+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons (/thread-876975.html)
Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - CarlSmithCenter - 05-28-2019 09:07 PM
Per a UConn Twitter account:
Quote:AAC commissioner Mike Aresco states on @Sports56WHBQ the league will look at changing from two divisions to having the two top rated teams play for the conference title. Aresco also notes the league favors expanded CFP, adding a contract bowl, and more
https://twitter.com/uconnfbfacts/status/1133461581659017219?s=12
They can’t do that without requiring the CCG rules to be revised, right? My recollection is that when the Big XII got its revision it said that a league can only have no divisions AND a CCG if you have fewer than 12 teams and you play a round robin schedule, 12 or more teams require divisions.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - Foreverandever - 05-28-2019 09:13 PM
(05-28-2019 09:07 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote: Per a UConn Twitter account:
Quote:AAC commissioner Mike Aresco states on @Sports56WHBQ the league will look at changing from two divisions to having the two top rated teams play for the conference title. Aresco also notes the league favors expanded CFP, adding a contract bowl, and more
https://twitter.com/uconnfbfacts/status/1133461581659017219?s=12
They can’t do that without requiring the CCG rules to be revised, right? My recollection is that when the Big XII got its revision it said that a league can only have no divisions AND a CCG if you have fewer than 12 teams and you play a round robin schedule, 12 or more teams require divisions.
The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - msm96wolf - 05-28-2019 09:14 PM
Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - Nerdlinger - 05-28-2019 09:21 PM
They could always up their conference schedule to 11 games.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - IWokeUpLikeThis - 05-28-2019 10:01 PM
This would make CFB better. Alabama and Georgia fans see the other visit their stadium once every 12 years. Ditto Duke and NC State. That needs to change.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - MWC Tex - 05-28-2019 10:07 PM
Guess 3 teams will be kicked out?
Will have to drop to 9 teams since in the article the schools want to keep 8 conference games.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - RutgersGuy - 05-28-2019 10:14 PM
(05-28-2019 10:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: Guess 3 teams will be kicked out?
Will have to drop to 9 teams since in the article the schools want to keep 8 conference games.
Tulane, Tulsa and ECU! Welcome back to CUSA!
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - Fighting Muskie - 05-28-2019 10:21 PM
I can't see this working without NCAA legislation or booting 3 members.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - Nerdlinger - 05-28-2019 10:38 PM
(05-28-2019 10:14 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:(05-28-2019 10:07 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: Guess 3 teams will be kicked out?
Will have to drop to 9 teams since in the article the schools want to keep 8 conference games.
Tulane, Tulsa and ECU! Welcome back to CUSA!
The AAC just Ctrl+Z's the last 3 football adds. (Navy was invited before those 3 despite joining later.)
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - TodgeRodge - 05-29-2019 01:15 AM
(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:(05-28-2019 09:07 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote: Per a UConn Twitter account:
Quote:AAC commissioner Mike Aresco states on @Sports56WHBQ the league will look at changing from two divisions to having the two top rated teams play for the conference title. Aresco also notes the league favors expanded CFP, adding a contract bowl, and more
https://twitter.com/uconnfbfacts/status/1133461581659017219?s=12
They can’t do that without requiring the CCG rules to be revised, right? My recollection is that when the Big XII got its revision it said that a league can only have no divisions AND a CCG if you have fewer than 12 teams and you play a round robin schedule, 12 or more teams require divisions.
The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).
also with two divisions (and you can only have two) the division winners must be in the CCG so you cannot have the two highest ranked teams unless those teams win their divisions also
you can only have the highest ranked teams if you play a full conference round robin (or if the highest ranked happen to win their divisions as said before)
the Big 10 added that requirement to screw the ACC and keep them from having 3 divisions and a CCG with the two highest ranked teams
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - Attackcoog - 05-29-2019 02:15 AM
(05-29-2019 01:15 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:(05-28-2019 09:07 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote: Per a UConn Twitter account:
Quote:AAC commissioner Mike Aresco states on @Sports56WHBQ the league will look at changing from two divisions to having the two top rated teams play for the conference title. Aresco also notes the league favors expanded CFP, adding a contract bowl, and more
https://twitter.com/uconnfbfacts/status/1133461581659017219?s=12
They can’t do that without requiring the CCG rules to be revised, right? My recollection is that when the Big XII got its revision it said that a league can only have no divisions AND a CCG if you have fewer than 12 teams and you play a round robin schedule, 12 or more teams require divisions.
The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).
also with two divisions (and you can only have two) the division winners must be in the CCG so you cannot have the two highest ranked teams unless those teams win their divisions also
you can only have the highest ranked teams if you play a full conference round robin (or if the highest ranked happen to win their divisions as said before)
the Big 10 added that requirement to screw the ACC and keep them from having 3 divisions and a CCG with the two highest ranked teams
Which is why it’s odd that the Big10 was exploring the same option. Of everyone, the Big10 should be the most aware of the fact that it’s functionally impossible for the 14 team Big10 to play a full round robin (that would require 13 regular season games).
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - Kit-Cat - 05-29-2019 05:14 AM
(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.
If two division winners meeting in a championship game aren't required does this pave the way for 3 or 4 division conferences?
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - Wedge - 05-29-2019 06:39 AM
(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.
Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.
It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - goofus - 05-29-2019 06:59 AM
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff&ved=2ahUKEwji0dDA1cDiAhUMEawKHaGVDdIQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1KFa6F5if7gqIGeM_49V-H&cf=1
You folks have not been paying attention. There was a big story last December that the Big Ten was discussing getting rid of divisions. I believe there is a lot of momentum building inside the Big Ten to make this change.
The appeal to me is the flexible scheduling. The Big Ten could set up a schedule where a team could get 5 permanent rivals, and play everybody else 2 times every 4 years.
Also the idea that the 2 best teams should go to the CCG is appealing, although picking the 2 best teams is not always straight forward.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - RutgersGuy - 05-29-2019 07:28 AM
(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.
Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.
It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.
Yeah exactly. If people don't like a team from a weak division making the CCG instead of the best two teams what if you get lets say a BC team who didn't play Clemson, FSU, VT or Miami. Then they get in over a FSU squad who has losses to Clemson and UF so they aren't ranked as high as an undefeated BC squad with an easy schedule.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - Wedge - 05-29-2019 08:11 AM
(05-29-2019 06:59 AM)goofus Wrote: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff&ved=2ahUKEwji0dDA1cDiAhUMEawKHaGVDdIQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1KFa6F5if7gqIGeM_49V-H&cf=1
You folks have not been paying attention. There was a big story last December that the Big Ten was discussing getting rid of divisions. I believe there is a lot of momentum building inside the Big Ten to make this change.
The Big Ten can't make that change unless the NCAA rule is changed. Delany & Co. should have thought more about getting rid of football divisions before leading the charge in favor of a rule that doesn't allow the Big Ten to get rid of those divisions (unless they abolish their CCG).
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - Frank the Tank - 05-29-2019 08:13 AM
(05-29-2019 07:28 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.
Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.
It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.
Yeah exactly. If people don't like a team from a weak division making the CCG instead of the best two teams what if you get lets say a BC team who didn't play Clemson, FSU, VT or Miami. Then they get in over a FSU squad who has losses to Clemson and UF so they aren't ranked as high as an undefeated BC squad with an easy schedule.
The X factor for both the Big Ten and SEC is Notre Dame. There is ZERO incentive for either conference to make it easier for the competitor that competes with them both directly on their turf - the ACC - to be able to add the Irish as a full member. The on-the-field records mean much less than blocking a direct financial and geographic competitor from ever realistically adding the biggest brand name in college sports. To be sure, it's already unlikely that ND will ever willingly give up independence, but you could at least make the argument that an ACC without divisions where ND can pick 3 annual rivals and then just rotate around the rest of the ACC less frequently (while still playing, say, USC and Navy for non-conference games) is about as palatable as ND would ever get in terms of a schedule if it ever had to join a conference. I don't see any way that ND would join a conference where they'd have to play the same 6 or 7 division opponents every year, so the Big Ten and SEC (whose divisions actually make geographic/logical sense for the most part, unlike the ACC) don't have any incentive to take that obstacle away for the ACC.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - bullet - 05-29-2019 08:29 AM
(05-28-2019 10:01 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote: This would make CFB better. Alabama and Georgia fans see the other visit their stadium once every 12 years. Ditto Duke and NC State. That needs to change.
Drop back to 12. That would take care of it.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - bullet - 05-29-2019 08:32 AM
(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.
Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.
It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.
You could theoretically end up with 3 unbeatens.
In the early 2000s, Ohio St. and Iowa both went 8-0 in the 11 team Big 10. With 14 teams, that would be more common and 3 would be possible.
RE: Aresco Proposes Scrapping Divisons - bullet - 05-29-2019 09:17 AM
(05-29-2019 08:13 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:(05-29-2019 07:28 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:(05-29-2019 06:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:(05-28-2019 09:14 PM)msm96wolf Wrote: Actually think they could get the ACC to support this effort. Doubt SEC and Big 10 would go along.
Yeah, the Big Ten and SEC are not going to be in favor of allowing a no-division CCG without a full round robin, for the same reason they were not in favor of it last time, i.e., because the ACC wanted it.
It could be a significant change for any conference compared to a season in which the conference had unbalanced divisions, not only because the CCG could match teams now in the same division, but because every team in a conference with more than 10 teams would play different schedules in a no division format than they do in a two division format.
Yeah exactly. If people don't like a team from a weak division making the CCG instead of the best two teams what if you get lets say a BC team who didn't play Clemson, FSU, VT or Miami. Then they get in over a FSU squad who has losses to Clemson and UF so they aren't ranked as high as an undefeated BC squad with an easy schedule.
The X factor for both the Big Ten and SEC is Notre Dame. There is ZERO incentive for either conference to make it easier for the competitor that competes with them both directly on their turf - the ACC - to be able to add the Irish as a full member. The on-the-field records mean much less than blocking a direct financial and geographic competitor from ever realistically adding the biggest brand name in college sports. To be sure, it's already unlikely that ND will ever willingly give up independence, but you could at least make the argument that an ACC without divisions where ND can pick 3 annual rivals and then just rotate around the rest of the ACC less frequently (while still playing, say, USC and Navy for non-conference games) is about as palatable as ND would ever get in terms of a schedule if it ever had to join a conference. I don't see any way that ND would join a conference where they'd have to play the same 6 or 7 division opponents every year, so the Big Ten and SEC (whose divisions actually make geographic/logical sense for the most part, unlike the ACC) don't have any incentive to take that obstacle away for the ACC.
Its why some sort of realignment in the east makes sense in the long run. The conferences consolidate without turning into groups that never see their conference rivals and it makes room for Notre Dame.
ACC sends parts to the Big 10 and parts to the SEC and creates 2 groups each with 2 10-12 team leagues in the east. Big 10 could be simply 12-giving up Penn St. and Maryland. Their partner conference (Big Atlantic) could include Penn St., Maryland, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, Louisville, UConn, W. Virginia and South Florida. SEC gets the other 10 ACC schools for 24 teams total. The Big Atlantic would have a 7 game schedule. Notre Dame would get Pitt, Syracuse, BC and UConn every year and 3 out of PSU, MD, UL, WVU and USF every year. They would still have 5 games free. Or the ACC Coastal + Notre Dame could move to the B1G group (Maryland, Penn St., Notre Dame, Pitt, Virginia Tech in one division with UVA, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech and Miami in the other). Then the SEC group would get the other 7 ACC schools and WVU + possibly 2 of UConn, USF, UCF, Cinncinnati and Temple.