(04-29-2014 08:56 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote: suprised that many are for it-but some it may tied to keeping the divisions
That's got to be the case, right? Without divisions, and with the SEC at at eight, it would be madness to go to nine. Why on earth would you want to pin seven more losses on ACC teams when your conference is struggling to get their football footing?
I really think the ADs for nine just want to get out from under some of the effort and expense of football scheduling, which takes up an inordinate amount of their time.
I have to guess is that if it is split, the ones in favor of eight games are a hell of a lot more passionate about it than the ones that want nine, and can point to actual damages, and also happen to be the ones carrying the football flag for the entire conference.
If the ACC defies that in favor of a bunch of barely-serious football programs that want to save the $1M and the headach of bringing in New Mexico State, I would be absolutely flabergasted. That would be SO old ACC, and out of step with all the good moves they've made in the past couple years.
I might not like some of the things about the ACC basketball setup, but as an FSU fan I'm smart enough to know that what's good for Duke and UNC is good for the conference and benefits FSU, even though I might not like it or think it's fair.
I've been a heavy critic of the ACC in the past, but been strongly supporting what they've done the last couple years and have been all about giving them every benefit of the doubt that they are a changed league and have their act together. Ramming nine games down FSU and Clemson's throat for no good reason would fly in the face of everything I've wanted to believe has changed about the ACC.