T1B

SoCalTrjn wrote:I heard today that the USC v ND contract runs through 2018, Stanfords isnt as long though. Also heard that the conference formally known as the Big 10 was going to do the same thing, only allow OOC games the first 3 weeks, theyre going to a 9 game conference schedule as well. Notre Dame will have to settle for just 3 games vs Pac 12 and Big 10 schools combined, bout time the conferences start using their collective power on ND

By your own admission, that wouldn't even come into play until 2019. A lot can happen between now and then.

Hell, by that time we might even have the seismic realignment that's been discussed.

I had heard wrong, USC's deal with ND runs out in 2016, after that the Irish will have to play SDSU, SJSU or FSU to get a game in California every or every other year.
So long Irish.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Colorado and Utah join the Pac beginning next year. NationalChamps.net has ND-USC scheduled through 2016. http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/futu ... future.htm

I don't necessarily take that 100% as gospel truth, but it's certainly possible that the deal is signed that far out. Edit: By way of comparison, ND signed a six-year deal recently with BYU that is not reflected in those schedules.

I call bullshit on that website. They have ND playing Syracuse at the Meadowlands two straight years in '14-'15 and they have ND vs. MD in DC next season and I don't think that is for another few years.

It's a big conundrum...

As far as Oregon goes, we have two "must play" games -- the Civil War (which no one is talking about altering), and UDub. Those are the two big ones that have over 100 years behind them. And obviously everyone else has 1-2 "must play" games (although the AZ schools just don't have the history and tradition of the other 8) -- USC and UCLA obviouly must play every year, and USC/Stanford is old school.

But it's kind of weird that Colorado and Utah have now been deemed archrivals by default. Everyone else has an archrival based on history, mostly based on geography in that it used to be about where you could get in a day's train ride (did the SEC used to fear trains in the old days, and only travelled by horse and buggy?) -- but CU and Utah (do we call them UU?) really don't have that. But I guess that's the price of a better paycheck in a better conference.

Colorado needs to get its act together in a big hurry, or is going to get doormatted in the Vegetable Grinder.

Have we thanked the Pac sluts for taking off our hands the bankrupt dead weight lately?

Dinsdale wrote:It's a big conundrum...

As far as Oregon goes, we have two "must play" games -- the Civil War (which no one is talking about altering), and UDub. Those are the two big ones that have over 100 years behind them. And obviously everyone else has 1-2 "must play" games (although the AZ schools just don't have the history and tradition of the other -- USC and UCLA obviouly must play every year, and USC/Stanford is old school.

But it's kind of weird that Colorado and Utah have now been deemed archrivals by default. Everyone else has an archrival based on history, mostly based on geography in that it used to be about where you could get in a day's train ride (did the SEC used to fear trains in the old days, and only travelled by horse and buggy?) -- but CU and Utah (do we call them UU?) really don't have that. But I guess that's the price of a better paycheck in a better conference.

Colorado needs to get its act together in a big hurry, or is going to get doormatted in the Vegetable Grinder.

Believe it or not (and this was news to me just a couple months ago), but Utah and CU have play 57 times already. They played almost annually from the early 1900s into the early '60s, but they haven't played since '63. So it's a long-dormant rivalry for sure, but it's not like it was just made up out of thin air when both joined the Pac 12.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah%E2%80 ... ll_rivalry

Dinsdale wrote:It's a big conundrum...

As far as Oregon goes, we have two "must play" games -- the Civil War (which no one is talking about altering), and UDub. Those are the two big ones that have over 100 years behind them. And obviously everyone else has 1-2 "must play" games (although the AZ schools just don't have the history and tradition of the other -- USC and UCLA obviouly must play every year, and USC/Stanford is old school.

But it's kind of weird that Colorado and Utah have now been deemed archrivals by default. Everyone else has an archrival based on history, mostly based on geography in that it used to be about where you could get in a day's train ride (did the SEC used to fear trains in the old days, and only travelled by horse and buggy?) -- but CU and Utah (do we call them UU?) really don't have that. But I guess that's the price of a better paycheck in a better conference.

I was having trouble figuring out exactly how the scheduling worked, until I hit on the idea to forget about divisional alignments and think of the Pac in three separate groups.

Group A is the U&L schools (Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State). Group B is the Cali schools, further divided between NoCal (Cal and Stanford) and SoCal (UCLA & USC). Group C is the Four Corners states schools ('Zona, ASU, CU & Utah).

U&L schools play each other and the NoCal schools every year. They also play one of the two SoCal schools every year, and three of the four Four Corners schools every year.

NoCal schools play each other, the U&L schools and the SoCal schools every year. They play two of the four Four Corners schools every year.

SoCal schools play each other, the Four Corners schools and the NoCal schools every year. They play two of the four U&L schools every year.

Four Corners schools play each other and the SoCal schools every year. They play one of the two NoCal schools every year, and three of the four U&L schools every year.

It's nice that they figured out a way to preserve the "traditional rivalries" and stuff.

But to the old skool fans the only really acceptable alignment would be OU, OSU, UW, WSU, Cal, Snodfart, SUC and UCLAme in one division, called the Pac8. Winner plays the Big 10 champ on January 1 in the Rose Bowl.

The other 4 schools can to whatever the fuck they want.

they need to drop the 9 conference games from the schedule and just play 8 conference games a year instead. If the sec is only playing 8 games, the Pac 12 should only play 8 games.
Then the LA schools will play all the Pac South schools, (UA, ASU, Utah, Colo, eachother) Stanford and Cal, and then 1 of the northwest schools each year.
The 9 game conference schedule is something the ADs of the Pac should have never agreed to. Someone from the conference needs to explain why they are putting more teams at risk of extra losses than other conferences are.

SoCalTrjn wrote:they need to drop the 9 conference games from the schedule and just play 8 conference games a year instead. If the sec is only playing 8 games, the Pac 12 should only play 8 games.
Then the LA schools will play all the Pac South schools, (UA, ASU, Utah, Colo, eachother) Stanford and Cal, and then 1 of the northwest schools each year.
The 9 game conference schedule is something the ADs of the Pac should have never agreed to. Someone from the conference needs to explain why they are putting more teams at risk of extra losses than other conferences are.

The Big 10 and Big XII also are going to a 9-game conference schedule. The Big East, by definition, cannot. From what I've heard, the Meatgrinder has even had discussions about going to a 9-game conference schedule. That would leave the ACC, among BCS conferences, as the lone holdout.

The bigger problem with a 9-game conference schedule, as I see it, is unbalanced conference scheduling. By definition, half the teams in the conference play 5 conference games at home and 4 on the road, while the other half play 4 conference games at home and 5 on the road.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Colorado and Utah join the Pac beginning next year. NationalChamps.net has ND-USC scheduled through 2016. http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/futu ... future.htm

I don't necessarily take that 100% as gospel truth, but it's certainly possible that the deal is signed that far out. Edit: By way of comparison, ND signed a six-year deal recently with BYU that is not reflected in those schedules.

I call bullshit on that website. They have ND playing Syracuse at the Meadowlands two straight years in '14-'15 and they have ND vs. MD in DC next season and I don't think that is for another few years.

ND is playing Maryland at FedEx field next year. http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/spec ... 10aaa.html As for Syracuse, I know there is at least one game scheduled for the Meadowlands. Not sure about beyond that. Like I said, the most glaring error I found on that site was the omission of the BYU series.

Edit: ND-Syracuse games in the Meadowlands are scheduled for 2014 and 2016. http://blog.syracuse.com/orangefootball ... tre_d.html

SoCalTrjn wrote:I had heard wrong, USC's deal with ND runs out in 2016, after that the Irish will have to play SDSU, SJSU or FSU to get a game in California every or every other year.
So long Irish.

Let me see if I've got this straight. You're melting like a little bitch because Cal and Stanford are in a different division from USC, even though USC still gets to play them every year. Yet you're perfectly fine with USC having to drop ND because of conference edicts viz. OOC scheduling. Is that about right?

I'm not a USC fan, so I really don't care. But if I did, you'd be dangerously close to losing your bona fides as a USC fan. ND is USC's rival. Period. You may not like it, but that's who USC is. Even Van, when he posted here, admitted that much.

So, if you lose ND, who's gonna be your rival?

UCLA? They're your Little Brother, not your rival. And you should never elevate them above Little Brother status. That would be like Skunkbear claiming Sparty as their rival, or us with Fredo, or OU with Okie State, or Iowa with Iowa State (exception for NOJ). It shouldn't happen, and with the others, it never will happen.

Cal? BWAAA! They're UCLA's Little Brother. What does that make them to you?

Stanford? You can't be serious with that one.

The U&L schools? Not enough history with them, and besides, you won't be playing them every year anymore.

'Zona or ASU? Even less history with them, and neither has anywhere near the gravitas to be your rival.

Colorado or Utah? The newbies in the conference, and you have less than five meetings with both all-time. Good luck with that.

If you want an OOC rival, among OOC schools not named Notre Dame, you have the most meetings, all-time, with tOSU and Occidental. You do know that a number of those meetings with tOSU were Rose Bowl games, and therefore not scheduled as part of the regular season, no? Besides, tOSU already has a rival (Michigan) and that's not about to change.

That leaves you with Occidental. Come to think of it, you could bring back Ted Tollner as your coach, and Occidental would be about your speed.

Terry, you obviosly don't know squat about Pac10 football or west coast rivalries.
Not that you should, but your last post makes you look like a complete moron to anybody that does.

Mikey wrote:Terry, you obviosly don't know squat about Pac10 football or west coast rivalries.
Not that you should, but your last post makes you look like a complete moron to anybody that does.

Mikey, I was addressing Schmick's attitude strictly from a USC perspective. ND is USC's biggest rivalry, are you seriously disputing that?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:they need to drop the 9 conference games from the schedule and just play 8 conference games a year instead. If the sec is only playing 8 games, the Pac 12 should only play 8 games.
Then the LA schools will play all the Pac South schools, (UA, ASU, Utah, Colo, eachother) Stanford and Cal, and then 1 of the northwest schools each year.
The 9 game conference schedule is something the ADs of the Pac should have never agreed to. Someone from the conference needs to explain why they are putting more teams at risk of extra losses than other conferences are.

The Big 10 and Big XII also are going to a 9-game conference schedule. The Big East, by definition, cannot. From what I've heard, the Meatgrinder has even had discussions about going to a 9-game conference schedule. That would leave the ACC, among BCS conferences, as the lone holdout.

The bigger problem with a 9-game conference schedule, as I see it, is unbalanced conference scheduling. By definition, half the teams in the conference play 5 conference games at home and 4 on the road, while the other half play 4 conference games at home and 5 on the road.

The Big 10 wont go to their 9 conference games schedule until 2015, the Big 12 may be in talks about it but when are they going to implement it? The Pac should not be putting its teams at risk until everyone else is putting their teams at the same risk. It has cotst them in the past and will only cost them in the future with no benefit being gained from it. Being noble enough to play everyone else in the conference might get them a few "attaboys" by the talking heads in the media but it isnt getting Pac teams in to the Title game when they have the same record as teams from other conferences that are playing in the title game.

USC is already playing 7 road games this year because of the 5 road and 4 at home conference schedule, 2 years ago they lost a chance at the BCS title game, which they would have likely won, because they played and lost a 5th road conference game on a thursday night, neither of the other 2 teams in the Title game played 5 true road games or a thursday night roadie, I dont think Florida even played 4 road conference games that year.

Whats worse is now the Pac has decided to hold the conference title game in one of the two teams stadiums which puts a team at risk of playing 6 true road games in conference, in a year like this that could put USC in a position of possibly playing 8 road games in a season.

The Pac should do away with the 9 conference game schedule, it has been a nice experiment the last 7 years or so but not one that has worked. If other conferences want to go down that road, let them do so for 7 or so years and see how they feel about it. The SEC has figured out how to play the BCS game, schedule home games vs 4 cream puffs OOC and then even the conferences worst teams need just 2 conference wins to go to a bowl. A team gets through conference play undefeated they play for a title, they lose 1 or 2 games in conference, they can still get a title shot. Until all the conferences are taking the same risk, the Pac shouldn't, it's poor for business.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:I had heard wrong, USC's deal with ND runs out in 2016, after that the Irish will have to play SDSU, SJSU or FSU to get a game in California every or every other year.
So long Irish.

Let me see if I've got this straight. You're melting like a little bitch because Cal and Stanford are in a different division from USC, even though USC still gets to play them every year. Yet you're perfectly fine with USC having to drop ND because of conference edicts viz. OOC scheduling. Is that about right?

I want the Pac to play 8 conference game so they are competing at the same rules as the teams in the other conferences. I dont like that ND gets special treatment, they have thumbed their nose at the conferences in just football because they can make more money than anyone else through their own TV deal. I feel that the other conferences should band together and take that money advantage away, put ND at level ground with them instead of allowing them the financial advanatge.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I'm not a USC fan, so I really don't care. But if I did, you'd be dangerously close to losing your bona fides as a USC fan. ND is USC's rival. Period. You may not like it, but that's who USC is. Even Van, when he posted here, admitted that much.

So, if you lose ND, who's gonna be your rival?

UCLA? They're your Little Brother, not your rival. And you should never elevate them above Little Brother status. That would be like Skunkbear claiming Sparty as their rival, or us with Fredo, or OU with Okie State, or Iowa with Iowa State (exception for NOJ). It shouldn't happen, and with the others, it never will happen.

Cal? BWAAA! They're UCLA's Little Brother. What does that make them to you?

Stanford? You can't be serious with that one.

The U&L schools? Not enough history with them, and besides, you won't be playing them every year anymore.

'Zona or ASU? Even less history with them, and neither has anywhere near the gravitas to be your rival.

Colorado or Utah? The newbies in the conference, and you have less than five meetings with both all-time. Good luck with that.

If you want an OOC rival, among OOC schools not named Notre Dame, you have the most meetings, all-time, with tOSU and Occidental. You do know that a number of those meetings with tOSU were Rose Bowl games, and therefore not scheduled as part of the regular season, no? Besides, tOSU already has a rival (Michigan) and that's not about to change.

That leaves you with Occidental. Come to think of it, you could bring back Ted Tollner as your coach, and Occidental would be about your speed.

The Trojans dont need an OOC rival, and playing Notre Dame benefits the irish much more than it does USC. How many Trojan players are from Indiana? what part of NDs recruiting pitch to california kids is that they will play in LA every other year, do you think that USC is pitching to Indiana kids that they will play in South Bend every other year? ND was playing 6 games a year on NBC, was USC getting 1/6th of that TV contract the years they played in South Bend because more people tuned in the last few years to watch USC than they did to watch ND in those games.
You can downplay and insult the other Pac teams all you want but like it or not, to the kids going to USC, those schools are a larger rival that ND ever will be. To 35 year old and older alumni, ND is still a hated rival but old farts like myself arent playing these games. Plus I see ND off the schedule as a detriment to NDs So Cal recruiting and to me, thats a good thing. Californias players are a commodity that was raised and paid for by Californians, whatever can be done to keep more of them home and away from other states rosters is a good thing.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Mikey wrote:Terry, you obviosly don't know squat about Pac10 football or west coast rivalries.
Not that you should, but your last post makes you look like a complete moron to anybody that does.

Mikey, I was addressing Schmick's attitude strictly from a USC perspective. ND is USC's biggest rivalry, are you seriously disputing that?

The way you worded your earlier post you were implying that ND was not just their "biggest" rivalry but their only rivalry.

Like I said before, this attitude belies not only an ignorance of west coast football but of what it means to play in any conference (and an overinflated sense of the importance of ND football).

I can't speak as an SC alum but I have relatives that graduated from there as well as from Stanford and a lot of friends from Cal and UCLA. While ND may be SCs "biggest" rivalry (whatever that means), I'm not going to give you even that.

ND may be SC's "most illustrious" rival, at least in the past because of MNC implications, but they are definitely not the most hated or even the most important in most years. And by far they are not SC's oldest rivalry.

You see, the Notre Dame game has no bearing whatsoever on the conference championship. Before the BCS that meant the Rose Bowl, which was infinitely more important than any single OOC game unless that game was between two unbeaten teams. Even today, if you asked any SC student or alum, they would probably say it was a lot more important to beat Stanford (which has beaten SC 3 of the last 4 years) than to beat a basically irrelevant ND.

BTW, when the SC vs. ND series started in 1925 or so, Stanford and SC had already been playing regularly for 20 years. Stanford and Cal were bigger national powers than SC in the years before that and, from what I've always heard, they both declined to sign up to play ND because of low academic standards.

M Club wrote:
i-aa schools belong in michigan's footprint because they have to fill three or four home dates every year.

You should've used the smallest fonts for that line....and you call someone else a whining vagina? There is NO excuse for playing 1-aa schools, ever....



And damn you for making me stick up for the SuCster....

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
So, if you lose ND, who's gonna be your rival?

UCLA? They're your Little Brother, not your rival.

Flexing your myopic skills again? ND will be forgotten instantly except for a few bluehairs and apparently, you. Hell those south-central kids couldn't show you where ND is on a map if you spotted them South Bend. Time will tell which program will cycle back to respectability first, ND or UCLA.

Dinsdale wrote: Everyone else has an archrival based on history, mostly based on geography in that it used to be about where you could get in a day's train ride (did the SEC used to fear trains in the old days, and only travelled by horse and buggy?)

=moneyshot

Mikey wrote:Like I said before, this attitude belies not only an ignorance of west coast football but of what it means to play in any conference (and an overinflated sense of the importance of ND football).

The Pac-12 deal threatens, at least possibly, to end the ND-USC series after 2016. At a minimum, unless a change is made to the OOC schedule, the series will lose something in translation.

It would seem to me that most USC fans would be up in arms about that moreso than losing Cal and Stanford as divisional rivals, particularly when you factor in that they'll continue to play Cal and Stanford annually. Of course, our perspective on USC fan is somewhat skewed in here, given that their representative is Schmick. Schmick, of course, is in his "I hate ND because they don't play in a conference" mode, and I daresay that skews his perspective somewhat. Suffice it to say, Van, Meds or Greg probably would've had a different perspective about the continuation of the ND-USC series.

I can't speak as an SC alum but I have relatives that graduated from there as well as from Stanford and a lot of friends from Cal and UCLA. While ND may be SCs "biggest" rivalry (whatever that means), I'm not going to give you even that.

ND may be SC's "most illustrious" rival, at least in the past because of MNC implications, but they are definitely not the most hated or even the most important in most years.

Let's just say that I disagree with you on the part underlined. I know for a fact that there are USC fans trolling the ND homerboards. Do you think any USC fans bother to troll UCLA's, Cal's or Stanford's homerboards? I doubt it.

And by far they are not SC's oldest rivalry.

No, but ND ranks third all-time in terms of games vs. USC, ahead even of UCLA. http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... onents.php And the series was first played in 1926, so that's far enough back to qualify as an "old time" series in my book. Given your age, your perspective on that point may be a bit different. :P

Moreover, the series has been continuous since 1946, and but for World War II and the impact that war had on travel ability, probably would have been continuous for a much longer period of time than that.

As for importance to USC, it's worth noting that on an all-time basis, USC has a winning record against every other member of the Pac. But they don't have a winning record all-time against ND.

And going back to games played, on that basis alone it's a unique series. Among BCS teams who have played in their current conference alignment since before I was born, the only teams with an OOC rival similarly situated are:

Michigan State (ND ranks second in games played vs. Michigan State behind Michigan. Note that Sparty was for years shunned by the Big Ten, and in fact ND's commitment to a long-term series gave them the impetus to expand Spartan Stadium to the point that they ultimately got in to the Big Ten.)
Purdue (ND ranks tied for third in games played vs. Purdue with Iowa, behind Indiana and Illinois. In-state rivalry.)
Georgia (Georgia Tech ranks first in games played vs. Georgia. Note that this is an in-state rivalry, and both schools were in the same conference for a number of years.)

And even among those series, ND-USC stands out in that it's the only intersectional rivalry, and the only one that has had national championship implications so frequently.

You see, the Notre Dame game has no bearing whatsoever on the conference championship. Before the BCS that meant the Rose Bowl, which was infinitely more important than any single OOC game unless that game was between two unbeaten teams.

Until the 1960's, ND was always USC's last game of the season. As recently as a decade ago, it was USC's last game of the season when played at the Mausoleum. If either USC or ND was unbeaten entering that game, it always had national championship implications. As recently as 1988, it was a 1 vs. 2 matchup. Even in 2002, when the game did not have national championship implications, the game was effectively for a BCS bid.

Even today, if you asked any SC student or alum, they would probably say it was a lot more important to beat Stanford (which has beaten SC 3 of the last 4 years) than to beat a basically irrelevant ND.

Let's just say that you and I disagree on that point, and probably never will agree.

BTW, when the SC vs. ND series started in 1925 or so, Stanford and SC had already been playing regularly for 20 years. Stanford and Cal were bigger national powers than SC in the years before that and, from what I've always heard, they both declined to sign up to play ND because of low academic standards.

Considering that Stanford has been playing ND, with the exception of a two-year hiatus in the mid-90's, continuously since 1988, I'd say it's probably a safe bet that Stanford no longer has those concerns. Of course, not every school in the Pac is exactly an academic juggernaut, or even in ND's class academically.

USC fans realize that ND needs the game vs USC more than USC needs the games vs ND yet ND still wants to negotiate the contract as if USC is coming to the Irish hat in hand.
Fuck Notre Dame, USC doesnt need them, there isn't a a pack of Trojan alumns in the South Bend area, the Irish are what the 3rd best team on USCs OOC schedule every year.
ND can either cough up a big chunk of that TV money to play the Trojans or play SDSU to get their game in So Cal, you think they would have the balls to play SDSU in San Diego or will they schedule that game at Candlestick?
Or maybe just kiss the series goodbye in 6 years and then try to recruit Cal kids without ever playing a game in California while the kids are at the school.

The Seer wrote:Time will tell which program will cycle back to respectability first, ND or UCLA.

UCLA, without question.

SoCalTrjn wrote:USC fans realize that ND needs the game vs USC more than USC needs the games vs ND yet ND still wants to negotiate the contract as if USC is coming to the Irish hat in hand.
Fuck Notre Dame, USC doesnt need them, there isn't a a pack of Trojan alumns in the South Bend area, the Irish are what the 3rd best team on USCs OOC schedule every year.

Notre Dame and possibly UCLA are pretty much the only times your team makes it on TV east of the Rockies. And that's with ESPN riding your nusack -- imagine what it would be like if they weren't.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:USC fans realize that ND needs the game vs USC more than USC needs the games vs ND yet ND still wants to negotiate the contract as if USC is coming to the Irish hat in hand.
Fuck Notre Dame, USC doesnt need them, there isn't a a pack of Trojan alumns in the South Bend area, the Irish are what the 3rd best team on USCs OOC schedule every year.

Notre Dame and possibly UCLA are pretty much the only times your team makes it on TV east of the Rockies. And that's with ESPN riding your nusack -- imagine what it would be like if they weren't.

I'm going to have to call bullshit. I see USC on TV out here at least seven or eight times a year, and certainly actually watch their games a hell of a lot more often than I do Notre Dame.

Basically it comes down to me watching a game that could effect or decide a conference winner and BCS participant or watch Notre Lame get ass pounded by another boring power run Yankee team or service academy.

You may hate to hear that but that is what Notre Dame has become. I am no fan of schmick but you want to bang on USC for their lack of television time east of the Rockies but you need to take a long hard look in the mirror because while NBC may be sticking your ass on national TV every week nobody west of Illinois and south of Ohio and D.C. are giving two shits that ND is on a television. Put things in perspective for you I go to a sports bar every weekend that I don't attend an OU game that has 14 big screens and unless Notre Dame is playing Michigan (and that's at the request of the Michigan patrons) or Navy (because of the sizable Naval influence in the area) they aren't even on one of the 80+ smaller TVs. To put it even further in perspective we have Wac and MWC teams such as TCU, Utah, SMU, and Houston that receive more TV time in local bars.

SoCalTrjn wrote:I want the Pac to play 8 conference game so they are competing at the same rules as the teams in the other conferences.

The Big 10 and Big XII already have announced that they're going with 9-game conference schedules. The SEC has considered the idea as well. The Big East can't do it, not enough teams. That leaves the ACC as the lone holdout. Besides, an 8-game conference schedule actually increases the likelihood of ND-USC continuing.

I dont like that ND gets special treatment, they have thumbed their nose at the conferences in just football because they can make more money than anyone else through their own TV deal. I feel that the other conferences should band together and take that money advantage away, put ND at level ground with them instead of allowing them the financial advanatge.

You make it sound as though ND used to play in a conference, then got out when they saw they had a better financial deal as an independent.

The truth of the matter, of course, is quite different. With respect to conference alignment, it's the rest of college football that changed, not ND.

While the ND TV deal with NBC is necessary, from a financial standpoint, for ND to maintain its independence, that's not the reason ND remains independent. The NBC deal is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Besides, when all the talk was about Big Ten expansion, all I kept hearing is that because of the BTN, the Big Ten schools actually made more money from TV revenue than ND does. So which is it? Is ND independent because they're greedy, or is ND really so stupid as to cut off their nose to spite their face, if it's all about the Benjamins?

Read up a little on the history between ND and the Big Ten, and you should understand why ND is not a member of that conference and probably never will be. And if ND ever were to join the Big East for football (they're already a Big East member in most other sports), I'm sure they'd come in for plenty of criticism on that point here. There's a small but vocal contingent of ND fans who think ND should join either the ACC or the Big XII, but I don't think ND would be a very good fit for either conference.

There's the fact that no existing conference would be a terribly good fit for ND, for various reasons. There's also the issue of 120+ years of independence, no small matter that. Imagine the reaction we'd see from, say, the Michigan or Ohio State fanbase if there were a constant drumbeat in here that either or both of those teams should leave the Big Ten. In essence, that's what goes on about ND.

The Trojans dont need an OOC rival,

If you're starting from scratch, maybe not. But the ND series is an important part of USC's history and tradition.

. . . and playing Notre Dame benefits the irish much more than it does USC. How many Trojan players are from Indiana? what part of NDs recruiting pitch to california kids is that they will play in LA every other year, do you think that USC is pitching to Indiana kids that they will play in South Bend every other year?

I forget his name, but wasn't your starting TE a few years back from Toledo? I know you have trouble thinking across state lines, but Toledo is only about a 2 1/2 hour drive from ND. And isn't your kicker right now from Naperville, IL? Again, about a 2 1/2 hour drive from ND. Ya think maybe USC's coaching staff mentioned the ND series when recruiting those guys?

ND was playing 6 games a year on NBC, was USC getting 1/6th of that TV contract the years they played in South Bend because more people tuned in the last few years to watch USC than they did to watch ND in those games.

Link? And ESPNizations aside, the next time ND and USC renew acquaintances "in South Bend" will be the first.

You can downplay and insult the other Pac teams all you want but like it or not, to the kids going to USC, those schools are a larger rival that ND ever will be. To 35 year old and older alumni, ND is still a hated rival but old farts like myself arent playing these games.

And you can downplay and insult ND all you want. But the truth of the matter is that there are very few potential OOC opponents who can guarantee you a nationally-televised matchup every year regardless of how well their football team is playing. And even fewer conference opponents who can do that, for that matter.

Plus I see ND off the schedule as a detriment to NDs So Cal recruiting and to me, thats a good thing. Californias players are a commodity that was raised and paid for by Californians, whatever can be done to keep more of them home and away from other states rosters is a good thing.

So California football players are "commodities"? x infinity. Let me ask you, how would you feel about a star student from California who didn't play football and who wanted to go to ND? I'm guessing you wouldn't really care. But wasn't that kid also educated (to that point, anyway) through the resources of the State of California? Isn't he every bit as much a "commodity" as the football star from California?

Besides, last I checked, USC was a private school. If your argument goes that these kids are the property of the State of California, because they were developed through the resources of the State of California, that argument (weak as it is) actually works against those players going to USC.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:I want the Pac to play 8 conference game so they are competing at the same rules as the teams in the other conferences.

The Big 10 and Big XII already have announced that they're going with 9-game conference schedules. The SEC has considered the idea as well. The Big East can't do it, not enough teams. That leaves the ACC as the lone holdout. Besides, an 8-game conference schedule actually increases the likelihood of ND-USC continuing.

Theyre not playing it yet, how many more years before they start? The Pac has been putting its teams at greater risk for what, 7 years now, let the Big 12 and Big 10 play 9 conference games while the Pac plays 8 for the next 7 years and then watch as those conferences see the error in that way.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

I dont like that ND gets special treatment, they have thumbed their nose at the conferences in just football because they can make more money than anyone else through their own TV deal. I feel that the other conferences should band together and take that money advantage away, put ND at level ground with them instead of allowing them the financial advanatge.

You make it sound as though ND used to play in a conference, then got out when they saw they had a better financial deal as an independent.

The truth of the matter, of course, is quite different. With respect to conference alignment, it's the rest of college football that changed, not ND.

While the ND TV deal with NBC is necessary, from a financial standpoint, for ND to maintain its independence, that's not the reason ND remains independent. The NBC deal is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Besides, when all the talk was about Big Ten expansion, all I kept hearing is that because of the BTN, the Big Ten schools actually made more money from TV revenue than ND does. So which is it? Is ND independent because they're greedy, or is ND really so stupid as to cut off their nose to spite their face, if it's all about the Benjamins?

Read up a little on the history between ND and the Big Ten, and you should understand why ND is not a member of that conference and probably never will be. And if ND ever were to join the Big East for football (they're already a Big East member in most other sports), I'm sure they'd come in for plenty of criticism on that point here. There's a small but vocal contingent of ND fans who think ND should join either the ACC or the Big XII, but I don't think ND would be a very good fit for either conference.

There's the fact that no existing conference would be a terribly good fit for ND, for various reasons. There's also the issue of 120+ years of independence, no small matter that. Imagine the reaction we'd see from, say, the Michigan or Ohio State fanbase if there were a constant drumbeat in here that either or both of those teams should leave the Big Ten. In essence, that's what goes on about ND.

The Trojans dont need an OOC rival,

If you're starting from scratch, maybe not. But the ND series is an important part of USC's history and tradition.

. . . and playing Notre Dame benefits the irish much more than it does USC. How many Trojan players are from Indiana? what part of NDs recruiting pitch to california kids is that they will play in LA every other year, do you think that USC is pitching to Indiana kids that they will play in South Bend every other year?

I forget his name, but wasn't your starting TE a few years back from Toledo? I know you have trouble thinking across state lines, but Toledo is only about a 2 1/2 hour drive from ND. And isn't your kicker right now from Naperville, IL? Again, about a 2 1/2 hour drive from ND. Ya think maybe USC's coaching staff mentioned the ND series when recruiting those guys?

ND was playing 6 games a year on NBC, was USC getting 1/6th of that TV contract the years they played in South Bend because more people tuned in the last few years to watch USC than they did to watch ND in those games.

Link? And ESPNizations aside, the next time ND and USC renew acquaintances "in South Bend" will be the first.

You can downplay and insult the other Pac teams all you want but like it or not, to the kids going to USC, those schools are a larger rival that ND ever will be. To 35 year old and older alumni, ND is still a hated rival but old farts like myself arent playing these games.

And you can downplay and insult ND all you want. But the truth of the matter is that there are very few potential OOC opponents who can guarantee you a nationally-televised matchup every year regardless of how well their football team is playing. And even fewer conference opponents who can do that, for that matter.

Plus I see ND off the schedule as a detriment to NDs So Cal recruiting and to me, thats a good thing. Californias players are a commodity that was raised and paid for by Californians, whatever can be done to keep more of them home and away from other states rosters is a good thing.

So California football players are "commodities"? x infinity. Let me ask you, how would you feel about a star student from California who didn't play football and who wanted to go to ND? I'm guessing you wouldn't really care. But wasn't that kid also educated (to that point, anyway) through the resources of the State of California? Isn't he every bit as much a "commodity" as the football star from California?

seeing as how that star student was probably bungholed by his priest for 10 years I wouldnt give two shits that he wanted out of California, if he didnt wind up at neuter lame hed probably go to USF.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Besides, last I checked, USC was a private school. If your argument goes that these kids are the property of the State of California, because they were developed through the resources of the State of California, that argument (weak as it is) actually works against those players going to USC.

USC doesnt need ND anymore, the irish program only hurts USCs SOS and games vs the irish dont help USCs recruiting. USC is better off getting a quality opponent for OOC play since theyre only going to get 3 of those games a year.

SoCalTrjn wrote:Theyre not playing it yet, how many more years before they start?

The Big 10 and Big XII are playing a 9-game conference schedule starting next year.

The Pac has been putting its teams at greater risk for what, 7 years now, let the Big 12 and Big 10 play 9 conference games while the Pac plays 8 for the next 7 years and then watch as those conferences see the error in that way.

This is the fifth year the Pac has done it.

seeing as how that star student was probably bungholed by his priest for 10 years I wouldnt give two shits that he wanted out of California, if he didnt wind up at neuter lame hed probably go to USF.

This may come as a surprise to you, but just because a California high school student decides to go to Notre Dame doesn't necessarily mean that he wants "out of California," at least not on a permanent basis. More ND alumni live in California than in any state other than Illinois or Indiana.

USC doesnt need ND anymore, the irish program only hurts USCs SOS and games vs the irish dont help USCs recruiting. USC is better off getting a quality opponent for OOC play since theyre only going to get 3 of those games a year.

You're absolutely right. USC is much better off scheduling San Jose State, Idaho, Hawai'i, Virginia, Minnesota and Syracuse. Not to mention Washington State in conference. What ever was I thinking?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

SoCalTrjn wrote:Theyre not playing it yet, how many more years before they start?

The Big 10 and Big XII are playing a 9-game conference schedule starting next year.

wrong, their schedules for the next few years are already made, it will likely start in 3 years
unless you have a link that proves otherwise. you would think that the fans of teams in those conferences that post in here would be aware of it though

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

The Pac has been putting its teams at greater risk for what, 7 years now, let the Big 12 and Big 10 play 9 conference games while the Pac plays 8 for the next 7 years and then watch as those conferences see the error in that way.

This is the fifth year the Pac has done it.

fine, let those conferences play that schedule for 5 years, then let the SEC and ACC play 9 conf games for 5 years and then the Pac can go back to playing 9 conf games if those conferences continue to play 9

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

seeing as how that star student was probably bungholed by his priest for 10 years I wouldnt give two shits that he wanted out of California, if he didnt wind up at neuter lame hed probably go to USF.

This may come as a surprise to you, but just because a California high school student decides to go to Notre Dame doesn't necessarily mean that he wants "out of California," at least not on a permanent basis. More ND alumni live in California than in any state other than Illinois or Indiana.

So now youre saying that USC should play ND because there are a lot of ND alumni in California? Why should USC give a fuck about ND alumni?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

USC doesnt need ND anymore, the irish program only hurts USCs SOS and games vs the irish dont help USCs recruiting. USC is better off getting a quality opponent for OOC play since theyre only going to get 3 of those games a year.

You're absolutely right. USC is much better off scheduling San Jose State, Idaho, Hawai'i, Virginia, Minnesota and Syracuse. Not to mention Washington State in conference. What ever was I thinking?

playing at Hawai'i gives USC an extra game, playing ND doesnt. You also left off Ohio State, Texas, Nebraska, Allbarn, Arkansas, Virginia Tech. AND, there are more quality recruits in Hawaii, Virginia, Minnesota and New York than there is in Indiana.
the USC vs ND series comes to an end after 2013, USC outgrew ND and no longer needs them, get over it

Terry in Crapchester wrote:USC is much better off scheduling Hawai'i

A LOT of very good players come out of Hawaii. Most of them head for the Mainland.

ND likely has more starters from Hawai'i than they do Indiana

Oregon has a pile of Hawaiian players, and I know USC has never been too shy about recruiting there.

If they could ever keep their players at home and win some good bowl games, they'd be a contender. Except now their conference becomes a complete laughingstock with their 3 decent teams leaving -- if anyone should go independent, Hawaii has a good logistical reason to do so.

SoCalTrjn wrote:wrong, their schedules for the next few years are already made, it will likely start in 3 years
unless you have a link that proves otherwise. you would think that the fans of teams in those conferences that post in here would be aware of it though

My bad, since the new conference alignment takes effect next year, I figured the new conference schedules did as well.

fine, let those conferences play that schedule for 5 years, then let the SEC and ACC play 9 conf games for 5 years and then the Pac can go back to playing 9 conf games if those conferences continue to play 9

I seem to recall you beating your Wags-like concave chest about the Pac-10's 9-game conference schedule a few years back. Now, you're crying about it like a little girl.

So now youre saying that USC should play ND because there are a lot of ND alumni in California? Why should USC give a fuck about ND alumni?

Not what I'm saying at all. But since we're on the subject, why is it that you're fine with the idea of a star student wanting "out of California," but not with a star athlete wanting the same?

You also left off Ohio State, Texas, Nebraska, Allbarn, Arkansas, Virginia Tech.

Yeah, because I only went back to 2007.

AND, there are more quality recruits in Hawaii, Virginia, Minnesota and New York than there is in Indiana.

Funny, I seem to recall you saying a few years back (until I corrected you) that most high schools in New York don't even have high school football teams. I'm not nearly the recruiting guru that some in here are, but I would say that, within a 100-mile radius from my crib, this area produces maybe a dozen or so 1-A recruits per year (probably a generous estimate). I would say that Indiana probably produces considerably more than that, given that there are three other 1-A programs in Indiana, all of which are state schools and none of which has anywhere near the national recruiting focus that ND does, so all are considerably more reliant on in-state talent than ND.

Besides, this probably comes as a surprise to you, but most people in attendance at a ND home game don't live in Indiana. You see, most of the tickets are reserved for alumni, who come in from all parts of the country, including [shocker]California,[/shocker] to see the games. Playing at ND automatically guarantees you exposure well beyond the immediate geographic area in a way that's different from playing any other school. (Btw, this is another argument against ND joining a conference. If ND were to join a conference, sooner or later they almost definitely would have to play a Thursday night home game on ESPN, which would be devastating for attendance at that game given ND's ticket policies.)

USC outgrew ND and no longer needs them, get over it

On what basis? The 8-game winning streak? Funny, but I'm pretty sure you didn't think ND outgrew USC back in the midst of ND's 13-game unbeaten streak against USC.

ND likely has more starters from Hawai'i than they do Indiana

Since you brought it up, . . .

ND has one starter from Hawai'i -- Te'o -- and three from Indiana -- Zack Martin (Cody is his roommate), Braxston Cave and Tyler Eifert (who became a starter due to Rudolph's injury). Among key reserves, John Goodman is from Indiana and Romy Toba is from Hawai'i. Toba was pretty much the result of a "recruit my buddy" lobbying campaign from Te'o, given that he attended the same high school as Te'o, didn't sign a LOI until the day after National Signing Day, and really wasn't on ND's radar beforehand. That he managed to crack the two-deep depth chart at ND means either that he has been a pleasant surprise at ND, or that the rest of ND's receiving corps hasn't developed as hoped. I fear it's the latter.

Not quite sure why you're so obsessed with ND recruiting in Indiana in any event. ND is a private school, and only about 10% of its student body comes from Indiana (by contrast, 25% of its student body is comprised of legacies). Why should the football team be dramatically different from the student body as a whole in that regard?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

fine, let those conferences play that schedule for 5 years, then let the SEC and ACC play 9 conf games for 5 years and then the Pac can go back to playing 9 conf games if those conferences continue to play 9

I seem to recall you beating your Wags-like concave chest about the Pac-10's 9-game conference schedule a few years back. Now, you're crying about it like a little girl.

Was told that the other conferencdes were going to do the same, 5 years later after 2 USC teams were left out of BCS title games for teams that had the same record and that USC could have beat, I saw the error in that scheduling. No sense for Pac teams to take risks other conferences arent forcing their teams to take.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

So now youre saying that USC should play ND because there are a lot of ND alumni in California? Why should USC give a fuck about ND alumni?

Not what I'm saying at all. But since we're on the subject, why is it that you're fine with the idea of a star student wanting "out of California," but not with a star athlete wanting the same?

star students dont make other states schools a lot of money or make fans of those states that had to import all the talent think that they are some how better than the state all the athletes were imported from.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

You also left off Ohio State, Texas, Nebraska, Allbarn, Arkansas, Virginia Tech.

Yeah, because I only went back to 2007.

Ohio State was last year and the year before, you had Syracuse on your list and theyre a future schedule opponent, like Texas

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

AND, there are more quality recruits in Hawaii, Virginia, Minnesota and New York than there is in Indiana.

Funny, I seem to recall you saying a few years back (until I corrected you) that most high schools in New York don't even have high school football teams. I'm not nearly the recruiting guru that some in here are, but I would say that, within a 100-mile radius from my crib, this area produces maybe a dozen or so 1-A recruits per year (probably a generous estimate). I would say that Indiana probably produces considerably more than that, given that there are three other 1-A programs in Indiana, all of which are state schools and none of which has anywhere near the national recruiting focus that ND does, so all are considerably more reliant on in-state talent than ND.

New York City, there had just been an article here about kids who had come to stay in Orange County from New York City cause most the schools there did not have football teams.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Besides, this probably comes as a surprise to you, but most people in attendance at a ND home game don't live in Indiana. You see, most of the tickets are reserved for alumni, who come in from all parts of the country, including [shocker]California,[/shocker] to see the games. Playing at ND automatically guarantees you exposure well beyond the immediate geographic area in a way that's different from playing any other school. (Btw, this is another argument against ND joining a conference. If ND were to join a conference, sooner or later they almost definitely would have to play a Thursday night home game on ESPN, which would be devastating for attendance at that game given ND's ticket policies.)

dont give a shit where notre dame students or fans come from, I wish nothing but Ebola on their whole family with the children dying first.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

USC outgrew ND and no longer needs them, get over it

On what basis? The 8-game winning streak? Funny, but I'm pretty sure you didn't think ND outgrew USC back in the midst of ND's 13-game unbeaten streak against USC.

based on the fact that the ND program is spiralling downward and has been nothing but an anchor on USCs OOC scheduling every year. It has left them with 2 spots to schdule every year, their spot could be used on a better program from a more desirable section of the country for USC to play in.

ND likely has more starters from Hawai'i than they do Indiana

Since you brought it up, . . .

ND has one starter from Hawai'i -- Te'o -- and three from Indiana -- Zack Martin (Cody is his roommate), Braxston Cave and Tyler Eifert (who became a starter due to Rudolph's injury). Among key reserves, John Goodman is from Indiana and Romy Toba is from Hawai'i. Toba was pretty much the result of a "recruit my buddy" lobbying campaign from Te'o, given that he attended the same high school as Te'o, didn't sign a LOI until the day after National Signing Day, and really wasn't on ND's radar beforehand. That he managed to crack the two-deep depth chart at ND means either that he has been a pleasant surprise at ND, or that the rest of ND's receiving corps hasn't developed as hoped. I fear it's the latter.[/quote]

so I was wrong, fewer players from Hawai'i than Indiana, still no reason for USC to continue the series. USC gains nothing from playing what has become little more than another service academy, the difference is the service notre dame provides is a float for their myopic fan base to try to hold on to, a "name school" win for minor colleges like tulsa and a laughing stock for the rest of college football.
USC has outgrown the irish and it is time for them to move on. Maybe nd can replace the Trojans with Princeton on their schedule

The Seer wrote:

M Club wrote:
i-aa schools belong in michigan's footprint because they have to fill three or four home dates every year.

You should've used the smallest fonts for that line....and you call someone else a whining vagina? There is NO excuse for playing 1-aa schools, ever....



And damn you for making me stick up for the SuCster....

there's no excuse for it competitively, but logistically it's occasionally necessary. toejam's bitching about a nine-game conference schedule, but the reason for four ooc games has become to schedule as many home dates as possible to maximize gate. pare the conference schedule down to eight and eventually you're going to run into a weekend where all the other money-grubbers have gotten to the non-bcs dregs first and you're left phoning around for anyone to come get their ass kicked. this arrangement was acknowledged once the ncaa began allowing 1aa schools to count toward bowl eligibility every year rather than once every four, or whatever it was before.

so yes, a whining vagina. i'd rather play nine big ten games in order to do away with the pussy scheduling.

SoCalTrjn wrote:star students dont make other states schools a lot of money or make fans of those states that had to import all the talent think that they are some how better than the state all the athletes were imported from.

To the extent that star athletes make money for their schools, that money is pretty much entirely spent on other sports teams. Football and mens' basketball are pretty much the only sports that operate in the black, the rest of a school's athletic department usually is subsidized by the school's football team. Tell me you knew.

And since we're talking about USC and ND, USC is not California's school, nor is ND Indiana's school. Both are private schools, not state schools.

dont give a shit where notre dame students or fans come from, I wish nothing but Ebola on their whole family with the children dying first.

As I said before, if you're trolling, this is weak. If you're serious, you need help.

still no reason for USC to continue the series.

Except, as I said before, ND guarantees USC a national TV appearance annually regardless of how well ND's football team is doing at the time. How many other schools can say that?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

still no reason for USC to continue the series.

Except, as I said before, ND guarantees USC a national TV appearance annually regardless of how well ND's football team is doing at the time. How many other schools can say that?

every other year, it's only a national appearance when USC plays in South Bend, the games in LA are regional as ABC/ESPN doesnt buy in to the nd mystique like myopic domer fans do.
USC can replace nd with a team that doesnt lose to tulsa and navy and get the national appearance they want, they can also play in an area richer with recruits than indiana in those games.
2013, no more nd on the schedule, time to move on.

Why do you guys actually give serious responses to Schmick? Why don't you just troll him?

SoCalTrjn wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

still no reason for USC to continue the series.

Except, as I said before, ND guarantees USC a national TV appearance annually regardless of how well ND's football team is doing at the time. How many other schools can say that?

every other year, it's only a national appearance when USC plays in South Bend, the games in LA are regional as ABC/ESPN doesnt buy in to the nd mystique like myopic domer fans do.

You are an idiot, plain and simple. I get that game (on ABC, not ESPN2) in Los Angeles every year, despite living nearly 3,000 miles away from LA and more than 500 miles away from ND.

2013, no more nd on the schedule, time to move on.

Considering that USC's first post-probation incoming freshman class hasn't even been born yet, I'm not sure I'd be claiming that USC "has outgrown" ND if I were you.