And it's been shitty for football. Those games are horrible and they tank our SOS, as well as our overall cachet. I don't care about the bowls outside of the playoffs and I think "crucial" oversells the point.

One could argue whether this dip was foreseeable and whether it's indeed temporary. The ACC had some lousy years immediately preceding ND joining the conference and it's on a pretty bad stretch right now. Regardless, my main point was that it was a bad move for football and any ancillary consequences as a result of that decision are on Swarbrick.

I really don't care much about soccer and, besides, I think we could be doing just fine in another conference. Look at the baseball recruiting right now under Stiffler. The overwhelming majority of recruits come from the Midwest and Northeast. We don't need to be in the ACC to land those guys.

I know a lot of the football-only fans feel this way, but that's not a realistic viewpoint.

And as I said, if it weren't for the ACC deal, ND would be staying home this postseason. Think that's going to help with recruiting? I'm here to tell you it definitely would not.

The ACC was not our only option to preserve bowl access.

Be specific, please.

With any of the conferences. Or maybe entered into a shorter term deal or stayed with the Big East. This latest round of realignment only reinforced how coveted ND is.

To call the ACC the only option is absurd. It may have been the only option we pursued, but that doesn’t make it the only option. I guess we’ll never know.

...it's your position the Big 10 or the SEC or the Pac12 or the Big12 would have signed a deal with Notre Dame saying that in exchange for an average of five games per year scheduled against their teams, Notre Dame would get full access to all of their bowl slots and a place for all their non-FB teams to play.

If that's your position, suffice it to say I disagree.

And also suffice it to say all those conference have dogmeat teams ND would have to play as part of any of those hypothetical deals. That you prefer those dogmeat teams to the ACC's dogmeat teams really isn't relevant to the conversation.

But the ACC unequivocally was not the only option. There were better matches for us or we could’ve worked with the bowls to create other tie-ins while waiting it out in the Big East. At any point, we could’ve (and still can) decided to renegotiate as well, but we didn’t.

The results stand for themselves.

What leads you to believe that we would have had deals on the table from other conferences?

You cite that ND is coveted but there is little chance the BIG would have cut a deal with us where we get access to their bowl games, etc. Same with the SEC.

Maybe the Pac 12 or Big 12 may have but then how are they any different than the ACC in terms of one of your other issues with the ACC - slop opponents?

I don’t think Swarbrick even bothered to pursue other deals. ACC offered and he signed us up in apparent perpetuity.

If you don’t think other conferences would’ve made ND a deal, then I don’t know what to tell you.

to other possibilities, don’t you
think?

The SEC and BIG would laugh us out of the room if we proposed being able to take their bowl games in exchange for a few games a year. Those two entities are likely bigger than ND at this point. They don't need us. Sure they'd like to have us but they clearly don't need us to get big contracts, eye balls for their TV partners, etc.

So at the end of the day, we'd be left trying to cut deals with the Pac 12 and Big 12. Are either of those more palatable to you than the ACC? Maybe they would be but it seems to be both are basically the ACC in terms of quality of opponents, etc.

So offering to do exactly the same in exchange for them giving away the store had 0.00% chance of working. We played Michigan, MsU and Purdue annually and often added NW or others for a 4th game.

Reality is we went to the ACC because they agreed to what others didn’t.

Why couldn't we negotiate with a handful of minor bowls to serve as an option in years that we don't make the NY6 as an at-large team?

When the move was made, Swarbrick touted it as a way to preserve access to the lower-tier bowls. I don't think playing in those meaningless exhibitions should have been the driving force behind joining a conference that was never going to be a good fit and diminishing our football schedule in the process.

Do I think we were in a position to dictate terms to the SEC and the Big Ten on the same terms as the ACC deal? No, probably not, but we could've worked with another conference to lodge our other sports without demanding a tie-in for the lower bowls. That's just one example of another deal that we might've struck other than a 15 year lockup and 6 shitty games per year just to earn a Pinstripe Bowl berth.

Either way, we're stuck with the ACC deal and I think it sucks. Ten years later, we haven't formed any meaningful rivalries with any of those teams. We didn't fit in the conference back then and we don't fit now.

there are tie ins for the middle of the pack teams from Big Conferences. They went and signed those deals so that year after year they could get a team from one of the BIG 5 even though other teams might be better.

Given that fact I dont see them wanting to sign an agreement to take ND in "down" years and then scramble for someone to replace us when we get a better offer.

You can reject whatever you want but you have to provide some sort of evidence to support your claims. Most of the bowls have conference tie ins. How many of those bowls would be willing to renegotiate with their conference partners to let us take a potential slot?

Look, I am no fan of Swarbrick and I do believe there may have been a better deal out there with the ACC (less games or maybe we got to pick 3 of the 5 teams annually so we wouldn't be stuck with slop games against Duke, BC, etc.) but you seem to be arguing for a path that might not be all that realistic in today's climate.

The reality is that we were going to have to align with one of the major conferences in some fashion. The SEC and BIG were not going to take us half ass........... they were gonna demand us all in or all out. So that leaves the ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12 for bowl options. They are all the same to me. Or as you suggest, somehow get lower bowls to renegotiate their conference contracts just to give us access while we park all our non-football sports in a some lower tiered conference.

I guess we just disagree about the value of the ND brand. The Big Ten took us already for hockey and it was widely reported that they were waiting for ND before closing up shop on the latest round of realignment. If they're willing to take us as a full member, like every other conference, then I'd have to believe that we could negotiate an arrangement to house our other sports. There's value in that type of deal for the conference and it would work better for us. Ditto for the bowls.

to be a full member, not a partial one.

The SEC and BIG would want us to negotiate new TV deals. But as a partial member, we'd likely keep the NBC deal. That's a non-starter for the BIG and SEC.

There is zero chance either would take us as a partial member.

schools are not traditional Power 5 schools. It is a niche sport that caters to the Upper Midwest and NEw England. Trying to analogize what we could have done in Football and Basketball based upon what we were able to do in Hockey seems crazy.

Look at the past few Frozen Fours and you will find names like Denver Minnesota State, St Cloud State, Minn-Duluth, Quinnipiac and BU. The Big Name schools are come predominantly from the Big 10 with the exception of BC and Providence.

double a 6 million travel budget for all sports.Truth be told only conferences east of the Missisippi had any shot at ND.The ACC and BIG would be the only suitors and the BIG has already played their hand leaving the ACC alone