ACC: 9 conference games: One vote away

[longtimefan]

Louisville's not in the ACC.

I think they had a vote on this. Maryland, obviously, didn't, and the final tally of 8-6 could only have been reached with Louisville casting the 14th vote.

 

[arbitragegls]

Interestingly, the other option which is slight handed as the mandated game against Power 5 competition is passed...believe that there will be more ACC-SEC games in the near future...and ESPN is pushing, as I have been told...for this to happen. What is somewhat interesting is that Notre Dame will be playing all ACC teams every 3 years, while there will be as much as an 8 year period will pass for teams to play other ACC non divisional games...those who voted for the 8 game schedule included FSU, Clemson, GT, and the newcomer Louisville...all have an SEC game every year plus Notre Dame once every 3 years...that is a schedule that should result in a strong SOS.

Interestingly, what teams will the remainder of the ACC play from the Power 5 since 3 conferences are playing 9 conference games (the push for Notre Dame to join all in continues and someday may happen) but for now, finding a P-5 game is getting more difficult for the teams not presently facing the SEC each year...and the SEC has a similar problem/concern. The P-5 conference most readily having teams available to play against the ACC will be the SEC...and told ESPN smiling about this.

Hang in as the story continues to be written...for now, FSU and Clemson are very happy...something will take place soon to make those wanting to go to nine games pleased as well--should be interesting.

It's Good to be 'Cuse!! The Order of the 'Cuse Orange..

 

[Btstimpy]

Interestingly, the other option which is slight handed as the mandated game against Power 5 competition is passed...believe that there will be more ACC-SEC games in the near future...and ESPN is pushing, as I have been told...for this to happen. What is somewhat interesting is that Notre Dame will be playing all ACC teams every 3 years, while there will be as much as an 8 year period will pass for teams to play other ACC non divisional games...those who voted for the 8 game schedule included FSU, Clemson, GT, and the newcomer Louisville...all have an SEC game every year plus Notre Dame once every 3 years...that is a schedule that should result in a strong SOS.

Interestingly, what teams will the remainder of the ACC play from the Power 5 since 3 conferences are playing 9 conference games (the push for Notre Dame to join all in continues and someday may happen) but for now, finding a P-5 game is getting more difficult for the teams not presently facing the SEC each year...and the SEC has a similar problem/concern. The P-5 conference most readily having teams available to play against the ACC will be the SEC...and told ESPN smiling about this.

Hang in as the story continues to be written...for now, FSU and Clemson are very happy...something will take place soon to make those wanting to go to nine games pleased as well--should be interesting.

It's Good to be 'Cuse!! The Order of the 'Cuse Orange..

It sure looks like with the SEC and ACC both at 8 games and requiring another P5 game that it becomes a natural that the SEC and ACC play each other. Both leagues have 14 football members. They can keep the four with permanent instate rivals continue to play, and then rotate the other ten. And if FSU, GT, and Clemson want a second SEC game, they could arrange that with SEC schools on their own. Clemson just did so last year with both South Carolina and Georgia.

I can also see West Virginia wanting to play ACC schools as well due to proximity, so I can still envision the Big XII playing a role here too in some capacity. Then we have the PAC 12 increasingly wanting to play on the East Coast. USC just played UVA, BC, and Syracuse. Stanford just played Duke and is scheduled with UVA. UVA just played Oregon and is scheduled with UCLA. They increasingly want to be on TV in the Eastern Time Zone. So this could get interesting.

 

[Hoo's That]

Then we have the PAC 12 increasingly wanting to play on the East Coast. USC just played UVA, BC, and Syracuse. Stanford just played Duke and is scheduled with UVA. UVA just played Oregon and is scheduled with UCLA. They increasingly want to be on TV in the Eastern Time Zone. So this could get interesting.

And we're playing Stanford in 17 & 18. If we could get a H&H w/Berzerkley I'd hope we'd sign up for that, too.

 

[Lou_C]

It was for 7 extra football games of television content for ESPN and a possible ACC Network, keeping the Strength of Schedule high, and rotating through the other division faster. The 3+5+5 solves the rotating through the other division faster. The SOS is solved by requiring another P5 opponent or Notre Dame. The ACC will have to do something else for the television content.

That's just wrong, regarding content. And I keep hearing that. ESPN has all the ACC's home football games, not just conference games. Every ACC home game, conference or not, is an ESPN property (unless they sublease it to Raycom).

Going to nine games REDUCES the sheer number of games, because that ninth game will replace some games that are home games with no return trip, or 2-for-1.

So if that 9th game is Virginia vs. NC State, that's one game to ESPN, no matter where it is played. If it replaces NC State at home vs. ECU and UVA at Oregon, AT BEST it's a wash. But if it's replacing NC State and UVA both with home non-conference games, then it's a LOSS of a game. Nobody in the ACC is playing games with no return any more, so there's no way to pick up a game.

The sheer number of game rights will definitely be reduced at 9 conference games, because those by nature are home and away, while more than half of the OOC games replaced will be home games.

The ONLY argument is in quality of content, which is very arguable given the state of ACC football. Which might make some sense if that ninth game was replacing an FCS or low level FBS buy game. But because many teams need those games to have their necessary home games, most of what will go away are Clemson-UGA, GT-Auburn, UNC-SC, VT-Ohio State, etc. There are very few ACC conference games picked up by the 9th game that are high profile national games, at the loss of many nationally relevant OOC games.

There is no raw increase in content, the only consideration is in quality of content. And I think if you played out the results, you lose more quality than you gain. On top of that, you guarantee an additional loss for half the conference, which the ACC doesn't need. Eight games allows the conference to look better in football.

Eight games works perfectly and has every advantage EXCEPT the fact that the divisions mean we don't see each other as much as we have to. The answer is to get rid of divisions, or shuffle the divisions every two years. I get why teams want the ability to win a division to keep hope alive longer, so I'm fine if you rerack them every two years if necessary. I'd prefer to just ditch them though.

The only other option is to realign strict North South so you can get rid of the crossover game (Big 10 route), but that has it's own understandable problems.

No divisions, or pods that are mixed and matched into divisions each year, solves the only problem, which is how often we play some teams.

 

[Scooch]

Big news about the hoops champ game moving to Saturday. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think BYU should count. Army and Navy shouldn't.

Yeah, BYU has scholarship athletes and operates like a P-5 athletic entity. Army and Navy, not so much.

 

[Btstimpy]

That's just wrong, regarding content. And I keep hearing that. ESPN has all the ACC's home football games, not just conference games. Every ACC home game, conference or not, is an ESPN property (unless they sublease it to Raycom).

Going to nine games REDUCES the sheer number of games, because that ninth game will replace some games that are home games with no return trip, or 2-for-1.

So if that 9th game is Virginia vs. NC State, that's one game to ESPN, no matter where it is played. If it replaces NC State at home vs. ECU and UVA at Oregon, AT BEST it's a wash. But if it's replacing NC State and UVA both with home non-conference games, then it's a LOSS of a game. Nobody in the ACC is playing games with no return any more, so there's no way to pick up a game.

The sheer number of game rights will definitely be reduced at 9 conference games, because those by nature are home and away, while more than half of the OOC games replaced will be home games.

The ONLY argument is in quality of content, which is very arguable given the state of ACC football. Which might make some sense if that ninth game was replacing an FCS or low level FBS buy game. But because many teams need those games to have their necessary home games, most of what will go away are Clemson-UGA, GT-Auburn, UNC-SC, VT-Ohio State, etc. There are very few ACC conference games picked up by the 9th game that are high profile national games, at the loss of many nationally relevant OOC games.

There is no raw increase in content, the only consideration is in quality of content. And I think if you played out the results, you lose more quality than you gain. On top of that, you guarantee an additional loss for half the conference, which the ACC doesn't need. Eight games allows the conference to look better in football.

Eight games works perfectly and has every advantage EXCEPT the fact that the divisions mean we don't see each other as much as we have to. The answer is to get rid of divisions, or shuffle the divisions every two years. I get why teams want the ability to win a division to keep hope alive longer, so I'm fine if you rerack them every two years if necessary. I'd prefer to just ditch them though.

The only other option is to realign strict North South so you can get rid of the crossover game (Big 10 route), but that has it's own understandable problems.

No divisions, or pods that are mixed and matched into divisions each year, solves the only problem, which is how often we play some teams.

Putting in the requirement for the game with a P5 opponent accomplishes the same thing for ESPN as another ACC game. That is assuming 7 of the 14 P5 games will be ACC home games. Your point about half the league adding another loss is valid if it is a 9th ACC game. With the 14 OOC games, the ACC schools have an opportunity to win more than 7 of the 14 games.

 

[arbitragegls]

okay then...and now ACC may get creative and not sure it is the optimal way to go...some schools that voted for 9 conference games have brought up playing other ACC teams as the OOC schedule. For example if Syracuse isnt playing Miami for a while, then maybe schedule that game as the OOC P-5 game. Interesting...but there could end up being a problem...what happens if a leading team for the Conference Championship looses to this "non sheduled" team...what is to be said about that and how does it count...whew; not sure I agree with this idea save for fact that it would allow ACC teams to play some teams in other divisions more than once in 8 years (which was a primary reason to go to 9 games)

What do you think about this:
http://espn.go.com/college-football...onference-obligations-playing-other-acc-teams

Its Good to be 'Cuse!! The Order of the 'Cuse Orange..

 

[Indytarheel]

If you don't think ESPN isn't salivating over the possibility of ACC/SEC match ups across the board, then you are kidding yourselves. Look at what they have in their inventory for football and then throw in basketball and baseball. ESPN, at this point, would dominate the airwaves with great match ups that Fox Sports, etc would struggle to match. Although the other conferences not aligned with ESPN have tradition rich programs like Mich., OSU, UCLA, USC, Nebraska, Penn State, Texas, OU and new blood like OkState, Oregon, Baylor, KState, it still does not match SEC/ACC potential match ups. Basketball is a non argument with 3 of the 5 Blueblood programs in UNC, UK and Duke. Through in 5 of the top ten with those 3 and then Cuse, U of L. ESPN is seating on a goldmine. Baseball is the same thing.

 

[Btstimpy]

okay then...and now ACC may get creative and not sure it is the optimal way to go...some schools that voted for 9 conference games have brought up playing other ACC teams as the OOC schedule. For example if Syracuse isnt playing Miami for a while, then maybe schedule that game as the OOC P-5 game. Interesting...but there could end up being a problem...what happens if a leading team for the Conference Championship looses to this "non sheduled" team...what is to be said about that and how does it count...whew; not sure I agree with this idea save for fact that it would allow ACC teams to play some teams in other divisions more than once in 8 years (which was a primary reason to go to 9 games)

What do you think about this:
http://espn.go.com/college-football...onference-obligations-playing-other-acc-teams

Its Good to be 'Cuse!! The Order of the 'Cuse Orange..

It was done in Baseball this year. Miami is sitting in first place in the Coastal Division. Miami and Florida State chose to schedule a 3 game series with each other outside the ACC regular season schedule which did not have the two playing this year cross division. FSU won 2 out of 3. Had that series counted, Miami would not be in first place in the Coastal. But since it was non-conference, it doesn't. My opinion is that if baseball can do it, why not football?

 

[Alsacs]

If you don't think ESPN isn't salivating over the possibility of ACC/SEC match ups across the board, then you are kidding yourselves. Look at what they have in their inventory for football and then throw in basketball and baseball. ESPN, at this point, would dominate the airwaves with great match ups that Fox Sports, etc would struggle to match. Although the other conferences not aligned with ESPN have tradition rich programs like Mich., OSU, UCLA, USC, Nebraska, Penn State, Texas, OU and new blood like OkState, Oregon, Baylor, KState, it still does not match SEC/ACC potential match ups. Basketball is a non argument with 3 of the 5 Blueblood programs in UNC, UK and Duke. Through in 5 of the top ten with those 3 and then Cuse, U of L. ESPN is seating on a goldmine. Baseball is the same thing.

ESPN owns everything but half of the Pac-12 and half of the Big XII football. Even if the B1G goes with FS1/FOX it won't hurt ESPN that much. It will suck to lose Ohio State- Michigan game, but ESPN has the content to be fine and dominate college sports. The B1G won't want to lose the exposure of ESPN as while FOX/FS1 has potential it is still years/decades behind the WWL/Mothership.

 

[Alsacs]

It was done in Baseball this year. Miami is sitting in first place in the Coastal Division. Miami and Florida State chose to schedule a 3 game series with each other outside the ACC regular season schedule which did not have the two playing this year cross division. FSU won 2 out of 3. Had that series counted, Miami would not be in first place in the Coastal. But since it was non-conference, it doesn't. My opinion is that if baseball can do it, why not football?

Football is unlikely to see it happen because its doubtful conference team would play home/homes as non-conference opponents. Non-conference games between conference members in basketball, baseball have always happened because those sports have actual playoffs to determine champions and you can afford loses and win a NC. In football, you need to be undefeated or have 1 loss to win a NC. I think the 3+5+5 model is going to eventually happen.

I doubt we will see it in the future, but its possible.

 

[Btstimpy]

Football is unlikely to see it happen because its doubtful conference team would play home/homes as non-conference opponents. Non-conference games between conference members in basketball, baseball have always happened because those sports have actual playoffs to determine champions and you can afford loses and win a NC. In football, you need to be undefeated or have 1 loss to win a NC. I think the 3+5+5 model is going to eventually happen.

I doubt we will see it in the future, but its possible.

I get what you're saying, but a 2014 UVA recruit will never have the opportunity to play Clemson in his career under the current set up. To me that's wrong. The UVA AD could schedule a home and home out of conference with Clemson for 2016-2017 just as easy as schedule one with Auburn in my opinion. I don't know if the ACC will allow it, but I don't personally see anything wrong with it. I don't know if Clemson would be interested. But they might.

The same scenario could take place for Syracuse-Duke, Syracuse-VT, etc.

 

[CuseLegacy]

It was done in Baseball this year. Miami is sitting in first place in the Coastal Division. Miami and Florida State chose to schedule a 3 game series with each other outside the ACC regular season schedule which did not have the two playing this year cross division. FSU won 2 out of 3. Had that series counted, Miami would not be in first place in the Coastal. But since it was non-conference, it doesn't. My opinion is that if baseball can do it, why not football?

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ams?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Because of the eight-game league schedule, non-primary crossover rivals in the Atlantic and Coastal divisions may wind up playing each other only once in an 11-year span. This prompted discussion at the spring meetings about scheduling fellow ACC teams as nonconference opponents in future seasons. Some possible future ACC "nonconference" games could pit Miami against Syracuse, Duke against NC State, and Clemson against Virginia.

 

[Scooch]

If schools are seriously considering scheduling their conference mates as out of conference games because they play so infrequently then maybe THE ACC SHOULD RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE A SERIOUS FREAKIN' PROBLEM?!

This is going from the ridiculous to the absurd.

 

[longtimefan]

If schools are seriously considering scheduling their conference mates as out of conference games because they play so infrequently then maybe THE ACC SHOULD RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE A SERIOUS FREAKIN' PROBLEM?!

This is going from the ridiculous to the absurd.

That 3-5-5 model needs serious consideration.

 

[arbitragegls]

If schools are seriously considering scheduling their conference mates as out of conference games because they play so infrequently then maybe THE ACC SHOULD RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE A SERIOUS FREAKIN' PROBLEM?!

This is going from the ridiculous to the absurd.

Fortuitously, the B1G is also considering playing OOC against teams from its other divisions...I have heard that this talk is going to lead (in time) to P-5's figuring out a schedule for each Conference vs. Conference games...makes more sense and rids the problem of a game not counting in division or conference races but does so in the Football playoffs...hold for ACC-SEC announcement coming soon on a few different issues:

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/100922/schedule-challenges-remain-for-b1g

It's Good to be 'Cuse!! The Order of the 'Cuse Orange..

 

[Hoo's That]

That 3-5-5 model needs serious consideration.

The ACC is waiting for the rule change which no longer requires divisions to have a championship game to be approved by the NCAA. I think it will and 3-5-5 will be put in place in time for the 2015 season. The ACC isn't alone in wanting this. The SEC wants it, too, and the Big XII is looking to have the requirement for having XII teams in the conference to hold a CG be eliminated. It's supposed to be one package. The B1G and Pac-12 don't seem to mind if those rules are changed.

 

[WoadBlue]

The ACC is waiting for the rule change which no longer requires divisions to have a championship game to be approved by the NCAA. I think it will and 3-5-5 will be put in place in time for the 2015 season. The ACC isn't alone in wanting this. The SEC wants it, too, and the Big XII is looking to have the requirement for having XII teams in the conference to hold a CG be eliminated. It's supposed to be one package. The B1G and Pac-12 don't seem to mind if those rules are changed.

Yes, the SEC wants it too. It's the only way to make LSU happy, among others. It will allow Missouri to play more against the schools nearest it. It will get everyone who is not an annual rival of UF or TAMU into FL or TX quicker.

The first time I wrote an article for Southern Pigskin advocating this type NCAA rules change noting how it would be good for the SEC, 100% of the feedback from SEC fans was negative, along the lines of the notion being stupid and worthless. Eventually even dullard SEC coaches and fans catch on.

And that leads to the matter of the 3 annual rivals for each ACC school.

The last time I did this was on the Louisville Scout board. Below is what I came up with:

All signs indicate that we are keeping an 8 game conference schedule. If we each have 3 annual rivals, we will play the other 10 teams in the conference 2 times every 4 years. We will see every team at least twice every 4 years.

That seems to me to be close to ideal. None of us have more than 3 teams we must play each year. Each of us now plays annual games against 2 or 3 schools that our fans would not mind seeing less often, and each of us have fans who would greatly prefer to play a team or two or three more often than the old NCAA rules allow.

Below is my list of 3 annual rivals for each full member of ACC football. It starts with the MUST PLAY games, based on history (like The South's Oldest Rivalry and GT-Dook) and the need to maximize TV interests and deal with SEC rivalries (which is the reason I have FSU playing GT annually), and then taking account of Thanksgiving weekend season ending games.

All teams should play every Thanksgiving weekend so no one ever plays in the Championship after a bye week. We have 4 teams that will end the season versus SEC in-state rivals (FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville). UVA and VT must end the season. So must the 4 NC schools, though it might be interesting to have that rotate, so that in some years UNC closes with Dook while MooU closes with Wake, and in other years UNC closes with MooU while Dook closes with Wake.

That leaves 4 teams who need an annual season ending game: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC. BC and Cuse, as border state schools, probably should close the season, which would leave Miami closing with Pitt.

With all that in mind, here is my list:

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Wake
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Louisville
Pitt - BC, Syracuse, Miami
Louisville - VT, Syracuse, UVA
UVA - UNC, VT, Louisville
VT - UVA, Louisville, Miami
UNC - UVA, Dook, MooU
Dook - UNC, Wake, GT
MooU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Wake - Dook, MooU, BC
Clemson - GT, FSU, MooU
GT - Clemson, FSU, Dook
FSU - Miami, Clemson, GT
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT

The one change to the above I now think makes it ideal is to have Miami play Syracuse annually instead of Pitt, which means Louisville would play Pitt annually rather than Cuse. The reason is that when Miami is really good, the Canes do extremely well in NYC TV ratings. The ACC needs to maximize that by having Miami and Cuse play annually.

For season enders - that would mean Miami closes with Cuse and Pitt closes with BC.

 

[Toga]

This ...
The one change to the above I now think makes it ideal is to have Miami play Syracuse annually instead of Pitt, which means Louisville would play Pitt annually rather than Cuse. The reason is that when Miami is really good, the Canes do extremely well in NYC TV ratings. The ACC needs to maximize that by having Miami and Cuse play annually.

Yes, the SEC wants it too. It's the only way to make LSU happy, among others. It will allow Missouri to play more against the schools nearest it. It will get everyone who is not an annual rival of UF or TAMU into FL or TX quicker.

The first time I wrote an article for Southern Pigskin advocating this type NCAA rules change noting how it would be good for the SEC, 100% of the feedback from SEC fans was negative, along the lines of the notion being stupid and worthless. Eventually even dullard SEC coaches and fans catch on.

And that leads to the matter of the 3 annual rivals for each ACC school.

The last time I did this was on the Louisville Scout board. Below is what I came up with:

All signs indicate that we are keeping an 8 game conference schedule. If we each have 3 annual rivals, we will play the other 10 teams in the conference 2 times every 4 years. We will see every team at least twice every 4 years.

That seems to me to be close to ideal. None of us have more than 3 teams we must play each year. Each of us now plays annual games against 2 or 3 schools that our fans would not mind seeing less often, and each of us have fans who would greatly prefer to play a team or two or three more often than the old NCAA rules allow.

Below is my list of 3 annual rivals for each full member of ACC football. It starts with the MUST PLAY games, based on history (like The South's Oldest Rivalry and GT-Dook) and the need to maximize TV interests and deal with SEC rivalries (which is the reason I have FSU playing GT annually), and then taking account of Thanksgiving weekend season ending games.

All teams should play every Thanksgiving weekend so no one ever plays in the Championship after a bye week. We have 4 teams that will end the season versus SEC in-state rivals (FSU, GT, Clemson, and Louisville). UVA and VT must end the season. So must the 4 NC schools, though it might be interesting to have that rotate, so that in some years UNC closes with Dook while MooU closes with Wake, and in other years UNC closes with MooU while Dook closes with Wake.

That leaves 4 teams who need an annual season ending game: Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, and BC. BC and Cuse, as border state schools, probably should close the season, which would leave Miami closing with Pitt.

With all that in mind, here is my list:

BC - Syracuse, Pitt, Wake
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Louisville
Pitt - BC, Syracuse, Miami
Louisville - VT, Syracuse, UVA
UVA - UNC, VT, Louisville
VT - UVA, Louisville, Miami
UNC - UVA, Dook, MooU
Dook - UNC, Wake, GT
MooU - UNC, Wake, Clemson
Wake - Dook, MooU, BC
Clemson - GT, FSU, MooU
GT - Clemson, FSU, Dook
FSU - Miami, Clemson, GT
Miami - FSU, Pitt, VT

The one change to the above I now think makes it ideal is to have Miami play Syracuse annually instead of Pitt, which means Louisville would play Pitt annually rather than Cuse. The reason is that when Miami is really good, the Canes do extremely well in NYC TV ratings. The ACC needs to maximize that by having Miami and Cuse play annually.

For season enders - that would mean Miami closes with Cuse and Pitt closes with BC.

 

[WoadBlue]

Interestingly, the other option which is slight handed as the mandated game against Power 5 competition is passed...believe that there will be more ACC-SEC games in the near future...and ESPN is pushing, as I have been told...for this to happen. What is somewhat interesting is that Notre Dame will be playing all ACC teams every 3 years, while there will be as much as an 8 year period will pass for teams to play other ACC non divisional games...those who voted for the 8 game schedule included FSU, Clemson, GT, and the newcomer Louisville...all have an SEC game every year plus Notre Dame once every 3 years...that is a schedule that should result in a strong SOS.

Interestingly, what teams will the remainder of the ACC play from the Power 5 since 3 conferences are playing 9 conference games (the push for Notre Dame to join all in continues and someday may happen) but for now, finding a P-5 game is getting more difficult for the teams not presently facing the SEC each year...and the SEC has a similar problem/concern. The P-5 conference most readily having teams available to play against the ACC will be the SEC...and told ESPN smiling about this.

Hang in as the story continues to be written...for now, FSU and Clemson are very happy...something will take place soon to make those wanting to go to nine games pleased as well--should be interesting.

It's Good to be 'Cuse!! The Order of the 'Cuse Orange..

The SEC needs that as much as we do. For the SEC, it is about playing games vs. P5 foes that will not lead to other leagues beginning to recruit the southeast heavily and well. We are already all over the southeast. The SEC playing a bunch of BT or B12 teams would help them begin to recruit the southeast better. The SEC playing even more games versus the ACC is nothing new in terms of a conference recruiting the region from playing there.

And the icing on the cake is that the ACC's reach north would allow the SEC to make inroads there.

You can't say it enough - Cuse vs Bama or Florida or LSU or A&M in MetLife would be huge. Such games would neutralize Rutgers hosting Ohio St, Michigan, and Penn St.

 

[TexanMark]

Great post Woad...I could live with either 3 team set for Cuse you suggest.

I'd really love playing a season ending game vs Miami...

 

[Moontan]

You can't say it enough - Cuse vs Bama or Florida or LSU or A&M in MetLife would be huge. Such games would neutralize Rutgers hosting Ohio St, Michigan, and Penn St.

Florida, USCe, UK & UGA won't be in the mix for Syracuse.

As a 10th game, maybe... but not as the 9th game.

 

[Moontan]

Great post Woad...I could live with either 3 team set for Cuse you suggest.

I'd really love playing a season ending game vs Miami...

I just don't get the infatuation that some have with Louisville. I'd prefer to see SU tied in with BCU and 2 of Miami, Pitt & VPI. That works for a 3-5-5 arrangement. In a fixed 2-division format I'm opposed to a Yankee/Rebel split.

Then again, the only ACC schools that have any kind of (recent) history with UL are Syracuse & Pitt.