In reply to: List of FBS teams that have never played a FCS team posted by irishnyer
what, 15 years?
I appreciate it. It’s the true question when it comes to schedules - the only question.
When did we become such cowards?
Big Ten and SEC teams are reluctant to play a major non conference in the middle of their conference slate.
We are playing OSU after they kickoff the conference season in 2023 and have SEC teams in our upcoming schedules, right?
that schedule is.
Ohio State and USC both on the road, as well as Clemson. Also one game still left to be scheduled.
Edit to add: After looking at the schedule in greater detail, it looks like the one game left to be added probably will be an ACC opponent.
Take a look at Alabama, there best two home games are Texas A&M and Auburn. They have as some here like to say "tomato cans" all over the schedule. Utah State, Austin Peay, UL Monroe. I mean I think if you look at schedules of all the major players in college football they all look the same. Each has 2-4 quality games and a bunch of games they had better have no doubt in winning. I agree there are not many games in that 2022 home slate to get excited about going to see. Like some posted there are not a lot of Independent schools left to schedule out there.
In the history of the program.
Two exceptional games then a steaming pile o shit.
The home slate fucking sucks outside 1 game.
So show me one or two power 5 teams in 2022 who play a great home schedule. Georgia has Auburn and Tennessee between the hedges and the rest blow. Michigan has Penn State and Indiana and the likes of Hawaii and Colorado state, I mean I get it we want to play great schedules, well with conferences that just isn't happening. To maintain independence we all love somethings have to give.
Until recently, were only permitted when Labor Day weekend encompassed the last weekend of August. I think there's been a relaxation of that rule the last few years, however.
2023 are late Sept or early Oct after a couple of Big Ten games. The SEC games don’t all have dates yet.
That reluctance isn’t as is stated
I was going by the link below
It is because we have to pay for a $500M stadium and justify itsexistence. So we need 7 home games a year and stay away from home and homes and seek out one offs against tomato cans.
Respectable opponents demand home and homes.
Add a dash of overcommitment to the sogshit ACC and that explains our pathetic schedule. It cannot be glossed over by sprinkling in a single marquee game here and there and hoping somebody vesides Clemson doesnt chow ass.
stay in the ACC. Guaranteed a minimum 10 wins yearly.
Screw the SEC while were at it.
Screw the NCAA as well.
Clemson's coattails are only so long.
Top to bottom, the ACC is the worst.
Give me mountains and the west coast over the f/k/a southern conference any day of the week. I have no use for the ACC.
Clemson may be better than any Big XII team, and better than OU who is at the top of the Big XII pyramid. But Texas, Iowa State, OK State and others, would kick the shit out of the next tier of ACC teams.
The Big XII really has one complete and utter doormat, Kansas. The ACC has several including Duke, Wake, Cuse, GaTech and others, who have literally sucked for a long time. Cuse and GaTech were both good programs a while ago, but really suck now.
IMO, OU is almost exactly on our tier, albeit with a gizmo offense and some recent Heismans, yet I'd think we'd whoop them on the lines and fare well against them.
I wasn't sure if you were the UT Law guy or that was another poster, but that would be a massive gamechanger if they realized their potential. Southern Cal, Texas, LSU, Georgia, and Miami can all win titles recruiting solely within a 100 mile radius, but UT is a 60,000 flagship school in a booming state and has boosters that make even ND look poor. It's bizarre seeing A&M in the SEC as I think they would have been a great foil for OU lately, but a strong Texas + OU gives the Big 12 two monsters even if the rest is weak. As for the ACC, it's trash outside of Clemson and agree on your analysis, but FSU & Miami are always one coach away, UNC and VT should easily be more attractive than Ames or Gundy, and while it doesn't matter to me, there are the academics like Duke and UVA for the Ivy League folks.
On the field? Not so much. Granted, neither the Big XII nor the Pac-12 has had a program as strong as Clemson the last few years. But top to bottom, the ACC is still the weakest of the Power 5 football conferences on the field.
For those shitty Thursday night games Swarbrick did lobby to get the schools paid more money for those horror shows.
What a shit show for those tomato can games.
We will end up on Hallmark.
football. I would not be surprised to see a change to 4-6 "divisions" of 10 teams and a lot of non power teams will be left out.
Although I think the Power 5, or at least the Big Ten and SEC, are probably too ensconced to allow such a development.
it will gain momentum if the NIL stuff isn't settled by the summer when the laws of various states are set to take effect.
The reason I said 4-6 divisions of 10 is that there are 65 power conference schools, but not all of them might be able to make the sort of jump that they're talking about, and more specifically some might be dead weight (bottom of the conference teams). In order to maximize revenue, better to drop lower performing schools, IMO.
That said, these discussions are currently ongoing from what I understand. I had heard that there were to be discussions with Congress but nothing has been formalized from what I understand.
What I would call the academically oriented members of the power 5 don't want it to go this way. E.g., Stanford, Duke, UVa, GT, Vandy. I am not sure the better academic schools in the Big 10 are thrilled about it either. It is the usual suspects - the SEC primarily, driving the bus over the cliff.
I'm sure that some schools won't want to go and some schools won't really be wanted.
And I envision ND linking up with schools who have some aspiration and shame and sense of academic and amateur mission.
I would guess about 20. Or 30 schools including half or more of the PAC 10 and all of the ACC except Clemson and FSU. Maybe most of the Big 10. The academies. Vandy.
The meathead league will get almost all of the SEC and probably Ohio State and likely Oklahoma.
I would like to think Texas would throw its lot with us. Ditto PSU. Maybe Miami.
I would much rather ND go in that direction than the direction that Kelly would prefer.
I that moves beyond NIL likeness ND will go in another direction and will be joined by many of the same cohort you mentioned. In the short term it will seem to be a blow in the long term the paid league will morph into semi-pro football and focus will revert to the more academic based product.
from what I understand that isn't and has never been on the table.
My guess is that he and Fr Jenkins are throwing that out there so that they have cover to keep chasing the money.
The rise in power of the networks and athletic directors comes just as universities are starved for revenue by the changing paradigm where there is resistance to continuing 20 percent annual tuition and expense growth.
So University Presidents abandon all pretense and stare longingly at architectural mockups of $500M stadia and forget how to say no to ridiculous requests made by football coaches for gaudy toys and planes and salaries and staffs and lounges and x boxes.
I think that these guys are going after the money.
edit: I think that this could have been worked out the way you suggest about a decade/decade and a half ago when the conferences started splitting up and realigning and we were "monitoring the landscape" instead of leading.
I would doubt that Miami would choose differently, same with Michigan. Michigan was paying Harbaugh (all sources) close to 15 million per year and separating from major TV contracts would be tough for them (and they're whores anyway).
If solid leadership is in play for an alternative, I would imagine that it could work out as you describe. None of the schools that you describe as staying strike me as strong leaders, especially the basketball schools of the ACC.
As to the ACC, I would guess that would depend a bit on basketball. They'll try and get the best TV contracts, and a lot of those schools would hesitate to not go with them.
From what I understand as of now, it is the Power 5 plus Notre Dame on a "fact finding mission" as to how this will play out with name, image and likeness.
And the network model is collapsing of its own weight.
but the different state laws are going to start taking effect this summer and certain power 5 schools are worried that they will be at a recruiting disadvantage and are disappointed that the NCAA can't come up with something.
By creating a federal NIL statute that would preempt state law. Both NIL and intercollegiate athletics touch on interstate commerce, so it's clearly within their power to do so. I'm not sure they would be inclined to do so, but it also seems to me that perhaps leveling the playing field is a compelling governmental interest. And while I'm aware that Congress has more pressing matters than intercollegiate athletics, this wouldn't be the first time they entered that particular area. See, e.g., Title IX.
But time is of the essence and they might not get to it before the state laws go into effect. The NCAA could also have their own rules, but they're punting, at least now.
about joining one of these divisions or dropping out of FBS? Is that your read?
but I believe that the choice has been made. Huge investment in the football facilities, etc.
this is all in my opinion, of course.
from the P5 that opt out / are excluded. It is basically an NCAA comprised of basketball schools and ND plus teams that have never been more than bottom feeders for 60+ years.
The new league will consume all network money and the "alternative" will be akin to the attempts to create a parallel NFL pro league.
Most schools are in so deep investment wise for football and their entire athletic budgets are so dependent on football, that they have no choice but to go with the new league.
ND is 99% likely to go with the new league -- and claim some kind of moral position with all other sports and/or claim it isn't much different than hockey where we have kids that average 23 years old and played on national teams claiming to be college players for a few years.
It is all going into the shitter much like olympic sports did once the US allowed pros to play. It is totally worthless now.
but yes, I would agree that those are the 2 main options. I'm not sure how many of the P5 teams would be opted out; truthfully, it should be about 1/3 if not 1/2. Using a local example, a team like CU who just lost their head coach after one year because they can't afford his staff really isn't going to be able to compete against a school like Alabama or the like.
stocking up now, trying to get a few years at FCS to transition back over in 2024 or 2025. They would have to get New Mexico State back and perhaps try and poach someone from the Mountain West or conference USA or some other random FBS conference (UNM, UTEP, or some other Texas school).
Barring an invitation from the Mountain West. Football independence hasn't been kind to them. OTOH, they tend to dominate the WAC for men's basketball.
they get their buy games and don't have to split the money with any other conference members. They've struggled to be competitive, but they're heavily involved in the transfer portal and covid worked to their benefit with recruiting (able to sign kids that they normally couldn't sniff).
Being able to say that you play Bama and Kentucky is appealing to recruits because they know that if they can put decent tape out there it will go miles towards being able to advance their options. It also gets their athletic department fully funded.
Now, with that said, I would imagine that at some point the idea of being in a conference and being competitive would be a good goal. Right now they still have some bowl tie ins (AZ bowl and NM bowl, I think) and they schedule some deadbeats to go along with their buy games, but the WAC might be able to do better if they can add some other "name" teams.
The team goes into bowl games unprepared and probably unqualified. In the last six seasons, they've played four regular season games against then-top-10 teams. In three of those games -- Clemson in 2020, Georgia in 2019, and Stanford in 2018 -- they played competitively or won. They need more of these opportunities.
Was good for America and all God-fearing sentient beings.
about 5 minutes as our game with Georgia Tech started almost immediately after. And we found out that Weis had wasted the entire offseason installing a garbage offense only scrap it by halftime. Then there is the game the next week, that is mentioned below.
There was the PSU fiasco in between the GT and skunkweasel games. And good lord how I wish I could un-remember all of them
Worst ND team in my lifetime, and it wasn't even close.
I thought they were Top 10 at the time, although I could be mistaken.
Edit to add: After researching, Georgia was not a Top 10 team at the time they played ND in 2017. Obviously they were underrated early in the season.
With that said, however, I do note a few points of disagreement with your post after rereading. Primarily, your comment that ND was "unqualified" for a bowl game in the last six seasons. First, we did win some bowl games in that time (2017 Citrus Bowl vs. LSU, 2019 Camping World Bowl vs. Iowa State, albeit against an unranked opponent in the latter game). Second, bowl games have proliferated to the point where there are now 70+ football teams selected for bowl games. Within that context, it is patently untrue to say that ND was "unqualified" for a bowl game in five of the last six seasons (the lone exception being 2016, when ND didn't go to a bowl game.)
Now, if you want to argue that ND is getting better bowl bids than their resume warrants, that's a different (and much sounder) argument. But it's important to note that in the era of the NY6, small changes in rankings can lead to seismic differences in bowl matchups. For example, this season if ND and Texas A&M had swapped positions in the rankings, ND would have played Florida in the Orange Bowl instead of playing Alabama in the Rose Bowl. Take it one step further, and assume that COVID-19 had not been in play this season, and ND had remained independent this year, ND would have played North Carolina in the Orange Bowl. A rather significant difference, no?
Second, as to playing top ten teams, there are only a handful of opponents that give you a good shot at that:
Guarantees (or pretty darn close):
Clemson (although I'm less than 100% certain the ACC would allow ND an annual series vs. Clemson)
Alabama
Ohio State
Likely, but not guaranteed, to be Top 10:
Florida (could change if Mullen goes completely off the rails and gets fired/resigns)
Georgia
Oklahoma
Beyond that, scheduling Top 10 opponents is pretty much a crapshoot.
It's a huge payday for them that likely helps fund their athletic department for the year. Also, their players get the opportunity to get tape against high level competition, which can dramatically help in getting future opportunities.
and the red carpet rolled out for them by stadium staff.
More people experiencing the wonder of the Magic Ki...I mean Notre Dame Stadium is a good thing.
Swarbrick knows he has the gold standard brand and the many leverages that come with it.
Playing a murder row schedule would be counter productive in todays landscape.
Especially with a small wienerd want to be elite HC who absolutely loathes recruiting.
The statue needs to include Jack.
How else would Swarbrick be able to say that he hired the football coach with the most wins in program history?
But.....everyone else is not Norte Damme.