Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
Author Message
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,753
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 147
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #181
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-10-2019 09:08 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The MAC had a waiver for nine years, five with Temple and four with UMass. IOW, they had waivers for just short of a decade.
Exactly. It's not as if there is some limit on the number of waivers available for short periods of time. In early 2011, UMass agreed to move up, set to join in July 2012, so 2011/2012 the MAC wouldn't have had to apply for a "we are trying to resolve the imbalance" waiver, they could apply for a "we have a resolution, they have agreed to join as soon as they are FBS". So four years of "honest, we are trying to fix it" waivers, one year of "we are fixing it ... as fast as NCAA rules allow", and then when Temple left, four years of "we can fix this as soon as we can exercise our 'join or go' option" waiver.

IOW, 9 years, the last 5 of those years with a hard deadline.

So it seems likely if the AAC applies for a 3 year waiver based on completing a full cycle of skipped West Division games, it seems very likely they'll get it, and whether they can say, "OK, now give us another three years" and get it ... that's up in the air.

But with no compelling add, may as well go for it.
07-11-2019 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TodgeRodge Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,542
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 177
I Root For: Todge
Location: Westlake
Post: #182
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-10-2019 06:38 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is, if you do the same "rivals/travel/tradition" calculation for Texas and Oklahoma---you'll see the Big12 melt down is largely a bulletin board creation. Especially when you calculate in a 50 million dollar exit fee, the Longhorn Network problem, and pay days that wont be all that different. What you might see is some flirting in the mid -2020's to gain some extra concessions from the other B12 members---but I suspect the "The Mid 2020 Realignment Big Bang" is going to probably be a big bust.

I agree that smart scheduling can solve most of the bigger travel issues that might be potential issues with a larger footprint best of the rest type conference.

$50 million?

the exit fee for the Big 12 is actually "an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions" which by the end of the Big 12 media contracts will be closer to $90 million

and it will be hard for Texas or anyone else to "flirt" considering the Big 12 99 year contract for conference membership has a provision in it that requires a 12 hour notification and WRITTEN DECLINE OF INTEREST of any party contacts or is contacted by a Big 12 member about switching conferences

so there is no using a 3rd party or having Chuck Neinas going around talking to people for you or having one of your alumni talking to alumni of other conferences on your behalf

if you have contract or make contact with anyone about switching conferences you are required to notify the conference within 12 hours and decline the offer in a written statement

otherwise you lose conference voting privileges and can be sanctioned in other ways

and the contract this is in is not a part of the GOR and is not dependent on the GOR being in place or renewed
07-11-2019 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,817
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1317
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #183
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-11-2019 02:42 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 09:08 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The MAC had a waiver for nine years, five with Temple and four with UMass. IOW, they had waivers for just short of a decade.
Exactly. It's not as if there is some limit on the number of waivers available for short periods of time. In early 2011, UMass agreed to move up, set to join in July 2012, so 2011/2012 the MAC wouldn't have had to apply for a "we are trying to resolve the imbalance" waiver, they could apply for a "we have a resolution, they have agreed to join as soon as they are FBS". So four years of "honest, we are trying to fix it" waivers, one year of "we are fixing it ... as fast as NCAA rules allow", and then when Temple left, four years of "we can fix this as soon as we can exercise our 'join or go' option" waiver.

IOW, 9 years, the last 5 of those years with a hard deadline.

So it seems likely if the AAC applies for a 3 year waiver based on completing a full cycle of skipped West Division games, it seems very likely they'll get it, and whether they can say, "OK, now give us another three years" and get it ... that's up in the air.

But with no compelling add, may as well go for it.

But honestly---why would it be up in the air? Unless the NCAA has some compelling reason to be against odd numbered conferences---I dont think they would care. That said, my guess is this will end up being taken care of legislatively. I suspect the AAC will work with several other conferences to develop an NCAA proposal that will give ALL conferences with more than 9 members an option to do a divisionless CCG while playing only 8 or 9 conference games. Whether they elect to utilize the divisionless option or not---I suspect the vast majority of FBS conferences would like to at least have that option available to them.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2019 04:50 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-11-2019 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,817
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1317
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #184
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-11-2019 03:24 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 06:38 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is, if you do the same "rivals/travel/tradition" calculation for Texas and Oklahoma---you'll see the Big12 melt down is largely a bulletin board creation. Especially when you calculate in a 50 million dollar exit fee, the Longhorn Network problem, and pay days that wont be all that different. What you might see is some flirting in the mid -2020's to gain some extra concessions from the other B12 members---but I suspect the "The Mid 2020 Realignment Big Bang" is going to probably be a big bust.

I agree that smart scheduling can solve most of the bigger travel issues that might be potential issues with a larger footprint best of the rest type conference.

$50 million?

the exit fee for the Big 12 is actually "an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions" which by the end of the Big 12 media contracts will be closer to $90 million

and it will be hard for Texas or anyone else to "flirt" considering the Big 12 99 year contract for conference membership has a provision in it that requires a 12 hour notification and WRITTEN DECLINE OF INTEREST of any party contacts or is contacted by a Big 12 member about switching conferences

so there is no using a 3rd party or having Chuck Neinas going around talking to people for you or having one of your alumni talking to alumni of other conferences on your behalf

if you have contract or make contact with anyone about switching conferences you are required to notify the conference within 12 hours and decline the offer in a written statement

otherwise you lose conference voting privileges and can be sanctioned in other ways

and the contract this is in is not a part of the GOR and is not dependent on the GOR being in place or renewed

Or what? What is the Big12 going to do? The other members arent going to do a darn thing to the Longhorns other than kiss their butt and hope they can stay firmly attached to the UT teet. That 12 hour thing is meaningless. If they attempt to invoke the exit fee-or other punishments---then you've just given them more incentive to leave and/or go to court to undermine the stability protections contained in the B12 agreement. Even the Big12 in its most dysfunctional state isnt that stupid. If the BIg12 wants to push UT out the door, well---then I guess enforcing that 12 hour clause is one way to do it. Plus I doubt courts would find that clause to be enforceable anyway.

Look--I honestly dont think Texas is going to leave. I'd put the chances of leaving at maybe 20%---but that clause isnt going to stop them from flirting and looking into their options. The job of the UT administration is to do what is best for Texas---its one thing they are quite good at.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2019 07:10 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-11-2019 04:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 2,106
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 89
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #185
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-11-2019 03:24 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 06:38 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is, if you do the same "rivals/travel/tradition" calculation for Texas and Oklahoma---you'll see the Big12 melt down is largely a bulletin board creation. Especially when you calculate in a 50 million dollar exit fee, the Longhorn Network problem, and pay days that wont be all that different. What you might see is some flirting in the mid -2020's to gain some extra concessions from the other B12 members---but I suspect the "The Mid 2020 Realignment Big Bang" is going to probably be a big bust.

I agree that smart scheduling can solve most of the bigger travel issues that might be potential issues with a larger footprint best of the rest type conference.

$50 million?

the exit fee for the Big 12 is actually "an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions" which by the end of the Big 12 media contracts will be closer to $90 million

and it will be hard for Texas or anyone else to "flirt" considering the Big 12 99 year contract for conference membership has a provision in it that requires a 12 hour notification and WRITTEN DECLINE OF INTEREST of any party contacts or is contacted by a Big 12 member about switching conferences

so there is no using a 3rd party or having Chuck Neinas going around talking to people for you or having one of your alumni talking to alumni of other conferences on your behalf

if you have contract or make contact with anyone about switching conferences you are required to notify the conference within 12 hours and decline the offer in a written statement

otherwise you lose conference voting privileges and can be sanctioned in other ways

and the contract this is in is not a part of the GOR and is not dependent on the GOR being in place or renewed

Ah yes, I've seen that 99-year section of the Big 12 bylaws. If that's valid, I do wonder how well it would stand up in court if challenged. I suspect not well. Plus, would the remaining Big 12 schools really want to make enemies of the departing ones, especially if those departing are OU or UT? There would go any chance of future OOC games against them. I don't see OSU, TT, or TCU pursuing anywhere near the full payout. Baylor maybe -- they're self-destructive enough.
07-11-2019 05:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,397
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #186
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-11-2019 04:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 02:42 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 09:08 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The MAC had a waiver for nine years, five with Temple and four with UMass. IOW, they had waivers for just short of a decade.
Exactly. It's not as if there is some limit on the number of waivers available for short periods of time. In early 2011, UMass agreed to move up, set to join in July 2012, so 2011/2012 the MAC wouldn't have had to apply for a "we are trying to resolve the imbalance" waiver, they could apply for a "we have a resolution, they have agreed to join as soon as they are FBS". So four years of "honest, we are trying to fix it" waivers, one year of "we are fixing it ... as fast as NCAA rules allow", and then when Temple left, four years of "we can fix this as soon as we can exercise our 'join or go' option" waiver.

IOW, 9 years, the last 5 of those years with a hard deadline.

So it seems likely if the AAC applies for a 3 year waiver based on completing a full cycle of skipped West Division games, it seems very likely they'll get it, and whether they can say, "OK, now give us another three years" and get it ... that's up in the air.

But with no compelling add, may as well go for it.

But honestly---why would it be up in the air? Unless the NCAA has some compelling reason to be against odd numbered conferences---I dont think they would care. That said, my guess is this will end up being taken care of legislatively. I suspect the AAC will work with several other conferences to develop an NCAA proposal that will give ALL conferences with more than 9 members an option to do a divisionless CCG while playing only 8 or 9 conference games. Whether they elect to utilize the divisionless option or not---I suspect the vast majority of FBS conferences would like to at least have that option available to them.

There's logic in what you are saying, but then again ... it's not like this rule just floated down from heaven. It was created and implemented for a reason, and presumably that reason still exists.

So I tend to agree with the other poster - a 3 year waiver is a given, because of the abrupt nature of the UConn departure. But beyond that, unless a P5 conference suddenly has a reason to want to do the same thing, I think the AAC might not be able to get a waiver, or have the regulation changed.

It would probably be moot anyway, as I don't see the AAC sticking at 11 for more than 3 years anyway.
07-11-2019 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,817
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1317
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #187
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-11-2019 05:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 04:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 02:42 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 09:08 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The MAC had a waiver for nine years, five with Temple and four with UMass. IOW, they had waivers for just short of a decade.
Exactly. It's not as if there is some limit on the number of waivers available for short periods of time. In early 2011, UMass agreed to move up, set to join in July 2012, so 2011/2012 the MAC wouldn't have had to apply for a "we are trying to resolve the imbalance" waiver, they could apply for a "we have a resolution, they have agreed to join as soon as they are FBS". So four years of "honest, we are trying to fix it" waivers, one year of "we are fixing it ... as fast as NCAA rules allow", and then when Temple left, four years of "we can fix this as soon as we can exercise our 'join or go' option" waiver.

IOW, 9 years, the last 5 of those years with a hard deadline.

So it seems likely if the AAC applies for a 3 year waiver based on completing a full cycle of skipped West Division games, it seems very likely they'll get it, and whether they can say, "OK, now give us another three years" and get it ... that's up in the air.

But with no compelling add, may as well go for it.

But honestly---why would it be up in the air? Unless the NCAA has some compelling reason to be against odd numbered conferences---I dont think they would care. That said, my guess is this will end up being taken care of legislatively. I suspect the AAC will work with several other conferences to develop an NCAA proposal that will give ALL conferences with more than 9 members an option to do a divisionless CCG while playing only 8 or 9 conference games. Whether they elect to utilize the divisionless option or not---I suspect the vast majority of FBS conferences would like to at least have that option available to them.

There's logic in what you are saying, but then again ... it's not like this rule just floated down from heaven. It was created and implemented for a reason, and presumably that reason still exists.

So I tend to agree with the other poster - a 3 year waiver is a given, because of the abrupt nature of the UConn departure. But beyond that, unless a P5 conference suddenly has a reason to want to do the same thing, I think the AAC might not be able to get a waiver, or have the regulation changed.

It would probably be moot anyway, as I don't see the AAC sticking at 11 for more than 3 years anyway.

But does it? The very conference that wrote and backed the new amended rule was the same conference that openly talked about looking at a divisionless CCG a few months ago---which the Big 10 cant do under the rule they penned. My guess is a properly phrased rule, that is written in concert with the Big10 and several other FBS conferences, probably has a very good chance of being passed. I think the key here is getting input and lining up your support long before the proposal is ever submitted.
(This post was last modified: 07-11-2019 05:38 PM by Attackcoog.)
07-11-2019 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,753
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 147
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #188
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-11-2019 04:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  But honestly---why would it be up in the air?

Typically, because the people with the power to make a rule are jealous of their prerogatives and object to a waiver committee tacitly revoking the rule by waiving it on an indefinite basis.

Quote: That said, my guess is this will end up being taken care of legislatively.

If a conference aimed to resolve the issue that way, then that would be another reason to ask for a three year waiver at the outset ... even if they were careful to refrain from mentioning that in their waiver application.
07-12-2019 03:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,507
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 597
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #189
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
Doesn't matter whether it's a waiver or a rule change. The AAC will be allowed to have a football CCG because the other G5 conferences will realize that they want the AAC to have one.

The G5 conferences each want their champ to play in the "access bowl". The other four all have CCGs. They will want the best AAC team to have to expose itself to the risk of being upset in a CCG and losing its shot at the access bowl, just like the best teams in CUSA, MAC, MWC, and SBC have to bear that risk.
07-12-2019 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,397
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #190
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-12-2019 10:38 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Doesn't matter whether it's a waiver or a rule change. The AAC will be allowed to have a football CCG because the other G5 conferences will realize that they want the AAC to have one.

The G5 conferences each want their champ to play in the "access bowl". The other four all have CCGs. They will want the best AAC team to have to expose itself to the risk of being upset in a CCG and losing its shot at the access bowl, just like the best teams in CUSA, MAC, MWC, and SBC have to bear that risk.

I see your logic, but I'm not sure it applies. Let's face it: EVERYONE here is assuming the AAC wants to keep its CCG and will therefore takes steps to keep it. That suggests it is GOOD for the AAC, not bad. And other conferences feel the same way. E.g., the Big 12 restored their CCG a couple years ago because they concluded that, on balance, not having one hurt their playoff chances more than it helped.

Yes, in theory, a CCG cuts both ways - it can bolster the resume of a favored team, or harm that team if they are upset by a weak opponent - but in practice, what seems to happen most times is that the CCG helps a conference get a coveted spot in the playoffs or a big bowl, not hurt it. So I suspect the other Gs might be happy if the AAC loses its CCG.

Not having a CCG would also hurt the AAC in its effort to distinguish itself from those other Gs, as the AAC would lose a big spotlight game on ABC at the end of the year. That would please the other G4 too.
(This post was last modified: 07-12-2019 11:26 AM by quo vadis.)
07-12-2019 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,507
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 597
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #191
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-12-2019 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  what seems to happen most times is that the CCG helps a conference get a coveted spot in the playoffs or a big bowl, not hurt it.

I don't agree. Again, specifically looking at the "access bowl" spot, every G5 team that has been selected would have been selected even if they didn't have a CCG. Also, in every conference's CCG in the CFP years (with the exception of a couple of SEC CCGs), the underdog has been a team that, in the P5 cases, would not have been selected for the playoff, and in the G5 cases, would not have been selected for the access spot. It is a fluke that there have not yet been any CCG upsets that have changed the playoff or access selections.

In other words, so far, the CCG has been a banana peel that the favorite has to avoid slipping on.
07-12-2019 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,805
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 223
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #192
Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-12-2019 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 10:38 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Doesn't matter whether it's a waiver or a rule change. The AAC will be allowed to have a football CCG because the other G5 conferences will realize that they want the AAC to have one.

The G5 conferences each want their champ to play in the "access bowl". The other four all have CCGs. They will want the best AAC team to have to expose itself to the risk of being upset in a CCG and losing its shot at the access bowl, just like the best teams in CUSA, MAC, MWC, and SBC have to bear that risk.

I see your logic, but I'm not sure it applies. Let's face it: EVERYONE here is assuming the AAC wants to keep its CCG and will therefore takes steps to keep it. That suggests it is GOOD for the AAC, not bad. And other conferences feel the same way. E.g., the Big 12 restored their CCG a couple years ago because they concluded that, on balance, not having one hurt their playoff chances more than it helped.

Yes, in theory, a CCG cuts both ways - it can bolster the resume of a favored team, or harm that team if they are upset by a weak opponent - but in practice, what seems to happen most times is that the CCG helps a conference get a coveted spot in the playoffs or a big bowl, not hurt it. So I suspect the other Gs might be happy if the AAC loses its CCG.

Not having a CCG would also hurt the AAC in its effort to distinguish itself from those other Gs, as the AAC would lose a big spotlight game on ABC at the end of the year. That would please the other G4 too.


Most importantly the CCG brings money, which trumps any other reason for having it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
07-12-2019 12:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 35,390
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1044
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #193
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-11-2019 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 03:24 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 06:38 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is, if you do the same "rivals/travel/tradition" calculation for Texas and Oklahoma---you'll see the Big12 melt down is largely a bulletin board creation. Especially when you calculate in a 50 million dollar exit fee, the Longhorn Network problem, and pay days that wont be all that different. What you might see is some flirting in the mid -2020's to gain some extra concessions from the other B12 members---but I suspect the "The Mid 2020 Realignment Big Bang" is going to probably be a big bust.

I agree that smart scheduling can solve most of the bigger travel issues that might be potential issues with a larger footprint best of the rest type conference.

$50 million?

the exit fee for the Big 12 is actually "an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions" which by the end of the Big 12 media contracts will be closer to $90 million

and it will be hard for Texas or anyone else to "flirt" considering the Big 12 99 year contract for conference membership has a provision in it that requires a 12 hour notification and WRITTEN DECLINE OF INTEREST of any party contacts or is contacted by a Big 12 member about switching conferences

so there is no using a 3rd party or having Chuck Neinas going around talking to people for you or having one of your alumni talking to alumni of other conferences on your behalf

if you have contract or make contact with anyone about switching conferences you are required to notify the conference within 12 hours and decline the offer in a written statement

otherwise you lose conference voting privileges and can be sanctioned in other ways

and the contract this is in is not a part of the GOR and is not dependent on the GOR being in place or renewed

Or what? What is the Big12 going to do? The other members arent going to do a darn thing to the Longhorns other than kiss their butt and hope they can stay firmly attached to the UT teet. That 12 hour thing is meaningless. If they attempt to invoke the exit fee-or other punishments---then you've just given them more incentive to leave and/or go to court to undermine the stability protections contained in the B12 agreement. Even the Big12 in its most dysfunctional state isnt that stupid. If the BIg12 wants to push UT out the door, well---then I guess enforcing that 12 hour clause is one way to do it. Plus I doubt courts would find that clause to be enforceable anyway.

Look--I honestly dont think Texas is going to leave. I'd put the chances of leaving at maybe 20%---but that clause isnt going to stop them from flirting and looking into their options. The job of the UT administration is to do what is best for Texas---its one thing they are quite good at.

If an AD isn't looking at their options, they aren't doing their job. Nebraska got caught flat footed in 2010 because Tom Osborne wasn't doing his job properly.
07-12-2019 05:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 35,390
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1044
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #194
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-12-2019 12:11 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 10:38 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Doesn't matter whether it's a waiver or a rule change. The AAC will be allowed to have a football CCG because the other G5 conferences will realize that they want the AAC to have one.

The G5 conferences each want their champ to play in the "access bowl". The other four all have CCGs. They will want the best AAC team to have to expose itself to the risk of being upset in a CCG and losing its shot at the access bowl, just like the best teams in CUSA, MAC, MWC, and SBC have to bear that risk.

I see your logic, but I'm not sure it applies. Let's face it: EVERYONE here is assuming the AAC wants to keep its CCG and will therefore takes steps to keep it. That suggests it is GOOD for the AAC, not bad. And other conferences feel the same way. E.g., the Big 12 restored their CCG a couple years ago because they concluded that, on balance, not having one hurt their playoff chances more than it helped.

Yes, in theory, a CCG cuts both ways - it can bolster the resume of a favored team, or harm that team if they are upset by a weak opponent - but in practice, what seems to happen most times is that the CCG helps a conference get a coveted spot in the playoffs or a big bowl, not hurt it. So I suspect the other Gs might be happy if the AAC loses its CCG.

Not having a CCG would also hurt the AAC in its effort to distinguish itself from those other Gs, as the AAC would lose a big spotlight game on ABC at the end of the year. That would please the other G4 too.


Most importantly the CCG brings money, which trumps any other reason for having it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I would say most importantly it brings exposure they can't get any other time of the regular season.
07-12-2019 05:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,817
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1317
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #195
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-12-2019 05:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 04:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-11-2019 03:24 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  
(07-10-2019 06:38 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(07-09-2019 04:12 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The thing is, if you do the same "rivals/travel/tradition" calculation for Texas and Oklahoma---you'll see the Big12 melt down is largely a bulletin board creation. Especially when you calculate in a 50 million dollar exit fee, the Longhorn Network problem, and pay days that wont be all that different. What you might see is some flirting in the mid -2020's to gain some extra concessions from the other B12 members---but I suspect the "The Mid 2020 Realignment Big Bang" is going to probably be a big bust.

I agree that smart scheduling can solve most of the bigger travel issues that might be potential issues with a larger footprint best of the rest type conference.

$50 million?

the exit fee for the Big 12 is actually "an amount equal to the prior two years conference distributions" which by the end of the Big 12 media contracts will be closer to $90 million

and it will be hard for Texas or anyone else to "flirt" considering the Big 12 99 year contract for conference membership has a provision in it that requires a 12 hour notification and WRITTEN DECLINE OF INTEREST of any party contacts or is contacted by a Big 12 member about switching conferences

so there is no using a 3rd party or having Chuck Neinas going around talking to people for you or having one of your alumni talking to alumni of other conferences on your behalf

if you have contract or make contact with anyone about switching conferences you are required to notify the conference within 12 hours and decline the offer in a written statement

otherwise you lose conference voting privileges and can be sanctioned in other ways

and the contract this is in is not a part of the GOR and is not dependent on the GOR being in place or renewed

Or what? What is the Big12 going to do? The other members arent going to do a darn thing to the Longhorns other than kiss their butt and hope they can stay firmly attached to the UT teet. That 12 hour thing is meaningless. If they attempt to invoke the exit fee-or other punishments---then you've just given them more incentive to leave and/or go to court to undermine the stability protections contained in the B12 agreement. Even the Big12 in its most dysfunctional state isnt that stupid. If the BIg12 wants to push UT out the door, well---then I guess enforcing that 12 hour clause is one way to do it. Plus I doubt courts would find that clause to be enforceable anyway.

Look--I honestly dont think Texas is going to leave. I'd put the chances of leaving at maybe 20%---but that clause isnt going to stop them from flirting and looking into their options. The job of the UT administration is to do what is best for Texas---its one thing they are quite good at.

If an AD isn't looking at their options, they aren't doing their job. Nebraska got caught flat footed in 2010 because Tom Osborne wasn't doing his job properly.


Agree. Thats why I think if push comes to shove--that 12 hour notice section would probably end up being declared as unenforceable if it were ever tested in the courts.
07-12-2019 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,397
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #196
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-12-2019 11:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  what seems to happen most times is that the CCG helps a conference get a coveted spot in the playoffs or a big bowl, not hurt it.

I don't agree. Again, specifically looking at the "access bowl" spot, every G5 team that has been selected would have been selected even if they didn't have a CCG. Also, in every conference's CCG in the CFP years (with the exception of a couple of SEC CCGs), the underdog has been a team that, in the P5 cases, would not have been selected for the playoff, and in the G5 cases, would not have been selected for the access spot. It is a fluke that there have not yet been any CCG upsets that have changed the playoff or access selections.

All of these G5 conferences have a CCG. When has the CCG cost a conference the Access spot? Never. You say it is a "fluke" this hasn't happened, but you also claim that every G5 team selected would have been selected if they hadn't played in a CCG. I'm not sure that's true, but if it is, isn't that a "fluke" as well?

I just don't see any evidence for your belief that the other Gs would prefer that the AAC have a CCG.
07-12-2019 06:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 29,817
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1317
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #197
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-12-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 11:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  what seems to happen most times is that the CCG helps a conference get a coveted spot in the playoffs or a big bowl, not hurt it.

I don't agree. Again, specifically looking at the "access bowl" spot, every G5 team that has been selected would have been selected even if they didn't have a CCG. Also, in every conference's CCG in the CFP years (with the exception of a couple of SEC CCGs), the underdog has been a team that, in the P5 cases, would not have been selected for the playoff, and in the G5 cases, would not have been selected for the access spot. It is a fluke that there have not yet been any CCG upsets that have changed the playoff or access selections.

All of these G5 conferences have a CCG. When has the CCG cost a conference the Access spot? Never. You say it is a "fluke" this hasn't happened, but you also claim that every G5 team selected would have been selected if they hadn't played in a CCG. I'm not sure that's true, but if it is, isn't that a "fluke" as well?

I just don't see any evidence for your belief that the other Gs would prefer that the AAC have a CCG.

About as much evidence that the G5 would vote against a waiver just to to do it.
07-12-2019 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,693
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #198
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-12-2019 10:38 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The G5 conferences each want their champ to play in the "access bowl". The other four all have CCGs. They will want the best AAC team to have to expose itself to the risk of being upset in a CCG and losing its shot at the access bowl, just like the best teams in CUSA, MAC, MWC, and SBC have to bear that risk.

The way to get there for the G5 is promote expansion to a NY8 or NY10 with every conference sending their champ to one of the games.
07-14-2019 09:33 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,397
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 786
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #199
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-12-2019 10:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 11:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(07-12-2019 11:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  what seems to happen most times is that the CCG helps a conference get a coveted spot in the playoffs or a big bowl, not hurt it.

I don't agree. Again, specifically looking at the "access bowl" spot, every G5 team that has been selected would have been selected even if they didn't have a CCG. Also, in every conference's CCG in the CFP years (with the exception of a couple of SEC CCGs), the underdog has been a team that, in the P5 cases, would not have been selected for the playoff, and in the G5 cases, would not have been selected for the access spot. It is a fluke that there have not yet been any CCG upsets that have changed the playoff or access selections.

All of these G5 conferences have a CCG. When has the CCG cost a conference the Access spot? Never. You say it is a "fluke" this hasn't happened, but you also claim that every G5 team selected would have been selected if they hadn't played in a CCG. I'm not sure that's true, but if it is, isn't that a "fluke" as well?

I just don't see any evidence for your belief that the other Gs would prefer that the AAC have a CCG.

About as much evidence that the G5 would vote against a waiver just to to do it.

I actually think Wedge is on to something, in that we have to consider not just the attitude of the P5 towards a waiver, but the G5 as well. This isn't an autonomy issue where the P5 alone call the shots. And the AAC has not exactly built a lot of positive bridges with other G5 to foster feelings of goodwill.

I'm just not convinced by the Wedge belief that they want the AAC to have a CCG in order to give the AAC's best team a chance to lose and thus cost them the Access bid. That IMO is far-fetched, not rooted in empirical reality.

In the end, I expect the AAC to get a waiver of 3 years or so pretty much unanimously just because these kinds of unexpected situations are what "waivers" are made for. All the other conferences would be setting a bad precedent for themselves if they were inflexible on this towards the AAC now.
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2019 02:35 PM by quo vadis.)
07-14-2019 02:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
uconnwhaler Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 751
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: uconn
Location: Hartford, CT
Post: #200
RE: Aresco opens the door for Colorado State
(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-08-2019 09:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(07-08-2019 06:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(07-08-2019 05:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-05-2019 09:41 AM)esayem Wrote:  I’ll reply to you because the other two responded with essentially the same thing. Institutionally speaking, UMass looks a lot like the teams in the conference and is in New England. This is the most logical substitute for UConn if the conference wants to plug the hole and keep rolling. Plus, wouldn’t that be the knockout the AAC and ESPN could give UConn?

Except .... UMass has zero brand value in football or hoops, and surely wouldn't be worthy anywhere near $7m to ESPN.

Exactly---which is why I made the following comment about CSU.

Every other pick involves sacrificing institutional fit in the name of athletic performance----or it requires completely dumping athletic performance to obtain a quality institutional fit. CSU is a reasonable compromise.

Frankly, CSU might be one of the few schools that could actually attract enough votes among the presidents to secure an invite. I really dont think anyone else outside of CSU, BYU, Air Force, and Army can do that.

“Hey guys, I know we’re in Podunk, CO. But I have an idea...an idea to be in a conference with East Carolina.

No, not North Carolina.

No, not South Carolina.

East Carolina.

Yes, they’re not as well known as Appalachian State. But trust me on this.”

To be clear—this time around motive is not the AAC’s problem. Aresco has publicly stated the AAC is pursuing nobody and is fine at 11—but they are willing to listen if someone calls. If negotiations occur with CSU—it will be because they applied for entrance into the AAC—- not because the AAC recruited them.

I don’t think he’s lying when he says the league is fine at 11. But has anyone asked him why exactly he had to invite Tulsa to get to 12 in the first place?
07-14-2019 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.