because I had developed a formula that would allow the ACC to keep the divisions, keep the 1 protected cross-division game, and still be able to play the remaining 6 teams in the other division home and away 1 time within a 4-year window. Now that the ACC has expanded beyond 14, I am still in favor of the idea. Although the formula won't be as clean as before. Also, I am not sure the math works for 17 teams play 10 conference games every year without sacrificing something (i.e. annual rivalry game). Another reason why I wasn't in favor of the ACC-Notre Dame deal. Either football or basketball was going to have an odd number of teams, which could be problematic for scheduling purposes, unless the ACC was willing to add another partial member to make the number even.

need to sacrifice 1 of its spots in the "4" group in order for the rotating group of "6" to work. As a result, it could lead to an increase in "forced rivalries" (aka VT's "Godfather" rivalry with Fredo) in lieu of having more "natural rivalries." Plus, that could lead to more unbalanced groups of 6 when you consider the ACC (minus SMU) is already set up with "natural pairings" to ensure each group of 6 has a representative (if possible). Natural Pairings Fredo - Syracuse Pitt - L'ville (aka Ohio River Valley Rivalry) UVA - VT Duke - Wake UNC - NC State Clemson - GT FSU - Miami Cal - Stanford SMU - ???? Depending on the team's 4 protected games and the impact that has on the pairings, VT could end up with both FL schools in 1 group instead of having a FL school in each group. Likewise, VT could end up with 3 NC schools in 1 group instead of 2 in each group. Where that could matter is by having 2 NC schools in a group, VT could always play 1 at home and 1 away in a given year. In some ways that was the beauty of the formula I had created because I could factor in the 6 division games when factoring in potential pairings for the other 6 teams in the division. For example, because GT and Miami were in VT's divisions, I could pair Clemson and FSU together. By doing that I could manipulate the schedule so VT would always play Clemson or FSU at the opposite venue of wherever they were scheduled to play GT (for Clemson) or Miami (for FSU) for that year. It basically guaranteed that VT or most of the other schools should never play Clemson/GT or FSU/Miami both at home or away in the same season. Likewise, the 4 NC schools were always guaranteed to play 2 other NC schools every year and the third NC school every other year. Also, that third NC school would be paired with UVA or VT, which ever VA school wasn't in their division, and still set it up so they played 1 VA at home and 1 VA away in the years they don't play the third NC school. Basically the goal I established for this meaningless exercise was to accomplish 2 things: 1. Create a schedule for every ACC school that would allow them to always play at least 1 team from a state or region (think Clemson/GT, OH River Valley Rivalry, or Fredo/Syracuse) every year. 2. If teams play 2 teams from the same state/region, then they will always play 1 at home and 1 away.

The below data is average tv viewership for regular season games over the past 5 years (2021-2025). It is an average across all teams within each conference (IND=Notre Dame). The SEC and Big Ten clearly get a higher average viewership for their conference games (blue bars) vs their OOC games (red bars). The ACC and B12 clearly get a higher average viewership for their OOC games (red bars) vs their conference games (blue bars). More conference games does not help the ACC schools. It might help the conference with their media partners, but it does not help the individual schools because it limits their ability to go schedule higher viewership OOC games.

those number could be skewed depending on the OOC opponents. Maybe you're AI can do a little deeper search than just raw numbers.

fits the definition of "lies, damn lies and statistics" to a T. Without more context and detail it would be easy to misinterpret and/or misrepresent their meaning.

Regular season games Five year period (2021-2025) Games for which we have publicly known viewership data Clearly marked OOC vs Conference games Clearly marked aggregate data for an entire conference All data is at the same level (1,000 on the chart is equal to 1 million viewers) Please do share what more would make you and others trust this data. I am genuinely curious.

made for TV games, game times, networks broadcasting, to name just a few. One more thing, my apology as it was not my intention to infer you had bias or ulterior motives. It was merely to say that data without context leaves a wide latitude for interpretation. ** Edited by 2hhoop3 at 5/27/2026, 2:55:53 PM

Made for TV is a subjective thing. But I do have whether it was a true home/away game or if it was a neutral site game. So yeah, I've got all of that. It's just a matter of applying the filters and generating the tables and charts. The trick is not making it too busy with too much detail. But it is all available in my data and can be used.

too busy can be no better than, maybe worse than, too vague. It will be interesting to watch for responses by the Big 12 trolls that frequent this board and assert the superiority of Big 12 TV numbers compared to the ACC. I think we can all agree viewership can be affected by many factors, not the least of which are time, day and network.

not produce those numbers out of their backside, as we all have access to the same information. A 5 year average goes a long wat to be statistically a accurate, don't you think? Do you think you can be more specific about those "many" factors. We could start with how the ND games inflate the ACC's average.

which you never do, you would note ND is separately presented in the graph above and not included in the ACC numbers that STILL eclipse the Big 12 numbers and directly refute the idiotic assertions and flawed reasoning of you and your ilk that choose to cherry pick partial data from unreliable sources. Better luck next time troll.

know of has commented on the numbers above. That's your first clue. There is no cherry picking, the numbers are the numbers - second clue Unreliable sources you say? How about you take the time, and post the numbers from your so called reliable sources. I don't think you have such numbers to post, nor do I think you have so called "reliable sources" for anything you post. All you have is a narrative, and never back up ANY of your claims with data - like EVER. ** Edited by Big12 guy at 5/27/2026, 9:25:37 PM

including you, can refute the numbers above and that is just one of my reliable source . Several, including you, have tried to spin numbers from cherry picked data and failed miserably when challenged. I back up what I say unlike you and that is the source of your frustration as you are never able to effectively challenge anything, just like your posts I have responded to in this thread. You can't even deflect without showing your ignorance for all to read.

graphs on this very board to back up my assertions. You know, backing them up with facts, not opinions. AL's numbers are trustworthy, and I certainly con not refute them, but that has noting to do with my original response - nothing. Talk about deflections, and from experience, you are certainly better than that than I am, as I have no agenda here. You back up your assertions with more assertions, NEVER with a link to ANY reliable source - like EVER. All you are is an argument, period, nothing else.

no one who is an argument, period, and nothing else generates my posting history or survives as long on any message board. Your history here says a lot about your agenda here and your ability, inability, to back up your assertions and your responses in this thread are just the latest evidence.

That is up for interpretation. My intentions, and why I find this board interesting is not. Im not here for an argument. The B12 and/or the ACC may not exist 10 years from now, and where this lands no one knows. While the biases from both perspectives may be real, a lor of that is based on emotion, and wanting your school to have a chair when the music stops. The different perspectives of the VT community - and their biases I find interesting and engaging. So shoot the messenger if you must, but I'd rather engage on the message whether I amd right or wrong.

If you want details, here you go. ACC and B12 conference and OOC games average 5 year viewership by specific opponents within each of the P4 conferences + Notre Dame. At the bottom of each chart you will see the aggregate conference game average for reference. If there is a blank (like B12 vs Florida), it means we know a game was on a main or secondary channel, but no viewership data was publicly reported (this is often the case for secondary channels like ESPN News). And as a reminder, you will not find this collection of data anywhere else. My intent in creating it and sharing it is to provide information. There is no bias, no agenda, just data that can be interpreted. It's probably time for me to start adding some more articles to my substack with different data views. ** Edited by HokieAl at 5/27/2026, 2:38:21 PM

agenda. And I think you know my position on AI. That being said, thanks.

It's not AI as artificial intelligence. And I've had my name since 99 I think. Actually I think my email use of it goes back to 95

Al and AI.

I support going to a 10 game conference schedule if it means eliminating games like VMI, Liberty, JMU and ODU. But why do I doubt that would happen. And with the SEC and Big 10 going to 10 games, good P4 OOC games will get more difficult to schedule and afford.

Win? ACC opponent, ACC is weak, "bad" win. Lose? ACC opponent, ACC is weak, you're out of the conversation. What's not to love!

If the P4 switches to a 10-game schedule, ND will have even more difficulty scheduling SEC and Big Ten games. So either (1) they’ll play more ACC (or B12) games, or (2) they’ll decide to join the Big Ten as early as 2030 in my opinion.

why should they start now?

games as possible. Plus, an odd number is dumb because then there is an imbalance in home and away conference games.

Realistically that's no longer an option. So yes, more conference games. Five home, five away, sounds good. I also want to keep a conference championship game. Being in a conference should mean something. If you take away the conference championship game, and it takes 5 or 6 years or more to play everybody in your conference at least once. What good is a conference.

we found a way to screw up something damn near perfect - a world of conferences with 8 to 10 schools playing each other every year in football and home and away in hoops. what is the least bad choice left- I guess playing 10 conference games, but it will probably come at the expense of P4 OOC games more then getting the home ticket gate with a couple of lame games. So even that has issues for the fans.

afraid those days are behind us forever - money is the issue. Since money is the issue, go to 24 playoff teams, and schedule the tough non conference games. No casual fan want to tune into a Cincy Baylor game unless they are both ranked, have playoff implications, or just happens to be an entertaining game because all of the other games on at the same time are blowouts. Who wants that? By going to 24, scheduling tough OOC conference games that people want to see becomes easier, because that loss would not disqualify you from making the playoffs. As an example, have VT schedule TT. Schedule KU against Duke or UNC for those basketball junkie casual fan. It would also make it easier for a Tennessee to schedule VT, as that loss is not devastating for either school as it pertains to the playoffs. At a 24 playoff format, it makes it easier for the P2 +2 to schedule OOC games the people want to see, that will increase ratings, and those ratings numbers could give the conferences more leverage as these media deals get reshuffled every 5 years or so. There would be no disadvantage for the SEC schools to schedule VT more often, and vice versa. There are a lot of rivalries that have been turned upside down because of realignment, and those could be fully reengaged if it doesn't kill your playoff aspirations - which is now the goal in football. Winning the conference means nothing unless it effects the seedings an/or home games in the first round - and any conference can make the higher ranked school the champion if there is a tie. Instead of 10 conference games, go to 8, and reward those that schedule the tough games OOC. (just my 2 cents). Allow up to 2 games a season for a G6, especially instate ones across the board, and eliminate FCS games all together.

You've got a lot to learn about SEC schools' attitudes towards scheduling VT, ESPECIALLY Tennessee. Tennessee would schedule Sewanee for a home and home before they scheduled VT.

playing in Bristol every year, with the schools getting extra money? If Duke can do it, others can as well.

The track owner, who wanted the game for over a decade, had to do a lot of demolition in the infield, plus truck in tons of dirt, and sod. He wouldn't do that on a regular basis. Also, fans would start staying away. Horrible place to see a game. I was there. I did it because of it being an event, a thing. I knew before hand I wouldn't be able to see crap on the field. Any future games in Bristol and I'd stay home and watch the game.

make all kinds of concessions to Tennessee. It was treated as a Tennessee home game, with Tennessee announcers, Tennessee stadium announcers, fireworks for Tennessee scores only, etc., and, IIRC, Tennessee got a much larger guaranteed pay day to do it. Neutral site only scheduling deals are BS. If anything, they should be a sweetener for a home and home that benefits both schools (i.e., a 3 game deal where each program gets a home game and a neutral site game in an appropriate major metro where proceeds are evenly split.) Even though they're 1-1 this century, and 6-3 all time with 5 of those games played pre-1940, Tennessee does not see VT as a border rival. They see VT as dollar store interlopers on their territory, stealing customers that by all rights should be theirs. They have never played and will never play in Lane Stadium unless they are forced to do so as part of the CFP format. Because VT has been, for all practical purposes, relegated into a lower-tier ACC, what everyone here is going to find out very quickly is that, outside of the very bottom tier in those conferences on occasion, no Big 10 or SEC programs are going to schedule them OOC if doing so means having to play a game in Lane Stadium. ** Edited by Baltimore_Hokie at 5/26/2026, 12:32:40 PM

As you said money is the issue. More conference games mean more money for the SEC and the B10. That's not necessarily true for the ACC and the B12 but they will follow if the P2 move first.

schedule a bunch of play-in games the same weekend as the conference championship games. No one that makes the CFP should be idle on conference championship weekend. Period. Then, do a 16-team playoff consisting of conference champions, some at-large conference runners-ups (losers n championship games), and winners on the play-in games. This would have 30-plus teams playing conference championship weekend and people would be glued to the coverage.

They used to be a must-see event in the pre-BCS era, the BCS era, and even the 4 team CFP era. But, at this point, they are nothing but a relic of the pre-mega expansion CFP. There's zero reason to have them now, except for what is usually the worst reason to keep doing something that no longer makes any sense: "we've been doing it that way for a long time." This is especially so when it comes to the P2, where both participants are 100% already in the CFP field. But, it doesn't even make sense for the ACC - most recently, Duke and UVA played in an ACC Championship game nobody watched while the ACC's best team and only CFP participant was idle. It's a farce to even stage the championship games at this point.