(06-29-2019 02:29 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I agree voting to only change division requirement is most logical and easiest solution. I am not use to seeing FBS actually doing the easiest thing.

AC, if all the conferences vote is against changing the rule, I am not sure how a waiver could be granted. I understand a waiver for the time a school could possibly need to join, IE: 24 month notice could prevent a team from joining the AAC. However, if the AAC is purposely not following the rule by not adding a team, I don't see how the NCAA could grant a waiver. Again, I prefer allowing division-less not requiring a round robing. I agree changing the division round robin probably being the simplest rule change, just don't know if there is enough good will from the other G5 and P5 being that supportive of rule change that helps the AAC. The P6 campaign and some ADs comments could come back to haunt the AAC. Please note this is not stated as going to happen but one of the many outcomes possible,

@AC, note was not meant for you. I want to make sure it is not taken as an offense in anyway. I am grateful to the AAC Board they provided me in a truly scary time.

You have been nothing but nice. No offense taken at all.

On this point---I mean sure---I suppose its possible that the FBS conferences will decide to really just stick it to the AAC---but thats really not been the case in the past for anyone. These commissioners and administrators have very different attitudes from what we often see on these message boards.

First, its worth noting that Aresco is extremely well liked among the commissioners. Secondly, these types of waivers generally pass under the "no skin off my nose" theory. If it has zero affect on your league, the commissioners generally dont really care one way or the other.

Honestly, after thinking about it, I believe this is a really good time to simply address the CCG rules clear bias against a league with an odd number. Why is that? I dont think it was really intended. In fact, the original rule was written by the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association specifically for that conference to hold a CCG in 1987. I think they had like 14 teams (dont remember the exact number). So it was written to say if you have 14 teams, then you can divide into 2 divisions and have a CCG. The Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference read the proposal and said--"Hey, we could use this rule in our conference, but we have only 12 teams--can we change the proposal to 12?" The answer was---"Sure, why not!!". So that's how we ended up with the original requirement that you must have 12 teams to hold a CCG. No research. No in depth study. Just random happenstance set the number at 12. It didnt affect anyone else at the time--so the "no skin off my nose" rule applied and the original CCG proposal passed. The funny thing is---the conference that proposed it never even ended up using the rule. It was the SEC that dusted off the rule years later and was the first to actually use it.

So, if you think about it---those very random requirements written into the original rule specifically for a pair of D2 conferences have probably caused a great deal of unnecessary realignment and strife at the FBS level---for really no good reason at all.

I think this may be an excellent opportunity to just amend the CCG rule to make it work as well with an odd number as an even number. Im really fine with whatever they come up with--but just address it once and be done with it instead of issuing waivers or causing unnecessary realignment.

Agreed. I like to see them just scrap the round robin requirement for both options. That would virtually kill the need for an expansion and create CCG that actually have the best two teams from a conference.

I hope they don’t get a waiver and they’re forced to add another football or full member. Makes for a more interesting board.

(06-29-2019 03:22 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  I hope they don’t get a waiver and they’re forced to add another football or full member. Makes for a more interesting board.

lol....well, you make a good point. +3

(06-29-2019 03:22 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  I hope they don’t get a waiver and they’re forced to add another football or full member. Makes for a more interesting board.

We have a S. Miss fan on the AAC forum telling us how they are a bigger brand than all of the AAC programs.

(06-29-2019 03:30 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 03:22 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  I hope they don’t get a waiver and they’re forced to add another football or full member. Makes for a more interesting board.

We have a S. Miss fan on the AAC forum telling us how they are a bigger brand than all of the AAC programs.

If he said "most," he would be correct.

(06-28-2019 05:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  When the CCG rule was changed three years ago to permit the Big 12 (or any other conference) to hold a CCG without divisions, the AAC voted against the rule change.

Interesting.

FWIW, I don't think the AAC will have trouble getting a waiver. The P5 won't care as it doesn't affect them, and as 'coog' says, without a waiver the AAC might decide it needs to raid a MAC or SB or CUSA school to get back to 12, so they will vote for it too.

(06-29-2019 02:34 PM)ken d Wrote:  I agree. The ACC isn't going to a 9 game conference schedule either. My prediction is that if such a rule were to pass, both the SEC and ACC would tell the NCAA to pound sand and go divisionless and play their CCG like everybody else. The NCAA isn't going to war with the SEC, ACC and ESPN over this.

I'd be shocked if the SEC ever went division-less. Not with 12 or more members. Divisions are so ingrained in Old Man SEC's psyche it lodged a protest vote against an undivided Big 12 @ 10 having an exempt CG, despite the fact that the Big 12 @ 10 was staging full round robins... Thankfully the SEC didn't block passage of the final amendment itself, which it could have since the AAC and ACC lodged 3 combined no votes of their own (out of 13 total votes) against that amendment.

I don't know how the SEC might interfere with other conferences today, but it may be OK if it doesn't support a division-less AAC having an exempt CG. The AAC doesn't need the SEC's support to get a rule change provided that is has the support of the other "P5/A5" conferences (votes weighted 2 apiece) and the support of at least three other "G5" conferences (votes weighted 1 apiece). Twelve votes out of 15 gets the 75% support the AAC would need.

Quote:And BTW, I don't believe the B1G ever played a CCG with 11 members.

Yeah, you're right, it didn't. The AAC might be talking with them to gauge their support of the option of a division-less format with clearly defined parameters.

(06-29-2019 04:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 05:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  When the CCG rule was changed three years ago to permit the Big 12 (or any other conference) to hold a CCG without divisions, the AAC voted against the rule change.

Interesting.

FWIW, I don't think the AAC will have trouble getting a waiver. The P5 won't care as it doesn't affect them, and as 'coog' says, without a waiver the AAC might decide it needs to raid a MAC or SB or CUSA school to get back to 12, so they will vote for it too.

but it could

the SEC SEC SEC will be concerned that it might prevent them from getting two teams in the playoffs

others will be concerned that if the AAC gets a waiver that some conferences might push for full deregulation

and the G5 will not want to help the AAC get the best teams in the playoffs

the issue with a waiver is for how long.....they are not going to get an indefinite waiver and if they are wanting a limited waiver then some G5 conference knows they might get raided eventually so why make it easy for the AAC to drag it out and get the absolute best team make them make the decision in haste and make it harder on them for the CCG and scheduling in the meantime

no way the P5 gives an indefinite waiver when the SEC SEC SEC was never for it, the Big 10 put the rules in place that are causing issues now and the ACC wants what the AAC is asking for and can't get it (because of the Big 10)

(06-29-2019 02:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  You have been nothing but nice. No offense taken at all.

On this point---I mean sure---I suppose its possible that the FBS conferences will decide to really just stick it to the AAC---but thats really not been the case in the past for anyone. These commissioners and administrators have very different attitudes from what we often see on these message boards.

First, its worth noting that Aresco is extremely well liked among the commissioners. Secondly, these types of waivers generally pass under the "no skin off my nose" theory. If it has zero affect on your league, the commissioners generally dont really care one way or the other.

Honestly, after thinking about it, I believe this is a really good time to simply address the CCG rules clear bias against a league with an odd number. Why is that? I dont think it was really intended. In fact, the original rule was written by the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association specifically for that conference to hold a CCG in 1987. I think they had like 14 teams (dont remember the exact number). So it was written to say if you have 14 teams, then you can divide into 2 divisions and have a CCG. The Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference read the proposal and said--"Hey, we could use this rule in our conference, but we have only 12 teams--can we change the proposal to 12?" The answer was---"Sure, why not!!". So that's how we ended up with the original requirement that you must have 12 teams to hold a CCG. No research. No in depth study. Just random happenstance set the number at 12. It didnt affect anyone else at the time--so the "no skin off my nose" rule applied and the original CCG proposal passed. The funny thing is---the conference that proposed it never even ended up using the rule. It was the SEC that dusted off the rule years later and was the first to actually use it.

So, if you think about it---those very random requirements written into the original rule specifically for a pair of D2 conferences have probably caused a great deal of unnecessary realignment and strife at the FBS level---for really no good reason at all.

I think this may be an excellent opportunity to just amend the CCG rule to make it work as well with an odd number as an even number. Im really fine with whatever they come up with--but just address it once and be done with it instead of issuing waivers or causing unnecessary realignment.

Tell me about it. :eyeroll: I've told my Auburn friends that they lost their annual game with Tennessee and, later, with Florida, for no good reason at all.

Once the SEC established back in the 90s that an exempt CG could make DI conferences $$$ it ought to have immediately pushed for the option of having an exempt CG without divisions.

Of course, it's different today with 14 SEC schools. Then again, any large conference like the SEC can use impermanent divisions to improve rivalry deals and rotation times, but it seems none respect the intelligence of their fans to do so.

What The Big 12 asked for and got was the ability to play an championship game with less than 12 members. What did not change was you still have to play a round robin.

What The AAC is asking for is to not have to play a round robin because it would mean 11 conference games. That has been rejected by The Big Ten when The ACC proposed it years ago. If Aresco is asking to go to one division and the top two teams play, I’m sure The ACC would support The American this time around. Might even get The Big Ten to buy in if both The AAC and ACC supported expansion of the CFP. That’s Delaney’s hot button issue because he’s tired of his teams getting left out of the playoffs.

If The Big Ten supports one division with the top two teams meeting in the championship, I believe he’ll get ACC and AAC support for playoff expansion.

(06-28-2019 11:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  " … We could play a championship game with our top two teams like the Big 12 … I think we could get that -- have more games between UCF and Memphis and UCF and Houston."

(Note, I suspect one of the UCF was misheard by the reporter and was probably USF)

No. UCF is in the East Division and Houston and Memphis are in the West. He was saying the top team in the East would now get to play the top 2 teams in the West more often, b/c right now, they only play 2 of every 4 years.

Precisely ... not a misheard UCF, but a missing comma: "have more games between UCF and Memphis[,] and UCF and Houston."

(06-29-2019 06:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 11:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  " … We could play a championship game with our top two teams like the Big 12 … I think we could get that -- have more games between UCF and Memphis and UCF and Houston."

(Note, I suspect one of the UCF was misheard by the reporter and was probably USF)

No. UCF is in the East Division and Houston and Memphis are in the West. He was saying the top team in the East would now get to play the top 2 teams in the West more often, b/c right now, they only play 2 of every 4 years.

Precisely ... not a misheard UCF, but a missing comma: "have more games between UCF and Memphis[,] and UCF and Houston."

I actually think allowing for the removal of divisions would be the best thing for CCGs being of more meaning.

(06-29-2019 06:12 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  What The Big 12 asked for and got was the ability to play an championship game with less than 12 members. What did not change was you still have to play a round robin.

What The AAC is asking for is to not have to play a round robin because it would mean 11 conference games. That has been rejected by The Big Ten when The ACC proposed it years ago. If Aresco is asking to go to one division and the top two teams play, I’m sure The ACC would support The American this time around. Might even get The Big Ten to buy in if both The AAC and ACC supported expansion of the CFP. That’s Delaney’s hot button issue because he’s tired of his teams getting left out of the playoffs.

If The Big Ten supports one division with the top two teams meeting in the championship, I believe he’ll get ACC and AAC support for playoff expansion.

the Big 12 is currently the only ones that can put their two top teams in the CCG no other P5 conference could do so in a logical way

the PAC 12 could, but it would require them to play 11 conference games and that is a disaster

the Big 12 could also splint into divisions and play as few as 5 conference games and place the division winners in the CCG

no other P5 conference has the ability to do either or (again barring the PAC 12 playing a disastrous 11 conference games)

if the Big 12 was smart they would split into divisions and play 7 conference games, but sadly they do not understand the math of why that is better for the conference as a whole nor do they understand why that is better for individual members

(06-29-2019 08:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 06:12 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  What The Big 12 asked for and got was the ability to play an championship game with less than 12 members. What did not change was you still have to play a round robin.

What The AAC is asking for is to not have to play a round robin because it would mean 11 conference games. That has been rejected by The Big Ten when The ACC proposed it years ago. If Aresco is asking to go to one division and the top two teams play, I’m sure The ACC would support The American this time around. Might even get The Big Ten to buy in if both The AAC and ACC supported expansion of the CFP. That’s Delaney’s hot button issue because he’s tired of his teams getting left out of the playoffs.

If The Big Ten supports one division with the top two teams meeting in the championship, I believe he’ll get ACC and AAC support for playoff expansion.

the Big 12 is currently the only ones that can put their two top teams in the CCG no other P5 conference could do so in a logical way

the PAC 12 could, but it would require them to play 11 conference games and that is a disaster

the Big 12 could also splint into divisions and play as few as 5 conference games and place the division winners in the CCG

no other P5 conference has the ability to do either or (again barring the PAC 12 playing a disastrous 11 conference games)

if the Big 12 was smart they would split into divisions and play 7 conference games, but sadly they do not understand the math of why that is better for the conference as a whole nor do they understand why that is better for individual members

Good post....

(06-29-2019 03:22 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  I hope they don’t get a waiver and they’re forced to add another football or full member. Makes for a more interesting board.

You don’t need a wavier anymore for 11 teams and a 6/5 split divisions. As long as there is a round robin within the divisions you are qualified to hold a CCG. The unbalanced divisions make schedules harder for conference games. Which is why I think they will find a 12th team to ease scheduling concerns unless they play 6 or 7 conference games.

(06-29-2019 02:48 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Again, I am kinda surprised but maybe I am behind the times. I thought the Swofford and the Coaches would like this option for the ACC. It would help eliminate the twice every 12 years option. Could work with single rivalry game,

FSU-MIAMi
Duke vs Wake
VT vs UVA
NCSU vs UNC
BC vs Syc
Clemson vs Ga Tech
Pitt vs Louisville (Actually think Louisville Vs Clemson and Pitt vs Ga Tech would be better)

With less OOC, should be able to get enough FBS body bag home games to get rid of FCS. If ACC and SEC can get division-less with 8 games, that would be even better. B10 may still go with that as well as the AAC and the rest of the G5. Gets rid of the 7-5 vs 12-0 CCG.

Swofford loves the idea of nine conference games because it means more UNC/Wake and NC State/Duke games. Clemson, FSU, GT, and Louisville hated the 9th game because they already have an in-state rivalry game baked into the schedule so that means ten games would be out of the school's hands automatically every year leaving only three OOC, and the years that they are required to play the parasites from Indiana it means 11 of 12 games are accounted for. Because of this it means you have to make two choices:

1. stop playing quality OOC series outside of your in-state rival

or

2. Giving up the lucrative 7th home game every year (and the years you play @ the parasites you automatically give up the 7th home game.

When the ACC initially tried to go to 9 conference games the revenue that ESPN promised the conference for the additional conference game would not have covered the revenue Clemson would have made from having a seventh home game so Clemson ended up cancelling OOC series with Oklahoma State and Ole Miss, only keeping the Georgia series because of pressure from fans and boosters.

The ACC isn't going to go to nine games unless the NCAA itself mandates it.

(06-29-2019 08:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ... sadly they do not understand the math of why that is better for the conference as a whole nor do they understand why that is better for individual members

It's a club, not a corporation ... the "interests of the conference as a whole" always takes a back seat to the individual interests of a large number of members.

And it is in the interest of a large number of members to host either Oklahoma or Texas every year.

(06-29-2019 08:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the Big 12 is currently the only ones that can put their two top teams in the CCG no other P5 conference could do so in a logical way

the PAC 12 could, but it would require them to play 11 conference games and that is a disaster

the Big 12 could also splint into divisions and play as few as 5 conference games and place the division winners in the CCG

no other P5 conference has the ability to do either or (again barring the PAC 12 playing a disastrous 11 conference games)

if the Big 12 was smart they would split into divisions and play 7 conference games, but sadly they do not understand the math of why that is better for the conference as a whole nor do they understand why that is better for individual members

If by 7 conference games you mean 7 accountable conference games, then no. A 10-member conference cannot justify the use of divisions if its teams play more than 6 accountable games. You'd end up with in a situation where at least some intra-divisional teams would have accountable schedules that are as poorly balanced as the schedules of any two teams in the conference could possibly be, with or without divisions.

Here is a question for the board at large: Of what worth is a conference title if it is determined via a game that includes a team that was literally proven not to belong via the exact same test that proved it to be the most "deserving" team in its arbitrary division?

That's part of the problem with conference "championships" today. The other being that the largest conferences can neither disprove nor prove their most deserving teams.

Off-topic, I know, but indulge me this complaint: In 1991 six of ten 1A conferences staged round robins. In two of the remaining four, teams played all but one of the other teams in the conference, which is almost enough to guarantee that whatever team finished with the most wins was the team most deserving of being called "champions."

Used to be college football was about fun rivalries, legitimate conference championships (for the most part), fun bowl games and childish but kinda charming make-believe "national championships."

Nowadays it's about broken rivalries, division championships (which may or may not be legitimate since no divided conference sees fit to discount cross-division games), bogus conference championships (for the most part), bowl games that few care about and the ever/always make-believe "national championships."

(06-29-2019 09:46 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 08:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  ... sadly they do not understand the math of why that is better for the conference as a whole nor do they understand why that is better for individual members

It's a club, not a corporation ... the "interests of the conference as a whole" always takes a back seat to the individual interests of a large number of members.

And it is in the interest of a large number of members to host either Oklahoma or Texas every year.

those members fail to understand that it would be better for them as well that is the main issue

also if it was done properly they could still have those teams quite frequently

what you are saying is exactly why some teams in the Big 12 have a hard time climbing out of the toilet they are too stupid to understand their fans would rather see a winning program especially against Texas or OU even if it is fewer times a decade than see Texas and OU come in more often and usually beat them

that change will not happen over night, but it would happen over time with a properly crafted schedule and a clear explanation to fans of the overall goals

you have to be proactive about getting your fans to the place you want them to be along with getting your program there and if you are not or you make it too simple like "well Texas or OU is here every year" then you can easily lose your fans and your program (losing your program being a decade of losing seasons in a row)

(06-29-2019 10:44 PM)chester Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 08:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the Big 12 is currently the only ones that can put their two top teams in the CCG no other P5 conference could do so in a logical way

the PAC 12 could, but it would require them to play 11 conference games and that is a disaster

the Big 12 could also splint into divisions and play as few as 5 conference games and place the division winners in the CCG

no other P5 conference has the ability to do either or (again barring the PAC 12 playing a disastrous 11 conference games)

if the Big 12 was smart they would split into divisions and play 7 conference games, but sadly they do not understand the math of why that is better for the conference as a whole nor do they understand why that is better for individual members

If by 7 conference games you mean 7 accountable conference games, then no. A 10-member conference cannot justify the use of divisions if its teams play more than 6 accountable games. You'd end up with in a situation where at least some intra-divisional teams would have accountable schedules that are as poorly balanced as the schedules of any two teams in the conference could possibly be, with or without divisions.

Here is a question for the board at large: Of what worth is a conference title if it is determined via a game that includes a team that was literally proven not to belong via the exact same test that proved it to be the most "deserving" team in its arbitrary division?

That's part of the problem with conference "championships" today. The other being that the largest conferences can neither disprove nor prove their most deserving teams.

Off-topic, I know, but indulge me this complaint: In 1991 six of ten 1A conferences staged round robins. In two of the remaining four, teams played all but one of the other teams in the conference, which is almost enough to guarantee that whatever team finished with the most wins was the team most deserving of being called "champions."

Used to be college football was about fun rivalries, legitimate conference championships (for the most part), fun bowl games and childish but kinda charming make-believe "national championships."

Nowadays it's about broken rivalries, division championships (which may or may not be legitimate since no divided conference sees fit to discount cross-division games), bogus conference championships (for the most part), bowl games that few care about and the ever/always make-believe "national championships."

not sure what you mean by "accountable games" or your discussion of 6 games

here is how I would split the Big 12

Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, WVU, ISU

OU, OkState, TCU, KU, KSU

each team plays everyone in their division, they play the team above or below them in a locked in rivalry game, and then they play a pair from the other division for two years then rotate to the other pair


so a schedule for Texas would be.....Tech, Baylor, WVU, ISU, OU, OkState, TCU for two years home and home

then the next two years it would be Tech, Baylor, WVU, ISU, OU, KU, KSU home and home

so Texas/OU (Cotton Bowl State Fair )would always play, OkState/Tech (the two that match up the best and argue the best), TCU/Baylor (both private in Texas and long history), WVU/KU (the only one that is not any real rivalry), KSU/ISU (Farmageddon)

then you still have Texas/Tech, OU/OkState, Texas/Baylor (longer than Texas/TCU because of TCU not in the Big 12 to start), KU/KSU

ISU misses KU some and OU and OkState some, but you can make the schedules and rotating pairs to mitigate that

at the end of the day the Big 12 would still be the conference that plays each other more frequently than any other P5 conference out there by a long shot because teams would still play home and home two out of four years no matter what and most teams would play home and home every year

it also dramatically lowers the chances of a CCG being a repeat (although still a high %, but much closer to the % of the PAC 12) and it would be the most balanced conference in terms of divisions, resources, historical strength ect

as for the difficulty of the schedules perhaps not being equal for all well Texas and OU are the ones always complaining about wanting a better overall schedule and their fans always wondering if some other conference would be better (while ignoring that in all but the SEC SEC SEC they would be in the crappy half of the conference playing teams that are as bad or worse than their Big 12 schedule) so Texas and OU can suck it up and play each other yearly as the big boys in the conference along with their other main rivals like Tech and Okstate

and with 7 OOC games it gives each program the ability to schedule for their needs....Kansas right now has no business scheduling as if they are going to make the playoffs they need to schedule to make bowl games consistently......and if you have ACTIVE ADs instead of passive ones then teams like ISU that have become much better than the recent past would be going out there and tweaking their schedule to perhaps ditch a D1-AA game and instead getting a lower level P5 team or a G5 that has been winning on the schedule to bump it up in strength......of course that requires an AD that is willing to put in work and review schedules and openings every year for the next few years and to make changes instead of filling a schedule 5 years out and taking a nap

and even if a team does not choose to do that the reality is a bad win is better for the conference strength than a "good loss" and if a team in the conference misses the playoffs because they had "da season doh" and their AD was too stupid to shift their schedule a bit two years prior when it was clear they were gaining traction well their fans can take that out on him and the answer to Texas and OU is one or both of you should have beaten them and your fans are the ones that do not cheer Big 12 Big 12 Big 12 instead you only care when your team makes the playoffs and if you miss the playoffs then your fans would prefer everyone in the Big 12 misses the playoffs.....so next time beat that team with the weak OOC that just won the conference and missed the playoffs because of that weak OOC or shut up

and Texas and OU and others that want a better OOC schedule are free to schedule for their needs as well....to make the playoffs, to have big names cone to the stajium to sell tickets ect

over time (3 to 5 years) you hope that you end up with a conference where even your lower level teams have 6 wins most years and make a bowl game and so even with the teams in your conference that you wish would disappear you are still playing a team that will probably have a winning record to end the season and go to a bowl game and over time that is better for the entire conference

here is a study done on the PAC 12 with 9 vs 8 conference games

https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/20...en-big-acc

in this study they replaced a conference game with an OOC game that was equal to the WEAKEST game in the teams schedules.....so a conference game swapped for a terrible OOC game

what it shows is the top teams in the conference gained meaningful overall strength of schedule from that happening and it clearly explains why and all but the lowest level teams gained meaningfully in strength of schedule

now I am not advocating that the Big 12 (or any other conference) just removes conference games for OOC garbage, but I am saying that some teams and ADs need to get over the idea that their decade long 2 to 5 game winning team is suddenly going to jump up and start consistently beating Texas and OU and more importantly winning the conference (or their division)

and just because you schedule a "weaker" team in the OOC instead of a historically stronger conference game that does not mean you need to just go right to a really bad D1-AA game or a G5 that averages 2 wins a season for the last 8 years

again it requires WORK by the ADs (which is probably why most are against the idea)

but at the end of the day/year/decade you should have a conference where everyone is winning more games, making more bowl games, being ranked higher and more often, much better strength of schedule and as a conference the top teams looking better to make the playoffs and the middle to lower teams looking like a more competitive team on the schedule for everyone......and all the fans of all the teams should be much happier with those results across the conference

and if you constantly adjust your schedules 2 to 2+ years out and leave openings and ways to do so then you can consistently have good games and high ticket sales and better seasons

and with more independent teams than ever now it helps with that flexibility