That's really not accurate at all. There are plenty of good arguments that aren't "emotional" against allowing ND to be a partial member. One of the most important arguments is that allowing ND to be a partial member in the ACC removes pretty much all incentive for it to join as a full member. If you refuse to accept ND as a partial member, it is going to have to find a less desirable home for its olympic sports (i.e. Big East or Big 12) which leaves some hope that it may accept full membership in the ACC. If you offer ND partial membership, why would it ever join as a full member?

Some (most?) people assume that ND will never join as a full member unless it is somehow going to be locked out of playing for a championship in football. That may very well be accurate and if you believe that, I can understand why you believe that adding it as a partial member is a good idea. I am on the fence on that assumption but I can definitely see some very good, non-emotional reasons to prevent ND from joining as a partial member.


Quote Originally Posted by lawhokie View Post
My problem with the partial membership naysayers is that their arguments against partial membership all boil down to an emotional reaction: "It doesn't feel good". I know that when the ACC leadership meets, they are looking at slide decks with real business factors, not emotional reactions.

Let's face facts: Notre Dame does not want to be a full member of the ACC and draw the same paycheck as ACC dead weight like Wake Forest, BC, et al. They'd be stupid to take that deal; if they do, it's probably because of some long term forecast that indicates they really need to join a conference. They probably also want to avoid filling their schedule with ACC football stinkeroos, with no option to get out of a crappy ACC draw.

If the accountants say we can make more money with Notre Dame as a partial member, we should make the deal. I'll take 6-7 OOC games with Notre Dame all day long.