Depends on what you mean by "better." One of the main issues
WAC fans had with the rotating quad system is it reduced a team's rivalry down to 3 other teams in that quad even after factoring in the WAC deciding to incorporated the quad pairing for cross-divisional games. Basically Quad 1 and Quad 2 were fixed in the respective divisions while Quad 3 and Quad 4 would rotate every 2 years. For cross-divisional games Quads 1 and 2 would play each while Quads 3 and 4 would play each other. The exact pairings might be off, but you get the idea. The second issue fans had is there was 1 "forced" quad.
Quad 1 - Hawai'i, Fresno St, San Jose St, San Diego St
Quad 2 - Air Force, Wyoming, UNLV, Colorado St
Quad 3 - BYU, Utah, New Mexico, UTEP
Quad 4 - Tulsa, TCU, SMU, Rice
Quad 3 was the "forced" quad. UTEP fans were upset because they couldn't play the 3 other Texas schools annually. BYU fans were upset because they couldn't play teams from Quad 2 and Hawai'i (Mormon reasons) annually. Utah fans were upset about not playing Quad 2 annually. New Mexico was upset about not playing Quad 4 and (I think) UNLV annually.
If the ACC decided to go with quads and for whatever reason arranged it so VT and UVA didn't play annually, then would you still be okay with it? I understand the merits of having the rotating quad system and I could tolerate it. I am not sure the rotating quad model is the best fit for the ACC, the SEC, and maybe the Big Ten. The quad system would be perfect for the Pac-16 because the Pac-12 already has 2 quads created; 4 WA/OR schools and the 4 CA schools. Maybe even 3 quads (4 AZ/UT/CO schools) depending on where the 4 new schools come from.