The ACC and B1G Come Up With a 'Solution' to Scheduling Issues. It's Weird

First, it was not being able to count. Now, the B1G is losing the ability to distinguish between conference games and non-conference games. And it's bringing the ACC along with it.

As SBN notes, it's not like this idea hasn't been floated before -- in the SEC, no less. But it's never made a ton of sense to me (except for people looking for some reason to break up the interdivision rivalries, because #notfair or something). The ACC has some unique concerns that led to this, but mostly because their divisions do not conform to geography or the dictates of human logic.

(I'm not sure I buy the "no one will play us" argument as a reason to do this. All the Power 5 conferences seem to be moving toward requiring at least one non-conference game against a Power 5 team each year, and the Pac-12 is always willing to show how great they are by traveling out of state, so a team can find opponents if it wants to.)

But there are a couple of issues. One is unlikely to happen, but could -- what if teams from different divisions meet once on the regular rotation, again in a non-conference game and again in the conference championship game? Is it now a best-of-three setup? You can fix that with a rule -- you can't play a team you would otherwise play on the conference schedule -- but then you're back to the supposed problems with find a non-conference foe.

More seriously: What does this do for the fans? With the possible exception of something like Duke-N.C. State, not a whole lot. The reason most fans want more serious non-conference opponents, I would wager, is the chance to see their teams play quality opponents that they don't face regularly. Less Florida State-Kansas, to use SBN's choice, and more Florida State-Ohio State. Then again, who said that conference commissioners are worried about the fans anymore?