Dennis Dodd reported Tuesday that legislation to deregulate conference championship games is expected to pass, with changes coming as soon as 2016. While the Big 12 has its reasons, like keeping its 10-team conference as is while also bringing back a title game, the ACC's plans are less clear. The league officially says it is not pursuing a specific change, just the freedom to determine a champion in its own way. However, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby made our heads spin with the suggestion that the ACC could have three divisions.

The idea of three divisions sent us back to the drawing board of what we know to be true and possible in this already-wild college football world. Below, Jerry Hinnen and I try to determine the feasibility of a three-division system, and what it might look like. 

Chip Patterson: OK Jerry, if -- big "if" -- the three divisions idea has legs, we have to think it includes a closer relationship between the ACC and Notre Dame, right? If Notre Dame was previously listing its status as "It's Complicated," the Irish will at least have to start tagging the ACC in its pictures and maybe even upgrade their relationship status. The ACC has 14 full members, and a three-division model requires 15 teams for balance. So that has to include Notre Dame, a full ACC member in all other sports, at least moving into the apartment or something. 

Jerry Hinnen: Oh, they're definitely going to have their own toothbrush next to the ACC's sink, no doubt. The question is how you assign Notre Dame to a division and still have it make good on its promise to spread the scheduling love across the conference. Given the TV and ticket-selling benefits that come with having the Irish on the schedule, the ACC teams not graced with Notre Dame's presence in their division wouldn't be too thrilled, I imagine. You got a solution?

CP: I think the idea I like is best is a massive 15-team rotation that creates new five-team divisions every two years (ensuring home-and-home rivalries between "division" opponents). It's more "pod" scheduling than actual divisions, but at least dropping the amount of "required" games from six (in the current seven-team divisions) to four will allow for teams to each other more often. That, really, has been the real bummer for fans. Virginia Tech and Clemson will play each other in 2017 but then not again until 2024. In-state foes NC State and Duke have a similar break in their series. Keep one protected rivalry and rotate the rest of the eight-game schedule with four "division" games and three or four (depending on the division rotation) "non-division" games.

Am I crazy? Does that seem too much like 11-year-old Chip doodling in his English notebook? 

JH: Are you crazy? Let's remember that the question you're attempting to answer: "How should the ACC divide its 14- or possibly 15-team conference into three divisions, so it can play a championship game between the two highest-ranked winners of its divisions?" It's not possible to generate an answer that's any crazier than the question itself. And this answer -- what scheduling flexibility would go a long way towards protecting traditional rivalries and let Notre Dame remain on the "play everybody the same number of times" plan -- is probably far less crazy than most.

For illustration's sake, I put the 15 teams involved in a virtual hat and pulled out the following divisions: (1) Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Virginia, Syracuse, Virginia Tech; (2) Duke, North Carolina, NC State, Miami, Boston College; (3) Notre Dame, Louisville, Florida State, Clemson, Pitt. Given that the Constitution prohibits this kind of cruel and unusual punishment for Pitt, maybe a random draw isn't the best starting point. How would you divvy them up in Year 1, and would the rotation be centered purely in letting everyone play everyone else? Or would you prefer a "cream rises" approach where the contenders are lumped into one division for maximum TV effect?

CP: Are you ... suggesting relegation and promotion? If so, heading into 2015 we'd have the following division.

1. FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Louisville, Duke

2. Notre Dame, UNC, Pitt, Boston College, NC State

3. Virginia Tech, Miami, Virginia, Wake Forest, Syracuse

The shame of playing in the bottom division has to result in some interesting storylines from VT and Miami. If that's what you're suggesting, I'm way more excited about that. 

JH: I think ... I ... am? This plan would create some terrifically unbalanced schedules, but it would also create some terrifically enticing matchups, and the nice thing about the ACC is that there's always a Georgia Tech- or Duke-style usurper ready to ensure Division 2 (and maybe even Division 3) would have a quality championship candidate. If you're really going to travel down this cockamamie path -- which is going to create some level of scheduling unfairness regardless -- might as well get the most buzz for your buck, right?

But I'm not over the cockamamieness. There's some indications (even aside from the giant flashing indication known as "common sense") the ACC isn't actually as serious about this idea as Bob Bowlsby implies, and even as a fan of general weirdness in college football, I'm perfectly OK with that. It's too weird. It's the wordless French animation for adults of conference alignment concepts ... and me, I'm more of a Bugs Bunny guy. You agree?

CP: Yeah, this was a really fun exercise, but I can't see anything like this happening. If you were asking my honest opinion, a no-division system with the CFP rankings determining the conference title participants sounds like the most realistic result of this deregulation in the ACC. I'm guessing the Big 12, with it's 10-team setup, will use the same process. 

The ACC and the Big 12 helped develop legislation to change conference title game restrictions. (USATSI)