I don't care if you play 8 conference games or 9 but everyone in the P5 should be playing 10 P5s a year in the regular season. The Big Ten is doing it; so is the Pac 12 and most of the Big 12 and ACC are as well. Only the SEC seems hellbent that 9 is enough.

(05-24-2018 06:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don't care if you play 8 conference games or 9 but everyone in the P5 should be playing 10 P5s a year in the regular season. The Big Ten is doing it; so is the Pac 12 and most of the Big 12 and ACC are as well. Only the SEC seems hellbent that 9 is enough.

And until we get paid for a 10th we'll stick to 9. Were not giving away anything for free. And until we are consistently beaten on the field by the PAC and the Big 10 we won't feel any pressure over Strength of Schedule.

(05-24-2018 06:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I don't care if you play 8 conference games or 9 but everyone in the P5 should be playing 10 P5s a year in the regular season. The Big Ten is doing it; so is the Pac 12 and most of the Big 12 and ACC are as well. Only the SEC seems hellbent that 9 is enough.

+1. I could get behind 8 conference games and 2 P5 OOC games every year. As you say, many ACC teams are doing that already (though some, like VT, don't do it every year).

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

One of the basic reasons for a conference to exist is because the members want to compete with each other.

(05-24-2018 09:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

One of the basic reasons for a conference to exist is because the members want to compete with each other.

Collective bargaining is why they exist now. Playing everyone within 4 years while utilizing a rotation is what is coming.

(05-24-2018 09:56 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

One of the basic reasons for a conference to exist is because the members want to compete with each other.

Then why aren't they playing 12 conference games?

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

(05-24-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Oh the number of things today that should not need explaining! That's the NEA for you! Let's drop logic because it is culturally biased. 20 years later, this.

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Every professional league is able to contend with the fact that every win by a partner in the enterprise produces a loss by a partner in the enterprise.

College athletics are different since the competitors control part of their schedule. Jerry Jones doesn't get to pick his out-of-division opponents and doesn't get to offer cash incentives or television access incentives to convince the Chargers and Jaguars to come play without a return game or negotiate to get the Jets to play home-and-home.

A school like Clemson is going to be opposed to playing all ACC games because they can write a check to Georgia Southern and a smaller check to Furman to get a very profitable game at home. Clemson wants to compete against ACC schools but also wants the competitive advantage produced by playing profitable non-conference games sharing only the TV value with the the conference partners.

Also unlike the NFL, there is no set of games played that don't count to work out the kinks.

(05-25-2018 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Oh the number of things today that should not need explaining! That's the NEA for you! Let's drop logic because it is culturally biased. 20 years later, this.

The probability that your best programs have 4 home conference games in any particular year is the same as their having 5. It balances out.

You also can't go winless if you've scheduled half your teams to win.

JR, I assume you're mocking me rather than Kaplony. I'm not sure why though, as I'm following basic logic here.

(05-25-2018 08:24 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Oh the number of things today that should not need explaining! That's the NEA for you! Let's drop logic because it is culturally biased. 20 years later, this.

The probability that your best programs have 4 home conference games in any particular year is the same as their having 5. It balances out.

You also can't go winless if you've scheduled half your teams to win.

JR, I assume you're mocking me rather than Kaplony. I'm not sure why though, as I'm following basic logic here.

It's not about 4 home 5 away, or 5 home and 4 away. It's about an extra week in which half of the conference schools automatically pick up another loss. Conferences are much better off sticking to 8 conference games and play a 9th 00C game against a P opponent, or even a 10th against such. The conference teams get all of the credit for playing the 00C P games without being guaranteed that a conference team will get a loss. So if you are wanting 9 conference games you are statistically handicapping your conference. Whereas with 8 conference games and a 9th P game against an OOC foe statistically you are not as disadvantaged due to the uncertainty of the outcome of that game. Therein lies the logic of an 8 game conference schedule as opposed to a 9 game conference schedule. In a 14 team conference 9 conference games assures your members that they will have 7 more losses. Play that 9th game against OOC P schools and that number is no longer a certainty. You would win 14 games instead of a guaranteed 7, or you could lose all 14 instead of a guaranteed 7. But for conferences like the Big 10 and SEC it is much more statistically likely that both would win more than 7 unless they were playing each other.

(05-25-2018 02:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's not about 4 home 5 away, or 5 home and 4 away. It's about an extra week in which half of the conference schools automatically pick up another loss. Conferences are much better off sticking to 8 conference games and play a 9th 00C game against a P opponent, or even a 10th against such.

To carry that further, if it was only about maximizing wins for playoff and bowl positioning, a conference would be better off with 6 conference games, and (in a 14 team league) playing only the teams in one's own division.

Most of this is about dollars and cents, though. If TV offers more money for 9 conference games than 8 because they want to air more games like Penn State-Nebraska and fewer games like Penn State-Eastern Michigan, the conferences are going to take the money. Also, only the teams whose season ticket holders are willing to put up with more cupcakes are just as well off when the schedules are watered down. Everyone else is potentially losing money by scheduling a "buy game" to replace a conference opponent on the schedule.

And human nature, specifically coaching human nature, is to make the schedule as easy as you can get away with. If Michigan ends up with fewer games against Wisconsin, they're not going to fill those extra weeks with games against Oklahoma or Georgia; even if forced to schedule more P5 games they'll be playing Kansas or Vanderbilt.

(05-25-2018 02:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:24 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Oh the number of things today that should not need explaining! That's the NEA for you! Let's drop logic because it is culturally biased. 20 years later, this.

The probability that your best programs have 4 home conference games in any particular year is the same as their having 5. It balances out.

You also can't go winless if you've scheduled half your teams to win.

JR, I assume you're mocking me rather than Kaplony. I'm not sure why though, as I'm following basic logic here.

It's not about 4 home 5 away, or 5 home and 4 away. It's about an extra week in which half of the conference schools automatically pick up another loss. Conferences are much better off sticking to 8 conference games and play a 9th 00C game against a P opponent, or even a 10th against such. The conference teams get all of the credit for playing the 00C P games without being guaranteed that a conference team will get a loss. So if you are wanting 9 conference games you are statistically handicapping your conference. Whereas with 8 conference games and a 9th P game against an OOC foe statistically you are not as disadvantaged due to the uncertainty of the outcome of that game. Therein lies the logic of an 8 game conference schedule as opposed to a 9 game conference schedule. In a 14 team conference 9 conference games assures your members that they will have 7 more losses. Play that 9th game against OOC P schools and that number is no longer a certainty. You would win 14 games instead of a guaranteed 7, or you could lose all 14 instead of a guaranteed 7. But for conferences like the Big 10 and SEC it is much more statistically likely that both would win more than 7 unless they were playing each other.

For teams in a conference to overall have more OOC wins than OOC losses, that means their OOC opponents are on average weaker than the teams in the conference. Thus the wins are on average worth less in terms of SOS than those played in conference. So mathematically it's a wash. They'd be banking on the CFP committee or whatever the relevant ranking system is to incorrectly perceive those wins as more valuable than they really are.

(05-25-2018 03:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 02:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 08:24 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:08 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Oh the number of things today that should not need explaining! That's the NEA for you! Let's drop logic because it is culturally biased. 20 years later, this.

The probability that your best programs have 4 home conference games in any particular year is the same as their having 5. It balances out.

You also can't go winless if you've scheduled half your teams to win.

JR, I assume you're mocking me rather than Kaplony. I'm not sure why though, as I'm following basic logic here.

It's not about 4 home 5 away, or 5 home and 4 away. It's about an extra week in which half of the conference schools automatically pick up another loss. Conferences are much better off sticking to 8 conference games and play a 9th 00C game against a P opponent, or even a 10th against such. The conference teams get all of the credit for playing the 00C P games without being guaranteed that a conference team will get a loss. So if you are wanting 9 conference games you are statistically handicapping your conference. Whereas with 8 conference games and a 9th P game against an OOC foe statistically you are not as disadvantaged due to the uncertainty of the outcome of that game. Therein lies the logic of an 8 game conference schedule as opposed to a 9 game conference schedule. In a 14 team conference 9 conference games assures your members that they will have 7 more losses. Play that 9th game against OOC P schools and that number is no longer a certainty. You would win 14 games instead of a guaranteed 7, or you could lose all 14 instead of a guaranteed 7. But for conferences like the Big 10 and SEC it is much more statistically likely that both would win more than 7 unless they were playing each other.

For teams in a conference to overall have more OOC wins than OOC losses, that means their OOC opponents are on average weaker than the teams in the conference. Thus the wins are on average worth less in terms of SOS than those played in conference. So mathematically it's a wash. They'd be banking on the CFP committee or whatever the relevant ranking system is to incorrectly perceive those wins as more valuable than they really are.

Record counts as well. Guaranteeing 7 more losses is just not smart. And with scheduling other P schools out of conference those games wind up being disproportionately impactful every year because it is the only head to head competition the committee sees. The SOS is only one of more than several factors considered.

And by the way, if a conference has more overall wins in OOC play than losses, it usually boosts that conference's SOS because it elevates all schools in that conference who play at least competitively. The same is true in basketball. The SEC wins the Big 12 challenge and gets the most teams into the NCAA it has gotten in years. Why? The Big 12's RPI was high to begin with. So the challenge only helped the SEC. Had we played that schedule slot against ourselves we wouldn't have had the steam to get as many in.

Playing extra games against your conference when the post season is by invitation rather than play in is just stupid. You get much more bang by beating somebody from another conference.

(05-25-2018 01:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Every professional league is able to contend with the fact that every win by a partner in the enterprise produces a loss by a partner in the enterprise.

College athletics are different since the competitors control part of their schedule. Jerry Jones doesn't get to pick his out-of-division opponents and doesn't get to offer cash incentives or television access incentives to convince the Chargers and Jaguars to come play without a return game or negotiate to get the Jets to play home-and-home.

A school like Clemson is going to be opposed to playing all ACC games because they can write a check to Georgia Southern and a smaller check to Furman to get a very profitable game at home. Clemson wants to compete against ACC schools but also wants the competitive advantage produced by playing profitable non-conference games sharing only the TV value with the the conference partners.

Also unlike the NFL, there is no set of games played that don't count to work out the kinks.

Wrong. We were going to do that with 9 conference games. The only G5 or lower game we cancelled when the ACC tried to go to 9 conference games was one to keep the Georgia series. We cancelled series with Ole Miss and Oklahoma State. We would have still played the Ga Southerns and Furmans, it would have been the second P5 OOC game we cancelled.

(05-25-2018 07:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 01:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 06:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.

Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Every professional league is able to contend with the fact that every win by a partner in the enterprise produces a loss by a partner in the enterprise.

College athletics are different since the competitors control part of their schedule. Jerry Jones doesn't get to pick his out-of-division opponents and doesn't get to offer cash incentives or television access incentives to convince the Chargers and Jaguars to come play without a return game or negotiate to get the Jets to play home-and-home.

A school like Clemson is going to be opposed to playing all ACC games because they can write a check to Georgia Southern and a smaller check to Furman to get a very profitable game at home. Clemson wants to compete against ACC schools but also wants the competitive advantage produced by playing profitable non-conference games sharing only the TV value with the the conference partners.

Also unlike the NFL, there is no set of games played that don't count to work out the kinks.

Wrong. We were going to do that with 9 conference games. The only G5 or lower game we cancelled when the ACC tried to go to 9 conference games was one to keep the Georgia series. We cancelled series with Ole Miss and Oklahoma State. We would have still played the Ga Southerns and Furmans, it would have been the second P5 OOC game we cancelled.

Wrong? How the HELL is what I said wrong?

You just made my point. Clemson wanted to retain high profit games they didn't have to split money on.

(05-26-2018 01:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 07:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 01:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-24-2018 10:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Doesn't that mean every other year, the best programs have an advantage of an extra home game? It would seem that it balances out. And you ensure that half the conference has an extra loss, but also that half has an extra win. Playing OOC is no guarantee of a win.

Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Every professional league is able to contend with the fact that every win by a partner in the enterprise produces a loss by a partner in the enterprise.

College athletics are different since the competitors control part of their schedule. Jerry Jones doesn't get to pick his out-of-division opponents and doesn't get to offer cash incentives or television access incentives to convince the Chargers and Jaguars to come play without a return game or negotiate to get the Jets to play home-and-home.

A school like Clemson is going to be opposed to playing all ACC games because they can write a check to Georgia Southern and a smaller check to Furman to get a very profitable game at home. Clemson wants to compete against ACC schools but also wants the competitive advantage produced by playing profitable non-conference games sharing only the TV value with the the conference partners.

Also unlike the NFL, there is no set of games played that don't count to work out the kinks.

Wrong. We were going to do that with 9 conference games. The only G5 or lower game we cancelled when the ACC tried to go to 9 conference games was one to keep the Georgia series. We cancelled series with Ole Miss and Oklahoma State. We would have still played the Ga Southerns and Furmans, it would have been the second P5 OOC game we cancelled.

Wrong? How the HELL is what I said wrong?

You just made my point. Clemson wanted to retain high profit games they didn't have to split money on.

No, we wanted to keep a 7 game home schedule.

The only series we were prepared to give up a 7 game home schedule for is UGA. We were prepared to play eight conference games and two P5 OOC games (home and away) before the ACC tried the 9 game conference slate. When they changed the conference slate to add another P% game we dropped the P5 OOC, not the G5, except for Georgia. When the ACC wisely decided to revert back to 8 conference games we secured an additional P5 OOC, except for the 2021 season because the ACC screwed us over by scheduling us three games in four years with the parasites (2020-2023) and we are having trouble finding a second P5 willing to come to Clemson in 2021 with a return game in 2024.

I have a hard time understanding why any fan would want to run away from competition. If the ultimate goal is to win the conference or the national championship, don't you want to prove that you really deserved it by beating the best teams?

(05-26-2018 01:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 01:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 07:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 01:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-25-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Only if your best programs are the same year after year.

And while OOC games are no guarantee for success you are also assured of no better than .500. You can't go undefeated when you've scheduled half your teams to lose.

Every professional league is able to contend with the fact that every win by a partner in the enterprise produces a loss by a partner in the enterprise.

College athletics are different since the competitors control part of their schedule. Jerry Jones doesn't get to pick his out-of-division opponents and doesn't get to offer cash incentives or television access incentives to convince the Chargers and Jaguars to come play without a return game or negotiate to get the Jets to play home-and-home.

A school like Clemson is going to be opposed to playing all ACC games because they can write a check to Georgia Southern and a smaller check to Furman to get a very profitable game at home. Clemson wants to compete against ACC schools but also wants the competitive advantage produced by playing profitable non-conference games sharing only the TV value with the the conference partners.

Also unlike the NFL, there is no set of games played that don't count to work out the kinks.

Wrong. We were going to do that with 9 conference games. The only G5 or lower game we cancelled when the ACC tried to go to 9 conference games was one to keep the Georgia series. We cancelled series with Ole Miss and Oklahoma State. We would have still played the Ga Southerns and Furmans, it would have been the second P5 OOC game we cancelled.

Wrong? How the HELL is what I said wrong?

You just made my point. Clemson wanted to retain high profit games they didn't have to split money on.

No, we wanted to keep a 7 game home schedule.

The only series we were prepared to give up a 7 game home schedule for is UGA. We were prepared to play eight conference games and two P5 OOC games (home and away) before the ACC tried the 9 game conference slate. When they changed the conference slate to add another P% game we dropped the P5 OOC, not the G5, except for Georgia. When the ACC wisely decided to revert back to 8 conference games we secured an additional P5 OOC, except for the 2021 season because the ACC screwed us over by scheduling us three games in four years with the parasites (2020-2023) and we are having trouble finding a second P5 willing to come to Clemson in 2021 with a return game in 2024.

Who are the "parasites" in this scenario?