(06-29-2019 12:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  My own hunch is the waiver they offer the American is not the free no division no round robin, but rather with divisions, and one game short of round robin in the larger team division OKed, possibly even put in legislation, so they don't have to revisit it.

Definitely. There really is no need for this type of waiver to be refused. It's been granted a dozen times.

Does anyone know if a conference has to declare HOW it uses its CCG exemption?

Like, if the Big 12 pit Oklahoma against a third-place team and then declared that Oklahoma was the "North" champion playing against the "South" champion. They'd have completed the requisite round-robin within the theoretical North and South divisions. Similarly, if the Sun Belt wanted to pair App State and Troy State, could they simply say Troy won the "West" while sliding La Monroe to the East... both divisions would still have full round-robins... ?

If so, the AAC could use the

(06-30-2019 07:21 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 12:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  My own hunch is the waiver they offer the American is not the free no division no round robin, but rather with divisions, and one game short of round robin in the larger team division OKed, possibly even put in legislation, so they don't have to revisit it.

Definitely. There really is no need for this type of waiver to be refused. It's been granted a dozen times.

Does anyone know if a conference has to declare HOW it uses its CCG exemption?

Like, if the Big 12 pit Oklahoma against a third-place team and then declared that Oklahoma was the "North" champion playing against the "South" champion. They'd have completed the requisite round-robin within the theoretical North and South divisions. Similarly, if the Sun Belt wanted to pair App State and Troy State, could they simply say Troy won the "West" while sliding La Monroe to the East... both divisions would still have full round-robins... ?

If so, the AAC could use the

Once again, there is going to be no waiver for how the AAC wants to hold the CCG!
There rules were already changed and there are two options for conferences to hold a CCG. Round robin without divisions or divisions with round robin play within the divisions.

SO HOPING FOR this AAC stuff to allow conferences to go division-less ....

Allowing conferences to choose their top 2 ranked teams for the conference championship, and go division-less, would mean that 14 team conferences can play an 8 game conference schedule, and play home and away with everyone in the conference in 4 years.

3 locked in opponents, every year.
5 rotate in.

Year 1 --
Teams 1, 2, 3 as locked in.
Teams 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Year 2 --
Teams 1, 2, 3 locks, opposite of where you played year 1
Teams 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, opposite of where you played year 1

Year 3 --
Teams 1, 2, 3 locks, where you played in Year 1
Teams 9. 10. 11. 12. 13

Year 4 --
Teams 1, 2, 3 locks, where you played in Year 2
Teams 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 opposite of where you played Year 3


That's all the other 13 schools, home and away, in a 4 year playing career for most players.

Symmetrical.
Beautiful.

With 4 out-of-conference games.

(06-30-2019 07:50 PM)Pervis_Griffith Wrote:  SO HOPING FOR this AAC stuff to allow conferences to go division-less ....

Allowing conferences to choose their top 2 ranked teams for the conference championship, and go division-less, would mean that 14 team conferences can play an 8 game conference schedule, and play home and away with everyone in the conference in 4 years.

3 locked in opponents, every year.
5 rotate in.

Year 1 --
Teams 1, 2, 3 as locked in.
Teams 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Year 2 --
Teams 1, 2, 3 locks, opposite of where you played year 1
Teams 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, opposite of where you played year 1

Year 3 --
Teams 1, 2, 3 locks, where you played in Year 1
Teams 9. 10. 11. 12. 13

Year 4 --
Teams 1, 2, 3 locks, where you played in Year 2
Teams 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 opposite of where you played Year 3


That's all the other 13 schools, home and away, in a 4 year playing career for most players.

Symmetrical.
Beautiful.

With 4 out-of-conference games.

Never going to happen!

(06-30-2019 07:31 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 07:21 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 12:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  My own hunch is the waiver they offer the American is not the free no division no round robin, but rather with divisions, and one game short of round robin in the larger team division OKed, possibly even put in legislation, so they don't have to revisit it.

Definitely. There really is no need for this type of waiver to be refused. It's been granted a dozen times.

Does anyone know if a conference has to declare HOW it uses its CCG exemption?

Like, if the Big 12 pit Oklahoma against a third-place team and then declared that Oklahoma was the "North" champion playing against the "South" champion. They'd have completed the requisite round-robin within the theoretical North and South divisions. Similarly, if the Sun Belt wanted to pair App State and Troy State, could they simply say Troy won the "West" while sliding La Monroe to the East... both divisions would still have full round-robins... ?

Once again, there is going to be no waiver for how the AAC wants to hold the CCG!
There rules were already changed and there are two options for conferences to hold a CCG. Round robin without divisions or divisions with round robin play within the divisions.

Because... ? The MAC and CUSA were given such a waiver ostensibly because of the uneven divisions and the desire to maintain 8 conference games. What reason would prompt the NCAA to reverse that precedence?

And, my question did not relate to a waiver. Any insight on that question? Anyone?

(06-30-2019 08:12 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 07:31 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 07:21 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 12:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  My own hunch is the waiver they offer the American is not the free no division no round robin, but rather with divisions, and one game short of round robin in the larger team division OKed, possibly even put in legislation, so they don't have to revisit it.

Definitely. There really is no need for this type of waiver to be refused. It's been granted a dozen times.

Does anyone know if a conference has to declare HOW it uses its CCG exemption?

Like, if the Big 12 pit Oklahoma against a third-place team and then declared that Oklahoma was the "North" champion playing against the "South" champion. They'd have completed the requisite round-robin within the theoretical North and South divisions. Similarly, if the Sun Belt wanted to pair App State and Troy State, could they simply say Troy won the "West" while sliding La Monroe to the East... both divisions would still have full round-robins... ?

Once again, there is going to be no waiver for how the AAC wants to hold the CCG!
There rules were already changed and there are two options for conferences to hold a CCG. Round robin without divisions or divisions with round robin play within the divisions.

Because... ? The MAC and CUSA were given such a waiver ostensibly because of the uneven divisions and the desire to maintain 8 conference games. What reason would prompt the NCAA to reverse that precedence?

And, my question did not relate to a waiver. Any insight on that question? Anyone?

UAB dissolved football then reinstated and CUSA was given the waiver in that weird scenario for I think two years.

MAC - Was in process of removing UMASS, thus the waiver til the went back to 12.

AAC may get a waiver if they show a plan but AAC staying at 11 willingly and basically say the don't want to meet the rules by adding a team is not really going to bode well for them. Especially, if the FBS Conferences and decide to keep the rules. AAC may get a year or two waiver if they invite a team and allow them to transition. But the NCAA and P5 are not going to allow anything they voted against to go on for 6 years.

A two year waiver for coping with an a school leaving is all but automatic. Past that, if the conference wants the exemption for the CCG approved, it needs to either set up a qualifying competition or get a waiver to approve a non qualifying application. The second waiver application is going to have to say something more than the UConn exit put the AAC in a bind.

did the MAC or CUSA even need a waiver I do not recall either of them asking for one or getting one

the MAC was never below 12 teams with UMass leaving and the CUSA was never below 13 with UAB folding for two years

(06-30-2019 08:47 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:12 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 07:31 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 07:21 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-29-2019 12:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  My own hunch is the waiver they offer the American is not the free no division no round robin, but rather with divisions, and one game short of round robin in the larger team division OKed, possibly even put in legislation, so they don't have to revisit it.

Definitely. There really is no need for this type of waiver to be refused. It's been granted a dozen times.

Does anyone know if a conference has to declare HOW it uses its CCG exemption?

Like, if the Big 12 pit Oklahoma against a third-place team and then declared that Oklahoma was the "North" champion playing against the "South" champion. They'd have completed the requisite round-robin within the theoretical North and South divisions. Similarly, if the Sun Belt wanted to pair App State and Troy State, could they simply say Troy won the "West" while sliding La Monroe to the East... both divisions would still have full round-robins... ?

Once again, there is going to be no waiver for how the AAC wants to hold the CCG!
There rules were already changed and there are two options for conferences to hold a CCG. Round robin without divisions or divisions with round robin play within the divisions.

Because... ? The MAC and CUSA were given such a waiver ostensibly because of the uneven divisions and the desire to maintain 8 conference games. What reason would prompt the NCAA to reverse that precedence?

And, my question did not relate to a waiver. Any insight on that question? Anyone?

UAB dissolved football then reinstated and CUSA was given the waiver in that weird scenario for I think two years.

MAC - Was in process of removing UMASS, thus the waiver til the went back to 12.

AAC may get a waiver if they show a plan but AAC staying at 11 willingly and basically say the don't want to meet the rules by adding a team is not really going to bode well for them. Especially, if the FBS Conferences and decide to keep the rules. AAC may get a year or two waiver if they invite a team and allow them to transition. But the NCAA and P5 are not going to allow anything they voted against to go on for 6 years.

All the AAC would have to do is go to court if the waiver is denied. Whats the NCAA's argument going to be----"we dont like odd numbered conferences"? That said, the waiver will only be to allow the scheduling of a unbalanced divisional setup. The AAC wont get a waiver to hold a divisionless CCG. Its probably a moot point because the articles appear to indicate the AAC intends to add a school eventually, but the league will be "deliberate". My guess is that means adding a team will need to wait until an interested school checks enough boxes to please ESPN and gain enough votes within the AAC for an invite. I got the impression the league isnt entering a decade long process---but rather one that could take 1, 2 or maybe even 3 years. Something like that might suffice as "a plan".

(06-30-2019 10:35 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  did the MAC or CUSA even need a waiver I do not recall either of them asking for one or getting one

The original 12+ CCG rule specified a divisional round robin, and that was not modified when the "Under 12" rule was passed.

The MAC asked for one ... they needed one to play a balanced conference schedule, which is not possible if both divisions play a complete divisional round robin. Eight games, six team division plays five divisional games, 6x3=18 interdivisional games. Eight games, seven team division plays six divisional games, 7x2=14 interdivisional games. So to create enough interdivisional games, four of the seven from the "big" division have to skip a divisional game.

Of course, none of use have SEEN the waiver, we've at most heard mention of it at some media day when somebody asked about it, but the MAC had a set year when they would be able to resolve the imbalance, since they had an "all in / all out" clause in their affiliate contract with UMass, and after exercising that clause, they would either be at 12 or at 14. So they did have an argument to make that the divisional imbalance was a temporary issue.

And CUSA was only imbalanced for a couple of years, so they'd have been in the two year grace period most schools get to get most things into compliance when it's been caused by something out of their control.

(07-01-2019 01:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  All the AAC would have to do is go to court if the waiver is denied. Whats the NCAA's argument going to be ...

First specify what the AAC's argument is going to be.
AAC: "We asked for a rule to be waived, and they said it could only be waived for two years and then we would have to obey it, and that is inconvenient."
Judge: "What is your relationship with this body?"
AAC: "This is the voluntary membership organization which organizes the most commercially lucrative competitions which our not-for-profit athletic departments can engage in."
Judge: "So if you don't like their rules, quit."

(07-01-2019 01:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:47 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 08:12 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 07:31 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 07:21 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Definitely. There really is no need for this type of waiver to be refused. It's been granted a dozen times.

Does anyone know if a conference has to declare HOW it uses its CCG exemption?

Like, if the Big 12 pit Oklahoma against a third-place team and then declared that Oklahoma was the "North" champion playing against the "South" champion. They'd have completed the requisite round-robin within the theoretical North and South divisions. Similarly, if the Sun Belt wanted to pair App State and Troy State, could they simply say Troy won the "West" while sliding La Monroe to the East... both divisions would still have full round-robins... ?

Once again, there is going to be no waiver for how the AAC wants to hold the CCG!
There rules were already changed and there are two options for conferences to hold a CCG. Round robin without divisions or divisions with round robin play within the divisions.

Because... ? The MAC and CUSA were given such a waiver ostensibly because of the uneven divisions and the desire to maintain 8 conference games. What reason would prompt the NCAA to reverse that precedence?

And, my question did not relate to a waiver. Any insight on that question? Anyone?

UAB dissolved football then reinstated and CUSA was given the waiver in that weird scenario for I think two years.

MAC - Was in process of removing UMASS, thus the waiver til the went back to 12.

AAC may get a waiver if they show a plan but AAC staying at 11 willingly and basically say the don't want to meet the rules by adding a team is not really going to bode well for them. Especially, if the FBS Conferences and decide to keep the rules. AAC may get a year or two waiver if they invite a team and allow them to transition. But the NCAA and P5 are not going to allow anything they voted against to go on for 6 years.

All the AAC would have to do is go to court if the waiver is denied. Whats the NCAA's argument going to be----"we dont like odd numbered conferences"?

I'm not sure the NCAA has to explain this bylaw to a court. What's the AAC's argument going to be - we don't like it because it makes life difficult for us? Lots of organizations have bylaws that might seem strange or arbitrary to outsiders, but they reflect the culture and values of the organization, which protected by freedom of association. Generally, as long as the bylaw doesn't violate a superseding law (civil rights, anti-trust, etc.) or somesuch, courts don't care, and it doesn't appear anything like that is involved here. The AAC would be hard-pressed to argue that the rule was implemented to suppress them or restrain them, when it didn't even apply to the AAC when enacted.

As someone else said a few posts ago, I think a temporary waiver of 2-3 years is no problem, as this is an unexpected development and scheduling requires planning. But at a certain point, the AAC will have to convince the other conferences to change the rule, or else add a 12th team.

(07-01-2019 01:50 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-30-2019 10:35 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  did the MAC or CUSA even need a waiver I do not recall either of them asking for one or getting one

The original 12+ CCG rule specified a divisional round robin, and that was not modified when the "Under 12" rule was passed.

The MAC asked for one ... they needed one to play a balanced conference schedule, which is not possible if both divisions play a complete divisional round robin. Eight games, six team division plays five divisional games, 6x3=18 interdivisional games. Eight games, seven team division plays six divisional games, 7x2=14 interdivisional games. So to create enough interdivisional games, four of the seven from the "big" division have to skip a divisional game.

Of course, none of use have SEEN the waiver, we've at most heard mention of it at some media day when somebody asked about it, but the MAC had a set year when they would be able to resolve the imbalance, since they had an "all in / all out" clause in their affiliate contract with UMass, and after exercising that clause, they would either be at 12 or at 14. So they did have an argument to make that the divisional imbalance was a temporary issue.

And CUSA was only imbalanced for a couple of years, so they'd have been in the two year grace period most schools get to get most things into compliance when it's been caused by something out of their control.

(07-01-2019 01:29 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  All the AAC would have to do is go to court if the waiver is denied. Whats the NCAA's argument going to be ...

First specify what the AAC's argument is going to be.
AAC: "We asked for a rule to be waived, and they said it could only be waived for two years and then we would have to obey it, and that is inconvenient."
Judge: "What is your relationship with this body?"
AAC: "This is the voluntary membership organization which organizes the most commercially lucrative competitions which our not-for-profit athletic departments can engage in."
Judge: "So if you don't like their rules, quit."

I don’t agree. Nor do I agree with the prior poster who acts as if it’s not a civil rights violation there are no ground for legal action.

What we have here is just a simple contract dispute. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, since the rule obviously intends to allow a conference with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to address this exact detail to avoid having to deal with the waiver process each time it happens.

By the way, I suspect a 2 or 3 year waiver is all the AAC will end up needing.

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

(07-01-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

What are you talking about? I already stated it’s a simple contract dispute. Private disputes over contract language and details go to court every day. However—-far more get settled before they ever actually go to court. Ever heard of contract law? For instance, when a school goes to court disputing an exit fee—-that’s generally nothing more than a simple contract dispute. It has nothing to do with the government or some violation of civil rights. That’s all this would be--a contract dispute.

(07-01-2019 09:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

What are you talking about? I already stated it’s a simple contract dispute. Private disputes over contract language and details go to court every day. However—-far more get settled before they ever actually go to court. Ever heard of contract law? For instance, when a school goes to court disputing an exit fee—-that’s generally nothing more than a simple contract dispute. It has nothing to do with the government or some violation of civil rights. That’s all this would be--a contract dispute.

That seems to be an even sillier way for the AAC to frame it - what would the dispute be over? The NCAA has a rule, agreed to by its membership. The implications for the AAC aren't vague in any way, the rule implicitly addresses the case of conferences with odd-number members - get an even number so you can comply.

Again, just because that is inconvenient for the AAC doesn't make it something for a judge to get involved with.

Do the current CCG rules, or NCAA rules regarding conferences in general, specify how many games must be counted in determining who plays in a CCG?

What I'm getting at here is what if a 14 team conference wants to only count intradivision games to determine their division champions? Is a six game full round robin division schedule satisfactory in its own right to satisfy the NCAA?

How about for a 12 team conference? Or 10? Once you include crossover games in your conference schedule, you automatically build in imbalance in strength of schedules, which is the current norm for most conferences. Which crossovers you draw in a given year can often lead to lesser teams qualifying for a CCG over stronger teams in their division.

If only division games are counted in determining CCG participants, then odd numbers of members in a conference can be accommodated much more easily. Scheduling becomes more of an issue between a conference and its media partner and between conference members in opposite divisions, and leaves the NCAA out of it.

And by and large, leaving the NCAA out of scheduling decisions is almost always a good thing.

(07-01-2019 10:24 AM)ken d Wrote:  Do the current CCG rules, or NCAA rules regarding conferences in general, specify how many games must be counted in determining who plays in a CCG?

What I'm getting at here is what if a 14 team conference wants to only count intradivision games to determine their division champions? Is a six game full round robin division schedule satisfactory in its own right to satisfy the NCAA?

How about for a 12 team conference? Or 10? Once you include crossover games in your conference schedule, you automatically build in imbalance in strength of schedules, which is the current norm for most conferences. Which crossovers you draw in a given year can often lead to lesser teams qualifying for a CCG over stronger teams in their division.

If only division games are counted in determining CCG participants, then odd numbers of members in a conference can be accommodated much more easily. Scheduling becomes more of an issue between a conference and its media partner and between conference members in opposite divisions, and leaves the NCAA out of it.

And by and large, leaving the NCAA out of scheduling decisions is almost always a good thing.

This discussion generally, and your good questions more specifically, remind me of how flawed ALL the various methods used by conferences to pick their football champions are, and thus ....... serve as a poor basis for automatically admitting champs into the playoffs.

(07-01-2019 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

What are you talking about? I already stated it’s a simple contract dispute. Private disputes over contract language and details go to court every day. However—-far more get settled before they ever actually go to court. Ever heard of contract law? For instance, when a school goes to court disputing an exit fee—-that’s generally nothing more than a simple contract dispute. It has nothing to do with the government or some violation of civil rights. That’s all this would be--a contract dispute.

That seems to be an even sillier way for the AAC to frame it - what would the dispute be over? The NCAA has a rule, agreed to by its membership. The implications for the AAC aren't vague in any way, the rule implicitly addresses the case of conferences with odd-number members - get an even number so you can comply.

Again, just because that is inconvenient for the AAC doesn't make it something for a judge to get involved with.

??????? There is an entire thread here discussing what the "not vague" rule actually means.

That said---if its not "vague" then the same waiver method of complying that has been deemed reasonable, and has never been denied in the past, will be approved yet again.

(07-01-2019 11:01 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 10:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-01-2019 09:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Simple. The case would be that the AAC is attempting to comply with the divisional rule to the the best of its ability, but the rule is flawed and not specific with regards to exactly how a league with an odd number of members is to properly comply. Furthermore, the rule obviously intends to allow a team with unbalanced divisions to hold a CCG—thus the AAC’s attempt to get as close to fulfilling the CCG requirements as possible is in reasonable compliance since the rule fails to specify how a conference with an odd number of teams is to comply. It’s the same reason I don’t think a waiver will be denied in the first place and why I think the rule should be modified to cover this exact detail.

You seem to be presenting this as if it is a rule of the Federal Government that somehow has to comply with certain "reasonable standards" or whatever, because it has the force of law. Like when the EPA issues an environmental regulation, and a company sues because of vagueness or arbitrariness or something like that.

But it's not, it's a rule of the NCAA. I doubt any court will think there is a case here, but then again I'm not a lawyer so I don't know.

Maybe we shall see.

What are you talking about? I already stated it’s a simple contract dispute. Private disputes over contract language and details go to court every day. However—-far more get settled before they ever actually go to court. Ever heard of contract law? For instance, when a school goes to court disputing an exit fee—-that’s generally nothing more than a simple contract dispute. It has nothing to do with the government or some violation of civil rights. That’s all this would be--a contract dispute.

That seems to be an even sillier way for the AAC to frame it - what would the dispute be over? The NCAA has a rule, agreed to by its membership. The implications for the AAC aren't vague in any way, the rule implicitly addresses the case of conferences with odd-number members - get an even number so you can comply.

Again, just because that is inconvenient for the AAC doesn't make it something for a judge to get involved with.

There is an entire thread here explaining what is unclear.

I've read some of it. It is entirely unclear what is unclear.

In the end, I think the AAC gets a 3-year waiver, and then either will have to go to 12, or get the rule changed. The courts won't help. We shall see.

(07-01-2019 01:50 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  First specify what the AAC's argument is going to be.
AAC: "We asked for a rule to be waived, and they said it could only be waived for two years and then we would have to obey it, and that is inconvenient."
Judge: "What is your relationship with this body?"
AAC: "This is the voluntary membership organization which organizes the most commercially lucrative competitions which our not-for-profit athletic departments can engage in."
Judge: "So if you don't like their rules, quit."

Except for the fact that when the NCAA tried that ruse in NCAA v Regents of the University of Oklahoma it did not work