You are missing the point. You were talking about increased inventory, where you not? Well going to 9 games would do that, would it not? Teams will not want to play 9 ACC games and ND. So if you count the ND games as ACC games for conference standing only (not TV), would that not solve the problem? In addition, currently there are only 2 ACC ND TV games every other year. Getting a 6th game gives the ACC ND TV 3 games EVERY year. That is worth more money. And by adding a 9th ACC game it creates another 4 in conference games per year, which again is more money.
I agree that the ACCN would need to get the rights back for it to be successful. I was commenting on the UVA fans proposal.
Going to more conference games would probably reduce inventory. It's not just conference games that are sold, it's all home games for conference members. Right now, probably 60-70% of the OOC games that would be replaced by a 9th ACC game are home games. That means turning those into conference games reduces inventory.
Plus, whatever road OOC games that are replaced would likely be big OOC matchups, because the ACC plays a ton of those. So in many circumstances, you would be replacing say:
Virginia vs. Richmond
Syracuse vs. Western Michigan
With:
Syracuse at Virginia
Is Syracuse at Virginia big enough to be worth reducing the inventory by a game? Frankly, the ACC doesn't have enough really attractive football games to really see the benefits of losing inventory in my opinion. For every Clemson vs. Miami or FSU vs. VT game that would happen more often, there's an awful lot of NC State vs Pitt, BC vs Virginia, Miami vs. Wake that would be happening, that would draw a few hundred thousand viewers on ESPN News at noon. Is that worth reducing game inventory?
Considering that there are not very many marquee ACC matchups to be made by a 9th game, consider the other scenario that could be replaced over two years, because the lost OOC won't just be walk-overs, it will also reduce the premier OOC games the ACC currently plays:
Virginia vs. Richmond
Clemson @ Auburn
Virginia @ BYU
Clemson vs. Auburn
With:
Virginia @ Clemson
Clemson @ Virginia
In this scenario, it's a one for one trade. ESPN had one game each year, and they still have one game each year. But they lose that Clemson-Auburn game (and the Virginia-BYU game if you play it out a further year). Is that a net win for ESPN or the ACC? You don't reduce inventory, but I think you reduce the value of the ACC by losing a true national marquee game in Clemson-Auburn for another ho hum ACC game nobody will watch.
There are scenarios you could draw up that would increase the slate's attractiveness somewhat (if you FORCED schools to replace a bought win game), many that would decrease the slate's attractiveness, and none where you could avoid reducing pure inventory of games. I just don't think there's any value to be had there.
No, when and if the ACC ever got really premier football, and had 6-7 teams ranked on a regular basis, then I think you could make the case that a slight reduction in inventory could be worth it because there would be more "big games" from a national perspective created. If a day comes when you have 2-3 games in the ACC every week that could carry a national ABC or primetime ESPN game, then there might be a little juice in a 9th conference game for ESPN.
However, a 9th conference game, being a zero sum game, directly works AGAINST getting teams ranked highly, so even that is a stretch.
