What many are missing that a CCG is an option to determine champions not a requirement. So the AAC is going to sue because they refuse to do what is needed to do an optional requirement to decide a championship for the conference. No different when teams had to add teams to the able to hold a CCG. It would be different if the NCAA mandated a CCG.

(07-01-2019 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 01:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:47 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:12 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 07:31 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Once again, there is going to be no waiver for how the AAC wants to hold the CCG!
There rules were already changed and there are two options for conferences to hold a CCG. Round robin without divisions or divisions with round robin play within the divisions.

Because... ? The MAC and CUSA were given such a waiver ostensibly because of the uneven divisions and the desire to maintain 8 conference games. What reason would prompt the NCAA to reverse that precedence?

And, my question did not relate to a waiver. Any insight on that question? Anyone?

UAB dissolved football then reinstated and CUSA was given the waiver in that weird scenario for I think two years.

MAC - Was in process of removing UMASS, thus the waiver til the went back to 12.

AAC may get a waiver if they show a plan but AAC staying at 11 willingly and basically say the don't want to meet the rules by adding a team is not really going to bode well for them. Especially, if the FBS Conferences and decide to keep the rules. AAC may get a year or two waiver if they invite a team and allow them to transition. But the NCAA and P5 are not going to allow anything they voted against to go on for 6 years.

All the AAC would have to do is go to court if the waiver is denied. Whats the NCAA's argument going to be----"we dont like odd numbered conferences"?

I'm not sure the NCAA has to explain this bylaw to a court. What's the AAC's argument going to be - we don't like it because it makes life difficult for us? Lots of organizations have bylaws that might seem strange or arbitrary to outsiders, but they reflect the culture and values of the organization, which protected by freedom of association. Generally, as long as the bylaw doesn't violate a superseding law (civil rights, anti-trust, etc.) or somesuch, courts don't care, and it doesn't appear anything like that is involved here. The AAC would be hard-pressed to argue that the rule was implemented to suppress them or restrain them, when it didn't even apply to the AAC when enacted.

As someone else said a few posts ago, I think a temporary waiver of 2-3 years is no problem, as this is an unexpected development and scheduling requires planning. But at a certain point, the AAC will have to convince the other conferences to change the rule, or else add a 12th team.

No, their argument is going to be (as stated by Aresco already, if you listened to recent audio interviews), that by not granting waiver, you are forcing us to raid another conference, causing instability in that conference and others, or you are forcing us to expel a member to get to 10 and do a round robin or even divisions.

That is the AAC's argument, and it's a good one.

(07-01-2019 02:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What many are missing that a CCG is an option to determine champions not a requirement. So the AAC is going to sue because they refuse to do what is needed to do an optional requirement to decide a championship for the conference. No different when teams had to add teams to the able to hold a CCG. It would be different if the NCAA mandated a CCG.

What you are missing is the fact that an arbitrary NCAA rule could force the AAC to choose between two or more options that will negatively effect their income. There's no compelling evidence that the NCAA can put forward to show why the current conference structure and CCG rules should be the way they are, especially if the AAC can show that in order to follow these arbitrary rules they would suffer damages by way of lost income.

(07-01-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

If the NCAA denies the AAC pretty much the same waiver that the MAC and CUSA got, then the AAC has a due process claim and some variety of breach-of-contract claim. (That won't happen, of course, because why would it?). A membership organization is also a contract, and so contract law comes into play.

I think Attackcoog is confusing things though by not being clear about WHAT waiver is being discussed: a temporary one to give the AAC time to get to 12 in a leisurely manner, or a permanent one that allows the AAC to match their top 2? (or a permanent version of the MAC/CUSA 13 team waiver?)

Why would the NCAA reject an AAC waiver request? I suppose the most likely scenario would be the AAC being a choosing beggar about just exactly WHAT waiver they want, refusing a "skip a divisional game" waiver because they want CCG rule reform. Overplaying their hand is pretty on-brand for the AAC.

(07-01-2019 02:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 01:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:47 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:12 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Because... ? The MAC and CUSA were given such a waiver ostensibly because of the uneven divisions and the desire to maintain 8 conference games. What reason would prompt the NCAA to reverse that precedence?

And, my question did not relate to a waiver. Any insight on that question? Anyone?

UAB dissolved football then reinstated and CUSA was given the waiver in that weird scenario for I think two years.

MAC - Was in process of removing UMASS, thus the waiver til the went back to 12.

AAC may get a waiver if they show a plan but AAC staying at 11 willingly and basically say the don't want to meet the rules by adding a team is not really going to bode well for them. Especially, if the FBS Conferences and decide to keep the rules. AAC may get a year or two waiver if they invite a team and allow them to transition. But the NCAA and P5 are not going to allow anything they voted against to go on for 6 years.

All the AAC would have to do is go to court if the waiver is denied. Whats the NCAA's argument going to be----"we dont like odd numbered conferences"?

I'm not sure the NCAA has to explain this bylaw to a court. What's the AAC's argument going to be - we don't like it because it makes life difficult for us? Lots of organizations have bylaws that might seem strange or arbitrary to outsiders, but they reflect the culture and values of the organization, which protected by freedom of association. Generally, as long as the bylaw doesn't violate a superseding law (civil rights, anti-trust, etc.) or somesuch, courts don't care, and it doesn't appear anything like that is involved here. The AAC would be hard-pressed to argue that the rule was implemented to suppress them or restrain them, when it didn't even apply to the AAC when enacted.

As someone else said a few posts ago, I think a temporary waiver of 2-3 years is no problem, as this is an unexpected development and scheduling requires planning. But at a certain point, the AAC will have to convince the other conferences to change the rule, or else add a 12th team.

No, their argument is going to be (as stated by Aresco already, if you listened to recent audio interviews), that by not granting waiver, you are forcing us to raid another conference, causing instability in that conference and others, or you are forcing us to expel a member to get to 10 and do a round robin or even divisions.

That is the AAC's argument, and it's a good one.

Actually, in court, that's a terrible argument. Those things are all inconvenient to other conferences and schools, are bad for college sports, etc, but not things that judges are going to solve for you.

(07-01-2019 02:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What many are missing that a CCG is an option to determine champions not a requirement. So the AAC is going to sue because they refuse to do what is needed to do an optional requirement to decide a championship for the conference. No different when teams had to add teams to the able to hold a CCG. It would be different if the NCAA mandated a CCG.

What you are missing is the fact that an arbitrary NCAA rule could force the AAC to choose between two or more options that will negatively effect their income. There's no compelling evidence that the NCAA can put forward to show why the current conference structure and CCG rules should be the way they are, especially if the AAC can show that in order to follow these arbitrary rules they would suffer damages by way of lost income.

That would only apply if ESPN cuts the AAC contract, paying less for "AAC+U of TBA"
than they would for "AAC 11". That's pretty unlikely. If the AAC backfills, ESPN will probably keep the deal as-is rather than open the can-of-worms of what schools bring what value in court. If the AAC does not backfill, ESPN will probably reduce the contract by 1/12, for much the same reason.

(07-01-2019 02:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What many are missing that a CCG is an option to determine champions not a requirement. So the AAC is going to sue because they refuse to do what is needed to do an optional requirement to decide a championship for the conference. No different when teams had to add teams to the able to hold a CCG. It would be different if the NCAA mandated a CCG.

No—the AAC would be arguing that it is complying with the rule as best as can be done with an odd number of teams. That’s the better argument. The rule is silent on specifics—so basically a reasonable attempt to comply as closely as possible using unbalanced divisions is effective compliance in this case.

(07-01-2019 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 01:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:47 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  UAB dissolved football then reinstated and CUSA was given the waiver in that weird scenario for I think two years.

MAC - Was in process of removing UMASS, thus the waiver til the went back to 12.

AAC may get a waiver if they show a plan but AAC staying at 11 willingly and basically say the don't want to meet the rules by adding a team is not really going to bode well for them. Especially, if the FBS Conferences and decide to keep the rules. AAC may get a year or two waiver if they invite a team and allow them to transition. But the NCAA and P5 are not going to allow anything they voted against to go on for 6 years.

All the AAC would have to do is go to court if the waiver is denied. Whats the NCAA's argument going to be----"we dont like odd numbered conferences"?

I'm not sure the NCAA has to explain this bylaw to a court. What's the AAC's argument going to be - we don't like it because it makes life difficult for us? Lots of organizations have bylaws that might seem strange or arbitrary to outsiders, but they reflect the culture and values of the organization, which protected by freedom of association. Generally, as long as the bylaw doesn't violate a superseding law (civil rights, anti-trust, etc.) or somesuch, courts don't care, and it doesn't appear anything like that is involved here. The AAC would be hard-pressed to argue that the rule was implemented to suppress them or restrain them, when it didn't even apply to the AAC when enacted.

As someone else said a few posts ago, I think a temporary waiver of 2-3 years is no problem, as this is an unexpected development and scheduling requires planning. But at a certain point, the AAC will have to convince the other conferences to change the rule, or else add a 12th team.

No, their argument is going to be (as stated by Aresco already, if you listened to recent audio interviews), that by not granting waiver, you are forcing us to raid another conference, causing instability in that conference and others, or you are forcing us to expel a member to get to 10 and do a round robin or even divisions.

That is the AAC's argument, and it's a good one.

Actually, in court, that's a terrible argument. Those things are all inconvenient to other conferences and schools, are bad for college sports, etc, but not things that judges are going to solve for you.

What this comes down to is that AAC does not like the options that they will have under the NCAA rules to have a conference title game under the present rules. Now I can see why the AAC does not want each team to have to play a 10 game conference schedule. The other option to have a conference championship game is each division of the conference playing a round robin which is 5 games for one division and 4 game for the other division. Now the conference can schedule additional conference games but each team would not play the same number of conference games unless a full 10 game round robin schedule is played.

(07-01-2019 02:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

If the NCAA denies the AAC pretty much the same waiver that the MAC and CUSA got, then the AAC has a due process claim and some variety of breach-of-contract claim. (That won't happen, of course, because why would it?). A membership organization is also a contract, and so contract law comes into play.

I think Attackcoog is confusing things though by not being clear about WHAT waiver is being discussed: a temporary one to give the AAC time to get to 12 in a leisurely manner, or a permanent one that allows the AAC to match their top 2? (or a permanent version of the MAC/CUSA 13 team waiver?)

Why would the NCAA reject an AAC waiver request? I suppose the most likely scenario would be the AAC being a choosing beggar about just exactly WHAT waiver they want, refusing a "skip a divisional game" waiver because they want CCG rule reform. Overplaying their hand is pretty on-brand for the AAC.

My bad if I wasn’t clear. I’m referring to the same waiver the MAC was given. There would be no precedent for a divisionless waiver. Frankly—I just don’t see such a waiver being denied in the first place.

(07-01-2019 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What many are missing that a CCG is an option to determine champions not a requirement. So the AAC is going to sue because they refuse to do what is needed to do an optional requirement to decide a championship for the conference. No different when teams had to add teams to the able to hold a CCG. It would be different if the NCAA mandated a CCG.

No—the AAC would be arguing that it is complying with the rule as best as can be done with an odd number of teams. That’s the better argument. The rule is silent on specifics—so basically a reasonable attempt to comply as closely as possible using unbalanced divisions is effective compliance in this case.

This. They are trying their best given 8 conference games. They won't apply for (or, at least, won't receive) a waiver for going divisionless, just in being no more than 1 game shy of a round-robin in their larger division.

(07-01-2019 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 01:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:47 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  UAB dissolved football then reinstated and CUSA was given the waiver in that weird scenario for I think two years.

MAC - Was in process of removing UMASS, thus the waiver til the went back to 12.

AAC may get a waiver if they show a plan but AAC staying at 11 willingly and basically say the don't want to meet the rules by adding a team is not really going to bode well for them. Especially, if the FBS Conferences and decide to keep the rules. AAC may get a year or two waiver if they invite a team and allow them to transition. But the NCAA and P5 are not going to allow anything they voted against to go on for 6 years.

All the AAC would have to do is go to court if the waiver is denied. Whats the NCAA's argument going to be----"we dont like odd numbered conferences"?

I'm not sure the NCAA has to explain this bylaw to a court. What's the AAC's argument going to be - we don't like it because it makes life difficult for us? Lots of organizations have bylaws that might seem strange or arbitrary to outsiders, but they reflect the culture and values of the organization, which protected by freedom of association. Generally, as long as the bylaw doesn't violate a superseding law (civil rights, anti-trust, etc.) or somesuch, courts don't care, and it doesn't appear anything like that is involved here. The AAC would be hard-pressed to argue that the rule was implemented to suppress them or restrain them, when it didn't even apply to the AAC when enacted.

As someone else said a few posts ago, I think a temporary waiver of 2-3 years is no problem, as this is an unexpected development and scheduling requires planning. But at a certain point, the AAC will have to convince the other conferences to change the rule, or else add a 12th team.

No, their argument is going to be (as stated by Aresco already, if you listened to recent audio interviews), that by not granting waiver, you are forcing us to raid another conference, causing instability in that conference and others, or you are forcing us to expel a member to get to 10 and do a round robin or even divisions.

That is the AAC's argument, and it's a good one.

Actually, in court, that's a terrible argument. Those things are all inconvenient to other conferences and schools, are bad for college sports, etc, but not things that judges are going to solve for you.

it is an even dumber argument coming from one of the two commissioners that voted against CCG changes last time knowing full well that by voting no if the measure failed and the Big 12 wanted a CCG they would have to add two teams and there is a good chance one or more of them would have come from another conference

but the AAC is the type of conference that does not look to the future they look at the very short term.....hence the situation they are in now

(07-01-2019 03:46 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 03:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:03 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  What many are missing that a CCG is an option to determine champions not a requirement. So the AAC is going to sue because they refuse to do what is needed to do an optional requirement to decide a championship for the conference. No different when teams had to add teams to the able to hold a CCG. It would be different if the NCAA mandated a CCG.

No—the AAC would be arguing that it is complying with the rule as best as can be done with an odd number of teams. That’s the better argument. The rule is silent on specifics—so basically a reasonable attempt to comply as closely as possible using unbalanced divisions is effective compliance in this case.

This. They are trying their best given 8 conference games. They won't apply for (or, at least, won't receive) a waiver for going divisionless, just in being no more than 1 game shy of a round-robin in their larger division.

that does not make sense

the Big 10 made an 11 team schedule work because they did not have divisions, but they did not have a CCG so it did not matter

with the AAC and a CCG if they are going to match division winners there is still the issue when it comes down to sets of teams and everyone playing an equal number of games

it is the sets of teams (the divisions) that makes the scheduling with 11 hard and there is no need to be one game short of a round robin in either division it is the issue of cross divisional games that is difficult

a waiver really does not help that if you still need division winners to pair up

AC
First the MAC could show the NCAA the plan to get into compliance. I have stated multiple times, if the NCAA shows it is working on getting in compliance, there would be no issue with the waiver until another team is added. The AAC basically has stated there are no plans to get in compliance because we don't want too. Thus thy I think the NCAA could easily deny the waiver.

If the AAC requests the FBS Conferences to change the rule, and the conferences vote against it. I have a hard time seeing the NCAA then granting a waiver because the AAC still refuses to add a 12th team. If they offer a 12th team and that team had issues preventing them from joining until 2022, I would see the waiver granted. I think if the Aresco would have just simply stated the AAC would address the need to add a 12th team if required to meet the rules if the CCG are not changed. He basically stated the AAC will do what is in the AAC best interest no matter if the majority of the conferences vote against the rule change. That is why I see a waiver not occurring without a plan to get into compliance.

I think AAC could do a whole lot better than Aresco. He tends to either show his hand to early or vastly overplays it. Some times it is better to let subordinates or proxies go public and keep quiet. He reminds of Biden, apparently everybody likes him but they know the guy is a gaffe blowhard that will go off at the wrong time.

Note - Biden is an example comparison not saying if his politics are correct or incorrect.

(07-01-2019 02:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

If the NCAA denies the AAC pretty much the same waiver that the MAC and CUSA got, then the AAC has a due process claim and some variety of breach-of-contract claim. (That won't happen, of course, because why would it?). A membership organization is also a contract, and so contract law comes into play.

I think Attackcoog is confusing things though by not being clear about WHAT waiver is being discussed: a temporary one to give the AAC time to get to 12 in a leisurely manner, or a permanent one that allows the AAC to match their top 2? (or a permanent version of the MAC/CUSA 13 team waiver?)

FWIW, I agree that a temporary waiver of say 3 year's duration will surely be granted. Losing a member like this is unexpected and nobody will expect the AAC to immediately come back in to compliance with the rule.

What I have doubts about is IF the NCAA later denies a permanent waiver, is the AAC's recourse. I don't think they are likely to find success in the courts.

(07-01-2019 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

If the NCAA denies the AAC pretty much the same waiver that the MAC and CUSA got, then the AAC has a due process claim and some variety of breach-of-contract claim. (That won't happen, of course, because why would it?). A membership organization is also a contract, and so contract law comes into play.

I think Attackcoog is confusing things though by not being clear about WHAT waiver is being discussed: a temporary one to give the AAC time to get to 12 in a leisurely manner, or a permanent one that allows the AAC to match their top 2? (or a permanent version of the MAC/CUSA 13 team waiver?)

FWIW, I agree that a temporary waiver of say 3 year's duration will surely be granted. Losing a member like this is unexpected and nobody will expect the AAC to immediately come back in to compliance with the rule.

What I have doubts about is IF the NCAA later denies a permanent waiver, is the AAC's recourse. I don't think they are likely to find success in the courts.

It may not consider an issue if UConn stays the full 27 month period. Unless they are leaving next season, the AAC will have plenty of time to get in compliance. But the AAC can just have 7 conference games with no issue. That contrasts the MAC and CUSA since they had more than 12 teams with 8 conference games.

(07-01-2019 02:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If the NCAA denies the AAC pretty much the same waiver that the MAC and CUSA got, then the AAC has a due process claim and some variety of breach-of-contract claim. (That won't happen, of course, because why would it?). A membership organization is also a contract, and so contract law comes into play.

Yes. Which is one part of why if the AAC puts in an application for a two year waiver, it's pretty much automatic unless the process that the AAC chooses to address the situation is in some way egregious. And even then, the NCAA would likely not just turn it down flat, but grant it conditional on an arrangement that followed precedent.

Quote: I think Attackcoog is confusing things though by not being clear about WHAT waiver is being discussed: a temporary one to give the AAC time to get to 12 in a leisurely manner, or a permanent one that allows the AAC to match their top 2? (or a permanent version of the MAC/CUSA 13 team waiver?)

Wait, the question I posed perhaps four times in a single post?

Yes, if the AAC applies for an open-ended waiver, they probably won't be granted THAT.

Quote: Why would the NCAA reject an AAC waiver request? I suppose the most likely scenario would be the AAC being a choosing beggar about just exactly WHAT waiver they want, refusing a "skip a divisional game" waiver because they want CCG rule reform. Overplaying their hand is pretty on-brand for the AAC.

That I wouldn't know, I haven't been privy to any of the AAC's communications with the NCAA.

(07-01-2019 06:31 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  It may not consider an issue if UConn stays the full 27 month period. Unless they are leaving next season, the AAC will have plenty of time to get in compliance. But the AAC can just have 7 conference games with no issue. That contrasts the MAC and CUSA since they had more than 12 teams with 8 conference games.

Seven games all around doesn't fix it ... then West has two interdivision games to play, so twelve total, the East has three to play, so fifteen total. Indeed, eight is better, because only two schools have to play a seven game schedule to make a compliant and "mostly eight conference game" schedule ... seven requires three schools to play a six game conference schedule to make a compliant and "mostly seven" game schedule.

Since it's a ten game schedule where the problem goes away, it's going in that direction where the imbalance is reduced ... nine conference games has four interdivision games from each Western team for 24, five interdivision games from each Eastern team for 25, one team playing an eight team schedule. If that was Navy, the AAC might have a shot at an ongoing waiver, on the argument that a Service Academy has a special National Mission and therefore should be allowed to be the one that skips one intra-division game to give them an extra OOC game for that National Mission. What makes that tempting for the waiver committee is how narrow the precedent is, applying to exactly three schools.

AAC needs to another member. They should not act like the Big 12. They would look like hypocrites if they do not all a 12th all sports school.

(07-01-2019 02:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:10 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 07:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 01:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:47 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  UAB dissolved football then reinstated and CUSA was given the waiver in that weird scenario for I think two years.

MAC - Was in process of removing UMASS, thus the waiver til the went back to 12.

AAC may get a waiver if they show a plan but AAC staying at 11 willingly and basically say the don't want to meet the rules by adding a team is not really going to bode well for them. Especially, if the FBS Conferences and decide to keep the rules. AAC may get a year or two waiver if they invite a team and allow them to transition. But the NCAA and P5 are not going to allow anything they voted against to go on for 6 years.

All the AAC would have to do is go to court if the waiver is denied. Whats the NCAA's argument going to be----"we dont like odd numbered conferences"?

I'm not sure the NCAA has to explain this bylaw to a court. What's the AAC's argument going to be - we don't like it because it makes life difficult for us? Lots of organizations have bylaws that might seem strange or arbitrary to outsiders, but they reflect the culture and values of the organization, which protected by freedom of association. Generally, as long as the bylaw doesn't violate a superseding law (civil rights, anti-trust, etc.) or somesuch, courts don't care, and it doesn't appear anything like that is involved here. The AAC would be hard-pressed to argue that the rule was implemented to suppress them or restrain them, when it didn't even apply to the AAC when enacted.

As someone else said a few posts ago, I think a temporary waiver of 2-3 years is no problem, as this is an unexpected development and scheduling requires planning. But at a certain point, the AAC will have to convince the other conferences to change the rule, or else add a 12th team.

No, their argument is going to be (as stated by Aresco already, if you listened to recent audio interviews), that by not granting waiver, you are forcing us to raid another conference, causing instability in that conference and others, or you are forcing us to expel a member to get to 10 and do a round robin or even divisions.

That is the AAC's argument, and it's a good one.

Actually, in court, that's a terrible argument. Those things are all inconvenient to other conferences and schools, are bad for college sports, etc, but not things that judges are going to solve for you.

Outside court its a terrible argument. Nothing stops them from doing a round robin while having unbalanced schedules (not everyone plays 8 games).

(07-01-2019 06:31 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 06:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 02:30 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

If the NCAA denies the AAC pretty much the same waiver that the MAC and CUSA got, then the AAC has a due process claim and some variety of breach-of-contract claim. (That won't happen, of course, because why would it?). A membership organization is also a contract, and so contract law comes into play.

I think Attackcoog is confusing things though by not being clear about WHAT waiver is being discussed: a temporary one to give the AAC time to get to 12 in a leisurely manner, or a permanent one that allows the AAC to match their top 2? (or a permanent version of the MAC/CUSA 13 team waiver?)

FWIW, I agree that a temporary waiver of say 3 year's duration will surely be granted. Losing a member like this is unexpected and nobody will expect the AAC to immediately come back in to compliance with the rule.

What I have doubts about is IF the NCAA later denies a permanent waiver, is the AAC's recourse. I don't think they are likely to find success in the courts.

It may not consider an issue if UConn stays the full 27 month period. Unless they are leaving next season, the AAC will have plenty of time to get in compliance. But the AAC can just have 7 conference games with no issue. That contrasts the MAC and CUSA since they had more than 12 teams with 8 conference games.

That UCONN and the AAC basically said that is not happening.


@AC,

Again, I put this squarely on Aresco bringing up waivers and staying at 11. All he needed to say at this point, we are exploring the options and discuss the CCG at the next NCAA commissioners meeting. Let the AD's do the complaining, not him.

Instead of trying to work behind the scenes he went for Win/Lose which he does not have a spectacular history of winning for the AAC.

You could have Navy in the 5 team division and play 6 games while everyone else plays 8. Count Army and Air Force as their 7th and 8th game.
You could have the 6 team division play 8 and the 5 team division-3 at 8 and 2 at 7. Those two could have a designated ooc game as #8 or play each other twice to get to 8.
You could do either of the above and only count division games in the standings.
You could play a 10 game round robin and skip divisions.

None of these things requires a rule change. Its stupid to complain about the rule. If they don't like these choices, add a 12th team. Liberty or New Mexico St. would be happy to fill the hole in the Sun Belt that results from the AAC adding a school.