(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

He may be thinking of the infamous Tulane pick, who was voted in unanimously, yet no claims to have ever invited them, and then was blamed for the breakup of the conference. It was really weird. They were the last team added, before the split became official.

(06-28-2019 11:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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.

No, as I explained, Tulsa was invited while the C7 were still part of the OBE, but after they had announced they would be departing.

Re: Tulane, they were invited before the C7 announced they were leaving, so most of the C7 must have formally approved of the Tulane add. That could either be because they genuinely approved of Tulane, or perhaps more likely, because they knew they would be leaving and so didn't really care what the conference looked like afterward. In either case, adding Tulane did not prompt the C7 to leave, so the Green Wave should not be scapegoated as they frequently are.

(06-28-2019 11:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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

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).

It's possible any of those teams change their tune, but there was an almost universal opposition to the ACC's proposal. I believe the idea was that other conferences believed the ACC may use it to manipulate schedules to their advantage (imagine if Clemson and FSU managed to not play each other, and both finished in the top four and made the playoffs)?. It's one of the primary reason I believe the other G5 conferences may oppose it as well, especially with all competing for the same NYD bowl slot.

And yes while some conferences may worry about the AAC taking a member, remember it's not the conference that calls that shot; it's the schools. The schools probably WANT that opportunity, at least the ones I have a chance, and the schools in conferences "below" that, will look for backfill opportunities to move up.

There is no need for anything special to play a CCG with 11 teams. The NCAA rules say that the division sizes need to be as even as possible--this permits having an odd number of teams.

The MAC spent years at 13. There's nothing that states you need a plan to get to even numbers--the MAC certainly had no plan when they added Temple.

There is also no worry about the West needing 18 cross division games and the East needing 20. Two West teams simply don't play each other and play a 4th cross division game. Everyone plays 8 conference games. There's some folks on here really straining to find solutions to problems that don't exist.

You hold at 11 now, unless BYU, Army, or AFA are interested. You sit and wait to see what happens next in realignment and in the event that Buffalo or ODU or someone like that starts winning 11+ games a year for several seasons in a row you consider bringing them into the fold.

(06-28-2019 11:43 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  And yes while some conferences may worry about the AAC taking a member, remember it's not the conference that calls that shot; it's the schools. The schools probably WANT that opportunity, at least the ones I have a chance, and the schools in conferences "below" that, will look for backfill opportunities to move up.

But most of the G5/4 schools aren't realistic AAC (or CUSA backfill) candidates, and know it.

On the other hand, they're not pooping their pants at the prospect of replacing University of TBA either at this point.

(06-28-2019 11:43 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 11:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(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

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).

It's possible any of those teams change their tune, but there was an almost universal opposition to the ACC's proposal. I believe the idea was that other conferences believed the ACC may use it to manipulate schedules to their advantage (imagine if Clemson and FSU managed to not play each other, and both finished in the top four and made the playoffs)?. It's one of the primary reason I believe the other G5 conferences may oppose it as well, especially with all competing for the same NYD bowl slot.

And yes while some conferences may worry about the AAC taking a member, remember it's not the conference that calls that shot; it's the schools. The schools probably WANT that opportunity, at least the ones I have a chance, and the schools in conferences "below" that, will look for backfill opportunities to move up.

the SEC SEC SEC was against any CCG deregulation at all and voted against it and after last year where OU was able to play Texas in the Big 12 CCG and avenge their only season loss and make the playoffs ahead of Georgia there is no chance the SEC SEC SEC does anything to ease the rules for anyone even for a short time all the more so when it would be extremely unpopular to leave out say USF while putting in a second SEC SEC SEC team

the Big 10 is the one that made the change to the rule and while it is said that they now might like to be able to match their two top teams in the CCG while still having divisions there is nothing to suggest they are ready to act on that or to give anothe conference a pass on that while the big 10 themselves still has to match division winners

the Big 12 was for full deregulation, but the last go around the AAC voted against the final proposal.....no reason to think the Big 12 would not return the "favor" especially since the Big 12 is the one conference currently that can use either method to place teams in the CCG

the PAC 12 was said to have not voted

and as you said the ACC was for full deregulation and the Big 10 got in the way of that.....even if the ACC wants it now still there is no reason that they would let another conference get a waiver while the ACC still has to follow the rules.....especially one that voted against it last time

as for the G5 programs and their fear of "their top programs being taken"

well I do not think the MWC has that great fear and I think the MWC is more concerned with making it more difficult (and using the same rules the MWC has to follow) for the AAC to place teams in their CCG and that would be division winners not the two best teams which would be an advantage to the AAC over the MWC....so there is a no vote

I do not think the Sunbelt is worried about losing a team mainly because 9 teams means 8 conference games for them and that works great...hell the Sunbelt let go of two football members to get to 10 members I don't think they would mind 9 and they can always ask NMSU back for football if they need to or take a check from Liberty to let them in for football or any other sport

I don't think the MAC has a concern about losing a team and they have options like UMass, UConn football only, Liberty (and their check) and I think the MAC is more worried about giving a NY6 advantage just like the MWC

I think a large number of CUSA teams think they might get the call so they are A OK with forcing the AAC to perhaps call one of them up......plus I don't think they would mind losing a team either they have ways to deal with that now

so I think that is 4 G5 no votes and 1 yes and probably at least 4 P5 no votes (SEC SEC SEC and one other needed) at least and the waiver fails

(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.

That's because they had more than 12, not less than 12. It's my understanding that in order to have divisions you have to have at least 12 teams. 11 is tricky, because it would require 10 conference games to do a round-robin (the only other way to have a CCG). Losing the CCG is the single most-important reason not to stay at 11. Moving back to 12 is almost a certain necessity.

(06-28-2019 12:08 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  There is no need for anything special to play a CCG with 11 teams. The NCAA rules say that the division sizes need to be as even as possible--this permits having an odd number of teams.

The MAC spent years at 13. There's nothing that states you need a plan to get to even numbers--the MAC certainly had no plan when they added Temple.

The AAC needs a waiver (the MAC had a waiver FYI) if they don; tplan to have two teamsplay each other twice, or have teams play differing numbers of conference games. There is no way around that. They need a waiver, or must do the latter, something the same group opposed for even one season back in 2013.

(06-28-2019 12:12 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  and as you said the ACC was for full deregulation and the Big 10 got in the way of that.....even if the ACC wants it now still there is no reason that they would let another conference get a waiver while the ACC still has to follow the rules.....especially one that voted against it last time

I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was responding to Coog's thoughts that no one would oppose it, and reminding him o the reasons they opposed it last time, and while some may change their minds (due to poaching prospects), it is still not likley, not only because of the past, but because some of those schools may in fact, want to be poached. You are right, the MAC might not be a target for the AAC (although Buffalo could "possibly" be). But they may be a target for CUSA if they lose a team, etc.

I don’t really think it’s crazy for the big east and AAC to team up. You could send Umass, temple, St. Louis, Dayton, Wichita state to the big east for a nice 16 team league with good east/ west 8 team divisions. Than have the AAC with 10 all sports who import Umass, UConn, temple and navy for football only for a 14 team league...jump to 16 if 2 from BYU, Afa and army wanted in.

(06-28-2019 12:52 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I don’t really think it’s crazy for the big east and AAC to team up. You could send Umass, temple, St. Louis, Dayton, Wichita state to the big east for a nice 16 team league with good east/ west 8 team divisions. Than have the AAC with 10 all sports who import Umass, UConn, temple and navy for football only for a 14 team league...jump to 16 if 2 from BYU, Afa and army wanted in.

You do realize both sides split up precisely to avoid this, right?

(06-28-2019 12:39 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(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.

That's because they had more than 12, not less than 12. It's my understanding that in order to have divisions you have to have at least 12 teams. 11 is tricky, because it would require 10 conference games to do a round-robin (the only other way to have a CCG). Losing the CCG is the single most-important reason not to stay at 11. Moving back to 12 is almost a certain necessity.

you can have divisions with 10 teams and hell you can have divisions with 8 teams and another member posted in another thread you only have to play 5 conference games in a sport (including football)

you can have 8 teams with divisions of 4 and play 5 conference games if you want to, but the teams in the CCG must be the division winners

or you can be dumb enough to have 8 (or 10) teams and still have divisions and play every team in the conference.....but if you say you have divisions then the division winners still must play in the CCG....if you say you do not have divisions then the two top teams must be in the CCG

(06-28-2019 01:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:39 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(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.

That's because they had more than 12, not less than 12. It's my understanding that in order to have divisions you have to have at least 12 teams. 11 is tricky, because it would require 10 conference games to do a round-robin (the only other way to have a CCG). Losing the CCG is the single most-important reason not to stay at 11. Moving back to 12 is almost a certain necessity.

you can have divisions with 10 teams and hell you can have divisions with 8 teams and another member posted in another thread you only have to play 5 conference games in a sport (including football)

you can have 8 teams with divisions of 4 and play 5 conference games if you want to, but the teams in the CCG must be the division winners

or you can be dumb enough to have 8 (or 10) teams and still have divisions and play every team in the conference.....but if you say you have divisions then the division winners still must play in the CCG....if you say you do not have divisions then the two top teams must be in the CCG

Guess that must have changed at some point because I know for a long time the push for 12 conference members was to get a CCG. ACC from 9 to 12, Big 10 moving up to 12. Pac-10 moving from 10-12. AAC made sure to get to 12 (after having 10 and 11 their first two yrs) to have a CCG.

(06-28-2019 01:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:39 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  That's because they had more than 12, not less than 12. It's my understanding that in order to have divisions you have to have at least 12 teams.

you can have divisions with 10 teams and hell you can have divisions with 8 teams and another member posted in another thread you only have to play 5 conference games in a sport (including football)

FWIW it was indeed a rule that you had to have 12 teams to have two divisions, up until about two years ago, when they amended the CCG rules.

(06-28-2019 01:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:39 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  That's because they had more than 12, not less than 12. It's my understanding that in order to have divisions you have to have at least 12 teams.

you can have divisions with 10 teams and hell you can have divisions with 8 teams and another member posted in another thread you only have to play 5 conference games in a sport (including football)

FWIW it was indeed a rule that you had to have 12 teams to have two divisions, up until about two years ago, when they amended the CCG rules.

Hmm... I know they allowed the Big XII to do it with less than 12, but thought that was only because they did round-robin. Which is why they had no need to move back to 12 and didn't bother with divisions.

(06-28-2019 01:49 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:26 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 12:39 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  That's because they had more than 12, not less than 12. It's my understanding that in order to have divisions you have to have at least 12 teams.

you can have divisions with 10 teams and hell you can have divisions with 8 teams and another member posted in another thread you only have to play 5 conference games in a sport (including football)

FWIW it was indeed a rule that you had to have 12 teams to have two divisions, up until about two years ago, when they amended the CCG rules.

Hmm... I know they allowed the Big XII to do it with less than 12, but thought that was only because they did round-robin. Which is why they had no need to move back to 12 and didn't bother with divisions.

you can have divisions or no divisions

if you have divisions they must be "as equal as possible" so only one team difference in number

you can only have two divisions not 3 or more

if you have divisions then to have a CCG you must play a DIVISIONAL round robin and the division winners must meet in the CCG

if you do not have divisions then you must play a full conference round robin and you must have the two best teams in the CCG

so as of now (barring the AAC playing 10 conference games or the PAC 12 playing 11 conference games) the Big 12 is the only conference that has a choice of what to do

and yes the Big 12 was stupid enough to publically talk about having 10 teams, making divisions and then still playing 9 conference games.....but because they would have been stupid enough to declare divisions they would have to have matched the division winners in the CCG (this shows you how stupid ADs and others can be)

so there is nothing that prevents the AAC from having a division of 6 and one of 5 teams and playing divisional round robins and placing the divisions winners in the CCG and there is nothing (other than how bad it would be for the conference) that prevents them from playing 10 conference games and having the two best teams in the CCG (or being stupid enough to have divisions with 10 conference games and placing the division winners in the CCG)

so no waiver to have a CCG is needed at all

(06-28-2019 01:49 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  FWIW it was indeed a rule that you had to have 12 teams to have two divisions, up until about two years ago, when they amended the CCG rules.

Hmm... I know they allowed the Big XII to do it with less than 12, but thought that was only because they did round-robin. Which is why they had no need to move back to 12 and didn't bother with divisions.

That was the method they chose, because an unexpected addendum was added, allowing no divisions if you play every team. I don't think they wanted five team divisions, as it essentially means you play every team in your division, and every team but one cross division, but they didn't think they had a choice. Then the division-less option was presented. At least that's how I recall it going down.

(06-28-2019 02:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:49 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 01:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  FWIW it was indeed a rule that you had to have 12 teams to have two divisions, up until about two years ago, when they amended the CCG rules.

Hmm... I know they allowed the Big XII to do it with less than 12, but thought that was only because they did round-robin. Which is why they had no need to move back to 12 and didn't bother with divisions.

That was the method they chose, because an unexpected addendum was added, allowing no divisions if you play every team. I don't think they wanted five team divisions, as it essentially means you play every team in your division, and every team but one cross division, but they didn't think they had a choice. Then the division-less option was presented. At least that's how I recall it going down.

Some argued that divisions in the Big 12 might "protect" a playoff-caliber team from upset in the CCG. To Once a Knight's confusion: the 12-team minimum was also dropped with the rule-change a few years ago.

Does a conference have to "declare" divisions or just stage a CCG and post-facto point to how they used their 13th-game exemption? Say, if the Big 12 had pit Oklahoma against Iowa State in their CCG and, post-facto, said Iowa State was the champion of the "North" division while Oklahoma championed the "South"; both teams would naturally have played round-robin within their divisions, so would the NCAA have any grounds to fine them?

Theoretically, the AAC could schedule such that almost any configuration of teams could be combined to form the 5- and 6-team divisions, allowing a seemingly "divisionless" structure while, in fact, having round-robin divisions behind the scenes.

AAC Unlikely to Expand...Unless

NCAA by-laws state that any conference which holds a championship game (The AAC does) and is smaller than 12 teams MUST play a full round robin schedule. The initial sentiment among AAC members, who will hold a conference call on Friday, is to follow that path.

The conference is just starting a new 12-year $1 billion television contract with ESPN, which boosts payoff for each team from $2 million per season to slightly under $ 7 million per team. That amount was partially based on the AAC having a championship game in football.

For the AAC to meet the NCAA requirements, it would have to schedule an unprecedented 10 conference games per season. That is not likely to happen. AAC commissioner Mike Aresco said on Thursday he was confident the NCAA would grant the AAC a waiver on that requirement, wondering why the NCAA would enforce a rule that would basically require the AAC potentially raiding another conference to get back to 12 teams.

The quickest path for the AAC to get back to 12 teams would be to add one team in football only, similar to the arrangement Navy now has with the conference. The two most attractive teams who have independent status in football are Army and BYU

Link
https://collegesportsmaven.io/tmg/mark-b...jI3f7E2Qg/

(06-29-2019 09:35 AM)GTFletch Wrote:  AAC Unlikely to Expand...Unless

NCAA by-laws state that any conference which holds a championship game (The AAC does) and is smaller than 12 teams MUST play a full round robin schedule. The initial sentiment among AAC members, who will hold a conference call on Friday, is to follow that path.

The conference is just starting a new 12-year $1 billion television contract with ESPN, which boosts payoff for each team from $2 million per season to slightly under $ 7 million per team. That amount was partially based on the AAC having a championship game in football.

For the AAC to meet the NCAA requirements, it would have to schedule an unprecedented 10 conference games per season. That is not likely to happen. AAC commissioner Mike Aresco said on Thursday he was confident the NCAA would grant the AAC a waiver on that requirement, wondering why the NCAA would enforce a rule that would basically require the AAC potentially raiding another conference to get back to 12 teams.

The quickest path for the AAC to get back to 12 teams would be to add one team in football only, similar to the arrangement Navy now has with the conference. The two most attractive teams who have independent status in football are Army and BYU

Link
https://collegesportsmaven.io/tmg/mark-b...jI3f7E2Qg/

This is not the first time I've seen this written. It is 100% factually untrue. Look no further than the Sun Belt Conference. They have 10 members. They play 8 conference games. They have 2 divisions. Their division champions play.

It is appalling how many "reporters" just write things without fact checking them. Or how easy it is to create a website, write something and have somebody cite it as fact.

USFFan

(06-26-2019 04:58 PM)mturn017 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.

Even if the TV contract is adjusted down they’ll share the CFP, ncaa credits and other revenues among less numbers.

Even if it's adjusted down, the member schools will still get the same money they would have made before, so UConn leaving has zero impact on money.

It actually helps football, even if we add nobody.

Basketball takes a temp hit in prestige, but not in reality of losing the 9th or 10th best team in the conference last year.