While in the Big East, SU needed to schedule television games. Starting 2-0 or 0-2 mattered less than publicity and having the game talked about.
The ACC openers on Labor day, and this year the BC-Wake game in the second week, were made for TV deals. Can't do much about it, and not really up to the ACC, they agreed as part of the TV contract. Same thing the SEC did with Vandy-Ole Miss.
Otherwise you shouldn't see any conference games the first week or two.
If you look at how the ACC schedule works out, especially compared to years past, the ACC is doing their part to work out their football schedule like a big boy conference. Two seasons ago the ACC scheduled the FSU-Clemson game, the likely division decider, in the third game of the year, and one week after huge OOC showdowns (OU and Auburn). It couldn't make less sense. They also love sending the conference favorites out for a Thursday night road game on four days rest.
Ever notice that in the end-of-year rivalry games with the SEC, the SEC schools always had a cupcake game? I bet you didn't. Meanwhile, the ACC would be sending FSU up to Maryland, and Clemson on the road to BC with the division on the line that weekend. So all our rivals had two weeks to prepare, while we were all travelling to try wrap up a division. Any wonder why the ACC has struggled in those games?
Well, take a look at this year...finally, the conference gets it. Clemson, GT, and FSU all have laughers the week before and will have wrapped up their conference slate.
It's a little thing, something not noticed nationally, but that gives me as an observer of this stuff a little bit of optimism that the ACC finally gets the importance of football and playing the "game" behind the game the way other conferences do. There are some indications that this conference is moving away from tolerating football as a pre-basketball diversion and actually intend to compete.
Next, we have to get the schools on board to do the same for their part.
I also remember several horribly played FSU-UM games scheduled the first game of the season after the ACC expanded. I believe these games were scheduled so that the losing team could make it way back up the rankings by the end of the year for the rematch in the CCG. Unfortunately, the games did not reflect well on the level of football being played in the conference.
I enjoy your concern over the conference and the school's schedule, but the jadedness in me wonders if it is all a little self-serving. A one loss ACC team would be looked as weaker than a one loss SEC team and depending on the year, may also be passed by a one loss B1G, XII, or Pac-12 team (depending on which conference one loss team was also a helmet school).
If I recall correctly, in another thread, you lamented difficult ACC scheduling because a conference team with a poor OOC record might knock off a favorite and send it down the rankings. In other words, you were not concerned with SU, but of FSU's rank after it shanks a field goal wide right and loses to a weak conference team.
Not to be rude, but I really do not care about protecting the historically strong ACC teams through conference scheduling. In fact, if certain teams get a competitive advantage through scheduling, I would be very disappointed.
Of course, the times they are a-changing. After this year, the BCS goes by the wayside and we get the play-off where SOS is supposed to play a bigger role. As a result, the B1G will no longer be playing FCS schools. Also, more power conferences are going to nine game conference schedules. We will need to see the effect of both before we can truly determine how scheduling down or up will affect a team's ability to make the play-off.
In the end, because there is not an ACC network, SU needs to balance the competing interests of winning cupcake non-televised games or playing on television. This was especially true when SU was in the Big East.
