http://www.espn929.com/pages/22249014.php?

I keep thinking the B10 probably don't want to allow the CCG to go below 12. If the B10 and SEC don't want it, look for P12 and probably the ACC to go along. Be curious to see what happens.

Big 10 wants to require division play, they don't care about 10. Big 12 may expand, but it wont be this year.

(12-06-2015 11:10 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Big 10 wants to require division play, they don't care about 10. Big 12 may expand, but it wont be this year.

Another link

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

Swofford already waffling "As we've said all along, we believe conferences should have the ability to structure its football championship as it sees fit," Swofford said in a statement. "With that said, and as we've also consistently communicated, there's no current momentum to change our league's divisional structure. If the legislation doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. As a league, we're pleased with our football divisions and championship structure, which overall has served us well."

Let the whoring of G5 schools begin to become part of the B12.

It's not that they don't want a CCG below 12. From Delany's comments that clearly is not an issue. It's that the Big 10 Is concerned about allowing leagues to pick any two teams for the CCG, regardless of divisionS or not. They think that potentially gives an advantage, since sometimes the top team in one of the divisions is way down in the rankings. Being able to select teams for a CCG is what he is concerned about.

Will be interesting to see what everyone else thinks about the amendment and the SEC suggestion. From the comments it sounds like no one wants to force the Big 12 to expand and cause a whole another round of conference shifts. I think everyone kinda is likening this current steady states.

Big 10 and PAC along with a united g5 vote can block the ACC and Big 12 on these new rules

(12-06-2015 11:17 PM)billings Wrote:  Big 10 and PAC along with a united g5 vote can block the ACC and Big 12 on these new rules

Seems like the G5 would favor flexibility for two reasons-

1. Not force the Big 12 to expand and start another cascade of raids.
2. Give them flexibility down the line if they get raided to still stage a CCG with less than 12 or weird divisions.

Agreed, the G5 isn't going to vote for anything that would cause them to be cherry-picked, have a domino effect, etc.

Even if Delany finds enough support to block "blank check" deregulation, it seems likely that there would be support for what the SEC commissioner Sankey proposed: Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have a 1st place vs. 2nd place CCG if they play a full round-robin.

(12-06-2015 11:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Agreed, the G5 isn't going to vote for anything that would cause them to be cherry-picked, have a domino effect, etc.

Even if Delany finds enough support to block "blank check" deregulation, it seems likely that there would be support for what the SEC commissioner Sankey proposed: Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have a 1st place vs. 2nd place CCG if they play a full round-robin.

It is a reasonable compromise I think, although it doesn't really give the ACC anything.

(12-06-2015 11:22 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:17 PM)billings Wrote:  Big 10 and PAC along with a united g5 vote can block the ACC and Big 12 on these new rules

Seems like the G5 would favor flexibility for two reasons-

1. Not force the Big 12 to expand and start another cascade of raids.
2. Give them flexibility down the line if they get raided to still stage a CCG with less than 12 or weird divisions.

Given the playoff payout rules g5 conferences lose money not being at 12 teams. 12 is the magic number for a g5 conference

(12-06-2015 11:53 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Agreed, the G5 isn't going to vote for anything that would cause them to be cherry-picked, have a domino effect, etc.

Even if Delany finds enough support to block "blank check" deregulation, it seems likely that there would be support for what the SEC commissioner Sankey proposed: Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have a 1st place vs. 2nd place CCG if they play a full round-robin.

It is a reasonable compromise I think, although it doesn't really give the ACC anything.

True, it doesn't, but if the ACC doesn't address Delany's "What are you going to do if we deregulate" question, then we don't even know what they're asking for.

My guess is still that the ACC wouldn't eliminate divisions but would want the flexibility to play only 5 division opponents each year instead of all 6, and that would be a reasonable thing to let them have -- but again, how do we know that's what they want unless they say so.

the rel reason the G5 favors this is for the same reason the ACC proposed this in the first place

because the G5 conferences are even more likely than the ACC to have one division that is much stronger than the other division and having a CCG with a weak division winner Vs a strong division winner while a third team that is stronger overall sits on the sidelines does not help as much as putting the two strongest teams in the CCG without regards to divisions

the G5 teams still have an access bowl slot to play for every year and there is a slim chance at some point they could even have a playoff spot to play for for the YEARLY access bowl slot that still brings a lot of money to the conference along with the recognition so if the MWC or AAC or which ever conference can get their top two teams into a CCG that gives them the best chance to claim that spot.....if they are the conference with a really strong team Vs a really weak team and the other conference has the two strong teams in the CCG they are at a disadvantage as far as quality of win for the stronger team and as far as still getting the access bowl slot if the stronger team loses

if this was targeted specifically at the Big 12 it would simply require twelve teams to have a CCG and then allow the conferences to decide who plays in the CCG with their own criteria

there is every chance that if the Big 10 proposal passes it will cost THE BIG 10 in the future since the western half of the conference is clearly weaker than the eastern half and there is little chance Iowa will stay as good as they are this year and Nebraska appears to be falling further behind

there is every chance the Big 10 more often than not will be looking at a CCG with a 2+ loss team playing in it while other teams from the other division have the same or better records and a higher overall rank

look at the history of the Big 10 CCG

2011 10-2 and BCS#15 Wisconsin beats 10-2 #13 BCS MSU
2012 BCS #12 NU loses to unranked Wisconsin.....now this was an outlier because of the Penn State issue and tOSU actually being punished for cheating, but still it was a major upset
2013 BCS #10 beats BCS #2 tOSU

now in the above games with the exception of 2012 with the "issues" there was not a higher ranked team sitting home.....but of course the Big 10 was much more equal in conference alignment between divisions then

2014 tOSU thumps Wisconsin, but a much higher ranked MSU was sitting home

2015 the two highest were matched, but the lower ranked team almost won and tOSU that was only one place behind Iowa sat at home and there is little chance that Iowa continues to be this good because they are Iowa and there is every chance that tOSU, MSU and MU end the season most years higher ranked Vs the teams in the western division


so again this legislation is just as likely to harm the Big 10 as it is to harm any other conference and specifically it is about meaningless as to the Big 12 and being able to have a CCG or not......it really only has meaning for what the ACC desires and the inability for the ACC to get what they desire has the same effect on ALL the conferences equally and probably the Big 10 and ACC more so than the SEC or PAC 12 or even the Big 12 because the SEC and PAC 12 are more balanced conferences and the Big 12 can split their conference any way they see fit especially if they continue the round robin because the divisions will be meaningless with a round robin as far as the actual schedule

hell with a round robin the Big 12 could realign the divisions yearly to try and have the two perceived best teams in different divisions and it makes no difference for the actual schedule of games

not so with conferences that do not play a round robin

if there is no requirement for 2 divisions the Big 12 could simply have five two team divisions and with a round robin they could still manipulate those yearly as well with no effect on the schedule of games

(12-06-2015 11:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Agreed, the G5 isn't going to vote for anything that would cause them to be cherry-picked, have a domino effect, etc.

Even if Delany finds enough support to block "blank check" deregulation, it seems likely that there would be support for what the SEC commissioner Sankey proposed: Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have a 1st place vs. 2nd place CCG if they play a full round-robin.

Not so fast right there. The schools that want in a P5 conference could vote along with the Big 10.

BYU
Houston
Colorado State
Boise State
San Diego State
Cincinnati
Memphis
SMU
Rice
Tulane
UCF
USF
UConn.
Temple
East Carolina
Toledo
Northern Illinois
Ohio U.
New Mexico

Plus FCS schools would want the vote to go against the Big 12 like:
Portland State
Eastern Washington
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
Illinois State
Northern Iowa
Missouri State
Youngstown State
Liberty
James Madison
Towson
Stony Brook
Jacksonville State
Eastern Kentucky
Lamar
Sam Houston State
Chattanooga
Alabama State

Plus, some D2 are waiting for more raids for them to come up.

"The Big 12 took a potentially significant step toward expansion Sunday night when ESPN reported that Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany filed a last-minute amendment in November that could prevent the conference from having a championship game as early as next season.


"We're trying to work our way through it, but I'm less certain of the outcome than I was before," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told ESPN.com on Sunday. ”We don't think we ought to be forced into adding schools in order to have a championship game, but it could end up that way.”
http://www.espn929.com/pages/22249014.php

LOL love Delany....and props on 'last minute' amendment hahaha. Bet he won't be getting any xmas cards or fruit baskets from the B12 or ACC.

(12-07-2015 07:14 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  "The Big 12 took a potentially significant step toward expansion Sunday night when ESPN reported that Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany filed a last-minute amendment in November that could prevent the conference from having a championship game as early as next season.


"We're trying to work our way through it, but I'm less certain of the outcome than I was before," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told ESPN.com on Sunday. ”We don't think we ought to be forced into adding schools in order to have a championship game, but it could end up that way.”
http://www.espn929.com/pages/22249014.php

The funny thing is, that's a Memphis media outlet with quotes from the Memphis AD about how great a fit Memphis is for the P5.

Athletically, he can make a nice case. But academically, Memphis has no chance. Zero.

Every state school in the Big 12 does at least 50% more federal research, and most do at least 300% more federal research. Source.

According to the 2015-16 Common Data Set, the Memphis average SAT is 1020. Only 15% of the Memphis freshmen graduated Top 10% in HS. Only 78% of its freshmen make it to their sophomore year. The 6-year graduation rate is 45%.

These stats take years to improve. Most move at glacier speed. Here are the stats for schools Memphis is competing with:

Houston
1150 SAT
30% graduated Top 10% in HS
86% of Freshman returned as Sophs ("retention rate")
51% six-Year graduation rate

Cincy
1165 SAT
20% graduated Top 10% in HS
86% retention rate
65% 6-Year graduation rate

UCF
1185 SAT
33% graduated Top 10% in HS
89% retention rate
70% 6-Year graduation rate

USF
1160 SAT
30% graduated Top 10% in HS
89% retention rate
67% six-year graduation rate

UConn
1250 SAT
50% graduated Top 10% in HS
93% retention rate
81% six-year graduation rate

Now, Houston has some work to do, especially on the six-year graduation rate. 58% is the average for public universities across the nation.

School Presidents make up these "expansion committees." Academics are a bigger factor in expansion decisions than you might imagine. Memphis is simply too far behind the others in every academic category to be seriously considered for P5 inclusion. It's the reason why Memphis was not in the first wave of Big East invites in 2011.

.

I don't think academics will matter as much as you think. The ACC pinched their noses and let Louisville in.

(12-07-2015 08:41 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  I don't think academics will matter as much as you think. The ACC pinched their noses and let Louisville in.

Academics will mean nothing in the next round of expansion. This is about money and money alone. They will look for the school that adds financial value. This is the bottom line.

TV Contract is good until 2025. Not having a championship game this year guaranteed OU a slot in the playoff. Having a conference championship game cost Iowa a slot in the playoff this year - had the Big 10 #2 team been ranked 10th, it would have cost the Big10 their playoff spot.

What he said was "we really don't want to add schools, but if the NCAA screws us - we might have to."

What Memphis, UCF, Houston, Cinci, ECU, BYU, and Boise fans heard was "ZOMG!11!!! We really want to add [insert school here] to our conference. We never wanted them before, but now we totally think they will bring in more than $26mil a year in additional revenue! so they won't just be a leach."

(12-06-2015 11:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  It's not that they don't want a CCG below 12. From Delany's comments that clearly is not an issue. It's that the Big 10 Is concerned about allowing leagues to pick any two teams for the CCG, regardless of divisionS or not. They think that potentially gives an advantage, since sometimes the top team in one of the divisions is way down in the rankings. Being able to select teams for a CCG is what he is concerned about.

Will be interesting to see what everyone else thinks about the amendment and the SEC suggestion. From the comments it sounds like no one wants to force the Big 12 to expand and cause a whole another round of conference shifts. I think everyone kinda is likening this current steady states.

I think there is some concern because if the Big 12 could pick any two teams for the CCG and it may not be the top 2 teams. It could be #1 and #3.
TCU could be screw if they are #2. Perhaps the Big 12 could pick #1 OU and #3 Texas in the CCG instead of TCU. Texas may help OU more than TCU.
Actually, having 5 team divisions and 9 conf. games could put OU and UT in different divisions and still allow the Red River Rivalry to happen.

B10 has no reason to expand right now. Not going to happen this year, likely wont happen for 3 or more years.