We will be playing USC, one B1G, and one other PAC/SEC on a rotation.

Drop navy, they play dirty.

I don’t like it but I can’t write big enough checks to prevent it.

There was some talk of 9, but with a few ACC schools having in-state rivalry games with SEC schools, plus the rotating ND games, it was deemed unnecessary.

Lack of scheduling flexibility for schools with an in-state SEC rival that they played annually (Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson and later Louisville).

With a 9-game conference schedule, they would play: 9 conference opponents, + SEC in-state rival, + (occasionally, anyway) ND. That left those schools with only one open date per season in years where they played ND.

If ND were to join the ACC, that would take that issue off the table completely. Moreover, they'll add another member to keep divisions numerically balanced. A 16-team conference with only eight conference games (and the one cross-divisional game mandated for all teams) would have the effect of creating, effectively, two separate conferences.

If ND joins, I think a 9-game conference schedule is inevitable. The better hope for scheduling flexibility would be the NCAA approving a 13-game regular season (better chance of that happening, at least imho, than many people realize, if/when COVID is off the table).

Jenkins, Swarbrick, and the rest of this crew better not go there.

Not that long ago, I would have been -- and was -- outraged at the slightest suggestion that Notre Dame would or should consider conference affiliation for football.

Now, I really don't care. I'll watch the games on television when I don't have something better to do. I've only been in the Stadium once since 2015 (at my wife's insistence to attend our son's last home game as a student at ND).

I don't care if we join the ACC or the Big 10 (particularly now that the eunuch Delany is retired) or the SEC or the NFL or the IHSA or the Premier League.

When it comes to football, Notre Dame stopped being Notre Dame when they decided that Kelly deserved more than Brennan or Kuharich or Faust or Davie or Willingham or Weis got.

Monk won. Fuck them all.

And again, I share this not because anyone should give a fuck what I think, but because I know for a fact that I'm not alone in these sentiments.

If Notre Dame has lost people like me as passionate fans, not only have they "lost," but they've demonstrated beyond any rational doubt that they just don't give a fuck about Notre Dame football.

...that at some point, ND wakes up and strives to be what the football program was in the past. Who knows if that would result in similar success. However, at least they’d be trying instead of the lip service we get today.

Because if they did, they'd fire themselves tomorrow.

As it stands, I also don't give two shits what they do anymore. They're in bed with their "corporate partners", and that's all that really matters to them.

does nothing with its Independence.

If they used it to schedule top intersectional matchups, it would be worth keeping.

Instead, as best I can see, it is only used for the financial benefit. Thus, to quote Bill Murray, it just doesn’t matter.

... which, thanks in large part to the proliferation of bowl games, has been adopted by dozens of schools.

Schedule yourself to six wins and a bowl bid.

Notre Dame tries to schedule itself to 9-10 wins and "being in the conversation."

The conversation, of course, being Trace Armstrong fantasizing about which NFL teams are allegedly stupid enough to consider hiring Kelly.

At this point, I simply desire for the football team and the administration not to cause me embarrassment due to my affiliation with the school.

In 2019, Clemson played their non-conference games Texas A&M, South Carolina, UNC-Charlotte, and Wofford (good grief).

If ND were to join the ACC, I would imagine that the annual games against USC and Navy would stay, and Stanford would not be an annual game anymore.

If ND kept USC, Navy, and Stanford as annual games, there's a good chance that the 12th game would be against a "tomato can" opponent.

Conference schedule.

ND would be the 15th ACC member, and I believe the ACC would want to add a 16th member as well to make the divisions equal. My best guess (although I could be wrong) is that West Virginia would be the 16th member. Under those circumstances, I believe the ACC would go to a 9-game conference schedule, otherwise there would be no conference games against the other division, except for the protected opponent.

UConn would get the call. ACC needs the academic boost.

Could see UMd come back, too.

WfVU to the SEC.

UConn has shot themselves in the foot athletically in recent years. WVU, while far from an outstanding academic school, is nevertheless the flagship public school in its state. I would have agreed with you five years ago, but WVU currently boasts significantly better programs than UConn in the two primary revenue sports. Adding WVU gets more positive publicity for the conference in the sports world than adding UConn does.

Even with ND, the ACC still would make less money per school than the B1G does.

As demanded by Kelly. Stanford would be the odd man out.

at least two tomato cans.

If hell froze, ND joined the ACC, and the desire to play USC/Stanford every year remained, ND's schedule would probably be:

4 ACC Home
4 ACC Away
H/A with USC/Stanford
2 H w/ Mac/AAC/Mountain West (H/A with Navy if they kept that game replaces one of these.)

If I were the AD, and assuming full ACC membership is required, the only traditional series I would preserve would be the USC rivalry.

Assuming the PTB and NBC require 7 home games when possible (which is very likely), the non-ACC schedule would allow for only 3 non-ACC home and away series since a "buy" game would be needed to increase the number of home games. I would reserve one for USC, and keep the other two free.

8 ACC games (4 home and 4 away)

1 buy game (home)

USC rivalry

2 home and away series (1 home game)

Under that scenario, each season would have either 6 or 7 home games, depending on where the USC game is played.

The schedule could become really crappy (e.g., Clemson's schedule above) if the Admin required a number of "2 home games and 1 away game" relationships to increase the number of seasons with 7 home games. This would really decrease the quality of the home opponents even further. Mandating 7 home games a season would require 2 buy games, which would even be worse (again, see Clemson schedule above).

No room for BIG, SEC, or Big XII teams if ND would play USC, Navy, Stanford, and a tomato can. (Edit: Other than a tomato can from one of those conferences).

Can't see the love for Stanford other than the biannual West Coast trip ending the regular season.

Who cares about a "perspirational peer"?

As would full ACC membership, but on the schedule dynamic specifically, having to play 11 games against a pool of only 17 teams (USC, Navy, Stanford + 14 ACC opponents) plus 1 Tomato Can would do serious damage to ND football.

The monotony of playing the same teams over and over again would damage ticket sales/variable ticket pricing and TV viewership.

The lack of flexibility would mean ND can't maintain a diverse, national schedule - which is beneficial for recruiting, alumni relations, and identity purposes.

The strength of Notre Dame (and a few other schools) is the national character of the student body and athletic experience. Joining the ACC dilutes that and provides a severe disadvantage in recruiting. That's why joining the Big 10 would have been such a disaster for ambitions for national prominence.

The other point, which is already hurting college football, is the fixed and limited schedules. Besides forcing the disappearance of many traditional (and important games), it's drastically cut down on visits to other schools.

I would think we would keep Stanford also , along with Navy and So Cal. The schedule has ended each year with a west coast opponent at their stadium for years.

many times in the 70s, and 80s. If we were to join the ACC, my guess is Miami and FSU would be moved to the same division, and Miami would become our locked-in cross division game. In odd years (i.e., years where we play USC at home), we'd end the season with Miami in Miami. Hopefully this is just an academic discussion and doesn't come to fruition, but it's the most likely implementation IMO if it did happen.

If we joined the ACC, I would like to see a North/South divisional alignment (which would put Florida State and Miami in the same division), but I doubt the rest of the conference will go for it. I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think this is the alignment that would occur if we were to join.

Atlantic Division

Boston College
Florida State
Georgia Tech*
Louisville
North Carolina State
Notre Dame
Syracuse
Wake Forest

Coastal Division

Clemson*
Duke
Miami
North Carolina
Pittsburgh
Virginia
Virginia Tech
West Virginia (I think they're the school who gets added to maintain an even number)

* I realize Clemson and Georgia Tech are in the opposite divisions of what I have them in, but I think they get swapped in this scenario for the sake of competitive balance.

As for crossover opponents, I believe we get Pitt as our crossover opponent and Syracuse gets West Virginia (Syracuse gets an annual game against us in exchange for dropping Pitt as its annual crossover opponent). All other crossover pairings remain the same.

FSU has played Florida for their last game of the season, and Georgia and Ga. Tech have played the last weekend of the season as well. So I could easily see the ACC allowing us to end the season on the West Coast every year. Might be one of those negotiating points that they would concede to us in order to get us to join.

I'm assuming we'd keep USC as is and would continue to play in LA in even years. The issue is you only get 4 non-conf games, and do we really want to spend one of those 4 on Stanford every year in order to play on the west coast in odd years? I think most people would say no. I'd rather just play an ACC game in a place like Miami or Atlanta in odd years. I'm 50/50 about playing Stanford every year as is. I'd like to mix in other West coast opponents. If we were to ever join a conference, I'd be 100% in favor of dumping them.

And that's not even necessarily tied to this discussion about what our schedule would look like as a full member of the ACC.

Stanford is one of a few schools who can complement our USC schedule but they're not the only one.

As per the current Pac 12 rules, no non-conference football games can occur after the conference schedule begins. Our series with Stanford and USC over Thanksgiving were explicitly grandfathered in since they were pre-existing and longstanding.

For us to exchange Stanford for Cal, USC or Washington (for example) under the current P12 rules, our West Coast game would have to occur in September, and not Thanksgiving weekend. Since the Thanksgiving travel date was the rationale for the Stanford series when it was established, that might not work for us.

Of course if ACC membership requires us to play an ACC member on Thanksgiving week, all our P12 games will be in September so dropping Stanford for a different opponent is much easier.

If we were to join the ACC full time, which I hope we don't, I think the best setup for odd year schedules would be a non-USC Pac 12 team on the road in September, USC at home in October, Miami/Atlanta/Charlotte the weekend after Thanksgiving. In even years, we'd host at Pac 12 team in September and play in LA over Thanksgiving.

esp assuming a tomato can as one of the 4, we have future games with Alabama, Ohio State, etc and if it's those games or Stanford I'd agree dump Stanford in order to allow for us to play a marquee game.

I edited my post just before I read yours. What you’re saying makes a ton of sense.