Was really curious about if there was any timeline or updates on this. The more I think about it, I think it will stay at 12. Why would the other P5 and the G5 vote for it since most have followed the rule and have 12 members? I can see FOX wanting a B12 Championship Game to add to their lineup thus helping the B12 to actually have 12 teams if the 10 rule is turned down and ensuring the money stays the same in the TV contract if two teams are added.

(09-18-2014 12:30 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Was really curious about if there was any timeline or updates on this. The more I think about it, I think it will stay at 12. Why would the other P5 and the G5 vote for it since most have followed the rule and have 12 members? I can see FOX wanting a B12 Championship Game to add to their lineup thus helping the B12 to actually have 12 teams if the 10 rule is turned down and ensuring the money stays the same in the TV contract if two teams are added.

ACC wants the option to scrap the divisional system and pick the two participants any way they like. Big 10 probably would have preferred to have the option to rematch Nebraska and Michigan in 2012 rather than have Nebraska face 7-5 (4-4 Big Ten) Wisconsin.

In May, Bowlsby bragged that the proposal had support and nearly no objections and should pass in August. It was not on the BOD agenda in August. The media seems to have forgotten about it because nobody mentions it anymore. I'm not sure what happened to it, but I am guessing it died in committee.

Another interesting development regarding this was how the AAC went into their spring meetings in May saying that there would be no firm decisions made on divisions until August, but then days later came out and announced division composition for 2015.

I just tend to think it lost support. But then again, Swofford is a ninja and this could just be lying dormant for the time being and come up again in October or even January.

(09-18-2014 01:27 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  In May, Bowlsby bragged that the proposal had support and nearly no objections and should pass in August. It was not on the BOD agenda in August. The media seems to have forgotten about it because nobody mentions it anymore. I'm not sure what happened to it, but I am guessing it died in committee.

Another interesting development regarding this was how the AAC went into their spring meetings in May saying that there would be no firm decisions made on divisions until August, but then days later came out and announced division composition for 2015.

I just tend to think it lost support. But then again, Swofford is a ninja and this could just be lying dormant for the time being and come up again in October or even January.

Or they decided to leave it to autonomy since the sponsors were both P5 conferences.

(09-18-2014 01:27 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  In May, Bowlsby bragged that the proposal had support and nearly no objections and should pass in August. It was not on the BOD agenda in August. The media seems to have forgotten about it because nobody mentions it anymore. I'm not sure what happened to it, but I am guessing it died in committee.

Another interesting development regarding this was how the AAC went into their spring meetings in May saying that there would be no firm decisions made on divisions until August, but then days later came out and announced division composition for 2015.

I just tend to think it lost support. But then again, Swofford is a ninja and this could just be lying dormant for the time being and come up again in October or even January.

I think its buried until the autonomy sorts itself out as it was a higher priority.
I know some people like me were thinking this was because of Duke being in the CCG. But, I have a hunch it that was the jest of it. We'll see in a month with some of the conference games are played more if the ACC makes more noise about it.
If this does get passed, I would put the standard at 11 or more teams to scrap divisions and have the conference decide who plays in the CCG.

(09-18-2014 01:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:27 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  In May, Bowlsby bragged that the proposal had support and nearly no objections and should pass in August. It was not on the BOD agenda in August. The media seems to have forgotten about it because nobody mentions it anymore. I'm not sure what happened to it, but I am guessing it died in committee.

Another interesting development regarding this was how the AAC went into their spring meetings in May saying that there would be no firm decisions made on divisions until August, but then days later came out and announced division composition for 2015.

I just tend to think it lost support. But then again, Swofford is a ninja and this could just be lying dormant for the time being and come up again in October or even January.

Or they decided to leave it to autonomy since the sponsors were both P5 conferences.

Except that's not an area for autonomy. That would be a rule for FBS.

I think given that 4/5 of the p5 have 12+ members- there's going to be no want to get rid of the 12 team minimum quite frankly.

(09-18-2014 01:45 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:27 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  In May, Bowlsby bragged that the proposal had support and nearly no objections and should pass in August. It was not on the BOD agenda in August. The media seems to have forgotten about it because nobody mentions it anymore. I'm not sure what happened to it, but I am guessing it died in committee.

Another interesting development regarding this was how the AAC went into their spring meetings in May saying that there would be no firm decisions made on divisions until August, but then days later came out and announced division composition for 2015.

I just tend to think it lost support. But then again, Swofford is a ninja and this could just be lying dormant for the time being and come up again in October or even January.

I think its buried until the autonomy sorts itself out as it was a higher priority.
I know some people like me were thinking this was because of Duke being in the CCG. But, I have a hunch it that was the jest of it. We'll see in a month with some of the conference games are played more if the ACC makes more noise about it.
If this does get passed, I would put the standard at 11 or more teams to scrap divisions and have the conference decide who plays in the CCG.

I think the ACC was in favor of conference deciding but not sure they were for the reducing the 12 team min. It would not surprise me if they figured they could not do one without the other, thus being like Gov't better not to do anything and let it quietly die on the vine. Maybe it will be part of that January meeting. I believe this will be the final decision for the B12 on expanding or not. If they could get away with 10 and CCG, no reason to expand. I just think being the only P5 and probably soon the only FBS conference without CCG, they will have them have one in the near future n FOX.

(09-18-2014 01:27 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  In May, Bowlsby bragged that the proposal had support and nearly no objections and should pass in August. It was not on the BOD agenda in August. The media seems to have forgotten about it because nobody mentions it anymore. I'm not sure what happened to it, but I am guessing it died in committee.

Another interesting development regarding this was how the AAC went into their spring meetings in May saying that there would be no firm decisions made on divisions until August, but then days later came out and announced division composition for 2015.

I just tend to think it lost support. But then again, Swofford is a ninja and this could just be lying dormant for the time being and come up again in October or even January.

I'd be curious why it would get buried. Like, the Big Ten and PAC didn't author it, so it doesn't get through?

(09-18-2014 01:51 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think given that 4/5 of the p5 have 12+ members- there's going to be no want to get rid of the 12 team minimum quite frankly.

Could be held as a token to get support for some future proposal by other members of the p5. A little tit for tat.

The whole thing sounded made up because nobody could ever tell you the details of the proposal. Except for some vague idea that conferences could do whatever they wanted, which would never pass.

I am still convinced there was no real proposal put down in writing that could be voted on. Just some vague idea that was discussed at a very high level. Anything more than that was made up.

(09-19-2014 07:18 AM)goofus Wrote:  The whole thing sounded made up because nobody could ever tell you the details of the proposal. Except for some vague idea that conferences could do whatever they wanted, which would never pass.

I am still convinced there was no real proposal put down in writing that could be voted on. Just some vague idea that was discussed at a very high level. Anything more than that was made up.

Details were easy. Any FBS league could sponsor a championship game that would not count against the 12 game schedule limit. It eliminated the requirement for 12 teams (Big XII, Sun Belt issue), it eliminated the need for two divisions (ACC issue because they seem unsatisfied with how they are aligned, but potentially a Big 10 issue since they've not been overly happy with their divisional format), eliminated the requirement that members of a division play all other members of the division (previously a MAC issue because it couldn't be done with 13 teams and 8 league games, but potentially a future issue if a league goes to 16 or more, potenially an ACC issue if ND were permitted to compete for the league title by playing 5 league games, top two based on ranking could play).

Exactly. The idea was simply to allow CCGs without any other requirements. While of prefer no CCGs at all, I'll take this in a heartbeat over the current system

The last I saw the ncaa will be discussing it in Jan.
Right now you have to have 2 divisions of at least 6 AND must play each team in your division right?

(09-19-2014 09:00 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Exactly. The idea was simply to allow CCGs without any other requirements. While of prefer no CCGs at all, I'll take this in a heartbeat over the current system

The questions of whether you need 12 teams to have a CCG and whether you must have separate divisions to determine the participants in a CCG are two separate and distinct things. It's entirely possible that the NCAA could decide to allow conferences to decide who their participants are while still requiring 12 teams to stage a CCG in the first place.

As for saying that the other conferences "followed the rules" for having a CCG almost sounds as if the NCAA was trying to encourage conferences to expand. The NCAA's role in this rule was entirely passive and reactive. The fact remains that if you have a small enough conference that you play a full round robin, then a CCG is not only redundant, it is patently unfair to the team that won the regular season tournament outright. However, I could easily see a middle road where a conference could break ties with a one game playoff.

This, of course, could only come into play with a tie involving three or more teams, since in a two way tie one or the other would have already won its head to head matchup. So even here one team would have to be eliminated from consideration by some tiebreak formula, so you might just as well determine the champion that way.

No way to get around a three way tie, outside of ranking and OOC records. You can have this crop up both with both division and round robin formats. There is simply no way to break them besides a 4 team playoff, and that is totally unrealistic. But theses scenarios are very rare and hardly ever come to fruition. Honestly, the divisions work, especially now that you have some seven teams in some of these divisions. It is enough of a sample size. I would just keep the format as is. It would be stupid if the top two teams already played each other, and then have to play each other again due to a mandatory CCG. This is less likely to occur if the teams come from opposite divisions with 7 teams each. Leave it as is because I don't see a better systems for 12/14 team leagues.

One of the keys I think will be fascinating, if a top four team is guaranteed to remain in the top four no matter what following CCG weekend (win/lose), could that team differ in the SEC Championship instead, and earn a week off, in lieu of another team within the division that is on that 4/5 bubble? We had this scenario a few times in the SEC the last few years, with Bama/LSU notably. Could LSU have differed and had Bama vs UGA in the CCG instead in 2012?

(09-19-2014 10:09 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No way to get around a three way tie, outside of ranking and OOC records. You can have this crop up both with both division and round robin formats. There is simply no way to break them besides a 4 team playoff, and that is totally unrealistic. But theses scenarios are very rare and hardly ever come to fruition. Honestly, the divisions work, especially now that you have some seven teams in some of these divisions. It is enough of a sample size. I would just keep the format as is. It would be stupid if the top two teams already played each other, and then have to play each other again due to a mandatory CCG. This is less likely to occur if the teams come from opposite divisions with 7 teams each. Leave it as is because I don't see a better systems for 12/14 team leagues.

One of the keys I think will be fascinating, if a top four team is guaranteed to remain in the top four no matter what following CCG weekend (win/lose), could that team differ in the SEC Championship instead, and earn a week off, in lieu of another team within the division that is on that 4/5 bubble? We had this scenario a few times in the SEC the last few years, with Bama/LSU notably. Could LSU have differed and had Bama vs UGA in the CCG instead in 2012?

What you are suggesting (I think) is gaming the system completely by replacing the CCG with a play-in game for either the CFP or an access bowl slot. In effect, you would be saying that every conference can stage a post season game for the sole purpose of trying to promote its second best team. The game would be nothing more than an audition for the selection committee. I don't see that ever flying.

(09-19-2014 10:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-19-2014 10:09 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  No way to get around a three way tie, outside of ranking and OOC records. You can have this crop up both with both division and round robin formats. There is simply no way to break them besides a 4 team playoff, and that is totally unrealistic. But theses scenarios are very rare and hardly ever come to fruition. Honestly, the divisions work, especially now that you have some seven teams in some of these divisions. It is enough of a sample size. I would just keep the format as is. It would be stupid if the top two teams already played each other, and then have to play each other again due to a mandatory CCG. This is less likely to occur if the teams come from opposite divisions with 7 teams each. Leave it as is because I don't see a better systems for 12/14 team leagues.

One of the keys I think will be fascinating, if a top four team is guaranteed to remain in the top four no matter what following CCG weekend (win/lose), could that team differ in the SEC Championship instead, and earn a week off, in lieu of another team within the division that is on that 4/5 bubble? We had this scenario a few times in the SEC the last few years, with Bama/LSU notably. Could LSU have differed and had Bama vs UGA in the CCG instead in 2012?

What you are suggesting (I think) is gaming the system completely by replacing the CCG with a play-in game for either the CFP or an access bowl slot. In effect, you would be saying that every conference can stage a post season game for the sole purpose of trying to promote its second best team. The game would be nothing more than an audition for the selection committee. I don't see that ever flying.

No quite, but partly. We see it all the time. 9-3 or 8-4 division winner pulling an upset on a top ranked team, yet that team finishes 12-1 and still falls in the top 2 let alone top 4. Great for the SEC since they wrap up two automatic berths in the CFP bowl rotation. But what if Bama was 11-1 behind previously 12-0 LSU and finishes top 4 as well? Or you have a mirror scenario with OSU/MSU/Mich? Now the SEC sends three teams in the CFP bowl rotation, so I guess it's a win win now that I think about it...

Either way, the CCG's are good for CF. It's just another weekend to separate the cream from the crop. I just hate the fact that non-division winners in top P5 conferences are going to get into the playoff. I HATED it when Bama played LSU in a rematch game. That basically is what led to change in the first place. Now non-division winners are going to qualify twice as much if not more.