3 games than 11 games to try to get your team back into contention for a bid?
** Edited by VTHokie2000 at 2/13/2026, 11:30:08 AM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
conference schedule, unlike OOC games, are made up every year. BYU contracted the Oct. 17th game with ND before the conference schedule was released. If KU did the same, then the B12 would have just scheduled around it, as the schools are in control of their OOC schedule. I think many just assume that a school can not schedule a game when traditionally conference games are scheduled. I just do not think that is the case.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
5mo
will always trump the OOC schedule. Conferences will try their best to accommodate when OOC games are scheduled. However, if a conference has exhausted all options and it has to play a conference game the same week an OOC game was originally scheduled, then the team has no choice but to reschedule the OOC game for another date. If the game can still be played in the same season, then great. If not, then the game is rescheduled for a later date and both teams will have to find replacement opponents to fill 1 of the available remaining dates. The schools, not the conferences, would be on the hook to satisfy any financial requirements (i.e., cancellation fees) that was defined in the contract between the 2 schools.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
first sentence is an assumption. When the conference schedules are released, they become contracted games (the dates, no the times). If there is a contracted game and date already in the books, then the conference games would be scheduled around them, just as they just did with BYU.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
5mo
games around the already scheduled OOC games. However, there may be circumstances where that is not possible. I do know most (maybe all) conferences now use a software program to generate the schedules after including all the relevant data points (i.e., known OOC games, specific dates for conference games, home vs. away, etc.). The software is the one moving conference games around behind the scenes until every member satisfies the conference scheduling requirement. If the software is not able to resolve a scheduling conflict, then it most likely flags the issue so the humans can resolve it. Depending on which software is used to generate the schedules, it may even provide potential solutions to the humans. It is at that point the conference will either phone or email the involved schools' ADs to see if they are willing to move an OOC game to a different date so a conference game can be played on that date. At that point the AD has to call the opposing school's AD to see if they agree to the change.
Remember all of this is being done out of the public eye and prior to the schools officially announcing their schedule for the upcoming season. Whenever there is a delay in a school officially announcing its schedule for the upcoming season, then it is usually because there is an issue (i.e., opponent, date, etc.) that still needs to be resolved. Outside the ACC's decision to do an 8/9 split, all the other conferences require their members to play the same number of conference games. Hence why I said a conference game will always trump an OOC game if the only the only date the conference game can be played on is the same week as when the OOC game is scheduled. One reason the ACC is in a scheduling pickle is because mathematically it is not possible for 17 schools to play 9 conference games every year. Even the ACC confirms it when it announced the scheduling change.
"Starting in 2027, 16 teams will play a nine-game ACC schedule annually, with one team each season playing eight league games and scheduling two Power Four opponents outside the conference to accommodate the 10 Power Four games requirement."
Link:
Click Here
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
5mo
the regular season. ESPN is already getting great ratings with its SEC coverage, so that game would get buried and not improve ESPN's overall ratings. Tenn (and VT) won't go for it because juice isn't worth the squeeze. Again, remember Risk Analysis 101 because that will drive when both schools will want to play their neutral site game.
Aug/Sep = Green Light
Oct = Yellow Light
Nov = Red Light
The reality is Tenn will NEVER agree to visit Blacksburg for an OOC game unless VT is willing to agree to a 3-for-1 deal (Knoxville-Blacksburg) and VT will never agree to that arrangement. Bristol Motor Speedway (BMS) is likely the only neutral site venue both schools would agree to play another neutral site game in. Given BMS's primary purpose, the motor sports calendars may eliminate October and/or November as potential months anyways.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
Stech
5mo
on that we agree. This could easily be a problem when the committee focuses on quality wins in November versus other schools.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
that generated good discussion but, likely never materialized in reality with the landscape changes coming. You also have offered your opinion over and over with no real substantive reasons to support it and even less support for your statements from other posters participating in the thread. You might ask yourself why that is? Are you smarter than everybody else and see something they do not? Or could it be your position is largely disconnected from reality with little probability of happening?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
on this board. I'm just pointing out that there is no doubt in my mind that the ACC and B12 schools would most definitely accommodate late season scheduling, not only for ND, but any top blue blood. Can I proof that? Of course not, but even you know that if your are not in the P2, you do not have the luxury to be picky (snobbish?) about exclusivity.
If the ACC is going to survive as a top 3 conference, they need a new media deal. Since that seems very unlikely until 2036, they need every single high profile game they can schedule.
The probability the ND leave the conference before 2036 seem to grow every day. The recent comments by the higher ups at ND, and the recent rift with the ACC certainly seems to increase that probability.
Will it happen? Hell, I don't know, but if it does, it's better to have a plan in place. The B12 would take those game in a heartbeat - I think that is obvious. While I see no way that ND would "join" our conference, they have a ton of alumni in Arizona, and that BYU matchup is very compelling for fans.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
but, you were challenged to provide substantive reasons for why there is "no doubt in your mind". The reasons others and I have provided to you for our belief have very little to do with exclusivity or being snobbish and what you call picky I would call being pragmatic and realistic about scheduling and the attendant risks/rewards. I am not really concerned whether ND stays or goes. I think they are a good fit all around with the ACC and I believe they are a value to the ACC. However, that being said, my lack of concern stems from the big changes I think happen around 2030 that render a lot of this posturing potentially wasted energy. Big media and the P2 are driving the bus absent government intervention and the best thing the ACC and Big 12 can do for themselves between now and 2030 is WIN. Winning leads to relevance and leverage while losing leads to the exact opposite.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
pull an "Indiana" out of the hat, that is for sure.
Miami did a good job getting to the Championship game, but winning more of those games is a must. 2030 is not that far off.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
Vippie1
5mo
I dont think in 2026 scheduling ND is any more a plum then a dozen or so other traditional brands. And the fact that every ACC school can say been there/done that makes it even more so.
In VTs case I think the fan base would be much more engaged for home and home series with 1) Penn State- remarkably they have never played and now the added bonus of the Franklin hire. 2) Michigan - only a bowl game, never regular season 3) USC, never a home game 4) Texas , never except a bowl game . In VTs case doubtful any of those will come to fruition anytime soon, but the point is ND is just one of a number of potentially desirable OOC opponents for ACC schools.
Do I think BC would play them in October or November- sure. But I dont think the top tier of the ACC would be that excited after September.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TerryD
5mo
Will SEC and Big Ten teams play ACC teams out of conference much going forward?
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
V
Vippie1
5mo
the schools in those two conferences, as the rules of the game are right now, don't have much incentive to schedule OOC games with ACC/B12/ND or anybody outside of each other. So guess VT will be scheduling B12 games and ND will be scheduling the service academies.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
5mo
be willing to bet that the ACC would make an accommodation to have that series later in the season as well.
(In response to this post by Vippie1)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
week OOC games can you name any late season marquee OOC games in recent times?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
my original post was a hypothetical, as would Penn State scheduling a series with VT. I could certainly see VT choosing Penn State over ND hands down if there was actually a choice.
BTW, while the current ND games are contractually obligated, they certainly are OOC games, aren't they?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
if the idea is as good as you claim why aren't the media companies now lining up to be first in the pool in these changing times? I think we both know the contractual obligation removes the OOC designation you are reaching for. Perhaps times will eventually change IF the CFP moves to 16 or 24, however, the current risk/reward thinking will likely hold. If that is not enough inertia the conference media relationships make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put together except for ESPN with both the SEC and ACC under contract. If it was as great of an idea as you claim ESPN could have already written the check but, it is likely neither the ACC or the SEC has agreed to that outside of the long established traditional rivalry games.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
language of the actual contract, we don't know if those rivalry games were addressed as exceptions, or that is just how the cookie schedule crumbled.
As far as I know, I have not heard of any restrictions on when to have OOC conference games, other than history and tradition. With actual conference games being played in week zero outside the country, there are certainly exceptions to playing all of your conference games at the end of the season.
The B12 and ACC are in no position to not accommodate an OOC game with ND, or anyone else that wanted to schedule one later in the season. I think that is up to the schools first, as they are the ones in control of their OOC scheduling for the most part. If there is a contract for the BYU/ND game to be later in the season, the conference would just schedule around it.
As usual, without having the actual contract (between the schools and the conference), there really isn't any way to verify it one way or the other.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
that if it calls for 5 or 6 games some will more than likely have to occur at the back end. You also don't need a statement to know that late season games afford little to no recovery time for a bad result and the focus is on the conference championship. I agree the Big 12 would schedule around it but, the motivation for the ACC differs having already had ND under contract. You can tilt at this windmill as long as you like but, to use your words, I have not seen any compelling argument from you yet or even an argument that fits under the current landscape.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
that many make. It has been cited as to why the USC series was discontinued, but that is a double edged sword for those not considered blue bloods. A high profile win could be enough to get them in, and is well worth the risk.
USC can afford to be picky, most schools can not. That theory goes to the wayside if a team schedules an easy game towards the end of the season like the SEC has done since the beginning of time.
In the ACC with the uneven distribution system, every single school should be compelled to schedule the best OOC matchups as possible. They too will have to choose between the risk of a loss weighted against a game not many will watch.
While the B12 doesn't have uneven distributions tied to viewership, they do have a new contract to negotiate in a few years. They too need to weigh the "auto" win compared to the high profile loss of playing a school like a ND later in the season.
I just do not see the ACC having the luxury of not keeping ND contests later in the season, whether their Olympics are in the conference or not. Of course they would accommodate those games. You can argue differently, but the ACC and B12 schools would be lined up to schedule those games.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
what you are saying, particularly for the ACC. The Big 12 might likely jump at any high profile game for the contract reasons you cited and the fact they just don't have many high profile OOC games. The ACC on the other hand has ND presently along with SEC games and even the occasional B1G game. They also have the current contract and the very strong likelihood that there will be upheaval come 2030. The point being the ACC is not nearly as desperate for ND as you make it sound and any deal has a variety of terms to consider including timing, location and media rights.
That double edge sword you tout cuts both ways. Yes a win could enhance a resume but, a loss, particularly a bad loss might torpedo a solid and potentially playoff worthy resume.
Your uneven distribution argument applies mostly to home or neutral site games. If ND has no agreement with the ACC there is no kick for going to South Bend. Moreover, there is still the question of an even home and home versus a likely demand, particularly to lower profile schools, for an uneven split. Seems to me you're trying to apply a Big 22 mindset to ACC circumstances without a real understanding of the potential differences in motivations.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
with a ND that is not in the ACC, those would be home and home games. I suppose there could be some neutral site games, but the same difference.
Maybe I just learned something, are you saying that viewership numbers as it pertains to the uneven distribution is only relegated to home and neutral site games? I did not know that. As a matter of fact, I'm extremely interested in how the ACC is going to calculate the uneven distributions, as if that is successful, it could be the way things go in the B12 in the future. (that could be another unending conversation).
Yes, currently the ACC has ND games contracted through the conference. If they leave the conference, the contracts would be with the schools, not the conference. Circling back to where we started, there isn't one single ACC school that would not schedule the Irish. (the original post)
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
but, you can never seem to get out of them and see reason and logic. Nobody knows how the uneven distributions will be calculated because the ACC has not shared the specific metrics and formulas yet. If the ACC does things like they usually do, the first inkling will come along with the first distributions. Of course, even that could be obscured with the 3 new members. What everybody does know is that media money only comes when the ACC is home and ND keeps their home viewing. You are also fooling yourself if you think ND settles for a straight home and home with anyone aside from Clemson, Miami and maybe FSU. Neutral site games are another animal because of other unique costs and operations that may arise from a particular site. You can believe whatever you wish but, your current position and hypothesis is wrong.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
who keeps the money for a home game. We were discussing viewership numbers and ratings - metrics that will be used in the uneven distribution as stated by multiple press releases. Pretty sure is doesn't matter where you play, those viewership numbers will be calculated - am I wrong?
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
why would you distribute conference media money based on viewership numbers that actually generate no money for the conference?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
With your premise for a change, but what I have read so far, it appears that is exactly what they are going to do.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
or what you may have read but, the tidbits I have seen do not lead me to that conclusion.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
S
SMU Pony
5mo
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
one single B12 school that wouldn't schedule ND as well.
While I understand why all of you are up in arms about ND, the reality of the situation is obvious.
So far, all I'm getting from the posters here is that attacking the messemger is the right path, but not one single poster has challenged the actual post.
SMU would most definetly grab their ankles to have a 12 year scheduling agreement with ND like Clemson. That would extend to every single ACC school. (every single B12 school as well)
Why does that get under everyones skin? Because I posted it? Because I'm not on the hate ND bandwagon?
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
S
SMU Pony
5mo
1. ACC fans have a right to be mad at ND in the wake of their AD throwing a childish temper tantrum after the CFP selection. Time heals most wounds but that one is still relatively fresh.
2. The ND-ACC arrangement benefits the ACC. It also benefits ND greatly, allowing them to schedule 5-6 P4 opponents in Oct/Nov and giving them a home for their other sports in a league with similarly-aligned institutions that makes geographic sense for ND. The Big Ten and SEC aren't giving ND that deal. The Big 12 would, but ND would probably schlep it back to the Big East before it ever aligned itself with the likes of Houston, West Virginia, and Kansas State.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
running for any kind of ND deal like the ACC has. I also concur, that the P2 would not give such a deal. it's my contention, that ND doesn't need the ACC deal, or any deal requiring them to schedule their football games. I think that shipped sailed the day they inked a 12 year scheduling arrangement with Clemson.
ND has no history with 90% of the current B12 schools. I don't even pretend to think that it's an option for ND - it just doesn't make sense. West Virginia games would be fun though.
That being said, if ND were to sign a 12 year schedule with BYU (an example), those games would have value, and would be part of the media deal negotiations. If the ACC's media deal didn't go until 2036, the ACC would have leverage to get a better deal than they currently have, and ND's games would be a part of that.
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
5mo
and relabel them as the cry babies? Or the whining domees. Until they publicly admit that their attempt to blaming everyone except themselves for the CFP selections was really all about the CFP punishing them for their baby like finger pointing…
(In response to this post by SMU Pony)
T
TerryD
5mo
..the reaction of any other school who had the playoff rug pulled out on them at the last minute.
FSU's reaction was to sue the ACC. What would be the reaction of Miami or VT or any other school in that scenario?
Would they all just keep quiet and play in a meaningless bowl with most of the team opting out?
Would they be good little ESPN soldiers and enhance the bowl's TV audience?
Would they just grin and bear it?
** Edited by TerryD at 2/12/2026, 11:14:18 AM
(In response to this post by HOKIEGOBBLE)
5mo
Either you’re too young or you’ve got your head in the sand because if you go back a few years doesn’t matter how many cause it happened to us and you guys snatched away our Fiesta Bowl🤣🤣🤣!
And based on the tenor of a lot of your posts, I’m gonna bet you’re gonna come up with a great excuse while it was OK for you guys to get the bowl that was slated for us!
I never understood the term. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, but I’m sure you can explain it to me and apply it to this situation and the one that the whiners complain about.
And we did not threaten to sue take our ball and go home go exploring other options because we got screwed blah blah blah
And I don’t use correct punctuation as in commas when somebody gets me riled up with such a very easy retort!
(In response to this post by TerryD)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
they might even whine like ND fans but, hopefully their AD's are smart enough to place the blame where it belongs versus Bevacqua's pathetic performance.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
You have been given several responses as to how and why that might not be true, you just seemingly refuse to read them or acknowledge their validity which is ironically one of the major sources of your repeated problems here.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
refutes my post. A lot of emotional posts, but not one single example of any team in the ACC that would not sign a long term scheduling areement with ND.
Can you come up with one?
The 12 year Clemson scheduling agreement changed the dynamic, and shows that ND could schedule the top ACC schools whether they are in the conference, or not. I see it as a game changer, and could very well be how ND schedules in the future.
I have yet to see a compelling argument that the ACC would not accomodate a late season Clemson/ND game if ND leaves the conference - or anyone else for that matter. The conference NEEDS those high profile games.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
you refuse to read and acknowledge the reality. Scheduling, particularly late season is problematic and your refusal to acknowledge that just shows your lack of understanding. You are your own worst enemy here on these boards and remaining oblivious to what and how you post will not improve your situation or reception here.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
are probelmatic - based on what? History? Tradition? Emotion?
The USC example has been overblown, and is but one point on the gragh. ND will have no problem getting schools to accomodate their football schedule. The ease of late season scheduling is not why they joined the ACC. They need a place to park their Olympics. That dynamic has changed as well with the revival of the Big East as a basketball conference.
I have no porbem exiting stage left if these conversations continue to spiral, and you guys can run me off if you feel the need. Pretty sophomoric if you ask me, but it is what it is. I'm not here to become one of the group, I'm here to be challenged.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
and you very rarely respond in an effective manner. Sophomoric is an apt description of your behavior on these boards. The late season situation has been explained to you before. It potentially has conference and playoff impacts and limited to no time to recover from a bad result. It was not favored before and will be favored even less in the new nine game set up. Easing late season scheduling challenges was absolutely one consideration in their original ACC deal. Nobody is trying to run you off but, we are challenging you to do much better in supporting your arguments and spewing Big 12 propaganda. You control your own reception and actions.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
as facts, but you are making assumptions. Not much differently than me on this subject. How do you know that late season scheduling was one of the considerations? Common sense says that you might be right, but before that scheduling agreement, ND had a much tougher SOS, and I don't recall them having difficulty scheduling games.
ESPN especially, and any other media company that write the checks just might disagree with your assumptions. I certainly do, but I don't write the checks.
On the original ACC deal, how much of ND's compensation was based on the football games they agreed to schedule? Of course, there is no way of knowing the answer to that question definitively, but based on the new media deals of the BIG, SEC, and B12, they, like many in the ACC, are being undercompensated.
Currently, the ACC does accommodate late season scheduling of ND games. If ND pulls out of the conference around 2030, do you think that the ACC would not make that accommodation moving forward? ESPN might have a say in that, don't you think?
No, I'm not on the ND hating bandwagon. I think the ACC is fortunate to be associated with ND, and I also think that the the fans of the schools of the ACC need to step back, look at the bigger picture, and appreciate those games while they have them.
I can't remember the last time I "pumped" the B12. That conference is fine, but will never be a P2. Could be a landing spot for VT if the ACC falters, and the B12 would be better because of that (a fans perspective). Until that is resolved one way or the other, the ACC continues to be on the realignment clock.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
nor are they really assumptions as they have been stated by people in conference leadership in articles covering proposed nine game schedules and the playoffs. If you look back around the time of the ACC/ND agreement you can see the discussions surrounding scheduling certainty and consistency for ND. If ESPN disagreed with my points they have had the ability to write those checks and influence matchups for the last decade. You may want ask yourself why that has not happened? I think the fans of the ACC have appreciated the ND deal but, they are now beginning to ask themselves if the juice is worth the squeeze, particularly in light of the landscape shifts that have already occured and still loom approaching 2030. I think you pump the Big 12 both directly and indirectly with regularity, perhaps more than you even realize and I suspect posters here would agree.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
Notre Dame or their SEC rival during rivalry week), then it was likely due to that ACC school playing a conference game in Week 1. Sometimes on Labor Day Night, but not necessarily. VT's 2019 schedule comes to mind. As a result of playing BC on Aug. 31 (Week 1), VT OOC schedule looked like this:
Sep 7 = ODU
Sep 14 = Furman (FCS)
Oct 12 = Rhode Island (FCS)
Nov 2 = at Notre Dame
I think the abrupt cancellation of the ECU series is what ultimately led to VT playing 2 FCS teams (RI being the replacement team) that year.
The only recent example I can find where VT played an OOC game in Nov and the opponent isn't Notre Dame is 2022. Here is the OOC schedule for that year.
Sep 2 - at ODU (Week 1)
Sep 17 - Wofford
Sep 22 - WVU
Nov 19 - at Liberty
VT played BC on Sep 10 and the game against UVA on Nov 26 was cancelled due to the UVA tragedy. It is worth noting that on Nov 19, the ACC had multiple OOC games scheduled for that week
BC at Notre Dame
FSU vs. UL-Lafayette
VT at Liberty
UVA vs. Coastal Carolina (cancelled due to the tragedy)
FSU didn't play UVA or VT that year, so it is possible some of these OOC games were moved to those dates to make room for conference games or came about because those 3 schools (not including BC) needed to fill their OOC schedules and they found willing dance partners on short notice. I know the 2022 VT-Liberty game was apart of the 2017 announcement with the specific date of the game (I think) TBD.
Link:
Liberty-VT Series
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
schedule late season tough OOC games absent special circumstances for all the reasons you, I and others have mentioned. A media partner wanting a late season OOC for TV likely doesn't rise to that level of special circumstances and the Big 12 poster just continues to be intentionally obtuse for whatever reason.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
5mo
recover from a loss. However, the only reason to do it in November is when you are playing your biggest OOC rival during Rivalry Week (i.e. any of the ACC-SEC rivalry games). I do wish conferences would go back to when Rivalry Week was the last 2 weeks of the regular season and some teams had an open week during Thanksgiving Weekend. If the conference arranges so everyone ends on the same weekend (i.e. the weekend before Thanksgiving), then it wouldn't give a team a potential competitive advantage going into the CCG because both teams would be coming off a bye week. I guess I think there is something magical to end the regular season playing against your biggest rival instead of playing the game in the middle of the regular season. Maybe it is because the games after the rivalry game might fee a little anti-climatic because the team (and fans) put all that extra energy into the rivalry game. Although I do get why the Red River Shootout is played on that date and the Iowa-Iowa State game at the beginning of the season.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
5mo
I went to South Bend when VT played there and the atmosphere was very mehhhh. I was truly wondering what all the hype was about. Once was enough. I definitely won't be going back. I would much rather VT play a SEC team than ND if we need ratings or a good atmosphere. The AD complaining just drove this further. Not worth the squeeze anymore. Don't go away mad, just go away.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
the novelty of ND PERIOD has worn thin. They still deliver good ratings as you would expect because people tune in. The only question is whether they tune in hoping ND wins, or hoping they lose.
(In response to this post by Sunsetunderground)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
some as it was borne out in the last contract negotiations, however, relative to the entire market I think they are still solid. I will have to look at the numbers in more detail to check my perception.
(In response to this post by AnotherTechW)
5mo
in my life. It is what it is.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
V
Vippie1
5mo
people love to tune in to root against teams.
so all the controversy is just probably a ND conspiracy to try and move the needle a little more. :-)
(In response to this post by goldendomer)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
and to your follow on observation I would agree and ask why that might be?
(In response to this post by goldendomer)
5mo
and getting left out on a loop. Feeding the hate brings eyeballs and ND will assume that role gladly . Hate watching works, I do it occasionally.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
that hate watching works but, where we differ is I think that hate eventually transforms to ambivalence and apathy. I also believe Bevacqua with his routine likely stoked it and there COULD come a time in the future where an independent ND may not matter as much, if at all. Given that NBC was all in with ND at one time and they have now laid off some of that risk to other network/conference deals, I think the pressure is on ND to perform or the leverage for their next deal as an independent may diminish. It all may be irrelevant by 2030 either way.
(In response to this post by goldendomer)
5mo
the standing affiliation agreement. So, if they decided to end things with the ACC, which would indicate that they no longer want ACC teams on their schedule, then I'm not sure why they would then turn around and schedule individual ACC teams. FSU, Miami, Clemson, etc. aren't going to want Notre Dame on the docket in October/November. They do it now because they have to.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
Truthahn
5mo
They would not give VT a home and home. So, we would pass, I believe.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
Every ACC school is free to schedule Notre Dame. But the ACC would and should require those games to be played in September like virtually every other non-conference game.
Do you not understand why ND entered into a football arrangement with the ACC in the first place after being a partial member of the Big East with no football arrangement as part of the deal?
Conferences and the television networks that own them began controlling the blocks of the schedule when conference games must be played. Notre Dame was stuck playing the service academies and MAC schools in the second half of the season.
Miami or Clemson might like to schedule Notre Dame in November. But if the other 15 schools vote against allowing it and/or ESPN vetos it, Miami and Clemson have no say in the matter.
** Edited by Tailgate Guru at 2/9/2026, 8:48:43 PM
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
a home for their basketball and non revs. The dynamic has changed dramatically since then. ND will have no problem leaving if the ACC doesn't take the knee. You guys will regret it IMO.
BTW, would VT shy away from scheduleing ND should they leave the conference? With uneven distributions based on viewership numbers, my guess is that they wouldn't.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
S
saret
5mo
hit'em where the good lord split'em. What happens if they leave is up to them.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
includes a requirement as a part of the deal that VT must play its "home games" away from Blacksburg for whatever reason. Basically what currently exists in the Notre Dame-Navy series. If the series is a multiple game home-home series, then I could see VT agree to sell 1 or 2 games to Charlotte and/or the new Commanders stadium in DC. However, I don't see VT make the same mistake it did with the Wisky home-home series, which will never happen (inside Hokie joke), when it agreed to play its home game in Charlotte. I realize the money was too good to pass up. At the same time, I think VT will have a tough time replicating the vibe Lane Stadium brings to the table because a lot more Wisky fans will like be able to attend the game now. Given that Notre Dame has fans all over the country and they travel well, a neutral site home game against Notre Dame will likely result in a 50-50 split.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
T
TerryD
5mo
Navy has never played ND at home in Annapolis. Never in 100 years.
Why? Navy controls the gate for that game and always moves it to a big NFL stadium to generate more money in ticket sales.
That game is always Navy's #2 income-generating game after the Army game. It helps fund Navy's football program.
It has always been that way. It is Navy's call.
** Edited by TerryD at 2/10/2026, 7:07:34 AM
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
5mo
Plus, from a negotiation standpoint Notre Dame may be in a stronger position than VT. So even if VT "willingly" sells its home game in the future series to neutral site venues, Hokie fans may not see it that way. Especially if some of VT's "home games" end up being located in San Antonio, Las Vegas, Chicago, Foxboro (MA), etc. where perceptually the location of the game seems to benefit the visiting team (Notre Dame) more.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
T
TerryD
5mo
Those are all ND home games. ND takes the "show on the road", re-producing ND Stadium as much as possible.
Road games are not re-located elsewhere, except places like Wake Forest who move them to NFL stadiums for the same reasons Navy does.
(In response to this post by VTHokie2000)
5mo
where all of Notre Dame's home games against VT are played in South Bend. However, most or all of VT's home games end up being played at neutral site venues instead of in Blacksburg. The reason I say Hokie fans will see the perceptual similarities with the Navy series is because Navy has played its "home game" all over the country and Dublin, Ireland. As I noted in my previous post, it won't matter that VT willing sold its home games to those various venues because Hokie fans will perceive the decision differently.
Heck VT received a little blowback for its decision to move its future home game against Wisky to Charlotte especially since Wisky is still playing its home game at Camp Randall. Now if the home-home series had been announced as a double neutral site game, then I do believe Hokie fans would have had a very different reaction. Keep in mind VT has history of other schools (I am thinking of 1 in particular) of "screwing" VT fans out of a home. If you look at the history of the VT-Syracuse men's basketball series, then you will noticed the vast majority of those games were played at Syracuse when VT was supposedly a full member of the Big East. The reason is Jim Boeheim basically refused to travel to Blacksburg, so the Big East arranged it that VT basically always played conference games at Syracuse.
(In response to this post by TerryD)
5mo
Of course Tech would probably schedule Notre Dame if it could. And if Notre Dame backed out of the ACC deal, the game would be played in September. The fact that Tech and Notre Dame had never played prior to the current arrangement should give you a clue about how likely Notre Dame would agree to it, so that point is moot.
You are correct that things have changed since the ND-ACC deal was cut. The biggest advantage for the ACC was that it helped improve the ACC’s bowl arrangements because the better bowls figure they would get a shot at the Irish now and then. Since the Irish chose to breach that agreement this year and since bowls are slowly fading away, that advantage has greatly diminished.
Two or three home games against the Irish helps some with ticket and television revenue. But I suspect one would find that UVa will generate more money for itself and the ACC by playing a neutral site game with West VIrginia in Charlotte than playing Notre Dame In Charlottesville. Same for the Hokies playing South Carolina in Atlanta last year. The road games in South Bend create a little extra exposure for ACC schools but not much money because NBC’s deal tilts the revenue to ND.
From the Notre Dame side, the ACC has failed to up its football strength over the life of the deal. It has been impossible to predict what schools will be competitive year in and year out. And so a steady diet of Duke and Syracuse and Wake Forest and underperforming Florida State and Virginia Tech and North Carolina games does not excite anyone there.
ESPN owns the ACC. NBC owns Notre Dame and probably wants a bigger piece of Notre Dame. And on average, Notre Dame versus generic Big Ten school will draw better numbers in the seats and on television than Notre Dame versus random ACC school or underperforming Clemson.
So it’s no surprise Notre Dame wants out. Those of us who have no interest in an ACC football schedule that includes Cal, Stanford and SMU but not a single Carolina school are not thinking much past 2030 anyway. Maybe we get one more home game with the Irish; maybe none. Either way, if Notre Dame wants out, let them pay the fee and take a hike. But it shouldn’t expect special privileges to be granted by the voting majority of current ACC members no matter what a few select schools might want to do.
Let them go. Let them kick rocks.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
And it’s rather rich for someone from Big 12 country to be telling us what’s best for the ACC.
Stick to your lane.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
2
2hhoop3
5mo
his history speaks for itself.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
5mo
three "power" conferences will be the death knell of the college football I grew up loving.
You put me in a box because of where I live, or because of my moniker. That by definition is putting yourself in an echo chamber bubble. Not a good place to be with the recent history of the PAC imploding.
(In response to this post by Tailgate Guru)
5mo
Don’t you have a Kansas State game to watch?
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
L
lord4bid
5mo
The SEC, B1G, and then the also rans...
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
L
lord4bid
5mo
Football....
The SEC Dominates...the Big Ten has come up some in that their top teams have won recent NC's....the SEC won 7 straight NC's not that long ago. Although the B1G has won the last three NC's....since 2000, the SEC has won 14 NC's to the B1G's 5.
Men's Basketball...
Moving year to year...but historically, the ACC has 15 NC's, SEC 12, Big East 11, Big Ten 10, Independent 6, Big Twelve 3 (I found that Big 12 number unbelievable but ESPN lists it...)
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/3...
(In response to this post by lord4bid)
5mo
the ACC has won 9
the B East has won 9
the SEC has won 8
the B12 has won 3
the Big 10 has won 1
AI generated.
** Edited by Big12 guy at 2/11/2026, 11:24:12 AM
(In response to this post by lord4bid)
L
lord4bid
5mo
I thought the Big 12 would have had more than that,,,Kansas (X2) and Baylor....Same with B1G....
UConn had been a monster in the Big East...and I do think "basketball" when I hear BE...but with the Huskies now an Indy,..????
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
A ton of them believe the ACC has zero leverage and should just bend over and do whatever Notre Dame demands
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
EXACTLY what the ACC needs to do. They grabbed their ankles for FSU and Clemson, and they do not have a choice - they will do what ever ND demands of them.
Just how it is - sorry.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
5mo
and I don't take your word seriously.
But your constant postings from the 'outside view' (B12 fanboi perspective) are getting really tiring.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
certainly don't have to take me seriously, that is on you, but if you are going to accuse me of being wrong many times, give a fricken example.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
5mo
There have got to be more, but I'm not going to search your posting history.
1. I said ND would play six ACC games this year, and you said that won't happen. Check ND's schedule.
2. I said the ACC would make more money than the B12 on average by $5M or more. You said that cannot be. Check the average payout.
Both times, your position reflected a typical B12 fanboy bias. I've dealt with many B12 fans on other boards (they freak out whenever I said the ACC will target the B12 schools lol), and it's tiring to see more of them on the VT board.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
wasn't an argument , or even a disagreement. I said that the reports were that the B12 payouts would be more than the ACC's by the end of their contract. You disagreed. I still maintain my position on that issue.
The Stanford game was already scheduled, it has nothing, and I mean notthing, to do with the ACC/ND agreement. I do not recall us ever discudssing that issue, but really, it isn't even on my radar. You argue with yourself.
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)
5mo
https://virginiatech.sportswar.com/message_board/vtrealig...
This is the thread where I made a prediction that an ACC team will make $13M-$15M more than a Big 12 team ON AVERAGE and you became so upset and said the difference would be irrelevent and $5M at max.
https://virginiatech.sportswar.com/message_board/vtrealig...
This is a thread about the ACC ESPN renewal. You don’t think ND would agree with a six game schedule and said Stanford contract expired. I told you ND is again playing Stanford for 2026 season.
(In response to this post by Big12 guy)
5mo
the old media contract. the new one started this year. Have those numbers been posted? Hold your horses until the numbers are released. C'mon man, I think I remember discussing that with you as well.
ND did not agree to a 6 game schedule now, did they? At least not within their contractual obligations.
At the time of that discussion, they had not inked the Clemson deal, so from time to time, they may have 6 ACC games - but honestly, what is the significance of that?
(In response to this post by RandomAsianGuy)