(01-13-2016 07:14 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 07:10 PM)Insane_Baboon Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 05:10 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Having a round-robin 'rematch' championship game is stupid... and is not congruent with the very concept of a championship game.

It's a do-over. A mulligan game.

It's as bad as playing a conference mate in a bowl game. Or playing a conference mate OOC.

There's just no good reason for it.

Yeah but that happens in other leagues with divisions anyway. Since the PAC 12 began their championship games, they've had rematches every single year except for the first one.

Yeah, but the point of a round-robin is that it has the feel of a playoff on its own.

Rematches actually mean something in a divisional alignment because you're pitting one champion against another.

Trust me, I get it. I'd rather have divisional winners play in a championship game too. I was just saying repeats happen a lot anyway.

The American's "no" vote on this makes no sense. Unless it was voting against the requirement for round-robin scheduling.

(01-13-2016 07:44 PM)Gaetano01 Wrote:  The American's "no" vote on this makes no sense. Unless it was voting against the requirement for round-robin scheduling.

A no vote does stabalize the league. However, the top half of our league is looking for a seat at the big boy table. This vote may signal who in the league is calling the shots. If Temple was the "next man up" (which I don't think they are), I would want my AD leaning hard on the AAC to look out for our best interest. That may be happening here.

(01-13-2016 07:58 PM)suburban owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 07:44 PM)Gaetano01 Wrote:  The American's "no" vote on this makes no sense. Unless it was voting against the requirement for round-robin scheduling.

A no vote does stabalize the league. However, the top half of our league is looking for a seat at the big boy table. This vote may signal who in the league is calling the shots. If Temple was the "next man up" (which I don't think they are), I would want my AD leaning hard on the AAC to look out for our best interest. That may be happening here.

It's just the opposite. A yes vote made Big12 expansion LESS likely. So a "no" vote was probably not in the conferences best interests.

Why did the AAC have to go to 12 schools to host a championship game? Can we go back to 10?

Yes but then you must play 9 conference games.

(01-13-2016 08:49 PM)panama Wrote:  Yes but then you must play 9 conference games.

That's not correct. A 10-team league can split into divisions and only play 4-8 games (only requirement is to play round robin in your division). To recap, conferences can either do a full round robin and get a CCG or split into divisions and only do round robin within division to gain a CCG.

Then let's go back to 10 schools.

There's another way of looking at this that may support the AAC's no vote.

Since a conference can split into "Equal Divisions" and play "Round-Robin" within those divisions to receive a championship game. This opens up the option of having "3 Equal Divisions" and having a championship game with the "Top 2 Teams". Thus triggering expansion to 15 team conferences.

The "no" vote by the AAC is very easy to explain: A majority of the schools in this conference see themselves as Big 12 expansion targets, and thus wanted to see the Big 12 forced to expand.

The idea that the AAC is an all-for-one unity league is an Aresco fan-boy fantasy. Not a single member sees the AAC as a destination. All of us want out of the AAC as soon as possible, that's why the vote was "no".

Looks like we're all together for a while boys. Enjoy it.

(01-13-2016 09:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The "no" vote by the AAC is very easy to explain: A majority of the schools in this conference see themselves as Big 12 expansion targets, and thus wanted to see the Big 12 forced to expand.

The idea that the AAC is an all-for-one unity league is an Aresco fan-boy fantasy. All of us want out of the AAC as soon as possible, that's why the vote was "no".

The vote didn't matter. Wether the AAC voted yes or no wouldn't have changed the outcome.

As for the fantasy of the Aresco comment, well after this vote the AAC schools have gotten a bigger message that the AAC is where you are now and might be there longer than you think.

Is like the old song.... " and if you are not with the one you love, love the one you are with"

This is what the B1G wanted. They want OU and KU angry. They will be the next two in the B1G.

(01-13-2016 09:51 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  This is what the B1G wanted. They want OU and KU angry. They will be the next two in the B1G.

This. Delany is a mastermind - played everyone like a fiddle.

(01-13-2016 09:51 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  This is what the B1G wanted. They want OU and KU angry. They will be the next two in the B1G.

Why would KU be mad? Doesn't affect roundball.

(01-13-2016 09:57 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 09:51 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  This is what the B1G wanted. They want OU and KU angry. They will be the next two in the B1G.

Why would KU be mad? Doesn't affect roundball.

OU is the mad one. They have been vocal about expansion. OU is mad.

From what I've heard KU is in favor of expansion.

OU and KU will bolt to the B1G when offered.

(01-13-2016 09:51 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  This is what the B1G wanted. They want OU and KU angry. They will be the next two in the B1G.

OU is pissed. Can't believe Boren made the public statement he did:

Quote:The Big 12 is disadvantaged when compared to the other conferences in three ways. We do not have at least twelve members, we do not have a conference network, and we do not have a championship game. I think that all three of these disadvantages need to be addressed at the same time. Addressing only one without addressing all three will not be adequate to improve the strength of the conference.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ou...316e2.html

They don't give a crap right about now. And it's not the first time OU has made statements contrary to the company line.

Too bad they can't leave without OSU and KSU

(01-13-2016 08:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 07:58 PM)suburban owl Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 07:44 PM)Gaetano01 Wrote:  The American's "no" vote on this makes no sense. Unless it was voting against the requirement for round-robin scheduling.

A no vote does stabalize the league. However, the top half of our league is looking for a seat at the big boy table. This vote may signal who in the league is calling the shots. If Temple was the "next man up" (which I don't think they are), I would want my AD leaning hard on the AAC to look out for our best interest. That may be happening here.

It's just the opposite. A yes vote made Big12 expansion LESS likely. So a "no" vote was probably not in the conferences best interests.

Yes, that's what I meant to say. Thx

1. I think a couple posters are wrong saying "round robin within divisions." From my read, it says round robin within a divisionless conference of less than twelve teams. Basically pretty specific to the BigXII's situation. An 11-team conference could conceivably do the same with a 10-game, round robin conference schedule.
2. The ACC was looking for a different deregulated CCG concept: lookng at pods of four or five, and two best (CFP committee rankings) teams meeting in CCG. Intent was to better structure for rivalries and more frequent cross-pod meetings than 7-team divisions allowed. Hence their "no"vote
3. Big10 / SEC making the measure BigXII model only and not ACC model says to me that they feel comfortable as the two top dogs and dont' want to give ACC an opening to challenge.
4. AAC's no vote conceivable makes sense if the thinking is that we are assuming we'll be head and shoulders above G4 for an access bowl but the calculated risk is that BigXII's vulnerability with current non-CCG setup makes it more possible that an undefeated AAC champ gets into playoff and bigger money. That is already a slim possibility, and in my mind that low probability benefit is greatly outweighed by risks of expansion hurting the conference. However, that is a conceivable logic train for an AAC "no" vote.

Bottom line, good outcome for AAC - BigXII expansion SHOULD be off the table for another 5-10 years. ACC getting their model approved could have led to ACC expansion (to get to 16 for 4 four-team pods) and now that is off the table, too. While the overall stability is good, negative seems to be a further consolidation of P5 separation. That is, P6 now seems marginally less likely. However, on balance, staying the lone tweener conference keeps us in the mix when the next tectonic shift in the DI landscape comes.