Did not Texas flirt with the ACC over a year ago about being a partial member? The ACC supposedly refused, but here we are with Notre Dame. Looking back, the ACC should have accepted Texas as a partial and then added Notre Dame as a partial, assuming that Texas will have had the same deal as Notre Dame.

I think with partial members in football with 2 schools like UT and ND playing 5 ACC schools each, it would have made the football side of things much more interesting. It would basically mean that in 4 out of 6 years, your favorite ACC school plays UT or ND.

Garrett_TD23 - 19 September 2012 08:45 PM

Did not Texas flirt with the ACC over a year ago about being a partial member? The ACC supposedly refused, but here we are with Notre Dame. Looking back, the ACC should have accepted Texas as a partial and then added Notre Dame as a partial, assuming that Texas will have had the same deal as Notre Dame.

I think with partial members in football with 2 schools like UT and ND playing 5 ACC schools each, it would have made the football side of things much more interesting. It would basically mean that in 4 out of 6 years, your favorite ACC school plays UT or ND.

You like to analyze things to the nth degree, don’t you?  We didn’t have a playoff format back then, and it is my understanding that it was Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and one other team that we all in consideration.  Whole different situation.

As for Notre Dame, do you seriously thing that the ACC would agree to a 50 Million buyout for Notre Dame to only be a member for Olympic sports?  Of course they are joining full time in a few years when there NBC contract expires.  The ACC will look for the 16th team and the network bidding wars will be on.

For such smart fellow you don’t seem to see through the forest because of the trees.

I’m not sure what the playoff has to do with ND joining the ACC as a partial, when they were having those discussions ND was satisfied that they would not be left out of the playoffs as a Independent in football. It would be great if they were full members for football, but I’m not counting on that happening until it actually happens.

Texas along with 3 others were rumored to be flirting with full membership with the Pac. Supposedly the only reason that did not happen was because the Pac, like the ACC wanted ownership of all tier 3 rights and Texas was not going for that. If I remember right, Texas would have moved alone to the ACC if they could have (1) came as a partial member and (2) made the LHN work.

Dealing with the near-daily changes in college football is look shooting at a moving target.  Even today, the playoff is looking like a “tweak” is being made:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8400420/conference-commissioners-discuss-tweaking-college-football-postseason-format

When the Texas issue was on the table, the playoff was not on the radar.  The Alabama/LSU BCSCG accelerated the playoffs.  The Texas league solidified itself with WVU and TCU and the ACC deal was off the table. 

Swofford got ahead of the oncoming change and made moves that stabilized the ACC and got our league a seat at the playoff table and to deny that it just silly.

So what you are saying is that not getting Texas is a good thing for the ACC?

It seems to me that the ACC just recently swallowed its pride by allowing ND in as a partial, something they probably should have done with Texas in hindsight. Because the whole “Independent” in football barrier was just broken down, the only thing left to do is allow the LHN to operate. I’m thinking if the ACC wanted to, they could have negotiated back it’s tier 3 rights from ESPN.

Garrett_TD23 - 19 September 2012 10:07 PM

So what you are saying is that not getting Texas is a good thing for the ACC?

It seems to me that the ACC just recently swallowed its pride by allowing ND in as a partial, something they probably should have done with Texas unless it was considered and there were too many obstacles to over come.

As I said, you are over analyzing this.  The biggest game of the year is here and you are getting worked up over a dead issue?

It wasn’t just Texas and to answer your question, I don’t know if Texas was a good thing or not and don’t really care.  I do care about Clemson staying put in the best place for them rather than acting like a leprechaun chasing a rainbow for a pot of gold that may not be there.

there… may not be there.

I do not think the ACC “swallowed it’s pride” in adding ND. They did what the Big12 wanted to do, and the Big10 wouldn’t do. That said, when ND joins a conference the ACC will be the one. I believe, as does almost everyone else, that ND will have to join a conference at some point. In tying up ND to 5 conference games.. the next step to 9 will not be that much of a shock. Especially since traditional ND opponents (Pitt, BC, Syracuse), and games they used to play regularly (Miami and GT) are in the ACC.

Perhaps there were talks with Texas, and they wouldn’t do what ND is doing. Regardless, I believe the ACC is in a good spot, even if this year the teams pretty much blow, except for the obvious.

Notre Dame has always been the big enchilada for a conference.  They are not just a national brand, they are a global brand….....They packed a stadium in Ireland the watch them play a bad Navy team…....In every city in America, there is a large Notre Dame follow and people will watch them play football.  Also, because they are Notre Dame wants a piece of them.

I don’t like Swofford and I too want out of the ACC, (In my case I want into the SEC but the 50 Million buyout has shut that down….) but the SOB has been a pretty smooth operator in the moves he has made to hold the league together.  I honestly thought the ACC was walking the Green Mile just a few months ago and here we are in pretty good shape. I also have to add that Clemson President Barker appears to have also been a key player in this power play so I sure hope this works out.

If any school is going to have an exception to the rule it would have to be Notre Dame.  I just hope that there is a plan in place to integrate them into the ACC as a full member down the road because it would not be good 10 years from now seeing ND having the best of both worlds…....

I think everyone is missing my original point and perhaps it’s my fault for not being clear, but IF getting Notre Dame in as a partial member and getting them to commit to 5 football games was the plan all along, then would not you say that the ACC missed on Texas when they had a chance?

I suppose plans change in just a few months or years, in hindsight if Texas were to become available again, I’d hope the ACC would push hard to get them, even as a partial.