(08-22-2019 07:00 AM)panite Wrote:  Thought Aresco was contacting the B-10 to get their formula for operating at 11 conference teams after adding Penn State. Personally I would schedule 5 East and 5 West division games with 3 cross overs for a season or two starting in 2020 until a 12th member is taken in to replace UConn. The two highest rated teams at season end can play in the Conference Championship Game. The AAC is going to have to get a temporary waiver for the Championship Game no matter how they approach this situation until they balance the divisions again any way or at least until the NCAA changes the legislation on the Championship Game down the road at some future point in time.

What would be the point of looking at the B1G's schedules for 11 teams? They weren't playing a CCG, so they could do anything they wanted to.

If you look at conference histories, requiring all members to play the same number of games every year is a relatively recent development. AFAIK, there is no rule that requires all teams in a division to play the same number of games. As long as Navy were assured of playing the teams they want to play, I doubt they'd have a problem only playing 7 league games, since they have 3 fixed OOC opponents every year they must accommodate.

Maybe there are others in the AAC who would feel the same. For example, ECU might like the option of scheduling more regional opponents OOC since they don't have anybody all that close to them in the AAC. I'm sure they'd love it if they could get both UNC and NC State on their schedule every year.

In the past, conferences that had members playing different numbers of league games figured out how to determine their champion. Why can't they do that now with their divisions?

(08-22-2019 03:08 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-22-2019 07:00 AM)panite Wrote:  Thought Aresco was contacting the B-10 to get their formula for operating at 11 conference teams after adding Penn State.

What would be the point of looking at the B1G's schedules for 11 teams? They weren't playing a CCG, so they could do anything they wanted to.

Also, it's not like there's a secret formula for scheduling....

add Army, they can play now. Or go ODU if you rather have a full member. That seems like the best idea to me.

I thought it was already decided (well hinted) that they will scrap divisions (with a waiver), have 2 permanent rivals, then rotate the other 6 opponents.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

Crazy idea.



Restart the Wichita State adding football rumors. There's the 12th team without raiding another conference.

(08-25-2019 12:28 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I thought it was already decided (well hinted) that they will scrap divisions (with a waiver), have 2 permanent rivals, then rotate the other 6 opponents.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

That's a can of worms the NCAA would not want to open.

(08-25-2019 01:19 AM)AZcats Wrote:  Crazy idea.



Restart the Wichita State adding football rumors. There's the 12th team without raiding another conference.

It's not a terrible idea for Wichita to revive football, but they'd have to make a pretty sizable investment in the program to go from startup to AAC-level in a short period of time. Also possibly invest in facilities -- I'm not sure what kind of shape Cessna Stadium is in. I don't know if they're willing/able to commit to all that.

However, if this did come to pass, presumably they would be in the West Division and would bump Memphis (not Navy) to the East.

East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, East Carolina, Memphis, South Florida, Temple
West: Houston, Navy*, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Wichita State

The East here is a bit OP relative to the West, though.

Division less is gonna hurt TV ratings
Dumbest idea I ever heard

(08-25-2019 11:25 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Division less is gonna hurt TV ratings
Dumbest idea I ever heard

Do elaborate.

(08-25-2019 04:03 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 11:25 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Division less is gonna hurt TV ratings
Dumbest idea I ever heard

Do elaborate.

I believe his hypothesis is that AAC vs AAC games with good ratings are fueled by division races.
Let's look at the data. The following AAC vs AAC games have drawn two million or more viewers since divisional play in 2015. Those with implications for winning the division are bolded.

2018
UCF Mem (regular) 3.331M*
CCG 3.32 M
Cin UCF 3.09M
USF-HOU 2.350M
2017
USF-UCF 4.644
Conf Championship 3.385
2016
Houston Memphis 3.093
Houston Cincinnati 2.159
CCG 2.050
2015
Navy-Houston 3.055
CCG 2.450

Eleven games over two million viewers. The 2018 Houston-Memphis game on Black Friday was on ABC, but is still listed by sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings as "n.a." : no numbers released by Disney.
Only three were late season, division championship clashes. (Navy had already clinched berth in the CCG in 2016 when Houston and Memphis drew three million viewers.) Of those three, one if not all three (or all four of twelve if you want to argue Houston Memphis in '18 did what a noon Black Friday OTA game should have) will likely be kept as permanent rivalry games in a divisionless setup with two permanent opponents and six rotating opponents.
All will be just as likely to have "top two" implications. Or rather, those games with "top two" implications will be likely to have the same drawing power as games with divisional implications.

Have these 3 games skipped on a three year rotation: SMU-Tulane, Memphis-Navy, Tulsa-Houston. Now all teams have 4 permanent rivals and play the others home and away every 3 years. Here is the rotation of the 2 opponents each team skips from the other division:

East (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3)
USF (Hu-SM) (Nv-Ts) (Tn-Mm)
UCF (SM-Tn) (Ts-Hu) (Mm-Nv)
Cinc (Tn-Mm) (Hu-SM) (Nv-Ts)
Tem (Mm-Nv) (SM-Tn) (Ts-Hu)
ECU (Nv-Ts) (Tn-Mm) (Hu-SM)
West (Ts-Hu) (Mm-Nv) (SM-Tn)

While divisions are kept for year-over-year scheduling, you can still go divisionless for the CCG with the basic waiver and post-facto division assignments. Here are examples using recent division races.

Navy and Houston finish #1 and #2 with the "Year 1" schedule
Move Houston to the East. No West games are skipped and the only East game skipped is USF-Houston. The waiver is satisfied.

Temple and South Florida finish #1 and #2 with the "Year 2" schedule
Switch Navy to the East and USF to the West. USF was the only East team Navy skipped anyway and the only skipped West game is now USF-Tulsa. Waiver satisfied.

UCF and Temple finish #1 and #2 with the "Year 3" schedule
Div A: UCF, USF, Tulsa, Houston, SMU
Div B: Temple, ECU, Navy, Memphis, Tulane
These are both FULL round-robins. Cincinnati skipped 1 team from each division so it doesn't matter where they are placed, that will be the only division game skipped. Waiver satisfied.

Teams vying for a spot in the CCG will play AS EQUAL a schedule with this setup than if they had done a "real" divisionless schedule. Naturally, this process is even easier with only 2 permanent rivals. You just construct a "Year 4" of skipped opponents.

Is it "gaming the system"? I don't think so. The rules are in place to ensure round-robin divisional play, because the NCAA agreed that THAT is what makes division champs legitimate. Just because the AAC has fewer schools and is more flexible does not mean that they are violating the rule or even the spirit of the rule.

Mark Giannotto
@mgiannotto

AAC commissioner Mike Aresco says on Giannotto and Jeffrey
@929espn that the AAC is planning to get rid of divisions in football starting next season. League is applying for a waiver so the football championship game will pit AAC's two best teams.

(08-27-2019 03:19 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Mark Giannotto
@mgiannotto

AAC commissioner Mike Aresco says on Giannotto and Jeffrey
@929espn that the AAC is planning to get rid of divisions in football starting next season. League is applying for a waiver so the football championship game will pit AAC's two best teams.

Based on ESPN promoting the AAC as a power conference now I bet they make it happen.

AAC might get a win-win here if they get to cut the fat and then don’t have to add anyone.

(08-27-2019 03:19 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Mark Giannotto
@mgiannotto

AAC commissioner Mike Aresco says on Giannotto and Jeffrey
@929espn that the AAC is planning to get rid of divisions in football starting next season. League is applying for a waiver so the football championship game will pit AAC's two best teams.

Can't see that being approved, as it's a back door to end Divisions without a formal decision. Certainly the SEC and B12 would be against it. CUSA, SBC and ACC would want the same waiver, the B1G would probably as well. That's too many potential exceptions, and the waiver would be seen as special treatment, something the B1G objected to with the ACC.

I'm dead certain option #4 will be the waiver they get. But the P5 will speed up the discussion on ending divisions, which I think they will. But they are not going to open Pandora's Box via waivers.

(08-27-2019 04:16 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 03:19 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Mark Giannotto
@mgiannotto

AAC commissioner Mike Aresco says on Giannotto and Jeffrey
@929espn that the AAC is planning to get rid of divisions in football starting next season. League is applying for a waiver so the football championship game will pit AAC's two best teams.

Can't see that being approved, as it's a back door to end Divisions without a formal decision. Certainly the SEC and B12 would be against it. CUSA, SBC and ACC would want the same waiver, the B1G would probably as well. That's too many potential exceptions, and the waiver would be seen as special treatment, something the B1G objected to with the ACC.

I'm dead certain option #4 will be the waiver they get. But the P5 will speed up the discussion on ending divisions, which I think they will. But they are not going to open Pandora's Box via waivers.

My guess, I think he is trying to get the waiver now and force the other FBS conferences to vote for the change.

AAC can do the uneven divisions. I really think he should have brought it up to a vote with the FBS conferences. I think it would have passed taking effect in 2021 and the NCAA then give the AAC a waiver for 2020. If the NCAA comes back with a no, the AAC is screwed.

Perhaps Aresco is making the big ask (waiver for Option 5), knowing he will in all likelihood not get it, to make the realistic ask (waiver for Option 4) seem like less of a big deal. Divisionless would be preferable, so I guess this strategy doesn't hurt. And it does stoke the fire a bit, to help eventually get the P5 on board, which would actually result in change.

(08-25-2019 07:12 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:28 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I thought it was already decided (well hinted) that they will scrap divisions (with a waiver), have 2 permanent rivals, then rotate the other 6 opponents.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

That's a can of worms the NCAA would not want to open.

Would the NCAA prefer to cause another round of conference realignment musical chairs?

(08-27-2019 06:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 07:12 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:28 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I thought it was already decided (well hinted) that they will scrap divisions (with a waiver), have 2 permanent rivals, then rotate the other 6 opponents.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

That's a can of worms the NCAA would not want to open.

Would the NCAA prefer to cause another round of conference realignment musical chairs?

Why should they care about that? Who would the AAC add, realistically? Army? BYU? ODU? The first two have minimal effect of further realignment. If CUSA loses someone they have any number of options. Stay put for a year or two. Maybe add someone from the Sun Belt. Or even NMSU (doubtful). If NMSU moves that would definitely cause some chaos. The other scenarios aren’t as bad as some of you think.

(08-27-2019 06:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 07:12 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:28 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I thought it was already decided (well hinted) that they will scrap divisions (with a waiver), have 2 permanent rivals, then rotate the other 6 opponents.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

That's a can of worms the NCAA would not want to open.

Would the NCAA prefer to cause another round of conference realignment musical chairs?

The NCAA isn't causing anything here. The AAC has at least 3 reasonable options for how to play a CCG with 11 teams under the current rules, plus at least one more (Option 4) that the NCAA has permitted waivers for in the past. If the AAC were to add a school just to get back to 12, it wouldn't really induce much change. Likely just a minor one-for-one cascade that would peter out in FCS at furthest.

The can of worms I refer to is deregulation of CCGs, which would certainly cause much more change. If the NCAA gives a waiver to the AAC for a divisionless CCG without round-robin play, the ACC and Big Ten will want waivers too, and perhaps some other conferences. On what grounds could the NCAA deny them? And if you're waiving that many instances of rule violations, that undermines the NCAA's authority. So then the NCAA makes a rule change, but a rule change in favor of deregulation further undermines their authority. This is why the AAC is not likely to receive a waiver for Option 5. Divisionless CCGs without round-robin play may well come, but it will be via the P5 exercising their autonomy, not via NCAA-prompted rule change.

(08-25-2019 11:14 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Have these 3 games skipped on a three year rotation: SMU-Tulane, Memphis-Navy, Tulsa-Houston. Now all teams have 4 permanent rivals and play the others home and away every 3 years. Here is the rotation of the 2 opponents each team skips from the other division:

East (Year 1) (Year 2) (Year 3)
USF (Hu-SM) (Nv-Ts) (Tn-Mm)
UCF (SM-Tn) (Ts-Hu) (Mm-Nv)
Cinc (Tn-Mm) (Hu-SM) (Nv-Ts)
Tem (Mm-Nv) (SM-Tn) (Ts-Hu)
ECU (Nv-Ts) (Tn-Mm) (Hu-SM)
West (Ts-Hu) (Mm-Nv) (SM-Tn)

While divisions are kept for year-over-year scheduling, you can still go divisionless for the CCG with the basic waiver and post-facto division assignments. Here are examples using recent division races.

Navy and Houston finish #1 and #2 with the "Year 1" schedule
Move Houston to the East. No West games are skipped and the only East game skipped is USF-Houston. The waiver is satisfied.

Temple and South Florida finish #1 and #2 with the "Year 2" schedule
Switch Navy to the East and USF to the West. USF was the only East team Navy skipped anyway and the only skipped West game is now USF-Tulsa. Waiver satisfied.

UCF and Temple finish #1 and #2 with the "Year 3" schedule
Div A: UCF, USF, Tulsa, Houston, SMU
Div B: Temple, ECU, Navy, Memphis, Tulane
These are both FULL round-robins. Cincinnati skipped 1 team from each division so it doesn't matter where they are placed, that will be the only division game skipped. Waiver satisfied.

Teams vying for a spot in the CCG will play AS EQUAL a schedule with this setup than if they had done a "real" divisionless schedule. Naturally, this process is even easier with only 2 permanent rivals. You just construct a "Year 4" of skipped opponents.

Is it "gaming the system"? I don't think so. The rules are in place to ensure round-robin divisional play, because the NCAA agreed that THAT is what makes division champs legitimate. Just because the AAC has fewer schools and is more flexible does not mean that they are violating the rule or even the spirit of the rule.

Good work figuring this out, but I think it certainly violates the spirit of the rule, albeit not the current letter of it. If the NCAA grants the AAC the waiver for Option 4 and they proceed to schedule like this, I imagine there would either be (1) a revoking of the waiver or (2) some quick amending of the rule that would formally put the kibosh on the ex post facto division plan.