(02-05-2014 05:05 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:49 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The ACC is wanting to have it where they can have their 2 best teams in the title game and not have to worry about the divisions which are a landmine for them. A Huge difference than what you are talkign about.

They right to set up things differently is just that! If the ACC gets that right then so does the Big 10 and SEC. We are talking about the autonomy to set up how you determine your conference champion as you see fit. That is the issue!

There's a huge difference in allowing a conference to decide on which 2 teams to meet in the title game and allowing a conference to have a whole another round of playoffs. That's a completely different animal, especially with that extra round of playoffs would be more conference realignment which would kill off conferences that you are wanting to vote to support this.

There is absolutely no difference, none, nada, zip! The right to vary the existing structure is the issue. Once that is granted it doesn't matter what kind of set up you have (no divisions, or multiple divisions, 2 teams or 4 teams). And you can say it will kill off conferences all you want to but if the Big 10 and SEC both move to 16 it won't kill off the PAC or the ACC. The only potential victim is the conference in which every teams message boards are already acknowledging the difficulty in keeping pace and staying together and where everyone is already speculating about where they will go when it happens. Nothing changes, nothing!

If Big Ten and SEC both move to 16- it might not kill off Pac or ACC- but it would hurt them considerably. They would fall further and further behind those 2 conferences. There is a HUGE difference between allowing a conference to determine different ways to select 2 teams for a playoff and to have a whole extra round of playoffs. Why in the hell should the ACC or Pac 12 agree to something that would hurt them? Or Big 12? That's just idiotic. And it's not going to happen. ACC/Big 12/Pac 12 will look out for themselves- and not worry about doing the SEC/Big Ten a solid. That's just crazy talk.

The ACC is the one who got the ball rolling when it comes to how a conference handles itself. This is about giving the conference a right to pick its championship participants however it wants, not about having a uniform system for all the P5s. If they are so worried about having the same set-up then why don't all the P5 conferences have the same amount of members? Why have the other P4 allowed the Big 12 to not have divisions or a championship game? If the ACC didn't want other conferences to make changes too (whether it's more or less divisions) then perhaps they shouldn't have opened the can of worms. If they get the OK, it becomes fair game for the others to make the changes they want too (whether or not the ACC likes it).

(02-05-2014 04:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC and Big 10 want to have internal playoffs to determine a champion what's it to you?

Doesn't matter to me at all. I'm just saying that the ACC and Big 12 would be unwise to vote for a rule that triggers a new pot of money on the condition that a conference has 16 or more teams.

There's no reason to link conference playoffs with a minimum number of teams. Heck, if the Big 12 wants to have an 8-team football playoff among its 10 teams, that's their business as far as I'm concerned. They'd have to do it within the existing calendar and cannibalize their regular season, but that's up to them.

(02-05-2014 05:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 04:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If the SEC and Big 10 want to have internal playoffs to determine a champion what's it to you?

Doesn't matter to me at all. I'm just saying that the ACC and Big 12 would be unwise to vote for a rule that triggers a new pot of money on the condition that a conference has 16 or more teams.

There's no reason to link conference playoffs with a minimum number of teams. Heck, if the Big 12 wants to have an 8-team football playoff among its 10 teams, that's their business as far as I'm concerned. They'd have to do it within the existing calendar and cannibalize their regular season, but that's up to them.

The things voted on will be whether or not to abandon the existing rule, and to grant the control of internal playoff matters to the conference. If the Big 10 and SEC cannot be afforded the same largess as the ACC because of the nature of their needs then why should they approve what the ACC seeks? If on the other hand granting the ACC what it desires frees the SEC and Big 10 to manage their playoffs as they see fit why not vote for the ACC's request? None of it affects the PAC. Not giving a network some ownership in the PACN and the subsequent distribution problems are what hinders the PAC. Now idealistically I wholeheartedly approve of the PAC's desire to own its own product. I'm just saying that they have a problem with conflict of interest with FOX and ESPN more than they have a problem with the Big 10 or SEC. And no matter what happens the disparity that exists will still exist and that fact will not be changed by internal playoff autonomy.

(02-05-2014 05:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Heck, if the Big 12 wants to have an 8-team football playoff among its 10 teams, that's their business as far as I'm concerned. They'd have to do it within the existing calendar and cannibalize their regular season, but that's up to them.

And that's the key. Nobody's talking about allowing a 14th game for semifinals, so any expansion of a conference playoff would come at the expense of the regular season.

(02-05-2014 05:39 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 05:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Heck, if the Big 12 wants to have an 8-team football playoff among its 10 teams, that's their business as far as I'm concerned. They'd have to do it within the existing calendar and cannibalize their regular season, but that's up to them.

And that's the key. Nobody's talking about allowing a 14th game for semifinals, so any expansion of a conference playoff would come at the expense of the regular season.

No. The key is the existing rule on conference championship requirements would have to be struck and a new rule drafted. The issue then becomes muddled. If the Big 10 and SEC have other desires for their internal structure and they are not given the authority to pursue it, it spurs the need to be free of the NCAA, and it makes it much less likely that they will support the ACC's request. The Big 10 and SEC would vote to maintain status quo if they don't receive advantages. The division of such simply makes a breakaway more likely. Outside of the NCAA the issue is moot as those two would essentially establish their own guidelines along with anyone who left with them. And it is about much much more than football or championship playoffs.

You guys are assuming that just because a conference can stage a title game without divisions, the Big Ten and SEC are going to expand their numbers or withdraw from the NCAA? If anything, it will ease inter-conference scheduling issues.

(02-05-2014 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  You guys are assuming that just because a conference can stage a title game without divisions, the Big Ten and SEC are going to expand their numbers or withdraw from the NCAA? If anything, it will ease inter-conference scheduling issues.

The real issue is if the B1G and SEC go to 16 - WHO they go to 16 with.

Most likely they go with ACC schools.

The SEC either finally lets FSU into the fold, or they peel off NC State.

If either of those happen, look for the B1G to make a full-on assault to get, in this order, UNC, VA, Boston Coll,. If they can't get two of these, they'll go ahead and add the AAU-ready UConn. Either way, the ACC is out 2-4 teams and they'll have to add some less-desirables (Cinci, WVU) to make up for it.

It would be ironic if the ACC ended up being the one picked apart.

Worst case: B1G gets UNC and VA/SEC gets NC State and FSU.

ACC is left with Miami, GT, Clemson, Wake, Duke, VT, Pitt, Cuse, BC, Louisville, Notre Dame(part)-- I'm sure they'd add UConn to get to 12, and they'd seriously consider Cinci and WVU to keep up - but they are a shadow of their former selves and the B12 is relatively unscathed.

(02-05-2014 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  You guys are assuming that just because a conference can stage a title game without divisions, the Big Ten and SEC are going to expand their numbers or withdraw from the NCAA? If anything, it will ease inter-conference scheduling issues.

No. We're saying that if the ACC gets permission to deviate from the set rules for CCG's that the Big 10 and SEC might well desire the same but for a different methodology of crowning a conference champion. If the NCAA gives the ACC the autonomy to change the methodology then others will want that right as well, but in ways quite different from that the ACC is proposing. If denied that might well be a reason for a breakaway. You can't establish a precedent for 1 conference and deny others the right to redefine their championship games in ways best for them.

It's fine by me if the ACC is approved, but don't be surprised if it gets muddled if it is not applied universally.

I fail to see why the NCAA needs to be involved here at all. What business is it of theirs how a group of 10 or 14 or any other number of schools determines which amongst them has the best football team? In most other sports, the NCAA organizes and hosts a post-season tournament with each conference champ receiving an automatic invite, and in those cases, yes, the NCAA has a stake in ensuring that the conference champ has been determined in a fair and equitable manner. But the FBS post-season occurs outside of the NCAA system and each conference operates as a more or less independent entity. There's no reason for the NCAA to be setting rules for anyone.

(02-05-2014 10:28 PM)prp Wrote:  I fail to see why the NCAA needs to be involved here at all. What business is it of theirs how a group of 10 or 14 or any other number of schools determines which amongst them has the best football team? In most other sports, the NCAA organizes and hosts a post-season tournament with each conference champ receiving an automatic invite, and in those cases, yes, the NCAA has a stake in ensuring that the conference champ has been determined in a fair and equitable manner. But the FBS post-season occurs outside of the NCAA system and each conference operates as a more or less independent entity. There's no reason for the NCAA to be setting rules for anyone.

Bingo!

This is a terrible Idea.

Gawd the ACC sucks.

(02-05-2014 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  You guys are assuming that just because a conference can stage a title game without divisions, the Big Ten and SEC are going to expand their numbers or withdraw from the NCAA? If anything, it will ease inter-conference scheduling issues.

No. We're saying that if the ACC gets permission to deviate from the set rules for CCG's that the Big 10 and SEC might well desire the same but for a different methodology of crowning a conference champion. If the NCAA gives the ACC the autonomy to change the methodology then others will want that right as well, but in ways quite different from that the ACC is proposing. If denied that might well be a reason for a breakaway. You can't establish a precedent for 1 conference and deny others the right to redefine their championship games in ways best for them.

It's fine by me if the ACC is approved, but don't be surprised if it gets muddled if it is not applied universally.

The legislation is not asking to be universally applied, nor should it be. In the ACC we have 10 in the Southern Division and 4 in the North. Give us a break. Let us schedule between ourselves and decide the title game.

(02-05-2014 10:28 PM)prp Wrote:  I fail to see why the NCAA needs to be involved here at all.

Since the NCAA is the governing body over the everything other than the football playoff it makes sense to me that they are involved in determining eligibility for the playoffs. Otherwise you could easily have inconsistent rules, and we can't have that when you have all that money up for grabs (rational heads may/will not prevail).

The biggest point of contention right now is that path to the NC. The SEC is the master of regular season scheduling and would like to send 2, 3 or 4 to the playoffs. The Big 12, under the direction of UT, opts not to play a CC game. The Big 10 would rather play in the Rose Bowl. The ACC? Not sure what they're thinking.

The point is, everyone has a different idea on how to get there and as the $$ increases everyone is trying to figure out how to work the system rather than just playing a traditional bracket set at the start of the season.

(02-06-2014 08:13 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 10:28 PM)prp Wrote:  I fail to see why the NCAA needs to be involved here at all.

Since the NCAA is the governing body over the everything other than the football playoff it makes sense to me that they are involved in determining eligibility for the playoffs. Otherwise you could easily have inconsistent rules, and we can't have that when you have all that money up for grabs (rational heads may/will not prevail).

The biggest point of contention right now is that path to the NC. The SEC is the master of regular season scheduling and would like to send 2, 3 or 4 to the playoffs. The Big 12, under the direction of UT, opts not to play a CC game. The Big 10 would rather play in the Rose Bowl. The ACC? Not sure what they're thinking.

The point is, everyone has a different idea on how to get there and as the $$ increases everyone is trying to figure out how to work the system rather than just playing a traditional bracket set at the start of the season.

Why not have inconsistent rules between the conferences? If a conference's chosen system hurts them monetarily or in terms of making the playoffs, they'll have no one to blame but themselves and can make the necessary alterations. Let them live or die by the rules of their own making. The playoff system itself and post-season is an agreement between the conferences and bowl games. If there's a problem with how the Big 10 chooses its champs, it's should be an issue for the playoff committee, the Rose Bowl and the conference members to consider, not the NCAA.

(02-06-2014 09:05 AM)prp Wrote:  Why not have inconsistent rules between the conferences?

Because, IMHO, it becomes even less about it being a collegiate sport and more and more about recruiting and paying for the best coaches and players, scheduling, and the post season.

Given that most athletic departments are running a deficit, the madness needs to stop somewhere. If different rules eventually lead to conferences setting different financial restrictions, so much for a reasonably even playing field and a reasonably true national champion.

(02-06-2014 12:08 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  This is a terrible Idea.

Gawd the ACC sucks.

Get used to it, Were looking over Your Shoulder. The ACCeleration is coming..............!

I think this has the potential to help the ACC come playoff selection time. Last year, a rematch of FSU and Clemson might have been preferable to Duke in the championship game, since a Duke win would have knocked the ACC out of a playoff. However, if Clemson had been given the nod instead of Duke, it's possible that the ACC would have still had a representative in the playoff even if FSU lost. Hell, FSU might not have even dropped out of the Top 4 losing to Clemson, but they would have dropped out of the Top 4 losing to Duke.

In addition to all the scheduling benefits, it's an insurance policy for the 4 Team Playoff.

(02-06-2014 09:18 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  so much for a reasonably even playing field and a reasonably true national champion.

It's hardly an even playing field now and it never will be under the current playoff system. Certain teams, fairly or unfairly, will have an inherent advantage because of reputation, perception and conference affiliation. A truly fair system would allow any team in any team in any conference a path to play themselves into the playoffs. But until we get to that point, allowing greater flexibility will at least allow certain teams and conferences to better position themselves and sell themselves for when the playoff committee meets in secret.

(02-05-2014 05:39 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 05:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Heck, if the Big 12 wants to have an 8-team football playoff among its 10 teams, that's their business as far as I'm concerned. They'd have to do it within the existing calendar and cannibalize their regular season, but that's up to them.

And that's the key. Nobody's talking about allowing a 14th game for semifinals, so any expansion of a conference playoff would come at the expense of the regular season.

It would be like basketball. Each conference is free to have a conference tournament in basketball, or not have one (the Ivy League still doesn't have one), they can have a 4-team tournament, or 6, 8, or 12, or just let everyone in their conference play. The only limit is that all regular season and conference tournament games must be completed by (IIRC) 3 pm ET on Selection Sunday.

For football, similarly, the last day for games would be the first Saturday in December. If a conference wants no conference playoff, like the Big 12 now, then they can play their last regular-season games on that day. If a conference has a title game, or they want to go crazy and have every team play in a tournament as in basketball, that's fine too, as long as their "final" is completed on or before the first Saturday in December.

(02-06-2014 03:20 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 09:42 PM)esayem Wrote:  You guys are assuming that just because a conference can stage a title game without divisions, the Big Ten and SEC are going to expand their numbers or withdraw from the NCAA? If anything, it will ease inter-conference scheduling issues.

No. We're saying that if the ACC gets permission to deviate from the set rules for CCG's that the Big 10 and SEC might well desire the same but for a different methodology of crowning a conference champion. If the NCAA gives the ACC the autonomy to change the methodology then others will want that right as well, but in ways quite different from that the ACC is proposing. If denied that might well be a reason for a breakaway. You can't establish a precedent for 1 conference and deny others the right to redefine their championship games in ways best for them.

It's fine by me if the ACC is approved, but don't be surprised if it gets muddled if it is not applied universally.

The legislation is not asking to be universally applied, nor should it be. In the ACC we have 10 in the Southern Division and 4 in the North. Give us a break. Let us schedule between ourselves and decide the title game.

Just leave the 12th week open and don't have a ccg and you can do whatever you want.