Now that it’s official, how does the ACC approach permanent rival/games? As we all know, with an odd number of members, the current structure of 3 permanent rivals won’t work starting next season. The question is; does the ACC go with 2 or 4 per school. Or, do they take the B1G approach and chose only those that are important to the various schools?

I don’t think 2 is enough, but I can work. As a Pitt grad/fan, I’d be happy with Syracuse and VaTech. Not happy with BC instead of VT.

I’d prefer going with 4. Keep the current matchups, and add a 4th to the current schools while incorporating the new comers. Use this addition to have yearly matchups that should NOT have been missed the first go’round. VT v Miami, Duke v GT and make FSU happy by giving them UNC or whomever. Pitt/Syracuse/BC can take a new comer each to allow for more matchups amongst the original ACC members.

Thoughts?

(09-01-2023 01:30 PM)Pitt2003 Wrote:  Now that it’s official, how does the ACC approach permanent rival/games? As we all know, with an odd number of members, the current structure of 3 permanent rivals won’t work starting next season. The question is; does the ACC go with 2 or 4 per school. Or, do they take the B1G approach and chose only those that are important to the various schools?

I don’t think 2 is enough, but I can work. As a Pitt grad/fan, I’d be happy with Syracuse and VaTech. Not happy with BC instead of VT.

I’d prefer going with 4. Keep the current matchups, and add a 4th to the current schools while incorporating the new comers. Use this addition to have yearly matchups that should NOT have been missed the first go’round. VT v Miami, Duke v GT and make FSU happy by giving them UNC or whomever. Pitt/Syracuse/BC can take a new comer each to allow for more matchups amongst the original ACC members.

Thoughts?

As much as it pains me to say it, I think the Big Ten has the best solution for football scheduling - the "Flex Plus" model. Let each team decide how many "rivals" they want to preserve - no need for everybody to be shoved into the same size box.

(09-01-2023 01:30 PM)Pitt2003 Wrote:  Now that it’s official, how does the ACC approach permanent rival/games? As we all know, with an odd number of members, the current structure of 3 permanent rivals won’t work starting next season. The question is; does the ACC go with 2 or 4 per school. Or, do they take the B1G approach and chose only those that are important to the various schools?

I don’t think 2 is enough, but I can work. As a Pitt grad/fan, I’d be happy with Syracuse and VaTech. Not happy with BC instead of VT.

I’d prefer going with 4. Keep the current matchups, and add a 4th to the current schools while incorporating the new comers. Use this addition to have yearly matchups that should NOT have been missed the first go’round. VT v Miami, Duke v GT and make FSU happy by giving them UNC or whomever. Pitt/Syracuse/BC can take a new comer each to allow for more matchups amongst the original ACC members.

Thoughts?

I agree with you ... I like 4 permanent rivals, even if they are forced. Rotating through the rest of the conference 4/4/4 gives you at least some feel to being in a conference with everybody.

It will be interesting to see.

But I'm looking forward to playing these new schools. It'll be fun.

Personally, I like the 4-4/4/4 idea. I mentioned this in another thread recently regarding a fourth rival for Clemson, if you are going after TV ratings, adding a rival like VT or Miami might be best. If you are looking to keep the regional fans happy by adding another school that is within driving distance, UNC or Wake would be good. If you are taking requests from Dabo, perhaps he may like SMU or Miami for recruiting purposes.

The flex idea would work also, especially since you could just make the new schools be each other's rivals and then allow others to have a few additional rivals if they want. You just have to make it balance out. For Clemson, I'm good with our current three, or we could drop NC State or GT, or we could add another. They are all fine with me. The big thing is that we need to stick with 8 conference games.

(09-01-2023 03:57 PM)Schema Wrote:  Personally, I like the 4-4/4/4 idea. I mentioned this in another thread recently regarding a fourth rival for Clemson, if you are going after TV ratings, adding a rival like VT or Miami might be best. If you are looking to keep the regional fans happy by adding another school that is within driving distance, UNC or Wake would be good. If you are taking requests from Dabo, perhaps he may like SMU or Miami for recruiting purposes.

The flex idea would work also, especially since you could just make the new schools be each other's rivals and then allow others to have a few additional rivals if they want. You just have to make it balance out. For Clemson, I'm good with our current three, or we could drop NC State or GT, or we could add another. They are all fine with me. The big thing is that we need to stick with 8 conference games.

With an odd number of teams now you pretty have to stick with 8 (9 is not an option).

I think it will be two annual rivals and a rival you can schedule as a ninth game

I would like to pay Duke, UNC and and NC State. If they give us that then pair us up with SMU, BC or Stanford for the last rival. If we don’t get any of the Carolina schools as permanent rivals then I would prefer not to have any designated rivals at all.