(12-05-2015 11:10 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think everyone is on board with the Big 12/ ACC proposal

If the SEC cares about the interests of Mizzou and Texas A&M (perhaps even Arkansas), they won't do anything which significantly benefits the Big 12.

I don't see any rational for a title game with a 10 member league who played a round robin schedule since everybody would have played each other. THere is rational for a playoff game with a league having division winners who may or may not have played each other. The bigger picture is the end game has got to be leagues wanting 2 game playoff of pod winners and for that the best setup is 15, 16 or 18 team leagues.

We saw what happened with LSU and Alabama having a rematch in a post season championship game. That was the National Championship but having a rematch in the CCG guaranteed every single year has to make some folks worry that the better team will have to face that same let down every single season because it will be likely that they already beat the team during the season that they are playing in the CCG.

That is the trap in this Big Ten proposal for the big 12.

Forces B12 to have divisions if they want title game.
Forces ACC to keep divisions.
That's it.
Affects B12 more.

(12-05-2015 01:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The thread title is misleading, because on the MAIN point, whether a conference can hold a title game with 10 teams, there is no opposition at all. There is unanimous support for the Big 12's notion of holding a CCG with just 10 teams. That's the key thing here.

Even if the B1G plan prevails, the Big 12 will just form two divisions of five teams and get its CCG anyway.

No expansion needed.

Just used the actual Title of the article on CBS...

(12-05-2015 10:51 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Who has the votes?

It will be close

I have read the vote counts are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame so the magic number 14

So ACC + Big 12 + Notre Dame (Assuming they will go w/ ACC) = 7 For

Sunbelt likely in favor = 9 For

Big 10 is against = 3 against

MAC will likely do what the Big 10 tells them = 5 Against

UNCERTAIN P5 = PAC 12, SEC - 6 Undecided
UNCERTAIN G5 = CUSA, MWC, AAC - 6 Undecided

SO......they way I see it

If the PAC 12 and SEC go against the Big 10 it will pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC go for the Big 10, it will need the remaining G5 conferences to go against the Big 10 for it to pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC split their votes, 1 G5 conference have to go against the Big 10 in order for it to pass as is.

One other thing I am worried about for the ACC is the Big 12 voting for the proposal AND the amendment. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 gets what it wants and might go along with the Big 10's amendment to force the ACC to have divisions.

Unfortunately, I had a feeling this was not going to sail through as easily as everyone projected.

Sankey's comment in the article linked up top, if that ends up being the official proposal of the SEC, means there are 3 options for changing the current rule:

1) Big 12/ACC proposal -- All FBS conferences can have a football CCG, no restrictions on how teams are chosen for the CCG

2) Big Ten proposal -- FBS conferences can have a football CCG if they have two divisions for football and CCG matches the division winners

3) SEC (Sankey) proposal -- Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have 1st place team play 2nd place team in a CCG if they play a full round-robin

(12-05-2015 07:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 03:26 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The thread title is misleading, because on the MAIN point, whether a conference can hold a title game with 10 teams, there is no opposition at all. There is unanimous support for the Big 12's notion of holding a CCG with just 10 teams. That's the key thing here.

Even if the B1G plan prevails, the Big 12 will just form two divisions of five teams and get its CCG anyway.

No expansion needed.

Correct. Only thing they will need to be careful of is how they divide up these teams into their "artificial" divisions.

To play it safe I am sure they will begin with UT and OU in opposite divisions and then proceed from there.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think they need to be careful, since they are going to just play a full round-robin schedule anyway. So it's not like if they mess the divisions up, key matchups or rivalries will be missed. Sure, put OU and UT in opposite divisions, because TV will always want the chance that those two big names can play in the CCG.

And nobody cares that the CCG will be a rematch, because rematches occur in playoffs all the time. Heck, the USC-Stanford PAC title game today is a rematch.

Really, this B1G proposal is more of a danger to the ACC's "flexibility" concerns than the Big 12's concern. And maybe that's because the B1G sees itself far more in competition with the ACC (over the DC-NYC corridor market) than it does the Big 12.

I stand by my statement that they do need to be careful how they set up their divisions. Just like any other conference. And it's not just about the chance of a lower ranked divisional champion but also the better ranked CCG participant beating a lower ranked CCG participant which could potentially knock a team out of the CFP. Let's say a #3 team in the CFP beating a #20 versus say a #5 CFP conference champion beating a #10 team in their game.

As for the ACC, I think it remains unclear what they truly wanted out of the CCG proposal since they have repeatedly not made it clear themselves. But agree that if they wanted the ability to say make this year's championship game Clemson vs FSU since that might give the league a better chance of getting one team in the CFP, then yes, this amendment if passed would kill any thoughts of that.

Cheers,
Neil

Comments:

1) So much for all the people on here (mainly XII fans, trying to force their own agenda) trying to force the argument of "all the P5 conferences want a congruent, autonomy bloc with no in-fighting". Ha. I knew that argument was a bunch of baloney.

2) B1G is correct: *IF* you're going to hold a CCG, it should have to be between two division winners. If you're not going to hold a CCG, then obviously no need for divisions.

3) My opinion: it should be a rule that every team in a division must play every other team in the division.

4) I think this screws up the ACC a lot more than the XII. Especially now. ACC wouldn't lay its cards on the table, but it seemed clear that they wanted to go to a single division and just pick the two "best" teams to play in the CCG, regardless if they just played the week before.

XII is probably not even going to have a CCG, now. Not any time soon. But it wouldn't really seem to change much if they just had to split into two divisions of five. I imagine they'd still do their full round-robin.


So ... I'm not sure why the B1G decided not to push a minimum number of teams requirement for a CCG, too.

This must be purely a salvo aimed at the ACC.

(12-05-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:51 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Who has the votes?

It will be close

I have read the vote counts are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame so the magic number 14

So ACC + Big 12 + Notre Dame (Assuming they will go w/ ACC) = 7 For

Sunbelt likely in favor = 9 For

Big 10 is against = 3 against

MAC will likely do what the Big 10 tells them = 5 Against

UNCERTAIN P5 = PAC 12, SEC - 6 Undecided
UNCERTAIN G5 = CUSA, MWC, AAC - 6 Undecided

SO......they way I see it

If the PAC 12 and SEC go against the Big 10 it will pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC go for the Big 10, it will need the remaining G5 conferences to go against the Big 10 for it to pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC split their votes, 1 G5 conference have to go against the Big 10 in order for it to pass as is.

One other thing I am worried about for the ACC is the Big 12 voting for the proposal AND the amendment. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 gets what it wants and might go along with the Big 10's amendment to force the ACC to have divisions.

Unfortunately, I had a feeling this was not going to sail through as easily as everyone projected.

Sankey's comment in the article linked up top, if that ends up being the official proposal of the SEC, means there are 3 options for changing the current rule:

1) Big 12/ACC proposal -- All FBS conferences can have a football CCG, no restrictions on how teams are chosen for the CCG

2) Big Ten proposal -- FBS conferences can have a football CCG if they have two divisions for football and CCG matches the division winners

3) SEC (Sankey) proposal -- Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have 1st place team play 2nd place team in a CCG if they play a full round-robin

I think Delany might compromise on #3 since the SEC and Big 10 share the same aspirations.

Remember, ESPN helped to set up the SEC/Big 12 Sugar Bowl agreement. The SEC has tried to maintain cordial relationships with both the Big 12 and ACC for obvious reasons.

And should ESPN truly decide to cut overhead option 3 keeps all of their contingencies alive.
1. It negates a non profitable and potentially contentious expansion in the Big 12 by keeping them viable at 10.
2. It keeps pressure on the ACC to expand further to realign their divisions which keeps full membership for N.D. at some future point in play, and keeps another football brand addition alive. It also keeps the pressure on to balance the present divisions.
3. It means that if overhead in the ACC is ever cut by ESPN that both the Big 10 and SEC (likely at that point to be the two most important interests of ESPN regardless of their % of ownership in either) would maintain cordial relationships with the Big 12 which would not only permit the placement of important inventory into the Big 12 but would be necessary for future scheduling agreements.

As long as N.D. is not all in, the cloud of NCAA sanctions hang over UNC, and there is no profitable reason for ESPN to pursue an ACCN then the option to utilize those properties to their best advantage has to remain open. Pressure to add football branding (West Virginia) or to land the Irish outright (a content bonanza) has to be maintained or ESPN won't be able to maximize their investment in the ACC. It will be interesting to watch how it plays out. But long story short, Sankey seems to have proposed what ESPN would like to have happen.

(12-05-2015 07:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:15 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The thread title is misleading, because on the MAIN point, whether a conference can hold a title game with 10 teams, there is no opposition at all. There is unanimous support for the Big 12's notion of holding a CCG with just 10 teams. That's the key thing here.

Even if the B1G plan prevails, the Big 12 will just form two divisions of five teams and get its CCG anyway.

No expansion needed.

Big 12 loses, and they can't go into 2 divisions until they expand.

Under both proposals, the ACC/Big 12 proposal and the B1G proposal, the Big 12 could go to two divisions and have a CCG without expanding.

But it doesn't matter. The XII is going to stay with their round-robin, no CCG approach.

(12-05-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:51 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Who has the votes?

It will be close

I have read the vote counts are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame so the magic number 14

So ACC + Big 12 + Notre Dame (Assuming they will go w/ ACC) = 7 For

Sunbelt likely in favor = 9 For

Big 10 is against = 3 against

MAC will likely do what the Big 10 tells them = 5 Against

UNCERTAIN P5 = PAC 12, SEC - 6 Undecided
UNCERTAIN G5 = CUSA, MWC, AAC - 6 Undecided

SO......they way I see it

If the PAC 12 and SEC go against the Big 10 it will pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC go for the Big 10, it will need the remaining G5 conferences to go against the Big 10 for it to pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC split their votes, 1 G5 conference have to go against the Big 10 in order for it to pass as is.

One other thing I am worried about for the ACC is the Big 12 voting for the proposal AND the amendment. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 gets what it wants and might go along with the Big 10's amendment to force the ACC to have divisions.

Unfortunately, I had a feeling this was not going to sail through as easily as everyone projected.

Sankey's comment in the article linked up top, if that ends up being the official proposal of the SEC, means there are 3 options for changing the current rule:

1) Big 12/ACC proposal -- All FBS conferences can have a football CCG, no restrictions on how teams are chosen for the CCG

2) Big Ten proposal -- FBS conferences can have a football CCG if they have two divisions for football and CCG matches the division winners

3) SEC (Sankey) proposal -- Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have 1st place team play 2nd place team in a CCG if they play a full round-robin

Just a second there professor. According to the XII, if you play a round-robin then that defeats the point of a CCG in the first place.

That's what they've been crowing all along. So that's what they get to sleep with.


No CCG allowed. Not that they're actually serious about holding one, anyway.

(12-05-2015 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:51 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Who has the votes?

It will be close

I have read the vote counts are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame so the magic number 14

So ACC + Big 12 + Notre Dame (Assuming they will go w/ ACC) = 7 For

Sunbelt likely in favor = 9 For

Big 10 is against = 3 against

MAC will likely do what the Big 10 tells them = 5 Against

UNCERTAIN P5 = PAC 12, SEC - 6 Undecided
UNCERTAIN G5 = CUSA, MWC, AAC - 6 Undecided

SO......they way I see it

If the PAC 12 and SEC go against the Big 10 it will pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC go for the Big 10, it will need the remaining G5 conferences to go against the Big 10 for it to pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC split their votes, 1 G5 conference have to go against the Big 10 in order for it to pass as is.

One other thing I am worried about for the ACC is the Big 12 voting for the proposal AND the amendment. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 gets what it wants and might go along with the Big 10's amendment to force the ACC to have divisions.

Unfortunately, I had a feeling this was not going to sail through as easily as everyone projected.

Sankey's comment in the article linked up top, if that ends up being the official proposal of the SEC, means there are 3 options for changing the current rule:

1) Big 12/ACC proposal -- All FBS conferences can have a football CCG, no restrictions on how teams are chosen for the CCG

2) Big Ten proposal -- FBS conferences can have a football CCG if they have two divisions for football and CCG matches the division winners

3) SEC (Sankey) proposal -- Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have 1st place team play 2nd place team in a CCG if they play a full round-robin

Just a second there professor. According to the XII, if you play a round-robin then that defeats the point of a CCG in the first place.

That's what they've been crowing all along. So that's what they get to sleep with.


No CCG allowed. Not that they're actually serious about holding one, anyway.

Like it or not, it's becoming clear that as long as the Big 12 is willing to create 5-team divisions, which they surely would, they will be able to have a CCG with no expansion.

I agree that the "unintended consequences" notion is geared toward the ACC, or at least the idea that multiple divisions and permutations could be an issue. With the Big 12 what you see is what you get. There's no unintended consequences there.

(12-05-2015 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:51 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Who has the votes?

It will be close

I have read the vote counts are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame so the magic number 14

So ACC + Big 12 + Notre Dame (Assuming they will go w/ ACC) = 7 For

Sunbelt likely in favor = 9 For

Big 10 is against = 3 against

MAC will likely do what the Big 10 tells them = 5 Against

UNCERTAIN P5 = PAC 12, SEC - 6 Undecided
UNCERTAIN G5 = CUSA, MWC, AAC - 6 Undecided

SO......they way I see it

If the PAC 12 and SEC go against the Big 10 it will pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC go for the Big 10, it will need the remaining G5 conferences to go against the Big 10 for it to pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC split their votes, 1 G5 conference have to go against the Big 10 in order for it to pass as is.

One other thing I am worried about for the ACC is the Big 12 voting for the proposal AND the amendment. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 gets what it wants and might go along with the Big 10's amendment to force the ACC to have divisions.

Unfortunately, I had a feeling this was not going to sail through as easily as everyone projected.

Sankey's comment in the article linked up top, if that ends up being the official proposal of the SEC, means there are 3 options for changing the current rule:

1) Big 12/ACC proposal -- All FBS conferences can have a football CCG, no restrictions on how teams are chosen for the CCG

2) Big Ten proposal -- FBS conferences can have a football CCG if they have two divisions for football and CCG matches the division winners

3) SEC (Sankey) proposal -- Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have 1st place team play 2nd place team in a CCG if they play a full round-robin

Just a second there professor. According to the XII, if you play a round-robin then that defeats the point of a CCG in the first place.

That's what they've been crowing all along. So that's what they get to sleep with.


No CCG allowed. Not that they're actually serious about holding one, anyway.

That's the compromise Bison. It doesn't mandate a CCG just says it allows them to opt for one as long as there is round robin play. Round robin play means they don't have to have divisions at all, but may still opt to have a CCG. That is precisely what they have now. The stipulation for two divisions is for holding a CCG with no round robin play and that is aimed directly at the ACC. Therefore Sankey's proposal takes nothing away from what the Big 12's options are already, in fact it augments them with permission in the future to opt for a CCG (provided they don't expand and break into divisions) while preventing the ACC from moving away from divisions and thereby keeping pressure on them to balance the ones they have (either by realigning them competitively which helps ESPN's content value) or adding brands (which helps ESPN's content value).

(12-05-2015 01:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:51 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Who has the votes?

It will be close

I have read the vote counts are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame so the magic number 14

So ACC + Big 12 + Notre Dame (Assuming they will go w/ ACC) = 7 For

Sunbelt likely in favor = 9 For

Big 10 is against = 3 against

MAC will likely do what the Big 10 tells them = 5 Against

UNCERTAIN P5 = PAC 12, SEC - 6 Undecided
UNCERTAIN G5 = CUSA, MWC, AAC - 6 Undecided

SO......they way I see it

If the PAC 12 and SEC go against the Big 10 it will pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC go for the Big 10, it will need the remaining G5 conferences to go against the Big 10 for it to pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC split their votes, 1 G5 conference have to go against the Big 10 in order for it to pass as is.

One other thing I am worried about for the ACC is the Big 12 voting for the proposal AND the amendment. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 gets what it wants and might go along with the Big 10's amendment to force the ACC to have divisions.

Unfortunately, I had a feeling this was not going to sail through as easily as everyone projected.

Sankey's comment in the article linked up top, if that ends up being the official proposal of the SEC, means there are 3 options for changing the current rule:

1) Big 12/ACC proposal -- All FBS conferences can have a football CCG, no restrictions on how teams are chosen for the CCG

2) Big Ten proposal -- FBS conferences can have a football CCG if they have two divisions for football and CCG matches the division winners

3) SEC (Sankey) proposal -- Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have 1st place team play 2nd place team in a CCG if they play a full round-robin

Just a second there professor. According to the XII, if you play a round-robin then that defeats the point of a CCG in the first place.

That's what they've been crowing all along. So that's what they get to sleep with.


No CCG allowed. Not that they're actually serious about holding one, anyway.

Like it or not, it's becoming clear that as long as the Big 12 is willing to create 5-team divisions, which they surely would, they will be able to have a CCG with no expansion.

Well, it used to be "clear" that the big 12 and ACC had zero roadblocks to getting their versions of the new rules passed. I told everyone then that such wouldn't be the case when the time actually came for the vote.

We are already now seeing a bump in the road for that vision. Now once again you are trying to state an absolute based off of a statement. Yet, that statement can still be amended, changed, added on to or even pulled back.

Nothing is clear yet except the fact that this was never cut and dry nor is it now.

I would add that the Big 10 isn't out for the ACC or anything like that. I think it's an honest effort to make sure that whatever rule makes sense and can't be used to gain an advantage. Otherwise they would just try to stop it altogether.

(12-05-2015 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:51 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Who has the votes?

It will be close

I have read the vote counts are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame so the magic number 14

So ACC + Big 12 + Notre Dame (Assuming they will go w/ ACC) = 7 For

Sunbelt likely in favor = 9 For

Big 10 is against = 3 against

MAC will likely do what the Big 10 tells them = 5 Against

UNCERTAIN P5 = PAC 12, SEC - 6 Undecided
UNCERTAIN G5 = CUSA, MWC, AAC - 6 Undecided

SO......they way I see it

If the PAC 12 and SEC go against the Big 10 it will pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC go for the Big 10, it will need the remaining G5 conferences to go against the Big 10 for it to pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC split their votes, 1 G5 conference have to go against the Big 10 in order for it to pass as is.

One other thing I am worried about for the ACC is the Big 12 voting for the proposal AND the amendment. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 gets what it wants and might go along with the Big 10's amendment to force the ACC to have divisions.

Unfortunately, I had a feeling this was not going to sail through as easily as everyone projected.

Sankey's comment in the article linked up top, if that ends up being the official proposal of the SEC, means there are 3 options for changing the current rule:

1) Big 12/ACC proposal -- All FBS conferences can have a football CCG, no restrictions on how teams are chosen for the CCG

2) Big Ten proposal -- FBS conferences can have a football CCG if they have two divisions for football and CCG matches the division winners

3) SEC (Sankey) proposal -- Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have 1st place team play 2nd place team in a CCG if they play a full round-robin

Just a second there professor. According to the XII, if you play a round-robin then that defeats the point of a CCG in the first place.

That's what they've been crowing all along. So that's what they get to sleep with.


No CCG allowed. Not that they're actually serious about holding one, anyway.

That's the compromise Bison. It doesn't mandate a CCG just says it allows them to opt for one as long as there is round robin play. Round robin play means they don't have to have divisions at all, but may still opt to have a CCG. That is precisely what they have now. The stipulation for two divisions is for holding a CCG with no round robin play and that is aimed directly at the ACC. Therefore Sankey's proposal takes nothing away from what the Big 12's options are already, in fact it augments them with permission in the future to opt for a CCG (provided they don't expand and break into divisions) while preventing the ACC from moving away from divisions and thereby keeping pressure on them to balance the ones they have (either by realigning them competitively which helps ESPN's content value) or adding brands (which helps ESPN's content value).

I think the bolded part is what the ACC wants. I don't think they want a single 14-team division. They want to be able to skip the round robin and permit more instate North Carolina games, and they probably want to keep the current divisions and avoid the internal battle that happens in a conference whenever they talk about realigning their divisions.

Maybe the Big Ten would want the same thing eventually. Skipping one division opponent each year would give the west division teams more opportunities to play Michigan and Ohio State.

The Big Ten has no need to change a thing. The Big Ten already has one CFP winner and is the only conference currently with 100% assurance to have a team in this year's CFP. The Big Ten West teams no longer need to face Ohio State and Michigan. That is an outdated thought, sorry.

Keep to the issue boys and off of personalities.

Question: if conferences would still be required under certain instances to have divisions, how is that still deregulation?