The aim is to incentivize playing the trio of SMU, Cal, Stanford and building up a rivalry so that they feel part of the ACC and simultaneously give the oldest members traditional games and tighter geography. The groupings will all play each other annually:

Group 1: Stan, Cal, SMU, FSU, GT, ND
This grouping is of course more spread out than the others, but will likely result in better game attendance and great exposure for most parties.

Group 2: UL, Pitt, BC, SU, VT, UM
This is the old BigEast. I could possibly switch out UM for ND.

Group 3: UNC, Duke, UVA, Wake, NCSU, Clem
The old ACC is back together, just what the geezers want.

After these annual games are played, nobody is forced to play more games, but it is highly encouraged if you want to increase your odds of going to the ACCCG. We’ll cap the number of conference games at 10.

My thoughts on this rule is to give everybody the same opportunities as ND so that nobody can complain that ND is treated special.

(11-22-2023 01:57 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The aim is to incentivize playing the trio of SMU, Cal, Stanford and building up a rivalry so that they feel part of the ACC and simultaneously give the oldest members traditional games and tighter geography. The groupings will all play each other annually:

Group 1: Stan, Cal, SMU, FSU, Miami, ND
This grouping is of course more spread out than the others, but will likely result in great game attendance and great exposure for all parties.

Group 2: UL, Pitt, BC, SU, VT, GT
This is the old BigEast plus GT. I could possibly switch out GT for ND if that is more acceptable.

Group 3: UNC, Duke, UVA, Wake, NCSU, Clem
The old ACC is back together, just what the geezers want.

After these annual games are played, nobody is forced to play more games, but it is highly encouraged if you want to increase your odds of going to the ACCCG. We’ll cap the number of conference games at 10.

My thoughts on this rule is give everybody the same opportunities as ND so that nobody can complain that ND is treated special.

The geezers comment was too funny. Group 2 would be good if GT was swapped out for ND or Miami.

The GT for UM swap would likely insure FSU plays a 6th ACC opponent and probably a 7th with Clemson. From an FSU fan stand point, annual games with ND, Clem, GT, UM as well as UF wouid solve a lot of the attendance/ticket sales issues in down years.

A couple of concerns:
1) Would this appeal to GT playing annual non-traditional opponents or is this trade off acceptable?
2) Would the BE crew actually like to get back together?

*Edited to reflect new grouping*