CSNbbs

So apparently the B1G is against the ACC/Big XII push for deregulation:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...itle-games

(12-04-2015 10:10 PM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]So apparently the B1G is against the ACC/Big XII push for deregulation:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...itle-games

Interesting because the Big Ten's amendment inconveniences the Big 12 but doesn't affect what the ACC (probably) wants to do. If the only requirement is that there have to be two divisions and the CCG played between them, that still allows the ACC to have a format with 2 divisions where each team could skip one of the teams in their own division each year, to allow more cross-division play. And, that's a feature that the Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC might want to use at some point as well.

Don't know whether the Big Ten is just trying to stir up ish or whether there's an agenda there.

Sankey's comment is a reasonable response: If a conference doesn't have divisions but plays a full round-robin, they can match their top two teams in a CCG.

Dodd says that the B12 believes they have support from 4 P5 conferences on title game deregulation.

The votes are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame.

For: 12 votes (potentially)
Against: 14 votes (potentially)

The B1G could rally support for passage with its provision. That could get support from the B12 at 10 and the SBC which is at 10.

I could see support for the B1G proposal from the MAC and MWC as way to block a future 3 or 4 division AAC.

SEC sounds like they are swing vote in the discussion. If they like the B1G proposal more they may decide to rally behind that.

(12-04-2015 10:23 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-04-2015 10:10 PM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]So apparently the B1G is against the ACC/Big XII push for deregulation:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...itle-games

Interesting because the Big Ten's amendment inconveniences the Big 12 but doesn't affect what the ACC (probably) wants to do. If the only requirement is that there have to be two divisions and the CCG played between them, that still allows the ACC to have a format with 2 divisions where each team could skip one of the teams in their own division each year, to allow more cross-division play. And, that's a feature that the Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC might want to use at some point as well.

Don't know whether the Big Ten is just trying to stir up ish or whether there's an agenda there.

Sankey's comment is a reasonable response: If a conference doesn't have divisions but plays a full round-robin, they can match their top two teams in a CCG.

The B1G is concerned about conferences making calculated decisions about who to place in a championship game to maximize playoff chances.

What if the B12 decides to match its #1 team against its #4 in its title game in hopes of trying to sneak a second team into a playoff? When its limited to divisional winners there is no ability to pole position the contestants.

The B1G's does sound like the better proposal. It caps conferences at 2 divisions and disincentivizes them from expanding beyond 10, 12 or 14.

SBC with 2 divisions and 10 teams:

SBC East: Coastal, App State, Georgia State, GeoSo, Troy
SBC West: South Ala, ULM, ULL, Arkansas State, Texas St

Works real nice for he SBC.

(12-04-2015 10:10 PM)Maize Wrote: [ -> ]So apparently the B1G is against the ACC/Big XII push for deregulation:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...itle-games

I knew I liked the Big.

This actually wouldn't kill the reasons the ACC and Big 12 want it, although it would limit the freedom some. The Big 12 would still be able to hold a CCG with this amendment, it just would have to form two divisions. That seems silly to force given they have round robin, but if you get rid of the 12 game requirement still (the Big Ten amendment doesn't change that), they could. The ACC meanwhile couldn't drop divisions outright, but the amendment does not bring back the requirement for round robin play in division so removing that is probably all the ACC really wanted anyway.

I really hate that the Big Ten sees it this way though. This is the exact opposite of the way I want them going. I really wish it would be pushing to get rid of divisions and just put the highest two in. I hate the fact Ohio State plays western opponents (most the old Big Ten) now so irregularly (improves a little next year with a 9th game, but we have "parity based scheduling"). I also dislike the fact that the divisions are stacked in such a way, one of them (the east) will likely get more media coverage than the other most years even when the two divisions are about equal in strength.

I could see some FCS be on the side of the Big 10. They are hoping for more expansion so that they get called up.

I was under the impression the acc wanted flexibility from the traditional 2 division round robin structure. Big 10 does not want them to have it unfortunately

The thread title is misleading, because on the MAIN point, whether a conference can hold a title game with 10 teams, there is no opposition at all. There is unanimous support for the Big 12's notion of holding a CCG with just 10 teams. That's the key thing here.

Even if the B1G plan prevails, the Big 12 will just form two divisions of five teams and get its CCG anyway.

No expansion needed.

Yeah the big 12 can set their divisons up however they want since everyone will play everyone. Putting texas and Oklahoma in opposite divisons in a 10 team round robin conference is no big deal.

Forcing divisions kills the acc's need of flexibility though. The acc needs a single table 3 permanent rivals -5 rotational team format in order to properly accommodate everyones scheduling needs

(12-05-2015 01:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The thread title is misleading, because on the MAIN point, whether a conference can hold a title game with 10 teams, there is no opposition at all. There is unanimous support for the Big 12's notion of holding a CCG with just 10 teams. That's the key thing here.

Even if the B1G plan prevails, the Big 12 will just form two divisions of five teams and get its CCG anyway.

No expansion needed.

Big 12 loses, and they can't go into 2 divisions until they expand. Texas needs to get their act together and okays for expansions. West Virginia can't be left by themselves alone on an island.

(12-05-2015 01:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The thread title is misleading, because on the MAIN point, whether a conference can hold a title game with 10 teams, there is no opposition at all. There is unanimous support for the Big 12's notion of holding a CCG with just 10 teams. That's the key thing here.

Even if the B1G plan prevails, the Big 12 will just form two divisions of five teams and get its CCG anyway.

No expansion needed.

B12 One: Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma St, K-State, Iowa St
B12 Two: Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia

The Big 12 is not going to expand. plain and simple, next subject.

This limits, but doesn't kill the ACC changes. They couldn't go to no-divisions or 3 divisions, but as that article reads, there's nothing mandating full round robin play in the Big Ten amendment, only that the championship has to be between the two division winners. That suggests to me, the Big Ten is mostly pushing for divisional set-ups, but outside that doesn't care too much.

(12-05-2015 01:12 AM)solohawks Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah the big 12 can set their divisons up however they want since everyone will play everyone. Putting texas and Oklahoma in opposite divisons in a 10 team round robin conference is no big deal.

Forcing divisions kills the acc's need of flexibility though. The acc needs a single table 3 permanent rivals -5 rotational team format in order to properly accommodate everyones scheduling needs

Would the B1G's proposal prevent 3 division alignments though? Three divisions with the 2 winners with the best record playing for a championship game?

It's not like this is the first time you have heard something similar to this folks.



The wording of this allows for more than two divisions. Yes, the big 12 will be able to stay at 10 and have two divisions of five each but if certain conferences are able to form up more divisions due to this rule...the temptation for further expansion will be much greater than it is now.

The temptation there is for the ACC to expand by one if the right school becomes available, without having to add a second school to even things up. Then 4 games in division and 2/5 of each of the other two divisions, two best division winners play for the championship.

Indeed, each division might play Notre Dame one year out of three.

(12-05-2015 01:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The thread title is misleading, because on the MAIN point, whether a conference can hold a title game with 10 teams, there is no opposition at all. There is unanimous support for the Big 12's notion of holding a CCG with just 10 teams. That's the key thing here.

Even if the B1G plan prevails, the Big 12 will just form two divisions of five teams and get its CCG anyway.

No expansion needed.

Correct. Only thing they will need to be careful of is how they divide up these teams into their "artificial" divisions.

To play it safe I am sure they will begin with UT and OU in opposite divisions and then proceed from there.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-05-2015 03:26 AM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2015 01:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The thread title is misleading, because on the MAIN point, whether a conference can hold a title game with 10 teams, there is no opposition at all. There is unanimous support for the Big 12's notion of holding a CCG with just 10 teams. That's the key thing here.

Even if the B1G plan prevails, the Big 12 will just form two divisions of five teams and get its CCG anyway.

No expansion needed.

Correct. Only thing they will need to be careful of is how they divide up these teams into their "artificial" divisions.

To play it safe I am sure they will begin with UT and OU in opposite divisions and then proceed from there.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't think they need to be careful, since they are going to just play a full round-robin schedule anyway. So it's not like if they mess the divisions up, key matchups or rivalries will be missed. Sure, put OU and UT in opposite divisions, because TV will always want the chance that those two big names can play in the CCG.

And nobody cares that the CCG will be a rematch, because rematches occur in playoffs all the time. Heck, the USC-Stanford PAC title game today is a rematch.

Really, this B1G proposal is more of a danger to the ACC's "flexibility" concerns than the Big 12's concern. And maybe that's because the B1G sees itself far more in competition with the ACC (over the DC-NYC corridor market) than it does the Big 12.

(12-05-2015 01:15 AM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-05-2015 01:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]The thread title is misleading, because on the MAIN point, whether a conference can hold a title game with 10 teams, there is no opposition at all. There is unanimous support for the Big 12's notion of holding a CCG with just 10 teams. That's the key thing here.

Even if the B1G plan prevails, the Big 12 will just form two divisions of five teams and get its CCG anyway.

No expansion needed.

Big 12 loses, and they can't go into 2 divisions until they expand.

Under both proposals, the ACC/Big 12 proposal and the B1G proposal, the Big 12 could go to two divisions and have a CCG without expanding.