Poll: 8 or 9 league games

[TarHeelNation11]

All the other conferences are going to be at 9 conference games and so will the ACC. They aren't going to set up an idiotic situation where they play "OOC" ACC games and be an absolute joke.

According to David Teel's writeup, the two Power 5 OOC games would have to involve non-ACC schools.....that's how I interpret it.

Question for anyone in the know....How much input would Notre Dame have despite not being in for football? The reason I ask is I don't think ND would want 9 games, if by a long shot they would decide to join, due to the simple fact that they don't want to give up Navy and also Stanford and USC at home in the fall and then playing them away out on the west coast every other year...

They don't get a vote in the decision. But it would be naive to think the ACC and its ADs wouldn't ask for (or receive without asking) input from Notre Dame.

 

[OriginalEther]

Whiney people.

No kidding.
It's been an amusing thread. It didn't realize that apparently only southern schools deal with money.
Pretty sure the conference closest to the northern schools....the big ten.....is doing pretty well financially also.

 

[CrazyPaco]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with scheduling opposite division ACC teams outside the normal conference schedule considering how the current single rotating cross-over opponent works. I see no legitimate issue with UNC scheduling Wake out of conference. Similarly, I'd have zero problem with Pitt scheduling BC, Louisville, or NC State out-of-conference under the current configuration.

Cross-division schools should be able to schedule each other out-of-conference if they want, and there is no reason for them not to, as long as things stay status quo.

I would not read too much into Teel's statement about the requirement for two power-5 teams. He wasn't trying to outline the regulations of how the 8+2 would be implemented. I highly doubt they'd require them both to be non-ACC schools. In laying out the choice between 8+2 of 9+1, it makes absolutely no logical difference if one of the the 8+2 would be against an ACC team.

The 8+2 model seems to give everyone the flexibility they need, particularly considering the deal with Notre Dame, as long as fans don't stupidly decry scheduling an ACC team as non-conference opponents simply because it sounds weird to them. However, at least one of the two should be a true non-conference P5 school.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

Agree, ESPN would have to specify more parameters. There's not enough P5's to go around.
Maybe-
try for 2 P5's
then try an ooc ACC
then try from a backup pool of regional teams that might garner some accn interest

 

[HailToPitt725]

My dream scenario is we go with 8+2, Notre Dame joins the Coastal Division, and we schedule our rivals Penn State and West Virginia in the OOC. I'm just not sure if ND would be for or against it. With 8 games they get to schedule their USC, etc. games but with 9 games they'd get to play against Clemson and FSU more often. May not even matter anyways if 9 games gets enough votes.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

People are not realizing how difficult it is going to be to schedule 2 P5s now. If you take away the Pac 12, who for the most part are not going to make cross-country trips (and its not ideal for Pitt to play a road game at Washington State), there's simply not enough teams to go around. Remember, with only ONE P5 game to schedule, not all B10, SEC, and B12 schools will even want to schedule an ACC team. OU may want to play Arkansas. Illinois may play Missouri. Wisconsin may want to play Kansas State, etc, etc, etc.

 

[topdecktiger]

Yes we are. Pitt has consistently played 2 P5s but take last year for an example. We played Iowa. Iowa now has a 9 game B10 schedule plus ISU. They are not able to be scheduled now. That's an example of the difficulty. Scheduling 2 P5s will be very difficult. So, we are giving up games with marquee teams FSU and Clemson and good programs Lou and NCSU for possibly Purdue, IU, Kansas, etc.

When we've scheduled 2 P5s in the past, no league played 9 games. Now they all do except the SEC and they only play 1 P5.

The only solution here is 9+1+compensating teams for a lost home game. The Coastal teams get FSU and Clemson more often and FSU and Clemson get made whole for doing it.

You are not giving up games against Clemson and Florida St. Under the 8+2, you would play Clemson and Florida St exactly the same amount of times as you do now. That is simply not giving up anything. As I've pointed out, you have a simple solution to your "Iowa" problem, as I'll call it. You can schedule an ACC team as your 2nd P5 team. That solves two problems. 1) It fills that second slot in the schedule. 2) It lets you see other ACC schools more frequently. You just don't want to do that because you want more games against Clemson and Florida St. I have no problem with that per se, but not at the expense of the southern schools losing money.

As I said, if the ACC compensated the southern schools for losing home games, then I'm fine with 9+1.

As for the other 10 schools not giving up anything, they may not, but they are certaintly taking on significantly more risk of P5 teams cancelling games on them (which happens all the time). That risk will now be doubled. I turn, they will probably miss the 2 P5 requirement, or have to settle for teams that do not draw. The ones with the built in rivalries have significantly less risk.

It goes both ways.

No, that's not both ways. Again, there is a simple solution to the problem you described. You can schedule ACC teams in that 2nd P5 slot. (Hell, you could schedule ACC schools in both slots if somebody cancelled on you.) If you want the conference to mandate that Florida St and Clemson play a certain amount of ACC schools as well, I'm fine with that. With 8+2, Clemson and Florida St could easily accommodate that.

 

[CrazyPaco]

You are not giving up games against Clemson and Florida St. Under the 8+2, you would play Clemson and Florida St exactly the same amount of times as you do now. That is simply not giving up anything. As I've pointed out, you have a simple solution to your "Iowa" problem, as I'll call it. You can schedule an ACC team as your 2nd P5 team. That solves two problems. 1) It fills that second slot in the schedule. 2) It lets you see other ACC schools more frequently. You just don't want to do that because you want more games against Clemson and Florida St. I have no problem with that per se, but not at the expense of the southern schools losing money.

As I said, if the ACC compensated the southern schools for losing home games, then I'm fine with 9+1.



No, that's not both ways. Again, there is a simple solution to the problem you described. You can schedule ACC teams in that 2nd P5 slot. (Hell, you could schedule ACC schools in both slots if somebody cancelled on you.) If you want the conference to mandate that Florida St and Clemson play a certain amount of ACC schools as well, I'm fine with that. With 8+2, Clemson and Florida St could easily accommodate that.

I'm for 8+2, but if the conference votes 9-1 (and I think Pitt will vote for 8+2 as it voted against 9 in the past because it has two long-standing regional and traditional rivals it would like to play regularly), neither Clemson, nor Pitt, should get compensated one cent. Not getting your way on everything is the nature of the beast in belonging to a conference, and all the conferences are going to more conference games. Everyone wanted a network, this is what you get stuck with. It sucks, but you have to suck it up.

We are giving up a lot of games against ND being in this conference, as well as annual games against WVU and Louisville. That's not a complaint, just reality.

 

[topdecktiger]

I'm for 8+2, but if the conference votes 9-1 (and I think Pitt will vote for 8+2 as it voted against 9 in the past), neither Clemson, nor Pitt, should get compensated one cent. Not getting your way on everything is the nature of the beast in belonging to a conference, and all the conferences are going to more conference games. Everyone wanted a network, this is what you get stuck with. It sucks, but you have to suck it up.

We are giving up a lot of games against ND being in this conference, as well as annual games against WVU and Louisville. That's not a complaint, just reality.

No, losing money isn't part of being in a conference. And no, you aren't giving up anything.

1) You aren't giving up games against Notre Dame because of being in the ACC. That happened because of Notre Dame joining the conference, not because of Pitt joining. Plus, you didn't play Notre Dame every year in the first place.

2) Louisville was only an annual game for the few years Louisville joined the Big East. Prior to that, Louisville was an infrequent opponent.

3) You don't have to give up West Virginia because of the ACC either. You lost that one because of West Virginia joining the Big 12, not because of Pitt joining the ACC.

That's total BS to say Clemson and Florida St need to just "suck it up" because that's how it is in a conference. Sorry, no. There are other options available that don't hurt anyone, so to say Clemson and Florida St should just "suck it up" when other options are available isn't just part of "belonging to a conference."

 

[ThePanthers]

No, losing money isn't part of being in a conference. And no, you aren't giving up anything.

1) You aren't giving up games against Notre Dame because of being in the ACC. That happened because of Notre Dame joining the conference, not because of Pitt joining. Plus, you didn't play Notre Dame every year in the first place.

2) Louisville was only an annual game for the few years Louisville joined the Big East. Prior to that, Louisville was an infrequent opponent.

3) You don't have to give up West Virginia because of the ACC either. You lost that one because of West Virginia joining the Big 12, not because of Pitt joining the ACC.

That's total BS to say Clemson and Florida St need to just "suck it up" because that's how it is in a conference. Sorry, no. There are other options available that don't hurt anyone, so to say Clemson and Florida St should just "suck it up" when other options are available isn't just part of "belonging to a conference."

Suck it up.

 

[PushupMan]

Per this article from Brett McMurphy,playing non-conference games against ACC teams from the other division is not an option. Note in the article how McMurphy specifically states that the options under consideration are: "...eight conference games but play two non-ACC Power 5 teams or go to nine league games with one non-ACC Power 5 school."

http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...-undecided-conference-scheduling-requirements

 

[topdecktiger]

Suck it up.

BS response. How about YOU suck it up.

 

[ThePanthers]

BS response. How about YOU suck it up.

Considering I don't care which way it goes and don't have a preference, it would be difficult

 

[CrazyPaco]

No, losing money isn't part of being in a conference. And no, you aren't giving up anything.

1) You aren't giving up games against Notre Dame because of being in the ACC. That happened because of Notre Dame joining the conference, not because of Pitt joining. Plus, you didn't play Notre Dame every year in the first place.

2) Louisville was only an annual game for the few years Louisville joined the Big East. Prior to that, Louisville was an infrequent opponent.

3) You don't have to give up West Virginia because of the ACC either. You lost that one because of West Virginia joining the Big 12, not because of Pitt joining the ACC.

That's total BS to say Clemson and Florida St need to just "suck it up" because that's how it is in a conference. Sorry, no. There are other options available that don't hurt anyone, so to say Clemson and Florida St should just "suck it up" when other options are available isn't just part of "belonging to a conference."

Bullshit. Losing money...what a load of horseshit. How much money are you going to make as an independent or without the ACC Network money and exposure? The network is something you weren't going to get without all of us Yankees in the conference, which collectively also helped to wrangle the Irish. Everyone gives up something being in a conference. That's why schools remained independent for 100 years. We also lost annual games against Miami and VT for a decade, and now Georgetown, St. John's, Villanova, and UConn, too, and by far the best conference tournament at MSG, because the ACC's underhanded bullshit in the early 2000s that outright aimed at destroying the conference that we helped to build. The ACC's back room machinations are the primary reason you are even here on this board. We weren't looking to leave the Big East, a conference outplaying the ACC in both major sports, until the ACC made it necessary to do so. If you didn't want your schedule tied up, you shouldn't have expanded past 9.

Absolutely you better suck it up. You'd best, because there is no alternative for you. When all is said and done, if we lose the argument, an argument that we likely share with you, you act like the partner that you are supposed to be with the other 12 schools. I have no sympathy for whinny bitches that can't deal with not getting everything they want, and I'm not even championing 9+1, but boy, does your self-centered garbage push me hard the other way. It's not a conference's job to do what is best for 1 or 2 programs, but best for the collective strength of the conference. If it is only best for 5 schools, and you can't convince the rest it is in their best interest too, you're going to lose. If you don't get what you want, that's life: suck it up, and then shut the fucck up. I'd say that to Pitt fans as well with dreams of playing 2 of WVU, PSU, and ND every year.

 

[Jpripper88]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with scheduling opposite division ACC teams outside the normal conference schedule considering how the current single rotating cross-over opponent works. I see no legitimate issue with UNC scheduling Wake out of conference. Similarly, I'd have zero problem with Pitt scheduling BC, Louisville, or NC State out-of-conference under the current configuration.

Cross-division schools should be able to schedule each other out-of-conference if they want, and there is no reason for them not to, as long as things stay status quo.

I would not read too much into Teel's statement about the requirement for two power-5 teams. He wasn't trying to outline the regulations of how the 8+2 would be implemented. I highly doubt they'd require them both to be non-ACC schools. In laying out the choice between 8+2 of 9+1, it makes absolutely no logical difference if one of the the 8+2 would be against an ACC team.

The 8+2 model seems to give everyone the flexibility they need, particularly considering the deal with Notre Dame, as long as fans don't stupidly decry scheduling an ACC team as non-conference opponents simply because it sounds weird to them. However, at least one of the two should be a true non-conference P5 school.

Nope. Would look like little league. And, yes perception is very, very important.

 

[Jpripper88]

Clemson & FSU's options aren't very good. What are you going to power yourselves into? SEC doesn't want you. Maybe the B1G would add yall, but good chance they wouldn't because if there is additional movement the B12 is probably done and then their sites are set on UT. Plus, you have 20 years of GofR to negotiate out of. Probably don't make any additional revenue at that point if you do get in and you are clear 2nd class citizens and cut off from everyone.

 

[CUTIGER91]

So basically you are saying it is difficult to schedule power 5 teams ooc since all but the sec is going to play 9 games. You've just made an argument for what you are arguing against.

The playoff committee made huge stinks about fcs opponents. I don't know what you were following. It was a huge knock against FSU two years ago. Askarma Oregon abouthe good losses.

There is no evidence what so ever about the ACC Champion having trouble getting in. The is all kook talk show and Internet garbage. If acc champ is considered one of the top 4 teams even with one loss they will get in.

I think the key here is that the SEC also plays 8 conf games, with 4 teams already locked in with ACC rivals. I think ESPN are idiots if they don't see the opportunity for an ACC/SEC matchup at the end of the season. Match the remaining ACC/SEC schools with each other for annual games (or mix and match like basketball does).

Solves the problem of getting P5 games for both leagues and would be must-watch TV b/c of the rivalry between the two leagues. Also gets the northern schools playing even more southern teams for recruiting.

Since ESPN owns both leagues, I think it could work.

 

[topdecktiger]

Bullshit. Losing money...what a load of horseshit. How much money are you going to make as an independent or without the ACC Network money and exposure? The network is something you weren't going to get without all of us Yankees in the conference, which collectively also helped to wrangle the Irish. Everyone gives up something being in a conference. That's why schools remained independent for 100 years. We also lost annual games against Miami and VT for a decade, and now Georgetown, St. John's, Villanova, and UConn, too, and by far the best conference tournament at MSG, because the ACC's underhanded bullshit in the early 2000s that outright aimed at destroying the conference that we helped to build. The ACC's back room machinations are the primary reason you are even here on this board. We weren't looking to leave the Big East, a conference outplaying the ACC in both major sports, until the ACC made it necessary to do so. If you didn't want your schedule tied up, you shouldn't have expanded past 9.

Absolutely you better suck it up. You'd best, because there is no alternative for you. When all is said and done, if we lose the argument, an argument that we likely share with you, you act like the partner that you are supposed to be with the other 12 schools. I have no sympathy for whinny bitches that can't deal with not getting everything they want, and I'm not even championing 9+1, but boy, does your self-centered garbage push me hard the other way. It's not a conference's job to do what is best for 1 or 2 programs, but best for the collective strength of the conference. If it is only best for 5 schools, and you can't convince the rest it is in their best interest too, you're going to lose. If you don't get what you want, that's life: suck it up, and then shut the fucck up. I'd say that to Pitt fans as well with dreams of playing 2 of WVU, PSU, and ND every year.

I have no sympathy for whinny bitches that can't deal with not getting everything they want, and I'm not even championing 9+1, but boy, does your self-centered garbage push me hard the other way. It's not a conference's job to do what is best for 1 or 2 programs, but best for the collective strength of the conference.

And this is where you get it all wrong. Nothing I'm saying is self-centered. The people who are trying to get everything they want are the 9+1 crowd. They aren't pushing this for the good of the conference. They are pushing 9+1 for completely selfish reasons. They just want more games against the teams they prefer to play. They aren't considering what effect that will have on other schools. They are strictly going by what the personally want, which is trying to have everything their own way.

If you did what was best for the entire conference, then that would be to go to 8+2. Nobody has to give up anything under 8+2. Under 9+1, several schools have to give up something. I'll say it again, nobody is giving up anything with 8+2. Pitt isn't losing any games. Wake Forest isn't losing any games. Virginia Tech isn't losing any games. They aren't losing any money either. They lose nothing. So, no, don't give me bullshit about wanting everything my way, or doing what's best for the conference. You need to tell that to the 9+1 crowd, not me.

Now as to the other stuff you said, it cuts both ways. If it wasn't for the ACC, you would be stuck in G5 purgatory. Regarding the underhanded stuff, you know the Big East met with several ACC schools about leaving in 1999, right? Several years before the ACC ultimately expanded. The ACC didn't kidnap Miami and Virginia Tech. Those schools left on their own. In fact, Virginia Tech left right saying they wouldn't leave.

 

[ThePanthers]

You keep saying they aren't loosing anything but fail to realize the schools without built in rivals that satisfies one of their p5 games are going to have a much more difficult time reaching that quota of two p5 five games. With how far ahead these games are now scheduled and how often teams cancel or change them, a lot more risk is placed on them. There are far more schools with that issue than the 4 with built in rivals.

 

[OriginalEther]

You keep saying they aren't loosing anything but fail to realize the schools without built in rivals that satisfies one of their p5 games are going to have a much more difficult time reaching that quota of two p5 five games. With how far ahead these games are now scheduled and how often teams cancel or change them, a lot more risk is placed on them. There are far more schools with that issue than the 4 with built in rivals.

Makes you wish some central group made the schedules. Solve a lot of issues.
Wonder what would happen if a team flat out can't make the quota? Is there the correct number of teams out there?

Btw, from a competitive standpoint, 9 conference games is generally fairer. More likely to get an even slate with more teams played. Right now, a school playing fsu and Clemson would be at a tremendous disadvantage compared to whomever gets Wake Forest and Syracuse.
This is less noticeable for the Atlantic teams since the Coastal is so balanced.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I have no sympathy for whinny bitches that can't deal with not getting everything they want, and I'm not even championing 9+1, but boy, does your self-centered garbage push me hard the other way. It's not a conference's job to do what is best for 1 or 2 programs, but best for the collective strength of the conference.

And this is where you get it all wrong. Nothing I'm saying is self-centered. The people who are trying to get everything they want are the 9+1 crowd. They aren't pushing this for the good of the conference. They are pushing 9+1 for completely selfish reasons. They just want more games against the teams they prefer to play. They aren't considering what effect that will have on other schools. They are strictly going by what the personally want, which is trying to have everything their own way.

If you did what was best for the entire conference, then that would be to go to 8+2. Nobody has to give up anything under 8+2. Under 9+1, several schools have to give up something. I'll say it again, nobody is giving up anything with 8+2. Pitt isn't losing any games. Wake Forest isn't losing any games. Virginia Tech isn't losing any games. They aren't losing any money either.

Topdeck,

For the 10th time, you are conveniently forgetting the DIFFICULTY that mandating a 2 game P5 schedule will bring to ACC schools who do not play an annual P5 rival. This has been discussed many times in this thread alone. You keep say we arent giving anything up but we are. A school like Pitt has traditionally played a Big Ten team in most years. With them going to a 9 game schedule, that isnt going to happen much at all anymore. So instead of getting a Big Ten team that Western PA fans know and may draw some fans, we may be forced to schedule somebody like Vanderbilt or Kansas or Colorado.

The landscape has completely change. An 8+2 mandate with every other league playing either 0 or 1 P5 OOC game means there are far less "playable" teams. Not only that but Pitt will now have to compete with a school like NCSU who has traditionally played a very weak OOC schedule. So, instead of NCSU sitting out playing P5 teams, now they (and Wake, Duke, UNC, etc) will take opponents away from Pitt.

If the Big 12 goes to 14, there are only 52 "playable" teams (not counting UF, SC, Uga, UK) and 19 ACC P5 slots to fill.

I am sorry but 19 of the 52 teams are not playing ACC games.

 

[PhPanther1]

Did they vote?

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

Did they vote?

Where does Barnes stand?

 

[PhPanther1]

No clue. But the article that started all this said saturday conference call and they might vote then.

 

[topdecktiger]

You keep saying they aren't loosing anything but fail to realize the schools without built in rivals that satisfies one of their p5 games are going to have a much more difficult time reaching that quota of two p5 five games. With how far ahead these games are now scheduled and how often teams cancel or change them, a lot more risk is placed on them. There are far more schools with that issue than the 4 with built in rivals.

I don't fail to realize anything. You keep saying it's harder for other schools to schedule P5 games. Here is what you don't realize. That doesn't hurt the other schools. There isn't some penalty against the schools for who they schedule. The ACC isn't going to issue some kind of fine against Pitt, for example. This is just something ESPN wants the ACC to do. If a game is cancelled at some time, there isn't going to be any sort of penalty leveled against the schools. The "risk" of having a game cancelled is not giving up anything. The schools with rivals are actually having to give up money, or give up scheduling any other opponents. That's actually giving up something. What you are describing is not giving up anything.

Topdeck,

For the 10th time, you are conveniently forgetting the DIFFICULTY that mandating a 2 game P5 schedule will bring to ACC schools who do not play an annual P5 rival. This has been discussed many times in this thread alone. You keep say we arent giving anything up but we are. A school like Pitt has traditionally played a Big Ten team in most years. With them going to a 9 game schedule, that isnt going to happen much at all anymore. So instead of getting a Big Ten team that Western PA fans know and may draw some fans, we may be forced to schedule somebody like Vanderbilt or Kansas or Colorado.

The landscape has completely change. An 8+2 mandate with every other league playing either 0 or 1 P5 OOC game means there are far less "playable" teams. Not only that but Pitt will now have to compete with a school like NCSU who has traditionally played a very weak OOC schedule. So, instead of NCSU sitting out playing P5 teams, now they (and Wake, Duke, UNC, etc) will take opponents away from Pitt.

If the Big 12 goes to 14, there are only 52 "playable" teams (not counting UF, SC, Uga, UK) and 19 ACC P5 slots to fill.

I am sorry but 19 of the 52 teams are not playing ACC games.

No, you aren't giving up anything. You are not giving up Big Ten games. The difficulty in scheduling a Big Ten school is because they went to 9 games. That's not you giving up anything. That's them giving up something. The Big Ten's OOC scheduling is completely out of your control. It's not something you can give up in the first place. The only way you would be giving up Big Ten games is if the ACC passed a scheduling rule that made it harder for you to schedule Big Ten games, but that's not the case. Whether the ACC goes to 9+1 or 8+2 has zero effect on your ability to schedule Big Ten teams.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

No, they tabled it. It's a very complex issue on multiple fronts. It is not nearly as simple as many on this board pass – on both sides of the divide – are making it out to be.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Like TDT, I too favor the 8+2 model. However, I favor it because it helps Pitt, not because of what it means to Clemson or Florida State or Georgia Tech or Louisville or anyone else.

Our top three rivals – meaning the schools our fans most abhore and are interested in seeing us play – do not play in our conference. Limiting our ability to play those schools is flat out stupid. It just defies common sense – from a Pitt perspective

That said, no matter what is decided, we don't owe anyone anything and I would staunchly oppose any sort of special payments to league members.

What leverage to they have to strong-arm the rest of us? Where are they going to go? I've been saying this for years now, they can go piss up a rope as far as I'm concerned.

Also, it is ridiculous to assert that Pitt did not give up anything to get into the ACC. Of course we did – we give up more than any other league school has so far. Notre Dame doesn't get join the ACC without Pitt and Syracuse leaving the Big East.

Also, there is no original ACC renegotiation of the ACCs television contract without the addition of the northern schools that everyone hates so much.

Similarly, there is no ACC Network without the addition of the northern markets that helped make it viable.

Again, I agree with the 8+2 model but don't give me any horseshit about we haven't given up anything because that's both false and offensive.

 

[ThePanthers]

How do you know there is no penalty?

And if they cancel last minute and can't 2 p5s then last minute fill ins are typically fcs teams that you must pay to come and also sell fewer tickets so there is a loss.

Quit it with you bullshit. Clemson and the other southern schools are not the only ones losing out if the vote goes one way.

You talk about others being selfish yet you are the only not willing to look past your own selfish myopic view.

 

[Jpripper88]

I think the key here is that the SEC also plays 8 conf games, with 4 teams already locked in with ACC rivals. I think ESPN are idiots if they don't see the opportunity for an ACC/SEC matchup at the end of the season. Match the remaining ACC/SEC schools with each other for annual games (or mix and match like basketball does).

Solves the problem of getting P5 games for both leagues and would be must-watch TV b/c of the rivalry between the two leagues. Also gets the northern schools playing even more southern teams for recruiting.

Since ESPN owns both leagues, I think it could work.

In theory that sounds like it works, but most of the ACC teams are neutral to bad draws, so they wouldn't drive sales or help SoS, especially not enough for the big programs who can get in kickoff games and get huge checks without having to make a road trip. And, if we are being honest, most of the fans wouldn't be real enthused about their road trip options to ACC schools with FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and GT not options.