The benefits of an eight-game ACC schedule
The ACC has gone back and forth on the issue, but it seems like now there is a consensus that the conference should stick to an eight-game football schedule. This makes the most sense for the ACC from a standpoint of history, money and football.
The driving force behind the initial flirtation with nine games was leveraging that extra game as a tool to get more money out of ESPN. But Notre Dame, the Grant of Rights and the ACC Network have given the conference multiple triggers to expand the TV deal. Adding another game now doesn't make sense. It is one of the conference's last cards to play, so it should be saved for when there might be another need to re-open the TV deal.
Although BC doesn't benefit directly from this, I like that the eight-game schedule allows ACC teams to keep their non-conference rivalries. Games like Louisville-Kentucky, Georgia-Georgia Tech and Florida State-Florida would be less likely if the ACC only had three non-conference games a season. Those games could still be in jeopardy if the SEC expands to nine-conference games, but for now those intersectional games are safe. And playing those games is good for the conference. It gets fans excited and allows us to change the perception of the league (assuming we start winning some of the contests).
Finally this is good for BC football (and the ACC). We know games against the FCS are not going away. We also know that schedule fodder like New Mexico State is not going away. Those games are too important financially and those two wins are critical to perception and bowl eligibility. A ninth ACC game would have left BC with just one non-conference game of note. Eight games allow us to play at least two interesting games. My preferred mix is one peer school (Northwestern, Vanderbilt, etc) and one traditional power (Ohio State, USC, etc.). With eight games that can still happen.