(06-24-2019 09:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: (06-24-2019 08:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote: No it wasn’t me. But you don’t have to ask me: Lsu made this very argument when they had to play Alabama in the bcs national true game. I’m basketball Oklahoma and Georgetown can vouch for it, as they lost national title games within 4 years of each other, to teams they beat three times earlier in the season.
And skipping cross division team isn’t an issue because a cross division team literally cannot win YOUR division, by definition. However a team can win your division without you having a chance to beat them. Again you don’t have to ask me: it happened in the big ten a few years ago before they had a CCG.
Those are things that people knew could happen, but didn’t care much until it DID happen.
You’re free to have your opinion. But you’re not free to put your fingers in year wars and stomp your feet, and say “nuh uh,” when there are many literal examples of these events happening, and teams complaining the big east flat out turned down allowing teams to play twice to fill a gap, because teams were opposed. it is also how temple got in the American when the teams from cusa couldn’t come early, as teams were so opposed to two games against one team, they added a team they originally had no plans to add, just so that they didn’t have to do this... for exactly one season. This is a fact! And that’s how bad an idea it was.
You have no instance of teams showing a that to be favorable. So your assumption they’ll all be okay with it, falls on deaf ears. No team who has eyes On a championship, wants to play more conference games than others in their conference or division. We have seen this when games were canceled and it favored a team, and others cried foul. Actually happened. So to say “everyone will be okay with it,” again falls on deaf ears. And finally conferences conspired to keep the big 12 out of the playoffs becuase they didn’t play a CCG: you don’t thin another g5 would cry foul if a team won the American playing less conference games ,!- potentially took their spot? Again actual evidence shows otherwise, and you’re just acting like a child covering his ears.
Nothing more convincing than personal insults when you're losing an argument. 
That is not an insult: that is an observation of your argument. Your inability to distinguish that is not my concern. Also, it just so happens the info on my post kill your argument, which is why you refused to respond, and changed the subject, which is a sure- fire way to admit you have lost an argument. See what I did there?
Let me lay your game for a minute. If conferences were okay with some teams playing MORE or LESS conference games than their fellow conference mates, then why is it when teams have played a conference foe they were scheduled to skip, they played it as an OOC? Surely if they were okay with teams playing more games, they would have had it count as a conference game, and not had the oddity of two teams in a conference play a non-conference game. So, show me those examples? If teams re okay with their competition for a bowl spot playing less games, and thus having and easier path then they did to the same bowl, why did everyone call foul on the Big 12 not having a CCG, and trying to get two teams in the playoffs? And why do Army and Navy have a rule that states if the Army/Navy game result would affect major bowl selections, some of the bowl selections will literally be put off an entire put off a week (which is havoc for everyone else), so that all 12 games will count? If no one cared about a team playing one less game, they would simply not worry about that result. So why are they willing to hold EVERYONE else up, for one game, if no one opposes it?
But all of that is even irrelevant. I can give you an example involving this very conference, where all three options were roundly rejected, as an option for simply a single season. Not forever, like you suggest, a single season. Let’s start with teams playing each other twice. You said NFL teams do it, so no big deal. Well show me where it happened? Now the American, when it was the Big East, always had an issue with only playing seven conference games. It forced teams to find an extra OOC, which was increasingly hard for BE teams to do on fair terms (home and home). Because for years no team was deemed suitable as a ninth team (and they no longer wanted any football only members and/or were holding out hope ND would eventually join), other options were always brought up. One that came up several times, were the option of everyone playing one team twice, or at least teams having the option to do so (meaning maybe only two or four would do it). Turns out no one wanted to play a team twice (especially since it would likely be their rival), and no one wanted other schools to do it, and have unbalanced schedules, where some teams played more or less games. So, this actually happened in this conference. Granted only two of those members remain, but the point stands.
We know already there is evidence that conferences reject playing two games against the same opponent as a long-term solution, or unbalanced schedules. But check this out, they didn’t even want it as a short-term solution. I used the example of Temple above, but let me dive deeper. Do you remember when Temple was invited to join the then Big East in 2013? At the time, they were not an initial planned expansion candidate - Mind you this was back when the Big East still planned to move forward as a whole, and Villanova was still a part of the conference, and had been vehemently opposed Temple as anything but a football member. Not only were they invited, it was not a football-only invite that was being given at first for the “replacement” candidates for Cuse and Pitt, despite Nova’s years of stonewalling them. Do you know why? Well the Big East was in a pickle.
WVU left for the Big XII- and left immediately with no warning- leaving a crater sized hole in the Big East football schedule, leaving the BE with only seven teams, and six conference games apiece. Because the teams leaving CUSA to join the Big East had no ability to move early, the options left to the big east were:
- 1) hold at six conference games and everyone scrambles to find an extra OOC last minute. This proved very bad, as the only options were mostly picking up a second FCS game, or possibly taking a buy game @ lower tiered school, as no openings existed, and those were about the only options
2) The “easy” solution: six teams play one team a second time, and the seventh team plays 6 conference games, and then only one team has to find a last minute OOC game
3) “Easy” solution 2.0: six teams play one team a second time, and the seventh team plays two teams a second time, and plays an eighth conference game.
4) Grab a team who is willing and able to join immediately, give into all of their demands, despite them being further down your expansion list, simply to avoid one year of options 1, 2, or 3
Here you have all four options rolled into one season – mind you
ONE SEASONas the cavalry was coming the very next year with Boise, SDSU, UCF, SMU, Hou, and Mem (at that point)– and even at that, options 1-3 were so bad for even one season - the very options you say are fine long term solutions and no one would care - that the existing teams (UofL, Rut, Cin, USF, &UConn) and future teams agreed to add them on the spot, as full members, simply to avoid a year of dealing with options one, two or three, the ones you say no one would oppose. *
So, since you want to define who has a good argument, I’d care to your response to THAT, and not have this silly side show where you can’t even tell the difference between mocking your response, and insulting you individually.
*Note it is likely Temple would have later been a top choice once the American and Big East split. But the conference was so individual market driven at the time, and Nova so protective of its turf, Temple likely never would have gotten that all-sports invite UNTIL a split happened.
/
WOW ... looks like UConn hoops IS going to Big East
