http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...cincinnati

Th B1G proposal is really more aimed more at the ACC than the Big 12.
Delany is trying to prevent the ACC from creatively selecting the two best teams in the conference for the championship even if both are in the same division.

(01-07-2016 09:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  Th B1G proposal is really more aimed more at the ACC than the Big 12.
Delany is trying to prevent the ACC from creatively selecting the two best teams in the conference for the championship even if both are in the same division.

Why does Delany even care? Doesn't the B1G have other issues that need to be addressed? What a petty individual.

(01-07-2016 09:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  Th B1G proposal is really more aimed more at the ACC than the Big 12.
Delany is trying to prevent the ACC from creatively selecting the two best teams in the conference for the championship even if both are in the same division.

^This^

Low Intensity Conflict between the two conferences...

(01-07-2016 09:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  Th B1G proposal is really more aimed more at the ACC than the Big 12.
Delany is trying to prevent the ACC from creatively selecting the two best teams in the conference for the championship even if both are in the same division.

If that's truly what the ACC wants, it should be careful what it wishes for. As often as not, that could backfire on the league, knocking its second best team out of an NY6 bowl.

But I agree - that shouldn't be any of Delaney's business.

Why should Delaney support a proposal to help another league get a leg up on the B1G? ACC knew what the rules were they expanded to 12 then to 14 and 14.5, Big XII knew the rules when they elected to not expand back to 12.

(01-07-2016 10:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Why should Delaney support a proposal to help another league get a leg up on the B1G? ACC knew what the rules were they expanded to 12 then to 14 and 14.5, Big XII knew the rules when they elected to not expand back to 12.

If nothing else, as a matter of principle. Let's ignore for the moment, the question of whether league autonomy in determining its champion gives any conference a "leg up" on other conferences. I don't believe anybody has yet made a compelling case that this is, in fact, true.

When the Big Ten actually had 10 members, and again when they added Penn State, they determined their champion without either playing a full round robin or creating divisions. They determined which school would represent the conference as its champion in the Rose Bowl, not by tie breakers, but by recency of participation. The team that had been away from Pasadena the longest got to go.

If any other conference had tried to interfere in their internal policy, they would have simply ignored them, saying it is nobody's business how they choose their champion. And they would have been right. Now that they have a system that they like, they want to determine how other conferences determine their champion. That's pretty hypocritical, IMO.

Of course, that leads to another question. If forcing another conference to have divisions doesn't help the B1G from a competitive standpoint, what could Delaney's true motive be?

Not that it will do any good, but I wrote Delaney and said I thought the Big Ten opposing this was a mistake and that they should instead be it's biggest supporter. The Big Ten would be far better off without divisions and just putting the top in Indianapolis. We'd feel more like a conference gain and less like 2 mini-conferences.

(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Not that it will do any good, but I wrote Delaney and said I thought the Big Ten opposing this was a mistake and that they should instead be it's biggest supporter. The Big Ten would be far better off without divisions and just putting the top in Indianapolis. We'd feel more like a conference gain and less like 2 mini-conferences.

What do you think Delaney's motives are here?

(01-07-2016 11:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Not that it will do any good, but I wrote Delaney and said I thought the Big Ten opposing this was a mistake and that they should instead be it's biggest supporter. The Big Ten would be far better off without divisions and just putting the top in Indianapolis. We'd feel more like a conference gain and less like 2 mini-conferences.

What do you think Delaney's motives are here?

Are posters suggesting that Delaney actually wants to be defeated on this proposal? Just because he could claim he did all he could do and then make moves based on being defeated?

The rule will be changed, it's just a question of how.

Even if Delany manages to recruit enough other conferences to help him block complete deregulation, the Big 12 could either live with playing football in two 5-team divisions, or they could accept the SEC's proposal that the rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more but conferences of less than 12 would be permitted to match their 1st and 2nd place teams in a CCG.

Another obvious compromise would be that any FBS conference can either have no divisions and hold a CCG as long as it matches the 1st and 2nd place teams, or they can have two divisions and hold a CCG that matches the division winners.

(01-07-2016 11:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  What do you think Delaney's motives are here?

Easy. He wants every conference to assume the same risk.

He has the risk of an 8-4 Minnesota beating 11-1 Penn State in the Big 10 title game and knocking Penn St out of the playoffs.

Bowlsby was trying to get around that risk by pairing the top two rated teams in the Big 12 title game.

So Delany called BS, and said if you want a title game, it has to be a game of division winners.

The following major point was missed in the article and I haven't seen anyone on here talking about it either: will the rule requiring round-robin within a division be kept?

If that rule is removed, then divisions are meaningless.

What's the point of the ACC having two seven team divisions, then having UNC only play Duke in the division????


This is my opinion: the ACC's goal is to be allowed to make the easiest conference schedules possible for the teams it thinks will have the best chance at getting into the CFP. Whether that would be accomplished by having no divisions or by having divisions with no round-robin requirement, doesn't really matter.


My other opinion: the B1G wants the XII to play a CCG. Their proposal doesn't force this to happen, obviously. The XII could still just decide not to play one (which is what I think they'll do). But it does make it easier. The proof and reasoning is this year: the XII got to bypass the risk of a CCG and take a week off. The B1G doesn't want that to happen again, ideally.

(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Not that it will do any good, but I wrote Delaney and said I thought the Big Ten opposing this was a mistake and that they should instead be it's biggest supporter. The Big Ten would be far better off without divisions and just putting the top in Indianapolis. We'd feel more like a conference gain and less like 2 mini-conferences.

It is two conferences, now. And that's just fine.

Minnesota doesn't care about anyone in the East, other than one football game vs. Michigan.

I'd be just fine if we never played East teams, except in conference championships.


We will take a nice chunk of money that they generate from all those TV viewers an the cable subscriptions they purchase, though!

(01-07-2016 11:21 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The rule will be changed, it's just a question of how.

Even if Delany manages to recruit enough other conferences to help him block complete deregulation, the Big 12 could either live with playing football in two 5-team divisions, or they could accept the SEC's proposal that the rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more but conferences of less than 12 would be permitted to match their 1st and 2nd place teams in a CCG.

Another obvious compromise would be that any FBS conference can either have no divisions and hold a CCG as long as it matches the 1st and 2nd place teams, or they can have two divisions and hold a CCG that matches the division winners.

I don't think the quote from the SEC comiss is a formal proposal. I've only read that the formal proposals are: i) complete deregulation (XII & ACC) and ii) the B1G's formal amendment.

(01-07-2016 11:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Not that it will do any good, but I wrote Delaney and said I thought the Big Ten opposing this was a mistake and that they should instead be it's biggest supporter. The Big Ten would be far better off without divisions and just putting the top in Indianapolis. We'd feel more like a conference gain and less like 2 mini-conferences.

It is two conferences, now. And that's just fine.

Minnesota doesn't care about anyone in the East, other than one football game vs. Michigan.

I'd be just fine if we never played East teams, except in conference championships.


We will take a nice chunk of money that they generate from all those TV viewers an the cable subscriptions they purchase, though!

It is really sad for me to read that from a Minnesota fan. I can promise you I still care far more about the Golden Gophers and our history together than Rutgers, Maryland, or even Penn State (although greatly respect a number of posters from each school).

(01-07-2016 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 09:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  Th B1G proposal is really more aimed more at the ACC than the Big 12.
Delany is trying to prevent the ACC from creatively selecting the two best teams in the conference for the championship even if both are in the same division.

If that's truly what the ACC wants, it should be careful what it wishes for. As often as not, that could backfire on the league, knocking its second best team out of an NY6 bowl.

But I agree - that shouldn't be any of Delaney's business.

Oh nonsense. It is absolutely his business, and the business of everyone in FBS: those rules, and the proposed changes to them, affect every FBS conference. So obviously they all should have a say (and will all vote).

And to that point, why should any of the FBS leagues let the ACC cheat their conference schedules to pump up the conf records of whichever team they think has the best chance of getting into the CFP??

(01-07-2016 11:06 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Not that it will do any good, but I wrote Delaney and said I thought the Big Ten opposing this was a mistake and that they should instead be it's biggest supporter. The Big Ten would be far better off without divisions and just putting the top in Indianapolis. We'd feel more like a conference gain and less like 2 mini-conferences.

What do you think Delaney's motives are here?

Personally, I think people read too much in different directions on this. I think he wants to prevent conference from automatically lining up the best two as he feels that increases their playoff chances, but doesn't really care about the rest. Whether round robin play or the 12 team rule are continued is irreverent to him and honestly that's probably what the ACC and Big 12 care the most about anyway.

I personally think that's nut as we should always be going for a system that will more often than not put the best two in the CCG, but that's just my own opinion.

(01-07-2016 11:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 09:03 AM)XLance Wrote:  Th B1G proposal is really more aimed more at the ACC than the Big 12.
Delany is trying to prevent the ACC from creatively selecting the two best teams in the conference for the championship even if both are in the same division.

If that's truly what the ACC wants, it should be careful what it wishes for. As often as not, that could backfire on the league, knocking its second best team out of an NY6 bowl.

But I agree - that shouldn't be any of Delaney's business.

Oh nonsense. It is absolutely his business, and the business of everyone in FBS: those rules, and the proposed changes to them, affect every FBS conference. So obviously they all should have a say (and will all vote).

And to that point, why should any of the FBS leagues let the ACC cheat their conference schedules to pump up the conf records of whichever team they think has the best chance of getting into the CFP??

I wouldn't call it cheating. Please see Ohio State last year and Iowa this year.

(01-07-2016 11:40 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 11:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-07-2016 10:58 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Not that it will do any good, but I wrote Delaney and said I thought the Big Ten opposing this was a mistake and that they should instead be it's biggest supporter. The Big Ten would be far better off without divisions and just putting the top in Indianapolis. We'd feel more like a conference gain and less like 2 mini-conferences.

It is two conferences, now. And that's just fine.

Minnesota doesn't care about anyone in the East, other than one football game vs. Michigan.

I'd be just fine if we never played East teams, except in conference championships.


We will take a nice chunk of money that they generate from all those TV viewers an the cable subscriptions they purchase, though!

It is really sad for me to read that from a Minnesota fan. I can promise you I still care far more about the Golden Gophers and our history together than Rutgers, Maryland, or even Penn State (although greatly respect a number of posters from each school).

The original Big Ten didn't have any East teams, other than Michigan.

Sorry, but for me personally -- I do not care about games against Indiana, Ohio St or Michigan St. In fact, I consider them a nuisance, because we usually lose (in football and bball). And I could do without the Michigan games as well, for the same reason (this year particularly ... still shake my head at how that one ended).

Obviously then, Penn St and now Rutgers and Maryland are just all the more foreign.


But I do enjoy having Iowa and Nebraska on the schedule. I'd welcome Kansas, too. Even Iowa St, but they have a much lower chance of getting in.