(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 06:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 01:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 01:13 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes, I am aware. Did you think I wasn't? I am talking about a different divisional rule change that will come after major movement, not before.

What different divisional rule change are you talking about?
It must be a double secret rule change, because nobody else seems to know anything about it.

Right because they only talk about things that they release to the media. If you don't know about what I am talking about then you don't pay attention to what anyone else has to say.

Just like it would take a rule change for you guys to have the no divisions needed rule, it would take a similar change to allow conferences to have more than 2 divisions.

Come on now, this isn't rocket science, stop being a troll. This isn't the ACC forum or the main board.

Maybe you had better review the proposal:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-structure

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014...-games.htm

If you don't have to play all of the teams in your division, you could theoretically divide divisions into multiple pods or not have divisions at all.

Keep up H1, this information has been out a long time.

But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.

I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.

Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-30-2014 07:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 06:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 01:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  What different divisional rule change are you talking about?
It must be a double secret rule change, because nobody else seems to know anything about it.

Right because they only talk about things that they release to the media. If you don't know about what I am talking about then you don't pay attention to what anyone else has to say.

Just like it would take a rule change for you guys to have the no divisions needed rule, it would take a similar change to allow conferences to have more than 2 divisions.

Come on now, this isn't rocket science, stop being a troll. This isn't the ACC forum or the main board.

Maybe you had better review the proposal:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-structure

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014...-games.htm

If you don't have to play all of the teams in your division, you could theoretically divide divisions into multiple pods or not have divisions at all.

Keep up H1, this information has been out a long time.

But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.

I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.

Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

Having lived through the era of no divisions in the SEC when we only played 7 conference games and had a 10 game schedule, I can say that no divisions brings its own set of headaches as well. I have no dog in this hunt per se, but would point out that two more Western additions with Alabama and Auburn moving to the East would solve most of the East/West inequities at this time.

(12-30-2014 07:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 06:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 01:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  What different divisional rule change are you talking about?
It must be a double secret rule change, because nobody else seems to know anything about it.

Right because they only talk about things that they release to the media. If you don't know about what I am talking about then you don't pay attention to what anyone else has to say.

Just like it would take a rule change for you guys to have the no divisions needed rule, it would take a similar change to allow conferences to have more than 2 divisions.

Come on now, this isn't rocket science, stop being a troll. This isn't the ACC forum or the main board.

Maybe you had better review the proposal:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-structure

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014...-games.htm

If you don't have to play all of the teams in your division, you could theoretically divide divisions into multiple pods or not have divisions at all.

Keep up H1, this information has been out a long time.

But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.

I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.

Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

No divisions causes more problems than it solves. Everything that you said no divisions helps with for the Big Ten, PAC and SEC...that can all be solved by having four divisions as well. So that is why I say it is a false logic to say that no divisions is the solution those three conferences will want. The biggest problem with no divisions is that it brings the Big 12 back to equal standing with them and that is the "game winning" reason why they would rather just wait out the big 12 and then go with four divisions.

As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions since the final four teams for the playoff were announced. I say this because I don't see why the ACC would care to help the big 12 now.

(12-30-2014 10:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 07:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 06:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Right because they only talk about things that they release to the media. If you don't know about what I am talking about then you don't pay attention to what anyone else has to say.

Just like it would take a rule change for you guys to have the no divisions needed rule, it would take a similar change to allow conferences to have more than 2 divisions.

Come on now, this isn't rocket science, stop being a troll. This isn't the ACC forum or the main board.

Maybe you had better review the proposal:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-structure

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014...-games.htm

If you don't have to play all of the teams in your division, you could theoretically divide divisions into multiple pods or not have divisions at all.

Keep up H1, this information has been out a long time.

But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.

I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.

Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

No divisions causes more problems than it solves. Everything that you said no divisions helps with for the Big Ten, PAC and SEC...that can all be solved by having four divisions as well. So that is why I say it is a false logic to say that no divisions is the solution those three conferences will want. The biggest problem with no divisions is that it brings the Big 12 back to equal standing with them and that is the "game winning" reason why they would rather just wait out the big 12 and then go with four divisions.

As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions since the final four teams for the playoff were announced. I say this because I don't see why the ACC would care to help the big 12 now.

The "no divisional" requirement is precisely why the ACC is a co-sponsor of this proposal. The regulation in place now only has three requirements - at least 12 teams with divisions whereby everyone in the same division must play one another.

If the ACC is looking to change the current status quo with this proposal, it certainly isn't to eliminate the 12 team requirement, right?

Cheers,
Neil

(12-31-2014 01:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 10:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 07:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  Maybe you had better review the proposal:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-structure

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014...-games.htm

If you don't have to play all of the teams in your division, you could theoretically divide divisions into multiple pods or not have divisions at all.

Keep up H1, this information has been out a long time.

But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.

I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.

Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

No divisions causes more problems than it solves. Everything that you said no divisions helps with for the Big Ten, PAC and SEC...that can all be solved by having four divisions as well. So that is why I say it is a false logic to say that no divisions is the solution those three conferences will want. The biggest problem with no divisions is that it brings the Big 12 back to equal standing with them and that is the "game winning" reason why they would rather just wait out the big 12 and then go with four divisions.

As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions since the final four teams for the playoff were announced. I say this because I don't see why the ACC would care to help the big 12 now.

The "no divisional" requirement is precisely why the ACC is a co-sponsor of this proposal. The regulation in place now only has three requirements - at least 12 teams with divisions whereby everyone in the same division must play one another.

If the ACC is looking to change the current status quo with this proposal, it certainly isn't to eliminate the 12 team requirement, right?

Cheers,
Neil

Wait wait wait, so you are saying that the ACC isn't sponsoring the same change as the Big 12 because getting rid of the 12 team requirement is exactly what the Big 12 is looking to eliminate.

(12-31-2014 01:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 10:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 07:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  Maybe you had better review the proposal:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-structure

http://www.athleticscholarships.net/2014...-games.htm

If you don't have to play all of the teams in your division, you could theoretically divide divisions into multiple pods or not have divisions at all.

Keep up H1, this information has been out a long time.

But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.

I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.

Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

No divisions causes more problems than it solves. Everything that you said no divisions helps with for the Big Ten, PAC and SEC...that can all be solved by having four divisions as well. So that is why I say it is a false logic to say that no divisions is the solution those three conferences will want. The biggest problem with no divisions is that it brings the Big 12 back to equal standing with them and that is the "game winning" reason why they would rather just wait out the big 12 and then go with four divisions.

As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions since the final four teams for the playoff were announced. I say this because I don't see why the ACC would care to help the big 12 now.

The "no divisional" requirement is precisely why the ACC is a co-sponsor of this proposal. The regulation in place now only has three requirements - at least 12 teams with divisions whereby everyone in the same division must play one another.

If the ACC is looking to change the current status quo with this proposal, it certainly isn't to eliminate the 12 team requirement, right?

Cheers,
Neil

Bingo!
By changing the requirements that there be two divisions and every team in that division has to play every other team in that division frees up each conference to schedule an internal championship tournament. It puts a partial member (Notre Dame and maybe Texas) "in play" to participate in that conference tournament. It also would allow conferences to divide into as many sub-divisions (pods) as they wanted give flexibility in their scheduling.
If the SEC, PAC and B1G really want to kill off the Big 12, they simply pass the proposal about divisions and uphold the 12 team requirement. If you were wondering how the Big 12 could be dissolved without finding a home for every member because of lawsuits there is your answer. Why would the conference stay together if they wouldn't be able to participate in the national championship tournament? They wouldn't.

(12-31-2014 08:10 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 10:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 07:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.

I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.

Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

No divisions causes more problems than it solves. Everything that you said no divisions helps with for the Big Ten, PAC and SEC...that can all be solved by having four divisions as well. So that is why I say it is a false logic to say that no divisions is the solution those three conferences will want. The biggest problem with no divisions is that it brings the Big 12 back to equal standing with them and that is the "game winning" reason why they would rather just wait out the big 12 and then go with four divisions.

As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions since the final four teams for the playoff were announced. I say this because I don't see why the ACC would care to help the big 12 now.

The "no divisional" requirement is precisely why the ACC is a co-sponsor of this proposal. The regulation in place now only has three requirements - at least 12 teams with divisions whereby everyone in the same division must play one another.

If the ACC is looking to change the current status quo with this proposal, it certainly isn't to eliminate the 12 team requirement, right?

Cheers,
Neil

Wait wait wait, so you are saying that the ACC isn't sponsoring the same change as the Big 12 because getting rid of the 12 team requirement is exactly what the Big 12 is looking to eliminate.

No, what I am saying is that the ACC's interest in the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the 12-team plus requirement, since they are already at 14. So their co-sponsoring the proposal is obviously about the divisional part of the current rule, not the number of teams requirement. This means your statement, "As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions" is lacking in terms of logic, imho.

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-31-2014 08:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:10 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 10:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 07:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

No divisions causes more problems than it solves. Everything that you said no divisions helps with for the Big Ten, PAC and SEC...that can all be solved by having four divisions as well. So that is why I say it is a false logic to say that no divisions is the solution those three conferences will want. The biggest problem with no divisions is that it brings the Big 12 back to equal standing with them and that is the "game winning" reason why they would rather just wait out the big 12 and then go with four divisions.

As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions since the final four teams for the playoff were announced. I say this because I don't see why the ACC would care to help the big 12 now.

The "no divisional" requirement is precisely why the ACC is a co-sponsor of this proposal. The regulation in place now only has three requirements - at least 12 teams with divisions whereby everyone in the same division must play one another.

If the ACC is looking to change the current status quo with this proposal, it certainly isn't to eliminate the 12 team requirement, right?

Cheers,
Neil

Wait wait wait, so you are saying that the ACC isn't sponsoring the same change as the Big 12 because getting rid of the 12 team requirement is exactly what the Big 12 is looking to eliminate.

No, what I am saying is that the ACC's interest in the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the 12-team plus requirement, since they are already at 14. So their co-sponsoring the proposal is obviously about the divisional part of the current rule, not the number of teams requirement. This means your statement, "As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions" is lacking in terms of logic, imho.

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.

Cheers,
Neil

It doesn't matter if that isn't their main motive, that is what will happen with that legislation. That is what the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC do not want to happen at this time. After what happened this year with the Playoff, I believe that it is more important now to the ACC to protect that 12 team requirement. That is my point so my statement was not lacking in terms of logic.

It may not have been a big deal to them before when they were making statements but a lack of statements now would most likely be due to them having a change of mind in terms of priorities changing.

(12-31-2014 08:34 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:10 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 10:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No divisions causes more problems than it solves. Everything that you said no divisions helps with for the Big Ten, PAC and SEC...that can all be solved by having four divisions as well. So that is why I say it is a false logic to say that no divisions is the solution those three conferences will want. The biggest problem with no divisions is that it brings the Big 12 back to equal standing with them and that is the "game winning" reason why they would rather just wait out the big 12 and then go with four divisions.

As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions since the final four teams for the playoff were announced. I say this because I don't see why the ACC would care to help the big 12 now.

The "no divisional" requirement is precisely why the ACC is a co-sponsor of this proposal. The regulation in place now only has three requirements - at least 12 teams with divisions whereby everyone in the same division must play one another.

If the ACC is looking to change the current status quo with this proposal, it certainly isn't to eliminate the 12 team requirement, right?

Cheers,
Neil

Wait wait wait, so you are saying that the ACC isn't sponsoring the same change as the Big 12 because getting rid of the 12 team requirement is exactly what the Big 12 is looking to eliminate.

No, what I am saying is that the ACC's interest in the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the 12-team plus requirement, since they are already at 14. So their co-sponsoring the proposal is obviously about the divisional part of the current rule, not the number of teams requirement. This means your statement, "As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions" is lacking in terms of logic, imho.

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.

Cheers,
Neil

It doesn't matter if that isn't their main motive, that is what will happen with that legislation. That is what the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC do not want to happen at this time. After what happened this year with the Playoff, I believe that it is more important now to the ACC to protect that 12 team requirement. That is my point so my statement was not lacking in terms of logic.

It may not have been a big deal to them before when they were making statements but a lack of statements now would most likely be due to them having a change of mind in terms of priorities changing.

You are making an assumption that the proposed legislation change is either an all or nothing proposition or that enough conferences will block it entirely just because of the 12-team requirement.

When the full discussion takes place prior to the vote, it can be voted down in its entirety or it can pass in its entirety or it can be amended or recommended that it be amended and brought forth again.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-31-2014 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 10:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 07:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.

I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.

Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

No divisions causes more problems than it solves. Everything that you said no divisions helps with for the Big Ten, PAC and SEC...that can all be solved by having four divisions as well. So that is why I say it is a false logic to say that no divisions is the solution those three conferences will want. The biggest problem with no divisions is that it brings the Big 12 back to equal standing with them and that is the "game winning" reason why they would rather just wait out the big 12 and then go with four divisions.

As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions since the final four teams for the playoff were announced. I say this because I don't see why the ACC would care to help the big 12 now.

The "no divisional" requirement is precisely why the ACC is a co-sponsor of this proposal. The regulation in place now only has three requirements - at least 12 teams with divisions whereby everyone in the same division must play one another.

If the ACC is looking to change the current status quo with this proposal, it certainly isn't to eliminate the 12 team requirement, right?

Cheers,
Neil

Bingo!
By changing the requirements that there be two divisions and every team in that division has to play every other team in that division frees up each conference to schedule an internal championship tournament. It puts a partial member (Notre Dame and maybe Texas) "in play" to participate in that conference tournament. It also would allow conferences to divide into as many sub-divisions (pods) as they wanted give flexibility in their scheduling.
If the SEC, PAC and B1G really want to kill off the Big 12, they simply pass the proposal about divisions and uphold the 12 team requirement. If you were wondering how the Big 12 could be dissolved without finding a home for every member because of lawsuits there is your answer. Why would the conference stay together if they wouldn't be able to participate in the national championship tournament? They wouldn't.

While this would certainly be possible if the proposal passes, I don't believe it would have the internal support within the ACC to bring this about if passed. However, it could lend itself nicely to adding a 15th football member for the conference without having to worry about uneven divisions.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-31-2014 09:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:34 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:10 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  The "no divisional" requirement is precisely why the ACC is a co-sponsor of this proposal. The regulation in place now only has three requirements - at least 12 teams with divisions whereby everyone in the same division must play one another.

If the ACC is looking to change the current status quo with this proposal, it certainly isn't to eliminate the 12 team requirement, right?

Cheers,
Neil

Wait wait wait, so you are saying that the ACC isn't sponsoring the same change as the Big 12 because getting rid of the 12 team requirement is exactly what the Big 12 is looking to eliminate.

No, what I am saying is that the ACC's interest in the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the 12-team plus requirement, since they are already at 14. So their co-sponsoring the proposal is obviously about the divisional part of the current rule, not the number of teams requirement. This means your statement, "As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions" is lacking in terms of logic, imho.

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.

Cheers,
Neil

It doesn't matter if that isn't their main motive, that is what will happen with that legislation. That is what the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC do not want to happen at this time. After what happened this year with the Playoff, I believe that it is more important now to the ACC to protect that 12 team requirement. That is my point so my statement was not lacking in terms of logic.

It may not have been a big deal to them before when they were making statements but a lack of statements now would most likely be due to them having a change of mind in terms of priorities changing.

You are making an assumption that the proposed legislation change is either an all or nothing proposition or that enough conferences will block it entirely just because of the 12-team requirement.

When the full discussion takes place prior to the vote, it can be voted down in its entirety or it can pass in its entirety or it can be amended or recommended that it be amended and brought forth again.

Cheers,
Neil

So you are saying the ACC doesn't want to touch the rules at all for requirements to have a championship game, only the rules on how a conference has to have two divisions in order to have one? Sneaky I suppose, but it would be blatantly obvious that the rule change was to spite The Big 12. You really think these people are willing to be so blatant?

I don't but if they are then I will salute them and you can then consider me a Swofford fan.

(12-31-2014 04:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 09:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:34 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:10 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Wait wait wait, so you are saying that the ACC isn't sponsoring the same change as the Big 12 because getting rid of the 12 team requirement is exactly what the Big 12 is looking to eliminate.

No, what I am saying is that the ACC's interest in the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the 12-team plus requirement, since they are already at 14. So their co-sponsoring the proposal is obviously about the divisional part of the current rule, not the number of teams requirement. This means your statement, "As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions" is lacking in terms of logic, imho.

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.

Cheers,
Neil

It doesn't matter if that isn't their main motive, that is what will happen with that legislation. That is what the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC do not want to happen at this time. After what happened this year with the Playoff, I believe that it is more important now to the ACC to protect that 12 team requirement. That is my point so my statement was not lacking in terms of logic.

It may not have been a big deal to them before when they were making statements but a lack of statements now would most likely be due to them having a change of mind in terms of priorities changing.

You are making an assumption that the proposed legislation change is either an all or nothing proposition or that enough conferences will block it entirely just because of the 12-team requirement.

When the full discussion takes place prior to the vote, it can be voted down in its entirety or it can pass in its entirety or it can be amended or recommended that it be amended and brought forth again.

Cheers,
Neil

So you are saying the ACC doesn't want to touch the rules at all for requirements to have a championship game, only the rules on how a conference has to have two divisions in order to have one? Sneaky I suppose, but it would be blatantly obvious that the rule change was to spite The Big 12. You really think these people are willing to be so blatant?

I don't but if they are then I will salute them and you can then consider me a Swofford fan.

The protocol is wrong for that understanding H1. You don't co sponsor a bill you intend to amend in a way that would be at odds with the sponsor. I find this line of reasoning to be extremely faulty from a parliamentary procedure standpoint. If the ACC was truly seeking just the part of the rule applying to the requirement for 2 divisions they would simply sponsor a competing request/amendment/resolution asking for just that.

Remember ESPN doesn't want to lose control of the selection committee. If we move to a P4 they will. You are being played here as Chapel Hill wants favors just like Texas wants. They want committees, politics and smoke filled rooms because that is what they know and what has favored them in the past. They like the basketball selection committee. They want at large positions selected because of market size. Permitting the Big 12 to hold a CCG with 10 schools keeps 5 conferences, and thereby guarantees politics as usual. They fear what a Big 10 / SEC voting block could do with a P4 alignment. They want the Big 12/ACC/ and PAC to vote against what is in the best interest of the Big 10 and SEC. And what's more ESPN wants that leverage too. They may own the largest percentage of the SEC but they know economically we aren't as dependent upon them as the Big 12 and ACC are. If we are a P4 the SEC/Big 10 is a strong leverage alliance.

Politics. If this were just about eliminating the number of divisions I would buy it. But they co sponsored an amendment that would permit deregulation of CCG's in total permitting 10 team CCG's, the elimination of divisions, or a larger number of them. A simple amendment to permit conferences to establish more than 2 divisions if they had more than 12 teams is all that was needed. The devil is in the details.

(12-31-2014 04:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 09:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:34 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:10 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Wait wait wait, so you are saying that the ACC isn't sponsoring the same change as the Big 12 because getting rid of the 12 team requirement is exactly what the Big 12 is looking to eliminate.

No, what I am saying is that the ACC's interest in the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the 12-team plus requirement, since they are already at 14. So their co-sponsoring the proposal is obviously about the divisional part of the current rule, not the number of teams requirement. This means your statement, "As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions" is lacking in terms of logic, imho.

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.

Cheers,
Neil

It doesn't matter if that isn't their main motive, that is what will happen with that legislation. That is what the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC do not want to happen at this time. After what happened this year with the Playoff, I believe that it is more important now to the ACC to protect that 12 team requirement. That is my point so my statement was not lacking in terms of logic.

It may not have been a big deal to them before when they were making statements but a lack of statements now would most likely be due to them having a change of mind in terms of priorities changing.

You are making an assumption that the proposed legislation change is either an all or nothing proposition or that enough conferences will block it entirely just because of the 12-team requirement.

When the full discussion takes place prior to the vote, it can be voted down in its entirety or it can pass in its entirety or it can be amended or recommended that it be amended and brought forth again.

Cheers,
Neil

So you are saying the ACC doesn't want to touch the rules at all for requirements to have a championship game, only the rules on how a conference has to have two divisions in order to have one? Sneaky I suppose, but it would be blatantly obvious that the rule change was to spite The Big 12. You really think these people are willing to be so blatant?

I don't but if they are then I will salute them and you can then consider me a Swofford fan.

It's good to welcome another Swofford convert.

(12-31-2014 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 04:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 09:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:34 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  No, what I am saying is that the ACC's interest in the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the 12-team plus requirement, since they are already at 14. So their co-sponsoring the proposal is obviously about the divisional part of the current rule, not the number of teams requirement. This means your statement, "As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions" is lacking in terms of logic, imho.

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.

Cheers,
Neil

It doesn't matter if that isn't their main motive, that is what will happen with that legislation. That is what the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC do not want to happen at this time. After what happened this year with the Playoff, I believe that it is more important now to the ACC to protect that 12 team requirement. That is my point so my statement was not lacking in terms of logic.

It may not have been a big deal to them before when they were making statements but a lack of statements now would most likely be due to them having a change of mind in terms of priorities changing.

You are making an assumption that the proposed legislation change is either an all or nothing proposition or that enough conferences will block it entirely just because of the 12-team requirement.

When the full discussion takes place prior to the vote, it can be voted down in its entirety or it can pass in its entirety or it can be amended or recommended that it be amended and brought forth again.

Cheers,
Neil

So you are saying the ACC doesn't want to touch the rules at all for requirements to have a championship game, only the rules on how a conference has to have two divisions in order to have one? Sneaky I suppose, but it would be blatantly obvious that the rule change was to spite The Big 12. You really think these people are willing to be so blatant?

I don't but if they are then I will salute them and you can then consider me a Swofford fan.

The protocol is wrong for that understanding H1. You don't co sponsor a bill you intend to amend in a way that would be at odds with the sponsor. I find this line of reasoning to be extremely faulty from a parliamentary procedure standpoint. If the ACC was truly seeking just the part of the rule applying to the requirement for 2 divisions they would simply sponsor a competing request/amendment/resolution asking for just that.

Remember ESPN doesn't want to lose control of the selection committee. If we move to a P4 they will. You are being played here as Chapel Hill wants favors just like Texas wants. They want committees, politics and smoke filled rooms because that is what they know and what has favored them in the past. They like the basketball selection committee. They want at large positions selected because of market size. Permitting the Big 12 to hold a CCG with 10 schools keeps 5 conferences, and thereby guarantees politics as usual. They fear what a Big 10 / SEC voting block could do with a P4 alignment. They want the Big 12/ACC/ and PAC to vote against what is in the best interest of the Big 10 and SEC. And what's more ESPN wants that leverage too. They may own the largest percentage of the SEC but they know economically we aren't as dependent upon them as the Big 12 and ACC are. If we are a P4 the SEC/Big 10 is a strong leverage alliance.

Politics. If this were just about eliminating the number of divisions I would buy it. But they co sponsored an amendment that would permit deregulation of CCG's in total permitting 10 team CCG's, the elimination of divisions, or a larger number of them. A simple amendment to permit conferences to establish more than 2 divisions if they had more than 12 teams is all that was needed. The devil is in the details.

Yeah, you definitely said it better than I did. I was just surprised as I finally understood what our friend Omni was actually telling me. At this point I find it too hard to believe that they would be willing to do such a thing. It would be a massive blow to the Big 12 and I actually hope that is what they are doing but....I just cant believe that people such as these would be willing to be so blatantly Machiavellian.

If they are though, I would be a brand new Swofford convert.

(12-31-2014 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 04:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 09:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:34 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:25 AM)omniorange Wrote:  No, what I am saying is that the ACC's interest in the proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with eliminating the 12-team plus requirement, since they are already at 14. So their co-sponsoring the proposal is obviously about the divisional part of the current rule, not the number of teams requirement. This means your statement, "As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions" is lacking in terms of logic, imho.

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.

Cheers,
Neil

It doesn't matter if that isn't their main motive, that is what will happen with that legislation. That is what the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC do not want to happen at this time. After what happened this year with the Playoff, I believe that it is more important now to the ACC to protect that 12 team requirement. That is my point so my statement was not lacking in terms of logic.

It may not have been a big deal to them before when they were making statements but a lack of statements now would most likely be due to them having a change of mind in terms of priorities changing.

You are making an assumption that the proposed legislation change is either an all or nothing proposition or that enough conferences will block it entirely just because of the 12-team requirement.

When the full discussion takes place prior to the vote, it can be voted down in its entirety or it can pass in its entirety or it can be amended or recommended that it be amended and brought forth again.

Cheers,
Neil

So you are saying the ACC doesn't want to touch the rules at all for requirements to have a championship game, only the rules on how a conference has to have two divisions in order to have one? Sneaky I suppose, but it would be blatantly obvious that the rule change was to spite The Big 12. You really think these people are willing to be so blatant?

I don't but if they are then I will salute them and you can then consider me a Swofford fan.

The protocol is wrong for that understanding H1. You don't co sponsor a bill you intend to amend in a way that would be at odds with the sponsor. I find this line of reasoning to be extremely faulty from a parliamentary procedure standpoint. If the ACC was truly seeking just the part of the rule applying to the requirement for 2 divisions they would simply sponsor a competing request/amendment/resolution asking for just that.

Remember ESPN doesn't want to lose control of the selection committee. If we move to a P4 they will. You are being played here as Chapel Hill wants favors just like Texas wants. They want committees, politics and smoke filled rooms because that is what they know and what has favored them in the past. They like the basketball selection committee. They want at large positions selected because of market size. Permitting the Big 12 to hold a CCG with 10 schools keeps 5 conferences, and thereby guarantees politics as usual. They fear what a Big 10 / SEC voting block could do with a P4 alignment. They want the Big 12/ACC/ and PAC to vote against what is in the best interest of the Big 10 and SEC. And what's more ESPN wants that leverage too. They may own the largest percentage of the SEC but they know economically we aren't as dependent upon them as the Big 12 and ACC are. If we are a P4 the SEC/Big 10 is a strong leverage alliance.

Politics. If this were just about eliminating the number of divisions I would buy it. But they co sponsored an amendment that would permit deregulation of CCG's in total permitting 10 team CCG's, the elimination of divisions, or a larger number of them. A simple amendment to permit conferences to establish more than 2 divisions if they had more than 12 teams is all that was needed. The devil is in the details.

I actually don't see it as this clandestine. I think the ACC would be fine with the Big 12 getting a championship game with 10, after all, they wanted it themselves back when they were 11. So having two P5 conferences (granted the weakest two) put forth the proposal gives it more weight than only one.

However, if let's say the other three are going to hold fast on the at least 12 teams part of the requirement, I have no doubt Swofford would abandoned that aspect of it if he felt he could do away with the divisional criteria. If the SEC, B1G, and PAC are going to block both aspects then no harm in trying.

Cheers,
Neil

(01-01-2015 01:11 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 04:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 09:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:34 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It doesn't matter if that isn't their main motive, that is what will happen with that legislation. That is what the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC do not want to happen at this time. After what happened this year with the Playoff, I believe that it is more important now to the ACC to protect that 12 team requirement. That is my point so my statement was not lacking in terms of logic.

It may not have been a big deal to them before when they were making statements but a lack of statements now would most likely be due to them having a change of mind in terms of priorities changing.

You are making an assumption that the proposed legislation change is either an all or nothing proposition or that enough conferences will block it entirely just because of the 12-team requirement.

When the full discussion takes place prior to the vote, it can be voted down in its entirety or it can pass in its entirety or it can be amended or recommended that it be amended and brought forth again.

Cheers,
Neil

So you are saying the ACC doesn't want to touch the rules at all for requirements to have a championship game, only the rules on how a conference has to have two divisions in order to have one? Sneaky I suppose, but it would be blatantly obvious that the rule change was to spite The Big 12. You really think these people are willing to be so blatant?

I don't but if they are then I will salute them and you can then consider me a Swofford fan.

The protocol is wrong for that understanding H1. You don't co sponsor a bill you intend to amend in a way that would be at odds with the sponsor. I find this line of reasoning to be extremely faulty from a parliamentary procedure standpoint. If the ACC was truly seeking just the part of the rule applying to the requirement for 2 divisions they would simply sponsor a competing request/amendment/resolution asking for just that.

Remember ESPN doesn't want to lose control of the selection committee. If we move to a P4 they will. You are being played here as Chapel Hill wants favors just like Texas wants. They want committees, politics and smoke filled rooms because that is what they know and what has favored them in the past. They like the basketball selection committee. They want at large positions selected because of market size. Permitting the Big 12 to hold a CCG with 10 schools keeps 5 conferences, and thereby guarantees politics as usual. They fear what a Big 10 / SEC voting block could do with a P4 alignment. They want the Big 12/ACC/ and PAC to vote against what is in the best interest of the Big 10 and SEC. And what's more ESPN wants that leverage too. They may own the largest percentage of the SEC but they know economically we aren't as dependent upon them as the Big 12 and ACC are. If we are a P4 the SEC/Big 10 is a strong leverage alliance.

Politics. If this were just about eliminating the number of divisions I would buy it. But they co sponsored an amendment that would permit deregulation of CCG's in total permitting 10 team CCG's, the elimination of divisions, or a larger number of them. A simple amendment to permit conferences to establish more than 2 divisions if they had more than 12 teams is all that was needed. The devil is in the details.

I actually don't see it as this clandestine. I think the ACC would be fine with the Big 12 getting a championship game with 10, after all, they wanted it themselves back when they were 11. So having two P5 conferences (granted the weakest two) put forth the proposal gives it more weight than only one.

However, if let's say the other three are going to hold fast on the at least 12 teams part of the requirement, I have no doubt Swofford would abandoned that aspect of it if he felt he could do away with the divisional criteria. If the SEC, B1G, and PAC are going to block both aspects then no harm in trying.

Cheers,
Neil

That's feasible. Swofford would have to go very public beforehand though about how the proposal was blocked, then he could come back out with the amended proposal.

That would allow him to not look Machiavellian and in the end The Network would be very happy with him due to how that proposal would damage The Big 12.

It would allow the other conferences to say they agreed on a compromise so that they wouldn't be called stonewallers. To everyone that would say they were out to harm the big 12, the only response that would be necessary would be to say invite two schools into the big 12 and it's no big deal.

Well, they would know that isn't possible and that is a truly Machiavellian move. You put them in an even harder space by giving the ACC what the big 12 wanted but in a way that the big 12 couldn't have.

That proposal gives ESPN,the Big 12 and the ACC options for the future.
I still believe that at this point, everything hinges on Texas and where they end up.

(01-02-2015 05:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  That proposal gives ESPN,the Big 12 and the ACC options for the future.
I still believe that at this point, everything hinges on Texas and where they end up.

After watching everything go down this year there are several things that I have to believe will be a priority for ESPN and to a lesser extent FOX.

1. While controversy is sometimes an interest driver the angst over the whole realignment issue has led to disinterest in the games. It is still very slight but perceptible. ESPN has been somewhat rightfully tagged as being a major player in the whole realignment mess. Now that their obvious pushing of certain schools for their own purposes have also been made central to public perception the need to distance themselves from the process would be in their best interest. While that distancing won't be actual, it needs to be perceived. The best way to accomplish that is to make sure that we move to a P4 conference champions only model as soon as possible. To do so will require the placement of the Big 12 schools. Once this is accomplished then each region of the national market will be represented annually in the playoffs just as they were this year. The elimination of the committee will help take the nation's eyes off of ESPN involvement. Permitting a structure to take over gives them further plausible deniability in the realignment issue. And the time is right to do this. Why?

2. Right now the major players in the Big 12 are very aware of their deficits and want change. To further reduce the P5 would be a bad idea. In fact the best thing that can be done right now is to elevate a few of the top G5 programs. The failure to do so will only increase the demands of the G5 for inclusion. So the placing of all of the present 10 members of the Big 12 plus the addition of key G5 schools is essential IMO to quelling the distaste that has been wrought by realignment.

3. To have everyone "all in" with 1 of the 4 conferences would be a huge plus. That should be a priority. However if we need a transitional stage, or if we have to compromise then working out a track for playoffs for independents that qualify would also be important.

The sooner everything is easily understood by the average fan the faster they will be back.

Considering that the Big 10 and SEC will both be interested in the same targets a compromise will have to be brokered by the networks, unless ESPN just decides to handle it all in house.

If the core of the ACC is against accepting the top programs of the Big 12 for fear of losing control of their conference, and since football drives the economic bus for the conferences then perhaps ESPN should consider doing the following:

SEC:
North: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida Georgia, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

ACC:
North: Boston College, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia, Virginia Tech
East: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, N.C. State, Wake Forest
West: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech

or

SEC:
North: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
South: Alabama, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State
West: Arkansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Missouri, Texas A&M

ACC:
North: Boston College, Connecticut, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse
East: Iowa State, Louisville, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, Wake Forest
West: Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, T.C.U., Texas Tech

Either way football becomes King in the new ACC and their market saturation and dominance can finally be established. And the SEC improves their basketball profile where Duke, North Carolina, and Virginia are still kings with Kentucky with great content games with Missouri and Florida, and the baseball programs of those schools step into an elite baseball conference all while the SEC improves markets and academics.

The resulting two conferences would have natural rivalries across the board. A win win for the conferences and ESPN.

(02-05-2015 07:42 AM)JRsec Wrote:  If the core of the ACC is against accepting the top programs of the Big 12 for fear of losing control of their conference, and since football drives the economic bus for the conferences then perhaps ESPN should consider doing the following:

SEC:
North: Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia
East: Alabama, Auburn, Florida Georgia, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
West: Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M

If the ACC gets the ACCN as some in ACC land believe is coming around 2017, I don't see the core ACC programs wandering off. I could see an annoyed Virginia wondering off the the B1G and then VT heading to the SEC to keep up with their in-state rival's media rights income. I still think, realistically, the only teams the SEC would expand to 15 for would be Virginia Tech or Oklahoma. If the SEC grabbed two from the ACC, first shot would be VT/NC State. If NCSU can't escape, FSU would get mulled over and then B12 options looked at.