(12-29-2015 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I still want someone to explain to me what we gain as both a program and a conference by dropping high profile OOC games to add a game that most years nobody but the two schools involved would care about. Which has a better chance of being a primetime national TV game.......Clemson vs Auburn or Clemson vs Duke?

I can see the idea of getting to play teams more often, such as Louisville is scheduled to play VT only once before 2025, but there are better ways to accomplish this that wouldn't burden teams like Clemson as much as a 9 game schedule would. We will know more about what the ACC options will be once the vote takes place on the CCG deregulation here shortly.

(12-29-2015 04:05 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I still want someone to explain to me what we gain as both a program and a conference by dropping high profile OOC games to add a game that most years nobody but the two schools involved would care about. Which has a better chance of being a primetime national TV game.......Clemson vs Auburn or Clemson vs Duke?

I can see the idea of getting to play teams more often, such as Louisville is scheduled to play VT only once before 2025, but there are better ways to accomplish this that wouldn't burden teams like Clemson as much as a 9 game schedule would. We will know more about what the ACC options will be once the vote takes place on the CCG deregulation here shortly.

But again, why is that important?

This is how interested Duke was to host Clemson in 2012. It was the first time Duke had played Clemson in four years, the first time they had hosted Clemson in five years, the best Duke team in twenty years and Clemson was a ranked opponent.

(12-29-2015 04:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 04:05 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I still want someone to explain to me what we gain as both a program and a conference by dropping high profile OOC games to add a game that most years nobody but the two schools involved would care about. Which has a better chance of being a primetime national TV game.......Clemson vs Auburn or Clemson vs Duke?

I can see the idea of getting to play teams more often, such as Louisville is scheduled to play VT only once before 2025, but there are better ways to accomplish this that wouldn't burden teams like Clemson as much as a 9 game schedule would. We will know more about what the ACC options will be once the vote takes place on the CCG deregulation here shortly.

But again, why is that important?

This is how interested Duke was to host Clemson in 2012. It was the first time Duke had played Clemson in four years, the first time they had hosted Clemson in five years, the best Duke team in twenty years and Clemson was a ranked opponent.

That's Duke, what about VT, Miami, NC, etc? I know Louisville would benefit by playing teams like Miami, VT & GT more often. Again there are other ways to do it without going to a 9 game schedule. For example, switch out 3-4 division teams every other year.

Coastal Atlantic
Miami FSU
GT Clemson
BC Louisville

NC NC State
Duke WF
Virginia Syracuse
VT Pittsburgh

So Clemson would play FSU, Louisville & GT every year & rotate between Miami & BC in their 8th game. They would play NC, Duke, VT & Virginia H&H then play NC State, Syracuse, WF & Pittsburgh H&H. This way everyone plays everyone H&H in 4-6 years. Better than 9 games anyway.

(12-29-2015 02:44 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The MOST IMPORTANT matchups within the ACC are:
- UNC must play UVa, Duke and NC State every year
- UVa must also play VT every year
- Clemson must play GT and FSU every year
- FSU must also play Miami every year.
Any plan which fails to at least preserve these matchups is doomed.

That would lead to

UNC, Duke, NCSU, Wake, UVa, VT, Louisville
Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami, BC, Cuse, Pitt

Works out for teams playing whom they want to play, but those football divisions are still not well-balanced.

(12-29-2015 03:38 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:32 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:00 PM)billyjack Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 02:42 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  +1. Kaplony is correct - this has ZERO chance.

Why is 9 ACC games a problem?
Or is the issue the loss of the FCS game?
If Clemson never has to play UConn ever in football, why would they have a problem with it? If it was Cincinnati over UConn would it be more acceptable?
Any feedback on part of the hoops tourney going to MSG?
Not trying to be difficult, just hoping to understand.

The biggest problem is FSU & Clemson losing their 7th home football game every year. With only 3 OOC games Clemson can't play South Carolina & Georgia every year in football & still have 7 home games. Losing that game would cost them millions. Do the math, a conservative $35 ticket x 81k plus parking, concessions, etc.

Well georgia isn't an in state rivalry and you've only played them 4 times in 13 years. Also it's about whats best for the conference not whats best for clemson. Once again, maybe it's this line of thinking that keeps holding your conference back.

So you're suggesting that Clemson taking a $5+ million a year hit is good for the ACC? I'm not a Clemson fan & I disagree with this. Putting FSU & Clemson further in a financial bind is bad for the ACC.

How is going to geographic divisions cost Clemson 5 million a year? Please explain it to me because that seems like the kid of straw men. You brought up Georgia before which was factually inaccurate now you are saying it will cost them 5 million so forgive me for not believing you.

(12-29-2015 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I still want someone to explain to me what we gain as both a program and a conference by dropping high profile OOC games to add a game that most years nobody but the two schools involved would care about. Which has a better chance of being a primetime national TV game.......Clemson vs Auburn or Clemson vs Duke?

It's not about Clemson because it would mean more meaningful games for the entire conference. So once again small time thinking which is killing both the ACC and Big XII. Making the rest of the conference play 9 conference games and no FCS means at least 9 P5 games per team instead of 8 and an FCS. It makes the whole TV package more valuable.

(12-29-2015 05:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I still want someone to explain to me what we gain as both a program and a conference by dropping high profile OOC games to add a game that most years nobody but the two schools involved would care about. Which has a better chance of being a primetime national TV game.......Clemson vs Auburn or Clemson vs Duke?

It's not about Clemson because it would mean more meaningful games for the entire conference. So once again small time thinking which is killing both the ACC and Big XII. Making the rest of the conference play 9 conference games and no FCS means at least 9 P5 games per team instead of 8 and an FCS. It makes the whole TV package more valuable.

The ACC now requires at least 1 P5 OOC game a year so we already got that.

Clemson has played 2 P5 OOC games each year since 2010, and has 2 P5 OOC games scheduled each year through 2020, and they aren't series against scrubs like Indiana, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Purdue, or Rutgers. Go to 9 ACC games and you lose that, and for what? More Clemson vs UVA/Duke? Why? What does the conference gain other than assuring that half the conference loses a game? Instead of playing more games against Clemson or FSU the teams like Duke and UVA need to be playing teams like I listed above so that they have a better chance of coming out with a win.

(12-29-2015 04:16 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 04:05 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I still want someone to explain to me what we gain as both a program and a conference by dropping high profile OOC games to add a game that most years nobody but the two schools involved would care about. Which has a better chance of being a primetime national TV game.......Clemson vs Auburn or Clemson vs Duke?

I can see the idea of getting to play teams more often, such as Louisville is scheduled to play VT only once before 2025, but there are better ways to accomplish this that wouldn't burden teams like Clemson as much as a 9 game schedule would. We will know more about what the ACC options will be once the vote takes place on the CCG deregulation here shortly.

But again, why is that important?

This is how interested Duke was to host Clemson in 2012. It was the first time Duke had played Clemson in four years, the first time they had hosted Clemson in five years, the best Duke team in twenty years and Clemson was a ranked opponent.

To be fair, that's the visitor's side of the stadium (aside from the president's box, which is the lit up area at the top), for a game with very cheap tickets being played less than 300 miles from Clemson. At kickoff, Clemson's record at Duke was only 14-12. But still, I get that it's a picture of a small stadium with empty seats. I think everyone knows Duke's working on it and it will be more full (of both blue and orange) next time Clemson comes, I'm sure.

I'm against 9 conference games as much as anyone. Once ND joins fully, I think there's a way to have only 7, and still play everyone more often. But until then, the divisions are fine as they stand today. The problem with geographic divisions, and the reason we don't have them is that none of the Virginia or Carolina schools want to be sent North. (Virginia Tech might not leave the conference over it, but I wouldn't count on anyone else.)

(12-29-2015 05:32 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:38 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:32 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:29 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:00 PM)billyjack Wrote:  Why is 9 ACC games a problem?
Or is the issue the loss of the FCS game?
If Clemson never has to play UConn ever in football, why would they have a problem with it? If it was Cincinnati over UConn would it be more acceptable?
Any feedback on part of the hoops tourney going to MSG?
Not trying to be difficult, just hoping to understand.

The biggest problem is FSU & Clemson losing their 7th home football game every year. With only 3 OOC games Clemson can't play South Carolina & Georgia every year in football & still have 7 home games. Losing that game would cost them millions. Do the math, a conservative $35 ticket x 81k plus parking, concessions, etc.

Well georgia isn't an in state rivalry and you've only played them 4 times in 13 years. Also it's about whats best for the conference not whats best for clemson. Once again, maybe it's this line of thinking that keeps holding your conference back.

So you're suggesting that Clemson taking a $5+ million a year hit is good for the ACC? I'm not a Clemson fan & I disagree with this. Putting FSU & Clemson further in a financial bind is bad for the ACC.

How is going to geographic divisions cost Clemson 5 million a year? Please explain it to me because that seems like the kid of straw men. You brought up Georgia before which was factually inaccurate now you are saying it will cost them 5 million so forgive me for not believing you.

The actual question is why 9 conference games are bad. Playing 9 ACC games means that either Clemson gives up a home game or a second P5 game that they use for teams like Georgia & Auburn to keep their donations & ticket prices at a premium. Losing the 7th home game would cost Clemson around $5 million. You can read Kaps responses for more details.

The ACC will be better off when it expands and moves to four divisions. Nothing new is going to happen during the 2 division era because the 2 division era is extremely limited in the number of days that it has left in it's lifetime.

(12-29-2015 06:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will be better off when it expands and moves to four divisions. Nothing new is going to happen during the 2 division era because the 2 division era is extremely limited in the number of days that it has left in it's lifetime.

ACC with 4 divisions of 4 with ND all in with Texas, I like it.

North: ND, BC, Syracuse & Pittsburgh

West: Texas, Louisville, Miami & WF

East: NC, Duke, Virginia & VT

South: FSU, Clemson, GT & NC State

(12-29-2015 06:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will be better off when it expands and moves to four divisions. Nothing new is going to happen during the 2 division era because the 2 division era is extremely limited in the number of days that it has left in it's lifetime.

Wonder how 3 divisions would work scheduling-wise?

Northeast

BC
SU
Pitt
WVU (since I don't see ND joining full-time)
UL

Mid-Atlantic

UNC
UVa
VT
Duke
NC State

South

FSU
Miami
Clemson
GT
Wake

Seems like the above solves most of the issues raised in this thread and others (outside of scheduling issues a 3 divisional set-up would create).

Cheers,
Neil

(12-29-2015 06:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 06:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will be better off when it expands and moves to four divisions. Nothing new is going to happen during the 2 division era because the 2 division era is extremely limited in the number of days that it has left in it's lifetime.

ACC with 4 divisions of 4 with ND all in with Texas, I like it.

North: ND, BC, Syracuse & Pittsburgh

West: Texas, Louisville, Miami & WF

East: NC, Duke, Virginia & VT

South: FSU, Clemson, GT & NC State

Texas is never going to happen.

(12-29-2015 05:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 05:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I still want someone to explain to me what we gain as both a program and a conference by dropping high profile OOC games to add a game that most years nobody but the two schools involved would care about. Which has a better chance of being a primetime national TV game.......Clemson vs Auburn or Clemson vs Duke?

It's not about Clemson because it would mean more meaningful games for the entire conference. So once again small time thinking which is killing both the ACC and Big XII. Making the rest of the conference play 9 conference games and no FCS means at least 9 P5 games per team instead of 8 and an FCS. It makes the whole TV package more valuable.

The ACC now requires at least 1 P5 OOC game a year so we already got that.

Clemson has played 2 P5 OOC games each year since 2010, and has 2 P5 OOC games scheduled each year through 2020, and they aren't series against scrubs like Indiana, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Purdue, or Rutgers. Go to 9 ACC games and you lose that, and for what? More Clemson vs UVA/Duke? Why? What does the conference gain other than assuring that half the conference loses a game? Instead of playing more games against Clemson or FSU the teams like Duke and UVA need to be playing teams like I listed above so that they have a better chance of coming out with a win.

Its not about whats best for Clemson but whats best for the entire conference. You keep ignoring that point. Right now you are looking at a TV contract that will be paying 20 million less than the two other P5 conferences that border your conference. A conference is about whats best for all 14 members not whats just best for your school. Adding more overall attractive TV content and dropping game like Citadel is what the conference needs to do to try and make up for some of that revenue gap.

The Big Ten is going to 9 conference games PLUS a P5 OOC game as well as no more FCS games. So you can brag about playing 9 P5 OOC games already but you're still playing FCS and STILL getting way less TV money than your two direct competitors and that gap will certainly lead to more teams jumping ship and next thing you know you are in UConns situation.

Casual viewers and die hard CFB fans have no idea who is in what division. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with. It's like the old teams want everything to favor them and nothing to favor the new schools and half the league is made up of new schools.

(12-29-2015 07:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 05:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 05:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I still want someone to explain to me what we gain as both a program and a conference by dropping high profile OOC games to add a game that most years nobody but the two schools involved would care about. Which has a better chance of being a primetime national TV game.......Clemson vs Auburn or Clemson vs Duke?

It's not about Clemson because it would mean more meaningful games for the entire conference. So once again small time thinking which is killing both the ACC and Big XII. Making the rest of the conference play 9 conference games and no FCS means at least 9 P5 games per team instead of 8 and an FCS. It makes the whole TV package more valuable.

The ACC now requires at least 1 P5 OOC game a year so we already got that.

Clemson has played 2 P5 OOC games each year since 2010, and has 2 P5 OOC games scheduled each year through 2020, and they aren't series against scrubs like Indiana, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Purdue, or Rutgers. Go to 9 ACC games and you lose that, and for what? More Clemson vs UVA/Duke? Why? What does the conference gain other than assuring that half the conference loses a game? Instead of playing more games against Clemson or FSU the teams like Duke and UVA need to be playing teams like I listed above so that they have a better chance of coming out with a win.

Its not about whats best for Clemson but whats best for the entire conference. You keep ignoring that point. Right now you are looking at a TV contract that will be paying 20 million less than the two other P5 conferences that border your conference. A conference is about whats best for all 14 members not whats just best for your school. Adding more overall attractive TV content and dropping game like Citadel is what the conference needs to do to try and make up for some of that revenue gap.

The Big Ten is going to 9 conference games PLUS a P5 OOC game as well as no more FCS games. So you can brag about playing 9 P5 OOC games already but you're still playing FCS and STILL getting way less TV money than your two direct competitors and that gap will certainly lead to more teams jumping ship and next thing you know you are in UConns situation.

Casual viewers and die hard CFB fans have no idea who is in what division. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with. It's like the old teams want everything to favor them and nothing to favor the new schools and half the league is made up of new schools.

And you keep ignoring the fact that the FCS games aren't the ones that get dropped, it's the P5 OOC games that require a H&H thus costing Clemson at a minimum close to $5 million a year in lost revenue because of 6 home games instead of seven.

You also miss the point that it is in the ACC's best interest to ensure that the football schools are able to maximize revenue and we already know what ESPN is going to pay for a 9th conference game because we adopted one. Hint....it's nowhere close to $5 million a year.

If a die hard college football fan doesn't know who is in what ACC division then they aren't a die hard college football fan. It's not like we pulled a Big Slow and completely changed the divisions up, other than additions the divisions are the same as they have been since we expanded to twelve over a decade ago.

(12-29-2015 07:25 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 06:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 06:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will be better off when it expands and moves to four divisions. Nothing new is going to happen during the 2 division era because the 2 division era is extremely limited in the number of days that it has left in it's lifetime.

ACC with 4 divisions of 4 with ND all in with Texas, I like it.

North: ND, BC, Syracuse & Pittsburgh

West: Texas, Louisville, Miami & WF

East: NC, Duke, Virginia & VT

South: FSU, Clemson, GT & NC State

Texas is never going to happen.

Not as a full member most likely.

(12-29-2015 07:08 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 06:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The ACC will be better off when it expands and moves to four divisions. Nothing new is going to happen during the 2 division era because the 2 division era is extremely limited in the number of days that it has left in it's lifetime.

Wonder how 3 divisions would work scheduling-wise?

Northeast

BC
SU
Pitt
WVU (since I don't see ND joining full-time)
UL

Mid-Atlantic

UNC
UVa
VT
Duke
NC State

South

FSU
Miami
Clemson
GT
Wake

Seems like the above solves most of the issues raised in this thread and others (outside of scheduling issues a 3 divisional set-up would create).

Cheers,
Neil

It's certainly better than the 2 division method. I understand the arguments for a 3 division method, they are reasonable. I still stand behind the eventuality of an across the board four division method but the 3 division concept isn't bad.

(12-29-2015 02:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 01:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 12:53 PM)esayem Wrote:  I always find these geographic divisions humorous when the southernmost team is placed in the North.

I'm thinking that Miami is the one southern team in the Acc that would have the fewest complaints since they were in a conference with these teams for years. Plus Miami has many students from the northeast. That was one of the reasons that Miami wanted BC and SU to come with them to the Acc back in 2003 during the first raid.

If you were Miami's football coach, though, you would want to be in the same division as Florida State. If the teams are in separate divisions, they're still going to play every year (as they do now), and if you're Miami, it's a huge disadvantage to have FSU on your schedule every year when other division rivals have Wake or BC as their "permanent" cross-division opponent.

Of course they should be in the same division with FSU if the divisions are based on geography. People forget Miami played a ton of southern schools before they joined the Big East. They were independent, so they played many independents. Yes, they do have a lot of students and fans in the northeast.

(12-29-2015 08:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 07:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 05:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 05:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 03:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I still want someone to explain to me what we gain as both a program and a conference by dropping high profile OOC games to add a game that most years nobody but the two schools involved would care about. Which has a better chance of being a primetime national TV game.......Clemson vs Auburn or Clemson vs Duke?

It's not about Clemson because it would mean more meaningful games for the entire conference. So once again small time thinking which is killing both the ACC and Big XII. Making the rest of the conference play 9 conference games and no FCS means at least 9 P5 games per team instead of 8 and an FCS. It makes the whole TV package more valuable.

The ACC now requires at least 1 P5 OOC game a year so we already got that.

Clemson has played 2 P5 OOC games each year since 2010, and has 2 P5 OOC games scheduled each year through 2020, and they aren't series against scrubs like Indiana, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Purdue, or Rutgers. Go to 9 ACC games and you lose that, and for what? More Clemson vs UVA/Duke? Why? What does the conference gain other than assuring that half the conference loses a game? Instead of playing more games against Clemson or FSU the teams like Duke and UVA need to be playing teams like I listed above so that they have a better chance of coming out with a win.

Its not about whats best for Clemson but whats best for the entire conference. You keep ignoring that point. Right now you are looking at a TV contract that will be paying 20 million less than the two other P5 conferences that border your conference. A conference is about whats best for all 14 members not whats just best for your school. Adding more overall attractive TV content and dropping game like Citadel is what the conference needs to do to try and make up for some of that revenue gap.

The Big Ten is going to 9 conference games PLUS a P5 OOC game as well as no more FCS games. So you can brag about playing 9 P5 OOC games already but you're still playing FCS and STILL getting way less TV money than your two direct competitors and that gap will certainly lead to more teams jumping ship and next thing you know you are in UConns situation.

Casual viewers and die hard CFB fans have no idea who is in what division. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with. It's like the old teams want everything to favor them and nothing to favor the new schools and half the league is made up of new schools.

And you keep ignoring the fact that the FCS games aren't the ones that get dropped, it's the P5 OOC games that require a H&H thus costing Clemson at a minimum close to $5 million a year in lost revenue because of 6 home games instead of seven.

You also miss the point that it is in the ACC's best interest to ensure that the football schools are able to maximize revenue and we already know what ESPN is going to pay for a 9th conference game because we adopted one. Hint....it's nowhere close to $5 million a year.

If a die hard college football fan doesn't know who is in what ACC division then they aren't a die hard college football fan. It's not like we pulled a Big Slow and completely changed the divisions up, other than additions the divisions are the same as they have been since we expanded to twelve over a decade ago.

The "point" that you say he is missing is your personal opinion - nothing more. It also happens to be a self serving opinion. It's in the ACC's interest to maximize revenue for everybody, not just the few schools that don't care about anything except football.

I hear the same tired song from Florida State fans. Only coming from them, I have no sympathy at all. Let them start filling their stadium before they complain about what the ACC isn't doing to help them.

A 9 game league schedule makes no sense to me. But the divisions do. They are what they are because the member schools want them to be that way. They keep looking at them, and they can't come up with a better plan any more than the posters on this forum can. Any fool can come up with an alignment that gives his school what it wants. It's a lot harder to craft one that gives 14 schools what they want. What they have suits the most members, so why change?

(12-29-2015 09:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 08:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 07:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 05:57 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 05:34 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  It's not about Clemson because it would mean more meaningful games for the entire conference. So once again small time thinking which is killing both the ACC and Big XII. Making the rest of the conference play 9 conference games and no FCS means at least 9 P5 games per team instead of 8 and an FCS. It makes the whole TV package more valuable.

The ACC now requires at least 1 P5 OOC game a year so we already got that.

Clemson has played 2 P5 OOC games each year since 2010, and has 2 P5 OOC games scheduled each year through 2020, and they aren't series against scrubs like Indiana, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Purdue, or Rutgers. Go to 9 ACC games and you lose that, and for what? More Clemson vs UVA/Duke? Why? What does the conference gain other than assuring that half the conference loses a game? Instead of playing more games against Clemson or FSU the teams like Duke and UVA need to be playing teams like I listed above so that they have a better chance of coming out with a win.

Its not about whats best for Clemson but whats best for the entire conference. You keep ignoring that point. Right now you are looking at a TV contract that will be paying 20 million less than the two other P5 conferences that border your conference. A conference is about whats best for all 14 members not whats just best for your school. Adding more overall attractive TV content and dropping game like Citadel is what the conference needs to do to try and make up for some of that revenue gap.

The Big Ten is going to 9 conference games PLUS a P5 OOC game as well as no more FCS games. So you can brag about playing 9 P5 OOC games already but you're still playing FCS and STILL getting way less TV money than your two direct competitors and that gap will certainly lead to more teams jumping ship and next thing you know you are in UConns situation.

Casual viewers and die hard CFB fans have no idea who is in what division. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with. It's like the old teams want everything to favor them and nothing to favor the new schools and half the league is made up of new schools.

And you keep ignoring the fact that the FCS games aren't the ones that get dropped, it's the P5 OOC games that require a H&H thus costing Clemson at a minimum close to $5 million a year in lost revenue because of 6 home games instead of seven.

You also miss the point that it is in the ACC's best interest to ensure that the football schools are able to maximize revenue and we already know what ESPN is going to pay for a 9th conference game because we adopted one. Hint....it's nowhere close to $5 million a year.

If a die hard college football fan doesn't know who is in what ACC division then they aren't a die hard college football fan. It's not like we pulled a Big Slow and completely changed the divisions up, other than additions the divisions are the same as they have been since we expanded to twelve over a decade ago.

The "point" that you say he is missing is your personal opinion - nothing more. It also happens to be a self serving opinion. It's in the ACC's interest to maximize revenue for everybody, not just the few schools that don't care about anything except football.

I hear the same tired song from Florida State fans. Only coming from them, I have no sympathy at all. Let them start filling their stadium before they complain about what the ACC isn't doing to help them.

A 9 game league schedule makes no sense to me. But the divisions do. They are what they are because the member schools want them to be that way. They keep looking at them, and they can't come up with a better plan any more than the posters on this forum can. Any fool can come up with an alignment that gives his school what it wants. It's a lot harder to craft one that gives 14 schools what they want. What they have suits the most members, so why change?

When a 14 team conference is depending on two programs o carry it in the only sport that matters then yes the conference needs to do whatever it takes to ensure that those two schools are able to bring in the maximum amount of revenue.

So what needs to happen is you and all your #goacc buddies need to make up your rabbit-assed minds and decide which narrative you want to pursue.......that the conference needs to be equitable or that it's FSU and Clemson's fault that the ACC sucked in football up until they got good again.