(10-22-2019 11:36 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 04:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  It takes 2 years in some cases to leave a conference with no penalty. They need to line a 12th up soon.

True, but when's the last time someone actually waited the full period to avoid a penalty?

Nobody has waited out a 2 year period. But most of the moves have given 12 months notice. That's a common notice requirement--either 12 months notice as an "ironclad" requirement (at least on paper), or you pay a lot more exit fee if you give less than 12 months notice.

So if the AAC does need a 12th on July 1, 2022, they probably need to invite in the spring of 2021. Later than that, you need someone to jailbreak their bylaws, and negotiate who pays the tab.

So that gives about 18 months to figure out if you can get a rule change, if you can get Air Force at $7M a year, if you take another CUSA school, or a wildcard like James Madison.

That makes sense. And IMO, 18 months is a significant amount of time, so no "rush" needed.

(10-22-2019 11:30 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 05:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The AAC will first find out if they can push through a rule change. Obviously, the conference has already looked at the available interested candidates and has judged them all to be dilutive (otherwise, they would have simply added a team that adds value).

That said, I suspect they already know the school (or schools in the case of a split invite) that would be the least dilutive. Thus, before adding the current least dilutive team (or teams), they are going to do everything they can to avoid adding a dilutive 12th member.

How do you define dilutive? That the TV would be smaller than the deal was with UConn? I don't think that's right.

Now if you mean that each of the remaining school's shares will be smaller than they will be WITHOUT UConn, that's another matter. ESPN may be pressing for more inventory in order to make the $7M payments.

Also, it's quite expensive to change conferences or change independent schedules on short notice. Perhaps the reason for the 2-year waiver is to allow teams time to give the proper notices.... If so, then not adding a school today says nothing about dilution.

The presidents will define dilutive--not me. My point is, if there was a school they felt was an overall "positive" for the conference---they would have added the school rather than engage in this waiver request and push to change the divisionless CCG rules. As for the possibility that they have a new member, but that member needs more time to set up the move, I would remind you that Navy was announced 4 years before they actually joined. I would think announcing the replacement and the time line would have made getting the waiver easier and that waiver probably would have magically matched the exact amount of time needed. Furthermore, why would Aresco expend political capital pushing for a permanent rule change you know you don't actually need?

(10-22-2019 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 06:43 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  The MAC one year had a 6 / 7 uneven division lineup.

8 years. Temple was the 13th from 2007-11, UMass was the 13th from 2011-15.

11, in fact (1999-2001).

(10-22-2019 09:51 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 06:43 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  The MAC one year had a 6 / 7 uneven division lineup.

8 years. Temple was the 13th from 2007-11, UMass was the 13th from 2011-15.

11, in fact (1999-2001).

Wut?

(10-23-2019 05:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 09:51 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 06:43 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  The MAC one year had a 6 / 7 uneven division lineup.

8 years. Temple was the 13th from 2007-11, UMass was the 13th from 2011-15.

11, in fact (1999-2001).

Wut?

The MAC has spent 11 total seasons with 13 football teams in divisions of 6 and 7. The first 3 were from 1999-2001. See here: https://csnbbs.com/thread-881008-post-16...id16264462

Correction: 12!

1999, 2000, 2001, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015

If the AAC can't get a rule change to have a division-less championship permanently, and none of the obvious suspects will say yes for me the best option would be App State FB only. Then either say at 11 for hoops (since that really doesn't cause any huge issues scheduling wise) or you can consider VCU for all sports minus football.

(10-22-2019 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 06:43 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  I agree. The NCAA is not going to let the AAC sit on 11 team lineup indefinitely, at all.

At all just happened. Indefinitely is now the question.

Right. Instead of assuming the AAC wants to spend two years looking for a 12th football team, IMO we should assume the AAC wants the NCAA to get around to a rule change in the next two years that would mean the AAC doesn't have to make any additions.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Any speculation on #12 presupposes that the AAC cant build a coalition for a rule change. I suspect that if the AAC partners with the ACC, Big10, and G5---to write a divisionless CCG rule they all agree with---the AAC can probably get something passed.

I think that's going to be easier said than done.....

Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

Maybe the Big Ten's thinking has changed on this (see some of Jim Delany's comments last year when Ohio State got shut out of the playoff), but the point is that the league very actively didn't want the rule change not very long ago.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Big Ten is correct here: I personally think just taking the top two schools from a 14-team Big Ten as opposed to having divisions would be fantastic. However, we have to go by with how very actively the Big Ten fought against that format previously... and this wasn't simply a passive disapproval, but a true explicit fight against it. That's what anyone that wants to change the rules going forward is going to go up against.

(10-22-2019 11:44 AM)Shox Wrote:  The SEC will pressure the other conferences to vote no on Divisonless CCG and with an 8 team playoff coming, the need for it is diminished as there will be a minimum of 2 at larges available. The AAC needs to add Air Force Football only, Boise, BYU, and Colorado State ASAP. If that format works then they can bring on UNLV and SDSU at some point. Throw in a scheduling agreement of some sorts with Army like Notre Dame has and we will get an autobid to the 8 team team CFP. It would be a far flung conference but what's the alternative, not be in the P6? The American schools will be thrilled with the opportunity and will gladly pay and endure the travel expense.

With 6 autobids and two at large it works perfectly. Throw the G4 a carrot giving them an at large if they finish in the CFP poll top 8. It would be almost impossible to do though with the strength of an expanded American and the deep pool of P6 blue bloods.

You could pick any combination of schools from the G5 to add to the AAC and it still wouldn't result in power conference status. It simply won't happen and, even on the off-chance that it comes close to happening, the most valuable parts will then be picked off by one of the P5 leagues (just as what happened with Big East football and the MWC in the BCS era). That's just the reality.

An auto-bid for the best G5 champ in an 8-team playoff (similar to the access bowl slot today), though, is certainly possible. There just isn't going to be a P6/G4 delineation no matter how much some fans may wish for it to exist.

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

I am taking that into account, but that was also a big reason I didn't think that Aresco was going to get the 11-team no-divisions waiver AT ALL. The logical outcome of "Big Ten says no" would have been to give the AAC the MAC/UAB waiver, for 5-and-6 rather than 6-and-7.

Quote:Maybe the Big Ten's thinking has changed on this (see some of Jim Delany's comments last year when Ohio State got shut out of the playoff), but the point is that the league very actively didn't want the rule change not very long ago.

Or maybe the Big Ten (for inscrutable reasons) is very much against the ACC playing divisionless, but doesn't give a rip what the G5 leagues do.

Quote:To be clear, I'm not saying the Big Ten is correct here: I personally think just taking the top two schools from a 14-team Big Ten as opposed to having divisions would be fantastic. However, we have to go by with how very actively the Big Ten fought against that format previously... and this wasn't simply a passive disapproval, but a true explicit fight against it. That's what anyone that wants to change the rules going forward is going to go up against.

I think the likely outcomes are:
1. AAC waiver gets extended "temporarily" for 2 years at at time until there is a shift in the landscape. No divisionless ACC though.
2. The rule is changed. (What exactly the new rule looks like, I don't know. Either the Big Ten has a change of heart/leadership and approves a free-for-all, or they write some baroque rule that allows AAC to be divisionless, but not ACC)

I don't think, over the next year-and-a-half as Aresco pushes for the rule change, there is going to be much sentiment to force the AAC to pick a 12th team. So either the rule gets rewritten, or the temporary waiver gets extended. And once it gets extended, it's basically a permanent fixture.

(10-23-2019 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

I am taking that into account, but that was also a big reason I didn't think that Aresco was going to get the 11-team no-divisions waiver AT ALL. The logical outcome of "Big Ten says no" would have been to give the AAC the MAC/UAB waiver, for 5-and-6 rather than 6-and-7.

Is there actually a waiver needed to have the uneven division numbers? I thought the rules on that were just simply you have to play every team in your division. That would certainly be possible to accomplish, albeit in a funky way with a 5-6 division structure.

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

Doesn't read like a waiver for that would be needed at all

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  At all just happened. Indefinitely is now the question.

Right. Instead of assuming the AAC wants to spend two years looking for a 12th football team, IMO we should assume the AAC wants the NCAA to get around to a rule change in the next two years that would mean the AAC doesn't have to make any additions.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Any speculation on #12 presupposes that the AAC cant build a coalition for a rule change. I suspect that if the AAC partners with the ACC, Big10, and G5---to write a divisionless CCG rule they all agree with---the AAC can probably get something passed.

I think that's going to be easier said than done.....

Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

Maybe the Big Ten's thinking has changed on this (see some of Jim Delany's comments last year when Ohio State got shut out of the playoff), but the point is that the league very actively didn't want the rule change not very long ago.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Big Ten is correct here: I personally think just taking the top two schools from a 14-team Big Ten as opposed to having divisions would be fantastic. However, we have to go by with how very actively the Big Ten fought against that format previously... and this wasn't simply a passive disapproval, but a true explicit fight against it. That's what anyone that wants to change the rules going forward is going to go up against.

I think Delany's comments here indicate that the Big10 has CLEARLY had a change of heart. Now, that doesnt mean that the Big10 is going to get rid of divisions---but it certainly indicates the Big10 would be open to a rule that gives them that option. The devil would be in the details. Thats why I say it would be much easier to bring the parties together to craft the rule and THEN submit it. That way, a coalition capable of getting it passed is already formed before the proposal is ever submitted.

I heard two separate interviews with CFB writers on the subject this week. One was with Barrett Sallee and another with an ESPN guy (didn’t catch the name). Both said that they think a rule change is coming sooner rather than later. IDK if they are just speculating or repeating what they hear according to sources. But, both mentioned it in conjunction with playoff expansion and guaranteed spots for conference champions. May not mean a thing, just found it interesting.

(10-23-2019 01:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:44 AM)Shox Wrote:  The SEC will pressure the other conferences to vote no on Divisonless CCG and with an 8 team playoff coming, the need for it is diminished as there will be a minimum of 2 at larges available. The AAC needs to add Air Force Football only, Boise, BYU, and Colorado State ASAP. If that format works then they can bring on UNLV and SDSU at some point. Throw in a scheduling agreement of some sorts with Army like Notre Dame has and we will get an autobid to the 8 team team CFP. It would be a far flung conference but what's the alternative, not be in the P6? The American schools will be thrilled with the opportunity and will gladly pay and endure the travel expense.

With 6 autobids and two at large it works perfectly. Throw the G4 a carrot giving them an at large if they finish in the CFP poll top 8. It would be almost impossible to do though with the strength of an expanded American and the deep pool of P6 blue bloods.

You could pick any combination of schools from the G5 to add to the AAC and it still wouldn't result in power conference status. It simply won't happen and, even on the off-chance that it comes close to happening, the most valuable parts will then be picked off by one of the P5 leagues (just as what happened with Big East football and the MWC in the BCS era). That's just the reality.

An auto-bid for the best G5 champ in an 8-team playoff (similar to the access bowl slot today), though, is certainly possible. There just isn't going to be a P6/G4 delineation no matter how much some fans may wish for it to exist.

I dont know about that. It kinda depends on definition of a power conference. Lets say the AAC put together a group of teams worth 20 million a team (not happening, Im just making a point). Twenty million a team would be reasonably P5-ish. But the reality is a school that only adds 20 million in media value would still be dilutive to every single P5 payout---so I dont know if there would be any big rush to raid the AAC. The truth is, power conference payouts are so high that it would pretty much require a Texas/Oklahoma media value school to make P5 expansion economics work.

(10-23-2019 01:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

I am taking that into account, but that was also a big reason I didn't think that Aresco was going to get the 11-team no-divisions waiver AT ALL. The logical outcome of "Big Ten says no" would have been to give the AAC the MAC/UAB waiver, for 5-and-6 rather than 6-and-7.

Is there actually a waiver needed to have the uneven division numbers? I thought the rules on that were just simply you have to play every team in your division. That would certainly be possible to accomplish, albeit in a funky way with a 5-6 division structure.

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

Doesn't read like a waiver for that would be needed at all

No waiver is really needed---But you'd have to have team that play the same team twice in one year in order to make it work.

(10-23-2019 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Right. Instead of assuming the AAC wants to spend two years looking for a 12th football team, IMO we should assume the AAC wants the NCAA to get around to a rule change in the next two years that would mean the AAC doesn't have to make any additions.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Any speculation on #12 presupposes that the AAC cant build a coalition for a rule change. I suspect that if the AAC partners with the ACC, Big10, and G5---to write a divisionless CCG rule they all agree with---the AAC can probably get something passed.

I think that's going to be easier said than done.....

Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

Maybe the Big Ten's thinking has changed on this (see some of Jim Delany's comments last year when Ohio State got shut out of the playoff), but the point is that the league very actively didn't want the rule change not very long ago.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Big Ten is correct here: I personally think just taking the top two schools from a 14-team Big Ten as opposed to having divisions would be fantastic. However, we have to go by with how very actively the Big Ten fought against that format previously... and this wasn't simply a passive disapproval, but a true explicit fight against it. That's what anyone that wants to change the rules going forward is going to go up against.

I think Delany's comments here indicate that the Big10 has CLEARLY had a change of heart. Now, that doesnt mean that the Big10 is going to get rid of divisions---but it certainly indicates the Big10 would be open to a rule that gives them that option. The devil would be in the details.

It would. Last time, the Big Ten wanted the new rule to accommodate the Big 12 but not the ACC. There are many ways the Big Ten could say they support a rule change, but only one that would make things difficult for the ACC. For example, the Big Ten could say they will vote for a rule that allows a CCG without a round robin only if each team in the conference plays at least 9 conference games per season.

(10-23-2019 01:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If the AAC can't get a rule change to have a division-less championship permanently, and none of the obvious suspects will say yes for me the best option would be App State FB only. Then either say at 11 for hoops (since that really doesn't cause any huge issues scheduling wise) or you can consider VCU for all sports minus football.

To me, if the AAC can't get the rule changed, the best option would be to just have unbalanced divisions, with one pair of teams playing each other twice, on a rotating basis.

IMO, that is better than adding another mouth to feed that doesn't add value.

(10-23-2019 03:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-22-2019 11:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  ^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Any speculation on #12 presupposes that the AAC cant build a coalition for a rule change. I suspect that if the AAC partners with the ACC, Big10, and G5---to write a divisionless CCG rule they all agree with---the AAC can probably get something passed.

I think that's going to be easier said than done.....

Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

Maybe the Big Ten's thinking has changed on this (see some of Jim Delany's comments last year when Ohio State got shut out of the playoff), but the point is that the league very actively didn't want the rule change not very long ago.

To be clear, I'm not saying the Big Ten is correct here: I personally think just taking the top two schools from a 14-team Big Ten as opposed to having divisions would be fantastic. However, we have to go by with how very actively the Big Ten fought against that format previously... and this wasn't simply a passive disapproval, but a true explicit fight against it. That's what anyone that wants to change the rules going forward is going to go up against.

I think Delany's comments here indicate that the Big10 has CLEARLY had a change of heart. Now, that doesnt mean that the Big10 is going to get rid of divisions---but it certainly indicates the Big10 would be open to a rule that gives them that option. The devil would be in the details.

It would. Last time, the Big Ten wanted the new rule to accommodate the Big 12 but not the ACC. There are many ways the Big Ten could say they support a rule change, but only one that would make things difficult for the ACC. For example, the Big Ten could say they will vote for a rule that allows a CCG without a round robin only if each team in the conference plays at least 9 conference games per season.

I largely agree—but would phrase it a bit differently. It doesn’t have to be hard on the ACC—it just needs to be written in a manner that gives the ACC no significant advantage.

(10-23-2019 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If the AAC can't get a rule change to have a division-less championship permanently, and none of the obvious suspects will say yes for me the best option would be App State FB only. Then either say at 11 for hoops (since that really doesn't cause any huge issues scheduling wise) or you can consider VCU for all sports minus football.

To me, if the AAC can't get the rule changed, the best option would be to just have unbalanced divisions, with one pair of teams playing each other twice, on a rotating basis.

IMO, that is better than adding another mouth to feed that doesn't add value.

USFFan

(10-23-2019 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

I am taking that into account, but that was also a big reason I didn't think that Aresco was going to get the 11-team no-divisions waiver AT ALL. The logical outcome of "Big Ten says no" would have been to give the AAC the MAC/UAB waiver, for 5-and-6 rather than 6-and-7.

Quote:Maybe the Big Ten's thinking has changed on this (see some of Jim Delany's comments last year when Ohio State got shut out of the playoff), but the point is that the league very actively didn't want the rule change not very long ago.

Or maybe the Big Ten (for inscrutable reasons) is very much against the ACC playing divisionless, but doesn't give a rip what the G5 leagues do.

Quote:To be clear, I'm not saying the Big Ten is correct here: I personally think just taking the top two schools from a 14-team Big Ten as opposed to having divisions would be fantastic. However, we have to go by with how very actively the Big Ten fought against that format previously... and this wasn't simply a passive disapproval, but a true explicit fight against it. That's what anyone that wants to change the rules going forward is going to go up against.

I think the likely outcomes are:
1. AAC waiver gets extended "temporarily" for 2 years at at time until there is a shift in the landscape. No divisionless ACC though.
2. The rule is changed. (What exactly the new rule looks like, I don't know. Either the Big Ten has a change of heart/leadership and approves a free-for-all, or they write some baroque rule that allows AAC to be divisionless, but not ACC)

I don't think, over the next year-and-a-half as Aresco pushes for the rule change, there is going to be much sentiment to force the AAC to pick a 12th team. So either the rule gets rewritten, or the temporary waiver gets extended. And once it gets extended, it's basically a permanent fixture.

They’re not going to get an extension, there are no grounds for that. The waiver is literally giving them time to figure their s*** out.

The only way they get a waiver extension is if they invite a 12th team and have to wait for them to join a season later or so.

(10-23-2019 06:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

I am taking that into account, but that was also a big reason I didn't think that Aresco was going to get the 11-team no-divisions waiver AT ALL. The logical outcome of "Big Ten says no" would have been to give the AAC the MAC/UAB waiver, for 5-and-6 rather than 6-and-7.

Quote:Maybe the Big Ten's thinking has changed on this (see some of Jim Delany's comments last year when Ohio State got shut out of the playoff), but the point is that the league very actively didn't want the rule change not very long ago.

Or maybe the Big Ten (for inscrutable reasons) is very much against the ACC playing divisionless, but doesn't give a rip what the G5 leagues do.

Quote:To be clear, I'm not saying the Big Ten is correct here: I personally think just taking the top two schools from a 14-team Big Ten as opposed to having divisions would be fantastic. However, we have to go by with how very actively the Big Ten fought against that format previously... and this wasn't simply a passive disapproval, but a true explicit fight against it. That's what anyone that wants to change the rules going forward is going to go up against.

I think the likely outcomes are:
1. AAC waiver gets extended "temporarily" for 2 years at at time until there is a shift in the landscape. No divisionless ACC though.
2. The rule is changed. (What exactly the new rule looks like, I don't know. Either the Big Ten has a change of heart/leadership and approves a free-for-all, or they write some baroque rule that allows AAC to be divisionless, but not ACC)

I don't think, over the next year-and-a-half as Aresco pushes for the rule change, there is going to be much sentiment to force the AAC to pick a 12th team. So either the rule gets rewritten, or the temporary waiver gets extended. And once it gets extended, it's basically a permanent fixture.

They’re not going to get an extension, there are no grounds for that. The waiver is literally giving them time to figure their s*** out.

The only way they get a waiver extension is if they invite a 12th team and have to wait for them to join a season later or so.

I don't think it matters much whether they have grounds for the waiver. What matters is whether The Powers That Be *want* to give them a waiver. And TPTB just approved no-divisions for a couple of years.

if TPTB cared about the CCG rules, they'd have made the AAC play divisions and given the MAC/UAB waiver. clearly they dont care much if the AAC goes divisionless.