This is apparently the model the administration is using to schedule Notre Dame football into the future. In fact, rather than play a "schedule," Notre Dame is signing up exhibition games to come to a stadium near you.
Wazzu in San Antone don't work for you (gee, seems like such a natural fit?) How about UConn at Foxboro, Baylor in New Orleans, Army in Orlando or ASU in Dallas? Can't wait to see the special travel "package offerings" ND is going to make for fans to attend these games. The Disneyfication, marketing packadization of ND has reached a new low. Perhaps ND should just pay to keep a standing exhibition team at the ready and book venues around the country.
As I wrote back in the summer (All you need to know about Scheduling priorities) the problem with Notre Dame's current scheduling, as leaked to NDNation.com, is that the scheduling is being driven by the absolute wrong priorities.
The 7-4-1 scheduling "model" is based on pimping out the ND brand, selling traveling packages, dumbing down the schedule and bullying lessor teams into a "Home and screw you" relationship.
It's too clever by more than half. I feel like Michael Scott from The Office cooked up this crazy concoction. White seems intent on devising schemes to "maximize revenue and cross-sell opportunities." I wrote this last summer:
An athletic director's first job at Notre Dame is to first, do no harm. Instead, we seem to have an AD who wants to leave his mark at ND while not having to listen to those pesky alumni. We've all seen the marks that have been left at other schools. No thanks.Apparently there were no lessons learned here.
Now a couple of points. I do agree that our scheduling has to be done with an eye toward the BCS. I realize this may sound chickenshit to many, but the best teams in the country this year may have been Georgia and USC and neither made the championship game.
I get that. What I don't get his this idea that we have to load our schedule with home games (we're better on the road,) embark on this silly bastardization of Rockne's barnstorming concept and schedule an entire slate of lesser foes into the future who are too weak to demand equality.
Scheduling as an independent does take thought, but it's not that hard and trying to think our way around problems with "nifty ideas" is taking ND in the wrong direction.
23 comments:
I would much rather be 11-1 with an easy schedule than 8-4 with a tough schedule. The Rockne philosophy of "we"ll play anyone, anywhere at any time" gets you to the BlueBonnet Bowl these days, not to the BCS.
I love our scheduling. It is clear to me that the most visible ND fans, like those on the boards and blogs, do quite a bit of complaining. What a bunch of wining babies.
Great idea with these different venues! I love it!!
Still tougher than most Big 10 schedules.
There are many people in many places across the us that that love nd football and cannot make it to south bend.
Oh please, Rockne CREATED ND Football using an "Irish Traveling Side Show". I doubt that his model won't work in today's environment, too.
The more realistic the schedule the better. Unless ND is undefeated (see 89 and 93) we won't be invited to the big game.
It is refreshing to see a few people in NDN (i.e. the commentors) who have a clue.
We play the top Program (right now) in the country - USC - every year. That is more than every school outside of the SEC and PAC-10 can say.
Let's win some games first and then we can go back to being the high and mighty ND everyone hates.
The Big Ten teams we play give us a hard time. The rotation of Big East teams is fine too since they are a good conference. Id preffer to see some other Big East Teams. U$C is a good game too. I dont mind the location issues. If UCONN wants to play us in Hartford rather than their field, so what. Besides, after last years record, were not on the same level as U$C, LSU, etc. Were not a top tier team right now, so lets not argue about lesser competition.
Rockne played the top teams in what was referred to as barnstorming. What we're doing is a college football version of the Globetrotters. This is not the Rockne model... or close to it.
UConn in Foxboro makes sense to me. As does Army anywhere. We play Navy at a neutral site every other year, why not Army now and then?? We have a great history with them.
Who gives a sh#@ if some fans can't make it to ND, because it is too far. Have you heard of away games. There were many times I couldn't make it to South Bend so I went to an away game. Just so you know you lazy bastard when using US, and ND use caps, maybe the fans are too lazy like your pathetic a@@. Lets worry about returning our football team to glory, instead of a traveling circus. Play crap teams to ease the schedule will lower us and our abilities to win big games. Great article, most of the comments were from hacks.
Do the Washington Generals have a football team? There's line between playing a "realistic" schedule and a sideshow schedule. The problem with a schedule that has 1-2 tough games and 10 or so lower tier games is that if you lose the 1-2 tough games you have nothing to fall back on as a measuring stick except a pool of accepted mediocre teams that you get very little credit for beating.
Unfortunately for the suppositions in the article, there's the pesky reality of interdicting contractual arrangements that essentially means anticipating who the elite programs will be ahead of time AND being able to schedule them at our whim is IMPOSSIBLE. These teams, USC, LSU, OSU, etc. have their own contractual obligations and conference mandates.
Further, who's to say that some of the "lesser" opponents we've scheduled won't be 2012's or 2014's West Virginia or Rutgers? Those programs certainly weren't elite in the late 1990s, but had we scheduled them for the early 2000's then as future "cupcakes", we might have had some unpleasant surprises in store.
Given the choice between even a watered-down version of Rockne's barnstorming and strength of schedule, I vote the former.
"Do no harm" is a fine motto for doctors. An institution with a proud heritage of college football pioneering should prefer the likes of "where do we go next?"
this is absolutely ridiculous! please tell me this is a joke. this will turn ND into laughing stock.
I don't have a problem with playing playing a lighter schedule in the coming years. I can see the scheduling reality and no one has a crystal ball... but you don't need one.
There's a pretty simple market reality: If you've got an opponent who will swallow not playing a home game, it's a pretty good bet you've picked on the skinniest kid in the playground and there's no good reason to do it. And just because ND can doesn't mean it's right.
ND needed the NBC deal to keep its national appeal -- there is a real and apparent need for that.
And framing the debate as it means "essentially anticipating who the elite teams will" is false. That's not necessary. I'm not advocating scheduling top teams across the board.
This also not a choice between SOS and a watered down version of Rockne. That's completely disingenuous reframing of the debate. ND can easily play teams in a home and home and fill up it's schedule without resorting to this convoluted version of barnstorming.
And the excuse that this is about "Where do we go next" isn't a swell idea when you have leadership that's missing a compass.
It's that thinking that begot the jumbotron movement, gold flanks and is now leading ND football into traveling sideshow of games.
The problem with that kind of thinking, like the jumbotron is that White is floating this canard that there needs to be a change in the way we do things.
There doesn't. We can tweak the schedule, but this 7-4-1 mentality is greedy, wrong and the rationalization that this is somehow a "next step" is ludicrous.
ND doesn't need a next step, it needs to keep what it has healthy and strong and the rest will follow. The 7-4-1 concept doesn't make ND stronger as a brand.
The big problem with this thinking is thinking that we need a big change in the way things are done.
We don't NEED 7-4-1.
White wants 7-4-1.
He thinks it's nifty and original.
It's a concoction rationalized by nothing.
The schedule was the last thing I could hang my hat on. Some year's I'd at least be able to say 'ND plays a BCS game every week.' It was fun playing the best of the SEC, Big 10, and PAC 10. Plus, a Miami, FSU, Alabama, and Oklahoma mixed in. Now, it's gonna be the Ivy league, the big east, WAC and MAC. What a joke.
KW is truly "courting the rubes," as a poster so aptly described it last year. Judging by the comments here and many of those on the boards (esp. Cartier), he has a welcoming crowd. The parade of idiotic strawmen--from schedule hawks wanting to play only ranked teams, to our 3-9 season signaling we can't complain and should just play Army every week--marches on. Embarrassing.
It comes down to why you follow Notre Dame football. There's an obvious mix of commenters on this site: students of the games, intelligent alumni, the whatever it takes types, critics, realists, etc.
It's not how good or bad our future opponents will or will not be, it's the fact that our athletic administration is picking on the programs (and conferences) that need us and know will accept all of our terms: neutral sites, split ticket distribution, no take, all give.
Personally, I think this approach is inconsistent with the traditional Notre Dame core values that so much of what we love was founded on. Some will say that I'm taking it a bit too far, but being a Notre Dame fan has always been about more than just football.
I strongly support the statement about ND being able to fill their schedule with home and home contracts vs. one-sided "you come to South Bend and then we'll play again next year in a large media market where we can pump the Notre Dame marketing machine into local recruiting circles while our recruits stand on the sideline and joke about how they've never even heard the word "Storrs" before".
Will these debates on a blog or website change the scheduling pattern being pursued by KW? I don't think so, but perhaps the pressure might work.
Just to clarify my 10:18 PM comment, I meant to say the strawmen arguments presented by those who approve of the new plan are: 1) opponents of the plan want to play a ranked team each year; 2) our once-in-a-generation bad season in 2007 means we are beggars who cannot choose. Rereading my post this morning, I realized it made no sense. Maybe I should apply for a job in ND's SID.
Rock:
Don't ignore the idea that 7-4-1 or no 7-4-1, ND will always a pair or trio of so-called "second-tier" talent.
We continue to do so today in games that feature once strong programs at the military academies (that may well re-emerge). In terms of scheduling, what's the most oft fired criticism at ND strength of schedule? That we play the service academies.
Understand that I find the other reasons why we honor those traditions a more compelling argument than strength of schedule. However, it is interesting nonetheless as it contradicts the "keep to what [ND] has" strategy as better to our image and elitism.
Until we actually become competitive, your arguments don't amount to much. In theory you may be absolutely right. But, in practice, I'd rather lighten the schedule enough to get us back to where we belong, and then readjust. I'm all for playing PEER institutions over football factories, especially if it gets us into the big game now and then. Then, after we're relevant again, we can 'stiffen' the schedule a bit. Until then, I offer this: scheduling theories don't win championships. Realism does. Be thankful that Kevin White is actually a winner who cares about NCs, and will do what it takes to get ND back where we belong. That's going to get us much closer to our 12th championship than whining about scheduling. And I'll wager just about anything on that!
Post a Comment