Since the autonomy issue has been approved, it should now be time to get the issue of fbs conference divisions and ccg addressed.

The link is to an old article and here is an excerpt:

"An NCAA spokesman told CBSSports.com that the association's board of directors would discuss the proposal at its April meeting. However, that spokesman also pointed out that the NCAA presidents have "declined to consider rules changes proposed by the conferences," before first finishing the reform and restructuring agendas.

That reform agenda has taken center stage since the results of a presidential summit in August 2011 produced more issues than solved problems. The NCAA and its membership is now in the process of figuring out how to give more power to day-to-day stakeholders like athletic directors and commissioners."


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

Soon.

That whole CCG rule change thing always sounded made up to me. NO one could ever provide the details of what was being proposed. And if there was no details to the proposal, that could explain why it got bogged down and has not passed yet.

I assume it will be on the October agenda. Could be in effect as early as next year, but I doubt any conference implements any changes before the 2016-17 season.

(08-13-2014 04:59 PM)goofus Wrote:  That whole CCG rule change thing always sounded made up to me. NO one could ever provide the details of what was being proposed. And if there was no details to the proposal, that could explain why it got bogged down and has not passed yet.

You know, the orginal rule proposal had no real reason for requiring 12 teams. It wasn't like some big study was performed to decide how many teams would be required to make divisions. The rule was actually proposed by a conference that had 14 teams (Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference)--but another conference (Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference), who had just 12 members, asked if they would lower the 14 team requirement in the proposal so the CIAC could utilize the rule as well. That's were the 12 team number came from. Interestingly, neither conference that pushed the proposal ended up using the rule immediately after it passed. The SEC was the first conference to actually utilize the option.

The new proposal will remove the required number and allow conferences to have more flexibility in their scheduling (ie--a division will no longer have to play a full round robin within the division) and it will allow each conference to decide how they determine the participants of their championship game.

Here's a good article on how the conference championship game rule was passed in the first place, back in 1987:

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/...ule-origin

(08-13-2014 04:10 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Since the autonomy issue has been approved, it should now be time to get the issue of fbs conference divisions and ccg addressed.

The link is to an old article and here is an excerpt:

"An NCAA spokesman told CBSSports.com that the association's board of directors would discuss the proposal at its April meeting. However, that spokesman also pointed out that the NCAA presidents have "declined to consider rules changes proposed by the conferences," before first finishing the reform and restructuring agendas.

That reform agenda has taken center stage since the results of a presidential summit in August 2011 produced more issues than solved problems. The NCAA and its membership is now in the process of figuring out how to give more power to day-to-day stakeholders like athletic directors and commissioners."


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

(08-13-2014 04:12 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Soon.

Next Tuesday

(08-13-2014 05:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 04:59 PM)goofus Wrote:  That whole CCG rule change thing always sounded made up to me. NO one could ever provide the details of what was being proposed. And if there was no details to the proposal, that could explain why it got bogged down and has not passed yet.

You know, the orginal rule proposal had no real reason for requiring 12 teams. It wasn't like some big study was performed to decide how many teams would be required to make divisions. The rule was actually proposed by a conference that had 14 teams (Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference)--but another conference (Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference), who had just 12 members, asked if they would lower the 14 team requirement in the proposal so the CIAC could utilize the rule as well. That's were the 12 team number came from. Interestingly, neither conference that pushed the proposal ended up using the rule immediately after it passed. The SEC was the first conference to actually utilize the option.

The new proposal will remove the required number and allow conferences to have more flexibility in their scheduling (ie--a division will no longer have to play a full round robin within the division) and it will allow each conference to decide how they determine the participants of their championship game.

You act like there was no logic or thought behind the original rule. I am sure if thought about it, you can understand why they came up with the rules they did.

now suppose they remove the rule that you need 2 divisions and you have to play everyone in your division. Could Notre Dame now be eligible for the ACC CCG by playing only 5 conference games a year? If the rule says the ACC can do whatever it wants, I guess so.

Can BYU join the pac-12 in football only, play no conference games and still be eligible for the Pac-12 CCG? If thats what the pac-12 wants, I guess so. I can go on with countless number of bizarre examples, but you get the point.

There needs to be some rules for who can have a CCG and who can play in them.

(08-13-2014 06:32 PM)goofus Wrote:  You act like there was no logic or thought behind the original rule. I am sure if thought about it, you can understand why they came up with the rules they did.

now suppose they remove the rule that you need 2 divisions and you have to play everyone in your division. Could Notre Dame now be eligible for the ACC CCG by playing only 5 conference games a year? If the rule says the ACC can do whatever it wants, I guess so.

Can BYU join the pac-12 in football only, play no conference games and still be eligible for the Pac-12 CCG? If thats what the pac-12 wants, I guess so. I can go on with countless number of bizarre examples, but you get the point.

There needs to be some rules for who can have a CCG and who can play in them.

Why? I'm serious, actually. If it's okay with Notre Dame and the ACC, or BYU and the PAC, etc, then who is it hurting? (And it's not a valid response to say that it's hurting the ACC team whose place ND is taking--the ACC is okay with it in this hypothetical?)

(08-13-2014 07:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 06:32 PM)goofus Wrote:  You act like there was no logic or thought behind the original rule. I am sure if thought about it, you can understand why they came up with the rules they did.

now suppose they remove the rule that you need 2 divisions and you have to play everyone in your division. Could Notre Dame now be eligible for the ACC CCG by playing only 5 conference games a year? If the rule says the ACC can do whatever it wants, I guess so.

Can BYU join the pac-12 in football only, play no conference games and still be eligible for the Pac-12 CCG? If thats what the pac-12 wants, I guess so. I can go on with countless number of bizarre examples, but you get the point.

There needs to be some rules for who can have a CCG and who can play in them.

Why? I'm serious, actually. If it's okay with Notre Dame and the ACC, or BYU and the PAC, etc, then who is it hurting? (And it's not a valid response to say that it's hurting the ACC team whose place ND is taking--the ACC is okay with it in this hypothetical?)

More to the point: No conference is going to let a non-member or partial member play in its conference title game, so we don't need a rule to outlaw it. That would be like passing a rule against building ski resorts in Times Square.

(08-13-2014 07:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 07:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 06:32 PM)goofus Wrote:  You act like there was no logic or thought behind the original rule. I am sure if thought about it, you can understand why they came up with the rules they did.

now suppose they remove the rule that you need 2 divisions and you have to play everyone in your division. Could Notre Dame now be eligible for the ACC CCG by playing only 5 conference games a year? If the rule says the ACC can do whatever it wants, I guess so.

Can BYU join the pac-12 in football only, play no conference games and still be eligible for the Pac-12 CCG? If thats what the pac-12 wants, I guess so. I can go on with countless number of bizarre examples, but you get the point.

There needs to be some rules for who can have a CCG and who can play in them.

Why? I'm serious, actually. If it's okay with Notre Dame and the ACC, or BYU and the PAC, etc, then who is it hurting? (And it's not a valid response to say that it's hurting the ACC team whose place ND is taking--the ACC is okay with it in this hypothetical?)

More to the point: No conference is going to let a non-member or partial member play in its conference title game, so we don't need a rule to outlaw it. That would be like passing a rule against building ski resorts in Times Square.

Unfortunately for some, common scene doesn't become common scene until legislated.

The ACC wanted to determine the way the championship game is filled. B12 wanted to only need 10 teams. I truly think this may be a split decision. Why conferences that 12 or more want to reward the B12 by staying at 10? B12 may have hurt the cause as well by stating that each time playing each other, a true champion has been determined. I think the determination will be granted as to who plays but the teams are remain at 12. Which will have the B12 look at either increasing to 12 or be the only major conference without a CG. With AAC going to 12 next year, I believe only the Sun Belt and B12 are without a title game. If my prediction holds true, which two teams do the B12 go after?

(08-14-2014 09:51 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  The ACC wanted to determine the way the championship game is filled. B12 wanted to only need 10 teams. I truly think this may be a split decision. Why conferences that 12 or more want to reward the B12 by staying at 10? B12 may have hurt the cause as well by stating that each time playing each other, a true champion has been determined. I think the determination will be granted as to who plays but the teams are remain at 12. Which will have the B12 look at either increasing to 12 or be the only major conference without a CG. With AAC going to 12 next year, I believe only the Sun Belt and B12 are without a title game. If my prediction holds true, which two teams do the B12 go after?

If the goal is to have enough teams for a CCG, but not really expand, then the big 12 should add BYU for football only and have BYU only play 4 conference games per year. BYU can keep its own tv contract and won't get any tv money from the big 12. Then make the same offer to Missouri State. football only. Only 4 conference games. No tv money.

(08-14-2014 09:51 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  The ACC wanted to determine the way the championship game is filled. B12 wanted to only need 10 teams. I truly think this may be a split decision. Why conferences that 12 or more want to reward the B12 by staying at 10? B12 may have hurt the cause as well by stating that each time playing each other, a true champion has been determined. I think the determination will be granted as to who plays but the teams are remain at 12. Which will have the B12 look at either increasing to 12 or be the only major conference without a CG. With AAC going to 12 next year, I believe only the Sun Belt and B12 are without a title game. If my prediction holds true, which two teams do the B12 go after?

If you are say... Nick Saban and you have a loss to Auburn and stand at 11-1 but you are on the bubble and Oklahoma State at 11-1 leads the Big XII but scored a narrow victory at home vs. OU who is 10-2 in Bedlam, wouldn't you want OKST to have to play OU again at JerryWorld to be named Big XII champ and run the risk of being knocked out of the top 4?

(08-13-2014 05:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You know, the orginal rule proposal had no real reason for requiring 12 teams. It wasn't like some big study was performed to decide how many teams would be required to make divisions. The rule was actually proposed by a conference that had 14 teams (Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference)--but another conference (Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference), who had just 12 members, asked if they would lower the 14 team requirement in the proposal so the CIAC could utilize the rule as well. That's were the 12 team number came from.

That omits whatever arguments were set forward at the time. The fact that they pushed the number down in response to the request rather than eliminating it could well have been because it was easier to pass with 12 than with no lower limit ... for the reason that the argument for being allowed to split into divisions and having division champions play off get stronger once you get past the size where you can play a round robin.

It is quite possible that rather than having no reason, it was that there was no coverage of whatever informal discussions took place, because it was not originally proposed by an FBS conference, so it was not on the beat of most sports journalists.

Definitely for the other three P5 conferences, freedom to set up CCG as they most prefer, as with the ACC proposal, would be of more immediate interest than freedom to have a CCG at under 12 members, so if only one modification is made, the one that the ACC is asking for, deregulating choice of participants, seems more likely than the one that the Big12 is asking for, deregulating number of schools required.

(08-14-2014 11:37 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 05:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You know, the orginal rule proposal had no real reason for requiring 12 teams. It wasn't like some big study was performed to decide how many teams would be required to make divisions. The rule was actually proposed by a conference that had 14 teams (Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference)--but another conference (Central Intercollegiate Athletic Conference), who had just 12 members, asked if they would lower the 14 team requirement in the proposal so the CIAC could utilize the rule as well. That's were the 12 team number came from.

That omits whatever arguments were set forward at the time. The fact that they pushed the number down in response to the request rather than eliminating it could well have been because it was easier to pass with 12 than with no lower limit ... for the reason that the argument for being allowed to split into divisions and having division champions play off get stronger once you get past the size where you can play a round robin.

It is quite possible that rather than having no reason, it was that there was no coverage of whatever informal discussions took place, because it was not originally proposed by an FBS conference, so it was not on the beat of most sports journalists.

Definitely for the other three P5 conferences, freedom to set up CCG as they most prefer, as with the ACC proposal, would be of more immediate interest than freedom to have a CCG at under 12 members, so if only one modification is made, the one that the ACC is asking for, deregulating choice of participants, seems more likely than the one that the Big12 is asking for, deregulating number of schools required.

Thank you for your well thought out reply. The fact that the original proposal was changed from 14 to 12 and not some other number shows that there was some thought behind the final rule. The fact that it went unchanged for 25+ years also suggests there is some logic to it.

I think the part everyone is missing is why there is a rule that you can have only 2 divisions and why teams need to play everyone in your division. Eliminating this part of the rule opens up a pandora's box of unintended consequences.

Maybe a conference championship game if no round robbin schedule.
Playing everyone else eliminates the need .
Sun belt could pit top two teams as well as Big 12.

The Big 12 options would be add at least one or play eight conference games. Rematches happen in championship games but a guaranteed rematch is dumb.