rivalry in football doesn't carry the same value it does in basketball or men's lacrosse (somewhat TIC with the lacrosse reference). Now if Duke was consistently good in football as it is in basketball, then I think most people wouldn't have a problem with the exception. However, that isn't the case so the Duke-UNC football may be no different than the NC State-Wake which has been played consecutively since 1910. Unfortunately, that streak will end at some point because NC State chose to be paired with Duke, which is another of NC State's rivals, instead of Wake for whatever reason. For the most part I don't have a strong opinion on which ACC rivalries should or shouldn't be protected. I tend to defer to the opinions of the schools. However, I will say that the ACC's recent decision is a head scratcher in that it is willing to sacrifice some annual rivalry games so teams can play each other more frequently even though rivalry games is the foundation for building a passionate fan base. If the ACC truly wanted to protect as many rivalries as possible, then it wouldn't surprise me if the division model (with a mini realignment) would be the better way to go. Unfortunately, I have a feeling the ACC will stick with this format and not make any tweaks to the protected games when it is time to start the next cycle. If the ACC does make any tweaks to it, then 1 of the changes (maybe the only change) would be to ensure the 4 NC schools play each other every year plus still protect 1 non-NC rivalry for each of the 4 schools; UNC-UVA, NC State-Clemson, Duke-UVA (I kid...I think), and Wake-VT (Fredo Part Deux?). In all seriousness, I will be curious to see just how 'happy' the 14 football schools will be at the end of the first cycle vs. cracks start to form because more schools are disgruntled about sacrificing rivalries that they deem to be 'important.'