Starting in 2024, the ACC will have 17 teams that span from California, Texas, Florida, and Massachusetts. The additions of Cal, Stanford, and SMU force the league to rethink its scheduling model, including the rivalries it protects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We will know those protected rivalries this Monday when the league reveals the matchups for its 2024 through 2030 seasons. What we know of the new format so far is that it will be based around a seven-year scheduling model and that none of the current 14 schools will travel to the state of California more than three times in one full seven-year cycle<\/a>. There is smoke around the likelihood of the league employing a Flex Protect model like the Big Ten has announced for its 18-team future, protecting select rivalries without mandating a quantity for each program. Some schools might have multiple annual adversaries, while others might have none.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given the direction the sport is headed and conferences often copying and pasting whatever the others are doing when it comes to their schedules, it seems probable to me that this will be the new reality in the ACC, and it begs a major question: what rivalries should the ACC protect?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 17-team ACC will be a hodge-podge of long-term members who have been around since the 1970s and beyond, former Big East schools, three newcomers not located anywhere near anyone else, and Florida State. Teams will want games in the fertile recruiting grounds of California and Texas while still playing the familiar foes they\u2019ve competed with for generations. Determining which rivalries to salvage is a tightrope the league must walk carefully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To make the conference\u2019s decision easier, I am listing out all the pairing they could consider prioritizing into three tiers: \u201cYou Have No Choice,\u201d \u201cYou Probably Should,\u201d and \u201cMaybe.\u201d You\u2019re welcome in advance, ACC officials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n