Quote:We're not sitting around anticipating that, 'Hey, this is going to change, and we're going to have the freedom to change what we're doing, so let's change it,'" Swofford said. "The overall sense around our table right now is to maintain what we're doing.

"Could that change in the future? Sure, anything could change in the future, but right now it's very evident that's where the majority are in terms of our situation."

That has created some confusion about what, exactly, the endgame is to all this.

"I'd like to know what it is people want to do," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said. "I don't think deregulating it just for the sake of deregulation is good. We could end up with 20-team conferences and four five-team pods. What are we trying to do? If somebody wanted to identify what it is they wanted to do, and if it were reasonable, I would say, why not?

"I'm open to creativity and deregulation, but I'm not open to just a blank check to reorganize the regular season however you choose."

More at link(Pulled interesting quotes)

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...e-football

I have told you guys that new rules is the next step, in fact I have said that for quite awhile. My estimation would be that they wait till the NBA Playoffs are over so that the sports media has that much less to talk about other than the rule changes, when they happen, and what it means for the future. The NFL Draft is over and the last big boxing fight ever will be past us after this weekend. We are getting close.

Quote:But that is not the case. The majority of ACC athletic directors and coaches want to keep their division format. Commissioner John Swofford has said repeatedly the idea behind deregulation is based on principle.

"We're not sitting around anticipating that, 'Hey, this is going to change, and we're going to have the freedom to change what we're doing, so let's change it,'" Swofford said. "The overall sense around our table right now is to maintain what we're doing.

"Could that change in the future? Sure, anything could change in the future, but right now it's very evident that's where the majority are in terms of our situation."

Now, this is Swofford's position. They are not going to vote for removing divisions. If The ACC is now publically stating that, do you really think any of the other three major conferences are going to be More open to the idea? Sorry, but no one is helping out the big 12 in that regard. The big 12 is simply playing the role they have to in order to make it look later like they have no choice but to dissolve.

The last bold sentence by Swoff made me smile.

Quote:"I'd like to know what it is people want to do," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said. "I don't think deregulating it just for the sake of deregulation is good. We could end up with 20-team conferences and four five-team pods. What are we trying to do? If somebody wanted to identify what it is they wanted to do, and if it were reasonable, I would say, why not?

"I'm open to creativity and deregulation, but I'm not open to just a blank check to reorganize the regular season however you choose."

Remember when I told you folks that The Big Ten was looking at the idea of a 20 team conference with FOUR DIVISIONS of FIVE TEAMS? Well there you go. He didn't just pull all of that out of his ass. That was the concept before the ACC GoR. You guys keep coming up with concepts of 2 divisions per conference after expansion to 16. Now you see that other concepts are on the mind of Commish Delany. I do not mislead you guys.

That last statement of his that I put in bold is the killer statement. Delany didn't even bother to put on his hood before taking up the headman's axe.

Quote:Divisional play has its pros and cons. Schools like playing for a division title; they like forming rivalries with schools in their division, enhancing the fan experience; and they like the drama that is created with late-season matchups and division stakes on the line.

If you don't read this quote as something coming straight from me, then you aren't paying attention.

Make sure and read the ENTIRE piece folks. It's a great one. This may very well be the big propaganda piece I have been waiting for. It's chock full of coaches coming out and saying how much they love divisions and the reasons why. It says why divisions are great for the networks. It even takes on perceived negatives of the divisions and explains why such issues really aren't that big of a deal.


I am not going to show all the coach's comments because these two writers put a lot into this in regard to getting a lot of interviewing in. They were definitely tasked with this by ESPN.

Read what Les Miles said.

Quote:The Tigers have Florida as a permanent crossover. In the regular season since 2000, LSU has played Florida and Georgia a combined 19 times. Alabama has played them a total of nine times.

"You tell me, is there some disproportion?" LSU coach Les Miles said.

"If the division is more important than the traditional rivalries, then eliminate the traditional rivalries and let's play a fair schedule. Or if you have so many cross-division rivalries, maybe some school from the West should go to the East and make them happy. Or if the rivalry is more important than the division, then abolish the divisions and rotate everybody. But that would be the last thing that anybody would want to do. Certainly we wouldn't."

Look at some of the things he is saying. This should be very eye opening for many of you. He is attacking the disparity of scheduling within his own conference. The concept of four divisions will help equalize that quite a bit. Then he goes on to talk about that great taboo, eliminating traditional rivalries. These guys understand that the future is in having strong divisional rivalries and then having equal scheduling against all of the schools outside of the division. His last comment is that abolishing divisions is the "last thing anybody would want to do. Certainly we wouldn't". It doesn't get any more clear than that folks.

Many of you have been saying that you needed some media to tell you what's up and that my words weren't good enough. Well, here you go. Now you should ask yourself who I am.

Quote:Nobody is changing just yet, even though athletic directors have their own beefs with scheduling. No one is ready to take the really extreme step to abolish divisions.

Delany is asking the right question there, and he won't be the only one who asks it.

Quote:"What are we trying to do? If somebody wanted to identify what it is they wanted to do, and if it were reasonable, I would say, why not?

"I'm open to creativity and deregulation, but I'm not open to just a blank check to reorganize the regular season however you choose."

Others, including the non-P5 representatives in the rule-making process, are going to press the Big 12 (or ACC) to say exactly what they want to do if the rule is changed.

If the Big 12 says, "We just want the minimum number of teams for a conference championship game lowered from 12 to 10, but keep the two-division requirement," then they'll get a vote, and that will probably pass easily.

If the Big 12 or ACC or anyone else says, "We want there to be no restrictions, we want to be able to have zero, or two, or four divisions, or maybe have an 8-team conference championship tournament, we'll just decide what we want at some later date," then I doubt that would pass.

(05-01-2015 11:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Delany is asking the right question there, and he won't be the only one who asks it.

Quote:"What are we trying to do? If somebody wanted to identify what it is they wanted to do, and if it were reasonable, I would say, why not?

"I'm open to creativity and deregulation, but I'm not open to just a blank check to reorganize the regular season however you choose."

Others, including the non-P5 representatives in the rule-making process, are going to press the Big 12 (or ACC) to say exactly what they want to do if the rule is changed.

If the Big 12 says, "We just want the minimum number of teams for a conference championship game lowered from 12 to 10, but keep the two-division requirement," then they'll get a vote, and that will probably pass easily.

If the Big 12 or ACC or anyone else says, "We want there to be no restrictions, we want to be able to have zero, or two, or four divisions, or maybe have an 8-team conference championship tournament, we'll just decide what we want at some later date," then I doubt that would pass.

The world truly isn't that nice of a place, sorry Wedge. No one wants to keep the 2 division requirement, they want to expand and have more divisions.

We discussed the rule-making process in the "BYU" thread. This is not a rule that the P5 can change with "autonomy". Any rule change has to be voted on and passed by the Division I Legislative Council, which has a member from each D-I conference (FBS, FCS, and no-football). (See the last page of this document for a list of voting members.) Delany is right in thinking that a "blank check" won't sail through this group.

(05-01-2015 11:31 AM)Wedge Wrote:  We discussed the rule-making process in the "BYU" thread. This is not a rule that the P5 can change with "autonomy". Any rule change has to be voted on and passed by the Division I Legislative Council, which has a member from each D-I conference (FBS, FCS, and no-football). (See the last page of this document for a list of voting members.) Delany is right in thinking that a "blank check" won't sail through this group.

This I already know. I have never said that it would just be the Majors deciding but there is a hierarchy involved and if the Majors could pressure the minors to allow them their Autonomy then they can pressure them to not support the big 12. Many of those smaller schools depend upon the larger ones for the big payment hand outs from scheduled ooc games. That makes for a very strong leverage point in order to pressure subsidiary minor conferences to not vote in a life preserver rule for the big 12.

The minor conferences will benefit more from rule changes in the opposite direction. More divisions, better rivalries and inevitably conference tournaments. That is closer to more regulation instead of less regulation but in reality it's just changing the current rules. Changing the current rules is more likely than doing away with any of them.

The big 12 needed massive public support and they didn't get it.

This is funny in that the b10 fought and scratched for so long to not go to 12 and divisions etc and when they finally did, someone wants to repeal the requirement!
I see his paranoia in that what future requests will then be made down the road?

(05-01-2015 11:43 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  This is funny in that the b10 fought and scratched for so long to not go to 12 and divisions etc and when they finally did, someone wants to repeal the requirement!

Not just the Big Ten. The Pac-10 looked into getting this rule changed to allow a 10-team conference to hold a title game, and they found the votes weren't there at the time. The ACC asked for a waiver to hold a title game when they had 11 teams. They didn't get it.

(05-01-2015 11:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Delany is asking the right question there, and he won't be the only one who asks it.

Quote:"What are we trying to do? If somebody wanted to identify what it is they wanted to do, and if it were reasonable, I would say, why not?

"I'm open to creativity and deregulation, but I'm not open to just a blank check to reorganize the regular season however you choose."

Others, including the non-P5 representatives in the rule-making process, are going to press the Big 12 (or ACC) to say exactly what they want to do if the rule is changed.

If the Big 12 says, "We just want the minimum number of teams for a conference championship game lowered from 12 to 10, but keep the two-division requirement," then they'll get a vote, and that will probably pass easily.

If the Big 12 or ACC or anyone else says, "We want there to be no restrictions, we want to be able to have zero, or two, or four divisions, or maybe have an 8-team conference championship tournament, we'll just decide what we want at some later date," then I doubt that would pass.

I can see how conferences might agree in principal that nobody should be able to tell a conference how to determine its champion, as long as they stay within the constraints of the prescribed length of season (both in terms of start and end dates and also number of games allowed). As far as I can tell, conferences are free in every other sport to determine their method of identifying their champion.

If a conference wanted to hold an 8 team tournament, as long as no team including the two finalists played more than 13 games, I would personally have no problem with that. However, you can bet the AD's who didn't get as many regular season games in order to accommodate that playoff wouldn't be very happy about it, and wouldn't approve it.

I would think that the Big 12 would be more likely to say that they want to eliminate the minimum number of members needed to hold a CCG than they would be to specify that 10 should be the minimum. If 12 is an arbitrary number (and it most assuredly is), then so is 10, or even 9. If the NCAA approved a reduction to 10 teams, and then Kansas defected to the Big Ten leaving the Big 12 with only 9 members, do you think they would then be OK with giving up their CCG for a second time? I sure don't.

One more piece of food for thought for you guys since Wedge brings up the smaller school's role in all of this. Expansion is still going to happen. Movement to more divisions, stronger rivalries within the division and conference tournaments is Inevitable. Do the smaller conferences want the Big Boys to acquire the necessary expansion by taking some mid major programs that have some modicum of value to the Majors or would they rather see a conference like the big 12 cannibalized instead?

(05-01-2015 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would think that the Big 12 would be more likely to say that they want to eliminate the minimum number of members needed to hold a CCG than they would be to specify that 10 should be the minimum. If 12 is an arbitrary number (and it most assuredly is), then so is 10, or even 9. If the NCAA approved a reduction to 10 teams, and then Kansas defected to the Big Ten leaving the Big 12 with only 9 members, do you think they would then be OK with giving up their CCG for a second time?[/b] I sure don't.

Yeah, I'm sure it won't be a new arbitrary number. The requirement will just be removed altogether.

(05-01-2015 11:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would think that the Big 12 would be more likely to say that they want to eliminate the minimum number of members needed to hold a CCG than they would be to specify that 10 should be the minimum. If 12 is an arbitrary number (and it most assuredly is), then so is 10, or even 9. If the NCAA approved a reduction to 10 teams, and then Kansas defected to the Big Ten leaving the Big 12 with only 9 members, do you think they would then be OK with giving up their CCG for a second time?[/b] I sure don't.

Yeah, I'm sure it won't be a new arbitrary number. The requirement will just be removed altogether.

You obviously don't read very well. Poor, poor big 12 fans refusing to prepare themselves.

(05-01-2015 11:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would think that the Big 12 would be more likely to say that they want to eliminate the minimum number of members needed to hold a CCG than they would be to specify that 10 should be the minimum. If 12 is an arbitrary number (and it most assuredly is), then so is 10, or even 9. If the NCAA approved a reduction to 10 teams, and then Kansas defected to the Big Ten leaving the Big 12 with only 9 members, do you think they would then be OK with giving up their CCG for a second time?[/b] I sure don't.

Yeah, I'm sure it won't be a new arbitrary number. The requirement will just be removed altogether.

Even if there is no number, the minimum would still be 8, because of the rule that requires FBS conferences to have 8 full members that play football in the conference.

(05-01-2015 12:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would think that the Big 12 would be more likely to say that they want to eliminate the minimum number of members needed to hold a CCG than they would be to specify that 10 should be the minimum. If 12 is an arbitrary number (and it most assuredly is), then so is 10, or even 9. If the NCAA approved a reduction to 10 teams, and then Kansas defected to the Big Ten leaving the Big 12 with only 9 members, do you think they would then be OK with giving up their CCG for a second time?[/b] I sure don't.

Yeah, I'm sure it won't be a new arbitrary number. The requirement will just be removed altogether.

Even if there is no number, the minimum would still be 8, because of the rule that requires FBS conferences to have 8 full members that play football in the conference.

Good point.

(05-01-2015 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would think that the Big 12 would be more likely to say that they want to eliminate the minimum number of members needed to hold a CCG than they would be to specify that 10 should be the minimum. If 12 is an arbitrary number (and it most assuredly is), then so is 10, or even 9. If the NCAA approved a reduction to 10 teams, and then Kansas defected to the Big Ten leaving the Big 12 with only 9 members, do you think they would then be OK with giving up their CCG for a second time?[/b] I sure don't.

Yeah, I'm sure it won't be a new arbitrary number. The requirement will just be removed altogether.

You obviously don't read very well. Poor, poor big 12 fans refusing to prepare themselves.

Since I'm not a Big 12 fan, I assume your remark was directed at Frog. What exactly is it that he didn't read well?

the thing that is annoying is that if a 12-team or 14-team conference wants to set up a schedule where you get 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, they could easily do that under the current rules.

all they need to do is set up non-permanent rotating divisions. Its not that hard to do. But the larger conferences have decided they want permanent alignments where the divisions are the same each year. so is that it is proof thats what they prefer?

(05-01-2015 12:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:01 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:59 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  I would think that the Big 12 would be more likely to say that they want to eliminate the minimum number of members needed to hold a CCG than they would be to specify that 10 should be the minimum. If 12 is an arbitrary number (and it most assuredly is), then so is 10, or even 9. If the NCAA approved a reduction to 10 teams, and then Kansas defected to the Big Ten leaving the Big 12 with only 9 members, do you think they would then be OK with giving up their CCG for a second time?[/b] I sure don't.

Yeah, I'm sure it won't be a new arbitrary number. The requirement will just be removed altogether.

You obviously don't read very well. Poor, poor big 12 fans refusing to prepare themselves.

Since I'm not a Big 12 fan, I assume your remark was directed at Frog. What exactly is it that he didn't read well?

It was more directed at him than you but mostly it was directed in general fashion.

Nothing being said shows a desire or willingness to do what the big 12 needs to be done. My extended post on the first page should be referred back to if you want more detailed explanation.

I question whether he has gone and read the article yet.

(05-01-2015 12:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  the thing that is annoying is that if a 12-team or 14-team conference wants to set up a schedule where you get 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, they could easily do that under the current rules.

all they need to do is set up non-permanent rotating divisions. Its not that hard to do. But the larger conferences have decided they want permanent alignments where the divisions are the same each year. so is that it is proof thats what they prefer?

It isn't just the conferences that want permanent alignments. It's the Networks. Strong rivalries make for good programming. If the conference is continuously reshuffling, that wouldn't be seen as a positive thing by the Networks.

ESPN is really breaking down this subject the last few days. Here is another one today showing which teams are helped and hurt by conferences having divisions or not.




http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-divisions

Quote:How much does a team's division impact its conference win total? ESPN Stats & Information set out to answer this question by projecting the 2015 season for the four Power 5 conferences with divisions both in their current divisional states and in a hypothetical nondivisional format.

To project the nondivisional conference win total, preseason FPI was used to calculate each team's chance of winning a home and away game against every other team in its conference. College football is built on rivalries, so each team was assigned one rivalry game that it was guaranteed to play, and the remaining conference games were filled out with a formula that accounts for each team's chances of meeting and beating every other nonrival in their conference in a home and away setting.

(05-01-2015 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  the thing that is annoying is that if a 12-team or 14-team conference wants to set up a schedule where you get 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, they could easily do that under the current rules.

all they need to do is set up non-permanent rotating divisions. Its not that hard to do. But the larger conferences have decided they want permanent alignments where the divisions are the same each year. so is that it is proof thats what they prefer?

It isn't just the conferences that want permanent alignments. It's the Networks. Strong rivalries make for good programming. If the conference is continuously reshuffling, that wouldn't be seen as a positive thing by the Networks.

Sometimes strong rivalries make for good programming, and sometimes they don't. I expect that a once in a blue moon regular season game between Oklahoma and Oregon, with both teams highly ranked, would be far more interesting to a network than a strong rivalry game between UNC and Duke (or Virginia) or even Pitt-West Virginia.

The Big Ten schools want to keep their traditional rivalries, but games like Indiana-Purdue or Minnesota-Iowa aren't always must see TV.

I believe strongly in maintaining regional rivalries, but not necessarily because of TV.