Oklahoma to the B1G.

(01-10-2016 04:33 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Oklahoma to the B1G.

Belief, opinion, or fact? If the latter cite your source.

If the Big 12 chooses their Championship Game participants by any other method besides divisional winners, it would screw every other conference. I think all the G5 conferences vote Divisions but not 12 members.

(01-10-2016 04:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If the Big 12 chooses their Championship Game participants by any other method besides divisional winners, it would screw every other conference. I think all the G5 conferences vote Divisions but not 12 members.

It's even bigger than that and this is where the ACC gets involved. You can maintain a divisional format in the conference, but with deregulation you are no longer forced to play everyone in your division to win your division. The main reason why the ACC supports it is for creative scheduling. The league can create better matchups while maintaining the divisional format.

(01-10-2016 04:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If the Big 12 chooses their Championship Game participants by any other method besides divisional winners, it would screw every other conference. I think all the G5 conferences vote Divisions but not 12 members.

That's an issue, yeah, as long as the playoff remains at 4 teams. The Big 12 (or any other conference) could play football with no divisions and pass a rule that its CCG teams will be the conference's top 2 teams in the next-to-last CFP ranking, to minimize the risk of the CCG being won by a team that has no chance of being one of the committee's final top 4.

The argument is that as long as every other P5 conference is playing Russian Roulette with its playoff hopes by possibly pitting a top-5 or 6 team against a team ranked in the second ten, then the Big 12 should either assume the same risk or go without a CCG.

The issue goes away if the playoff becomes 8 teams with P5 autobids, but that's not happening in the near future.

(01-10-2016 04:56 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 04:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If the Big 12 chooses their Championship Game participants by any other method besides divisional winners, it would screw every other conference. I think all the G5 conferences vote Divisions but not 12 members.

That's an issue, yeah, as long as the playoff remains at 4 teams. The Big 12 (or any other conference) could play football with no divisions and pass a rule that its CCG teams will be the conference's top 2 teams in the next-to-last CFP ranking, to minimize the risk of the CCG being won by a team that has no chance of being one of the committee's final top 4.

The argument is that as long as every other P5 conference is playing Russian Roulette with its playoff hopes by possibly pitting a top-5 or 6 team against a team ranked in the second ten, then the Big 12 should either assume the same risk or go without a CCG.

The issue goes away if the playoff becomes 8 teams with P5 autobids, but that's not happening in the near future.

This is what I've been saying. Title game upset risk. There is no "compromise" here. Larry Scott made it plain in the article I cited above.

it is laughable that the same people continue to try and make this about the Big 12 being the conference that wants to be able to pick whatever two teams to play in a CCG when we all already know for a proven fact that the ACC was the first conference to propose deregulation and they did so to have the ability to choose what teams played in the CCG any way they wished

that is an absolute irrefutable fact

it is equally laughable that people pretend that the Big 10 proposal is specifically aimed at the Big 12 when in fact the Big 10 proposal still leaves the Big 12 open to having a CCG with 10 teams

it is also laughable to pretend that the ACC (that proposed deregulation to have the freedom to pick participants how they choose or if you are intelligent enough to believe that is what the Big 12 proposed it) would be at some distance advantage to other conferences because all the other conferences would have the same ability to pick their CCG participants how they choose

the PAC 12 and Big 10 are just as unequal from the standpoint of division strength as the ACC is and they could just as easily do the same thing and pick their CCG participants based on record or ranking

so pretending that the ACC would be the only one with an advantage just makes one look like a fool

and again the Big 12 under the Big 10 proposal would still be able to have a CCG which is the most important factor for them not how CCG participants are chosen

if the Big 10 wanted to target the Big 12 specifically they would simply propose that a conference has to have a CCG with 12 teams and anyone with a ounce of common sense would understand that

and if the Big 12 is allowed to have a CCG with 10 teams most likely they will split into divisions of 5 and hopefully play 8 (better would be 7) conference games because having a CCG with a round robin schedule is stupid

but the Big 12 can simply tell their media partners you are getting a CCG game in exchange for 10 fewer conference games and the fact of the matter is if the Big 12 replaces conference games with home and home games the media partners would not see a reduction in total content they have the rights to so that is really not even an issue so it is more likely the Big 12 will simply get paid for having a CCG

So, with round robin scheduling and NCAA minimum # of teams at 8. What we have is diverse group of conferences ranging in number between 8, and no more than 18 members, all playing round robin divisional play if they have a CCG. Is that about the sum of it?

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Told you guys they wouldn't. One thing that I understand very well that many do not, is the back and forth game that comes during the drawn out negotiation process. As we get nearer to the point of signing dotted lines, more of the actual truth of these conferences' positions will come to light. The Big Ten and The SEC are very much in lockstep together despite what most people want to believe.

Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

Boren wants expansion, or OU walks out the door.

But, as I read it. SEC does not want the Big 12 have a CCG with only 10 teams. That rule would not change because the part of the deregulation was for the Big 12 to have a CCG with 10 teams. Since the proposal is DOA, that means that Big 12 can't have their way as well, and that they are forced to expand.

(01-10-2016 05:28 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Told you guys they wouldn't. One thing that I understand very well that many do not, is the back and forth game that comes during the drawn out negotiation process. As we get nearer to the point of signing dotted lines, more of the actual truth of these conferences' positions will come to light. The Big Ten and The SEC are very much in lockstep together despite what most people want to believe.

Pretty much in lockstep on this one. Delany gets to play bad cop this time and Sankey gets to play good cop if he introduces a compromise position favorable to the Big 12 later on, and by favorable I mean the don't have to expand to host one.

It just means that the status quo stays in place. Now that still places pressure on both the ACC (no network and scheduling issues within the conference) and upon the Big 12 (no expansion for OU's Boren and the possibility of giving one of their top two teams and extra loss in the CCG).

Boren wants expansion, or OU walks out the door.

But, as I read it. SEC does not want the Big 12 have a CCG with only 10 teams. That rule would not change because the part of the deregulation was for the Big 12 to have a CCG with 10 teams. Since the proposal is DOA, that means that Big 12 can't have their way as well, and that they are forced to expand.

(as usual) you are pretty much 100% wrong

1. boren can threaten to walk all he wishes, but he would pay a ton of money to leave (even if the GOR can be broken) and he would lose a lot more money in total media payouts as well in any of the other conferences

OU took in $26.5 million from the Big 12 last year and they have a 3rd tier deal that pays from over $7 million a year for a total of $33.5 million which is over what the SEC pays out currently

even if the SEC slightly increases with the SECn it would take OU forever to recover the cost of leaving the Big 12 (if they were even able to)

the Big 10 has NEVER wanted OU I am not sure exactly why, but they have simply never been open to that

2. the SEC proposal has nothing to do with the number of teams in a conference for a CCG it has to do with the CCG participants being division winners

the Big 12 could still have a CCG with 10 members it would be in two divisions with the winners being in the CCG

Would an 8 team Conference consisting of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Notre Dame, BYU, Army and Navy be considered a Power Conference? Surely the money would be great.

(01-10-2016 04:33 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Oklahoma to the B1G.

Right, the team that just got to a 100+ year history conference gets to selfishly dictate that its old rival is added at the expense of the conference.

No.

Does B10 proposal also require the round robin within divisions?

People got this all wrong. This deregulations is also against the Big 12. Why would the other conferences allow the Big 12 a free pass to have a CCG with just 10 schools? They will not allow it, or stand it. They rather phase out the Big 12 to be a G6 conference than have them a CCG at just 10. Big 12 officials are worried that they will not get this past. Since this is going down in flames? Big 12 is forced to expand to 12.

(01-10-2016 05:55 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Does B10 proposal also require the round robin within divisions?

(01-10-2016 02:32 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Found It: Big 10 requires 2 and only 2 divisions

2015-81-1
PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- FOOTBALL -- ANNUAL EXEMPTIONS -- CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME BETWEEN DIVISION CHAMPIONS -- FBS

Status: Ready for Vote Process Diagram

Intent: To amend Proposal No. 2015-81, to specify that to be exempted from the limit on the number of contests, a conference championship game shall be between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division.

Bylaws: Amend Proposal No. 2015-81, 17.10.5.2, as follows:
[Federated provision, FBS only]

17.10.5.2 Annual Exemptions.

17.10.5.2.1 Bowl Subdivision. In bowl subdivision football, the maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following:

[17.10.5.2.1-(a) unchanged.]

(b) Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division;

[17.10.5.2.1-© through 17.10.5.2.1-(h) unchanged.]

[Remainder of 17.10.5.2 unchanged.]


Source: Big Ten Conference

Effective Date: August 1, 2016

Proposal Category: Amendment-to-Amendment

Topical Area: Playing and Practice Seasons

Rationale: Each member conference participating in the Football Bowl Subdivision should have the same opportunity to determine whether it conducts a conference championship game. For that to happen, the provision requiring 12 or more members in order to exempt a conference championship game needs to be removed. It is appropriate, however, to maintain the provision regarding matching up division winners. Whereas other team sports require a tournament format to exempt a conference championship event (e.g., basketball requires that the tournament be single elimination), the nature of football, as well as the postseason structure of bowl subdivision football, which includes bowls and the College Football Playoff, render a conference tournament format impractical. In order for the additional game to be exempted as a conference championship, the match-up must be reflective of the participating teams' success within the conference, which is provided through the divisional-format provision.

Estimated Budget Impact: None.

Impact on Student-Athlete's Time (Academic and/or Athletics): None.

History
Oct 31, 2015: Submit; Submitted for consideration as an amendment to Proposal No. 2015-81.
Dec 01, 2015: Comment Period; End of Comment Period

(01-10-2016 06:00 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  People got this all wrong. This deregulations is also against the Big 12. Why would the other conferences allow the Big 12 a free pass to have a CCG with just 10 schools? They will not allow it, or stand it. They rather phase out the Big 12 to be a G6 conference than have them a CCG at just 10. Big 12 officials are worried that they will not get this past. Since this is going down in flames? Big 12 is forced to expand to 12.

the language of the Big 10 proposal is directly above your incorrect comments

it specifically states the requirement for 12 teams needs to be removed so the Big 10 proposal is not specifically targeted at the Big 12 or trying to force the Big 12 to 12 teams

(01-10-2016 05:55 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Does B10 proposal also require the round robin within divisions?

Yes it does. Not that they proposed it, it is already a requirement.

(01-10-2016 05:55 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Does B10 proposal also require the round robin within divisions?

I already tried asking that. I don't think it makes any sense, otherwise.

Ie, what would be the point of having divisions if you don't play everyone your division?

(01-10-2016 06:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 05:55 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Does B10 proposal also require the round robin within divisions?

Yes it does. Not that they proposed it, it is already a requirement.

But that's the point.

The original proposal is to remove all rules for CCGs, including that round-robin is required in division.

The B1G amendment only addresses not getting rid of divisions, according to what I've read.

(01-10-2016 06:08 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 05:55 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Does B10 proposal also require the round robin within divisions?

I already tried asking that. I don't think it makes any sense, otherwise.

Ie, what would be the point of having divisions if you don't play everyone your division?

More than that, how can you have a conference with a CCG if you don't play at least one game against the other division? That's why I capped Conferences at 18.
Round robin divisional play plus at least one game against the other division.

(01-10-2016 06:06 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it specifically states the requirement for 12 teams needs to be removed so the Big 10 proposal is not specifically targeted at the Big 12 or trying to force the Big 12 to 12 teams

The requirement of a game consisting of division winners is exactly targeted at the Big 12.