(06-28-2019 11:43 AM)adcorbett Wrote: (06-28-2019 11:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: (06-27-2019 12:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote: I see little chance any of the G5 conferences besides the AAC support this because doing so aids the AAC in relation to the NY6
So those 4 G5 conference want to force the AAC to take one of their top teams? That doesnt sound very logical.
Given that any conference other than the SEC or Big10 could face the loss of a team---I suspect all will want to be on record as supporting the waiver. In fact, they might even support a more wide ranging change in the CCG rule to allow for more flexibility and easier scheduling (especially for leagues that have odd numbered membership).
It's possible any of those teams change their tune, but there was an almost universal opposition to the ACC's proposal. I believe the idea was that other conferences believed the ACC may use it to manipulate schedules to their advantage (imagine if Clemson and FSU managed to not play each other, and both finished in the top four and made the playoffs)?. It's one of the primary reason I believe the other G5 conferences may oppose it as well, especially with all competing for the same NYD bowl slot.
And yes while some conferences may worry about the AAC taking a member, remember it's not the conference that calls that shot; it's the schools. The schools probably WANT that opportunity, at least the ones I have a chance, and the schools in conferences "below" that, will look for backfill opportunities to move up.
the SEC SEC SEC was against any CCG deregulation at all and voted against it and after last year where OU was able to play Texas in the Big 12 CCG and avenge their only season loss and make the playoffs ahead of Georgia there is no chance the SEC SEC SEC does anything to ease the rules for anyone even for a short time all the more so when it would be extremely unpopular to leave out say USF while putting in a second SEC SEC SEC team
the Big 10 is the one that made the change to the rule and while it is said that they now might like to be able to match their two top teams in the CCG while still having divisions there is nothing to suggest they are ready to act on that or to give anothe conference a pass on that while the big 10 themselves still has to match division winners
the Big 12 was for full deregulation, but the last go around the AAC voted against the final proposal.....no reason to think the Big 12 would not return the "favor" especially since the Big 12 is the one conference currently that can use either method to place teams in the CCG
the PAC 12 was said to have not voted
and as you said the ACC was for full deregulation and the Big 10 got in the way of that.....even if the ACC wants it now still there is no reason that they would let another conference get a waiver while the ACC still has to follow the rules.....especially one that voted against it last time
as for the G5 programs and their fear of "their top programs being taken"
well I do not think the MWC has that great fear and I think the MWC is more concerned with making it more difficult (and using the same rules the MWC has to follow) for the AAC to place teams in their CCG and that would be division winners not the two best teams which would be an advantage to the AAC over the MWC....so there is a no vote
I do not think the Sunbelt is worried about losing a team mainly because 9 teams means 8 conference games for them and that works great...hell the Sunbelt let go of two football members to get to 10 members I don't think they would mind 9 and they can always ask NMSU back for football if they need to or take a check from Liberty to let them in for football or any other sport
I don't think the MAC has a concern about losing a team and they have options like UMass, UConn football only, Liberty (and their check) and I think the MAC is more worried about giving a NY6 advantage just like the MWC
I think a large number of CUSA teams think they might get the call so they are A OK with forcing the AAC to perhaps call one of them up......plus I don't think they would mind losing a team either they have ways to deal with that now
so I think that is 4 G5 no votes and 1 yes and probably at least 4 P5 no votes (SEC SEC SEC and one other needed) at least and the waiver fails