However, I excluded it because I was working off the assumption that the ACC would continue with the 2 division format. Even though the conference restrictions are relaxed as far how conference select the 2 teams to participate in their CCG, I believe the requirement for divisions to play a round robin schedule has not been removed (yet). I will disclose that I have not taken the time to go through the current bylaws, so it may have been changed too.

So if the ACC implemented a similar plan, then the 4 pods would have to become divisions so not to violate the division round robin requirement in the bylaws. At least I don't think the ACC or another power conference could get away with doing what the MAC did when it had 13 members in football. If the ACC went with 4 divisions, then I would think there would be a call for adding a semi-final game instead of relying on the potential bias of the Committee's poll. In theory the Committee could vote 1 or even 2 teams to be ranked higher than all of the division champions. Just think of the irony if the ACC CCG is #24 FSU (5-7) vs. #25 Clemson (5-7) even though the champions of each division are as follows:

Pod A: BC (8-4)
Pod B: UVA (8-4)
Pod C: Wake (9-3)
Pod D: Navy (9-3)

The assumption is that all 4 champions are not ranked in the Committee's poll for whatever reason (good or bad). Now I don't think the Committee would rank a team with a losing record over a team with a winning record. However, I could see the Committee rank an 8-4 or 7-5 team over a 9-3 and (maybe) 10-2 team even though the 9-3/10-2 team won the head-to-head match up. I would think the ACC would prefer to go with the safer route and allow the 4 division champions to settle it on the field. If the ACC is going to use the Committee Poll, then it probably would be for seeding purposes.