I see little chance any of the G5 conferences besides the AAC support this because doing so aids the AAC in relation to the NY6

the SEC SEC SEC was against any deregulation last time and little says that will change

so that is 4 G5 votes against and 1 for and 2 P5 votes against right there so 6-1 against

the AAC voted against deregulation last time which was a shot at the Big 12 if the Big 12 remembers that and decided to return the favor then a waiver fails right there 8 votes against no matter what

the ACC did not get what they wanted out of deregulation last time so I would not see them keen on giving a waiver for something they cannot do

the Big 10 was the one that placed the divisional round robin requirement and the division winners must be in the CCG OR a full conference round robin with the two highest ranked in the CCG

it has been said that the Big 10 might now regret this, but there is no reason to think they would vote for a waiver for a G5 conference to be able to avoid the rule while they still cannot and that is if they really have decided they prefer to change the rule

so there is little to suggest a waiver is a given or will pass and a great deal to suggest it will fail because everyone other than the AAC has very good reasons to vote against it

(06-26-2019 06:08 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 06:04 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  AAC needs a school on the east coast. The only one that is building up their facilities quickly is ODU.

Aresco was on the Arkansas Tech campus today

Is this a joke, jest or jocosity?
What could he be doing there?
Next you will tell me he is on the SMU campus

(06-26-2019 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 04:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 04:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  1. They need no waiver to play a CCG with 11

Well, we don't know this. They *do* need a waiver to play a CCG with 11 if they play a traditional schedule--no home-and-homes in the regular season, everyone plays the same number of conference games.

Quote:2. They will make more money per school

Maybe. Navy AD said so, but I'd wait and see. I'll be surprised if the outcome is "UConn leaves, everyone else gets to split their share of the TV contract."

More likely, ESPN will insist on adding a #12, or will claw back 1/12 of the contract.

Quote:3. BYU, Army, and AFA will all probably say no

4. No one else looks like an obvious pick

5. If a consensus candidate east of the Rockies ever emerges they will have room to add them.

Agreed.

The NCAA had no gripes when the MAC and C-USA played CCGs with 13---this is a non issue.

The MAC had already decided Umass’s fate when the waiver became necessary. That situation came about because Temple left the conference before Umass could move in. Thus, the MAC had a plan to go from 12 to 14, and then back to 12. They were simply trying to give UMass a chance to find a new home.

CUSA never intended to play with 13. It was more or less understood the conference would add someone if UAB wasn’t coming back. The NCAA simply gave them time.

Therein lies the problem with the supposed AAC solution: the implication that they intend to stay at 11. The NCAA will grant their waiver for a few years, but they are probably facing the need to add down the line.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see them grant UConn a year or two extra as a football only, then try and apply the waiver thereafter. It’s probably something that’s being negotiated as we type. The AAC doesn’t have to worry about instability right now, so they can afford to take their time and vet the candidates.

In other words, it benefits the AAC to do nothing publicly for the next 3-4 years (if possible) but tell everyone they are “happy at 11”, while quietly encouraging and vetting schools.

This is about pride and ego, too. Most of us would agree that the P6 narrative pretty much went out the window when the Big 12 played head games with the AAC for more money from ESPN. But the AAC still values that separation, so you are about to see them try to do the same thing to their non-Cartel brethren. And if somebody “emerges”...well, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Beyond imitation, this is not the same situation for the AAC as when Tulsa was added. That was the Catholic 7’s pick, and if any of the recently invited schools got a vote, I can’t imagine it was treated as much more than a rubber stamp. Different voting members at a different time may have different tastes in candidate schools.

Finally, we are basing a whole lot of speculation on offhand comments from an unnamed source reprinted in the Cincinnati Enquirer and some comments from Navy AD Chet Gladchuk.

While football and men’s and women’s basketball will still be broadcast on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNU, most basketball games, a large number of football games and other sports including baseball and soccer will air on ESPN+, the network’s streaming service. Streaming subscriptions in place of television sets will be the key metric in the coming years. Tulane, already a conference member, doesn’t deliver the New Orleans market. Instead, these schools bring with them a base of fans as potential subscribers. And there doesn’t appear to be a match out there to provide enough value to warrant inclusion. (Outside of BYU & Army)

Couple of Concerns for the AAC if they stay at 11:

Basketball:11 teams would allow for a double round robin (each team plays each other twice) men's and women's basketball schedule. However, to the detriment of NCAA Tournament resumes, that would guarantee multiple games against some potentially bad teams at the bottom of the conference and would almost certainly call for a massive change in approach for out-of-conference opponents, too. Basketball, though, would be a much simpler challenge to solve than the football schedule.

Football: Ditching divisions in favor of matching up the two highest ranked teams at regular season's end is the preferred method to determine a conference championship. But the NCAA requires conferences with fewer than 12 teams to play a round-robin schedule in order to play a conference title game. A round-robin slate like the 10-team Big 12 plays is not possible with 11 teams. How is this problem solved?

MONEY: Conventional thinking would go: the 11 remaining members have an extra slice to spread around evenly. The 12-team split for the new deal was an annual per-school average of $6.94 million. So, disperse UConn's share and everybody's happy. Why would ESPN agree to divide the money up the same after losing one of the strongest basketball brands in the deal? Taking into account the loss of profit caused by UConn's absence, the overall value of the rights deal would be affected by the loss of how much the Huskies would have made but each remaining member should not see their cut reduced or enhanced. This is the likely outcome, as ESPN reported Tuesday the network can renegotiate the deal if a team leaves the conference.

Scheduling would be a headache, but not impossible, with divisions of unequal size.

The schools in the division with 5 members would play 4 games against division opponents and need 4 cross over games to get to 8. 5 x 4 = 20

The schools in the division with 6 members would play 5 games against division opponents and need 3 cross over games to get to 8. 6 x 3 = 18

This leaves 2 schools in the 5 team division needing another opponent to reach 8 conference games. There are a few potential solutions to this:

1) Have 2 schools from the 6 team division play only 4 division games and use the extra game to play a fourth cross division opponent. This is essentially what the MAC did when it had 13 members, and it was able to obtain a waiver from the NCAA.
2) Have the 2 schools play each other a second time.
3) Have the 2 schools play out-of-conference opponents as conference games. This has been done occasionally by conferences in the past. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.
4) Have the 2 schools play only 7 conference games. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.

(06-27-2019 09:36 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Scheduling would be a headache, but not impossible, with divisions of unequal size.

The schools in the division with 5 members would play 4 games against division opponents and need 4 cross over games to get to 8. 5 x 4 = 20

The schools in the division with 6 members would play 5 games against division opponents and need 3 cross over games to get to 8. 6 x 3 = 18

This leaves 2 schools in the 5 team division needing another opponent to reach 8 conference games. There are a few potential solutions to this:

1) Have 2 schools from the 6 team division play only 4 division games and use the extra game to play a fourth cross division opponent. This is essentially what the MAC did when it had 13 members, and it was able to obtain a waiver from the NCAA.
2) Have the 2 schools play each other a second time.
3) Have the 2 schools play out-of-conference opponents as conference games. This has been done occasionally by conferences in the past. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.
4) Have the 2 schools play only 7 conference games. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.

there is nothing in the rules that mandates a number of conference games for a conference to have a CCG

the rules specifically allow for divisions with unequal numbers of teams (as long as they are as equal as possible) so that means one different and the rules call for a divisional round robin and the division winners in the CCG (if a full CONFERENCE round robin is not played)

so they have already planned for this and allowed it then it is up to the conference to determine the division winners and which teams play more or less games or which teams play more than once

or the AAC could play 10 conference games which would be horrible for them so I think they should immediately move to do so

another reason why a waiver will probably not be granted

(06-27-2019 09:43 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 09:36 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Scheduling would be a headache, but not impossible, with divisions of unequal size.

The schools in the division with 5 members would play 4 games against division opponents and need 4 cross over games to get to 8. 5 x 4 = 20

The schools in the division with 6 members would play 5 games against division opponents and need 3 cross over games to get to 8. 6 x 3 = 18

This leaves 2 schools in the 5 team division needing another opponent to reach 8 conference games. There are a few potential solutions to this:

1) Have 2 schools from the 6 team division play only 4 division games and use the extra game to play a fourth cross division opponent. This is essentially what the MAC did when it had 13 members, and it was able to obtain a waiver from the NCAA.
2) Have the 2 schools play each other a second time.
3) Have the 2 schools play out-of-conference opponents as conference games. This has been done occasionally by conferences in the past. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.
4) Have the 2 schools play only 7 conference games. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.

there is nothing in the rules that mandates a number of conference games for a conference to have a CCG

the rules specifically allow for divisions with unequal numbers of teams (as long as they are as equal as possible) so that means one different and the rules call for a divisional round robin and the division winners in the CCG (if a full CONFERENCE round robin is not played)

so they have already planned for this and allowed it then it is up to the conference to determine the division winners and which teams play more or less games or which teams play more than once

or the AAC could play 10 conference games which would be horrible for them so I think they should immediately move to do so

another reason why a waiver will probably not be granted

OK, I agree. I just looked at the NCAA D1 Manual. In addition to the rule regarding holding a championship game for football, which you correctly describe (Rule 17.10.5.2.1(b)(1)), the NCAA requires that schools play at least five conference games in a sport sponsored by the conference to have the sport count towards the conference's minimum sport sponsorship requirement, including football. (Rule 20.02.5.3(b)). There is no special requirement for an FBS conference, so five is the minimum number of games that any member must play.

(06-27-2019 09:59 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 09:43 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 09:36 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Scheduling would be a headache, but not impossible, with divisions of unequal size.

The schools in the division with 5 members would play 4 games against division opponents and need 4 cross over games to get to 8. 5 x 4 = 20

The schools in the division with 6 members would play 5 games against division opponents and need 3 cross over games to get to 8. 6 x 3 = 18

This leaves 2 schools in the 5 team division needing another opponent to reach 8 conference games. There are a few potential solutions to this:

1) Have 2 schools from the 6 team division play only 4 division games and use the extra game to play a fourth cross division opponent. This is essentially what the MAC did when it had 13 members, and it was able to obtain a waiver from the NCAA.
2) Have the 2 schools play each other a second time.
3) Have the 2 schools play out-of-conference opponents as conference games. This has been done occasionally by conferences in the past. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.
4) Have the 2 schools play only 7 conference games. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.

there is nothing in the rules that mandates a number of conference games for a conference to have a CCG

the rules specifically allow for divisions with unequal numbers of teams (as long as they are as equal as possible) so that means one different and the rules call for a divisional round robin and the division winners in the CCG (if a full CONFERENCE round robin is not played)

so they have already planned for this and allowed it then it is up to the conference to determine the division winners and which teams play more or less games or which teams play more than once

or the AAC could play 10 conference games which would be horrible for them so I think they should immediately move to do so

another reason why a waiver will probably not be granted

OK, I agree. I just looked at the NCAA D1 Manual. In addition to the rule regarding holding a championship game for football, which you correctly describe (Rule 17.10.5.2.1(b)(1)), the NCAA requires that schools play at least five conference games in a sport sponsored by the conference to have the sport count towards the conference's minimum sport sponsorship requirement, including football. (Rule 20.02.5.3(b)). There is no special requirement for an FBS conference, so five is the minimum number of games that any member must play.

I thought there was an overall number of games needed simply to have a sport in a conference, but I was too lazy to look it up (so it is 5)

thanks for looking that up

but the CCG rule does not care about anything else

(06-26-2019 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The NCAA had no gripes when the MAC and C-USA played CCGs with 13---this is a non issue.

Except we don't actually know any such thing, do we? We don't know what the MAC said in a it's application for a waiver, and we don't know what the MAC and the NCAA discussed.

We DO know that as soon as the MAC's affiliate contract with UMass allowed it to resolve the unbalanced play, it exercised the option and resolved the unbalanced play, so the MAC precedent doesn't automatically stretch to getting an open-ended waiver with no definite end-date.

But it does seem safe to assume that if the AAC applies for a waiver and lays out a definite end-date, they'd get the waiver.

So:

(06-27-2019 09:36 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Scheduling would be a headache, but not impossible, with divisions of unequal size.

The schools in the division with 5 members would play 4 games against division opponents and need 4 cross over games to get to 8. 5 x 4 = 20

The schools in the division with 6 members would play 5 games against division opponents and need 3 cross over games to get to 8. 6 x 3 = 18

This leaves 2 schools in the 5 team division needing another opponent to reach 8 conference games. There are a few potential solutions to this:

1) Have 2 schools from the 6 team division play only 4 division games and use the extra game to play a fourth cross division opponent. This is essentially what the MAC did when it had 13 members, and it was able to obtain a waiver from the NCAA.

If the AAC can state a date certain when the arrangement will end, that seems like the most workable. The 2 schools can be a rotating pair, which takes three years to rotate through the division, so the AAC could apply for a three-year waiver, promising it will have everything sorted out at the end.

Quote: 2) Have the 2 schools play each other a second time.
3) Have the 2 schools play out-of-conference opponents as conference games. This has been done occasionally by conferences in the past. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.
4) Have the 2 schools play only 7 conference games. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.

(4) is definitely allowed by NCAA rules, and if it is done on a rotating basis, would be workable. (2), (3) and (4) would have different impacts on the qualification for the CCG. I think (3) would cause the most headaches on that front, either the "OOC conference game" is "easier than conference games" and the other claimants whine about it or it is "harder" and the school that has that count toward their conference record would whine about it ... so I think that (4) dominates (3) as a choice and the pick is between (2) and (4).

But if UConn is playing the next two years in the AAC FB competition, a three year rotation of (1) takes us to the start of the 2024 season, by which time P5 conference realignment may be heating up. So lacking a compelling add that wants to join, kicking the can down the road by three years after UConn exits seems a good strategy.

(06-27-2019 07:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The NCAA had no gripes when the MAC and C-USA played CCGs with 13---this is a non issue.

Except we don't actually know any such thing, do we? We don't know what the MAC said in a it's application for a waiver, and we don't know what the MAC and the NCAA discussed.

We DO know that as soon as the MAC's affiliate contract with UMass allowed it to resolve the unbalanced play, it exercised the option and resolved the unbalanced play, so the MAC precedent doesn't automatically stretch to getting an open-ended waiver with no definite end-date.

But it does seem safe to assume that if the AAC applies for a waiver and lays out a definite end-date, they'd get the waiver.

I agree, I would imagine a teams needs added no later 2022 if not CCG rule changes are re-instated. I just have a sneaking suspicion B10 and ACC would be happy with the removal of divisions. Possibly even the P12. But that will likely not be known until after the 2019 football season. Last time the rule change happened in Jan 2016. So it is possible the AAC will know in Jan 2020 their options moving forward.

(06-26-2019 07:19 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  They will have to add a member or lose money, per the contract.... ESPN can renegotiate new AAC TV deal with UConn leaving conference...Sports Business Journal’s John Ourand reports in latest newsletter that ESPN now has the right to renegotiate the terms of the 12-year, $1 billion deal it signed with the conference back in March. Ourand writes that ESPN has a clause in the contract that allows it to open up the deal if a school left the conference.

With the deal taking effect in 2020-21, ESPN has time to mull over its options. The AAC does as well. The conference is reportedly looking at potential replacements, ranging from Army to Boise State.

Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/espn-ca...rence.html

Wrong. The AAC is primed to add 700K per school, by staying at 11, per the Houston Chronicle and AAC sources.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/...057439.php

Another important issue revolves around what impact if any, UConn’s departure will have on the league’s new media rights deal that goes into effect in 2020. The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. A source said the clause is specifically tied to five schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Memphis and South Florida), which UConn was not included.

Under the current terms, each AAC school was projected to receive about $7 million annually. UConn’s departure could mean an additional $700,000 bump.

(06-27-2019 10:52 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 07:19 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  They will have to add a member or lose money, per the contract.... ESPN can renegotiate new AAC TV deal with UConn leaving conference...Sports Business Journal’s John Ourand reports in latest newsletter that ESPN now has the right to renegotiate the terms of the 12-year, $1 billion deal it signed with the conference back in March. Ourand writes that ESPN has a clause in the contract that allows it to open up the deal if a school left the conference.

With the deal taking effect in 2020-21, ESPN has time to mull over its options. The AAC does as well. The conference is reportedly looking at potential replacements, ranging from Army to Boise State.

Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/espn-ca...rence.html

Wrong. The AAC is primed to add 700K per school, by staying at 11, per the Houston Chronicle and AAC sources.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/...057439.php

Another important issue revolves around what impact if any, UConn’s departure will have on the league’s new media rights deal that goes into effect in 2020. The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. A source said the clause is specifically tied to five schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Memphis and South Florida), which UConn was not included.

Under the current terms, each AAC school was projected to receive about $7 million annually. UConn’s departure could mean an additional $700,000 bump.

You are spreading misinformation. The contract includes basketball, and UConn was the AAC's strongest brand.

I thought both Temple and UConn were lumped in with the teams that could affect the contract with departure. I remember being surprised by the inclusion of Temple, but it was their market or something.

* Must have been the old contract.

(06-27-2019 11:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 10:52 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 07:19 PM)GTFletch Wrote:  They will have to add a member or lose money, per the contract.... ESPN can renegotiate new AAC TV deal with UConn leaving conference...Sports Business Journal’s John Ourand reports in latest newsletter that ESPN now has the right to renegotiate the terms of the 12-year, $1 billion deal it signed with the conference back in March. Ourand writes that ESPN has a clause in the contract that allows it to open up the deal if a school left the conference.

With the deal taking effect in 2020-21, ESPN has time to mull over its options. The AAC does as well. The conference is reportedly looking at potential replacements, ranging from Army to Boise State.

Link
https://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/espn-ca...rence.html

Wrong. The AAC is primed to add 700K per school, by staying at 11, per the Houston Chronicle and AAC sources.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/...057439.php

Another important issue revolves around what impact if any, UConn’s departure will have on the league’s new media rights deal that goes into effect in 2020. The $1 billion deal has a clause that would allow ESPN to renegotiate if a member leaves, according to the Sports Business Journal. A source said the clause is specifically tied to five schools (Houston, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Memphis and South Florida), which UConn was not included.

Under the current terms, each AAC school was projected to receive about $7 million annually. UConn’s departure could mean an additional $700,000 bump.

You are spreading misinformation. The contract includes basketball, and UConn was the AAC's strongest brand.

Prove it and post the AAC TV contract.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the contracts have not been signed, said the deal will provide the conference with about $83.3 million per year, with each member school receiving an average of just under $7 million a year. The ESPN contract also includes language that would protect the network, should marquee schools, such as UCF, Cincinnati or UConn leave for another conference.

Link
https://www.sfgate.com/sports/cougars/ar...703486.php

ESPN can reopen its American Athletic Conference rights deal in the event that the University of Connecticut leaves for the Big East, which could happen as soon as next year, Sports Business Daily reported Monday.

Link
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2019/06...-olympics/

(06-26-2019 07:58 PM)esayem Wrote:  There are two ways to stay at 11:

1) The NCAA eliminates the round-robin/division rule. Other conferences support this idea.

If this happens, problem solved, set up a non-divisional system of five "rivals", 4 rival games, 4 non rival games rotating among other six, set of rules for determining top two schools for CCG, done and dusted.

Quote: 2) They use unbalanced divisions like the MAC did, except with 5 and 6. Memphis could even move to the East if they prefer.

It's not unbalanced divisions that require the waiver, it's unbalanced divisions and equal number of total conference games. With (as rightfully mentioned above) a two year waiver to get back into compliance effectively automatic, apply for another year, if you get it, apply for another, etc. until it gets knocked back.

If it gets knocked back, two Eastern schools (in a rotation to spread it around) play seven game conference schedules until either they get tired enough of that to support adding a 12th school or a raid relieves the AAC of the imbalance.

Quote: What will not happen is a 10 game conference schedule. Navy would quit.

You can take this one to the bank.

(06-27-2019 12:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I see little chance any of the G5 conferences besides the AAC support this because doing so aids the AAC in relation to the NY6

the SEC SEC SEC was against any deregulation last time and little says that will change

so that is 4 G5 votes against and 1 for and 2 P5 votes against right there so 6-1 against

the AAC voted against deregulation last time which was a shot at the Big 12 if the Big 12 remembers that and decided to return the favor then a waiver fails right there 8 votes against no matter what

the ACC did not get what they wanted out of deregulation last time so I would not see them keen on giving a waiver for something they cannot do

the Big 10 was the one that placed the divisional round robin requirement and the division winners must be in the CCG OR a full conference round robin with the two highest ranked in the CCG

it has been said that the Big 10 might now regret this, but there is no reason to think they would vote for a waiver for a G5 conference to be able to avoid the rule while they still cannot and that is if they really have decided they prefer to change the rule

so there is little to suggest a waiver is a given or will pass and a great deal to suggest it will fail because everyone other than the AAC has very good reasons to vote against it

Right on the money!

(06-27-2019 07:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-26-2019 05:03 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The NCAA had no gripes when the MAC and C-USA played CCGs with 13---this is a non issue.

Quote: 2) Have the 2 schools play each other a second time.
3) Have the 2 schools play out-of-conference opponents as conference games. This has been done occasionally by conferences in the past. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.
4) Have the 2 schools play only 7 conference games. I'm not certain whether it is currently allowed by the NCAA. If not, it could be done with a waiver.

(4) is definitely allowed by NCAA rules, and if it is done on a rotating basis, would be workable. (2), (3) and (4) would have different impacts on the qualification for the CCG. I think (3) would cause the most headaches on that front, either the "OOC conference game" is "easier than conference games" and the other claimants whine about it or it is "harder" and the school that has that count toward their conference record would whine about it ... so I think that (4) dominates (3) as a choice and the pick is between (2) and (4).

I detailed this in a post on a similar thread, so I won't repeat it verbatim here, but let us remember when WVU left hurridly for the Big 12, and the then Big East was left with only seven members for exactly one season, they opted to add a team not originally on their expansion list (who was able to join immediately), simply to avoid ALL of these options for one season. This is the same conference. I cannot imagine they plan to use either of these options as a plan going forward, when they altered their entire conference trajectory just to avoid these options for exactly one season.

It's waiver or bust. If no waiver, they either go back to 12, go to ten, or drop the CCG. I don;t see any of these options as doable even for a short term, based on these very schools refusing to do it for just one year, when the situation would have been resolved the very next year.

(06-27-2019 02:32 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  Beyond imitation, this is not the same situation for the AAC as when Tulsa was added. That was the Catholic 7’s pick, and if any of the recently invited schools got a vote, I can’t imagine it was treated as much more than a rubber stamp. Different voting members at a different time may have different tastes in candidate schools.

Tulsa looks to have been invited after the Catholic 7 announced they were breaking off. The C7 announcement was in December 2012, and Tulsa to the OBE/AAC was announced in April 2013. Although the C7 didn't split away until July 2013, I wouldn't think that they'd have had a vote in OBE/AAC matters after having announced they were leaving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc...ealignment

(06-27-2019 12:05 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  I see little chance any of the G5 conferences besides the AAC support this because doing so aids the AAC in relation to the NY6

the SEC SEC SEC was against any deregulation last time and little says that will change

so that is 4 G5 votes against and 1 for and 2 P5 votes against right there so 6-1 against

the AAC voted against deregulation last time which was a shot at the Big 12 if the Big 12 remembers that and decided to return the favor then a waiver fails right there 8 votes against no matter what

the ACC did not get what they wanted out of deregulation last time so I would not see them keen on giving a waiver for something they cannot do

the Big 10 was the one that placed the divisional round robin requirement and the division winners must be in the CCG OR a full conference round robin with the two highest ranked in the CCG

it has been said that the Big 10 might now regret this, but there is no reason to think they would vote for a waiver for a G5 conference to be able to avoid the rule while they still cannot and that is if they really have decided they prefer to change the rule

so there is little to suggest a waiver is a given or will pass and a great deal to suggest it will fail because everyone other than the AAC has very good reasons to vote against it

So those 4 G5 conference want to force the AAC to take one of their top teams? That doesnt sound very logical.

Given that any conference other than the SEC or Big10 could face the loss of a team---I suspect all will want to be on record as supporting the waiver. In fact, they might even support a more wide ranging change in the CCG rule to allow for more flexibility and easier scheduling (especially for leagues that have odd numbered membership).

(06-28-2019 11:34 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 02:32 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  Beyond imitation, this is not the same situation for the AAC as when Tulsa was added. That was the Catholic 7’s pick, and if any of the recently invited schools got a vote, I can’t imagine it was treated as much more than a rubber stamp. Different voting members at a different time may have different tastes in candidate schools.

Tulsa looks to have been invited after the Catholic 7 announced they were breaking off. The C7 announcement was in December 2012, and Tulsa to the OBE/AAC was announced in April 2013. Although the C7 didn't split away until July 2013, I wouldn't think that they'd have had a vote in OBE/AAC matters after having announced they were leaving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc...ealignment

Tulsa was invited well after the C7 left.