http://www.oneafar.org/Governance_Proposal.pdf

Quote:Composition: One AD and one FAR from each FBS Conference will be included; SWAs and Conference Commissioners may also be represented, perhaps one SWA and one Conference Commissioner from each FBS conference. Item to resolve: Whether there should be weighted voting in favor of the five FBS conferences that remain from the BCS automatic qualifier conferences (SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12), and perhaps the AAC, successor to the former automatic qualifier Big East Conference.

What does this really mean for the AAC? Is it an honorable mention? Or, is there tangible value to be gained with this vote? Please and thank you.

IIRC... C-USA had more votes than the other slacker conferences but fewer than the BCS leagues, so it makes sense that the AAC might be in that position going forward.

(09-24-2013 08:50 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  IIRC... C-USA had more votes than the other slacker conferences but fewer than the BCS leagues, so it makes sense that the AAC might be in that position going forward.

Under the current structure, C-USA actually has the same vote weighting as the BCS-AQ leagues. Their vote counts as 3 votes just like the SEC, ACC, etc.

The other FBS conferences (WAC, MWC, Sun Belt, MAC) get 1.5 votes each. Even though the WAC is no longer FBS, I believe they have retained their 1.5 votes for now.

The non-FBS division I conferences got 1 vote each to begin with, but their voting weighting varied as the number of conferences changed. They were up to 1.2 votes each, but after the latest round of shuffling (including the addition of the new Big East to this pool) they are currently getting 1.14 votes each.