(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.

It is why they did add Utah and CU. So they could get a CCG.

I'll give fans more credit to show how silly it would be to have a CCG with 10 teams when you already play each other.

(04-07-2015 04:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(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.

It is why they did add Utah and CU. So they could get a CCG.

I'll give fans more credit to show how silly it would be to have a CCG with 10 teams when you already play each other.

I think that if the Big 12 survives they would end up with at least 11 teams. They could use the divisionLESS system proposed for the ACC.

(04-07-2015 04:21 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  The real question here is will this deregulation allow conferences to dump under performing schools?

No, once the chicken has hatched it's very difficult to shove it back into the egg.

(04-07-2015 04:17 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(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.

So instead of conference play determining who plays in the Championship game we let the CFP committee chose? With a strong OOC schedule a team could take a couple of ACC losses and still be ranked higher by the CFP committee than a team who might only have 1 conference loss. I'm not against it but some might call foul.

(04-07-2015 03:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Not sure how you do three divisions of 14 teams, unless there's an expansion coming...

Someone would have to define "deregulation". If we are talking more than 2 divisions and therefore implying conference semis and then finals I could see the appeal for the SEC and Big 10, as not only would it enhance revenues, keep a higher percentage of their schools (and their fan bases energized) deeper into the season, but it would also mean that for the sake of additional markets that additions to 16 or even 18 would be manageable. So in that regard CommuterBob it could mean expansion.

If however by "deregulation" we are merely tossing the Big 12 and the ACC a bone that benefits only them, I don't see it happening.

(04-07-2015 04:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  It is why they did add Utah and CU. So they could get a CCG.

I'll give fans more credit to show how silly it would be to have a CCG with 10 teams when you already play each other.

Of course it's not silly.

1) Money.

2) the regular season contest would have been a home game for one of the teams, thus giving it an unfair advantage for using that win to crown itself the league champion.

The CCG, when done correctly, is always hosted at a neutral venue.

I would just go 14 teams, top 2 conference records end of year play for the title. No divisions, which helps the scheduling out a lot.

If the Pac 12 and Big 10 support this, it is rope a dope setting them up for a knockout punch.

(04-07-2015 04:21 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(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?

You can dump under performing schools right now if you want to. Deregulation has nothing to do with it. Conferences generally don't do that type of thing except under pretty extreme circumstances.

(04-07-2015 04:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(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.

It is why they did add Utah and CU. So they could get a CCG.

I'll give fans more credit to show how silly it would be to have a CCG with 10 teams when you already play each other.

CCG rematches happen all the time.

(04-07-2015 04:17 PM)MplsBison 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

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.

Realistically you don't have to put teams in divisions. The same teams don't have to play each other. For example, and this is just one option, the ACC could have teams play each other like this:


Again this is just one set up. But basically each team has their own unique pod. No need to group teams together. What I did here was insure every team played at least their closest geographical team, and the team they have played most. The third team had to fit what was left after all others were exhausted. Note I do not have ND in this because I don't see them joining just because pods are available.

(04-07-2015 05:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  I think that if the Big 12 survives they would end up with at least 11 teams. They could use the divisionLESS system proposed for the ACC.

That won't happen. They would LOSE money. Namely because you cannot play a nine game schedule with 11 teams. It is mathematically impossible. Thus it would wreck their TV contract.

(04-07-2015 02:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I love how people think everyone needs to be like everyone else. Nobody has an original thought around here. They simply spout the same tired words over and over, thinking that repetition will do the job, never minding the fact that nobody that really matters cares for their opinions.

Instead, they ignore anything that doesn't conform to their ideal of making every conference look like every other conference, which, of course, gives them the opportunity to slide their favorite team into the mix. It's agenda driven, and the schools change with each post, since y'all go to different schools.

I totally agree, Bit.

(04-07-2015 05:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(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.

It is why they did add Utah and CU. So they could get a CCG.

I'll give fans more credit to show how silly it would be to have a CCG with 10 teams when you already play each other.

CCG rematches happen all the time.

Every Pac-12 title game to date has been a rematch. With two 6-team divisions and 9 conference games, each team plays 4 of the 6 teams in the other division each year, meaning that a title game rematch is much more likely than a title game matchup that isn't a rematch.

Would the Pac have stayed with 10 schools, instead of adding UU and CU, after Texas said no? Maybe, if the consultants and TV networks had told them they would get as much money for the 10-team league as for the 12-team league. But maybe not. Extending the footprint farther to the east would have been a reasonable strategic move even if not necessary for a football title game.

(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.

Why?

(04-07-2015 04:17 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(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.

The issue with this will be determining the most deserving two. Best record (conference or overall) or highest ranking, and how to deal with unequal schedules and head to head results.

This is interesting because it opens up the possibility of going to 15 team power conferences.

B1G with UConn.....they would be worth the name in basketball.

SEC with a 15th school...NC State? Oklahoma St? Florida St

CUSA could benefit by a 15 team setup potentially.

(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I love how people think everyone needs to be like everyone else. Nobody has an original thought around here. They simply spout the same tired words over and over, thinking that repetition will do the job, never minding the fact that nobody that really matters cares for their opinions.

Instead, they ignore anything that doesn't conform to their ideal of making every conference look like every other conference, which, of course, gives them the opportunity to slide their favorite team into the mix. It's agenda driven, and the schools change with each post, since y'all go to different schools.

I totally agree, Bit.

So....you are alike.

(04-07-2015 05:28 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  If the Pac 12 and Big 10 support this, it is rope a dope setting them up for a knockout punch.

The PAC needs this just as much. Divisionless play allows the California schools to play eachother annually, the NW schools to have equal access to Socal as the SW schools, and the SW schools to avoid any possibility of being split into a Texas division apart from the original PAC8 should expansion occur. This change would facilitate expansion while also stabilizing scheduling/access for the current 12.

This is so much fun to watch as it finally plays out. The same people that have known nothing and done nothing but spout vitriole at others are jumping all over this, as expected.

So much fun.