From the article on CBS Sports:

The ACC has submitted NCAA legislation that would “deregulate” football conference championship games sources told CBSSports.com.

The intent is to allow leagues their preference in how to determine their conference champion. It would theoretically eliminate the need -- per NCAA rules -- to split into divisions with the division winners meeting in a conference championship game.

That would benefit the ACC and other conferences which have expanded to the requisite minimum of 12 teams (and two divisions) to stage a championship game. Theoretically, with passage of the legislation, any of those conferences could play in one division and still stage a championship game.

If the new legislation is adopted a league could match its two highest-ranked teams. That might enahnce a conference's ability to get as many teams as possible into the new four-team playoff.

"Theoretically, we could say we're going to take the two highest in the BCS rankings and have them play at the end of the season," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said.

ESPN.com first reported last month the league's intent to forward such legislation that would give the ACC “flexibility” in who plays in its conference title game. The legislation was submitted in collaboration with the Big 12, Bowlsby said Friday night.

From the Kansas State President and Big XII Commish:

"You wouldn't any longer have to have 12 (teams)," Bowlsby said. "You wouldn't any longer have to play a full round-robin in your subdivision. That would actually afford us the opportunity to have a playoff between two selected teams by whatever process we would want to select.

"I doubt we're going to do that but we would likely have the prerogative."

Kansas State president Kirk Schulz reiterated that stance: “The Big 12, with 10 schools, we have no desire to go to a divisional format. But there's been questions about, generally, should we have some sort of championship game or not? I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens to this proposal.”

The Big 12 plays a true round-robin schedule. It could match its two highest-ranked teams for a championship instead of, say, the winners of two five-team divisions. However, such a structure would guarantee that those Big 12 teams would be meeting for second time in a season.

“To me,” Schulz said, “playing a team a second time in a season is just odd.”

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-structure

Bob Bowlsby should know better than to say the two highest ranked teams by BCS rankings. There will no longer be any BCS rankings.

(03-16-2014 09:37 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Bob Bowlsby should know better than to say the two highest ranked teams by BCS rankings. There will no longer be any BCS rankings.

I can see the Big XII being for this...it would give them the option of holding a Title Game without splitting the pot...which means even more $$$ for everyone without splitting the pot.

There still needs to be some kind of rules in place.

Could Notre Dame only play 5 conference games and be elligible?

Could BYU join the pac-12 for football only but play no conference games but still be elligible for CCG?

I would still like to see some rules like the conference needs to have at least 11 teams and each team needs to play at least 50% of the conference teams or over 50% of the team's total games need to be against their conference to be eligible for the CCG. And teams can not belong to more than 1 conference, etc.

(03-16-2014 10:18 AM)goofus Wrote:  There still needs to be some kind of rules in place.

Could Notre Dame only play 5 conference games and be elligible?

Could BYU join the pac-12 for football only but play no conference games but still be elligible for CCG?

I would still like to see some rules like the conference needs to have at least 11 teams and each team needs to play at least 50% of the conference teams or over 50% of the team's total games need to be against their conference to be eligible for the CCG. And teams can not belong to more than 1 conference, etc.

Notre Dame is not in a Football Conference so this doesn't apply to them. They only need to be in the Top 4 to make the Playoffs since Conference Champions is not a requirement to make the CFP...

(03-16-2014 10:18 AM)goofus Wrote:  There still needs to be some kind of rules in place.

Could Notre Dame only play 5 conference games and be elligible?

Could BYU join the pac-12 for football only but play no conference games but still be elligible for CCG?

I would still like to see some rules like the conference needs to have at least 11 teams and each team needs to play at least 50% of the conference teams or over 50% of the team's total games need to be against their conference to be eligible for the CCG. And teams can not belong to more than 1 conference, etc.

I don't know why the Big 12 would want to go with this if they are sticking with the 9 game RR. Outside of extra revenue of course, but honestly, UT/OU already play on a neutral field and that is the money maker match up. Nobody wants to see Baylor/OU or OSU/OU twice a year.

The ACC I can definitely see it, but within the confines of the established rules. They need to look at a North South split to get the Big East/ACC roots back.

Cuse, BC, Pitt, UVA, VTech, WF, UL would be a nice north division and would be semi-balanced football wise.

Otherwise, I don't know how you would break down the schedule fairly. Just rotate 8 or 9 of 13 potential opponents on an annual basis? I guess that is fair long term, but then you lose annual match ups like FSU/Miami. And if you keep fixed match ups, then you play everyone else less frequently.

I could see the ACC, Big12, SEC, and Pac12 being for this. It might even be attractive to the Big-10. It would also open up interesting expansion opportunities for the AAC---maybe the Sunbelt and CUSA as well. I could see as many as 8 FBS conferences being for this option. Each has scheduling issues that are exacerbated by hard divisional play rules. If those rules are relaxed, at least 8 conferences could benefit.

(03-16-2014 10:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 10:18 AM)goofus Wrote:  There still needs to be some kind of rules in place.

Could Notre Dame only play 5 conference games and be elligible?

Could BYU join the pac-12 for football only but play no conference games but still be elligible for CCG?

I would still like to see some rules like the conference needs to have at least 11 teams and each team needs to play at least 50% of the conference teams or over 50% of the team's total games need to be against their conference to be eligible for the CCG. And teams can not belong to more than 1 conference, etc.

Notre Dame is not in a Football Conference so this doesn't apply to them. They only need to be in the Top 4 to make the Playoffs since Conference Champions is not a requirement to make the CFP...

Let me clarify my question. If Notre Dame joined the ACC as a football member, could Notre Dame only play 5 conference games but still be elligible for the ACC conference championship game?

Conferences should be allowed to determine a champ however they want. They get to pick their own tie breaker rules so why shouldn't they be allowed to determine their own championship game?

I could see this happening to try to end realignment and FBS expansion.
The Sun Belt stays at 11 then the MAC would have even more leverage to force UMASS to go all in .

The bigger conferences get the less they feel like conferences . A sixteen team conference only plays one or two cross over games. It does not matter if your conference has three ranked teams if you don't play them.

(03-16-2014 10:49 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 10:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 10:18 AM)goofus Wrote:  There still needs to be some kind of rules in place.

Could Notre Dame only play 5 conference games and be elligible?

Could BYU join the pac-12 for football only but play no conference games but still be elligible for CCG?

I would still like to see some rules like the conference needs to have at least 11 teams and each team needs to play at least 50% of the conference teams or over 50% of the team's total games need to be against their conference to be eligible for the CCG. And teams can not belong to more than 1 conference, etc.

Notre Dame is not in a Football Conference so this doesn't apply to them. They only need to be in the Top 4 to make the Playoffs since Conference Champions is not a requirement to make the CFP...

Let me clarify my question. If Notre Dame joined the ACC as a football member, could Notre Dame only play 5 conference games but still be elligible for the ACC conference championship game?

Ok...that threw me off...good question but in the end Hell would have to freeze over before ND joins a league.

(03-16-2014 10:49 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  Conferences should be allowed to determine a champ however they want. They get to pick their own tie breaker rules so why shouldn't they be allowed to determine their own championship game?

They could if they were not asking for special permission to play an extra 13th game. If conferences just went to flexible scheduling for the last 12th game of the season, then they could have any teams they want playing each other.

As an alternative, the big 12 could go with this flexible scheduling option. there are plenty reasons not to do this, but don't say they can't do it.

sorry b12 but there is no way they should be allowed to hold a ccg with only 10 teams

(03-16-2014 11:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  sorry b12 but there is no way they should be allowed to hold a ccg with only 10 teams

They may not. You could deregulate divisional play and still require 12 teams to hold a championship game. The Big-12 would still prefer the deregulated environment as it would allow the most flexible schedule and would be the best way for the existing members to not lose games against Texas and Oklahoma. That's a huge issue in the Big 12 with divisions. Some schools will lose annual games against Texas and Oklahoma. Eliminating divisions largely eliminates that issue.

(03-16-2014 11:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 11:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  sorry b12 but there is no way they should be allowed to hold a ccg with only 10 teams

They may not. You could deregulate divisional play and still require 12 teams to hold a championship game. The Big-12 would still prefer the deregulated environment as it would allow the most flexible schedule and would be the best way for the existing members to not lose games against Texas and Oklahoma. That's a huge issue in the Big 12 with divisions. Some schools will lose annual games against Texas and Oklahoma. Eliminating divisions largely eliminates that issue.

i think the two biggest reasons why the b12 did not expand

1. they won't get a huge tv payout if they do

2. the debate over divisional setup would be a nightmare. with the old b12 i am 100% convinced that no matter how they setup those divisions, there was no way they could of done it in a way that kept rivalries, competitive balance, equal "texas access" etc. intact

so by supporting this they are solving one of their expansion problems

I think this new proposal is something that could be looked at as well as tweaked to where the existing rules stand as well. The NCAA should adopt this new proposal, but with it keep the stipulation that this will only apply to conferences larger than 12 teams. There is no need to let everyone have a say in what they think is best, but it is a challenging ordeal with conferences larger than 12 teams. If you change the rule now to let anyone and everyone do as they please then every conference will have a say for if they can do it with 10 teams who's to say I can jot do it with 8 teams??? Do you see what would happen if the NCAA adopts this proposal and let everyone included play by those rules it would be ridiculous of what would be. I think it would be best to adopt this rule with the stipulation that it would only apply to conferences of larger than 12 teams. So no conference championship for conferences less than 12 schools, and conferences with 12 must play by divisions with a CCG, and conferences larer than 12 schools can apply for this wavier to play without divisions with only the top 2 schools amongst the polls can play a CCG. I think most of you will get what I am trying to say, but we don't need to replace rules we just need to add stipulations to them.

(03-16-2014 11:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  sorry b12 but there is no way they should be allowed to hold a ccg with only 10 teams

Agree!

Deregulation would benefit the Pac, Big 12, ACC, and SEC at least. Maybe the Big Ten would want it as well.

The divisions limit the flexibility of football scheduling too much. Without divisions, each team can play two or three rivals annually and rotate through the rest of the conference so that each team plays every other conference mate more often than if teams were stuck in opposite divisions.

It might not pass because of other political considerations, but if it does pass it will benefit teams and fans in all of those leagues.

(03-16-2014 01:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Deregulation would benefit the Pac, Big 12, ACC, and SEC at least. Maybe the Big Ten would want it as well.

The divisions limit the flexibility of football scheduling too much. Without divisions, each team can play two or three rivals annually and rotate through the rest of the conference so that each team plays every other conference mate more often than if teams were stuck in opposite divisions.

It might not pass because of other political considerations, but if it does pass it will benefit teams and fans in all of those leagues.

ABSOLUTELY. This is not an ACC/BigXII issue at all - it's more of a 'allow us to play our conference mates more often without playing a 12-game conference schedule' (or some other schedule almost as ridiculous)

I agree with CoogNellie on this one. Every conference should have the right to determine their own champion as they see fit. If they want 4 divisions of 4, 2 divisions of whatever, or the ability to arrange play any other way that suits them that should be at their discretion. If they want to decide championship game opponents on the field or select them that is their business as well.

But no matter what they choose to do, neither should they expect networks to necessarily reward their games unless the networks decide that there is enough interest or enough of a compelling nature about the game to justify the payout.