(06-10-2016 12:26 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 11:15 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 09:38 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  The teams will continue to play a nine-game round-robin schedule. Rivalry preservation will play a role, and geography will figure into the discussion.

If you are playing a 9 game round-robin, you cannot possibly miss a conference rival, can you?

A lot of folks missed that. In a round robin, you don't need to preserve rivalries, b/c you play everybody. And you also don't have to worry about geography, if your current teams are set.

Just more evidence they are expanding, and just haven't announced the teams yet.

It's more important than you realize - Divisions and rivalries would determine WHEN you play the games.

For instance, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. will likely play in the same division so that they can play Bedlam the last weekend of the season and not risk a re-match one week later. That's a big deal.

Kansas St. and Kansas is likely another rivalry game that you would want to remain in the same division. Are there really any other rivalry games that you would want to ensure are played the last weekend before the CCG?

Also, they probably want Oklahoma and Texas in *opposite* divisions each year, to at least set up the possibility of the Oklahoma-Texas CCG.

(06-13-2016 11:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 06:38 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 11:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  TCU and San Diego State also backed out of that deal as well. The conference was not something that they agreed to be part of. It was more of an embarrassment on the Big East/AAC schools who could not keep themselves together, and it was a sinking ship over there with not being stable. Boise is not a one sport that is good. There good at multiple sports.

But Boise didn't have a conference to place its other programs. Going full-bore into AAC football and then going to Twitter to plead with other conferences to take other sports is about as bad as it can get administratively. Then, skip out on the bill? Are Boise's other athletics worthwhile? I personally think so, but I think Boise themselves made them look like burdens. And administratively? I don't think B12 presidents and ADs want to work with that.

TCU will probably get a pass for what it did, but you're right...when Pitt sued the Big East, it raised how poorly the conference handled the TCU thing. However, SDSU did its homework.

TCU wasn't involved in that deal.

When Pitt sued the Big East, they pointed out that allowing TCU out of the 27 month notification period, was a prime reason they should not be held to it, or something to that extent. Tcu itself wasn't involved in the suit, but they were mentioned

(06-13-2016 11:16 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 09:10 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 01:43 AM)KUGR Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 02:53 PM)megadrone Wrote:  If they go to divisions, they don't have to play 9 conference games. You have to play all the schools in your division and any number from the other division to have the CCG. They'd have the luxury of playing 8 and missing one conference team every year.

They could play it like the Big East used to, and guess the two best teams, and have them play on Championship Saturday. Sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't.

Yes, they do have to continue to play 9 conference games. Splitting into divisions has nothing to do with it. For any league with less than 12 schools (yes, 10 is less than 12) that conference MUST play a round robin schedule with every school in the league in order to stage a CCG. It doesn't matter if they split into divisions or not. Only once the threshold of 12 schools is met is when they no longer have to play every school in the conference (just every school in their division) in order to stage a CCG.

It's amazing that some people still cannot grasp this simple concept. This was passed back in January the stipulations were clear. smh.

yes they are VERY CLEAR

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

“We felt that this more flexible amendment with two options was the best way to help our conference colleagues to play a championship game without the uncertainty that comes with complete deregulation,” said Jim Phillips, Northwestern University athletics director and chair of the Council. Phillips also represents the Big Ten Conference on the Council.

Reading is fundamental. There is an "OR" in there. They can play either a full round robin of all ten teams, OR split in divisions and play a round robin within the division. So splitting into two 5 team divisions, as long as you play everyone in the division, you don't have to play a full round robin. It says you only have to meet one of the two conditions. Right there, in black and white. Now they would have TV concerns to deal with, but in terms of whether the NCAA allows it: they could switch to 8 games if they moved to divisions, even at ten teams.

Remember this when you try to call other people out about interpretations of rules. You apparently suck at it.

you are as stupid they get

KUGR stated that the Big 12 has to continue to play 9 conference games

I was the one that pointed out that was incorrect and provided a link to the rules

YOU are so damn dumb you can't even read properly

here is the rule I quoted:

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.


the OR is right there in the rules I quoted you David State starter kit and you were simply too ignorant and too big of a fool to see that

you are also too thick to see I was pointing out the fact that the rules were VERY CLEAR and that KUGR was VERY WRONG....I even had the ONE OF TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS UNDERLINED

you were so stupid and you are so obsessed with "getting back at me" that you glanced right over that and went right to call me out without realizing it was just going to end up another time where you tried to call someone out and ended up looking stupid

because you are such a dunce you run around trying to "call someone out" because you are butt hurt that someone thinks you are a fool on the internet and places no value on your 3 hours of undergrad media rights courses and no value on your stupid resume that you tried to post like a dunce on the internet in a feigned attempt to impress someone which backfired because only the biggest imbeciles do that type of thing on the internet at all

I provided the link right to the rules and the rules were quoted and the rules had the OR in there

FOOL

PS this is another reason that only a fool would listen to you on the GOR

you have ZERO ability to read something and actually interrupt what it is saying you only have the ability to quickly glance over something and think that you can show someone up or that whatever WRONG point you feel has been made was made and then harp right on a point while failing to realize you are going to end up looking dumb

this is why you would be a terrible lawyer and even a terrible para-legal and why you need to stick to the mail room and stick to arguing media rights with others that have had 3 hours of undergrad media rights courses

because you have ZERO attention to detail and a very bad habit of jumping in and jumping to conclusions that YOU end up proving are false YOURSELF and looking stupid doing it

i paid no attention to detail, when you didn't stay anything other than "yes they are very clear?" Yeah okay. Cracker Jack box degrees make you a genius. I didn't overlook details. You simply only had said details in your mind. That or (more likely) you are trying to save face. Especially judging by how long it took you to respond, when any other time you wrote your nonsensical books within five minutes of a post.

It's possible I misinterpreted what you were intending to say. But it was NOt because of lack of attention to detail, or didn't read it correctly : details in our head don't count.

(06-13-2016 02:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  i paid no attention to detail, when you didn't stay anything other than "yes they are very clear?" Yeah okay. Cracker Jack box degrees make you a genius. I didn't overlook details. You simply only had said details in your mind. That or (more likely) you are trying to save face. Especially judging by how long it took you to respond, when any other time you wrote your nonsensical books within five minutes of a post.

"cracker jack degrees" make me capable of:

1. being able to actually maintain the point I am making in a thread instead of becoming so confused that I actually start to try and make the exact opposite point that I started out making.....and then another forum member has to step in and let you know that you have in fact completely shifted the point you were failing to make over to the point I had been making all along

2. understanding that in a thread talking about "PODs" that when someone on the very first page of the thread mentions the ACC having 3 PODs with 5 teams each they are in fact not only discussing PODs that would then be placed into divisions and thus is it relevant to mention in that thread that the CCG deregulation would not allow PODs to work......this Vs someone that comes into that thread and immediately claims that the ONLY discussion in the thread is about PODs that would be placed into divisions and thus the CCG rules are irrelevant......while ignoring that on the first page of the thread someone had already mentioned 3 PODs and that had been quoted and discussed on the second page of that thread as well and further ignoring the fact that no one in the thread had discussed PODs placed into divisions......and I was smart enough to know what the meaning of the word assumption was in that thread unlike you.....because I was not the one assuming anything because PODs that would not be in divisions had already been discussed and in fact there was only an assumption by you that PODs in divisions was discussed because it had not been discussed at all in that thread

3. it is not "saving face" by me nor is it "only having said details in mind by me" when I specifically highlighted the part that said ONE OF TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

you are so pathetic that you ignore the fact that ONE OF TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS was highlighted in red and then accuse ME of trying to "save face"

4. then you try and say "cracker jack degrees"......as if I am the one that went around posting all their claimed nonsense credentials on the internet when they got butt hurt that I care nothing about your opinion and nothing about any claimed education or experience will change that

especially when you are so mentally weak that you cannot even follow your own arguments, follow what has been discussed in a thread or follow when someone has BOLDED something in red that says ONE OF TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS

I am sure wherever you went to school is proud of your inability to follow what is being discussed or to make a point and stick to it

(06-13-2016 11:32 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 11:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 06:38 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 11:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  TCU and San Diego State also backed out of that deal as well. The conference was not something that they agreed to be part of. It was more of an embarrassment on the Big East/AAC schools who could not keep themselves together, and it was a sinking ship over there with not being stable. Boise is not a one sport that is good. There good at multiple sports.

But Boise didn't have a conference to place its other programs. Going full-bore into AAC football and then going to Twitter to plead with other conferences to take other sports is about as bad as it can get administratively. Then, skip out on the bill? Are Boise's other athletics worthwhile? I personally think so, but I think Boise themselves made them look like burdens. And administratively? I don't think B12 presidents and ADs want to work with that.

TCU will probably get a pass for what it did, but you're right...when Pitt sued the Big East, it raised how poorly the conference handled the TCU thing. However, SDSU did its homework.

TCU wasn't involved in that deal.

When Pitt sued the Big East, they pointed out that allowing TCU out of the 27 month notification period, was a prime reason they should not be held to it, or something to that extent. Tcu itself wasn't involved in the suit, but they were mentioned

Yeah, TCU was its own thing, being referenced by Pitt and their suit against the Big East, but also getting sued by the Big East over the buyout. TCU had leverage for the Big East to take all of their programs, and SDSU had the Big West. Boise didn't have that, and the shopping they tried to do is the greater point about them. They're fine now, sure, but the AAC thing was revealing how unprepared Boise State was institutionally to fit as a major, which, we shouldn't forget, the Big East/AAC they joined initially still was.

Knowing who and what they are administratively...would you want to peg your conference's future on them? Heh, in a way, they sounded like a PERFECT fit for the Big East.

(06-13-2016 11:16 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  They can play either a full round robin of all ten teams, OR split in divisions and play a round robin within the division. So splitting into two 5 team divisions, as long as you play everyone in the division, you don't have to play a full round robin.

It doesn't appear to be against any NCAA rule for the Big XII to split into divisions and play an 8-game schedule. There could be an issue with the TV contract, however - but I'm sure that could be negotiated.

(06-15-2016 07:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 11:16 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  They can play either a full round robin of all ten teams, OR split in divisions and play a round robin within the division. So splitting into two 5 team divisions, as long as you play everyone in the division, you don't have to play a full round robin.

It doesn't appear to be against any NCAA rule for the Big XII to split into divisions and play an 8-game schedule. There could be an issue with the TV contract, however - but I'm sure that could be negotiated.

No way the B12 will take a pay cut by reducing the number of conference games. This whole exercise was to increase their CFP chances and to make MORE money, not less. They will make (give or take) about $500M (per Dodd) over the CCG for 8 years, minus any payout to 2 new schools.

There is no way they will play in 2 5-team divisions. Bowlsby actually said that after the February meeting. Nobody paid attention to it.

Think about that. If you stay at 10 and split into divisions, you are DECREASING your chances to make the CFP, b/c you have no way to ensure the 2 teams with the best records play in the CCG.

With a round robin, at least you have the 2 teams with the best records playing each other again.

They are adding 2 teams, at least. They are just taking their sweet time.

(06-15-2016 07:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 07:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 11:16 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  They can play either a full round robin of all ten teams, OR split in divisions and play a round robin within the division. So splitting into two 5 team divisions, as long as you play everyone in the division, you don't have to play a full round robin.

It doesn't appear to be against any NCAA rule for the Big XII to split into divisions and play an 8-game schedule. There could be an issue with the TV contract, however - but I'm sure that could be negotiated.

No way the B12 will take a pay cut by reducing the number of conference games. This whole exercise was to increase their CFP chances and to make MORE money, not less. They will make (give or take) about $500M (per Dodd) over the CCG for 8 years, minus any payout to 2 new schools.

There is no way they will play in 2 5-team divisions. Bowlsby actually said that after the February meeting. Nobody paid attention to it.

Think about that. If you stay at 10 and split into divisions, you are DECREASING your chances to make the CFP, b/c you have no way to ensure the 2 teams with the best records play in the CCG.

With a round robin, at least you have the 2 teams with the best records playing each other again.

They are adding 2 teams, at least. They are just taking their sweet time.

Reseeding: WORST IDEA EVER

(06-15-2016 08:48 AM)westwolf Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 07:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 07:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 11:16 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  They can play either a full round robin of all ten teams, OR split in divisions and play a round robin within the division. So splitting into two 5 team divisions, as long as you play everyone in the division, you don't have to play a full round robin.

It doesn't appear to be against any NCAA rule for the Big XII to split into divisions and play an 8-game schedule. There could be an issue with the TV contract, however - but I'm sure that could be negotiated.

No way the B12 will take a pay cut by reducing the number of conference games. This whole exercise was to increase their CFP chances and to make MORE money, not less. They will make (give or take) about $500M (per Dodd) over the CCG for 8 years, minus any payout to 2 new schools.

There is no way they will play in 2 5-team divisions. Bowlsby actually said that after the February meeting. Nobody paid attention to it.

Think about that. If you stay at 10 and split into divisions, you are DECREASING your chances to make the CFP, b/c you have no way to ensure the 2 teams with the best records play in the CCG.

With a round robin, at least you have the 2 teams with the best records playing each other again.

They are adding 2 teams, at least. They are just taking their sweet time.

Reseeding: WORST IDEA EVER

LOL. Nobody mentioned reseeding above, but I agree it is odd.

My guess is that the Big 12 (like almost everything else they discuss) can't decide on which teams to place where, b/c every school has different wants, so reseeding seems like a way to keep everybody not happy, but not mad.

Having said that, I would be surprised if they actually do it.

TripleA,

No other conference ensures its top two ranked/record teams make it into the CCG. Just their respective best ranked/record team. So I disagree with you. In fact, I would claim it increases the chances of getting the #1 team getting to the CFP: the#1 team would more likely be upset by the #2 team than the winner of the other division (assuming those aren't the same thing).

The only possible advantage would be if the #2 team would vault into the CFP by beating the #1. But with only four slots and five P confs that's far from guaranteed.

(06-15-2016 09:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 08:48 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Reseeding: WORST IDEA EVER

LOL. Nobody mentioned reseeding above, but I agree it is odd.

My guess is that the Big 12 (like almost everything else they discuss) can't decide on which teams to place where, b/c every school has different wants, so reseeding seems like a way to keep everybody not happy, but not mad.

Having said that, I would be surprised if they actually do it.

Reseeding is just another word for pods. It has not been suggested much for less than 16 teams, but essentially when you look at how scheduling works for a pod, it is essentially "reseeding" divisions each year, where the two divisions who play each other, effectively form a division that season.

(06-15-2016 09:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  TripleA,

No other conference ensures its top two ranked/record teams make it into the CCG. Just their respective best ranked/record team. So I disagree with you. In fact, I would claim it increases the chances of getting the #1 team getting to the CFP: the#1 team would more likely be upset by the #2 team than the winner of the other division (assuming those aren't the same thing).

The only possible advantage would be if the #2 team would vault into the CFP by beating the #1. But with only four slots and five P confs that's far from guaranteed.

I think that is his point. With the emphasis on conference champions as written in the selection proceedings, the idea is if the number 2 team won, they would have a better chance to make it, then if the winner was a 3rd, 4th, or 5th best team, which was an issue the Big 12 dealt with in their past championship games, because the south was generally stronger than the North, and even when the North had teams with good records, they often were not ranked as high because of their schedules.

There is really no way to "game" the system, because every such move has plusses and minuses. But what you want to do is as much as possible, put your teams in a situation where they have the best chance to earn their way in by winning (remembering at least one P5 champion will be left out), and not in positions where you are waiting for someone else to fail, and/or hoping having an easier path will provide you a boost once someone else does. You want to be in a position where if all five P5 champs have the same record, you are STILL in a position to claim a spot. Everything else is more or less luck of the draw.

IMO, the odds that your #1 will beat your #3,4,5... in the CCG outweigh the odds that your #2 upsetting your #1 in the CCG will vault them into the playoff. Because in the latter, the chances are good that the other four will have their #1 as their respective champs.

If it was only a P4, and especially if that meant a guaranteed spot for each in a four-team bracket, then I'd definitely want to put the two best in the CCG.

(06-15-2016 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  IMO, the odds that your #1 will beat your #3,4,5... in the CCG outweigh the odds that your #2 upsetting your #1 in the CCG will vault them into the playoff. Because in the latter, the chances are good that the other four will have their #1 as their respective champs.

But the odds that you are playing number 3,4,5, etc where as most of the other conferences are playing the perceived number 2 in their conference can put you behind the 8 ball in terms of needing another favorite to lose. I realize that other conferences have the same potential situation, but it is magnified due to the smaller number of teams.

(06-15-2016 01:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 12:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  IMO, the odds that your #1 will beat your #3,4,5... in the CCG outweigh the odds that your #2 upsetting your #1 in the CCG will vault them into the playoff. Because in the latter, the chances are good that the other four will have their #1 as their respective champs.

But the odds that you are playing number 3,4,5, etc where as most of the other conferences are playing the perceived number 2 in their conference can put you behind the 8 ball in terms of needing another favorite to lose. I realize that other conferences have the same potential situation, but it is magnified due to the smaller number of teams.

Agree. I don't know for certain, but I would guess that the consultant research numbers ran through all those possibilities, with the bottom line being that the best odds (at least those mentioned publicly by the Big 12) are to add 2 teams, split in equal 6-team divisions, and go to 8 conference games.

I actually heard a reasonable private rumor that going to 14 showed even better odds, but they didn't make that public.

Corbett,

I don't agree that Big 12 would more often be putting #1 vs non-#2 in the CCG than the other four. It so happened last season that Big Ten #2 was in the West but even that is arguable. The East usually has the legit top two. In the SEC, you have a similar situation. And so on.

Plus, it seems the last few years that both the Big 8 faction and the SWC (+ WV) faction have had strong teams. If they make the divisions like that, it could well end up being #1 v #2 in the CCG anyway.


TripleA,

But that increase has to do with a likely increase in conf wins for the top teams, from not having to play every other top team in the regular season.

(06-15-2016 07:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-15-2016 07:08 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-13-2016 11:16 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  They can play either a full round robin of all ten teams, OR split in divisions and play a round robin within the division. So splitting into two 5 team divisions, as long as you play everyone in the division, you don't have to play a full round robin.

It doesn't appear to be against any NCAA rule for the Big XII to split into divisions and play an 8-game schedule. There could be an issue with the TV contract, however - but I'm sure that could be negotiated.

No way the B12 will take a pay cut by reducing the number of conference games. This whole exercise was to increase their CFP chances and to make MORE money, not less. They will make (give or take) about $500M (per Dodd) over the CCG for 8 years, minus any payout to 2 new schools.

There is no way they will play in 2 5-team divisions. Bowlsby actually said that after the February meeting. Nobody paid attention to it.

Think about that. If you stay at 10 and split into divisions, you are DECREASING your chances to make the CFP, b/c you have no way to ensure the 2 teams with the best records play in the CCG.

With a round robin, at least you have the 2 teams with the best records playing each other again.

They are adding 2 teams, at least. They are just taking their sweet time.

there is no reason they would take a pay cut for playing fewer conference games

the amount of games owned by the media partners stays the same with home and home OOC games being scheduled and would increase of teams scheduled home games two seasons in a row instead of home and home

there is nothing magical about a "conference" game that makes it more valuable than an OOC game in fact an OOC game could be more valuable because it can draw in the causal fans of both conferences

and the Big 12 has $360 million worth of dollars over the next 8 seasons that they can bargain with that the media partners most likely do not want to pay to end up with conference games that are less exciting than many OOC games the Big 12 could get or that are equally as exciting as any conference game, but would not come at a cost of $180 million per new team

and in the last Big 12 press conference Bowlsby mentioned two 5 team divisions, a full conference round robin, playing fewer conference games (which he specifically stated was the main determinant in the increased playoff chances) and "some things that are pretty wild" as all being under consideration for the CCG

and all of those were in the context of a CCG that was NOT tied to expansion