(07-02-2019 07:37 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: (06-30-2019 01:53 PM)Foreverandever Wrote: (06-30-2019 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (06-30-2019 12:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (06-30-2019 11:50 AM)adcorbett Wrote: You can’t play nine games with 11 teams. You have the same problem: one team has to have an unbalanced schedule.
Alright, is that true with 8 as well? Is there any way that an 11-team league can't have an unbalanced schedule?
Thats why Ive said---maybe now is the time to just go ahead and address the rules regarding odd numbered leagues holding CCG games. Instead of waivers---just do a permanent fix to the rules so odd numbered conferences will have a reasonable and established way of handling a CCG.
There will some sort of schedule requirements so people can't just work it up, probably something like a certain percentage of teams "permanently set" and a set number of years to rotate to play each team in the conference. Also the rules will be set that the best conference record teams will play and rankings may only used to tie break.
So something like:
To hold a championship game with out a round robin of one or two divisions, a conference must be larger than 10 and set the schedule such that each team is in permanent alignment with one third of the teams (rounded up when a fraction) and must play each school in its conference at least once every four years in a home and home series. The championship must be contested between the teams with the two best conference records. Rankings may not be used to decide the two participants unless it is as a conference record tie breaker.
Examples:
For the SEC, ACC, and B1G (CUSA) ~14 teams~ to go divisionless they would have to play 5 teams in a permanent set up, and than play 4 games to rotate through the other eight teams home and home in four years. Total of 9 games.
For the PAC (AAC, MWC, MAC) ~12 teams~ they would have to play 4 teams in a permanent set up and play 4 games to rotate through the other seven teams in home and home in four years . Total of 8 games.
Should a super league of 16 or ND be given a spot in the ACC..
15 teams would require 5 permanent set up and 5 games to rotate through. Total games 10
16 teams would require 6 permanent set up and 5 games to rotate through. Total games 11
For 11 it would require 4 permanent set up, then 3 games to rotate through the other 6 teams in in four years. Total 7 games.
Teams of course could have more than the minimum requirement of conference games.
Once a complete rotation of home and home have been played against each conference opponent the "permanent" alignment can be altered and a new championship cycle begins. Each cycle must be completed according to the divisionless championship rules before a new alignment or a return to divisions for a championship through round robin can occur.
I don't know why the revised rule for a CCG would be so complicated and restricitive. Maybe just require a round robin for conferences with 9 or fewer FBS members and at least 8 conference games for those with more than 9 FBS members. (Even this may be more restrictive than necessary, since all conferences are already compliant with this even though there's no specific rule like it.) Otherwise, a conference can set up schedules, CCG qualification, and divisions (if they opt for divisions) as it sees fit.
the rule does not have to be complicated.....but the facts are the NCAA is not just random people making rules it is the conferences creating and submitting and voting on rules
and in the case of the CCG the Big 10 very specifically and the SEC SEC SEC wanted to make it nor possible for a conference to have divisions and have a CCG with their two top teams in the CCG
they wanted it where if a conference did not play a full conference round robin then they had to play a divisional round robin and match the division winners in the CCG
so there is no reason to think that the same conferences that voted to have the rule that way specifically are prepared to give a pass to one conference (especially the AAC that has NOT made friends in spite of silly claims otherwise)
there is really nothing to suggest they will give a short term pass much less a long term one and I would think IF they gave a short term path it would be with a very short window (like one season) and with a very clear understanding that was the only pass
now if the Big 10 has changed their mind and the Big 12 has forgotten that the AAC voted against any CCG deregulation and the other G5 programs vote the opposite of the way the AAC did when the AAC thought they would back the Big 12 into a corner and force them to expand then perhaps there will be an eventual vote to change the rule completely
but as of now there is no reason to think the SEC SEC SEC will give a pass to the AAC after all the "national champions" talk and the call outs of Florida and LSU and others nor is there any reason to think that the SEC SEC SEC wants the rule changed at all when they were against any deregulation
there is little to suggest the Big 10 is looking to give the AAC a waiver to do something the Big 10 can't (and that the Big 10 was clearly against, and little to suggest that the ACC would give a pass for something they wanted and could not get
and there is little to suggest the other G5 will want to help the AAC out at all even if they might lose a member (most are probably not worried about losing a member at all and a couple might want it to happen)