3 divisions of 6 (Cinci)

EAST - UL, Pitt, SU, BC, Cinci, SMU/Stan/Cal

ATLANTIC - UNC, NCSU, Wake, UVA, VT, SMU/Stan/Cal

COASTAL - FSU, UM, Clem, GT, Duke, SMU/Stan/Cal

SMU/Stan/Cal will play one another annually and rotate divisions every year.

ND annuals: rotates through everybody evenly.


A very clean looking set up that will rotate through everybody 1x in 3 seasons. Divisions are set up in a way that will help everybody cut down on travel. Duke is sort of the odd man in the Coastal, but not that far out of place, I think it's an acceptable tradeoff for them for not playing UNC or Wake every year.

Obviously, 17 teams playing 9 conference games each doesn't work because that would be a total of 153 games, which, when divided by two leaves one team without an opponent.

What if each of the 17 teams has 5 fixed annual opponents, and rotates the other four games, playing each full member every third season? For that to work, each season the school playing Notre Dame would have to count that as one of their 9 conference games. That's a total of 158 conference games (79X2 or 153+5).

In the years when Notre Dame rotates onto Clemson's schedule, the game counts as a conference game, and the other two years it counts as an OOC game. In most years, that gives the ACC 5 fewer OOC losses.

Does that not solve the scheduling problem without having to add an 18th full member, or is my logic flawed?

(10-29-2026 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Obviously, 17 teams playing 9 conference games each doesn't work because that would be a total of 153 games, which, when divided by two leaves one team without an opponent.

What if each of the 17 teams has 5 fixed annual opponents, and rotates the other four games, playing each full member every third season? For that to work, each season the school playing Notre Dame would have to count that as one of their 9 conference games. That's a total of 158 conference games (79X2 or 153+5).

In the years when Notre Dame rotates onto Clemson's schedule, the game counts as a conference game, and the other two years it counts as an OOC game. In most years, that gives the ACC 5 fewer OOC losses.

Does that not solve the scheduling problem without having to add an 18th full member, or is my logic flawed?

Solving the odd scheduling issue with a new member is only a small part of these expansion ideas. The extra week of football season, the reduced number of ACC and SEC games makes it where the ACC can fill the programming holes, reduce travel, increase fan interest/attendance with better matchups.

(10-29-2026 03:06 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Obviously, 17 teams playing 9 conference games each doesn't work because that would be a total of 153 games, which, when divided by two leaves one team without an opponent.

What if each of the 17 teams has 5 fixed annual opponents, and rotates the other four games, playing each full member every third season? For that to work, each season the school playing Notre Dame would have to count that as one of their 9 conference games. That's a total of 158 conference games (79X2 or 153+5).

In the years when Notre Dame rotates onto Clemson's schedule, the game counts as a conference game, and the other two years it counts as an OOC game. In most years, that gives the ACC 5 fewer OOC losses.

Does that not solve the scheduling problem without having to add an 18th full member, or is my logic flawed?

Solving the odd scheduling issue with a new member is only a small part of these expansion ideas. The extra week of football season, the reduced number of ACC and SEC games makes it where the ACC can fill the programming holes, reduce travel, increase fan interest/attendance with better matchups.

Don't you accomplish many of those things by giving each team five annual opponents they (and their fans) really want to play (many because of their geographic proximity)?

(10-29-2026 03:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:06 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Obviously, 17 teams playing 9 conference games each doesn't work because that would be a total of 153 games, which, when divided by two leaves one team without an opponent.

What if each of the 17 teams has 5 fixed annual opponents, and rotates the other four games, playing each full member every third season? For that to work, each season the school playing Notre Dame would have to count that as one of their 9 conference games. That's a total of 158 conference games (79X2 or 153+5).

In the years when Notre Dame rotates onto Clemson's schedule, the game counts as a conference game, and the other two years it counts as an OOC game. In most years, that gives the ACC 5 fewer OOC losses.

Does that not solve the scheduling problem without having to add an 18th full member, or is my logic flawed?

Solving the odd scheduling issue with a new member is only a small part of these expansion ideas. The extra week of football season, the reduced number of ACC and SEC games makes it where the ACC can fill the programming holes, reduce travel, increase fan interest/attendance with better matchups.

Don't you accomplish many of those things by giving each team five annual opponents they (and their fans) really want to play (many because of their geographic proximity)?

Yes, it’s similar to 3 divisions of 6 without cross division games. What you don’t get by not expanding is the extra programming. If you want your idea to work better, you give Stanford or BC the ND game as their “9th” ACC game so that the rest of the ACC does not have to play them as often.

(10-29-2026 03:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:06 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Obviously, 17 teams playing 9 conference games each doesn't work because that would be a total of 153 games, which, when divided by two leaves one team without an opponent.

What if each of the 17 teams has 5 fixed annual opponents, and rotates the other four games, playing each full member every third season? For that to work, each season the school playing Notre Dame would have to count that as one of their 9 conference games. That's a total of 158 conference games (79X2 or 153+5).

In the years when Notre Dame rotates onto Clemson's schedule, the game counts as a conference game, and the other two years it counts as an OOC game. In most years, that gives the ACC 5 fewer OOC losses.

Does that not solve the scheduling problem without having to add an 18th full member, or is my logic flawed?

Solving the odd scheduling issue with a new member is only a small part of these expansion ideas. The extra week of football season, the reduced number of ACC and SEC games makes it where the ACC can fill the programming holes, reduce travel, increase fan interest/attendance with better matchups.

Don't you accomplish many of those things by giving each team five annual opponents they (and their fans) really want to play (many because of their geographic proximity)?

Yes, it’s similar to 3 divisions of 6 without cross division games. What you don’t get by not expanding is the extra programming. If you want your idea to work better, you give Stanford or BC the ND game as their “9th” ACC game so that the rest of the ACC does not have to play them as often.

But the extra programming you get by expanding dilutes per team payouts because you can't entice a team that would increase payouts to join the ACC.

(10-29-2026 04:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:06 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 02:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  Obviously, 17 teams playing 9 conference games each doesn't work because that would be a total of 153 games, which, when divided by two leaves one team without an opponent.

What if each of the 17 teams has 5 fixed annual opponents, and rotates the other four games, playing each full member every third season? For that to work, each season the school playing Notre Dame would have to count that as one of their 9 conference games. That's a total of 158 conference games (79X2 or 153+5).

In the years when Notre Dame rotates onto Clemson's schedule, the game counts as a conference game, and the other two years it counts as an OOC game. In most years, that gives the ACC 5 fewer OOC losses.

Does that not solve the scheduling problem without having to add an 18th full member, or is my logic flawed?

Solving the odd scheduling issue with a new member is only a small part of these expansion ideas. The extra week of football season, the reduced number of ACC and SEC games makes it where the ACC can fill the programming holes, reduce travel, increase fan interest/attendance with better matchups.

Don't you accomplish many of those things by giving each team five annual opponents they (and their fans) really want to play (many because of their geographic proximity)?

Yes, it’s similar to 3 divisions of 6 without cross division games. What you don’t get by not expanding is the extra programming. If you want your idea to work better, you give Stanford or BC the ND game as their “9th” ACC game so that the rest of the ACC does not have to play them as often.

But the extra programming you get by expanding dilutes per team payouts because you can't entice a team that would increase payouts to join the ACC.

The ACC is owed a pro-rata anyway and is generally thought of as being undervalued. The brand fund will insure that nobody's pay is diluted. You could make the case that if the ACC added...Rice, that it would severely dilute payouts in the next round of negotiations.

(10-29-2026 04:33 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:06 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  Solving the odd scheduling issue with a new member is only a small part of these expansion ideas. The extra week of football season, the reduced number of ACC and SEC games makes it where the ACC can fill the programming holes, reduce travel, increase fan interest/attendance with better matchups.

Don't you accomplish many of those things by giving each team five annual opponents they (and their fans) really want to play (many because of their geographic proximity)?

Yes, it’s similar to 3 divisions of 6 without cross division games. What you don’t get by not expanding is the extra programming. If you want your idea to work better, you give Stanford or BC the ND game as their “9th” ACC game so that the rest of the ACC does not have to play them as often.

But the extra programming you get by expanding dilutes per team payouts because you can't entice a team that would increase payouts to join the ACC.

The ACC is owed a pro-rata anyway and is generally thought of as being undervalued. The brand fund will insure that nobody's pay is diluted. You could make the case that if the ACC added...Rice, that it would severely dilute payouts in the next round of negotiations.

I think it's safe to say that the ACC is generally thought to be undervalued by ACC fans. The rest of the public, maybe not so much.

My hope is that the SEC and ESPN see value in only moving UNC and Virginia to the SEC. That lets ESPN double dip with the ACCN and SECN, both getting full carriage in those two populous states, without hurting the SEC's standing as the most dominant football conference.

By backfilling the ACC with USF (which it can acquire at low cost), it leaves the SEC at 18 and the ACC at 16. By limiting the poaching to two mediocre football programs, the ACC remains a viable and third most valuable autonomous conference, capable of placing as many as four teams in an expanded CFP.

The SEC can give every team one annual rival and alternate the other 16 teams (8 each year). In some cases, SEC teams (like Auburn and Georgia) may want to schedule their 10th A4 game against each other OOC every other year when they have four SEC home games. For its part, the ACC can then give everyone 3 annual rivals and alternate the rest of the teams 6 each year.

The ACC’s contract is out dated and John Swofford gave away a chunk of ACC rights to Raycom for nothing. So I think the ACC contract is undervalued.

(10-29-2026 05:32 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:33 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 04:00 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:27 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-29-2026 03:16 PM)ken d Wrote:  Don't you accomplish many of those things by giving each team five annual opponents they (and their fans) really want to play (many because of their geographic proximity)?

Yes, it’s similar to 3 divisions of 6 without cross division games. What you don’t get by not expanding is the extra programming. If you want your idea to work better, you give Stanford or BC the ND game as their “9th” ACC game so that the rest of the ACC does not have to play them as often.

But the extra programming you get by expanding dilutes per team payouts because you can't entice a team that would increase payouts to join the ACC.

The ACC is owed a pro-rata anyway and is generally thought of as being undervalued. The brand fund will insure that nobody's pay is diluted. You could make the case that if the ACC added...Rice, that it would severely dilute payouts in the next round of negotiations.

I think it's safe to say that the ACC is generally thought to be undervalued by ACC fans. The rest of the public, maybe not so much.

My hope is that the SEC and ESPN see value in only moving UNC and Virginia to the SEC. That lets ESPN double dip with the ACCN and SECN, both getting full carriage in those two populous states, without hurting the SEC's standing as the most dominant football conference.

By backfilling the ACC with USF (which it can acquire at low cost), it leaves the SEC at 18 and the ACC at 16. By limiting the poaching to two mediocre football programs, the ACC remains a viable and third most valuable autonomous conference, capable of placing as many as four teams in an expanded CFP.

The SEC can give every team one annual rival and alternate the other 16 teams (8 each year). In some cases, SEC teams (like Auburn and Georgia) may want to schedule their 10th A4 game against each other OOC every other year when they have four SEC home games. For its part, the ACC can then give everyone 3 annual rivals and alternate the rest of the teams 6 each year.

I agree with almost everything here except adding USF. If FSU, Miami & Clemson are still in the ACC then poaching the B12 is very doable & a third Florida team is unnecessary. We would have options there, one which may get the ACCN full carriage in Texas. We could take 1-5.

3 divisions of 6 (Utah full, UConn and ND Indy)

NATIONAL - Pitt, SU, BC, Stan, Cal, Utah (8 games)

ATLANTIC - FSU, UM, Clem, GT, UL, SMU (9 games)

COASTAL - UNC, NCSU, Wake, Duke, UVA, VT (9 games)

Annual cross division: FSU-UNC, UM-VT, Clem-NCSU, GT-Duke, UL-UVA, SMU-Wake

ND annuals: UConn, SU/BC, Pitt/Utah, Stan/Cal, rotate 3

UConn annuals: ND, SU/BC, Pitt/Utah, Stan/Cal, rotate 3

Everybody rotates 3 games.

A very clean look with all the major rivalries playing together and with a lot of annual high rated games. The NATIONAL division can play a regional OOC rival to hit their quota of 10 P games. If SU and BC have trouble finding desirable OOC opponents, I'd suggest a 1 off OOC rotation of SU/BC play at FSU/UM until they come around in the regular ACC rotation.

Utah and UConn each take a half share until the expiration of the ACC contract in which the money is put back into the "Brand fund" in exchange for a $200m exit penalty until 2036 where it drops to $75m. As a result of the stability and increased top tier inventory, the ACCN get's full carriage rates in Utah, Connecticut, California and Texas.

(10-31-2026 06:31 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  3 divisions of 6 (Utah full, UConn and ND Indy)

NATIONAL - Pitt, SU, BC, Stan, Cal, Utah (8 games)

ATLANTIC - FSU, UM, Clem, GT, UL, SMU (9 games)

COASTAL - UNC, NCSU, Wake, Duke, UVA, VT (9 games)

Annual cross division: FSU-UNC, UM-VT, Clem-NCSU, GT-Duke, UL-UVA, SMU-Wake

ND annuals: UConn, SU/BC, Pitt/Utah, Stan/Cal, rotate 3

UConn annuals: ND, SU/BC, Pitt/Utah, Stan/Cal, rotate 3

Everybody rotates 3 games.

A very clean look with all the major rivalries playing together and with a lot of annual high rated games. The NATIONAL division can play a regional OOC rival to hit their quota of 10 P games. If SU and BC have trouble finding desirable OOC opponents, I'd suggest a 1 off OOC rotation of SU/BC play at FSU/UM until they come around in the regular ACC rotation.

Utah and UConn each take a half share until the expiration of the ACC contract in which the money is put back into the "Brand fund" in exchange for a $200m exit penalty until 2036 where it drops to $75m. As a result of the stability and increased top tier inventory, the ACCN get's full carriage rates in Utah, Connecticut, California and Texas.

If you add Utah as a full member (which you can only do if you pay them a full share from Day 1) then all 3 divisions would play 9 conference games. UConn would get paid only for Olympic sports, as their football games would be relatively worthless - it would be the ACC doing them a favor, not the other way around.

With those divisions, you don't need any annual crossovers. Notre Dame gets annual games against Miami and Stanford, while UConn gets Syracuse and BC, each of them rotating 3 additional ACC opponents from the 6 NC and Virginia schools (because everyone else has an annual OOC rival for their 10th P4 game). Clemson can continue to play ND as an 11th P4 game OOC if they both choose.

The 8 games was designed to be a win-win for everybody. I really don’t think the old ACC likes the teams in the NATIONAL division very much and the travel is a lot which is why I’m giving the NATIONAL UConn/ND as a 9th game. Utah has BYU, Stan has USC, Cal has UCLA, Pitt has WVU, SU and BC can play Rutgers or an extra game with UConn.


I have no issue having everybody playing 9 games while rotating ND. I don’t see UConn joining the ACC as an Oly add only without some guaranteed games. If we drop UConn completely and everybody goes to 9, I’d redo the cross division games or drop that completely also.

I think you need to invert the independent to full member ratio.

Once the CCG goes away the incentive to have 10 members vanishes. You need 8 member schools to meet the NCAA minimum of 14 basketball games by having head-to-head every year.

So the ACC becomes the following:
ND*, UCONN*, VT, UVA, UNC, NCST, Duke, WF.
*FBS independent*

The EACC forms as a non-FBS conference
- Cuse, BC, Louisville, Pitt, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami.
All schools place football in the ACC.

The WACC forms as a non-FBS conference:
- Stanford, Cal, Utah, Zona, CU, KU, SMU, HOU
All schools place football in the ACC.

That gives the ACC 8 Olympic sports members and 22 football members (proposed cap).

(10-31-2026 11:52 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I think you need to invert the independent to full member ratio.

Once the CCG goes away the incentive to have 10 members vanishes. You need 8 member schools to meet the NCAA minimum of 14 basketball games by having head-to-head every year.

So the ACC becomes the following:
ND*, UCONN*, VT, UVA, UNC, NCST, Duke, WF.
*FBS independent*

The EACC forms as a non-FBS conference
- Cuse, BC, Louisville, Pitt, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami.
All schools place football in the ACC.

The WACC forms as a non-FBS conference:
- Stanford, Cal, Utah, Zona, CU, KU, SMU, HOU
All schools place football in the ACC.

That gives the ACC 8 Olympic sports members and 22 football members (proposed cap).

This may come as a surprise, but I have no interest in destroying the B12. I’m trying to come up with solutions that close the money gap with the B1G and SEC and give everybody a sweet schedule that they could not possibly get elsewhere. 18/20 works the best IMO.

(10-31-2026 09:39 AM)Garrettabc Wrote:  The 8 games was designed to be a win-win for everybody. I really don’t think the old ACC likes the teams in the NATIONAL division very much and the travel is a lot which is why I’m giving the NATIONAL UConn/ND as a 9th game. Utah has BYU, Stan has USC, Cal has UCLA, Pitt has WVU, SU and BC can play Rutgers or an extra game with UConn.


I have no issue having everybody playing 9 games while rotating ND. I don’t see UConn joining the ACC as an Oly add only without some guaranteed games. If we drop UConn completely and everybody goes to 9, I’d redo the cross division games or drop that completely also.

Which is why I gave UConn 5 guaranteed games, 2 of them annual (Syracuse and BC) - the same number as Notre Dame (Miami and Stanford). Give UConn 20% of the media contract (the basketball share) and a full share of the ACCN payout and a full share of NCAAT revenue.

I’m not directing this at you Ken, but saying this as a generalization:

11 P games is a lot and what usually happens is that teams drop their long time rivals from other conferences rather than needlessly toughen up their schedule. I want Utah to keep BYU, Stan-USC, Cal-UCLA, Pitt-WVU, everybody is being forced into 10 P games and there is no ACC game that can replace those OOC games.

FSU and Clemson can and should opt out of the ND/UConn rotation, they are going to be at the top of the ACC in the ratings whether they play 10 or 11 P games, what they should value more in this scenario is wins and assuring themselves 7 home games.

To make it a little easier to visualize, this is how I would structure the ACC + Utah. MSR is the ranking of FBS teams by their 5 year average Sagarin rating.

Team.........MSR...10th game

Atlantic
Clemson........14....South Carolina
Louisville.......22....Kentucky
Miami...........24.....Notre Dame
SMU.............26.....TCU
FSU..............30.....Florida
Ga Tech........64.....Georgia

Coastal
NC State.......32.....ND / UConn
Wake............56.....ND / UConn
Duke............60.....ND / UConn
UNC.............61.....ND / UConn
Va Tech.........66.....ND / UConn
Virginia.........68.....ND / UConn

National
Utah.............12.....BYU
Pitt...............42.....West Virginia
Cal...............65.....UCLA
Syracuse.......73.....UConn
BC................80.....UConn
Stanford........90.....Notre Dame

Each team plays 5 division games plus 2 games against each of the other 2 divisions for their 9 conference games. No annual crossovers.

That’s an ideal set up if teams are willing to give up their game with ND. I believe Stan-USC will have a long term series, but someone can correct me on that.

(10-31-2026 12:21 PM)Garrettabc Wrote:  

(10-31-2026 11:52 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I think you need to invert the independent to full member ratio.

Once the CCG goes away the incentive to have 10 members vanishes. You need 8 member schools to meet the NCAA minimum of 14 basketball games by having head-to-head every year.

So the ACC becomes the following:
ND*, UCONN*, VT, UVA, UNC, NCST, Duke, WF.
*FBS independent*

The EACC forms as a non-FBS conference
- Cuse, BC, Louisville, Pitt, Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami.
All schools place football in the ACC.

The WACC forms as a non-FBS conference:
- Stanford, Cal, Utah, Zona, CU, KU, SMU, HOU
All schools place football in the ACC.

That gives the ACC 8 Olympic sports members and 22 football members (proposed cap).

This may come as a surprise, but I have no interest in destroying the B12. I’m trying to come up with solutions that close the money gap with the B1G and SEC and give everybody a sweet schedule that they could not possibly get elsewhere. 18/20 works the best IMO.

The only way to close the gap is to see some of the P4 relegated and pick up the bulk of the revenue going their direction.