i have proposed it countless times and yet it has never kicked off. or better yet how come no one of note has ever proposed it. it seems pretty solid imo

its purpose is too eliminate conference dodging and keep conferences "whole" rather than two split divisions. nowhere in the book does it say a conference must have divisions.

its setup up has NO DIVISIONS. the schools play on a round robin schedule over a 2 year period. each school gets 2 fixed yearly rivals. the rest play on rotation.

michigan

year 1
wisconsin
northwestern
illinois
purdue
IU
nebraska
penn state
ohio state
michigan state

does not play
rutgers
maryland
minn
iowa


year 2
rutgers
maryland
minn
iowa
wisconsin
northwestern
illinois
ohio state
michigan state

does not play
purdue
IU
nebraska
penn state


year 3
purdue
IU
nebraska
penn state
rutgers
maryland
minn
ohio state
michigan state

does not play
iowa
wisconsin
northwestern
illinois


year 4
iowa
wisconsin
northwestern
illinois
purdue
IU
nebraska
ohio state
michigan state

the cycle keeps like that

conf. championship game
2 highest in the BCS get the bid.

this makes for the highest 2 in the conf. will meet every single time. no more of this 6-6 georgia tech vs FSU Bullsh...

NCAA rules state that to have a conference championship game you must have at least 12 teams divided up into two divisions.

(09-30-2013 07:29 PM)Ron7098 Wrote:  NCAA rules state that to have a conference championship game you must have at least 12 teams divided up into two divisions.

thats just so stupid.

actually they can get around the division rule

the rule:
17.9.1.2 © Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;


the mac:
Because the MAC has been violating this NCAA rule ever since it went to 13 teams in 2007. The conference never applied for a waiver and no one at the NCAA has called them on violating the round-robin divisional play rule. So there's some precedent out there that suggests a 13 team conference can simply ignore the rule and the NCAA won't enforce that rule.

(09-30-2013 07:53 PM)john01992 Wrote:  actually they can get around the division rule

the rule:
17.9.1.2 © Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;


the mac:
Because the MAC has been violating this NCAA rule ever since it went to 13 teams in 2007. The conference never applied for a waiver and no one at the NCAA has called them on violating the round-robin divisional play rule. So there's some precedent out there that suggests a 13 team conference can simply ignore the rule and the NCAA won't enforce that rule.

How does the MAC violate the rule? They have a 6-team division and a 7-team division (both would be "6 teams or more"). It doesn't say the two divisions must be equal. As long as the MAC has just two divisions and are playing a round robin within each of those divisions I don't think they would be in violation of the rule.

(09-30-2013 07:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i have proposed it countless times and yet it has never kicked off. or better yet how come no one of note has ever proposed it. it seems pretty solid imo

its purpose is too eliminate conference dodging and keep conferences "whole" rather than two split divisions. nowhere in the book does it say a conference must have divisions.

its setup up has NO DIVISIONS. the schools play on a round robin schedule over a 2 year period. each school gets 2 fixed yearly rivals. the rest play on rotation.

You are on the right track, you just need to tweak your plan to allow for rotating non-permanent divisions. Just set up a rotation that has different divisions each year on a 4-year rotation. It will accomplish exactly what you are looking for without needing any rule changes.

(09-30-2013 08:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:53 PM)john01992 Wrote:  actually they can get around the division rule

the rule:
17.9.1.2 © Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;


the mac:
Because the MAC has been violating this NCAA rule ever since it went to 13 teams in 2007. The conference never applied for a waiver and no one at the NCAA has called them on violating the round-robin divisional play rule. So there's some precedent out there that suggests a 13 team conference can simply ignore the rule and the NCAA won't enforce that rule.

How does the MAC violate the rule? They have a 6-team division and a 7-team division (both would be be "6 teams or more"). It doesn't say the two divisions must be equal. As long as the MAC has just two divisions and are playing a round robin within each of those divisions I don't think they would be in violation of the rule.

because the 7 team division doesnt play true round robin.

for example kent st. & umass dont play this year despite both being in the east division.

(09-30-2013 08:07 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i have proposed it countless times and yet it has never kicked off. or better yet how come no one of note has ever proposed it. it seems pretty solid imo

its purpose is too eliminate conference dodging and keep conferences "whole" rather than two split divisions. nowhere in the book does it say a conference must have divisions.

its setup up has NO DIVISIONS. the schools play on a round robin schedule over a 2 year period. each school gets 2 fixed yearly rivals. the rest play on rotation.

You are on the right track, you just need to tweak your plan to allow for rotating non-permanent divisions. Just set up a rotation that has different divisions each year on a 4-year rotation. It will accomplish exactly what you are looking for without needing any rule changes.

That's more or less what the old WAC pod system did. Two 4-team pods formed each division. The 4-team pods rotated annually to form different divisional combinations each year.

(09-30-2013 08:07 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i have proposed it countless times and yet it has never kicked off. or better yet how come no one of note has ever proposed it. it seems pretty solid imo

its purpose is too eliminate conference dodging and keep conferences "whole" rather than two split divisions. nowhere in the book does it say a conference must have divisions.

its setup up has NO DIVISIONS. the schools play on a round robin schedule over a 2 year period. each school gets 2 fixed yearly rivals. the rest play on rotation.

You are on the right track, you just need to tweak your plan to allow for rotating non-permanent divisions. Just set up a rotation that has different divisions each year on a 4-year rotation. It will accomplish exactly what you are looking for without needing any rule changes.

i thought about this however i havent had the time to make a spread sheet to see if this is mathematically possible

But even with 13 teams, you still have to have divisions.

I actually proposed on the SEC board a rotation with 3 fixed opponents and 5 rotating opponents. Every team would play each other at least twice over 4 years. With a 9 game schedule there could be 5 fixed opponents and 4 rotating.

For example, under the 3/5 model, Alabama would play:

Auburn
Tennessee
Mississippi State
Mississippi/LSU
Arkansas/Missouri
Kentucky/Vanderbilt
Florida/Georgia
South Carolina/Texas A&M

Under the 5/4 model:
Auburn
Tennessee
Mississippi State
Mississippi
LSU
Texas A&M/South Carolina
Arkansas/Missouri
Kentucky/Vanderbilt
Florida/Georgia

The only drawback is that there is the potential for many ties in the conference standings. If 3 teams finish an 8-game schedule undefeated, how do you break the tie? The odds of that happening are much slimmer with a 9-game schedule, but multiple 1-loss teams are more likely.

(09-30-2013 07:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:29 PM)Ron7098 Wrote:  NCAA rules state that to have a conference championship game you must have at least 12 teams divided up into two divisions.

thats just so stupid.

You were singing a different tune when the B12 asked for an exemption to the 12 team championship game rule. Do you ever consider your past position on issues when you post stuff?

(09-30-2013 08:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:29 PM)Ron7098 Wrote:  NCAA rules state that to have a conference championship game you must have at least 12 teams divided up into two divisions.

thats just so stupid.

You were singing a different tune when the B12 asked for an exemption to the 12 team championship game rule. Do you ever consider your past position on issues when you post stuff?

thats a big difference. they were asking for 10 teams to play a CCG (defeating the very purpose of why conferences have CCG)

the b12 basically was asking for all the benefits of having a CCG without paying for any of the negatives that comes with it. the acc b10 & p12 all paid their dues for a ccg. so why should the b12 be exempt from that? you want a ccg add cincy & new mexico otherwise STFU

all im saying is eliminate a stupid rule that says their has to be divisions. it doesnt change the 12 team requirement at all

i just dont get why.....

You have over 2100 post in four months and have yet to actually make sense about anything.

(09-30-2013 09:00 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  i just dont get why.....

You have over 2100 post in four months and have yet to actually make sense about anything.

ok....

what doesnt make sense on this thread.

and fyi i do like a good troll sometimes (you gotta pick on the homerisms of certain fanbases) but i have been bringing this up on the ESPN threads for almost 1 1/2 years

(09-30-2013 08:43 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 08:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:29 PM)Ron7098 Wrote:  NCAA rules state that to have a conference championship game you must have at least 12 teams divided up into two divisions.

thats just so stupid.

You were singing a different tune when the B12 asked for an exemption to the 12 team championship game rule. Do you ever consider your past position on issues when you post stuff?

thats a big difference. they were asking for 10 teams to play a CCG (defeating the very purpose of why conferences have CCG)

the b12 basically was asking for all the benefits of having a CCG without paying for any of the negatives that comes with it. the acc b10 & p12 all paid their dues for a ccg. so why should the b12 be exempt from that? you want a ccg add cincy & new mexico otherwise STFU

all im saying is eliminate a stupid rule that says their has to be divisions. it doesnt change the 12 team requirement at all

If you eliminate divisions, then why is a set number an issue. IMO if a conference doesn't have divisions, then how many are members is irrelevant...

And saying otherwise doesn't make your position any more logical. It isn't...

(09-30-2013 08:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:29 PM)Ron7098 Wrote:  NCAA rules state that to have a conference championship game you must have at least 12 teams divided up into two divisions.

thats just so stupid.

You were singing a different tune when the B12 asked for an exemption to the 12 team championship game rule. Do you ever consider your past position on issues when you post stuff?

With the majority of his threads ranging from asinine to down right ridiculous I doubt he considers his present position, so you might be asking a lot from this troll with that.

(09-30-2013 09:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 08:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:47 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:29 PM)Ron7098 Wrote:  NCAA rules state that to have a conference championship game you must have at least 12 teams divided up into two divisions.

thats just so stupid.

You were singing a different tune when the B12 asked for an exemption to the 12 team championship game rule. Do you ever consider your past position on issues when you post stuff?

With the majority of his threads ranging from asinine to down right ridiculous I doubt he considers his present position, so you might be asking a lot from this troll with that.

hey i can be serious at times too.....

and this is a serious thread

(09-30-2013 09:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 09:00 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  i just dont get why.....

You have over 2100 post in four months and have yet to actually make sense about anything.

ok....

what doesnt make sense on this thread.

and fyi i do like a good troll sometimes (you gotta pick on the homerisms of certain fanbases) but i have been bringing this up on the ESPN threads for almost 1 1/2 years

........Wow just wow.

(09-30-2013 08:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 08:07 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(09-30-2013 07:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i have proposed it countless times and yet it has never kicked off. or better yet how come no one of note has ever proposed it. it seems pretty solid imo

its purpose is too eliminate conference dodging and keep conferences "whole" rather than two split divisions. nowhere in the book does it say a conference must have divisions.

its setup up has NO DIVISIONS. the schools play on a round robin schedule over a 2 year period. each school gets 2 fixed yearly rivals. the rest play on rotation.

You are on the right track, you just need to tweak your plan to allow for rotating non-permanent divisions. Just set up a rotation that has different divisions each year on a 4-year rotation. It will accomplish exactly what you are looking for without needing any rule changes.

i thought about this however i havent had the time to make a spread sheet to see if this is mathematically possible

Well, you are on the right board. I have done the spreadsheets and it can work. This was a popular subject when the pac-10 was talking of expanding to 16.

the key is don't get locked into thinking permanent rivals have to be in the same divisions. Or in some models that have pods, dont assume that teams in the same pods have to be in the same division. Once you free yourself from that thought , everything else falls into place. rhe pac-16 was perfect for 4 pods non-permanent division model. The Big Ten is more ideal for 3 defined permanent rivals but no defined pods.

(09-30-2013 07:53 PM)john01992 Wrote:  actually they can get around the division rule

the rule:
17.9.1.2 © Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;


the mac:
Because the MAC has been violating this NCAA rule ever since it went to 13 teams in 2007. The conference never applied for a waiver and no one at the NCAA has called them on violating the round-robin divisional play rule. So there's some precedent out there that suggests a 13 team conference can simply ignore the rule and the NCAA won't enforce that rule.

Way to plagiarize Clay Travis there, john01992. Here's the link to the article you stole that from verbatim:
http://outkickthecoverage.com/ncaa-rule-...bility.php

By the way, the source is wrong. The MAC does apply for a waiver every year, and every year it's granted.