http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ed-by-2016

Quote:Legislation allowing for the deregulation of conference championship games is now expected to be passed by 2016, CBSSports.com has learned.

The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams. The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear.

Current NCAA rules state a league must have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. Those teams also must play a round-robin within each division.

The legislation is now expected to move forward after being delayed somewhat by NCAA governance reform.

Quote:“I think there's some belief that ACC would play three divisions, have two highest ranked play in postseason,” said Bob Bowlsby, chairman of the new NCAA Football Oversight Committee. “Really, nobody cares how you determine your champion. It should be a conference-level decision.

“But because the ACC has persisted in saying, ‘We're not sure what we'll do,' there's probably a little bit of a shadow over it. In the end, I don't think it'll be able to hold it up. We'll probably have it in place for ‘16.”

That oversight committee would vet the legislation and pass on any recommendations to the NCAA Council for final approval.

Interesting. It's still a long way from passing, but it seems to be getting back on the agenda. I wonder how Swofford feels about Bowlsby suggesting the ACC wants three divisions. Not sure how you do three divisions with only 14 teams...unless there's an expansion coming...

Hmmmm, need to delete mine. :)

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.

I read that as the Big-12 is adding anyone anytime soon. Guess Cinci and Memphis are stuck in the AAC a while.

On the other hand, expansion of the AAC to include 20-24 teams with 4 6-team regional pods just became very possible. Even a full MW-AAC merger is possible now with divisional deregulation. Play a 6 game schedule within the 12 team MW division with 2 crossover games against AAC opponents with a CCG at the home stadium of the higher ranked team. The winner of that game is likely the G5 access bowl representative most years.

Why should the XII be rewarded for refusing to expand to 12 teams when the B1G and the PAC had to expand to 12 for the sole reason of being able to host a CCG?

That's hogwash. Get on em', Delany and Scott! Don't let them get it easy.


Now I do agree that conferences should be allowed to select the two participants of the CCG in any fashion that they please. In other words, there should be no NCAA rules requiring "divisions" within a conference for anything.

Big 12 will now have CCG with 10 teams, no need to expand.

(04-07-2015 02:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why should the XII be rewarded for refusing to expand to 12 teams when the B1G and the PAC had to expand to 12 for the sole reason of being able to host a CCG?

That's hogwash. Get on em', Delany and Scott! Don't let them get it easy.


Now I do agree that conferences should be allowed to select the two participants of the CCG in any fashion that they please. In other words, there should be no NCAA rules requiring "divisions" within a conference for anything.

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.

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 maintained this will pass for a while. The leaders of the leagues don't think like fans do. Sure they are looking out for #1, but they don't approach things as a zero sum game like message board fans tend to (i.e. what is good for one conference is bad for the others). The main overriding sentiment is deregulation of the power of the NCAA and that's why this will pass without much debate.

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.

(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.

(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.

Like what? As long as there are restrictions on the number of games and when they can need to be played by, there isn't a whole lot of options of how to determine a champ. Either you have a champ game or not, and either you use divisions or not. Not like there will be human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria...

I don't see how this is going to impact the weak sisters or the one sport wonders at all. Let's take one of the one sport wonders- Kansas. How exactly will this impact them?

(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.

(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.

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.

maybe the Big Ten and Pac 12 don't have as much stroke as folks think they have.

(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.

I think there's more a "we're in this together" sentiment than fans realize. The "Bad guy" is more the NCAA, not one of the other leagues. The leagues aren't spiteful to each other like fans are. When it comes down to it, the Big 12 holding a conf champ game or not holding a conf champ game really doesn't affect the other leagues. The ACC having 1 division, 2 division or 3 divisions doesn't really affect the other leagues.

Anyway, the other myth is that the BIG and PAC-12 expanded for the purposes of a champ game. They expanded because of their conference network model and the need for new markets to drive revenue.

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.

(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!