(01-10-2016 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  as originally proposed.

Source: Stewart Mandel quoting SEC Commish Sankey

I assume this means that deregulation won't pass as originally proposed, but might pass with the Big 10 rider requiring divisions.

There's nothing new here. The key words are "as proposed". Sankey has already said that divisions should be required with 12 or more schools, but that he had no problem with the those in divisions of 10 or less having a CCG. Some reports have called this the SEC compromise. So Sankey's remarks are more aimed at the ACC than they are the Big 12.

This. Sankey's statement today is only a restatement of the position he previously took. He wants to accommodate conferences with less than 12 teams but keep the current rule for conferences of 12 or more.

(01-10-2016 01:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:19 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Are we sure this wont pass? Sec and big 10 will cancel out acc and big 12. Where does the pac stand on this? Their conference title games have been underwhelming. Would they prefer the chance to matchup the two best teams? I have to think the American and MWC would prefer that option as having your 2 marque teams play would increase your odds for the access slot. The sunbelt might like to get rid of those flights to idaho which would be more likely if the acc version passes

One thing I liked about the original complete deregulation proposal was it would have allowed more than 2 divisions. Thus, large cross country conferences with regional pods would have been feasible. I'd like to see the actual language in the Big-10 amendment. If it simply requires "divisions"----and not specifically "2 divisions" like the current rule, then multiple regional pods or "divisions" could still be viable making large conferences comprised of 16-24 teams (or more) doable. You couldn't have an internal playoff---but you could pit the highest two ranking pod (division) winners against one another in the CCG. That could offer a conference a structural advantage over traditional 2 division conferences.

The way i read the big 10 proposal it required two round robin divisions

In every single statement I have seen about the proposal, it has always stated divisions, not two divisions. It opens the way to further realignment by using the ACC proposal to get rid of the two division system.

i read the text on the ncaa website once before and i am 99% positive it read "TWO ROUND ROBIN DIVISiONS"

I am trying to find it again but am not having any luck

Bowlsby still wants what he always wanted:

Freedom to have a title game at 10 teams without forced divisions.

Chuck Carlton tweet.

Unless there is another amendment put forth, this "compromise" position is not currently on the table except in the original proposal, which now looks very doubtful to pass.

(01-10-2016 02:00 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  10th the situation hasn't changed an Iota's worth in the last 3 years. There's about 7 years to go before it is viable to break up the Big 12, maybe 5 if the money is right.

Which means, if OU (and UT) enjoy running their own conference, they need to strengthen the Big 12 ASAP.

Otherwise, they get shuffled off into some other larger pond with a lot of big fish.

This explains why Oklahoma is pushing expansion. Pushing a conference network.

Yes sir. This is part of the change I see coming in realignment thinking. The kind of change that is going to stop current trajectories right in their tracks and be the reason that things get put on hold for a bit.

You see it is easier to build a viable football conference around 2 national brands with a strong supporting middle cast by adding a few more quality schools than it is to build a viable football conference around 1 national brand, 1 regional brand, and half of a 15 member conference that doesn't put forth the effort in football.

We are moving to streaming. Saying you deserve the cable households of a state because the flagship school of that state is in your conference isn't going to be enough to guarantee revenue in the future. If we move to streaming with the technology we have today tracking actual viewing numbers will be even more possible than ever. With the likelihood that payouts could actually be based upon total viewers in the future the need to have states will become less crucial than the need to have eyeballs. That change means brands.

ESPN concocted the present ACC by sewing up schools in the Northeast that they thought Delany would want for his network. They sewed up schools in the Southeast they were afraid the SEC would one day take because they wanted leverage. The core of the old ACC existed because they weren't willing to sell out for football. That was part of the reasoning that divided the old Southern Conference in the first place. ESPN was happy with this during the footprint pay by market days of cable. And while we aren't into streaming in any kind of way that will pay for actual households watching yet, it is obvious that the days of market based pay models for cable are waning. And as they wane so does the value of the present ACC.

I imagine that is why North Carolina and Duke are stepping up their game. The ACC sorely needs Virginia Tech and Pitt to continue to improve and for Richt to turn things around at Miami. I imagine ESPN will want to watch this for a few years, at least until streaming looks like it will finally affect the payout model. If they start asserting themselves beyond Clemson and F.S.U. they have a future. Notre Dame will be patient enough to wait and see. If they don't pick it up then that future may be in jeopardy. If so, Texas and Oklahoma are right to wait.

IMO Connecticut and B.Y.U. add the most value, but neither are contiguous or close.

If the ACC doesn't pick up the pace the SEC and Big 10 will look there for more promising, and closer expansion and the Big 12 which will expand again with the best of their remnants. If the ACC does pick it up and solidifies themselves I think they will get a network, a pay boost, and the Big 10 and SEC will then take a harder look at Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

If all stabilize things will hold. But face it, we have no rush. It will be 5 -7 years before Big 12 property is affordable. The ACC needs those years to step it up. ESPN will wait and so will FOX.

Now the only thing that could change that is if the Big 12 is already brokered and they are just waiting for the right time to announce the moves in one fell swoop.

Just my thinking right now. So it'll be fun to see what, if anything, happens.

(01-10-2016 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  I wouldn't rule out at this point the notion that ESPN would prefer chaos that leads to the breakup of the Big 12 (and maybe even the ACC) as a way to reduce the number of schools considered "power" worthy. The fewer such schools, the cheaper they can get the games they really want. In this regard, I don't think symmetry (like four 16 team leagues) is necessarily a goal. In fact, I suspect that three surviving power conferences might be their desired end game.

I don't agree with this. ESPN wants more conferences and more inventory to keep the price lower and to keep any one conference from getting NFL-like bargaining power. It's why ESPN and Fox paid to keep the Big 12 alive in 2010.

Found It: Big 10 requires 2 and only 2 divisions

2015-81-1
PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- FOOTBALL -- ANNUAL EXEMPTIONS -- CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME BETWEEN DIVISION CHAMPIONS -- FBS

Status: Ready for Vote Process Diagram

Intent: To amend Proposal No. 2015-81, to specify that to be exempted from the limit on the number of contests, a conference championship game shall be between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division.

Bylaws: Amend Proposal No. 2015-81, 17.10.5.2, as follows:
[Federated provision, FBS only]

17.10.5.2 Annual Exemptions.

17.10.5.2.1 Bowl Subdivision. In bowl subdivision football, the maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following:

[17.10.5.2.1-(a) unchanged.]

(b) Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division;

[17.10.5.2.1-© through 17.10.5.2.1-(h) unchanged.]

[Remainder of 17.10.5.2 unchanged.]


Source: Big Ten Conference

Effective Date: August 1, 2016

Proposal Category: Amendment-to-Amendment

Topical Area: Playing and Practice Seasons

Rationale: Each member conference participating in the Football Bowl Subdivision should have the same opportunity to determine whether it conducts a conference championship game. For that to happen, the provision requiring 12 or more members in order to exempt a conference championship game needs to be removed. It is appropriate, however, to maintain the provision regarding matching up division winners. Whereas other team sports require a tournament format to exempt a conference championship event (e.g., basketball requires that the tournament be single elimination), the nature of football, as well as the postseason structure of bowl subdivision football, which includes bowls and the College Football Playoff, render a conference tournament format impractical. In order for the additional game to be exempted as a conference championship, the match-up must be reflective of the participating teams' success within the conference, which is provided through the divisional-format provision.

Estimated Budget Impact: None.

Impact on Student-Athlete's Time (Academic and/or Athletics): None.

History
Oct 31, 2015: Submit; Submitted for consideration as an amendment to Proposal No. 2015-81.
Dec 01, 2015: Comment Period; End of Comment Period

Here is the ACC/Big 12 original proposal

2015-81
PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- FOOTBALL -- ANNUAL EXEMPTIONS -- CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME -- FBS

Status: Ready for Vote Process Diagram

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to eliminate the requirement that a conference championship game must be between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division in order to be exempted from the limitation on the maximum number of contests.

Bylaws: Amend 17.10.5.2, as follows:
[Federated provision, FBS only]

17.10.5.2 Annual Exemptions.

17.10.5.2.1 Bowl Subdivision. In bowl subdivision football, the maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following:

[17.10.5.2.1(a) unchanged.]

(b) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. A One conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;

[17.10.5.2.1-© through 17.10.5.2.1-(h) unchanged.]

[Remainder of 17.10.5.2 unchanged.]

Source: NCAA Division I Council (Football Oversight Committee)

Effective Date: August 1, 2016

Proposal Category: Amendment

Topical Area: Playing and Practice Seasons

Rationale: Currently, football is the only sport that has additional criteria (e.g., 12 or more members, two divisions) that must be satisfied in order to exempt a conference championship game from the limitation on the maximum number of contests. By allowing a conference to determine the criteria for its football championship, as is the case in all other sports, a more stable conference membership environment may be established. Finally, with the elimination of the round-robin, regular-season requirement, a conference would be afforded the flexibility to determine its regular-season schedule and preserve nonconference rivalries.

Estimated Budget Impact: None.

Impact on Student-Athlete's Time (Academic and/or Athletics): None.

History
Jun 01, 2015: Submit; Submitted for consideration.
Jun 23, 2015: Football Oversight Committee, Recommends Approval
Jun 24, 2015: Council Review -- Introduced into Legislative Cycle
Sep 25, 2015: Comment Period; Start of Comment Period
Oct 31, 2015: Amendment-to-amendment (Proposal No. 2015-81-1) submitted for consideration.
Dec 01, 2015: Comment Period; End of Comment Period; (Official Comment Totals: Support = 1, Oppose = 1, Abstain = 1)

PAC 12 will likely decide this

The way I see it
Big 10 and SEC cancel out ACC and Big 12. MAC will likely cancel out Sunbelt. AAC, MWC, and CUSA all have to be in agreement to go against the vote of the PAC

(01-10-2016 02:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  I wouldn't rule out at this point the notion that ESPN would prefer chaos that leads to the breakup of the Big 12 (and maybe even the ACC) as a way to reduce the number of schools considered "power" worthy. The fewer such schools, the cheaper they can get the games they really want. In this regard, I don't think symmetry (like four 16 team leagues) is necessarily a goal. In fact, I suspect that three surviving power conferences might be their desired end game.

I don't agree with this. ESPN wants more conferences and more inventory to keep the price lower and to keep any one conference from getting NFL-like bargaining power. It's why ESPN and Fox paid to keep the Big 12 alive in 2010.

Not really Wedge. They paid to keep the Big 12 alive because neither of them was in control of the trajectory of its top products and the PAC was independent. Both viewed movement to the PAC by Texas and Oklahoma to be the loss of valuable property. So they both ponied up to have some control over the situation.

(01-10-2016 02:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  PAC 12 will likely decide this

The Pac 12 will vote against the original proposal.

Larry Scott specifically said:

"I'd like to see more consistency (between conferences) rather than less," Scott said. "I'd like to see the Big 12 go to a championship game. I don't think it's good or fair to see a conference not have to win that extra game and have that extra opportunity both for a win and a loss. I don't like the idea that a champion can be in the clubhouse and not put it on the line when there are strong teams in other conferences that if they lose can be out of the playoff."

Source

The bolded part is all you need to know. If Scott is against a champion in the clubhouse, he is also against a league picking its top 2 teams for the title game. As I said from the beginning, this is all about risk.

The other leagues have the risk of an upset in the title game due to the divisional format. So too will the Big 12, if it wants a title game. After all, Scott wants "more consistency, not less."

Thamel read the tea leaves wrong. He concluded that the Pac 12 would vote for the original proposal so the Big 12 would have a title game. Instead, the Pac 12 is aligned with the Big 10 (surprise surprise) on the divisional issue.

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

This article contains a list of who is actually voting. Surprised a decision this big gets left up to ADs

(01-10-2016 02:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  PAC 12 will likely decide this

The way I see it
Big 10 and SEC cancel out ACC and Big 12. MAC will likely cancel out Sunbelt. AAC, MWC, and CUSA all have to be in agreement to go against the vote of the PAC

Count the votes, 8 votes needed to pass, P5 conferences' votes each count as 2:

For: ACC, Big 12 (4 votes)

Against: Big Ten, SEC (4 votes)

Undecided or Position not known: Pac-12, AAC, CUSA, MAC, MWC, SBC (7 votes)

So either side needs to win the votes of the Pac-12 plus 2 G5 conferences, or 4 G5 conferences if they don't get the Pac-12's vote.

(01-10-2016 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 02:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  PAC 12 will likely decide this

The way I see it
Big 10 and SEC cancel out ACC and Big 12. MAC will likely cancel out Sunbelt. AAC, MWC, and CUSA all have to be in agreement to go against the vote of the PAC

Count the votes, 8 votes needed to pass, P5 conferences' votes each count as 2:

For: ACC, Big 12 (4 votes)

Against: Big Ten, SEC (4 votes)

Undecided or Position not known: Pac-12, AAC, CUSA, MAC, MWC, SBC (7 votes)

So either side needs to win the votes of the Pac-12 plus 2 G5 conferences, or 4 G5 conferences if they don't get the Pac-12's vote.

Yep and i think it will come down to whether or not the AAC, MWC and CUSA are on the same page to counteract a likely yes vote on the PAC on the big 10 amendment

(01-10-2016 01:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

If it was that cut and dry, it would already be done. The fact that it hasn't already been done just goes to show there are complications.

I've seen all kinds of assertions about what the B12 - ESPN contract says. Yet I'll bet nobody outside those two parties has ever actually seen the contract. To me, the idea that the B12 could add just any two FBS schools (or even current FCS schools) and ESPN will pay the same amount doesn't ring true. I have to believe that there is some clause giving ESPN the power to veto (i.e. dictate) the B12's choices.

I wouldn't rule out at this point the notion that ESPN would prefer chaos that leads to the breakup of the Big 12 (and maybe even the ACC) as a way to reduce the number of schools considered "power" worthy. The fewer such schools, the cheaper they can get the games they really want. In this regard, I don't think symmetry (like four 16 team leagues) is necessarily a goal. In fact, I suspect that three surviving power conferences might be their desired end game.

Boren and Bowlsby have both said it, so it seems pretty silly to doubt it. Nobody has claimed it can be "any" two schools. It would clearly have to be schools approved by ESPN/Fox. Given that the discussion has continued, its pretty obvious there are acceptable schools not currently in the P5. Those schools would be BYU, some of the AAC schools and possibly some of the MWC schools.

(01-10-2016 02:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  as originally proposed.

Source: Stewart Mandel quoting SEC Commish Sankey

I assume this means that deregulation won't pass as originally proposed, but might pass with the Big 10 rider requiring divisions.

There's nothing new here. The key words are "as proposed". Sankey has already said that divisions should be required with 12 or more schools, but that he had no problem with the those in divisions of 10 or less having a CCG. Some reports have called this the SEC compromise. So Sankey's remarks are more aimed at the ACC than they are the Big 12.

This. Sankey's statement today is only a restatement of the position he previously took. He wants to accommodate conferences with less than 12 teams but keep the current rule for conferences of 12 or more.

One line summary: they want to give their Sugar Bowl partner XII whatever they need, while opposing their rival in the southeast ACC.

Pretty simple.

It'll be up to the B1G to spearhead the effort to not let the XII have a CCG with 10.

(01-10-2016 02:45 PM)solohawks Wrote:  http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...cincinnati

This article contains a list of who is actually voting. Surprised a decision this big gets left up to ADs

Just because an AD votes, that does not mean his President didn't sit him down before hand to let him know what is expected.

Remember though, it wasn't all that long ago that The Presidents handed over more power to The Athletic Directors as a whole. As we get into the more controversial elements of what is to come, they want less pressure on themselves. After all, they have their Universities to run. Most of this should be handled by the AD's after taking their President's opinions under strong advisement.

(01-10-2016 02:59 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 02:36 PM)solohawks Wrote:  PAC 12 will likely decide this

The way I see it
Big 10 and SEC cancel out ACC and Big 12. MAC will likely cancel out Sunbelt. AAC, MWC, and CUSA all have to be in agreement to go against the vote of the PAC

Count the votes, 8 votes needed to pass, P5 conferences' votes each count as 2:

For: ACC, Big 12 (4 votes)

Against: Big Ten, SEC (4 votes)

Undecided or Position not known: Pac-12, AAC, CUSA, MAC, MWC, SBC (7 votes)

So either side needs to win the votes of the Pac-12 plus 2 G5 conferences, or 4 G5 conferences if they don't get the Pac-12's vote.

Yep and i think it will come down to whether or not the AAC, MWC and CUSA are on the same page to counteract a likely yes vote on the PAC on the big 10 amendment

One would assume that each conference representative has been given instructions from their conference on how to vote.

But maybe the conference's interest clashes with that of the representative who is actually voting. Best example is that UConn's AD is the AAC's voting representative. The AAC should absolutely support what the Big 12 wants, because the consequences of Big 12 expansion would almost certainly be the AAC losing 1 or 2 of its most valuable members, which would give ESPN the right to cancel the AAC's TV contract or negotiate it downward. UConn, on the other hand, might want the Big 12 to expand, figuring they have as good a chance as anyone of getting an invitation.

@ChuckCarltonDMN 5m5 minutes ago

A logical compromise for Big 12 on conf title game legislation: any future FB title game even in one division will match 1 seed vs. 2 seed. By specifying 1 vs 2 seeds into current legislation, Big 12 will allay fears that other conferences may have about ACC mischief.

(01-10-2016 12:52 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  They were trying to avoid that by pairing the top 2 teams in the title game.

But isn't that how it should be; having your top two teams play in the CCG? I go back to this, the NCAA did not make the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and PAC 12 have a CG. Those conferences made that choice on their own accord. So now these other P-4 conferences want to force the Big 12 to do something they don't really want to do. This is so idiotic it's ridiculous.

Those other four conferences determine to best way to crown the champion, why can't the Big 12 do the same? College Football is a crooked and shady business and stink of contradictions.

(01-10-2016 12:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:52 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is likely to happen is that the Big 12 will be able to get its CCG with 10 teams. How it will do that is another question. Maybe drop out of round-robin, play an 8-game conference and 4-game OOC schedule?

Now that the Big 12 will be required to form divisions, they will have to face the same risk every other conference has: an upset in the title game.

They were trying to avoid that by pairing the top 2 teams in the title game.

So now the decision will be:

1. Status quo. Get penalized for not having the 13th data point.

2. Have a CCG at 10 teams. TV will require the round robin schedule to be maintained. They need their quality inventory. So this requires a rematch every year in the title game.

3. Expand and have a CCG at 12 teams. TV will allow an 8 game conference schedule at 12 teams. They get more quality inventory (48 conference games to 45). Only a 50% chance of a rematch in the title game, and some games will never be replayed (i.e. Texas-OU if they are in the same division).

You forgot #4. Dissolve and better themselves by splitting up and joining other conferences because having two divisions of 5 and a round robin schedule means it is a 100% chance for the CCG to be a rematch game. That is a bad thing.

All the public talk about this mid-major or that mid-major for expansion has all been bluffs, leading up to this moment. The bluffs have failed.

Bragging about knowing obvious things doesn't make you look smart or informed. Why in the world would the SEC/Big 10 give an advantage to another conference?

We do agree on most things, but why would Texas want to dissolve the Big XII when they've had countless opportunities to and have always stood firm? Not sure how this changes anything. I never hear about Texas wanting a title game.

Plus it is totally impractical for a conference to dissolve, and that has only happened at the bottom of the food chain (and those conferences still play Olympic sports). If power programs leave, they will be replaced and the conference will try to hold on to as many bowl bids and tournament monies as it can.