To those programs wanting to join this league

You're on the clock

(10-19-2019 05:53 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:33 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Don't act like you didn't know. Apology not accepted.

I really didn’t. I don’t ever troll on here but believe what you want.

Only 6 more months to go until HuskyU is put out to pasture. I've heard that his replacement is much more stable.

Hahaha

(10-19-2019 05:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:53 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:33 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Don't act like you didn't know. Apology not accepted.

I really didn’t. I don’t ever troll on here but believe what you want.

Only 6 more months to go until HuskyU is put out to pasture. I've heard that his replacement is much more stable.

I sincerely hope you stay. I think your admin killed football, but I personally like you.

(10-19-2019 06:03 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:53 PM)cotton1991 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:33 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:24 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Don't act like you didn't know. Apology not accepted.

I really didn’t. I don’t ever troll on here but believe what you want.

Only 6 more months to go until HuskyU is put out to pasture. I've heard that his replacement is much more stable.

I sincerely hope you stay. I think your admin killed football, but I personally like you.

A hard NO for huskyu to stay unless of course she/he is part of the cleaning crew... Hehe

(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So what happens in 2022?

Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?

Let's consider these one by one, with the order rearranged:

a. Apply for another waiver? Unlikely.

The NCAA made a special exception for two years to give the AAC enough time to come up with a lasting solution. They decided that two years is enough time for the AAC to find a lasting solution, and the AAC may well have promised such a solution in order to get the special and exceptional waiver.

Within two years, three types of lasting solutions are permitted: Play a full round robin schedule, have two divisions with 5 and 6 members, or add a new member. A round robin schedule is least preferred but possible by dropping the FCS game. Two divisions of 5 and 6 might be somewhat complicated to schedule, but would be eminently possible to arrange. Adding a new member might be most satisfactory solution.

b. Drop a team? Extremely unlikely.

The only way to shrink to 10 members would be to persuade a current member to leave. There is no legal way to force a member out if they maintain an FBS program and meet the minimum requirements of the conference as set forth in their existing contract.

Moreover, there is no requirement to drop a team. A better option is to play with 5 and 6 member divisions. Playing a full round robin schedule with 11 teams is another, but less attractive alternative (although the AAC could do so by dropping the FCS game.

c. Add a team? Very likely.

While the two preferred FB only additions (BYU, Army) may be out of the picture, there are close to half a dozen universities that would add solid FB programs, perhaps 2-3 for all sports, and half a dozen very good BB/olympic sports universities. The options are reminiscent of a Chinese menu; i.e., no shortage of options. The selection can take place in as little as a year, with all the details ironed out within 2 years.

d. Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver? Somewhat unlikely.

The NCAA would resist approving such a rule change, unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless put under strong pressure to do so).

They've already considered the options regarding conference championships in detail and permitted the existing options. Why they opposed complete deregulation of conference championships may not be entirely clear, but it was probably done to avoid the kinds of difficulties that could arise by having unequal and unfair championship arrangements.

Even if division less play is approved, I expect that there will be a requirement for a minimum of 12 members in a conference to do it. That way the P5 covers themselves but doesn't make an exception for the AAC. The other conferences expanded to get the championship game. Even the Big 12 did it before all the defections. Don't get your hopes up that the P5 will do anything to benefit you over them.

(10-19-2019 07:49 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So what happens in 2022?

Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?

Let's consider these one by one, with the order rearranged:

a. Apply for another waiver? Unlikely.

The NCAA made a special exception for two years to give the AAC enough time to come up with a lasting solution. They decided that two years is enough time for the AAC to find a lasting solution, and the AAC may well have promised such a solution in order to get the special and exceptional waiver.

Within two years, three types of lasting solutions are permitted: Play a full round robin schedule, have two divisions with 5 and 6 members, or add a new member. A round robin schedule is least preferred but possible by dropping the FCS game. Two divisions of 5 and 6 might be somewhat complicated to schedule, but would be eminently possible to arrange. Adding a new member might be most satisfactory solution.

b. Drop a team? Extremely unlikely.

The only way to shrink to 10 members would be to persuade a current member to leave. There is no legal way to force a member out if they maintain an FBS program and meet the minimum requirements of the conference as set forth in their existing contract.

Moreover, there is no requirement to drop a team. A better option is to play with 5 and 6 member divisions. Playing a full round robin schedule with 11 teams is another, but less attractive alternative (although the AAC could do so by dropping the FCS game.

c. Add a team? Very likely.

While the two preferred FB only additions (BYU, Army) may be out of the picture, there are close to half a dozen universities that would add solid FB programs, perhaps 2-3 for all sports, and half a dozen very good BB/olympic sports universities. The options are reminiscent of a Chinese menu; i.e., no shortage of options. The selection can take place in as little as a year, with all the details ironed out within 2 years.

d. Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver? Somewhat unlikely.

The NCAA would resist approving such a rule change, unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless put under strong pressure to do so).

They've already considered the options regarding conference championships in detail and permitted the existing options. Why they opposed complete deregulation of conference championships may not be entirely clear, but it was probably done to avoid the kinds of difficulties that could arise by having unequal and unfair championship arrangements.

Not impressed by Army...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-19-2019 05:58 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  To those programs wanting to join this league

You're on the clock

Anyone not named Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, or West Virginia need not apply...

The narrative certainly has changed since Aresco was promoting "permanent" rivals.

Two years ain't permanent.

(10-20-2019 01:42 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 05:58 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  To those programs wanting to join this league

You're on the clock

Anyone not named Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, or West Virginia need not apply...

You lead an amazing fantasy life.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So what happens in 2022?

Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?

To early to worry about it if it is true. Worry about UH getting better before then.

(10-19-2019 07:49 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So what happens in 2022?

Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?

Let's consider these one by one, with the order rearranged:

a. Apply for another waiver? Unlikely.

The NCAA made a special exception for two years to give the AAC enough time to come up with a lasting solution. They decided that two years is enough time for the AAC to find a lasting solution, and the AAC may well have promised such a solution in order to get the special and exceptional waiver.

Within two years, three types of lasting solutions are permitted: Play a full round robin schedule, have two divisions with 5 and 6 members, or add a new member. A round robin schedule is least preferred but possible by dropping the FCS game. Two divisions of 5 and 6 might be somewhat complicated to schedule, but would be eminently possible to arrange. Adding a new member might be most satisfactory solution.

b. Drop a team? Extremely unlikely.

The only way to shrink to 10 members would be to persuade a current member to leave. There is no legal way to force a member out if they maintain an FBS program and meet the minimum requirements of the conference as set forth in their existing contract.

Moreover, there is no requirement to drop a team. A better option is to play with 5 and 6 member divisions. Playing a full round robin schedule with 11 teams is another, but less attractive alternative (although the AAC could do so by dropping the FCS game.

c. Add a team? Very likely.

While the two preferred FB only additions (BYU, Army) may be out of the picture, there are close to half a dozen universities that would add solid FB programs, perhaps 2-3 for all sports, and half a dozen very good BB/olympic sports universities. The options are reminiscent of a Chinese menu; i.e., no shortage of options. The selection can take place in as little as a year, with all the details ironed out within 2 years.

d. Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver? Somewhat unlikely.

The NCAA would resist approving such a rule change, unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless put under strong pressure to do so).

They've already considered the options regarding conference championships in detail and permitted the existing options. Why they opposed complete deregulation of conference championships may not be entirely clear, but it was probably done to avoid the kinds of difficulties that could arise by having unequal and unfair championship arrangements.

By the way, who pays for the NCAA.

(10-20-2019 09:43 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 07:49 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So what happens in 2022?

Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?

Let's consider these one by one, with the order rearranged:

a. Apply for another waiver? Unlikely.

The NCAA made a special exception for two years to give the AAC enough time to come up with a lasting solution. They decided that two years is enough time for the AAC to find a lasting solution, and the AAC may well have promised such a solution in order to get the special and exceptional waiver.

Within two years, three types of lasting solutions are permitted: Play a full round robin schedule, have two divisions with 5 and 6 members, or add a new member. A round robin schedule is least preferred but possible by dropping the FCS game. Two divisions of 5 and 6 might be somewhat complicated to schedule, but would be eminently possible to arrange. Adding a new member might be most satisfactory solution.

b. Drop a team? Extremely unlikely.

The only way to shrink to 10 members would be to persuade a current member to leave. There is no legal way to force a member out if they maintain an FBS program and meet the minimum requirements of the conference as set forth in their existing contract.

Moreover, there is no requirement to drop a team. A better option is to play with 5 and 6 member divisions. Playing a full round robin schedule with 11 teams is another, but less attractive alternative (although the AAC could do so by dropping the FCS game.

c. Add a team? Very likely.

While the two preferred FB only additions (BYU, Army) may be out of the picture, there are close to half a dozen universities that would add solid FB programs, perhaps 2-3 for all sports, and half a dozen very good BB/olympic sports universities. The options are reminiscent of a Chinese menu; i.e., no shortage of options. The selection can take place in as little as a year, with all the details ironed out within 2 years.

d. Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver? Somewhat unlikely.

The NCAA would resist approving such a rule change, unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless put under strong pressure to do so).

They've already considered the options regarding conference championships in detail and permitted the existing options. Why they opposed complete deregulation of conference championships may not be entirely clear, but it was probably done to avoid the kinds of difficulties that could arise by having unequal and unfair championship arrangements.

By the way, who pays for the NCAA.

I laugh at the P5 schools that ***** about the NCAA. They have total control over that entity.

That is why I will think positive for a rule change. It is unlikely, but I can hope.

OT. I am hoping to see the SMU game this weekend ( live in Spring). SMU is playing really well this year.

(10-20-2019 10:51 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  That is why I will think positive for a rule change. It is unlikely, but I can hope.

OT. I am hoping to see the SMU game this weekend ( live in Spring). SMU is playing really well this year.

Game is Thursday

(10-20-2019 11:10 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 10:51 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  That is why I will think positive for a rule change. It is unlikely, but I can hope.

OT. I am hoping to see the SMU game this weekend ( live in Spring). SMU is playing really well this year.

Game is Thursday

Dam. I work nights during the week. I will seriously think about taking the night off. I have the time.

(10-19-2019 07:49 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So what happens in 2022?

Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?

Let's consider these one by one, with the order rearranged:

a. Apply for another waiver? Unlikely.

The NCAA made a special exception for two years to give the AAC enough time to come up with a lasting solution. They decided that two years is enough time for the AAC to find a lasting solution, and the AAC may well have promised such a solution in order to get the special and exceptional waiver.

Within two years, three types of lasting solutions are permitted: Play a full round robin schedule, have two divisions with 5 and 6 members, or add a new member. A round robin schedule is least preferred but possible by dropping the FCS game. Two divisions of 5 and 6 might be somewhat complicated to schedule, but would be eminently possible to arrange. Adding a new member might be most satisfactory solution.

b. Drop a team? Extremely unlikely.

The only way to shrink to 10 members would be to persuade a current member to leave. There is no legal way to force a member out if they maintain an FBS program and meet the minimum requirements of the conference as set forth in their existing contract.

Moreover, there is no requirement to drop a team. A better option is to play with 5 and 6 member divisions. Playing a full round robin schedule with 11 teams is another, but less attractive alternative (although the AAC could do so by dropping the FCS game.

c. Add a team? Very likely.

While the two preferred FB only additions (BYU, Army) may be out of the picture, there are close to half a dozen universities that would add solid FB programs, perhaps 2-3 for all sports, and half a dozen very good BB/olympic sports universities. The options are reminiscent of a Chinese menu; i.e., no shortage of options. The selection can take place in as little as a year, with all the details ironed out within 2 years.

d. Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver? [b]Somewhat unlikely.

The NCAA would resist approving such a rule change, unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless put under strong pressure to do so).[/b]

They've already considered the options regarding conference championships in detail and permitted the existing options. Why they opposed complete deregulation of conference championships may not be entirely clear, but it was probably done to avoid the kinds of difficulties that could arise by having unequal and unfair championship arrangements.

I would have agreed a week ago. I thought the chances of the AAC getting a divisionless waiver was about zero.

The fact they gave the AAC that waiver makes me think there is a very good chance that there is significant support for a rule change allowing conferences with 10+ members the ability to have a divisionless CCG with only an 8 game schedule. I mean, think about it---the same body that found the AAC waiver reasonable is the same body that would be voting on a similar rule change.

Yeah but the waiver is specifically a temporary response to the unplanned departure of a conference member.

(10-21-2019 12:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 07:49 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  So what happens in 2022?

Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?

Let's consider these one by one, with the order rearranged:

a. Apply for another waiver? Unlikely.

The NCAA made a special exception for two years to give the AAC enough time to come up with a lasting solution. They decided that two years is enough time for the AAC to find a lasting solution, and the AAC may well have promised such a solution in order to get the special and exceptional waiver.

Within two years, three types of lasting solutions are permitted: Play a full round robin schedule, have two divisions with 5 and 6 members, or add a new member. A round robin schedule is least preferred but possible by dropping the FCS game. Two divisions of 5 and 6 might be somewhat complicated to schedule, but would be eminently possible to arrange. Adding a new member might be most satisfactory solution.

b. Drop a team? Extremely unlikely.

The only way to shrink to 10 members would be to persuade a current member to leave. There is no legal way to force a member out if they maintain an FBS program and meet the minimum requirements of the conference as set forth in their existing contract.

Moreover, there is no requirement to drop a team. A better option is to play with 5 and 6 member divisions. Playing a full round robin schedule with 11 teams is another, but less attractive alternative (although the AAC could do so by dropping the FCS game.

c. Add a team? Very likely.

While the two preferred FB only additions (BYU, Army) may be out of the picture, there are close to half a dozen universities that would add solid FB programs, perhaps 2-3 for all sports, and half a dozen very good BB/olympic sports universities. The options are reminiscent of a Chinese menu; i.e., no shortage of options. The selection can take place in as little as a year, with all the details ironed out within 2 years.

d. Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver? [b]Somewhat unlikely.

The NCAA would resist approving such a rule change, unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless put under strong pressure to do so).[/b]

They've already considered the options regarding conference championships in detail and permitted the existing options. Why they opposed complete deregulation of conference championships may not be entirely clear, but it was probably done to avoid the kinds of difficulties that could arise by having unequal and unfair championship arrangements.

I would have agreed a week ago. I thought the chances of the AAC getting a divisionless waiver was about zero.

The fact they gave the AAC that waiver makes me think there is a very good chance that there is significant support for a rule change allowing conferences with 10+ members the ability to have a divisionless CCG with only an 8 game schedule. I mean, think about it---the same body that found the AAC waiver reasonable is the same body that would be voting on a similar rule change.

Triple A pointed out the NCAA rejected a similar request by the ACC only a few years ago. No one understands the arbitrary and capricious nature of the NCAA more than Tiger fans, but precedence does not favor a rule change.

It looks like we will be forced to add a member - at least for football.

AAC not keeping division next 2 yrs
I didn't see conf could go divisionless