What changes would you make to the ACC football divisions?

Many of our members and readers have expressed displeasure with the current alignment of the Atlantic and Coastal divisions. With the Clemson playing for a national championship this past season and Florida State winning the national championship in 2013, there have been calls to bring better balance to the divisions.

What changes would you make to the ACC football divisions? We want to hear from you! Send us your suggestions below and they may be selected to be published on ACCSports.com and in the ACC Sports Journal.

Here are some of the suggestions we have received already:

Kyle: “Can’t split teams based on how good you think they will be. That’s too short sided. Start the south with FSU, UM, Clemson n GT. North with BC, Pitt, VT, UVA. Figure out the rest.”

Derrick writes: “I get sick of hearing how weak the Coastal is. Top to bottom every team in that division can win on any given Saturday. It is the Atlantic, besides the top two or three, that is truly weak.”

Brent’s idea: “Remove the “Atlantic” and “Coastal” monikers and it is time to go with geography utilizing North vs. South.

North – Boston College, Clemson, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech
South – Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest

This maintains every natural rival and allows for the North to have the New York media market (and Pittsburgh) and the South maintains the Miami and Atlanta media markets. It also includes Georgia Tech into a more logical grouping with schools.

No protected cross-division games remain.”

Eddie’s proposal:

“North South
Louisville FSU
UNC Clemson
Va Tech Miami
Pitt Duke
BC Georgia Tech
Syracuse NC State
Virginia Wake Forest”

Dave: “I’m not sure the divisions are actually a problem. They provide a consistent scheduling format and a pennant for teams to win. Nothing wrong with that. The real problem is that the 2 division winners land automatic spots in the championship game, and those 2 winners may not be the 2 best teams in the conference. Perhaps instead we should leave the divisions alone, but change the championship game to feature the 2 highest-rated ACC teams in the BCS standings, not the 2 division winners.”

Christopher: “Two ideas…..one realistic, the other more a pipe dream…For what its worth I’m about to enter my 29th year as a UVa season ticket holder in football…

First your crossover rival would be the school closest to you (except in the case of the Carolina schools)

Move Virginia Tech to Atlantic and make them crossover for Virginia
Move Syracuse to ACC Coastal and make them the crossover for Boston College
Make Louisville the crossover for Pittsburgh

Coastal – Atlantic
Virginia – Virginia Tech
Syracuse – Boston College
Pittsburgh – Louisville
North Carolina – North Carolina State
Duke – Wake Forest
Georgia Tech – Clemson
Miami – Florida State

Also the league needs to go to NINE games…

Now for my pipe dream set up that requires a vision like the SEC had when it went to two divisions in 1991….plus this needs Notre Dame to sign off….

Go to THREE divisions of five….but create a conference SEMI-FINAL It would feature the three division winners and the best runner-up in the four team semi-final round. It would require Notre Dame and all other teams to play EIGHT games…the four in their division and two each from the other two divisions. Why would Notre Dame consider it? They could stick with their “Catholic Rival” Boston College as well as be grouped with three other schools close to their region like Syracuse, Pitt, etc. They would still have 4 games for national profile play.

Or my final dream…assuming we can play the conference semi-final game… FOUR divisions of FOUR, adding UConn as the 16th member. Northeast Division of Syracuse, Boston College, UConn and Notre Dame. Mid Atlantic Division of Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pittsburgh and Louisville, Carolina Division of the four North Carolina Schools, and the Southern Division of Miami, Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia Tech.

Whatever they do…we need to change the set up as currently constituted…”