ACC Divisions: Why They Rot and Why Expansion Might Be the Only Answer

The great scheme to create a Pac-16 has failed. Instead, there is a 12-Pac. As odd as it may sound, initially, the Pac-16 would have had fewer problems scheduling than will the 12-Pac.

That can be most easily seen by thinking about divisions. The Pac-16 would have had a pair of natural divisions: the eight schools truly on the Pacific Coast, and the eight not on the Pacific Coast. But the 12-Pac has no such obvious divisions.

Ted Miller addresses the problem for ESPN: http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/10588/a-conference-divided-what-will-pac-10-divisions-look-like . 

This is his assessment of the 12-Pac going North/South: "It makes regional sense. It maintains travel partners. Further —and this is more important than some might think —as divisional 'brands,' North and South are easy to figure out. A person in, say, Maine would immediately be able to name which Pac-12 team is in which division. Or put it this way: Name the six teams in the ACC's 'Coastal' division. Understand?"

There is no doubt that the ACC divisions are awful.

Miller is merely one in a long line of sports journalists to highlight the fact that the ACC divisions make no sense to almost anyone, including ACC fans.

Because the divisions make no sense, they lead fans and journalists to see the divisional races as almost meaningless, which feeds into the way they assess the Championship Game.

Before getting back to ACC Divisions, I will offer my advice to the Pac: beware of the North/South easy option.

It failed miserably for the Big 12.

No matter how natural geographic divisions might be, if they are terribly unbalanced (in number of historic football powers, in local talent, in football fan base size, in attractiveness to TV, etc.), they will fail, and perhaps breed growing resentment.

The ACC has the seemingly random divisions it does for two reasons: there is no logical geographic split and a desire by certain schools to force the four NC schools to be in separate divisions, regardless of the consequences to the league as a whole.

Yes, the ACC could split North/South, but those divisions would be worse than were the Big 12 North/South.

First, that would require splitting schools in the same state from one another.

In-state rivalries are the most intense in college sports, matched only by a few border state rivalries. Splitting schools in the same state into separate divisions succeeds most obviously and fully in harming the in-state rivalries that make college sports so special.

An ACC South would have the four schools with the most football history, the two schools with the largest football fan bases, and the two states that produce far and away the most football talent.

All that would make the ACC North seem a total afterthought to both TV and general college football fans. That would remain true even if BC were to finish 11-1 and VT were to finish 10-2, swapping records the next year.

Doubters should see the history of the Big 12. Great Nebraska and Kansas State teams could not alter the central defining facts that made the South much more interesting to general college football fans and journalists.

It is unlikely that any ACC AD, including the ones for the fan bases that clamor most for it, would vote for North/South divisions.

Another reason for that is that every ACC AD wants his school in a division that includes the state of FL.

Other than accepting the failing status quo that can never work better than barely passably, what can the ACC do? 

Expansion would help solve the problems. 

For example, let's say that the ACC expands to 14, adding Pitt and Rutgers. The best divisions would be basically North/South, but with Miami among the more northerly schools and thus playing all former Big East foes annually with a divisional crown at stake:

BC, Rutgers, Pitt, Maryland, UVA, VT, Miami

Florida St, Georgia Tech, Clemson, UNC, NCST, Duke, Wake Forest

I picked Pitt and Rutgers for this hypothetical examination because Pitt has great football history and is located in the rich recruiting area of western Pennsylvania, and because New Brunswick, NJ is not only in the NYC TV market, but a good state for recruiting.

Those two divisions would be reasonably balanced. The South would seem to have more football history, but Miami and Pitt, along with BC and the past 15 years for VT and Maryland's National Championship, would make the North plus Miami virtually equal in that regard.

Each division would be in FL, which would balance the two in production of recruits.

The North plus Miami would have the larger TV markets, but the South would have larger game day fan bases. 

If those were the ACC divisions for 2010, the North plus Miami and the South each probably would have three schools ranked pre-season (VT, Miami, Pitt; Florida St, UNC, GT).

If the ACC does not expand, can it change its divisions, which fail both to stimulate divisional rivalries and races and spur inter-divisional rivalry?

It could, but the only way to make changes that will be any better than the divisions we have must start with a desire to keep all schools in the same state in the same division, unless the schools in question agree to be split.

As a desire to try to stick it to the NC schools remains a powerful driving force for two or three ACC fans bases, ACC expansion may be necessary for the conference to see divisions that have any meaning to fans.