looks like the ACC/XII plan to rewrite the rules for CCGs has passed the Football Oversight Committee and is headed for the NCAA Council. But the Council will not vote on these until next April.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball...ou...conference
"The Football Oversight Committee recommended a number of proposals the Council agreed to sponsor, including the measure that would allow conferences to decide how to determine a conference champion in the sport.
The proposal would exempt a conference championship game from counting toward the maximum number of contests, no matter how many members belong to a conference.
In recommending the sponsorship, the oversight committee, chaired by Big 12 Conference Commissioner Bob Bowlsby, noted that football is the only sport that requires a minimum number of conference members (12) in order to exempt a conference championship contest.
Bowlsby said the move would create a more stable conference membership environment. The Big 12 was a major advocate for changing the rules regulating conference championships in football. It has only 10 members.
The football committee also sponsored a package of proposals advocated for by the Football Recruiting Subcommittee of the now-defunct Leadership Council. Those proposals would:
• Allow Football Championship Subdivision coaches to evaluate prospective student-athletes at practices for all-star games, subject to the recruiting calendar.
• Allow coaches in both subdivisions to use all forms of electronic correspondence to communicate with prospective student-athletes and their parents, beginning Sept. 1 of the student’s junior year in high school.
• Allow coaches in both subdivisions the ability to have contact with prospective student-athletes during the student’s junior year so long as the contacts are at his or her high school and during the spring evaluation period.
The Council also sponsored a proposal from the Committee on Academics that would require prospective student-athletes to have a high school transcript on file with the NCAA Eligibility Center before a coach can offer financial aid in writing."
This proposal is about 5 years too late to have made for a stable environment, IMO.
Of course it was not of the concern of the Big XII at the time when they had both 12 teams championship game and and an automatic bid as a BCS conference.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/...conference working link
"The Division I Council sponsored these and other proposals in the 2015-16 legislative cycle. The Council’s decision to sponsor a particular piece of legislation at this meeting is indicative only of the members’ desire for continued conversation on the proposals, not of the group’s support of a concept."
So...we could see an 8 or 9 team conference hold a CCG for football if the no minimum requirement holds through.
Would be good for the Sunbelt. Bad for Idaho.
(06-25-2015 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So...we could see an 8 or 9 team conference hold a CCG for football if the no minimum requirement holds through.
Would be good for the Sunbelt. Bad for Idaho.
That's what we're hoping for...
After the conclusion of this upcoming season Idaho will be reviewed and hopefully they won't have their membership extended beyond 2017. Nothing personal, just geography. Also, hoping for New Mexico State to join in as an all-sports member. New Mexico State is a bit out there too but they're good for Texas State and good for Sun Belt basketball. That would bring us to ten all-sports members and some semblance of stability.
EAST:
* Appalachian State
* Georgia Southern
* Georgia State
* South Alabama
* Troy
WEST:
* Arkansas State
* Louisiana
* New Mexico State
* Texas State
* ULM
(06-25-2015 08:02 AM)I AM an Eagle! Wrote: [ -> ] (06-25-2015 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So...we could see an 8 or 9 team conference hold a CCG for football if the no minimum requirement holds through.
Would be good for the Sunbelt. Bad for Idaho.
That's what we're hoping for...
After the conclusion of this upcoming season Idaho will be reviewed and hopefully they won't have their membership extended beyond 2017. Nothing personal, just geography. Also, hoping for New Mexico State to join in as an all-sports member. New Mexico State is a bit out there too but they're good for Texas State and good for Sun Belt basketball. That would bring us to ten all-sports members and some semblance of stability.
EAST:
* Appalachian State
* Georgia Southern
* Georgia State
* South Alabama
* Troy
WEST:
* Arkansas State
* Louisiana
* New Mexico State
* Texas State
* ULM
Why have two divisions in a 10 team league?
I just don't see the eastern schools agreeing to New Mexico St for all sports at all. Not when NMSU is such an outlier and the schools would be having to travel out there for basketball at least every other year. That's not going to fly.
I think 1 thing for sure- it's not just going to be dump Idaho and make NMSU all sports. There will be something for the eastern schools as well.
The NCAA Football Oversight Committee that Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby chairs approved a deregulation proposal for conference championship football games.
It now will go through the NCAA legislative process, beginning with public comment. Bowlsby said a possible timetable could include approval at the NCAA convention in January 2016.
The legislation could allow the Big 12 to hold a conference title game with just 10 teams. The league has tabled title game discussion until the proposal passes.
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/...ence.html/
I take it that the legislation for the CCG applies to all divisions as it did before with the divisional rule was setup. So even D2 schools could have a CCG with 10 or fewer teams.
(06-25-2015 08:33 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (06-25-2015 08:02 AM)I AM an Eagle! Wrote: [ -> ] (06-25-2015 07:18 AM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ]So...we could see an 8 or 9 team conference hold a CCG for football if the no minimum requirement holds through.
Would be good for the Sunbelt. Bad for Idaho.
That's what we're hoping for...
After the conclusion of this upcoming season Idaho will be reviewed and hopefully they won't have their membership extended beyond 2017. Nothing personal, just geography. Also, hoping for New Mexico State to join in as an all-sports member. New Mexico State is a bit out there too but they're good for Texas State and good for Sun Belt basketball. That would bring us to ten all-sports members and some semblance of stability.
EAST:
* Appalachian State
* Georgia Southern
* Georgia State
* South Alabama
* Troy
WEST:
* Arkansas State
* Louisiana
* New Mexico State
* Texas State
* ULM
Why have two divisions in a 10 team league?
Well it may not stay at 10. That was just to show where each team would fall when Missouri State and James Madison/Coastal Carolina/Eastern Kentucky/whoever the hell is going to be added to the east are added.
I still say leave the 12 team provision in place, just eliminate the division rules. Let it be the two highest ranked teams or you could use 3 or 4 divisions and use the two highest ranked division winners. Going division-less would be advantageous for the ACC and Big Ten in particular.
I hate the idea of a rematch CCG. You should not have to beat a team twice to win your conference IMO. That will be one benefit of these larger 14+ team conferences in the future.
I don't see OU and UT agreeing to anything that could make them play a second RRR CCG.
If there's no minimum number, is it possible we could see conference contraction? NCAA rules say 7 years together gets an autobid, right? If that's the case why have 14-16 members?
Hold on, I thought the cw around here is that this would be DOA?
Behind this is the desire for simplification and a single-line conference schema. CCGs go to the top two teams rather than the ones with the best records in their respective division/region. If it passes, well, duh, it's because you'll get better teams in the CCGs with a lower risk threshold.
Then again, if pods are what is to come out of this potential ruling, maybe this leads the way to thirteen games, which a few conferences have said they wanted. I don't see how CCG deregulation and pods don't create semi-final conference games by default.
Bowlsby's going to try and amend this to speak to overall size, but I think the other conference commissioners and school presidents will put him into his place. All of these other conferences feeling the sting like as if their growth should be penalized while another's manipulation of the rules stands to prosper? Yeah, not happening.
(06-25-2015 11:19 AM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I still say leave the 12 team provision in place, just eliminate the division rules. Let it be the two highest ranked teams or you could use 3 or 4 divisions and use the two highest ranked division winners. Going division-less would be advantageous for the ACC and Big Ten in particular.
I would have mixed feelings about this. Could Notre Dame only play 5 conference games and be elligible for the CCG? I guess so if it is ok with the ACC.
could BYU join the Big 12 football only, play no conference games, and still count as one of the 12 teams to meet the 12 team requirement? I guess so if the Big 12 is ok with it?
(06-25-2015 11:19 AM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I still say leave the 12 team provision in place, just eliminate the division rules. Let it be the two highest ranked teams or you could use 3 or 4 divisions and use the two highest ranked division winners. Going division-less would be advantageous for the ACC and Big Ten in particular.
The Networks wont like to see the conferences go without divisions. They want to draw in More general sports viewers. The concept of no divisions is a traditional college football fan's wet dream. The concept of divisions and the battles within those divisions is a concept general fans latch on to more strongly, especially when they do not have a horse in the race.
Just look at a comparison of the big 12 and its lack of divisions in comparison to the other Major Conferences and their divisions. The problem in the other Major Conferences isn't that they have divisions, it's that their divisions have become too big. They need more divisions, especially if they are to expand to 16 teams.
(06-25-2015 12:24 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: [ -> ]If there's no minimum number, is it possible we could see conference contraction? NCAA rules say 7 years together gets an autobid, right? If that's the case why have 14-16 members?
An FBS conference has to have at least 8 full members.
So if a conference gets to 16—plus, there could be a MWC type split where half the conference leaves at once and starts a new league.
I dont see the other conferences allowing the Big 12 to have their way and get a CCG without expanding.
BUT I can see them voting for removing the divisions.
You could have a setup where the 4-5 must play games are preserved every year but then open up the schedule for more frequent games with everyone else.
For example, Georgia's schedule might look like this:
Annual games
-Florida
-Auburn
-South Carolina
-Tennessee
Rotate through everyone else home and away
(06-25-2015 06:35 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ] (06-25-2015 12:24 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: [ -> ]If there's no minimum number, is it possible we could see conference contraction? NCAA rules say 7 years together gets an autobid, right? If that's the case why have 14-16 members?
An FBS conference has to have at least 8 full members.
So if a conference gets to 16—plus, there could be a MWC type split where half the conference leaves at once and starts a new league.
OK, for some reason I was thinking you could get away with 7 members.