Bitter blog - Would you rather see a 9-game ACC schedule or a yearly ACC-SEC matchup?

That's easy. ACC-SEC (aTm & Tenn as it pertains to VT).

9 acc games. I want either clemson or florida state on the schedule every year.

There is no guarantee that the SEC will be the best conference in the land every year. Playing an arkansas, kentucky, the mississippis on their down years wouldn't do it for me.

ACC-SEC, but in a best vs. best and worst vs. worst format, home one year, away the next. Make it the last Saturday in September. There are not enough "fits" to do the same team every year. The other big improvement would be eliminating divisions so more ACC teams play each other. Something in the ballpark of Andy's idea would be a major improvement and makes so much economic sense.

The bottom line is that a diverse and quality schedule is how the declining ticket sales are going to be fixed.

I don't think the SEC game per year would work with many team in the ACC besides the teams already with sec rivalries. What I'd prefer is that all the ACC teams use that game to schedule a non confence rival that makes geographic sense for them. Like Pitt-PSU, VT-WVU, UVA-ODU (because of CML's love for the 757), Syracuse- Rutgers, BC- UCONN, NCSU- East Carolina, UNC- UT. Duke-Stanford (Bit of a stretch for sure), Miami- UCF (?), and of course the other teams with SEC rivalries. I know this is highly idealized, but I think people like Syracuse would much rather play Rutgers than say Ole Miss. Just my 2 cents

the ACC-SEC arrangement would likely be to give ESPN more quality inventory while keeping FSU, Clemson, USC-e and L'ville happy. none of them want a 9th ACC game.

now, ideally, we would get the 9th ACC game AND an SEC scheduling arrangement, but that ain't happening.

Glad to see the SEC would consider stepping up and playing teams from the Dominant ACC. Guess they want to know what good teams look like.

At the end of the day, the ultimate goal of the conference is to develop an environment that would maximize the number of consistent national championship contenders in the league (duh).

In my mind, there are only two programs that are currently consistent national championship contenders: Clemson and Florida State. Virginia Tech, Louisville and Miami could be in that conversation in the next three years.

The secondary goal should be to maximize the amount programs that could consistently become bowl-eligible.

So the answer of this question should be looked at from this framework: How does each choice help UVA become consistently bowl-eligible? How does each choice help Florida State cement its status and raise Virginia Tech to the Seminoles level?

That being said, my preference is the 8+SEC model. I'd rather see the conference that a risk than play it safe.

Rightfully so, most people believe the SEC is a superior conference to the ACC. Recruits would rather play in the SEC because playing against the best collegiate competition will prepare them for the next level. There are two ways for the ACC to break that perception: 1) To have as many teams compete for the NC as possible 2) To beat the SEC consistently in 1-on-1 matchups.

By only playing eight conference games instead of nine, you minimize programs "beating up on each other". In a conference game, it's guaranteed one ACC team gets a win and one gets a loss. In a non-conference game, nothing is guaranteed. By replacing a ninth conference game with a SEC game, you create a higher variance of total NC contenders and bowl-eligible teams in the conference. Given that the ACC is the "little brother" to the SEC, this is the preferable option.

Trivially, if ACC teams beat SEC teams regularly, the perception of the ACC changes.

Of course, this could end badly for the ACC. If the SEC dominates these matchups, the schedule would be counterintuitive to the ACC's ultimate goals.

Nine games in the ACC of which ND would be a member and no permanent cross division rival. Rotate 3 from the Atlantic every year.

Nine ACC games. And contrary to most, I don't mind the permanent rival game.

I've been thinking about it from the SEC standpoint. Why would they want to do this? Most teams in the SEC pad their out of conference schedules with FCS and LOLUVA-level programs because of the grueling nature of SEC football. At first glance, most teams would balk at the idea of giving up a guaranteed home game against a bad opponent in exchange of a home game with ACC opponent every other year. If I were an SEC coach, I wouldn't like giving up my flexibility.

Then I realized how this could make sense from an SEC standpoint: money.

Theoretically, the ACC covers the following markets that the SEC doesn't: New York (Syracuse), Boston (Boston College), Washington DC (VT/UVA), Pittsburgh (PITT) & Charlotte/R-D (UNC, Duke, WF, NCST). That represents the #1, #6, #9, #23 & #27 markets in the United States.

If you make the SEC matchups into neutral site games (instead of home games for the ACC), the SEC would expand their influence into the north and make a ton of money in the process.

Here's what I'd like to see happen:

1) Keep the current ACC/SEC matchups. That includes:

Georgia vs. Georgia Tech
Florida vs. Florida State
Kentucky vs. Louisville
South Carolina vs. Clemson

2) Create the following matchups based on market size:

Syracuse vs. Alabama (Neutral Site: Metlife Stadium)
Boston College vs. Auburn (Neutral Site: Gillette Stadium)
Virginia Tech vs. Texas A&M (Neutral Site: Washington DC)
Pittsburgh vs. LSU
UNC vs. Tennessee & NC State vs. Mizzou (Neutral Site: Bank of America Stadium)

3) Fill-in other matchups that make most geographic sense and/or create the most compelling matchups:

UVA vs. Old Miss
Duke vs. Vanderbilt
Miami vs. Miss State
Wake vs. Arkansas