I guess if that is possible P5 conferences can play a championship game without twelve.

Eliminate divisions like the ACC and maybe Big Ten might like.

my prediction:

hell will freeze over before the other p5 let the b12 reap the same benefits of a 12/14 team conference with only 10 teams.

john01992 has a Big 12 fetish.

(05-26-2014 08:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  my prediction:

hell will freeze over before the other p5 let the b12 reap the same benefits of a 12/14 team conference with only 10 teams.

They play a true round robin

The no division rule helps the B1G, ACC and SEC more than it does the Big 12.

In fact, if I'm the Big 12 I would have serious doubts about wanting to hold a rematch title game every year. It makes the team that clearly won the conference risk it all again for a title they've already won.

with the new changes all p5 should be at 14 schools. anything less is wrong. The Big 12 and PAC need to add from the Non P5 pool of available candidates. All would be even in distribution of money each league generates and all have same scheduling systems with No division. This is the only way to make all P5 equal .every conference has weaker schools so adding 6 schools from the pool is Not a determent to the Big12 and PAC. You can't complain about needing 10 - 20 million increased dollar value to the other schools. That should have already been done. If You're not willing to go to 14 then Drop to a G5 level and quit crying

(05-26-2014 09:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  In fact, if I'm the Big 12 I would have serious doubts about wanting to hold a rematch title game every year.

The Pac-12 title game has been a rematch in both of the last two seasons. When you play 4 of 6 teams in the other division in the regular season, the odds of a rematch are high. The odds of a rematch in the Big Ten will be high, but not quite that high, once they start playing 9 conference games.

Can they make these rules that basically shut everyone else out.
I know the stipend is what is talked about most .
Would P5 specific rules like these be allowed ?

(05-27-2014 12:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 09:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  In fact, if I'm the Big 12 I would have serious doubts about wanting to hold a rematch title game every year.

The Pac-12 title game has been a rematch in both of the last two seasons. When you play 4 of 6 teams in the other division in the regular season, the odds of a rematch are high. The odds of a rematch in the Big Ten will be high, but not quite that high, once they start playing 9 conference games.

No doubt, but in a 10 team league, not only is it a guaranteed rematch every single year but the #1 seed has technically already won the league anyway. It would akin to winning the regular season but not the "tournament".

The big money schools have been playing by their own specific rules for years.

(05-27-2014 07:27 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 09:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  In fact, if I'm the Big 12 I would have serious doubts about wanting to hold a rematch title game every year.

The Pac-12 title game has been a rematch in both of the last two seasons. When you play 4 of 6 teams in the other division in the regular season, the odds of a rematch are high. The odds of a rematch in the Big Ten will be high, but not quite that high, once they start playing 9 conference games.

No doubt, but in a 10 team league, not only is it a guaranteed rematch every single year but the #1 seed has technically already won the league anyway. It would akin to winning the regular season but not the "tournament".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!

(05-27-2014 08:45 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 07:27 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 09:25 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  In fact, if I'm the Big 12 I would have serious doubts about wanting to hold a rematch title game every year.

The Pac-12 title game has been a rematch in both of the last two seasons. When you play 4 of 6 teams in the other division in the regular season, the odds of a rematch are high. The odds of a rematch in the Big Ten will be high, but not quite that high, once they start playing 9 conference games.

No doubt, but in a 10 team league, not only is it a guaranteed rematch every single year but the #1 seed has technically already won the league anyway. It would akin to winning the regular season but not the "tournament".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!

In other words, it would be just like forcing a team that wins the conference regular season in basketball to play a conference tournament?

Yep, except there is no guaranteed spot for the winner of the "tournament"

(05-26-2014 08:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  my prediction:

hell will freeze over before the other p5 let the b12 reap the same benefits of a 12/14 team conference with only 10 teams.

They let the Big East do it for years.

It'll be interesting to see how the committee works in the inaugural year

(05-26-2014 10:24 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  with the new changes all p5 should be at 14 schools. anything less is wrong. The Big 12 and PAC need to add from the Non P5 pool of available candidates. All would be even in distribution of money each league generates and all have same scheduling systems with No division. This is the only way to make all P5 equal .every conference has weaker schools so adding 6 schools from the pool is Not a determent to the Big12 and PAC. You can't complain about needing 10 - 20 million increased dollar value to the other schools. That should have already been done. If You're not willing to go to 14 then Drop to a G5 level and quit crying

Why is 14 the magic number? Why not 12, or 16, or 10? Or my personal preference, 9? The makeup of conferences has always been a result of a fluid system. So why is there now a "should"?

no one is going to force mandatory membership numbers. never set a precedent that can be used against you at a late time.

There may be some rules the P5 adopts that others choose not to but for the most part the proposals floating now are pretty decent and have the possibility of benefitting the G5.

Stipend. I suspect we will see a flat dollar amount because even the members of the Pac-12 won't want the true cost of attendance. I suspect the cost of living in Tempe and Tucson is lower than Berkley and Palo Alto. Would Arizona and Arizona State want to have to explain buying power to recruits so they understand they aren't really getting $1000 more at Cal and Stanford? They will push for a flat number.

The G5 don't win many recruiting wars head-to-head with the P5 but they have some real hassles in hoops dealing with other Division I schools. If they adopt stipend and those others do not, the G5 gain a basketball recruiting advantage.

Multi-year guaranteed scholarships.
Today it is fairly common for a P5 school to suddenly see they aren't getting their first handful of choices at a position and come in late to offer a full ride to a player committed to a G5 (AState has at least one every year). AState can stay in the game by offering the kid a four year guaranteed scholarship, now the ball is in the P5 school's court to make a decision whether he is worth a four year guarantee (not uncommon that these players don't make it four years at the P5). So now the kid has a choice of knowing he has a ride for four years at a G5 or year-to-year at the P5 or the P5 can match tying up a slot for four years unless they persuade him to transfer without the threat he won't have a scholie if he doesn't.

This can reduce the pre-signing day attrition that often causes last minute scrambles to find a player.

Because 3 are already at 14 and it's much easier to bring the other 2 up to 14 for P5 balance. Also There are better chances of the other 2 conferences landing 2 for the PAC and 4 for the Big12 , competitive schools amongst the remaining G5 that can step up now than everyone at 16. Besides You won't have 6 schools leaving the SEC, ACC and B1G. Forget that chance.12 won't happen for Them.