I wonder if realignment would have gone differently if rules allowed a CCG with 10 members:

The AAC wouldn't need Tulsa and either ECU/Tulane

This means C-USA and the SBC look differently because less back fill is needed.

The MWC might not have brought in Utah St and San Jose St and that pair along with NMSU and Idaho would be trying to rebuild WAC football.

This also means a lot of schools never find a refuge in the WAC and the Great West pseudo-conference might still have a few members or those schools backfill into conferences who are hit when the WAC tries to lure FBS schools to their ranks.

(06-12-2018 07:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder if realignment would have gone differently if rules allowed a CCG with 10 members:

The AAC wouldn't need Tulsa and either ECU/Tulane

For those who don't think 'autonomy' means much because G5 can match what P5 do, your question is very instructive. In many cases, it matters greatly whether a conference can initiate a change rather than waiting for someone else to do so.

Thanks to autonomy, the Big 12 was able to get its wish to hold a CCG with 10 teams fast-tracked right on through. Those other conferences weren't in that position 10 years ago.

(06-12-2018 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 07:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder if realignment would have gone differently if rules allowed a CCG with 10 members:

The AAC wouldn't need Tulsa and either ECU/Tulane

For those who don't think 'autonomy' means much because G5 can match what P5 do, your question is very instructive. In many cases, it matters greatly whether a conference can initiate a change rather than waiting for someone else to do so.

Thanks to autonomy, the Big 12 was able to get its wish to hold a CCG with 10 teams fast-tracked right on through. Those other conferences weren't in that position 10 years ago.

It wasn't an autonomy vote. It was the Division I Council vote where P5 counts 2 votes and G5 counts 1.
AAC and SEC voted no making it at 12-3 vote to approve.

What changed was the last time it came up Big XII, WAC, and Sun Belt wanted it and I suspect that Pac-12, Big 10, SEC and even ACC were all thinking that denying it would make it more likely that they could "bargain hunt" Big XII members. This time, Big XII had shown it wasn't spinning apart, and ACC had signed on to support it.

Having divisions was an arbitrary rule to begin with, it was just in some dusty old bylaws the SEC “discovered” back in the day. I still think the ACC would have gone to 12 and 14 even if they were allowed to hold a CCG when Miami and VaTech joined; the entirety of the east coast seemed to be the goal.

I’m not so sure the original WAC expansion to 16 would have happened, or the recent MWC expansion had the division rule not been in place. C-USA ballooning to 14 also seems like it should have been avoided.

Georgia Southern, Georgia State, and App State would likely all still be in the FCS

(06-12-2018 07:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder if realignment would have gone differently if rules allowed a CCG with 10 members:

The AAC wouldn't need Tulsa and either ECU/Tulane

This means C-USA and the SBC look differently because less back fill is needed.

The MWC might not have brought in Utah St and San Jose St and that pair along with NMSU and Idaho would be trying to rebuild WAC football.

This also means a lot of schools never find a refuge in the WAC and the Great West pseudo-conference might still have a few members or those schools backfill into conferences who are hit when the WAC tries to lure FBS schools to their ranks.

When exactly this rule change is made is an important factor in determining the repercussions. I explored the idea of an earlier CCG deregulation before, but that scenario was based on a late 2011 change. Put the point of divergence back to before 1990ish and maybe the SEC doesn't expand, at least not right then.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-821510-post-14...id14544515

(06-12-2018 10:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 07:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder if realignment would have gone differently if rules allowed a CCG with 10 members:

The AAC wouldn't need Tulsa and either ECU/Tulane

For those who don't think 'autonomy' means much because G5 can match what P5 do, your question is very instructive. In many cases, it matters greatly whether a conference can initiate a change rather than waiting for someone else to do so.

Thanks to autonomy, the Big 12 was able to get its wish to hold a CCG with 10 teams fast-tracked right on through. Those other conferences weren't in that position 10 years ago.

It wasn't an autonomy vote. It was the Division I Council vote where P5 counts 2 votes and G5 counts 1.

That's interesting. I've never heard that P5 conferences get 2 votes to 1 for G5 in the D1 Council. What's your source on that?

(06-13-2018 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 10:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 07:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder if realignment would have gone differently if rules allowed a CCG with 10 members:

The AAC wouldn't need Tulsa and either ECU/Tulane

For those who don't think 'autonomy' means much because G5 can match what P5 do, your question is very instructive. In many cases, it matters greatly whether a conference can initiate a change rather than waiting for someone else to do so.

Thanks to autonomy, the Big 12 was able to get its wish to hold a CCG with 10 teams fast-tracked right on through. Those other conferences weren't in that position 10 years ago.

It wasn't an autonomy vote. It was the Division I Council vote where P5 counts 2 votes and G5 counts 1.

That's interesting. I've never heard that P5 conferences get 2 votes to 1 for G5 in the D1 Council. What's your source on that?

The American Athletic Conference and Southeastern Conference voted against the amended proposal. Only the Football Bowl Subdivision members of the Council participated in the vote, and votes were weighted. Votes from members representing the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences each counted twice. Votes from members representing the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference each counted once.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

(06-13-2018 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 10:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 07:22 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I wonder if realignment would have gone differently if rules allowed a CCG with 10 members:

The AAC wouldn't need Tulsa and either ECU/Tulane

For those who don't think 'autonomy' means much because G5 can match what P5 do, your question is very instructive. In many cases, it matters greatly whether a conference can initiate a change rather than waiting for someone else to do so.

Thanks to autonomy, the Big 12 was able to get its wish to hold a CCG with 10 teams fast-tracked right on through. Those other conferences weren't in that position 10 years ago.

It wasn't an autonomy vote. It was the Division I Council vote where P5 counts 2 votes and G5 counts 1.

That's interesting. I've never heard that P5 conferences get 2 votes to 1 for G5 in the D1 Council. What's your source on that?

The American Athletic Conference and Southeastern Conference voted against the amended proposal. Only the Football Bowl Subdivision members of the Council participated in the vote, and votes were weighted. Votes from members representing the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences each counted twice. Votes from members representing the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference each counted once.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

That's fascinating. I wonder how the decision was made to give the P5 conferences two votes each and the G5 one vote?

(06-13-2018 07:35 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  When exactly this rule change is made is an important factor in determining the repercussions. I explored the idea of an earlier CCG deregulation before, but that scenario was based on a late 2011 change. Put the point of divergence back to before 1990ish and maybe the SEC doesn't expand, at least not right then.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-821510-post-14...id14544515

Yeah, the SEC might have waited to see if they could shake TAMU and/or UT loose, instead of going ahead with the Arkansas/South Carolina addition at that time.

(06-13-2018 11:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 10:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 07:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  For those who don't think 'autonomy' means much because G5 can match what P5 do, your question is very instructive. In many cases, it matters greatly whether a conference can initiate a change rather than waiting for someone else to do so.

Thanks to autonomy, the Big 12 was able to get its wish to hold a CCG with 10 teams fast-tracked right on through. Those other conferences weren't in that position 10 years ago.

It wasn't an autonomy vote. It was the Division I Council vote where P5 counts 2 votes and G5 counts 1.

That's interesting. I've never heard that P5 conferences get 2 votes to 1 for G5 in the D1 Council. What's your source on that?

The American Athletic Conference and Southeastern Conference voted against the amended proposal. Only the Football Bowl Subdivision members of the Council participated in the vote, and votes were weighted. Votes from members representing the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences each counted twice. Votes from members representing the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference each counted once.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

That's fascinating. I wonder how the decision was made to give the P5 conferences two votes each and the G5 one vote?

Goes back some time, not sure just when but I think mid 90's at least.

Would the Pac-10 have invited Colorado and Utah? Tend to think no.

MWC would still have had Utah, and BYU wouldn't have left. WAC would still be in business as a football league.

Going back to 2004 I don’t think UTEP and RICE get the invite to CUSA. Good probability that in the realignment of 2012-2013 CUSA absorbs the leftover Big East schools instead of the mass exodus experienced by CUSA.

I think the real question is 'what if you could play a CCG with 10 teams before the 1991 realignments happened'?

Would the B1G still add Penn State? Probably

Would the SEC have added Arkansas and South Carolina? Definitely not. That leaves Arkansas in the Metro along with Houston as left overs from the SWC's demise. Or would Arkansas have joined the Big East as a football only? If Arkansas gets in then VT does not and is left in the Metro/CUSA. Does Arkansas park their other sports in the Atlantic 10 like VT did back in the day.

Does the Big East go to 10 instead of 8 to have a championship game? It wouldn't matter much to the Catholic 5 (at the time) because the additional 2 schools would have been football only. If Arkansas had been taken over VT would South Carolina and VT been numbers 9 and 10. Would the Atlantic 10 take 2 more schools for other sports. Probably not. VT and South Carolina probably end up in the CAA for other sports.

Does the ACC go past 10 in 2004? Probably not. If you remember how all that went down, VT probably wouldn't have had the clout of 4 Alliance/BCS bowls being in CUSA and UVA would have been free to vote for just Miami. Originally the ACC wanted Miami, Syracuse and BC but I believe that was predicated (at the time) on needing 3 to get to 12 so they could have a CCG.

Does the Big 8 expand to 12 with the Texas schools or just 10? Probably 12. If you remember how that went down the Texas legislature effectively strong armed Baylor and Texas Tech into the conference. So the Big 8 tried to just take Texas and Texas A&M originally but couldn't. So that history probably doesn't change.

Does the Pac 10 go to 12? The Pac 12 screwed itself by taking Colorado at 11 thinking they were cutting Baylor out of the 6 team expansion but it didn't work out that way and the Pac 10 had to give up there round robin play for the likes of Colorado and Utah. So assuming that original **** up still happens, the Pac 10 still ends up with 12.

I think the time period that is much more interesting to look at how a 10 team conference can play a championship game is around the time of the original major expansion changes.

(06-15-2018 05:21 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I think the real question is 'what if you could play a CCG with 10 teams before the 1991 realignments happened'?

Would the B1G still add Penn State? Probably

Would the SEC have added Arkansas and South Carolina? Definitely not. That leaves Arkansas in the Metro along with Houston as left overs from the SWC's demise. Or would Arkansas have joined the Big East as a football only? If Arkansas gets in then VT does not and is left in the Metro/CUSA. Does Arkansas park their other sports in the Atlantic 10 like VT did back in the day.

Does the Big East go to 10 instead of 8 to have a championship game? It wouldn't matter much to the Catholic 5 (at the time) because the additional 2 schools would have been football only. If Arkansas had been taken over VT would South Carolina and VT been numbers 9 and 10. Would the Atlantic 10 take 2 more schools for other sports. Probably not. VT and South Carolina probably end up in the CAA for other sports.

Does the ACC go past 10 in 2004? Probably not. If you remember how all that went down, VT probably wouldn't have had the clout of 4 Alliance/BCS bowls being in CUSA and UVA would have been free to vote for just Miami. Originally the ACC wanted Miami, Syracuse and BC but I believe that was predicated (at the time) on needing 3 to get to 12 so they could have a CCG.

Does the Big 8 expand to 12 with the Texas schools or just 10? Probably 12. If you remember how that went down the Texas legislature effectively strong armed Baylor and Texas Tech into the conference. So the Big 8 tried to just take Texas and Texas A&M originally but couldn't. So that history probably doesn't change.

Does the Pac 10 go to 12? The Pac 12 screwed itself by taking Colorado at 11 thinking they were cutting Baylor out of the 6 team expansion but it didn't work out that way and the Pac 10 had to give up there round robin play for the likes of Colorado and Utah. So assuming that original **** up still happens, the Pac 10 still ends up with 12.

I think the time period that is much more interesting to look at how a 10 team conference can play a championship game is around the time of the original major expansion changes.

Primary motivation to adding Arkansas wasn't getting to 12, it was destabilizing the SWC to give UT and TAMU cover to leave.

Pigs go SEC either way.

(06-13-2018 02:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 11:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 11:03 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-13-2018 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-12-2018 10:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  It wasn't an autonomy vote. It was the Division I Council vote where P5 counts 2 votes and G5 counts 1.

That's interesting. I've never heard that P5 conferences get 2 votes to 1 for G5 in the D1 Council. What's your source on that?

The American Athletic Conference and Southeastern Conference voted against the amended proposal. Only the Football Bowl Subdivision members of the Council participated in the vote, and votes were weighted. Votes from members representing the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences each counted twice. Votes from members representing the American Athletic Conference, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West Conference and Sun Belt Conference each counted once.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

That's fascinating. I wonder how the decision was made to give the P5 conferences two votes each and the G5 one vote?

Goes back some time, not sure just when but I think mid 90's at least.

They were originally called equity conferences. The P6 (Big East), CUSA and WAC all had 3 votes. The MAC and Big West had a vote in a half.

Then when the WAC split in 2 they gave both the MWC and WAC 2.0 1/2 of a vote to match what the MAC and Big West had. They left CUSA in place with 3 votes just to not take away a right already granted.

At the time right before the new redefined voting structure I can remember the president of Tennessee who was upset that Middle Tennessee by virtue of joining CUSA was going to have the same NCAA voting power. Hence the push by the big boys to redo the voting structure along the current P5/G5 lines.

The titled vote to an equity or power conference I believe began with implementation of NCAA clearinghouse rules and active enforcement of Title IX. There was a fear that it would get to the point where it could negatively affect the cash cow programs but it never did.

(06-15-2018 09:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-15-2018 05:21 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I think the real question is 'what if you could play a CCG with 10 teams before the 1991 realignments happened'?

Would the B1G still add Penn State? Probably

Would the SEC have added Arkansas and South Carolina? Definitely not. That leaves Arkansas in the Metro along with Houston as left overs from the SWC's demise. Or would Arkansas have joined the Big East as a football only? If Arkansas gets in then VT does not and is left in the Metro/CUSA. Does Arkansas park their other sports in the Atlantic 10 like VT did back in the day.

Does the Big East go to 10 instead of 8 to have a championship game? It wouldn't matter much to the Catholic 5 (at the time) because the additional 2 schools would have been football only. If Arkansas had been taken over VT would South Carolina and VT been numbers 9 and 10. Would the Atlantic 10 take 2 more schools for other sports. Probably not. VT and South Carolina probably end up in the CAA for other sports.

Does the ACC go past 10 in 2004? Probably not. If you remember how all that went down, VT probably wouldn't have had the clout of 4 Alliance/BCS bowls being in CUSA and UVA would have been free to vote for just Miami. Originally the ACC wanted Miami, Syracuse and BC but I believe that was predicated (at the time) on needing 3 to get to 12 so they could have a CCG.

Does the Big 8 expand to 12 with the Texas schools or just 10? Probably 12. If you remember how that went down the Texas legislature effectively strong armed Baylor and Texas Tech into the conference. So the Big 8 tried to just take Texas and Texas A&M originally but couldn't. So that history probably doesn't change.

Does the Pac 10 go to 12? The Pac 12 screwed itself by taking Colorado at 11 thinking they were cutting Baylor out of the 6 team expansion but it didn't work out that way and the Pac 10 had to give up there round robin play for the likes of Colorado and Utah. So assuming that original **** up still happens, the Pac 10 still ends up with 12.

I think the time period that is much more interesting to look at how a 10 team conference can play a championship game is around the time of the original major expansion changes.

Primary motivation to adding Arkansas wasn't getting to 12, it was destabilizing the SWC to give UT and TAMU cover to leave.

Pigs go SEC either way.

Arkansas may have been in a West Virginia type situation; either they take the SEC offer or risk being out of the power structure when the SWC dissolves.

The rumors for years probably had Texas and TAMU going somewhere else leaving the others to rot in what would have become a non-BCS SWC.