A couple of odd remarks in that article. It says 20 games would preclude the B1G-ACC Challenge. You get 31 games in a year, why does that have any impact?
It also seems strange that Dixon would be against breaking up the annual rivalries, since Pitt definitely has the worst matchups (highest SOS, though). I think they should go back to having only 1 guaranteed rivalry, and rotating everyone else.
I actually agree with Larranaga. The ACC really botched the opportunity to create a meaningful arrangement with the A10 for their Brooklyn event. The ACC should absolutely be pursuing high profile neutral or home-and-home deals rather than adding more league games.
The problem the ACC has (and has had) getting more teams into the tournament is that the ACC champion typically has a really good record and destroys some mediocre or bad teams at the bottom. The Big East champion typically did not have that gaudy a record, and had to battle the teams near the bottom. (Think 2009 Pitt losing to Providence.) Adding extra league games is just going to pad the win totals of the top 5-6 teams and drop even further the teams at the bottom. I don't see how a team finishing in the middle at 10-10 is going to be any better than 8-8 or 9-9. Now give that 9-9 team 1 or 2 more respectable OOC wins, and that makes a much bigger impact.