Here's some of the latest on ACC scheduling. Some of the posts in the comments section may be interesting as well.http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.co ... e-support/
A cooperative scheduling agreement with the SEC could work, but only partially.
Assuming Clemson (SC), FSU (UF), GT (UGA), and L'ville (UK) keep their rivalries for this. Add in Vandy (who play WFU regularly). That accounts for 5.
To go further and hypothetically, with some reasoning, say UNC schedules U. Tenn (from a contiguous state). That is 6. Add Auburn to play Miami (went to one of those games at Auburn years ago before Miami got strong). That is 7. To go even further, say, NC State agrees to play Miss. State, and Ole Miss agrees to play Duke. That's 8 and 9. And suppose, VPI would be connected to Tenn. (if UNC had another), or Alabama, or Arkansas. That would be 10. UVA could be connected to Arkansas, if available, or a switch with one of the Mississippi schools. That's 11.
Even if some of the above are big stretches, it get's more problematic:
Who could Pitt, Syracuse, and BC connect to in the SEC? Would LSU want to play any of those on a regular basis?
Would Arkansas or Alabama really want an ACC regular?
If Texas A&M resumes the rivalry with Texas, would TA&M be agreeable or even open to play a regular ACC game? TeA&M already has So. Car. (far east of the SEC) scheduled as the new regular divisional cross-over.
What if Mizzou and Kansas agree to renew their rivalry? Mizzou already goes east/southeast for their divisional games.
There's the basic problem of top to bottom matchups with the SEC. There is a significant plurality of SEC strong teams compared to what the ACC currently delivers.
I actually like the idea of a power conference scheduling top to bottom game matchups with another conference. The failed PAC12--B1G plan was an earlier effort for the idea. However for the ACC, maybe do what they can with the SEC given there is already some foundation for it. And maybe for those ACC schools (particularly in the north) whereby finding SEC opponents would be particularly difficult, look individually for those +1 matchups from other conferences (particularly the expanded B1G). Pitt could "try" to do something with WVU or Penn State or another. Syracuse or BC could try for Rutgers, for example. Given some time and once the lawsuits are settled and anger subsides, Maryland could be willing to play an ACC school regularly.
For the SEC, certain B12 schools would be better +1 matchups for Texas A&M, Mizzou, Arkansas, LSU, and maybe Miss. State, Ole Miss., and Alabama.
Playing 9 power conference schools, in conference and/or with an OOC, sounds reasonable for every school in a power conference. Also, allowing a school to schedule 2 or 3 games, with whomever, to fit their individual needs, should be reasonable as well. So, playing a couple of games with FBS non-power conferences schools or having a game with a FCS school, if desired, could be accommodated. Major schools want those 7 home games. Schedule power-ratings remain so each has to consider that.
Pitt complaining, when they canceled with WVU and lost playing Penn State regularly, shouldn't garner a lot of sympathy.
Similarly, Syracuse wants more home visits from preferred competition that they could not achieve otherwise without a 9 conference game mandate.
And, the Notre Dame scheduling factor continues to be cited as being a complication.
ACC wanted old Big East schools with special Notre Dame arrangements. They brought aboard their issues as well.
The SEC may not help the ACC fix it. Too many of the SEC schools may balk.