T1B

Good point, I would agree with you that ND is probably better from the whole-team perspective. Miami's D is why they are ranked as they are but really, I don't think there is a truly deserving ACC team this year. Good point.

WolverineSteve wrote:Notre Dames calling card for this season is a loss!!

Isnt it hilarious though?

"We almost beat USC. So there!"

WolverineSteve wrote:Notre Dames calling card for this season is a loss!!

Fucking Bullshit.

On the same token, what would OSU's calling card on the season be? Close losses to Texas and Penn State?

Yup, we beat a few teams and only lost to the #2 and #3 ranked teams by 11 pts (or something like that).

Hell VTech's is: we only got our ass beat once and we did really well with a running back who can throw concrete balloons.

Killian wrote:
WolverineSteve wrote:
Notre Dames calling card for this season is a loss!!

Fucking Bullshit.


On the same token, what would OSU's calling card on the season be? Close losses to Texas and Penn State?

nope our calling card is we beat MSU... :P

Sky wrote:Yup, we beat a few teams and only lost to the #2 and #3 ranked teams by 11 pts (or something like that).

Hell VTech's is: we only got our ass beat once and we did really well with a running back who can throw concrete balloons.

Right. My point is, most teams "calling card" is a loss. Texas and Penn State can say they beat Ohio State, USC beat ND, and then what? Oregon, Ohio State, Notre Dame, and Miami all have calling cards of losses. You could debate LSU as well.

Sky wrote:Hell VTech's is: we only got our ass beat once and we did really well with a running back who can throw concrete balloons.

VT will also have the ACC championship.

stuckinia wrote:

Sky wrote:Hell VTech's is: we only got our ass beat once and we did really well with a running back who can throw concrete balloons.

VT will also have the ACC championship.

Over an unranked team.

Oh, there you are stuck, come back when the ACC doesn't suck.

VT won't win the championship by beating FSU. They will win it by winning more ACC games than the other ACC teams. And yes, they looked horrible versus Miami.

Killian wrote:

stuckinia wrote:

Sky wrote:Hell VTech's is: we only got our ass beat once and we did really well with a running back who can throw concrete balloons.

VT will also have the ACC championship.

Over an unranked team.

ND has only beat unranked teams.

So what are you getting at Killian?

Sky wrote:Oh, there you are stuck, come back when the ACC doesn't suck.

We suck that is why we are picking up the SEC and probaly the Big XIIs bowl bids.

Mr T wrote:

Killian wrote:

stuckinia wrote: VT will also have the ACC championship.

Over an unranked team.

ND has only beat unranked teams.

So what are you getting at Killian?

My point that most teams "calling card" game is a loss. And I think Michigan is still ranked.

Killian wrote:

Mr T wrote:

Killian wrote: Over an unranked team.

ND has only beat unranked teams.

So what are you getting at Killian?

My point that most teams "calling card" game is a loss. And I think Michigan is still ranked.

Michigan, BYU, and Navy. The only teams above .500 yall have beat.

VT has beat 3 teams that are currently in the top 25.

You calling out VT for beating an unrank team is downright stupid.

Besides, VT's loss to Miami is not its "calling card". It is more of a stain.

Indeed, Even the noles beat the canes.

Oooo... they must be bad....

Mr T wrote: You calling out VT for beating an unrank team is downright stupid.

Where did I "call out" VT for beating an unranked team? My original point was directed at those who criticized ND for having their "calling card" game as a loss against USC. And I said that Oregon, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Miami all have "calling card" game losses. And you could debate LSU as well. When someone mentioned the ACC championship game for VaTech (I never brought them up), I stated that if they win that game, it will be over an unranked team. I'm not calling out VT by any means.

Mr T wrote: We suck that is why we are picking up the SEC and probaly the Big XIIs bowl bids.

Explain

Not for nothin' but...

Heard a rumor that Mr. Nike (whatever his name is...Oregon grad) had coach Bilotti (?) in his lear over to Arizona pimpin the Ducks for the Fiesta instead of OSU. We'll see if money talks here.

Also heard that the Fiesta may pay off the Orange for a pick of a certain school to set up a certain matchup.

Let's face facts, it's stupid for Notre Dame to have their own little rule to get into the BCS because they're an independent and they're Notre Dame. For them to still be an independent is just another archiac tradition of college football. I love their scheduling but they need to be in a conference...there shouldn't be anymore independents in college football. At 9-2, it wouldn't be a crime for them go to a jackpot game but there is probably going to be a 1 loss team being left out. As I've said before though, the Rose Bowl is the only game that matters and if the Irish are in the Fiesta, Orange or Cotton, they're all the same to me.

Shoalzie wrote:Let's face facts, it's stupid for Notre Dame to have their own little rule to get into the BCS because they're an independent and they're Notre Dame.

The rule doesn't just apply to Notre Dame; it applies to every team that is not a member of one of the BCS conferences. Utah got in last year under the same rule, and I didn't see nearly as much bitching about it as I see about ND this year.

For them to still be an independent is just another archiac tradition of college football. I love their scheduling but they need to be in a conference...there shouldn't be anymore independents in college football.

Disagree. Independence is a major part of ND's tradition, as is the willingness to play anyone anywhere at any time. I'm sure you wouldn't be thrilled if Michigan were drummed out of the Big Ten involuntarily. Why should you expect ND fans to react any differently to the thought of giving up their independence?

Another thread has morphed into a lamentation of the demise of the Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry. Pitt-Penn State is another one that has gone by the boards, and you can thank the move to superconferences for both. The move to superconferences has not been good for college football, imho.

Having said that, I realize that ND football is the dog and independence is the tail in this relationship. For that reason, I am not flat-out opposed to ND joining a conference under any circumstances; however, before buying off on that idea I would need to be convinced that conference membership is in ND's best interests (and make no mistake about it, because of ND's tradition, the proponents of conference membership have the burden of proof on this matter). "Because everyone else did it," or, perhaps even worse, "because it would be more convenient for the BCS," doesn't get me to that point.

So tell me, why should ND be in a conference?

Terry in Crapchester wrote: So tell me, why should ND be in a conference?

As long as they're pulling in the big TV contracts, there's no real reason they should. The plus side of conferences is that it has helped improve the quality of the game across the board. No longer do the "traditionals" rule all, with scholarship limits and the money spread of a conference...college football is a more competitive game almost every weekend...something that wasn't always the case. ND will always get their media run, so the exposure of a conference isn't necessarily helping them...but, I guess it's just more money if they can get it done to their approval. They're in a unique situation I don't think any other school would exactly be able to claim.

Tic, that was a good breakdown. Let me ask a question--I never really paid attention before they joined the Big10 but who did PSU belong to before that?

Sky,

Penn State was an independent before joining the Big Ten.

As recently as the early 1990's, independents were a major component of college football. Not just ND, you had other powers like Penn State, FSU and Miami were independents. Also, Va Tech, South Carolina, BC and every current member of the Big East (except USF and UConn, neither of whom played 1-A football at the time).

Terry in Crapchester wrote:So tell me, why should ND be in a conference?

For you to ask me that question tells me you don't think it's wrong that they are the last major program not in a conference. Why should we even have conferences at all?

I don't think it would be such a big deal if there were more than a handful of independents left. You mention in your last post about how Miami, Florida State and Penn State and others were independents...but they did join conferences. Back then there were nearly a dozen teams without a conference which basically made them their own conference. For convenience purposes, of course it would be better if they were in a conference. Having their own TV deal and them being treated as its own commodity has rubbed me the wrong way a few years. It's not a dislike for the team, I understand and respect what they've done for college football but no program should have the priviledges Notre Dame has. Aside from financial reasons, is there really a good reason why Notre Dame shouldn't join a conference?

Shoalzie wrote:Aside from financial reasons, is there really a good reason why Notre Dame shouldn't join a conference?

Sure, they would lose the ability to schedule teams on a national basis. Which is a huge part of Notre Dame's tradition.

Killian wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:Aside from financial reasons, is there really a good reason why Notre Dame shouldn't join a conference?

Sure, they would lose the ability to schedule teams on a national basis. Which is a huge part of Notre Dame's tradition.

Of course but it's just part of being in a conference. You put them in the Big Ten with regular rivals like Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue. They can rekindle the old rivalry with Penn State and can start another with Ohio State. You'll still have 3 out of conferences games to schedule each year...keep the rivalry with USC and rotate two teams in year-to-year.

Quit making us explain ourselves...just join the establishment, damn it!

Shoalzie wrote:Of course but it's just part of being in a conference. You put them in the Big Ten with regular rivals like Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue. They can rekindle the old rivalry with Penn State and can start another with Ohio State. You'll still have 3 out of conferences games to schedule each year...keep the rivalry with USC and rotate two teams in year-to-year.

Quick making us explain ourselves...just join the establishment, damn it!

I know what your saying. They could keep USC and Navy, and then schedule a team in the south or where ever. Honestly, I think if Michigan were in the same situation Penn State was in the early 90's (independent, looking to join a conference), they could have fleeced someone like the Big East and done the same thing as ND.

I would love it. As much as it might come back to bite us and create 4 huge powers in the Big10, it would make us a better conference (recruiting, TV, money, conference championship game)

OK, so say ND joins the Big11, what do we call ourselves then?

Also by not joining a conference, ND is not forced to play weak conference opponents, ie Duke; thus is in a way immune to the entire "well your conference sucks so you suck" argument. Any cupcakes on their schedule are their choice, therefore any response to criticism of scheulding is in NDs hands.

Sky wrote: OK, so say ND joins the Big11, what do we call ourselves then?

The Big 13

Sky wrote:I would love it. As much as it might come back to bite us and create 4 huge powers in the Big10, it would make us a better conference (recruiting, TV, money, conference championship game)

OK, so say ND joins the Big11, what do we call ourselves then?

I think it's time to rename that bad boy...Midwest Conference, Great Lakes Conference, 3 Yards and a Cloud of Dust Conference...something not involving the number of teams. Nothing is worse than something connected to education where a league of 11 teams is called Big Ten. What kind of message does that send to the children?

HAHAHAAHAH

OK, on another note, what do you guys think of this quote:

Time for a mini rant on these conference championship games. Is it safe to say now that they just aren't working? It makes absolutely no sense that Texas and Virginia Tech should have to win games over four loss teams in order to be crowned conference champions. It also makes no sense that Ohio State fans should have to fret about a Texas loss to Colorado this week because a Texas loss means the Buckeyes will be left out of the BCS. The greed for one more big payday for the conferences has allowed the potential of some decidedly mediocre teams being able to make it on the big stage (BCS games) at the end of the season. It makes no sense.

From the OZone

If Texas and VT cannot beat four loss teams, they don't deserve to be crowned champions. However, it is pretty obvious these conference championship games are simply about the green.

Shoalzie wrote:

Killian wrote:

Shoalzie wrote:Aside from financial reasons, is there really a good reason why Notre Dame shouldn't join a conference?

Sure, they would lose the ability to schedule teams on a national basis. Which is a huge part of Notre Dame's tradition.

Of course but it's just part of being in a conference. You put them in the Big Ten with regular rivals like Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue. They can rekindle the old rivalry with Penn State and can start another with Ohio State. You'll still have 3 out of conferences games to schedule each year...keep the rivalry with USC and rotate two teams in year-to-year.

Quit making us explain ourselves...just join the establishment, damn it!

Unfortunately, that's not what the Big Ten is proposing. They're proposing ND joining a North Division with Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern and (here's the kicker) Minnesota and Wisconsin. Thus, of Penn State (natural rival, former rival as independents and the only Big Ten school located in the northeast), Ohio State (should be natural rival, although they've only met four times in history) and Purdue (natural rival, in-state, continuous series since 1946), we would be assured of not playing at least two of these teams on an annual basis. Instead, we get Minnesota (last played in 1938) and Wisconsin (last played in 1964) on an annual basis -- these schools, along with Iowa, are probably the three least appealing Big Ten schools as annual rivals from the standpoint of ND's fanbase.

As I've said before, the largest portion of ND's fanbase lives in the northeast, not the midwest, and for that reason, ND schedules at least one road game per year in the northeast. Assuming that, if ND were to join the Big Ten, we'd continue USC and Navy OOC on an annual basis, along with 1-2 other teams on a rotating basis, it becomes imperative that we play Penn State every year, so we could rotate Navy and Penn State and have one of these games on the road, and the other at home, every year. So far, the Big Ten has shown no inclination to do that for us.

Another reason for ND not to join the Big Ten is the traditional animosity between ND and the Big Ten. Around 1920, ND applied for membership in the Big Ten and was denied because it was a Catholic school. Yes, I'm sure you'll argue that it's time to let bygones be bygones, but keep in mind that this is Notre Dame and tradition is very important. Also, ND was rejected for reasons that were, at the time, Notre Dame's entire raison d'etre. ND didn't become recognized as a national football power until later, or as an outstanding academic institution until substantially later. More recently, the Big Ten's "play us in September or not at all" attitude toward ND has rubbed a substantial portion of ND's fanbase the wrong way. It limits ND's scheduling flexibility, and most ND fans would prefer, at a minimum, that the ND-Michigan matchup not take place until much later in the season.

As for why ND shouldn't be in a conference, imho, that is the wrong question. As I've said, independence has been good to ND football, and therefore, the proponents of conference membership have the burden of proof on this issue. Moreover, should ND's recent resurgence continue, that makes it less likely, rather than more likely, that ND will join a conference in the future, unless that's what ND decides to do. It makes the TV contract, a financial sine qua non of continued independence, more secure. Bottom line is this: if ND is a national power, you can't have a legitimate championship without including ND. OTOH, ND probably doesn't want to automatically exclude itself from a national championship either. So it'll be a game of chicken to see who blinks first.

As for why conferences exist, imho conferences exist, or should exist, for the convenience of their members only. If they become inconvenient for their members, they should cease to exist. Conference membership is not convenient for ND, which brings me back to my last question: why should ND join a conference?

Pitt-Penn State is another one that has gone by the boards, and you can thank the move to superconferences for both.

PSU/Pitt is not being played. There are many reasons offered, some plausible, others less so. The only real reason, IMO, is that Joe Paterno doesn't want to schedule the game. He'll never bury that hatchet.

Look for the series to resume soon after his retirement - as in, hours afterward.

Why does Paterno have it in for Pitt?

In my opinion, it's because his own attempts at conference-building were thwarted. He wants to show Pitt that they were wrong, and he was right. The man is heroically stubborn.

Many folks say that PSU can't "afford" to play the game. With the 12 game schedule, that argument has no validity.

Addendum to my last post.

Still another reason for ND not to join the Big Ten is the difference between the mindsets of ND's fanbase and the Big Ten's fanbase.

I've heard from a number of Big Ten fans in here that in the Big Ten, winning the Big Ten championship is more important than winning the national championship. That would seem to be borne out by the fact that IIRC, in my lifetime, tOSU in '02 is the only undisputed national champion ever produced by the Big Ten, despite the fact that the Big Ten is undisputedly one of the top three or four conferences in college football over that period (and yes, I'm aware that Penn State won national championships in '82 and '86, but I'm not counting them for the Big Ten because Penn State was independent at the time). The mindset of ND's fanbase is dramatically different for a number of reasons, some obvious, others less so. But in any event, I don't see ND's fanbase buying into the Big Ten mindset, ever, in this regard.

PSUFAN wrote:In my opinion, it's because his own attempts at conference-building were thwarted. He wants to show Pitt that they were wrong, and he was right. The man is heroically stubborn.

Many folks say that PSU can't "afford" to play the game. With the 12 game schedule, that argument has no validity.

Some conferences are going to a 9-game conference schedule when the season goes to 12 games -- I know the Pac-10 and SEC are doing that. Is the Big Ten?