I think that you're kind of missing the point re: ACC

IMO it's not about playing some of those teams, even if some of them are on a consistent basis (Miami, Florida State, or even Pitt). It's about being contractually obligated to having so many of them on our schedule each year. It basically means we are in that conference with little leeway or schedule flexibility.

Now, if one were to ask me, I would ditch all of the service academies for sure. As to BC, I don't really have strong feelings about them and don't really consider them a "traditional" opponent the same way Sc, Mich, MSU, et al are.

Maybe. But again, who would we schedule otherwise?

Without some sort of a tie on to a conference, how hard would it be to get 8 quality opponents between mid-September and mid-November? Personally, I don't mind ND playing Wake Forest or Duke or NC State or Virginia Teach quote as much as the MAC schools. The current scenario is much better than becoming Penn State or Nebraska and joining the B10, at least to me.

This is a good point.

ND obviously carries more cachet than BYU, but go look at BYU's schedules as an independent for the next few years. In 2019, they play Utah, Tennessee, USC, Toledo, and Washington in August and September, and in 2020 for the same months, Utah, Michigan State, Arizona State, and Minnesota. In the other months, it's USF, Boise State, Utah State, Liberty, Idaho State, Umass, San Diego State, Missouri, Houston, Northern Illinois, North Alabama, and Stanford (on the road).

The conference arrangement allows us a more balanced schedule with teams like Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, and Clemson obligated to travel to South Bend in late October and November which would never happen as an independent. Teams in major conferences generally don't want to travel for a "meaningless" non-conference game late in the year to South Bend or anywhere else. Michigan only agreed to the game this year in late October because we allowed them to use B10 refs at the Big House instead of ACC officials.

The ACC deal isn't ideal (5 games a bit too much for me), but it was a good move by Swarbrick.

we made the deal out of weakness

because we let the program deteriorate with poor leadership at the top levels. That's my issue with it; we gave up control over our schedule and basically our future because of our own ineptness.

it wouldn't be easy, that's for sure *