(07-18-2019 12:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:26 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 10:50 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Divisonless non round robin championship game was pushed by ACC and shot down. Why would AAC be different?

It's already been explained. By not approving waiver, you are forcing the AAC to raid another conference, causing instability throughout several conferences, as whatever conference AAC raids will also have to back fill, and so on down the line. The AAC doesn't want to do that. The only other options are to drop a member to get to 10, or play a 10 game round robin schedule. Both of those are non starters. So, by not approving waiver, you're forcing the AAC to raid someone else and cause instability all over again.

Or...have unbalance divisions to hold a CCG. The new rule has enough flexibility for a conference to hold a CCG regardless the number of members.
Don’t worry about the other conferences. Losing 1 team isn’t going to cause an issue. In fact it could be beneficial to the Sunbelt and CUSA

11 team unbalanced divisions don't work. You either have to play someone twice, or someone is stuck playing a 7 game schedule, or you stipulate a conf game doesn't count in standings. Maybe a 13 team unbalanced conf divisions work, but 11 don't. This has already been thought of on the AAC board, and it didn't work without playing people twice or making a conf game a non conf game. It's been tried.

(07-18-2019 09:34 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 01:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The news in this article is not that the AAC won't add a new member, which has already been reported.

It's that they are probably looking to get a waiver for a CCG, not a waiver to have unbalanced divisions, but to have no divisions without a full round robin. Each football team would play 8 or 9 conference games and skip 1 or 2 conference opponents each season.

From the article linked above:

Quote:Once UConn is no longer in the picture, Aresco said the league will likely scrap its divisional format instead of having five teams in the East division and six teams in the West. To prepare for that, Aresco said conference officials have reached out to the Big Ten to learn how the league organized its schedule during its time as an 11-member league.

Quote:If the AAC does get rid of its divisions, Aresco said the conference championship game is not going anywhere. But to drop down to 11 members without divisions, the league will need an NCAA waiver in order to keep the AAC title game in place.

The AAC is unable to perform an analysis on the previous Big Ten scheduling? They have to reach out to them even though all the data is available.

There was NO B1G championship game pre Nebraska. Nebraska was added in part to get to 12.

AAC could drop the Championship Game and not need anything from the NCAA.

(07-18-2019 01:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 09:34 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 01:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The news in this article is not that the AAC won't add a new member, which has already been reported.

It's that they are probably looking to get a waiver for a CCG, not a waiver to have unbalanced divisions, but to have no divisions without a full round robin. Each football team would play 8 or 9 conference games and skip 1 or 2 conference opponents each season.

From the article linked above:

Quote:Once UConn is no longer in the picture, Aresco said the league will likely scrap its divisional format instead of having five teams in the East division and six teams in the West. To prepare for that, Aresco said conference officials have reached out to the Big Ten to learn how the league organized its schedule during its time as an 11-member league.

Quote:If the AAC does get rid of its divisions, Aresco said the conference championship game is not going anywhere. But to drop down to 11 members without divisions, the league will need an NCAA waiver in order to keep the AAC title game in place.

The AAC is unable to perform an analysis on the previous Big Ten scheduling? They have to reach out to them even though all the data is available.

There was NO B1G championship game pre Nebraska. Nebraska was added in part to get to 12.

AAC could drop the Championship Game and not need anything from the NCAA.

Another non starter. Why pass up TV revenue from a champ game that is aired on ABC every year. ESPN would like negotiate our dollars down if we dropped this game.

(07-18-2019 12:59 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:56 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  AAC fans trying to toss out this "instability" nonsense

the same fans of a conference that voted no on any CCG changes at all in desperate hope that the Big 12 would take two teams from their own conference that would then try and take two teams from some other conference

now suddenly they just have to get a waiver in the name of conference stability......even though the MWC and MAC have no concerns about losing a member and many in the SunBelt or CUSA would say "bye" to any member that left them

and of course the P5 does not care if G5 conferences raid each other and they are not going to do anything to allow the AAC to do what they either voted against for a reason or they wanted and did not get

We didn't "toss it out". I didn't make this up, this is verbatim what Mike Aresco said. Take it up with him. He doesn't want to be forced to raid CUSA or Sun Belt, just to get to 12 for some arbitrary rule. He doesn't want to drop a member to have even divisions, and he doesn't want to play a 10 game schedule. I've heard this stated by AAC commish like 5-10 times.

yea and arresto is the same idiot that voted against any ccg deregulation at all expecting it would force realignment

or more likely the presidents and ADs told him to vote like that....but still there was no concern from anyone aac related about losing some of their teams (or so they all hoped IE hoping it was them) and then the remaining conference having to backfill

and of course the aac would have had to backfill because no ccg deregulation forcing the Big 12 to expand would have also meant the aac had to expand to keep a CCG and the aac needs a CCG more than the Big 12 to get even a NY6 bowl game

so hearing him talk about concerns with having to take a team from another conference just makes him sound like a moron.....again

(07-18-2019 01:08 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 09:34 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 01:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The news in this article is not that the AAC won't add a new member, which has already been reported.

It's that they are probably looking to get a waiver for a CCG, not a waiver to have unbalanced divisions, but to have no divisions without a full round robin. Each football team would play 8 or 9 conference games and skip 1 or 2 conference opponents each season.

From the article linked above:

Quote:Once UConn is no longer in the picture, Aresco said the league will likely scrap its divisional format instead of having five teams in the East division and six teams in the West. To prepare for that, Aresco said conference officials have reached out to the Big Ten to learn how the league organized its schedule during its time as an 11-member league.

Quote:If the AAC does get rid of its divisions, Aresco said the conference championship game is not going anywhere. But to drop down to 11 members without divisions, the league will need an NCAA waiver in order to keep the AAC title game in place.

The AAC is unable to perform an analysis on the previous Big Ten scheduling? They have to reach out to them even though all the data is available.

There was NO B1G championship game pre Nebraska. Nebraska was added in part to get to 12.

AAC could drop the Championship Game and not need anything from the NCAA.

Another non starter. Why pass up TV revenue from a champ game that is aired on ABC every year. ESPN would like negotiate our dollars down if we dropped this game.

Which is why the B1G comparison is invalid. They did 11, yes, but didn't have a CCG

I could see BYU and Army signing up for 4 AAC games a season in a preferred scheduling alliance. Army needs to toughen up their schedule. 2019's is pathetically weak.

(07-18-2019 01:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:26 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 10:50 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Divisonless non round robin championship game was pushed by ACC and shot down. Why would AAC be different?

It's already been explained. By not approving waiver, you are forcing the AAC to raid another conference, causing instability throughout several conferences, as whatever conference AAC raids will also have to back fill, and so on down the line. The AAC doesn't want to do that. The only other options are to drop a member to get to 10, or play a 10 game round robin schedule. Both of those are non starters. So, by not approving waiver, you're forcing the AAC to raid someone else and cause instability all over again.

Or...have unbalance divisions to hold a CCG. The new rule has enough flexibility for a conference to hold a CCG regardless the number of members.
Don’t worry about the other conferences. Losing 1 team isn’t going to cause an issue. In fact it could be beneficial to the Sunbelt and CUSA

11 team unbalanced divisions don't work. You either have to play someone twice, or someone is stuck playing a 7 game schedule, or you stipulate a conf game doesn't count in standings. Maybe a 13 team unbalanced conf divisions work, but 11 don't. This has already been thought of on the AAC board, and it didn't work without playing people twice or making a conf game a non conf game. It's been tried.

The point is that it's possible. Denying the AAC a waiver does not at all force them to add another school. And I have yet to see a rational argument why playing twice in a season is such a bad thing.

(07-18-2019 04:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:26 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 10:50 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Divisonless non round robin championship game was pushed by ACC and shot down. Why would AAC be different?

It's already been explained. By not approving waiver, you are forcing the AAC to raid another conference, causing instability throughout several conferences, as whatever conference AAC raids will also have to back fill, and so on down the line. The AAC doesn't want to do that. The only other options are to drop a member to get to 10, or play a 10 game round robin schedule. Both of those are non starters. So, by not approving waiver, you're forcing the AAC to raid someone else and cause instability all over again.

Or...have unbalance divisions to hold a CCG. The new rule has enough flexibility for a conference to hold a CCG regardless the number of members.
Don’t worry about the other conferences. Losing 1 team isn’t going to cause an issue. In fact it could be beneficial to the Sunbelt and CUSA

11 team unbalanced divisions don't work. You either have to play someone twice, or someone is stuck playing a 7 game schedule, or you stipulate a conf game doesn't count in standings. Maybe a 13 team unbalanced conf divisions work, but 11 don't. This has already been thought of on the AAC board, and it didn't work without playing people twice or making a conf game a non conf game. It's been tried.

The point is that it's possible. Denying the AAC a waiver does not at all force them to add another school. And I have yet to see a rational argument why playing twice in a season is such a bad thing.

you do not see a rational argument. ok.

would it matter to you that the ADs and coaches almost universally disagree with you?

(07-18-2019 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 04:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:26 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  It's already been explained. By not approving waiver, you are forcing the AAC to raid another conference, causing instability throughout several conferences, as whatever conference AAC raids will also have to back fill, and so on down the line. The AAC doesn't want to do that. The only other options are to drop a member to get to 10, or play a 10 game round robin schedule. Both of those are non starters. So, by not approving waiver, you're forcing the AAC to raid someone else and cause instability all over again.

Or...have unbalance divisions to hold a CCG. The new rule has enough flexibility for a conference to hold a CCG regardless the number of members.
Don’t worry about the other conferences. Losing 1 team isn’t going to cause an issue. In fact it could be beneficial to the Sunbelt and CUSA

11 team unbalanced divisions don't work. You either have to play someone twice, or someone is stuck playing a 7 game schedule, or you stipulate a conf game doesn't count in standings. Maybe a 13 team unbalanced conf divisions work, but 11 don't. This has already been thought of on the AAC board, and it didn't work without playing people twice or making a conf game a non conf game. It's been tried.

The point is that it's possible. Denying the AAC a waiver does not at all force them to add another school. And I have yet to see a rational argument why playing twice in a season is such a bad thing.

you do not see a rational argument. ok.

would it matter to you that the ADs and coaches almost universally disagree with you?

Cincy and USF were use to play 7 conference games in the Big East.

(07-18-2019 12:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:26 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 10:50 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Divisonless non round robin championship game was pushed by ACC and shot down. Why would AAC be different?

It's already been explained. By not approving waiver, you are forcing the AAC to raid another conference, causing instability throughout several conferences, as whatever conference AAC raids will also have to back fill, and so on down the line. The AAC doesn't want to do that. The only other options are to drop a member to get to 10, or play a 10 game round robin schedule. Both of those are non starters. So, by not approving waiver, you're forcing the AAC to raid someone else and cause instability all over again.

Or...have unbalance divisions to hold a CCG. The new rule has enough flexibility for a conference to hold a CCG regardless the number of members.
Don’t worry about the other conferences. Losing 1 team isn’t going to cause an issue. In fact it could be beneficial to the Sunbelt and CUSA

It’s not likely to be “beneficial” as any school lost is almost certainly going to be one most attractive to ESPN.

(07-18-2019 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 04:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:26 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  It's already been explained. By not approving waiver, you are forcing the AAC to raid another conference, causing instability throughout several conferences, as whatever conference AAC raids will also have to back fill, and so on down the line. The AAC doesn't want to do that. The only other options are to drop a member to get to 10, or play a 10 game round robin schedule. Both of those are non starters. So, by not approving waiver, you're forcing the AAC to raid someone else and cause instability all over again.

Or...have unbalance divisions to hold a CCG. The new rule has enough flexibility for a conference to hold a CCG regardless the number of members.
Don’t worry about the other conferences. Losing 1 team isn’t going to cause an issue. In fact it could be beneficial to the Sunbelt and CUSA

11 team unbalanced divisions don't work. You either have to play someone twice, or someone is stuck playing a 7 game schedule, or you stipulate a conf game doesn't count in standings. Maybe a 13 team unbalanced conf divisions work, but 11 don't. This has already been thought of on the AAC board, and it didn't work without playing people twice or making a conf game a non conf game. It's been tried.

The point is that it's possible. Denying the AAC a waiver does not at all force them to add another school. And I have yet to see a rational argument why playing twice in a season is such a bad thing.

you do not see a rational argument. ok.

would it matter to you that the ADs and coaches almost universally disagree with you?

I know they disagree, but why?

(07-18-2019 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 04:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:26 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  It's already been explained. By not approving waiver, you are forcing the AAC to raid another conference, causing instability throughout several conferences, as whatever conference AAC raids will also have to back fill, and so on down the line. The AAC doesn't want to do that. The only other options are to drop a member to get to 10, or play a 10 game round robin schedule. Both of those are non starters. So, by not approving waiver, you're forcing the AAC to raid someone else and cause instability all over again.

Or...have unbalance divisions to hold a CCG. The new rule has enough flexibility for a conference to hold a CCG regardless the number of members.
Don’t worry about the other conferences. Losing 1 team isn’t going to cause an issue. In fact it could be beneficial to the Sunbelt and CUSA

11 team unbalanced divisions don't work. You either have to play someone twice, or someone is stuck playing a 7 game schedule, or you stipulate a conf game doesn't count in standings. Maybe a 13 team unbalanced conf divisions work, but 11 don't. This has already been thought of on the AAC board, and it didn't work without playing people twice or making a conf game a non conf game. It's been tried.

The point is that it's possible. Denying the AAC a waiver does not at all force them to add another school. And I have yet to see a rational argument why playing twice in a season is such a bad thing.

you do not see a rational argument. ok.

would it matter to you that the ADs and coaches almost universally disagree with you?

However the point has been made that some conferences would vote against the waiver because it would prevent the AAC from holding a CCG without expanding. That simply shows an ignorance of how the rule works. It would just make it more inconvenient—it doesn’t preclude the AAC from holding a CCG with 11.

(07-18-2019 05:43 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 04:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:35 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Or...have unbalance divisions to hold a CCG. The new rule has enough flexibility for a conference to hold a CCG regardless the number of members.
Don’t worry about the other conferences. Losing 1 team isn’t going to cause an issue. In fact it could be beneficial to the Sunbelt and CUSA

11 team unbalanced divisions don't work. You either have to play someone twice, or someone is stuck playing a 7 game schedule, or you stipulate a conf game doesn't count in standings. Maybe a 13 team unbalanced conf divisions work, but 11 don't. This has already been thought of on the AAC board, and it didn't work without playing people twice or making a conf game a non conf game. It's been tried.

The point is that it's possible. Denying the AAC a waiver does not at all force them to add another school. And I have yet to see a rational argument why playing twice in a season is such a bad thing.

you do not see a rational argument. ok.

would it matter to you that the ADs and coaches almost universally disagree with you?

I know they disagree, but why?

I think they find it an unacceptable level of competitive imbalance--if Team A wins the division at 6-1, beating out Team B who is 7-1, the outcry would be deafening. Or if Team A and B played twice, if team B is bad, that's an unacceptable competitive advantage for Team A. If Team B is good, it's an unacceptable burden on Team A.

Compared to that, playing an unbalanced (non-round-robin) schedule is just the sort of thing that happens sometimes, shrug your shoulders and get over it. Team A wins the division at 7-1, without playing 6-2 Team B in the same division? Yeah, it happens, it's college football.

You can make an argument that they're equally unfair, or even that the second paragraph is MORE unfair. But the first paragraph is Not Done, and the second paragraph is just accepted.

EDIT: The reason i phrased my question like that is, what matters is not whether an unbalanced schedule is "objectively" a sufficient reason to give the AAC a waiver. the question is whether the deciders will SEE it as a sufficient reason.

(07-18-2019 06:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:43 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 04:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  11 team unbalanced divisions don't work. You either have to play someone twice, or someone is stuck playing a 7 game schedule, or you stipulate a conf game doesn't count in standings. Maybe a 13 team unbalanced conf divisions work, but 11 don't. This has already been thought of on the AAC board, and it didn't work without playing people twice or making a conf game a non conf game. It's been tried.

The point is that it's possible. Denying the AAC a waiver does not at all force them to add another school. And I have yet to see a rational argument why playing twice in a season is such a bad thing.

you do not see a rational argument. ok.

would it matter to you that the ADs and coaches almost universally disagree with you?

I know they disagree, but why?

I think they find it an unacceptable level of competitive imbalance--if Team A wins the division at 6-1, beating out Team B who is 7-1, the outcry would be deafening. Or if Team A and B played twice, if team B is bad, that's an unacceptable competitive advantage for Team A. If Team B is good, it's an unacceptable burden on Team A.

Compared to that, playing an unbalanced (non-round-robin) schedule is just the sort of thing that happens sometimes, shrug your shoulders and get over it. Team A wins the division at 7-1, without playing 6-2 Team B in the same division? Yeah, it happens, it's college football.

You can make an argument that they're equally unfair, or even that the second paragraph is MORE unfair. But the first paragraph is Not Done, and the second paragraph is just accepted.

EDIT: The reason i phrased my question like that is, what matters is not whether an unbalanced schedule is "objectively" a sufficient reason to give the AAC a waiver. the question is whether the deciders will SEE it as a sufficient reason.

IMO scenario one is clearly more unfair than scenario two. In scenario one, the team with the best divisional record doesn't win, that's absurd. It's also absurd that A and B didn't play the same number of divisional games.

In the second scenario, the team with the best divisional record does win, so there's nothing unfair about that. Teams A and B didn't play, but they did play the same number of divisional games, and A had a better record against the same set of opponents that B did, so B has no complaints.

Of course, neither are ideal and each has its flaws, but the second scenario is better than the first.

(07-18-2019 12:26 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 10:50 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Divisonless non round robin championship game was pushed by ACC and shot down. Why would AAC be different?

It's already been explained. By not approving waiver, you are forcing the AAC to raid another conference, causing instability throughout several conferences, as whatever conference AAC raids will also have to back fill, and so on down the line. The AAC doesn't want to do that. The only other options are to drop a member to get to 10, or play a 10 game round robin schedule. Both of those are non starters. So, by not approving waiver, you're forcing the AAC to raid someone else and cause instability all over again.

I could see the round robin rule be waived for uneven divisions but not for no divisions

(07-18-2019 12:59 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:56 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  AAC fans trying to toss out this "instability" nonsense

the same fans of a conference that voted no on any CCG changes at all in desperate hope that the Big 12 would take two teams from their own conference that would then try and take two teams from some other conference

now suddenly they just have to get a waiver in the name of conference stability......even though the MWC and MAC have no concerns about losing a member and many in the SunBelt or CUSA would say "bye" to any member that left them

and of course the P5 does not care if G5 conferences raid each other and they are not going to do anything to allow the AAC to do what they either voted against for a reason or they wanted and did not get

We didn't "toss it out". I didn't make this up, this is verbatim what Mike Aresco said. Take it up with him. He doesn't want to be forced to raid CUSA or Sun Belt, just to get to 12 for some arbitrary rule. He doesn't want to drop a member to have even divisions, and he doesn't want to play a 10 game schedule. I've heard this stated by AAC commish like 5-10 times.

Mike Aresco is a stupid idiot. The waiver was for conferences for 10 schools, not 11. AAC will not get the waiver. They need to go to 12, or face issues being rank higher than the MWC for the access bowl. They need 12 teams so that they can play P5 schools.

(07-18-2019 06:23 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:43 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 04:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 01:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  11 team unbalanced divisions don't work. You either have to play someone twice, or someone is stuck playing a 7 game schedule, or you stipulate a conf game doesn't count in standings. Maybe a 13 team unbalanced conf divisions work, but 11 don't. This has already been thought of on the AAC board, and it didn't work without playing people twice or making a conf game a non conf game. It's been tried.

The point is that it's possible. Denying the AAC a waiver does not at all force them to add another school. And I have yet to see a rational argument why playing twice in a season is such a bad thing.

you do not see a rational argument. ok.

would it matter to you that the ADs and coaches almost universally disagree with you?

I know they disagree, but why?

I think they find it an unacceptable level of competitive imbalance--if Team A wins the division at 6-1, beating out Team B who is 7-1, the outcry would be deafening. Or if Team A and B played twice, if team B is bad, that's an unacceptable competitive advantage for Team A. If Team B is good, it's an unacceptable burden on Team A.

Compared to that, playing an unbalanced (non-round-robin) schedule is just the sort of thing that happens sometimes, shrug your shoulders and get over it. Team A wins the division at 7-1, without playing 6-2 Team B in the same division? Yeah, it happens, it's college football.

You can make an argument that they're equally unfair, or even that the second paragraph is MORE unfair. But the first paragraph is Not Done, and the second paragraph is just accepted.

EDIT: The reason i phrased my question like that is, what matters is not whether an unbalanced schedule is "objectively" a sufficient reason to give the AAC a waiver. the question is whether the deciders will SEE it as a sufficient reason.

The thing is that the teams that would play the extra game against one another would rotate, so it's as fair as it can be. There's just as much chance of a pairing that's a mismatch in strength as a one that's equal in strength. Schools already face this sort of thing with interdivisional play -- each school doesn't play all the teams in the opposite division, so some by chance avoid strong teams or weak teams, but if you rotate the matchups every year, it all evens out.

Re: your edit, I wouldn't advocate perpetuating a patent misconception.

(07-18-2019 06:46 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:59 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:56 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  AAC fans trying to toss out this "instability" nonsense

the same fans of a conference that voted no on any CCG changes at all in desperate hope that the Big 12 would take two teams from their own conference that would then try and take two teams from some other conference

now suddenly they just have to get a waiver in the name of conference stability......even though the MWC and MAC have no concerns about losing a member and many in the SunBelt or CUSA would say "bye" to any member that left them

and of course the P5 does not care if G5 conferences raid each other and they are not going to do anything to allow the AAC to do what they either voted against for a reason or they wanted and did not get

We didn't "toss it out". I didn't make this up, this is verbatim what Mike Aresco said. Take it up with him. He doesn't want to be forced to raid CUSA or Sun Belt, just to get to 12 for some arbitrary rule. He doesn't want to drop a member to have even divisions, and he doesn't want to play a 10 game schedule. I've heard this stated by AAC commish like 5-10 times.

Mike Aresco is a stupid idiot. The waiver was for conferences for 10 schools, not 11. AAC will not get the waiver. They need to go to 12, or face issues being rank higher than the MWC for the access bowl. They need 12 teams so that they can play P5 schools.

mike is a stupid idiot (the east coast larry scott), but the rule was bot for conferences with 10 teams it makes no specification for number of teams only how a conference can have a ccg

full round robin and the top two teams or divisions and divisional round robins and the division winners

no mention of number of teams at all

but mike is an idiot for trying to make that argument when the aac voted against any deregulation (boy that stupidity hurts now) thinking it would force the Big 12 to expand (and thus shake up multiple conferences)

(07-18-2019 06:46 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:59 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:56 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  AAC fans trying to toss out this "instability" nonsense

the same fans of a conference that voted no on any CCG changes at all in desperate hope that the Big 12 would take two teams from their own conference that would then try and take two teams from some other conference

now suddenly they just have to get a waiver in the name of conference stability......even though the MWC and MAC have no concerns about losing a member and many in the SunBelt or CUSA would say "bye" to any member that left them

and of course the P5 does not care if G5 conferences raid each other and they are not going to do anything to allow the AAC to do what they either voted against for a reason or they wanted and did not get

We didn't "toss it out". I didn't make this up, this is verbatim what Mike Aresco said. Take it up with him. He doesn't want to be forced to raid CUSA or Sun Belt, just to get to 12 for some arbitrary rule. He doesn't want to drop a member to have even divisions, and he doesn't want to play a 10 game schedule. I've heard this stated by AAC commish like 5-10 times.

Mike Aresco is a stupid idiot. The waiver was for conferences for 10 schools, not 11. AAC will not get the waiver. They need to go to 12, or face issues being rank higher than the MWC for the access bowl. They need 12 teams so that they can play P5 schools.

Lol. This is the most entertaining post of the day.

My solution would be to take Navy out of the west and leave them divisionless. Everyone plays their 4 divisional opponents and 4 non-divisional with Navy playing 4 of each. Then either give two of the division winners or Navy the spots in the conference championship or exclude Navy so they can play Army then. Also I am not sure if they could allow Navy in the championship game based on existing rules. Navy still gets to play half their conference schedule against the west and they may not care about the opportunity to play in the championship game since they may look to avoid playing 14 games in a season.