SEC Commish came out against it...

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...egulation/

Coming on the heels of the ACC Network postponement, that's a couple items in a row that Swofford has been unable to deliver on in a very public way.

He was on a bit of a roll there, but that's a couple high profile slaps in the face for the "ninja".

We'll see how the vote turns out. The ACC and Big 12 will vote for it. The SEC and I suspect the B1G will vote against it. It will depend upon the Pac-12. I suspect all of the smaller conferences will vote for it.

Sec is a pos conference. Bunch of hilljacks

(01-12-2016 05:47 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  SEC Commish came out against it...

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...egulation/

Coming on the heels of the ACC Network postponement, that's a couple items in a row that Swofford has been unable to deliver on in a very public way.

He was on a bit of a roll there, but that's a couple high profile slaps in the face for the "ninja".

Lou, I didn't see anything about the network in the article, should there be another link?

Pac 12 wants the Big 12 to have a championship game. I can see them voting against this too.

I wouldn't blame this on Swofford. Commissioners minds started to change when they saw how the committee was slotting teams for the college football playoff and so forth. No one wants to let a conference "game" the system.

If it fails then it will put more pressure on the Big 12, they will have to make some tough decisions. The ACC can live with the status quo.

I hope it fails to pass. I don't think it's a good idea.

Honestly, I don't see how this is a big loss or conversely a big win for Swofford.

90% of his job is delivering on TV/media revenue. Those contracts are locked in and have been. The rest is just rearranging chairs. Doesn't matter much.

(01-12-2016 06:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If it fails then it will put more pressure on the Big 12, they will have to make some tough decisions. The ACC can live with the status quo.

But there is no 'status quo'.....the SEC and B1G are pulling away in revenue. Things are changing.....not staying the same.

(01-12-2016 06:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If it fails then it will put more pressure on the Big 12, they will have to make some tough decisions. The ACC can live with the status quo.

"Tough decisions" -> add two of BYU, Houston, Cincinnati

(01-12-2016 05:47 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  SEC Commish came out against it...

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...egulation/

Coming on the heels of the ACC Network postponement, that's a couple items in a row that Swofford has been unable to deliver on in a very public way.

He was on a bit of a roll there, but that's a couple high profile slaps in the face for the "ninja".

Despite the optimism earlier, I never thought this had a chance to succeed. I knew the Big Ten what oppose it, and I knew once the SEC was against it it would fail. Good as far as I'm concerned. I don't like the Big 10 commish, but I agree with him here.

Soooooooo, Michigan is holding spring practice in Florida (a year after PSU held it in GA?). How freaking hard is it to put forth a proposal with (of for) the SEC (and possibly Big XII) that blocks holding spring practices out of a conference's footprint in return for the SEC's support for the ACC's CCG degrgulation proposal?

The SEC, ACC, ND, and Big XII could/should all be on the same page. It's freaking politics. Find something that someone else really wants and help them get it in return for their help getting something you want.

My thought is that the ACC does/did not care so much about the championship game being a team from each division, rather; the intent to dissolve the divisions and go to a 3-5-5 format.

This format would increase the quality of games offered to TV and reduce the amount of time each team within the conference to play each other to every two years.

This would allow the ACC to request higher payout on the next lookin on TVthe contract.

If you are not familiar with 3-5-5 it works like this. No divisions, all 14 teams one division. Each team has 3 annual rivals. In FSU case it would have 1. UM 2. Clemson 3. GT or Louisville as annual rivals. Example for UNC would be 1. NCST 2. UVA (longest rivalry in football) 3. Duke. Ok you get the picture.

Each year you play your 3 annual rivals and 5 of the remaining 10. In this scenario you play everyone every two years. In the subsequent 2 years flip the same teams but play them at home or away opposite what you played in first two years.

This would open up inventory that is must see TV. GAMES YOU WOULD SEE EVERY TWO YEARS that you only see every 12 years now are.

FSU VS. VT
FSU VS UNC
FSU VS. GT
UM VS CLEM
UM VS LOUISVILLE
PITT VS BC
UNC VS CLEM
SYR VS UM
SYR VS GT


Add your favorite team to the rotation.

Those games have value and could bring much needed cash.

If the division thing does not pass, you could still do it but the divisions would rotate and be confusing as hell each year.

(01-12-2016 10:32 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 05:47 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  SEC Commish came out against it...

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...egulation/

Coming on the heels of the ACC Network postponement, that's a couple items in a row that Swofford has been unable to deliver on in a very public way.

He was on a bit of a roll there, but that's a couple high profile slaps in the face for the "ninja".

Despite the optimism earlier, I never thought this had a chance to succeed. I knew the Big Ten what oppose it, and I knew once the SEC was against it it would fail. Good as far as I'm concerned. I don't like the Big 10 commish, but I agree with him here.

Especially after it appears the champ games have a big influence on the playoff committee.

(01-12-2016 07:56 PM)nole Wrote:  Honestly, I don't see how this is a big loss or conversely a big win for Swofford.

90% of his job is delivering on TV/media revenue. Those contracts are locked in and have been. The rest is just rearranging chairs. Doesn't matter much.

(01-12-2016 06:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  If it fails then it will put more pressure on the Big 12, they will have to make some tough decisions. The ACC can live with the status quo.

But there is no 'status quo'.....the SEC and B1G are pulling away in revenue. Things are changing.....not staying the same.

Status quo in scheduling. The deregulation wouldn't have much effect on revenue.

Wait...spoke a bit to soon, looks like they'll possibly accommodate the Big 12...meaning the ACC is the one that specifically doesn't get what it wants.

https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/687309874561077248

"One potential title game compromise is that the rule would require a league to have 2 divisions OR play a full round robin like Big 12 does."

Ultimately, it's not a gigantic deal, but the rehabilitation of Swofford's image the past few years has been based on the "ninja" having the insider position and personal relationships to get things done, such as the GOR or keeping the ACC firmly in the power five in the playoff negotiations (remember all the talk of playoff revenue based on bowl performance like the NCAA tournament)?

He's the second longest serving commissioner. There have been two publicly stated goals of the ACC in the past year or so, deregulation and the ACC Network. The network is tabled, and here is an issue that, if any, should be able to be moved based on relationships and personal gravitas, and it looks like the ACC will get the short end of the stick.

Believe me, I'm far from the biggest Swofford hater on this board. I'm willing to give credit for some of the moves he's pulled since the height of realignment fever. But if we're sticking with him because he's more connected and settled and better positioned to get the ACC's bidding done than an outsider...that's not exactly showing out in the last few months.

So the Big 12 will get what they want (which is more out there) , but the ACC cant skip teams in division and such? Terrible. Swofford needs to go.

I don't know, tough to judge him on the dereg thing because the ACC has refused to say what if anything they would do with it even if it passes. Mostly all message board speculation regarding that.

(01-13-2016 04:19 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I don't know, tough to judge him on the dereg thing because the ACC has refused to say what if anything they would do with it even if it passes. Mostly all message board speculation regarding that.

What are you supposed to judge him on? This is probably the most accurate possible thing we can have to judge him on how big a hammer he swings.

This is something that doesn't effect other conferences at all...they don't have to change a single thing. If he can't swing this, the idea that he holds some gravitas as a longstanding commissioner with deep ties to the other conferences...is seriously undermined.

To be fair...everything isn't settled yet. The ACC may get something they want as yet, in which case I will have jumped to conclusions. Perhaps the compromise that they need to "play in two divisions or play a round robin" does not state the requirement that the divisions play a round robin.

If that compromise allows the divisions to skip 1 or 2 divisional opponents per year, that probably serves the ACC as much as needed. I personally would like to see divisions go away completely, but I don't get any sense that there is any momentum for that in ACC corridors. Athletic directors and coaches just have two much stake in claiming a divisional title and don't want to see that go away.

Plus, it's much easier to sneak in to the championship game from a division that's down than it is to be required to be in the top 2. You can win the division and play for a conference championship without being one of the best 3 or 4 teams in the conference. See the SEC East. Pretty tough to be in the top two without being one of the best 3 or 4 teams in the conference.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 2m2 minutes ago
B12 gets what it wants (Texas)
ACC does not get what it went for in deregulation.



Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 1m1 minute ago

Greg Flugaur Retweeted Brian Davis
https://mobile.twitter.com/BDavisAAS/sta...1433967616 …

This is what I meant.


Greg Flugaur added,

Brian Davis @BDavisAAS Bowlsby: "We had 7 of 9 affirmative votes." The ACC and American voted no. SEC and Big Ten were in.




Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 5m5 minutes ago
ACC gets stabbed in the back....throws grenade.

Greg Flugaur ‏@flugempire · 27s28 seconds ago
Got the text minutes before it broke.

B1G/SEC got what it wanted (Weakens B12
B12 Got what it wanted (Texas)
ACC got a nothing-burger