it too much. I say that because everyone can probably agree that Clemson and FSU are probably the most SEC-like in the ACC when it comes to football. Since the ACC would like try to keep the divisions as balanced as possible (maybe more so from a marketability standpoint even though Swofford I think referenced competition when the ACC expanded to 12 members), then it makes sense to place Clemson and FSU in opposite divisions. Not that I have any issue with them being in the same division. However, the SEC has the luxury of knowing that whichever 2 teams plays in the CCG, then it knows the game will be "must see TV." I am not sure the ACC has that luxury at this moment in time.

Now having said all of that; if the ACC wants more of its programs to develop into a football powerhouse, then the best chance for that to happen is to have members that fit these characteristics: large public university, a "football" school, and has a large fanbase. Well the ACC currently has 2 schools that fit that profile, Louisville and VT. So it would make sense to place them in opposite divisions because they are the ACC's best candidates for the ACC to have that Alabama/LSU divisional rivalry with Clemson and/or FSU. After that the ACC fill out the rest of the divisions to ensure both divisions have equal representation to various regions and protect as many rivalries (divisional or cross-divisional) as possible.

By structuring the divisions that way then the ACC is hoping that most years the CCG will involve some combination of these 4 teams: Clemson, FSU, Louisville, and VT. By dividing them equally between the divisions, then the ACC is splitting the burden of carrying the division between 2 schools instead of only 1 school as it is doing now with the 3-1 split. If nothing else, then the ACC may even increase its odds of getting at least 1 of the 4 teams in CCG most years.