Which conferences in FBS would want the waiver allowing the AAC's CCG to be played with no divisions and a non-round robin with 11 teams to be extended permanently?

Personally, I think all five G5 leagues would want it out of desire for self-preservation. The AAC clearly wants that option, and the others don't want to be raided. I also think the ACC would be on board. I think the ACC would love a model where each team would have three permanent annual rivals and five teams rotating in and out, with the top two playing in the CCG.

Which leagues do you think would like a full change to the rule, and why?

I've never understood why any conference would want the NCAA to dictate how they choose their champion.

(06-09-2021 09:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  I've never understood why any conference would want the NCAA to dictate how they choose their champion.

NCAA?

You mean the rest of the conferences?

Nobody from the G5 cares if they lose a team or two. CUSA needs to lose two teams, at least. The MW might want to get rid of the Boise problem.

I voted for the AAC (duh), the ACC and SEC since non divisional teams can play more often and the MWC (not sure why). I think the better question would be FBS conferences that would object to just getting rid of the divisions rule. IMO the rule is stupid, why have it. If a conference wants to have divisions, let them have them. If they don't, they can do something else.

(06-09-2021 10:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I voted for the AAC (duh), the ACC and SEC since non divisional teams can play more often and the MWC (not sure why). I think the better question would be FBS conferences that would object to just getting rid of the divisions rule. IMO the rule is stupid, why have it. If a conference wants to have divisions, let them have them. If they don't, they can do something else.

The rule is stupid and seems to be picking on divisions rather than other matters like uniformity in number of conference games. If a conference wants to have divisions? Fine. No divisions? Fine. Pods? Fine. 8 conference games? Fine. 12 conference games? Fine.

At the end of the day, the committee is tasked with picking the 4 best teams and however conferences want to position their schools for that should be left up to the conferences. 12 conference games would likely hurt CUSA but if they choose to do that, that's their prerogative.

(06-09-2021 10:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I voted for the AAC (duh), the ACC and SEC since non divisional teams can play more often and the MWC (not sure why). I think the better question would be FBS conferences that would object to just getting rid of the divisions rule. IMO the rule is stupid, why have it. If a conference wants to have divisions, let them have them. If they don't, they can do something else.

AAC can play without divisions. Play full round robin. Why not?

AAC
ACC
B12
SBC



Those were my picks. AAC/ACC for obvious reasons. B12 and SBC because that would allow each 10 team conference to pick up an 11th to boost the strength without needing an NCAA waiver.

(06-09-2021 09:02 AM)ken d Wrote:  I've never understood why any conference would want the NCAA to dictate how they choose their champion.

Nobody wants the NCAA to restrict how they choose their own champion, but some want the NCAA to restrict how other conferences choose their champion.

(06-09-2021 11:07 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I voted for the AAC (duh), the ACC and SEC since non divisional teams can play more often and the MWC (not sure why). I think the better question would be FBS conferences that would object to just getting rid of the divisions rule. IMO the rule is stupid, why have it. If a conference wants to have divisions, let them have them. If they don't, they can do something else.

AAC can play without divisions. Play full round robin. Why not?

Well the reasons I believe Power 5 conferences don't play ten conference games:

1. Many need to play seven home games every year and playing ten conference games guarantees five road games every year. If any teams play an annual non conference rivalry game, they will have to play six road games every other year. In addition, they will be unable to schedule home and homes with top non conference teams. Nine games seems to be the peak.

2. More conference games for most P5 conferences tend to be "harder" games, teams would rather have more G5 and/or FCS games which are "easier" (the other reason the play more G5/FCS games is #1).

Now I would believe lower level FBS conferences won't want to go to ten conference or even nine games is because if you're a MAC team why play an extra game at Ohio U when you can play a game at Ohio State and make twice as much? The P5's also want to play them because they see them as easier competition and are more likely to agree to either 2 for 1's or even home games without return trips.

The AAC is right in the middle. They're not the easy wins for the P5's so they aren't as likely to get games vs. them (and they usually are pickier). FCS and lower G5 teams won't play them as much as they will the P5 teams because they can't offer as much money.

From Temple's standpoint, we have no permanent non conference rivals. The only non conference team I would want to play every year would be Penn State. I get why Penn State wouldn't want to play home and home with Temple every year even though most Penn State games in Philly would probably be PSU home games. So I'm not sure I would object to playing 10 AAC conference games. I don't like playing more basketball conference games west of the Mississippi but football games are usually weekends. I don't know how other AAC teams feel. Ideally I'm sure other teams would like to play more home games or lucrative road games but the question is do AAC teams get that many and would 10 conference games be that worse?

None but AAC would vote for it. They number 12, and both Big 12 and SBC needs to add 2 to get to 12.

Divisonless football makes 16 team conferences a possibility

Under a 9 game schedule you get 3 permanent rivals and 6 rotating conference games.

That means you will keep the most important games annually and play the others every other year. That's a real conference

A 16 team confernce under a Divisonal model is basically two separate conferences

(06-09-2021 08:58 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Which conferences in FBS would want the waiver allowing the AAC's CCG to be played with no divisions and a non-round robin with 11 teams to be extended permanently?

Personally, I think all five G5 leagues would want it out of desire for self-preservation. The AAC clearly wants that option, and the others don't want to be raided. I also think the ACC would be on board. I think the ACC would love a model where each team would have three permanent annual rivals and five teams rotating in and out, with the top two playing in the CCG.

Which leagues do you think would like a full change to the rule, and why?

I dont expect the waiver will be extended indefinitely. I would think either there is a rule change or there is not. If not---then the clock would probably start ticking with perhaps one waiver extension to allow the AAC time to decide on a permanent solution (be it uneven divisions or a new addition). My sense is there is little real opposition to a rule change.

(06-09-2021 11:07 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(06-09-2021 10:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I voted for the AAC (duh), the ACC and SEC since non divisional teams can play more often and the MWC (not sure why). I think the better question would be FBS conferences that would object to just getting rid of the divisions rule. IMO the rule is stupid, why have it. If a conference wants to have divisions, let them have them. If they don't, they can do something else.

AAC can play without divisions. Play full round robin. Why not?

Because the AAC cant play a full round robin without canceling a bunch of OOC games. I would also note that its physically impossible for the 14-team SEC, ACC, and Big12 to do a full round robin by rule (it would take 13 regular season games). So---why should a league with more than 10 teams not have the same options for a CCG as those with less than 10? There is really no good reason as the traditional divisional play option doesnt generate a full round robin of the league either. Its really a completely arbitrary requirement.

What you need is a rule that prevents the divisionless CCG without a round robin from being abused to create easy schedules for favorites. I would suggest a "continuous round robin" where the rund robin extends from one season to the next in a never ending fashion. Basically, you would pick up the "round robin" in the current season exactly where you left off in the round robin in the prior season. I would also allow 2 exemptions per season per team---but they can ONLY be used for schools that are played EVERY season (thus allowing the system the flexibility needed to accommodate annual rivalry games). This would be a great system for the larger leagues as it would create more cohesion because you would never go 5 and 6 years without playing some members of the conference.

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/rule-chang...d=36276425

They tried this in 2016 and the Big 10 was against it. The original plan was to allow any 10 team conference to hold a conference championship game regardless of divisons. This rule was supported by the AAC, ACC and the Big 12

The Big 10 introduced an amendment which allowed for any size conference to hold a CCG as long as they played a full round robin schedule or a divisional round robin schedule. The Big 12 got what they wanted but the ACC and AAC did not and voted against it. They lost the vote and here we are.

Has the Big 10s stance changed?

I voted for everyone except the MAC and SBC, as they probably see no impact from any AAC expansion move. The P5 have a general agreement that no conference should be forced to add a lower quality school/program simply to meet some NCAA regulation. This is philosophical as well as practical. The AAC wants it for the same reason, they don't want to be forced to add somebody less valuable than say BYU or Boise State (which is every other G5 program). The MWC wants it to not have to worry about a raid by the AAC, and same for C-USA.

I think that is what 14 of the 16 FBS votes (ND gets a vote, P5 x2 votes) whom push come to shove say yes, give them a damn waiver, we don't want to open the can of worms over a G5 CCG, and nobody wants forced expansion.

That dilutes the percentages. You need a total voters since it's multiple choice.

I picked the P5s, on the theory they'd kick out the dead weight.

(06-09-2021 04:33 PM)solohawks Wrote:  https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/rule-chang...d=36276425

They tried this in 2016 and the Big 10 was against it. The original plan was to allow any 10 team conference to hold a conference championship game regardless of divisons. This rule was supported by the AAC, ACC and the Big 12

The Big 10 introduced an amendment which allowed for any size conference to hold a CCG as long as they played a full round robin schedule or a divisional round robin schedule. The Big 12 got what they wanted but the ACC and AAC did not and voted against it. They lost the vote and here we are.

Has the Big 10s stance changed?

I suspect they would be more open to it as a couple of years after that vote the Big 10 began looking at doing a divisionless CCG. Doesnt mean they would do it---but they might like the idea of having that option is they decide to later.

https://www.si.com/college/2018/12/06/ji...nt-playoff

Before the pandemic, I had a feeling that the Big Ten was going to push for a permanent change in 2022 to the CCG rules so that the Big Ten could switch to a divisionless format starting in 2022.

The Big Ten was expecting to finish a 6-year rotation in 2021 where every team played everybody else at least twice and at least once at home. Then start a new 6-year rotation in 2022. So since they were starting a new cycle in 2022 anyway, it seemed like the logical year to switch to a divisionless format instead where they would start playing 5 permanent rivals every year and play the other 8 teams every other year.

I thought this idea had a lot of momentum in 2019 but now I am not so sure. The 2020 schedule got screwed up and teams did not play everybody they were supposed to. Sometimes I wonder if the Big Ten might try to tweak the 2022 schedule to make up for the missed games in 2020. But now I have a feeling the Big Ten will just forget about it and just push forward with the old plan and change nothing.

(06-09-2021 06:00 PM)goofus Wrote:  Before the pandemic, I had a feeling that the Big Ten was going to push for a permanent change in 2022 to the CCG rules so that the Big Ten could switch to a divisionless format starting in 2022.

The Big Ten was expecting to finish a 6-year rotation in 2021 where every team played everybody else at least twice and at least once at home. Then start a new 6-year rotation in 2022. So since they were starting a new cycle in 2022 anyway, it seemed like the logical year to switch to a divisionless format instead where they would start playing 5 permanent rivals every year and play the other 8 teams every other year.

I thought this idea had a lot of momentum in 2019 but now I am not so sure. The 2020 schedule got screwed up and teams did not play everybody they were supposed to. Sometimes I wonder if the Big Ten might try to tweak the 2022 schedule to make up for the missed games in 2020. But now I have a feeling the Big Ten will just forget about it and just push forward with the old plan and change nothing.

They may or may not opt to go divisionless---but my point is I doubt they are still adamantly opposed to a rule allowing divisionless CCG's. It might require specific language to address any concerns they might have---but I suspect the Big10 would be much more supportive this time around.

I agree with Attackcoog here, the P5 would probably just renew the waiver for another two years, and just say Covid-19 caused the extension. Heck they might even go four years to get everyone past 2025 and the next TV contracts.