Talk:Atlantic Coast Conference

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sort order of member list[edit]

Since the Atlantic and Coastal divisions exist for football only, shouldn't the member list present all members in a single, alphabetical list? —C.Fred (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The divisions are actually used for baseball too. Some other conference pages split member lists even though they too are only use divisions for a few of the sports, so I don't think it matters either way. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NERD VANDALISM!! "Einstein/Hawkings Bowl"... Cute!! :-p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.59.247 (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes[edit]

There are an excessive number of navboxes at the bottom of this article. I think the article would be best served by removing all but the top-level boxes (ACC Members & FBS Members). If there aren't any objections, I'll get to this. MTR (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's done MTR (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Championships[edit]

Thanks for clarification. I knew they had more listed, but I see NCAA Championships is different than National Championships. Dgreco

The '24 Basketball Championship is not an "NCAA Championship" and should not be reflected as such as doing so demeans the accomplishments of Rosenbluth, Quigg, Jordan, Smith, Williams, et. al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.49.100 (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current champion for men's basketball[edit]

Yes, technically North Carolina is the defending champion, since they won the 2008 tournament. However, it seems skewed to list that in the 2009 champion table. It seems to make the most sense to leave the spot blank until Sunday, when the 2009 conference champion is determined. Is there a good reason to list otherwise? —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all. Why would you have a current champion field blank when there is always going to be a current champion for every sport. The only purpose of having a current champions section is so a reader will be able to know who the current champion is. Leaving the field black gives the reader no useful information at all. When the new champion is crowned in a week is the appropriate time to change that. You can change it then. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the table to clarify that they are the 2008 champion, then. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only non-geographic divisioning?[edit]

This sentence was newly added to the article:

The ACC is the only NCAA Division I conference whose divisions are not divided geographically (North/South, East/West).

It originally asserted "only NCAA conference"; I added the text "Division I", because there is a D-III conference that uses non-geographic division names. However, my source for this information is searching football, basketball, and hockey standings tables - i.e., original research. Has anybody seen this assertion in print? —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duke actually has 12 championships[edit]

in addition to the basketball championship won yesterday, they won a national championship in platform Diving last week.

source - http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=27943&SPID=2182&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=204918139 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.91.130 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an individual title in diving, though, as opposed to a team title. Duke finished 18th in the team competition. —C.Fred (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we have excluded other individual titles in the past. For men's swimming alone, if we add individual titles, it will inflate the counts by 27 for Miami, 7 for NC State, 6 for Florida State, 4 for North Carolina, 3 for Virginia, and 1 for Georgia Tech, exclusive of their performances in 2010. [1] —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Championship Tally?[edit]

I thought it would be a good idea to add another table to the Current Champions section showing the number of championships each school has won during the current academic year. But I wasn't sure if that was forbidden for some reason, so I thought I'd ask here. Just seemed like the kind of thing people would be interested in, and the current format doesn't allow you to really easily count them up yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.250.151 (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map Change[edit]

Can anyone make a change to the map and make it simpler and easy to Understand. I recommend making it similar to the Big Ten's map on wikipedia. All one color for the states that have ACC teams. Then use three different color dots where the actual universities are located. One color signifying the "Atlantic Division" and one color signifying the "Coastal Division" and a third for Pittsburgh and Syracuse signifying "To Be Determined". I don't know how much work this is but who ever has done the other conferences does a great job (I just wish the ACC map was easier to read. I hope this helps.--Craiglduncan (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Given the uncertainty about the date of entry for Pitt and Syracuse, should they be listed on the timeline at all yet? —C.Fred (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing certain about the date is that it hasn't been announced. It cannot be verified in reliable sources, so it should not be in the article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 teams are going to join, and they are definitely joining by 2014 according to all the sources I've seen. It could happen earlier, but right now reliable sources say the big east plans to force them to stay until 2014, so 2014 is the current join date. If that changes and they get permission to move sooner, then we can always change the article then. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "2014 is the current join date" is an assumption without Pitt, Syracuse, or the ACC stating when the teams will join. It may very well be a good assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Also, the only place I can find talk of 2014 is in newspaper and magazine blogs, which may or may not fall under the editorial control of their parent, and thus not be reliable sources. At any rate, adding them to the timeline with a specific date that cannot be verified and may or may not be true is misleading. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 21:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article from the New York Times, Big East commissioner John Marinatto will not allow Pittsburgh and Syracuse to leave until June 2014. Even though he's said that, it still doesn't necessarily mean that it's "final." The Big East could still decide to negotiate an earlier departure for the teams, especially if they lose more schools (presumably West Virginia and Louisville) and just decide to give up on sponsoring football as a conference sport. I suppose Pitt and Syracuse could be put back into the timeline, but it probably makes more sense to just leave it as is until this round of realignment is "finished." There's already a section about "future members" so it's not as if we are missing information by not having them in the timeline. Mdak06 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It makes most sense to add Pitt and Syracuse to timeline. The chart should contain them in some form or fashion, they are confirmed future ACC members. Also the chart should reflect and match "future members" section.Dexmadden (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my reasoning. I WAS missing information by not having Pitt and Syracuse in the timeline, when I initially hit this page expressly looking for the timeline as a reference point to recent changes. I was comparing timelines of the major conferences' wikipedia pages, a quick concise visual way to get a handle on the tectonic plate upheavals of conference memberships. I think confirmed future members should be on timeline, a timeline necessarily shows past through known future regardless of whether the entry point in time is not 100% confirmed Dexmadden (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there is no definite date for them to enter. In a regular table (like the one we have just above the timeline) it's possible to say "TBA", but on the timeline, the line has to start somewhere, and that somewhere hasn't been determined yet. Per WP:CRYSTAL we do not predict the future. Nobody is denying that they will join; it is mentioned in at least 4 places in the article. Plus, there's already an article for an overview of the changes (2010–11 NCAA conference realignment) that is linked in the "Future members" section. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Date is not definite, but it will be no later than 2014. Understood limitations of chart labeling, but an asterisk or other notation near the school names could explain the possibility of it being earlier than 2014. Dexmadden (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring/Endowments[edit]

Please stop edit warring. If you don't like another editor reverting your input, the appropriate response is not to simply revert it back, but to take your case to this talk page per WP:BRD. Doing it that way seems like vandalism. Also, please, anyone who reverts edits should put a reason why in their edit summary. Even if it is somewhat obvious why, it would still be helpful to put something there even if it is just for vandalism. As far as the input of the Endowments in a separate table, I really don't think that is needed. Partly since the article is primarily about an athletic conference and because the info was already there. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACC geography[edit]

Currently, the infobox uses this information for the ACC's regions:

South Atlantic (11 schools)
New England (1 school)
Mid-Atlantic (2 schools in 2014)

I do not agree with these definitions. I have lived most of my life in Maryland and I have always heard it referred to as a mid-Atlantic state. The state of Virginia is also considered mid-Atlantic most of the time. Even North Carolina is considered mid-Atlantic by some folks. The only time I hear Maryland referred to as "south" is when someone is distinguishing the south from the north (and not calling anything mid-Atlantic).

I'm aware that the US Census' "South Atlantic" area includes Maryland, Delaware and Virginia, but that doesn't mean we have to use that definition. If you say to someone in Georgia that Maryland is "south Atlantic" they'll laugh at you.

I propose we either use these regions:

Southeastern U.S. (8 schools)
Mid-Atlantic (3 schools; 5 schools in 2014)
New England (1 school)

... or just go back to using the "East Coast of the United States" for the entire group. Calling Maryland "south Atlantic" is something that many people will disagree with. Mdak06 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Maryland is usually considered mid-atlantic, but I do not agree that Virginia is. Northern Virginia near DC often is, but southern Virginia is usually considered Southern, especially in Blacksburg where VT is located. Maybe you could argue UVA should be counted as mid-atlantic, but if we are not breaking up states, I'd count Virginia as a southern state. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe the simplest option is to just use the two major regions used by the USCB - the "South" (which includes the 11 schools from Miami to Maryland) and the "Northeast" (which includes BC and the two newcomers). I plan to make this change unless I hear some objections as to why it shouldn't be done. Mdak06 (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat Male Athlete of the Year[edit]

Three (2.5) ACC basketball players repeated as ACC Athlete of the Year according to the unsourced article. However, that means that Christian Laettner and Phil Ford were overall ACC AOY more than they were the Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year. That does not make sense. Charlie Ward is the third guy. I'd appreciate assistance from anyone that knows a source for this award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to make timelines more consistent[edit]

I noticed that conferences in List of NCAA conferences have articles, usually including a membership timeline. While some of the decisions made for each conference make some sense, there is a wide variety of styles for the various timelines, particularly involving color choices, but also other matters of style that could be more consistent.

for example, a school with a yellow bar means:

  • An associate member in one sport (if part of the BE)
  • A former member of the conference (in the SEC)
  • A future member of the conference (in the SEC and Big West)
  • A football only member (in the Sun Belt)
  • A team that has moved to another conference (in the WAC, NEC)
  • A full member of the Big Sky


Some graphs have captions, some do not, and none are centered. To see the variety of styles, review Current conference timelines

I think it would be worth discussing how best to provide some measure of consistency, recognizing that there may be legitimate reasons for some differences from a standard presentation (for example, some conferences show the name of the new conference for former members. In some cases, this makes sense, in other, it may not.)

I've produced a draft of how the timelines would look with some consistency added. Please see Draft proposal of conference timelines.

I propose a discussion to see if there is consensus on improving the consistency.

Because it would not be practical to have this discussion on each and every conference talk page, I suggest centralizing thie discussion at the Talk page of Project College football SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standardize facility sections[edit]

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball#Standardize conference pages' facility sections.

Color of ACC Map is Confusing[edit]

Hi, I am wondering if it would better serve the average person going to this pagee if all the states that had ACC Schools were put in same Uniform Color instead of four separate colors for each division, both division & future members. You see the ACC actually sponsors a total of 25 sports. Only 2 even have divisions while 23 of the 25 sports do not separate into Divisions.

That sounds fine to me. I'd still set New York and Pennsylvania as different colors because the schools in those states are not current members. Having the current 12 schools/states use the same color scheme works for me. It also might be worth noting on the other map that the divisions are for only football and baseball (I don't think a change to the second map is warranted). I think that a quick note in the caption of that map would be sufficient. Mdak06 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your thinking. Keep New York and Pennsylvania purple until July 1, 2013. I also think the second map is perfect as is. Do you know who can make the change to the map?--Craiglduncan (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a shot, although I'm not too familiar with handling images on Wikipedia. Time for me to learn. Mdak06 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about overview maps for US collegiate athletic conferences[edit]

A discussion on the Project College Football talk page has been created to discuss the proper format of the overview maps that are used for the US collegiate athletic conference pages.

If you're interested, please join the discussion here: Athletic conference overview maps and their lack of consistency

School logos[edit]

I see this article was recently revised to include all the schools' logos. My understanding is that Wikipedia policies require a fair use statement for each because they're subject to copyright and trademark protection, and my review of the logos indicates this wasn't done. Someone needs to prepare the appropriate statements or else the logos probably need to be deleted. My gut feeling is that they're unnecessary in this article, but I didn't want to jump in and delete them in case someone has the fair use rationales in mind and plans to deal with that issue. I'll give it until Wednesday (March 27) to see whether the deficiency is fixed. 1995hoo (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their addition is in violation of WP:NFC, specifically WP:NFG. Fair use statements won't fix it. They're all going to be reverted...same issue on Big Ten and SEC articles as well. All are in violation of well-established Wikipedia guidelines and policies. CrazyPaco (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I won't worry about it in view of your comment, then. It struck me as a well-intended effort that was ill-advised at best, which is why I opted to raise it here instead of just reverting straightaway. 1995hoo (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of removing it from all three articles based on the policy you cite, which is plenty clear. 1995hoo (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update of current champions?[edit]

What's the timetable for updating the current champions table? It's set up for Spring 2012, but Spring 2013 championships are starting to be awarded: NC State won the softball championship today. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination of divisions in member list[edit]

In the Member schools section, members are currently broken down by Atlantic and Coastal divisions, with Notre Dame listed as a non-football member. This leads to inconstancies since divisions are also used for baseball, for which ND will be assigned to the Atlantic, as well as the fact that all other sports compete in one division, including basketball. It also has the added benefit of making the table sortable. Therefore, I'm going to remove the division and alphabetize members ala the manner in which they are listed in the Big Ten article, as one cohesive list. Divisions can then be listed, as appropriate, under each applicable sport subtopic. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College Basketball Team Navboxes[edit]

Please join discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to have two tables of academic measures?[edit]

I don't think so. The added table is duplicative with the SAT scores. I'm not sure why Freshman retention rate or graduation rate get highlighted over a myriad of other metrics. And I am lost as to why there are comparisons to the other P5 conferences, since the conferences don't really have anything to do with these metrics. The public ivy statement is also misleading. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of "Schools ranked by academic measures" sections within Conference Articles[edit]

This section now exists in multiple conference articles. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football to help improve this content. UW Dawgs (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

populations in "Current members" chart[edit]

Are the populations necessary (or follow a necessary custom for charts like this)? If the point of putting the populations on the chart is to show comparative potential fan bases, the population of Coral Gables hardly reflects the population of nearby Miami (which the Univ. of Miami is named after), and Chestnut Hill's population is dwarfed by Boston (which Boston College is named after). NewkirkPlaza (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Atlantic Coast Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Atlantic Coast Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlantic Coast Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Atlantic Coast Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Atlantic Coast Conference. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACC nominated for deletion[edit]

Weigh in at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Atlantic Coast Conference. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Boxes?[edit]

Maybe I missed it in a key somewhere but what do the shaded green boxes signify in the tables for Men’s and Women’s Sports offered by each school? 108.17.133.84 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Capital One Cup[edit]

The Capital One Cup article says Notre Dame won the men's cup for 2022. Do we have a full table and, more importantly, a source so we can add it here? —C.Fred (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Membership Map doesn't show Cal or Stanford (but does show SMU)[edit]

It looks like the Membership Map has been updated to included SMU, Cal and Stanford with "in 2024" notation, but Cal and Stanford are not showing up on the map itself (even though they were included in the map update).

Is there an error in the updated text for the Membership Map, or is there a limitation that only 16 points can be listed on the map? If someone knows how to fix this map, it would be appreciated. Peter-T (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be a limitation – the template's documentation says up to 60 markers are supported – but the last two only appear when you go into fullscreen mode. Very strange. This map has some other limitations (having to cross-reference 16 different numbers is not ideal), so I'm going to look into other ways we could implement it... –IagoQnsi (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been more difficult than I thought. I tried making a new map with {{Location map many}}; problem is, the Tobacco Road teams are too close together, and the template doesn't give enough control over how the labels are placed – they all ended up on top of each other. I tried using a second inset map of just North Carolina, but that doesn't seem great either (especially since there's no way to actually inset it). Putting my map here just for curiosity's sake; gonna look for a different approach... –IagoQnsi (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IagoQnsi's failed first map attempts

I never bothered to add most of the schools because I ran into the Tobacco Road issues first. Here's the first try, with all the labels on top of each other:

And here's the second try, with a separate map for North Carolina:

Atlantic Coast Conference is located in the United States
Clemson
Four teams (see inset)
Virginia
Alright, I went ahead and created a new SVG map: File:Atlantic Coast Conference member map 2023-24.svg. It's not perfect and I welcome any edits to make it look nicer, but it's functional enough that I went ahead and added it to the article. –IagoQnsi (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template for new future schedule format[edit]

Since there is now a variable schedule for the future, I am putting this template here and in some of the team talk pages so fans can input their future schedules. The vertical format used for non-conference schedules was almost impossible to edit because there was no year included in the body of the table. This horizontal format shows all games in a given year in order. Have fun with the input.

Future opponents[edit]

Year Non-conference opponents ACC home games ACC away games
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037



Information is available at: https://theacc.com/news/2023/10/30/acc-announces-future-conference-football-schedule-model.aspx and at FBS Schedules.com Deanrah (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Atlantic_Coast_Conference&oldid=1205463674"