(01-13-2016 10:07 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 09:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 09:26 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If this is true I don't understand it.

Perhaps it's a typo which is suppose to state that if a conference with 10 teams that doesn't play a round robin can have a CCG? That's seem to make the most sense to me.

It makes perfect sense. Its a poison pill. You must play a full round robin. That means you are guaranteed a rematch in a game that makes no sense because #1 already beat #2. That lowers the TV value and increases the possibility (since its hard to beat a good team twice-see Alabama/LSU a few years back and Florida-FSU in the 90s-there is a good chance for an upset) that you get a team knocked out of the playoffs. Much more so than in the 14 team conferences. So the Big 12 playing a ccg in a 10 team conference with a rr puts them at more of a disadvantage than they are at now.

except in cases where you have co-champions which seems to happen frequently in the Big 12

If you have a round robin they will already have played. If you have a 3 way tie, it doesn't really help.

(01-13-2016 10:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 10:07 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think this is very good for the Big 12. Breaking into divisions wasn't good for it the first time and it wouldn't be now. You have the potential here though to create something different, but that could work very well (I'd argue better than the other 4). It might not stop the conference from loosing its key members someday, but I think it stands a better chance like this than with 12 or more and misfit divisions where the powerful members don't feel as connected.

I agree. The writing still may be on the wall when the GOR expire, but you can only put together the best model short term. Contrary to the narrative, the 10 team model is working pretty dang well for the league right now. Revenue is good, rivalries are strong and the on the field/court product is highly competitive. The league is still at risk with apparent further consolidation of the industry on the horizon, but I think that would be the case at 10, 12, 14 or more.

It seems clear that thanks to the SECN and the upcoming B1G negotiations that the B1G and SEC will have separated themselves from the other P5 money-wise. Instead of all 5 conferences being right around $20m a year in media money, the B1G and SEC will be in the $30s while the others are in the $20s. Heck, the B1G might even be in the $40s, clearly ahead of the SEC. And it doesn't appear that the other three can close that gap, because the SEC and B1G just naturally have greater fan bases and market appeal.

That's fertile ground for instability within the P5, because it means that the B1G or SEC might be tempted to poach from the other three P5, or that members of that other three might seek to leave for the B1G or SEC.

In that regard, the Big 12's ten-team membership is a strength, because they are making a bit more than the ACC teams are thanks to dividing basically the same money 30% fewer ways. I think the ACC is thus at maybe a greater risk to be poached then the Big 12.

The vote on this will be later today.

Quote:Stewart Mandel
‏@slmandel

NCAA vote later today on Big 12/ACC conference title game proposal. Big 12 folks optimistic agreement will be reached allowing w/ 10 teams.

8:24 AM - 13 Jan 2016

(01-13-2016 11:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The vote on this will be later today.

Quote:Stewart Mandel
‏@slmandel

NCAA vote later today on Big 12/ACC conference title game proposal. Big 12 folks optimistic agreement will be reached allowing w/ 10 teams.

8:24 AM - 13 Jan 2016

We shall see. I tend to agree with Heiney, that public statements are often posturing, and you really don't know what a conference's true position is until the rubber hits the road and votes actually are cast. We shall see.

(01-13-2016 11:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 10:41 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 10:07 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think this is very good for the Big 12. Breaking into divisions wasn't good for it the first time and it wouldn't be now. You have the potential here though to create something different, but that could work very well (I'd argue better than the other 4). It might not stop the conference from loosing its key members someday, but I think it stands a better chance like this than with 12 or more and misfit divisions where the powerful members don't feel as connected.

I agree. The writing still may be on the wall when the GOR expire, but you can only put together the best model short term. Contrary to the narrative, the 10 team model is working pretty dang well for the league right now. Revenue is good, rivalries are strong and the on the field/court product is highly competitive. The league is still at risk with apparent further consolidation of the industry on the horizon, but I think that would be the case at 10, 12, 14 or more.

It seems clear that thanks to the SECN and the upcoming B1G negotiations that the B1G and SEC will have separated themselves from the other P5 money-wise. Instead of all 5 conferences being right around $20m a year in media money, the B1G and SEC will be in the $30s while the others are in the $20s. Heck, the B1G might even be in the $40s, clearly ahead of the SEC. And it doesn't appear that the other three can close that gap, because the SEC and B1G just naturally have greater fan bases and market appeal.

That's fertile ground for instability within the P5, because it means that the B1G or SEC might be tempted to poach from the other three P5, or that members of that other three might seek to leave for the B1G or SEC.

In that regard, the Big 12's ten-team membership is a strength, because they are making a bit more than the ACC teams are thanks to dividing basically the same money 30% fewer ways. I think the ACC is thus at maybe a greater risk to be poached then the Big 12.

Yeah I agree. The degree of the revenue gradient will determine when further moves happen. IIRC, being able to have a CCG with 10 will increase the Big 12 revenue by 2 million per team or so. It's not much, but it is something. And with UT and OU having 3rd tier revenue streams that are not insignificant, there may not be much revenue gradient for the key players for several years.

(01-13-2016 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:34 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The vote on this will be later today.

Quote:Stewart Mandel
‏@slmandel

NCAA vote later today on Big 12/ACC conference title game proposal. Big 12 folks optimistic agreement will be reached allowing w/ 10 teams.

8:24 AM - 13 Jan 2016

We shall see. I tend to agree with Heiney, that public statements are often posturing, and you really don't know what a conference's true position is until the rubber hits the road and votes actually are cast. We shall see.

I agree with this, especially since most of the reporting to date has been speculative in nature, or based on anonymous sources.

FWIW, I find it hard to believe that the B12 wouldn't have pulled this vote off the table altogether unless they felt that at least some of compromise favorable to them was achievable. I would not be surprised if a lot of informal discussions have been taking place and some sort of "agreement" is in place. Sort of like many Congressional votes where the actual vote doesn't take place unless and until the votes needed for passage have been secured.

Otherwise, why would the B12 risk a humiliating defeat which closes the door on this issue for the foreseeable future? IMO, if that was indeed the case, wouldn't it it be better to back away from the table, call it a day, and continue politicking to secure a more favorable result at a later time?

Just my 2 cents.

For what it's worth, only the amendment 2015-81 and the amendment-to-amendment 2015-81-1 show up on the NCAA web tool for searching submitted proposals.

https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/homepage (search Division I proposals)

If the "SEC compromise" or a new amendment (from the B1G or otherwise) had been formally submitted, it should show up on that web tool, I'm assuming. Unless perhaps there's a delay.

But these things are supposed to be submitted in time for everyone to review them.


I don't know the laws in that regard, though. Maybe's it's perfectly fine for the conferences to talk amongst themselves, informally agree on a new amendment, and keep that in their pocket to pull out at the convention, then vote on that.

(01-13-2016 01:30 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think this is also a smart ploy by the Big 10. They smell the blood in the water with the Big 12 right now. They know OU is unhappy with Texas right now. How can you destroy another power conference? Make sure that conference become even more unstable by making a compromise to Texas. Texas wants to keep their Longhorns Network, but does not want to share that with the rest of the Big 12. Boren wants a Big 12 Network, and wants the Longhorns Network turned into the Big 12 Network. Who is gonna blink first? OU or Texas? I have a feeling if Texas does not budge? I could see OU and Kansas leave, and that either or both Big 10 and SEC could afford to help pay OU and Kansas to break the GoRs.

I think the Big 12 mostly Texas, fell into the scheming trap of Dalany.

I think that you are on the money. I have said it before and I will say it again.... everyone else is playing checkers while Delany is playing chess.

In my wishful thinking, perhaps the ACC wants to get back at the B1G now by taking UConn and squashing the B1G's NYC aspirations? With Cuse and UConn in the fold, you would totally own NYC.

(01-12-2016 10:30 PM)goofus Wrote:  I had been saying this along.

Any conference that plays a full round Robin schedule could just make up their temporary 2 divisions for that year after the regular season is complete to make sure the top 2 teams always go to the CCG.

This 2nd ammendment just acknowledges that fact so that there is no confusion.

At a minimum, you'd have to declare your divisions at the start of the season and stick with them for that season. There would be no "making up divisions at the end of the year". That'd be blatant cheating.

(01-13-2016 10:07 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think this is very good for the Big 12. Breaking into divisions wasn't good for it the first time and it wouldn't be now. You have the potential here though to create something different, but that could work very well (I'd argue better than the other 4). It might not stop the conference from loosing its key members someday, but I think it stands a better chance like this than with 12 or more and misfit divisions where the powerful members don't feel as connected.

Your personal preferences notwithstanding, divisions make perfect sense when the conference grows to the point where a round-robin is not practical.

Would I love it if Minnesota played 13 games a season, only against B1G teams? Sure! But we know that won't happen.

And frankly, Minnesota's program is like the other West programs. It's not like the mega programs in the East. That's just the truth of it.

Ten team league with a round robin guarantees a rematch, a game that may have been played only a week before.....could be a recipe for disaster.

(01-13-2016 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  Ten team league with a round robin guarantees a rematch, a game that may have been played only a week before.....could be a recipe for disaster.

Agreed. But might that be the compromise the B12 needs to make to enable it to schedule a CCG without expanding? If that is their objective, might this be worth the price?

The XII objective is to be allowed to hold an exempt CCG pitting their two highest ranked teams, while remaining at 10 members and playing a round-robin schedule. That's their goal.

If they hold a CCG at all, they want to prevent the curse from being reborn.

do we know how the vote order will go? Does the amendment get voted on before or after the original proposal?

Only schools with low self-esteem join conferences.

(01-13-2016 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  Ten team league with a round robin guarantees a rematch, a game that may have been played only a week before.....could be a recipe for disaster.

It could be. It could also boost the resume.

Regardless with the TV rights market in the toilet at the moment there is no reason for the B12 to try to expand. The time to expand is when the market is red hot for sports rights like it was 5 years ago.

(01-13-2016 12:53 PM)solohawks Wrote:  do we know how the vote order will go? Does the amendment get voted on before or after the original proposal?

My guess is that 2015-81-1 (and 2015-81-2, if it exists) get voted on before 2015-81.

(01-13-2016 12:56 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  Ten team league with a round robin guarantees a rematch, a game that may have been played only a week before.....could be a recipe for disaster.

It could be. It could also boost the resume.

Regardless with the TV rights market in the toilet at the moment there is no reason for the B12 to try to expand. The time to expand is when the market is red hot for sports rights like it was 5 years ago.

Why are you pretending less fewer people watch sports telecasts now than they did five years ago?

That number has gone up.

(01-13-2016 12:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:56 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 12:38 PM)XLance Wrote:  Ten team league with a round robin guarantees a rematch, a game that may have been played only a week before.....could be a recipe for disaster.

It could be. It could also boost the resume.

Regardless with the TV rights market in the toilet at the moment there is no reason for the B12 to try to expand. The time to expand is when the market is red hot for sports rights like it was 5 years ago.

Why are you pretending less fewer people watch sports telecasts now than they did five years ago?

That number has gone up.

Even if that's true from all reports its not a conference's market for negotiating rights fees up at the moment. Meaning the immediate few years.

(01-12-2016 09:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 09:29 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  No one is telling them anything, nor has any actual vote happened. Take my advice and go look at what is happening in the NFL right now. The vote was just taken. The Rams are in. Their plan was always the one that was going to win. The rest was just a show to leverage certain other parties to act in a way favorable to the NFL.

The same concept can be taken to this situation and applied. Just keep watching.

Are you saying that there is no compromise?

I am saying that it is very likely there is no compromise. All that was said is that the big 12 and Big Ten talked. It's not like Delany is truly the Dark Emperor of the NCAA.

You make a very good point. For that matter, consider the original proposal was deemed to be a slam dunk, and three amendments later, we still don't know...