So can the B1G stop deregulation by themselves or do other conferences have to get involved too? I am trying to see just how likely it is that they can stop deregulation from happening

(12-08-2015 11:49 AM)Bathtub Gin Wrote:  So can the B1G stop deregulation by themselves or do other conferences have to get involved too? I am trying to see just how likely it is that they can stop deregulation from happening

They can't stop it by themselves. They likely have the PAC on their side with the ability to sway the SEC. You have to figure the G5 will vote with the Big12 and ACC though to keep from being raided.

(12-08-2015 11:52 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 11:49 AM)Bathtub Gin Wrote:  So can the B1G stop deregulation by themselves or do other conferences have to get involved too? I am trying to see just how likely it is that they can stop deregulation from happening

They can't stop it by themselves. They likely have the PAC on their side with the ability to sway the SEC. You have to figure the G5 will vote with the Big12 and ACC though to keep from being raided.

P5 conferences get double the votes. I'm not sure if the need a simple majority or 2/3rds for passage.

Out of 15 votes, they would need 8 for a simple majority. The ACC and B12 are a sure 4. They would need 4 G5 conferences to make that work. Thats doubtful, because the teams in those leagues only hope of moving up (either to the P5 or AAC) is for the B12 to expand.

If its 2/3'rds, then its dead as long as the PAC, B10, and SEC vote against it.

G5 vote doesn't matter, since the P5 has autonomy now. (AFAIK)

This was always going to be the next step. The vote for deregulation was just to wipe out the current requirements but didn't automatically allow the game to happen. Big 12 would have still needed the other P5 schools to allow them to do so amongst themselves. And it's in the best interests of the other P5 schools to not allow it.

(12-08-2015 11:52 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 11:49 AM)Bathtub Gin Wrote:  So can the B1G stop deregulation by themselves or do other conferences have to get involved too? I am trying to see just how likely it is that they can stop deregulation from happening

They can't stop it by themselves. They likely have the PAC on their side with the ability to sway the SEC. You have to figure the G5 will vote with the Big12 and ACC though to keep from being raided.

I would assume it would take 3 of the P5 conferences to vote to stop the deregulation/waiver.

It does make one wonder why the B12 would get to vote on their own waiver. Seems like they should be forced to abstain. If so, only 4 votes. If two - the B10 and the PAC12 - vote no and the ACC and SEC vote yes, what happens? A tie means not approved? So many details that we don't have access to.

(12-08-2015 12:02 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 11:52 AM)Titans3775 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 11:49 AM)Bathtub Gin Wrote:  So can the B1G stop deregulation by themselves or do other conferences have to get involved too? I am trying to see just how likely it is that they can stop deregulation from happening

They can't stop it by themselves. They likely have the PAC on their side with the ability to sway the SEC. You have to figure the G5 will vote with the Big12 and ACC though to keep from being raided.

I would assume it would take 3 of the P5 conferences to vote to stop the deregulation/waiver.

It does make one wonder why the B12 would get to vote on their own waiver. Seems like they should be forced to abstain. If so, only 4 votes. If two - the B10 and the PAC12 - vote no and the ACC and SEC vote yes, what happens? A tie means not approved? So many details that we don't have access to.

Probably because a lot of those details do not exist. The NCAA has always just made things up as they go...

There are 15 votes. The 5 P5 get 2 votes, and the 5 G5 gets one vote, for a total of 15 votes.

There is no tie, as to get a majority would be 8 votes, with only 7 left over.

If its 2/3'rds, it would need 10 for passage.

I'm not sure which it would be, as I'd need to read the by-laws to see if a repeal of the 12 team minimum can be done by simple majority or 2/3'rds vote.

I think too much is being made of this B1G stuff. They've said explicitly they are not trying to stop the deregulation but wanted more discussion. This says dereg is not a slam dunk but not that Delany wants it stopped

(12-08-2015 12:23 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  I think too much is being made of this B1G stuff. They've said explicitly they are not trying to stop the deregulation but wanted more discussion. This says dereg is not a slam dunk but not that Delany wants it stopped

But Tigerjamesc, in my opinion, that is happy talk for public consumption.

B10/Delaney is going to try to force the B12 to have a CCG, end of story. They don't want their best teams to risk a loss in a 13th game when the B12 does not have to risk this.

(12-08-2015 12:23 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  I think too much is being made of this B1G stuff. They've said explicitly they are not trying to stop the deregulation but wanted more discussion. This says dereg is not a slam dunk but not that Delany wants it stopped

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

"I agree a conference should not have to expand in order to have a championship game," Delany told ESPN.com. "That wouldn't be right. That's tail wagging dog. On the other hand, I want to have some familiarity -- some knowledge as to how these things are going to play out. I don't want unintended consequences. I don't want to wake up one morning and see some odd structure that's unfamiliar.

"We don't think he should have to expand to have the same option we have," Delany said, "but we feel he should have a structure similar to ours."

The Big Ten's amendment calls for championship games to be between two members that are divisional champions. Deregulation opens the possibility of having the top two teams in the league play each other without divisions.

(12-08-2015 12:29 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 12:23 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  I think too much is being made of this B1G stuff. They've said explicitly they are not trying to stop the deregulation but wanted more discussion. This says dereg is not a slam dunk but not that Delany wants it stopped

But Tigerjamesc, in my opinion, that is happy talk for public consumption.

B10/Delaney is going to try to force the B12 to have a CCG, end of story. They don't want their best teams to risk a loss in a 13th game when the B12 does not have to risk this.

I hope so. I think you're right to a point. But, does it "force" them to add? No Imo
All this does is force them to have two divisions of 5. That's not preferable to the B12, so they may expand. Plus, there's no guarantee Delany's proposition has support

(12-08-2015 12:23 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  I think too much is being made of this B1G stuff. They've said explicitly they are not trying to stop the deregulation but wanted more discussion. This says dereg is not a slam dunk but not that Delany wants it stopped

There are at least two parts to deregulation. 1 part is getting rid of the 12 team minimum for a CCG.

Deregulation is used in too broad of a term by everyone. Even Bowlsby used it both broadly & vaguely a couple of months ago when he said deregulation was gaining speed and would certainly pass. Some of us called BS on that, because he didnt explicitely mention the 12 team minimum part of deregulation. I believe most everyone supports the other part of deregulation, which allows the conference to select which teams are in the CCG.

The B12 teams had been getting $26M from the conference. I thought I read somewhere where the disbursement for 2015 was going to be $31M per team. Plus Texas gets another $15M with the LHN, and some other schools which sell their 3tier rights get much more as well. A conference championship game could bring another $2M to $4M per team for ten teams.

Thats why the PAC and B10 dont want the B12 to hold a CCG with only ten teams. Those ten teams can more easily become superrich, and more easily outpace the B10 or PAC teams since there are fewer mouths to feed. 20%-40% fewer schools mean a big pop whenever they hit a revenue stream, and its harder for the 14 team conference to keep up that pace on a per team basis.

(12-08-2015 12:31 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 12:29 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 12:23 PM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  I think too much is being made of this B1G stuff. They've said explicitly they are not trying to stop the deregulation but wanted more discussion. This says dereg is not a slam dunk but not that Delany wants it stopped

But Tigerjamesc, in my opinion, that is happy talk for public consumption.

B10/Delaney is going to try to force the B12 to have a CCG, end of story. They don't want their best teams to risk a loss in a 13th game when the B12 does not have to risk this.

I hope so. I think you're right to a point. But, does it "force" them to add? No Imo
All this does is force them to have two divisions of 5. That's not preferable to the B12, so they may expand. Plus, there's no guarantee Delany's proposition has support

Agreed, and I said "try" to force. I don't know if it will succeed, but admire Delaney for trying. And for not being afraid to look like the bad guy.

They would also have to change the divisional requirement of at least 6 teams per division. This is where Delaney gets slippery. Like a fox.

I saw somewhere yesterday this could also be his play to get Texas/Oklahoma into the B1G. Force the B12s hand, and if they balk, just offer an invitation to OU/Texas. The B1g is extremely sneaky in the things they have done in regards to realignment, so I put nothing past them.

(12-08-2015 01:52 PM)TigersOhMy Wrote:  I saw somewhere yesterday this could also be his play to get Texas/Oklahoma into the B1G. Force the B12s hand, and if they balk, just offer an invitation to OU/Texas. The B1g is extremely sneaky in the things they have done in regards to realignment, so I put nothing past them.

One other theory is that Oklahoma wants it known that the B10 is interested in them, because Oklahoma wants to expand. But OK knows some B12 member schools need a kick in the butt to move, and floating the idea of leaving the B12 accomplishes that.

Ok, here's a question for the group: exactly how would a "conference" vote? Are we talking about the head of the conference? Because, if that's how, why in the world would a president or conference head (Aresco for the AAC) vote for a measure that pretty much guarantees his conference gets raided? I know the individual university presidents might have some push, but in the end it's one vote from the AAC and I bet our vote would be for whatever way stabilizes the conference alignment picture.

The devil is in the details of how this whole thing is worded/presented/lobbied and the bent around for the benefit of the P5 when it is all said and done.