(04-07-2015 03:28 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:21 PM)bluesox Wrote:  If the ACC is going to 3 pods of 5, got to think ND football is in the title game pool.

North: BC, Cuse, Pitt, ND, Lville

Central: UVA, Vtech, UNC, Duke, NC state

South: Wake, Clem, Gtech, FSU, Miami

format 4-2-2
ND plays a 4-1-1 format with BYU/Army/Navy playing a 1-1 format. 2 highest ranked teams are in the title game.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

Should link that post to the ACC board thread

Not sure how you do three divisions of 14 teams, unless there's an expansion coming...

(04-07-2015 02:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:36 PM)goofus Wrote:  Oh so its just one year away? When have I heard that before? This whole idea that conferences will be allowed to whatever they want with no restrictions is not realistic and would lead to a whole bunch of unintentional consequences.

If weeding out undeserving athletic departments is a part of it, I'm all for it. Chuck out the weak sisters, the one sport wonders, and focus on those schools that value every sport they sponsor.

This. These guys are turning football into a racket.

(04-07-2015 01:53 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  If this passes I am not sure why the ACC would want to maintain two divisions, let alone move to three. I would think if they scuttle the divisions, and assuming that they stay at 14 FB members and 8 conference games, they'd look closely at situation where each school would play three specific opponents every season and then play five of the other ten schools every other year.

ding, ding, ding. Correct answer. Hope that is what the ACC truly wants out of this.

Cheers,
Neil

I posted this in another thread but I'll repeat it here. I was listening to the radio the other day regarding G5, P5, non-football conferences, etc, etc, as they related to the NCAA tournament and any kind of break away from the NCAA. There was a pretty well respected writer on there and for the life of me I can't remember who it was. I want to say it was somebody like Pete Thamel but I'm pretty sure that's not it. Anyway, his thoughts were there will be 3 governing bodies eventually:

1 for FBS football
1 for what is now considered Division 1 basketball
1 for everything else considered Division 1

Essentially each of the 3 groups would have it's own set of rules. Not sure what would happen to FCS as that wasn't very clear from the interview.

The reasoning was similar to many thoughts we've read here. "Why should Alabama football be subject to similar governing as Quinnipiac lacrosse?" I'm pretty sure those were his exact words. Anyway... thoughts?

(04-07-2015 02:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Big 12 will now have CCG with 10 teams, no need to expand.

Nope, none.

(04-07-2015 03:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Big 12 will now have CCG with 10 teams, no need to expand.

Even if the revised rule allows a CCG with 10, I have my doubts that the XII will have a CCG.

They've liked getting their champion into the post-season without the risk of a loss in the CCG.

IMO, the Big 12 realizes the lack of a title game hurt them in the CFP selection this past year. Also, a CCG will bring in more money. No brainer ...

(04-07-2015 03:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I am for deregulation as long as they make it only 12 members or above have the ability to do it. I wouldn't allow the big 12 to have a tittle game at 10 members but if the ACC wants 3 pods of 5 or whatever, that's fine.

Other than it would mean they wouldn't have to expand, and therefore have no need to add your currently-G5 school, why not?

Personally, I badly want the Big 12 to expand, because maybe my Bulls would get the call-up. But I honestly can't think of an actual good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have a title game with 10 schools.

(04-07-2015 03:21 PM)bluesox Wrote:  If the ACC is going to 3 pods of 5, got to think ND football is in the title game pool.

North: BC, Cuse, Pitt, ND, Lville

Central: UVA, Vtech, UNC, Duke, NC state

South: Wake, Clem, Gtech, FSU, Miami

format 4-2-2
ND plays a 4-1-1 format with BYU/Army/Navy playing a 1-1 format. 2 highest ranked teams are in the title game.

I can live with this. Not my favorite, but I can live with it...

(04-07-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the Big 12 realizes the lack of a title game hurt them in the CFP selection this past year. Also, a CCG will bring in more money. No brainer ...

Wouldn't have mattered this past year. Even if Baylor and TCU played in the CCG, it would've been a (relatively) close game.

Still not enough to push the winner over Florida St (the 4th best team, going into the playoff) or Ohio St (the 3rd best team, going into the playoff).


The unfortunate reality of the XII last year is that its best team lost to its second best team and its second best team didn't play anyone in non-conference.

They were always going to be the P5 that got screwed out.


How they change that is a tough non-conf. slate and winning those tough games. Then having a blow out win in the CCG for the best team, if they have a CCG. But of course that's never a given.

Yes, it would bring in more money. But Texas and Oklahoma make the decisions and those two already make plenty of money and have the history of getting burnt or almost burnt in recent XII CCG's.

(04-07-2015 03:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you go back and read the history of the rule allowing divisional play and a CCG---the selection of 12 teams to allow divisional play was completely arbitrary. There probably should never have been a set number of teams established.

The truth is it was an under the radar rule that few even noticed. The requirement for a CCG was originally set at 14 by the conference that originally proposed the rule. Another conference, liked the concept, and during the legislative process requested that the number be changed to 12 so it would apply to their conference as well. There is no real pressing reason for the number "12" to be set in stone. It just happened to fit the needs of the two conferences pushing the rule at the time.

The B1G and PAC had to follow the arbitrary rule. Why wasn't it revised for them?

XII shouldn't get off easy.

Are you suggesting that the Pac-12 expansion was ENTIRELY driven for by the desire for a CCG? And even if it was, they were completely within their rights to propose a change in the divisional play rules. They choose not to add schools thay wanted and not worry about the legislative route. That was their choice. These rules changes are following the NCAA legislative process. Rules change. It happens all the time. Hits that used to be good hard nosed big time legal hits now cause kids to be suspended. Times change.

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the Big 12 realizes the lack of a title game hurt them in the CFP selection this past year. Also, a CCG will bring in more money. No brainer ...

Wouldn't have mattered this past year. Even if Baylor and TCU played in the CCG, it would've been a (relatively) close game.

Still not enough to push the winner over Florida St (the 4th best team, going into the playoff) or Ohio St (the 3rd best team, going into the playoff).


The unfortunate reality of the XII last year is that it's best team, TCU, lost to it's second best team, Baylor and it's second best team didn't play anyone in its non-conference schedule.

They were always going to be the P5 that got screwed out.


How they change that is a tough non-conf. slate and winning those tough games. Then having a blow out win in the CCG for the best team, if they have a CCG. But of course that's never a given.

Yes, it would bring in more money. But Texas and Oklahoma make the decisions and those two already make plenty of money and have the history of getting burnt or almost burnt in recent XII CCG's.

No, the reality for the Big 12 is that it's 2 best teams also happened to have it's 2 smallest fan bases. Conspiracy theory? Maybe.

(04-07-2015 04:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Other than it would mean they wouldn't have to expand, and therefore have no need to add your currently-G5 school, why not?

Personally, I badly want the Big 12 to expand, because maybe my Bulls would get the call-up. But I honestly can't think of an actual good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have a title game with 10 schools.

Perfectly good reason: no other P5 conference was allowed to have one with less than 12, so the XII shouldn't get special treatment.

(04-07-2015 03:21 PM)bluesox Wrote:  If the ACC is going to 3 pods of 5, got to think ND football is in the title game pool.

North: BC, Cuse, Pitt, ND, Lville

Central: UVA, Vtech, UNC, Duke, NC state

South: Wake, Clem, Gtech, FSU, Miami

format 4-2-2
ND plays a 4-1-1 format with BYU/Army/Navy playing a 1-1 format. 2 highest ranked teams are in the title game.

I'd put Gtech with BC, Cuse, ND and Pitt. Then Wake with the other core ACC schools, NC, Duke, VA and NC St. Finally, Clem & FSU with VT, Miami and LVille.

(04-07-2015 01:53 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  If this passes I am not sure why the ACC would want to maintain two divisions, let alone move to three. I would think if they scuttle the divisions, and assuming that they stay at 14 FB members and 8 conference games, they'd look closely at situation where each school would play three specific opponents every season and then play five of the other ten schools every other year.

That is how I would go...14 Schools and the Top 2 play for the Title.

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Are you suggesting that the Pac-12 expansion was ENTIRELY driven for by the desire for a CCG? And even if it was, they were completely within their rights to propose a change in the divisional play rules. They choose not to add schools thay wanted and not worry about the legislative route. That was their choice. These rules changes are following the NCAA legislative process. Rules change. It happens all the time. Hits that used to be good hard nosed big time legal hits now cause kids to be suspended. Times change.

I'm suggesting that the PAC-10 would've very happily played a round-robin in the regular season and had the best two teams play a CCG for game 13.

They would've gotten the same revenue bump and the revenue per school would've been higher than it is now with UT and CO.

That absolutely would've happened.

(04-07-2015 04:10 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  No, the reality for the Big 12 is that it's 2 best teams also happened to have it's 2 smallest fan bases. Conspiracy theory? Maybe.

Of course that's a conspiracy theory. That's silliness.

(04-07-2015 04:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Are you suggesting that the Pac-12 expansion was ENTIRELY driven for by the desire for a CCG? And even if it was, they were completely within their rights to propose a change in the divisional play rules. They choose not to add schools thay wanted and not worry about the legislative route. That was their choice. These rules changes are following the NCAA legislative process. Rules change. It happens all the time. Hits that used to be good hard nosed big time legal hits now cause kids to be suspended. Times change.

I'm suggesting that the PAC-10 would've very happily played a round-robin in the regular season and had the best two teams play a CCG for game 13.

They would've gotten the same revenue bump and the revenue per school would've been higher than it is now with UT and CO.

That absolutely would've happened.

The real question here is will this deregulation allow conferences to dump under performing schools?

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the Big 12 realizes the lack of a title game hurt them in the CFP selection this past year. Also, a CCG will bring in more money. No brainer ...

The unfortunate reality of the XII last year is that its best team lost to its second best team and its second best team didn't play anyone in non-conference.

They were always going to be the P5 that got screwed out.

Agree with the first statement- the Big 12 did get "cross-cut".

Disagree with the second, at least without the disclaimer "if the favorites all won in the champ games". All that had to happen was one upset and the Big 12 would have been in. Two upsets and the Big 12 probably would have had two teams in.

I think the ACC is more likely to follow its basketball and put them all under one line than going to pods or clusters. You can free up certain programs to see ones they want more easily.

But, 2016 AND it's held up by how the ACC is trying to define it? Sounds like the Big XII alone can't get the support.