clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

ACC Conference Title Game Restrictions Going Away, Three Divisions a Possibility

New, 25 comments

Which raises the question...why bother having divisions at all?

Bob Donnan-USA TODAY Sports

CBSSports.com reported today that legislation allowing for the deregulation of conference championship games is now expected to be passed by 2016.

For all of the P5 conferences, this means that you no longer must have at least 12 teams to hold a championship game (Hi, Big 12).

For the ACC, it means that you will no longer have to have the winner of one division play the winner of another division. Instead, you can simply put the two best teams head-to-head regardless of division (We'll call it the FSU vs. Clemson Rule).

Not a big surprise as this something the ACC has been pushing for for a long time. The league fears the idea of a No. 1 FSU getting upset by a three-loss Coastal team in the ACC Championship Game, thereby robbing the conference of a spot in the four-team playoff or taking away a coveted top-tier bowl spot.

The really interesting bit in the story is the mention that the ACC might consider going to a three-division format for football.

I mean...I guess? It's weird that in one fell swoop you would move to make the entire divisional format meaningless and then decide that the best plan of action is to split the conference further into three divisions. I'm not entirely sure what that accomplishes.

If anything, doesn't this mean we should do away with divisions altogether? If there's no value in winning a division, what's the point of having one? Scheduling? You can create schedules without divisions in place. That's easy.

SBNation took a stab at trying out what a three-division ACC looks like. They ended up putting the Syracuse Orange in a five-team former Big East group that includes Boston College, Pitt, Notre Dame and Miami. It makes sense to lump SU, BC, Pitt and Notre Dame together, though I would imagine you could swap Louisville for Miami and get the same effect. As BCI posits, you could even use this as an impetus to add UConn to the mix if Notre Dame didn't want to be a part of this silliness.

And then I remember, IT WOULDN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT'S IRRELEVANT WHO IS IN YOUR DIVISION WHEN WINNING THE DIVISION MEANS NOTHING.

Anyway, the article was quick to point out that all of these divisional changes might not even happen. The only difference is that now they can happen. I'm just not sure why you'd bother.

How about you? Do you prefer the idea of three divisions? Would you want Syracuse to be in a regional division, a "Big East" division or just a random division? Or should they just keep it as-is and take the two best teams to play for the ACC Championship regardless of division?

Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't add this nugget from Big 12 commish Bob Bowlsby...

Sure you want to be making that analogy, Bob?