Presumably the SEC also supports this....

Quote:This week, the Big Ten submitted a second amendment. It would allow conferences with less than 12 teams and that play a round-robin schedule to pair their two best teams as opposed to division champions meeting. That obviously benefits the Big 12, which is the smallest FBS conference (10 members). Bowlsby said the second amendment was crafted after consultation with the Big Ten. "It gets us most of the way we need to go," Bowlsby told CBS Sports' Dennis Dodd. "I'd prefer total deregulation but we can live with it."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...heir-names

So it looks like the 12 Teams and over conferences still need divisions. The ACC won't get their wish.

Hello zipper format....

Stock in the P5 pledge class just went down (Cincy, BYU, etc...)

And then The ACC and one other come forward saying they wont approve that and once again the door is slammed shut on the big 12.

I don't get it. I thought the first Big 10 amendment was submitted precisely because allowing the Big 12 to match up its two strongest teams after round-robin play in a CCG would give it an advantage in vying for a CFP berth. A P5 conference with divisions that has its two strongest teams in the same division can put only one in its CCG, and if that team has a bad game and loses, the other strong team and therefore the conference will likely miss out on the CFP. Why has the Big 10 backed off?

and cue the talk of conferences going back to 10 members in 3...2...1.

(01-12-2016 07:21 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  and cue the talk of conferences going back to 10 members in 3...2...1.

ALL the cool conferences have only 10.....

Big 12 expansion going down the tubes.

(01-12-2016 07:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:21 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  and cue the talk of conferences going back to 10 members in 3...2...1.

ALL the cool conferences have only 10.....

SBC?

(01-12-2016 07:38 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:21 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  and cue the talk of conferences going back to 10 members in 3...2...1.

ALL the cool conferences have only 10.....

SBC?

Has 12, or 14, depending on whether you count Idaho and NMSU.

(01-12-2016 07:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:38 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:21 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  and cue the talk of conferences going back to 10 members in 3...2...1.

ALL the cool conferences have only 10.....

SBC?

Has 12, or 14, depending on whether you count Idaho and NMSU.

In football it will be 10. Basketball will be 12 but football revenues aren't shared with UTA or Little Rock.

(01-12-2016 07:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Big 12 expansion going down the tubes.

Not so sure. I think Boren and OU is pushing for expansion. Texas does not want it. Big 12 is still unstable with West Virginia still on an island.

(01-12-2016 07:21 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  and cue the talk of conferences going back to 10 members in 3...2...1.

Honestly, I think that half the Big 10 would vote for that. Other than Ohio State, many of the 9 teams that have been together since the 50s are ticked at how infrequently they'll play their long-established rivals.

In the next 4 years, Michigan will play Arkansas more often than it will play Minnesota for the Little Brown Jug. Indiana has more games against FIU, WKU, Virginia, Ball State, and UConn over the next 4 years than it will have against Illinois. Purdue will only get visits from Michigan State, Michigan, and Ohio State once every 6 years.

If they want to play games on the East Coast occasionally, they can do it out of conference.

Doesn't this make the AAC more stable? TV contract #2 might be okay if it does.

(01-12-2016 07:53 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Doesn't this make the AAC more stable? TV contract #2 might be okay if it does.

I think this is the best news the AAC has had in months.

Not such good news for Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis or UConn (or BYU)...

I wish they would go back to the conferences like they were in the 80's and 90's.

Send A&M, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas back to the conferences they use to be in. Same with Colorado, etc, etc, etc.

It was more fun when you played everyone in your conference every year without a conference title game.

(01-12-2016 07:56 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:53 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Doesn't this make the AAC more stable? TV contract #2 might be okay if it does.

I think this is the best news the AAC has had in months.

Not such good news for Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis or UConn (or BYU)...

The short term threat is subsiding for departures.

Once its open sesame on the P5 TV contracts then it will be time for some movement.

(01-12-2016 07:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Big 12 expansion going down the tubes.

Who cares about them? They're stuck in the bunker small market mentality. The real Golden Apple of Discord will come when the money makers/movers & shakers from the conferences that aren't doing as well as say the B10 or the SEC, say to their respective commissioners "why aren't we making as much?" FSU complaining about UF, GT complaining about UGA, Clemson complaining about South Carolina, UT and OU griping about take your pick; the crap will hit the fan when Delaney announces how much they're making from their network deals.

(01-12-2016 08:03 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:56 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 07:53 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Doesn't this make the AAC more stable? TV contract #2 might be okay if it does.

I think this is the best news the AAC has had in months.

Not such good news for Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis or UConn (or BYU)...

The short term threat is subsiding for departures.

Once its open sesame on the P5 TV contracts then it will be time for some movement.

If OU is still ants expansion? Than the AAC is not even safe still.

(01-12-2016 07:16 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I don't get it. I thought the first Big 10 amendment was submitted precisely because allowing the Big 12 to match up its two strongest teams after round-robin play in a CCG would give it an advantage in vying for a CFP berth. A P5 conference with divisions that has its two strongest teams in the same division can put only one in its CCG, and if that team has a bad game and loses, the other strong team and therefore the conference will likely miss out on the CFP. Why has the Big 10 backed off?

That's how it was it was portrayed here a lot, but my understanding was it was slays the ACC their issues were with. divisions were always going to be a bad fit at 10 teams and they didn't want to be forcing realignment. The ACC was the biggest changer from the status quo as they could force changes for the budget conferences.

So if this amendment is passed, the Big 12 is looking at a Conference Championship winner that will have been required to play 11 P5 schools out of 13 games.

I've got no problem with that.