Quinn10ND

They do and they don't. Notre Dame can always stubbornly refuse to join a conference; that's their prerogative. There are other pressures, however, which may make the decision one of "independence and irrelevance" or "join a conference just to stay alive." If the Big 10 expands, other conferences will not remain idle. The SEC, in particular, will make moves to become a superconference. They'll target schools with geographic and philosophic similarities to their culture, and the four most obvious are Oklahoma and Texas from the Big 12 and Miami and Florida State from the ACC. If the SEC raids the ACC for Miami and Florida State, the ACC has to respond by acquiring other schools. Their most obvious target is the Big East, which is home to 19 Notre Dame sports. If the Big East becomes a second-tier conference, or worse, dissolves due to ACC poaching, Notre Dame may have no choice but to join the Big 10. If the SEC goes after Texas and Oklahoma, all this changes and Notre Dame's situation becomes less a matter of outside forces than internal wants. However, if the Big 10 adds Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers, they could easily tell Notre Dame they're either in or out, meaning that if the Irish remain independent the Big 10 could refuse to play them, putting a huge hurt on Notre Dame's BCS chances with such a huge hit to their SOS. On your first points- you're onto why this has become any sort of debate: The destruction of the Big East. ND football doesn't need a conference and barring a BCS change that says only conference champions can participate, then it will never need a conference. The issue is the Olympic sports, and it's a legitimate one. However, there's been little indication by the administration of a desire to change - in fact, the rhetoric against joining a conference has grown stronger as this has played out after some hedging two or so months ago - and given that the non-revenue sports are usually subsidized in large part by football, it will, in the end, come down to football. Your second point is one I've seen elsewhere, and it's the weakest one. If the Big 10 wants to refuse to schedule ND and "hurt" ND's SOS, then I'm sure they'd be welcome to. Considering ND played more PAC 10 teams in 2009 than Big 10, I'm sure ND could find 3 teams from the ACC, Big 12, SEC or PAC 10 to play every September and keep that SOS the same. That said, I'm going to hope you guys do join the Big 10 and hope that we phase out Michigan State or Purdue some years and get to play you again; only twice in about 40 years isn't enough. Regardless, best of luck and by every pre-preseason poll I've seen, it doesn't seem like you guys will need much of it this year. Cheers.

Viewership on NBC has been in a decline for the past few years, until 2009 when the spectacle of Weis' termination loomed over the season. There'll be the inevitable bump in interest in the next year or two over Kelly's Heroes, but if (and this is a big if) Kelly can't turn it around and they stay mediocre, and the viewership fades again, and they're in a bind in 2015, does NBC renew that contract? You have to wonder. Basically, allying themselves with a conference like the Big 10 assures Notre Dame of a continued income, not necessarily dependent solely on what they do on the field. The problem they face is, if they don't pull the trigger now, the Big 10 may not have another expansion for another two decades, if ever. If the Big 10 wants Notre Dame all they have to do is hard ball them. It would be as easy as telling Notre Dame the Big 10 teams they schedule are no longer allowed to play them unless they join the Big 10. Why should the Big 10 support Notre Dame when the Big 10 no longer gets anything in return. It used to be lucrative for the Big 10 to play Notre Dame because of the TV viewership and Notre Dame was good, Neither of which is the case now. Notre Dame needs the Big 10 more than the Big 10 needs Notre Dame. If Notre Dame doesnt accept, the Big 10 should leave them out to dry and refuse to play them, that would leave Notre Dame in a heap of trouble. Have fun filling your schedule out with MAC teams and see what kind of respect you get then. With the way the Bowl system is set up Notre Dame needs to join a conference to be successful. They only had two options for bowl games this year because all the others have conference tie ins and Notre Dame wasnt ranked in the top 8. How many years can they turn down bowl games before it really starts to hurt? I haven't posted on here in a while, but congrats on your run to the Big 10 Championship game , I was cheering for you guys and believe that Suh should have won the Heisman. If I may address a few things you brought up- First: I'd love to see the Big 10 play "hard ball" considering ND played more teams from the Pac 10 in 2009 than Big 10, I'm sure ND would do just fine in finding other suitors for September games. You seem to think ND needs the Big 10; I happen to have enjoyed seeing ND play Nebraska and Texas in September just as much as any Michigan game. I don't think ND is desperate to keep Purdue and Michigan State on the schedule. Good luck to the Big 10. Second: In 2003, after ND's worst season in 40 years, NBC renewed the contract. ABC, and FOX in particular, made it clear then that if NBC didn't renew the contract, then they'd be very interested. ND is going to have its own major network with or without NBC; since the current deal runs through 2015 and there is not an inkling of desire to end it, then ND will be on NBC for a long, long time. Personally, I'm tired of the same NBC announcers and would like to see a change, but it's not going to happen. Third: ND's bowl tie-ins have been with the Big East; the Big East needs ND in a big way in this respect, not the other way around. ND has speculated recently going in a different direction on this front; so to say ND needs a conference because of the way the Bowl system is off the mark, as ND doesn't really care about non-BCS bowls anyway. A 6-6 ND team in the Big 10 isn't going to a much better bowl than a 6-6 Independent ND team. ND turned down a bowl this year because of a coaching change and no bowl was desirable enough to go to given that circumstance. ND's independence was the same in 2009 as 1996, when ND last declined to go to a bowl. Best of luck in the Holiday Bowl.

You guys are incredible.

i dont see them going 9 - 3 this year. i see a loss against Purdue, Washington, USC and maybe Navy. Umm, Purdue? Really? I agree - Purdue? Really? But will add, Navy? Really? and Washington? Really? USC will rebound, so I still don't see ND winning that one. Washington got up for a conference rival, just like Oregon/Oregon State do for USC. I see them improving this year with the new coach, but it won't be enough - or will it? I'd love it if they did get to a bowl because otherwise our non-conference next year really looks embarrassing. Navy almost won in Columbus this season, have road wins against Pittsburgh and Wake Forest the last couple of years; plus the triple option can be a headache to defend. Of course ND shouldn't lose, but I can sort of see that one. However, Purdue is a terrible, terrible team. It's between them and Indiana for worst in the Big 10- enough said. If Weis loses to them, someone may try to insert poison into his twinkies.

Why is it theirs to lose? The Heisman is supposed to be awarded to the most outstanding player in college football in a given year. McCoy has 6 TDs and 4 INTs against UL-Monroe, Wyoming and Texas Tech. I think McCoy should have won it last year, but he shouldn't even be in the discussion right now, much less it be "his to lose." Tebow has better numbers, but just because he stepped out of a tackle against Tennessee doesn't mean the Heisman is his to lose, either. Being objective and putting aside all biases and media hype- As of right now, of course it can/will change, Jahvid Best should be the frontrunner. But he plays out west for a team not named USC, so he has no chance.

i dont see them going 9 - 3 this year. i see a loss against Purdue, Washington, USC and maybe Navy. Umm, Purdue? Really?

I'm a neutral observer, and this is nuts. A Nebraska fan saying it's not even close, 01 Miami > 95 Nebraska? Yikes. As has been mentioned, the 2001 Miami team has grown in prestige only because of what those players did in the NFL, not for what they actually did as a team in that season. 2001 Virginia Tech, who they narrowly beat just to get to the title game, was 8-4. BC was 7-5. FSU was 8-4. That's their best 3 wins of the regular season, narrowly winning the first 2. And it's questionable whether Nebraska should have joined them in that Rose Bowl. The '95 Nebraska team defeated, I believe, 3 Top 10 teams just to get to play a 12-0 Florida team, arguably Spurrier's best, and beat them in a way that bordered on assault. Any one really think the '95 Nebraska team squeaks by a 7-5 Boston College team? How many Heisman winners have never sniffed NFL success? The NFL and NCAA are 2 completely different games and levels. The 1995 Nebraska team EASILY is greater than that Miami team, no matter some Miami players did afterward. Edit: And one last thing: Tom Osborne or Larry Coker? Come on.

11 hour Sundays? Maybe if they had some 13 hour days, they could have beaten 3-9 Toledo in Ann Arbor. I think he's a good coach, his success at WVU shows that. But from his accepting, then not, the Alabama job in 2006...to his bolting from West Virginia and burning documents on the way out...to the buyout fiasco...to the 3-9 season...all the transfers...now this. Just a nightmare for Michigan. He's not a Bo Schembechler guy, like Moeller or Carr, so they have no loyalty to him. If he doesn't win 7 or 8 games this year, I think he'll be surely gone. This reminds me of Billy Gillespie at Kentucky, just not a good fit and not ready for this level of a program. Oh well, I'll continue enjoying this circus.

Welcome to the board.. I always relish hearing from fans of other teams..This attitude can get old..fast. Notre Dame has so many fans..I can see why they should get mentioned every year..If just to bolster the publication's readership.. We Husker fans know how sad the upcoming seasons can be if no one notices us or when ESPN doesn't talk about us. Why do that to that sizable of a chunk of college Football fans?...Give them a little hope and keep them around eagerly anticipating your next issue. I understand. I just disagree that ND is always overrated in the polls. Over-covered or over-exposed when good or bad? That can be another story. And, believe me, if I weren't an ND fan, I'd probably hate them for that reason, too. Btw, the "Real Men of Genius- Hopeless Notre Dame Fan" = hysterical.

Sheesh. Pelini deserves a lot more kudos than a throwaway line like "You want to applaud Pelini for that."

They should get 8 or 9 automatic wins within their "so-called" conference. Probably true. I think one of the more unfortunate developments in college football in the last decade, is the weakening of out of conference games. I hate the way ND is scheduling now, yet I see some ranking based solely on that. They shouldn't. Penn State is ranked in the Top 10 because of their schedule....shouldn't they be penalized for having no road non-conference games, and their best game outside the Big 10 is against Syracuse? Last year, LSU was the defending national champions and their toughest non-conference game? Troy. It's a shame that teams are being rewarded for dodging tough competition, but they are. It's a race to the bottom. If it happens that a 12-1 SEC or Big 12 team gets in over a 12-0 Penn State (or, through a miracle, ND), it would really send a message that I think could be beneficial to the game. Rant over.

So what, that just makes up for the 3 loss ND team that was given a Fiesta Bowl berth in 2000. What team was it that was passed up for that bid I wonder........oh yeah, Nebraska! The same year NU brought the sea of red with them to South Bend and beat the Domers their our house! Does anyone remember the score of that Fiesta Bowl? I sure do 41-17 Oregon State! I remember because as I was watching that game, after watching NU put up 60+ on an obviously inferior Northwestern team, that I would LOVE to have seen what a real football game would have looked like had ND not spoiled the party. Seriously, if your looking for sympathy from a Husker message board, I have a feeling you won't find much. Actually, the 2000 ND team was 9-2, ranked #10 going into the Fiesta Bowl. Nebraska was 9-2, ranked 9th. Should Nebraska have been in, instead? Yes. But again, as I said, no 3-loss ND team has been in a BCS bowl and won't in the future.

Notre Dame is hated because: 1. The fact is that the irish play a psuedo Big 10+1 schedule and all three service academies. The weakness of their schedule every year is a joke. And yet, even with a patsy schedule they still struggle to get 7 wins. And, to top it all off they have a special clause which guarantees them a BCS bowl game with 9 wins. 2. No team lives off it's past moreso than the domers. Oh and congrats on beating a mediocre Hawaii squad in the meaningless Toilet Bowl last season. 3. They are on television every single week. I'm sorry but watching a 2-3 Notre Dame @ 1-3 Purdue is the ultimate yawn fest. At home they're on NBC and when they're on the road the game is picked up by espn/abc. 4. Charlie Weiss is typical of a offensive NFL coach who comes to the college ranks as a head coach: He delusionally thinks that an NFL style west coast offense is invincible despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. #1 - Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue is a pseudo Big 10 schedule? ND plays Navy every year, yes. And others play the likes of Charleston Southern and Coastal Carolina. All 3 service academies? That happened in 2006, and Army was only added because the NCAA mandated a 12th game. It is rare that all 3 are on the schedule. Only happened a few times in the last 30 years. I won't defend the recent scheduling moves, however, traditionally ND's schedules have been strong. As recently as 2005, for instance, ND had 3 of the AP preseason Top 4 teams on the schedule, along with 2 others in the top 25. Also, ND is not guaranteed a BCS bid with 9 wins. They must have 9 wins and finish in the Top 12 just to be eligible. If they're in the Top 8, it's automatic, and ND (nor anyone) will never be in the Top 8 with 3 losses. Also, under the new agreement, if ND does make a BCS game, they'll be paid roughly what any other team would be paid. Btw, ND was 10-2 in the 2002 regular season, BCS eligible, and played in the Gator Bowl. #2 - Eh, okay. #3 - So ND is hated because networks choose to broadcast them? Take that up with the networks. And they wouldn't bother if there wasn't interest. #4 - Charlie Weis does not run a West Coast offense. I have mixed feelings on the man and won't defend him, but he is no reason why ND is hated. ND is hated under any coach. That said, best of luck to the Huskers.

I just don't buy Penn State as a top 10 team this season. Just 8 returning starters, they also lost one of their projected LB starters for the season. #9? I don't think so. I see them as a 2-loss team in the Big 10 this season. Closer to their 06 and 07 teams, rather 2008. And yeah, Mississippi has gotten more mileage out of 1 win than any team in recent memory. I don't see why they'll do any better than Houston Nutt's best teams at Arkansas. 9-3ish. If there's a God, someone will knock off Florida. I don't think I can handle Thom Brennaman in the booth auditioning to take Tim Tebow's virginity again.

I'll steer clear of Lou's comments, lol. Alabama went 7-6 in 2007, including a home loss to UL-Monroe and a narrow Independence Bowl win going into 2008. Young teams do improve and ND has been one of the youngest teams in the country the past two seasons (ND was starting 7 true freshman in 2007, 4 in 2008). ND had only 8 players from the 2004 recruiting class remain by 2007, and only a couple were decent. The 2005 class wasn't much better. It was as close to the death penalty as you can get. And those have now been fully replaced with excellent classes in 2007 and 2008 who have experience. I have no issue with anyone or any pollster leaving ND outside the top 25, but to be so up in arms over a #23 ranking? I just don't see why. And ND isn't always ranked. This is the first time ND has been ranked in any poll, preseason or otherwise, since the 2006 season. Also, ND has started out unranked in 6 of the last 9 preseason polls. Sorry, but it seems like everyone is going insane over a #23 rating. As if ND has spent lots of time ranked highly in the last couple of years. But even so, I hope the Huskers have a great season, despite this ND hating.