T1B

Per Larry Lage's tweets, at least.

https://twitter.com/LarryLage

Yup, it's legit...

http://www.freep.com/article/20120925/S ... ext|Sports

No word on what they're doing with Michigan State and they've had a thing with Purdue for a while as well. I'd have to imagine they'll renew the matchup at some point but just not annually because the half-cocked arrangement with the ACC.

This is just getting ND fans ready for the ACC football membership a few years down the road.

Lefty -- God, I hope not. But I think we probably get an ACC game in that slot.

Sam -- What concerns me with the ACC schedule is that: (1) every team is being more or less rotated in on an even basis, even though not all ACC members are equal in terms of their desirability as opponents; and (2) we apparently abdicated all control over the scheduling of those games. Swarbrick actually said that we'll be giving the ACC a list of open dates, and the ACC will tell us who and where we'll be playing. In any event, hopefully Duke and Wake Forest will be part of the same rotation so that we'll never play both of them in the same year. Not that playing each of them once over a two year period, followed by a single year without either one, is a heckuva lot better. No mention on Michigan State, btw, although if it were up to me, I would've kept Michigan as an annual and either dropped Sparty or rotated them with Purdue.

vaginas.

M Club wrote:vaginas.

Maybe, but who was it who taught us this move? (hint: 1909 and 1943) :P

On a more serious note, if we did in fact drop this series to free up space on the schedule for ACC opponents (and I don't think that's an unreasonable supposition), then it raises the question of whether joining the ACC came at too high a price for us.

whimpering vaginas.

Why on earth would ND be scared of scUM, of all teams? :?

Because they're still better than Duke and Wake, and will probably remain so.

Left Seater wrote:This is just getting ND fans ready for the ACC football membership a few years down the road.

Seems like a reasonable scenario. Of all the B1G games for the Domers, Michigan was by far the one with the most juice. If they can drop Michigan, MSU and Perdue are completely disposable. They keep their games with Navy, USC and one other western school (Air Force or BYU) and their good to go with a 9 game ACC schedule that will always leave them a valid path to an MNC..

Stanford being their preferred "other western school."

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

M Club wrote:vaginas.

Maybe, but who was it who taught us this move? (hint: 1909 and 1943) :P

well, TO BE FAIR, michigan taught nd how to play football right before you stole our stadium blueprints, so why not follow our slimy vaginal trail toward pussy scheduling.

BSmack wrote:

Left Seater wrote:This is just getting ND fans ready for the ACC football membership a few years down the road.

Seems like a reasonable scenario. Of all the B1G games for the Domers, Michigan was by far the one with the most juice. If they can drop Michigan, MSU and Perdue are completely disposable. They keep their games with Navy, USC and one other western school (Air Force or BYU) and their good to go with a 9 game ACC schedule that will always leave them a valid path to an MNC..

A few points in response:

1. At this point I see no reason why we should join the ACC, or any other conference for that matter. The four-team playoff was our last remaining hurdle, and that has left a path to the playoff by a route other than a conference championship. As long as we have a national TV contract and a reasonable fallback position for years where we fail to reach the playoff (i.e., Orange Bowl), I think we would do ourselves a disservice by joining a conference.

2. Sparty and Purdue were/are completely disposable independent of what happened with Michigan. Had it been up to me, if there was a need to free up a slot on the schedule, I would've kept Michigan and rotated Sparty and Purdue in a two on/two off fashion. Perhaps the decision to drop Michigan has something to do with the history between ND and Michigan, though.

3. As to Point #1, what worries me is the scope of our commitment to the ACC (5 games/year) as well as the fact that we've more or less abdicated all control over that portion of our schedule. We'll be playing all the ACC members on a more-or-less equal basis, notwithstanding that the ACC members are not equal in terms of their desirability as opponents. Further, according to Swarbrick, we're providing a list of available dates to the ACC and the ACC then will tell us who and where we'll be playing. The only limitation for certain is that we must play every ACC team at least once in every three years (two teams will be once every two years), and presumably, the ACC would give us an equal number of home/away games (2 home/3 away one year, 3 home/2 away the next).

4. Dropping Michigan in favor of Duke/Wake Forest, or even the next tier of the ACC (e.g., Maryland, Virginia, UNC, NCSU, Syracuse) doesn't exactly give me a warm and fuzzy. On average, of course, we'll be playing about two of those schools every year.

5. I think that more often than not, the ACC will struggle to get its conference champion into the playoff, at least until the field is expanded.

Van wrote:Stanford being their preferred "other western school."

Not if you listen to the fanbase, or at least the "internet crazies" version of same. Most of them would prefer to see us drop Stanford, albeit replacing them with another Pac-12 member rather than Air Force or BYU.

That said, as I understand it we've been grandfathered in as an exception to the Pac-12's OOC scheduling rules as to USC and Stanford only, so dropping Stanford for another Pac-12 member may prove problematic.