ACC Football scheduling talk just keeps on talking...
If it's not already abundantly clear, the whole ACC Scheduling Thing that's been swirling around for the past couple months is completely driven by key factions trying to make their case in the public arena. Nothing is set and nothing is even firmly in place to change the way business is being done on the football field right now.
So, what do we actually know?
We know the ACC wants to be able to determine who plays for its conference championship, which would get rid of the annually drama-less way the title is usually determined. FSU or Clemson emerges from the Atlantic and decimates whoever emerges from the Coastal (Of course, that's only been going on for three years and it used to be the other way around, but, we can't think that far back). So instead, if FSU and Clemson are the best teams in the league, they'll play for the ACC crown, divisions be damned.
That of course begs the question, why even bother having divisions? Why even bother having divisions indeed. While all signs point to the fact that divisions would be nothing more than a way to categorize teams in standings, the ACC seems firm on keeping them. Though, it looks as though the nine-game conference schedule is closer to happening.
At the risk of resembling NASCAR with their incessant tinkering, ACC officials debated the collective benefits of nine at the winter meetings. No vote was taken, but the concept remains in play as commissioner John Swofford, his staff and school athletic directors calculate how a change would impact access to college football’s impending playoff and inventory for a possible cable channel devoted to ACC coverage.
A ninth conference game for each team would translate to 63 league contests each season rather than the current 56, an expansion that likely would appeal to ESPN as it mulls whether to launch an ACC channel similar to those created by the Big Ten and SEC.
Not everyone likes the idea of a nine-game conference schedule but you better believe DOC Gross does. Anything that ups the chances of playing in major markets like Atlanta and Miami more often.
There's also another possibility being bandied about. It would keep the ACC schedule at eight games but would include a required game between ACC and SEC schools. BC Interruption thinks its a terrible idea and I tend to agree with them, especially as two members of the Northern Football Conglomerate. I sure as hell don't want to add Alabama or Auburn to the schedule and I don't know what the value of playing Kentucky or Ole Miss is either, especially when it means we lose a spot to schedule a sure-victory. It's one of those ideas that sounds great for FSU & Clemson (who already play SEC teams every year) but terrible for the rest of us.
