as originally proposed.

Source: Stewart Mandel quoting SEC Commish Sankey

Looks like Sankey did an about face from what he said a month ago.

I assume this means that deregulation probably won't pass as originally proposed, but might pass with the Big 10 rider requiring divisions.

(01-10-2016 12:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  as originally proposed.

Source: Stewart Mandel quoting SEC Commish Sankey

I assume this means that deregulation won't pass as originally proposed, but might pass with the Big 10 rider requiring divisions.

There's nothing new here. The key words are "as proposed". Sankey has already said that divisions should be required with 12 or more schools, but that he had no problem with the those in divisions of 10 or less having a CCG. Some reports have called this the SEC compromise. So Sankey's remarks are more aimed at the ACC than they are the Big 12.

(01-10-2016 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  as originally proposed.

Source: Stewart Mandel quoting SEC Commish Sankey

I assume this means that deregulation won't pass as originally proposed, but might pass with the Big 10 rider requiring divisions.

There's nothing new here. The key words are "as proposed". Sankey has already said that divisions should be required with 12 or more schools, but that he had no problem with the those in divisions of 10 or less having a CCG. Some reports have called this the SEC compromise. So Sankey's remarks are more aimed at the ACC than they are the Big 12.

Yes, until either the SEC or B1G comes out and says they won't support a CCG for conferences with fewer than 12 teams, those hoping for forced Big 12 expansion don't have much reason to get excited.

Nevertheless, I hope all the admins at USF are working overtime to polish our resume and make our case.

(01-10-2016 12:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:11 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  as originally proposed.

Source: Stewart Mandel quoting SEC Commish Sankey

I assume this means that deregulation won't pass as originally proposed, but might pass with the Big 10 rider requiring divisions.

There's nothing new here. The key words are "as proposed". Sankey has already said that divisions should be required with 12 or more schools, but that he had no problem with the those in divisions of 10 or less having a CCG. Some reports have called this the SEC compromise. So Sankey's remarks are more aimed at the ACC than they are the Big 12.

These things are procedural. There was a proposal that was circulated to the membership, and an amendment. These are the only things that will be voted on.

It's pretty clear that at 6-4 against among the P5 votes, the original proposal has very little chance of passing. That was not always obvious, at least to me, given what Sankey said a month ago. After the Big 10 amendment and the statements by Larry Scott, the SEC was always the swing vote. That vote is clear now. It won't pass.

The only thing that can be passed is the Big 10 version requiring division winners to compete in the title game, whether at 10 teams or 20.

(01-10-2016 12:33 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  The only thing that can be passed is the Big 10 version requiring division winners to compete in the title game, whether at 10 teams or 20.

Yep, barring any further moves, that is the situation. The ACC's goose on this seems to be cooked. What is likely to happen is that the Big 12 will be able to get its CCG with 10 teams. How it will do that is another question. Maybe drop out of round-robin, play an 8-game conference and 4-game OOC schedule?

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.

From Stewart Mandel's twitter:


Most interesting moment of today's press conferences.

Stewart Mandel added,

Dan Wolken @DanWolken Nick Saban, Dabo Swinney call for changes to NFL draft process http://usat.ly/1P05FMq via @usatoday

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 1h1 hour ago
Greg Sankey mostly deflected questions about NYE playoff games. But he did reiterate that the SEC-Big 12 Jan 1 Sugar Bowl's not moving.


Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago
For those hoping for Big 12 expansion ... Next week's NCAA convention just got very interesting.

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago
John Swofford on conference title game deregulation: "A year ago I thought that would have passed easily. Now we'll have to see."

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago
Sankey: The SEC Big 12 prime time Sugar Bowl is important to them. "We will protect that." No talk of moving it so playoff not on NYE.

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago
Sankey said there is an "openness" to explore options for Big 12 to host a title game with 10 teams, but they are happy with status quo.

Stewart Mandel ‏@slmandel · 2h2 hours ago
SEC commissioner Greg Sankey just said he will not support ACC/big 12 title game deregulation as originally proposed. Vote is next week.

Sometimes folks...you have to learn to trust the one you hate. It is a difficult lesson for sure.

(01-10-2016 12:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is likely to happen is that the Big 12 will be able to get its CCG with 10 teams. How it will do that is another question. Maybe drop out of round-robin, play an 8-game conference and 4-game OOC schedule?

Now that the Big 12 will be required to form divisions, they will have to face the same risk every other conference has: an upset in the title game.

They were trying to avoid that by pairing the top 2 teams in the title game.

So now the decision will be:

1. Status quo. Get penalized for not having the 13th data point.

2. Have a CCG at 10 teams. TV will require the round robin schedule to be maintained. They need their quality inventory. So this requires a rematch every year in the title game.

3. Expand and have a CCG at 12 teams. TV will allow an 8 game conference schedule at 12 teams. They get more quality inventory (48 conference games to 45). Only a 50% chance of a rematch in the title game, and some games will never be replayed (i.e. Texas-OU if they are in the same division).

(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).

(01-10-2016 12:52 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 12:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What is likely to happen is that the Big 12 will be able to get its CCG with 10 teams. How it will do that is another question. Maybe drop out of round-robin, play an 8-game conference and 4-game OOC schedule?

Now that the Big 12 will be required to form divisions, they will have to face the same risk every other conference has: an upset in the title game.

They were trying to avoid that by pairing the top 2 teams in the title game.

So now the decision will be:

1. Status quo. Get penalized for not having the 13th data point.

2. Have a CCG at 10 teams. TV will require the round robin schedule to be maintained. They need their quality inventory. So this requires a rematch every year in the title game.

3. Expand and have a CCG at 12 teams. TV will allow an 8 game conference schedule at 12 teams. They get more quality inventory (48 conference games to 45). Only a 50% chance of a rematch in the title game, and some games will never be replayed (i.e. Texas-OU if they are in the same division).

You forgot #4. Dissolve and better themselves by splitting up and joining other conferences because having two divisions of 5 and a round robin schedule means it is a 100% chance for the CCG to be a rematch game. That is a bad thing.

All the public talk about this mid-major or that mid-major for expansion has all been bluffs, leading up to this moment. The bluffs have failed.

I am somewhat surprised that the original struggled this much. That said, evidence sill seems to me to suggest a scaled down version will. The disagreement seems to be on leaving open the bigger conferences going without divisions (something I think would be great but they clearly disagree). I think divisions are either required or required with more than 12 teams in the end. I think 10 team (and probably less) will pass though (no one has stated opposition) and round robin will likely no longer be required (less sure on the latter).

(01-10-2016 12:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  As we get nearer to the point of signing dotted lines, more of the actual truth of these conferences' positions will come to light.

That's a good point: When a vote is months away, it's easy to make general statements of support or whatever, but as the actual signing date approaches, then as you say devils come out in the details.

We may yet see more surprises as we get even close. E.g., maybe if it becomes clear that what is acceptable to the B1G and SEC means that the Big 12 can get what it wants from CCG "reform" but the ACC can't, then maybe the ACC's solidarity with the Big 12 will falter.

Are we sure this wont pass? Sec and big 10 will cancel out acc and big 12. Where does the pac stand on this? Their conference title games have been underwhelming. Would they prefer the chance to matchup the two best teams? I have to think the American and MWC would prefer that option as having your 2 marque teams play would increase your odds for the access slot. The sunbelt might like to get rid of those flights to idaho which would be more likely if the acc version passes

(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).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

(01-10-2016 12:52 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  2. Have a CCG at 10 teams. TV will require the round robin schedule to be maintained. They need their quality inventory.

TV won't necessarily require it, but if there is a reduction in games as a result of say, going to an 8-game conference schedule, then a downward adjustment in payouts may occur.

(01-10-2016 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Are we sure this wont pass? Sec and big 10 will cancel out acc and big 12. Where does the pac stand on this? Their conference title games have been underwhelming. Would they prefer the chance to matchup the two best teams? I have to think the American and MWC would prefer that option as having your 2 marque teams play would increase your odds for the access slot. The sunbelt might like to get rid of those flights to idaho which would be more likely if the acc version passes

One thing I liked about the original complete deregulation proposal was it would have allowed more than 2 divisions. Thus, large cross country conferences with regional pods would have been feasible. I'd like to see the actual language in the Big-10 amendment. If it simply requires "divisions"----and not specifically "2 divisions" like the current rule, then multiple regional pods or "divisions" could still be viable making large conferences comprised of 16-24 teams (or more) doable. You couldn't have an internal playoff---but you could pit the highest two ranking pod (division) winners against one another in the CCG. That could offer a conference a structural advantage over traditional 2 division conferences.

(01-10-2016 01:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Are we sure this wont pass? Sec and big 10 will cancel out acc and big 12. Where does the pac stand on this? Their conference title games have been underwhelming. Would they prefer the chance to matchup the two best teams? I have to think the American and MWC would prefer that option as having your 2 marque teams play would increase your odds for the access slot. The sunbelt might like to get rid of those flights to idaho which would be more likely if the acc version passes

One thing I liked about the original complete deregulation proposal was it would have allowed more than 2 divisions. Thus, large cross country conferences with regional pods would have been feasible. I'd like to see the actual language in the Big-10 amendment. If it simply requires "divisions"----and not specifically "2 divisions" like the current rule, then multiple regional pods or "divisions" could still be viable making large conferences comprised of 16-24 teams (or more) doable. You couldn't have an internal playoff---but you could pit the highest two ranking pod (division) winners against one another in the CCG. That could offer a conference a structural advantage over traditional 2 division conferences.

The way i read the big 10 proposal it required two round robin divisions

(01-10-2016 01:02 PM)He1nousOne 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).

In this regard, Sankey is simply taking over for Slive. This dance has been going on for quite awhile. I still think that the big 12 is the target. Not because The Big Ten and The SEC prefer them but because they are the overall best choice and that brings in The PAC and The ACC with them as well as ESPN. The big 12 becomes the odd man out. Fox isn't going to do much for them. Fox would rather get partial T1 rights for a Big Ten that includes Oklahoma as well as maintaining their partial T1 rights to The PAC that includes two Texas teams.

It is a compromise for everyone but it is a compromise everyone can live with and prosper from.

Except they and ESPN have already signed a contract agreeing to pay full price for 2 new Big-12 members.

(01-10-2016 01:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-10-2016 01:00 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Are we sure this wont pass? Sec and big 10 will cancel out acc and big 12. Where does the pac stand on this? Their conference title games have been underwhelming. Would they prefer the chance to matchup the two best teams? I have to think the American and MWC would prefer that option as having your 2 marque teams play would increase your odds for the access slot. The sunbelt might like to get rid of those flights to idaho which would be more likely if the acc version passes

One thing I liked about the original complete deregulation proposal was it would have allowed more than 2 divisions. Thus, large cross country conferences with regional pods would have been feasible. I'd like to see the actual language in the Big-10 amendment. If it simply requires "divisions"----and not specifically "2 divisions" like the current rule, then multiple regional pods or "divisions" could still be viable making large conferences comprised of 16-24 teams (or more) doable. You couldn't have an internal playoff---but you could pit the highest two ranking pod (division) winners against one another in the CCG. That could offer a conference a structural advantage over traditional 2 division conferences.

All the more reason to oppose it. Teams in conferences should actually play each other.