Aresco: "There are three arguments about getting either a waiver or legislation: One, a conference should be able to determine its champion any way it wants. Two, why would you encourage us to go back to 12 and essentially raid another conference? Third, why would you force us to contract to 10 [to play a round-robin conference schedule]?

1. Agreed and has ACC agreed with conferences should decide how to do a CCG, but that did not pass NCAA legislation. I am all for the changes to CCG rules.

2. NCAA never gave a crap about conference membership moves. This a bogus straw man argument. AAC took WSU and had no issue with what it did to MVC. Hard to see NCAA granting a waiver with this logic.

3. No one is forcing a 10 game round robin. AAC can have a champion with out CCG. No one is forcing them to have CCG or mandates it is required for NY6. It is highest rated CFP conference champion. AAC easily can have no championship game and have tie-breakers to determine champion. So the 10 team round robin is a valid option. Hard to see NCAA granting a waiver with this logic.

If the AAC wants a CCG and current rules stand. The AAC can add a team for CCG or just determine CCG with conference record. Sorry but there is no hardship. AAC trying to have it both ways. Doubt P5 and NCAA will be very supportive since the rules are stated on what is needed for CCG and AAC can decide to have one or not. Waivers are for hardship not for refusing to make the hard decision. NCAA did not sign a deal with ESPN, the AAC did. NCAA just enforces the rules not the TV contracts. That is between ESPN and the AAC to decide what will have happen if AAC does not meet CCG criteria.





https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ith-uconn/

aac’s-future-is-in-hands-of-how-other-leagues-vote

When the CCG rule was changed three years ago to permit the Big 12 (or any other conference) to hold a CCG without divisions, the AAC voted against the rule change.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...title-game

Quote:The Division I council adopted a proposal allowing FBS conferences with less than 12 members to hold conference title games between the top two teams in its standings, so long as the conference plays a full round-robin regular-season schedule.

The vote by the council passed 7-2. The Pac-12 didn't vote but later said it supported the change.

Bowlsby said the ACC and AAC voted against the compromise proposal on Wednesday, but an NCAA spokesperson said the commissioner misspoke as the SEC was the conference besides the AAC to vote against the proposal.

Interesting Wedge. Will a grudge be held? Probably not as this was seen as more a philosophical issue.

"Give us the waiver or pass legislation. We've been talking to the Big Ten. They did it [played with 11 members] for 20 years. … We could play a championship game with our top two teams like the Big 12 … I think we could get that -- have more games between UCF and Memphis and UCF and Houston."

(Note, I suspect one of the UCF was misheard by the reporter and was probably USF)

The B1G as the broker here. No shock. They were the driver in the creation of the division rules. They are also rumbling about going Division-less down the road. But it also makes sense politically as the P12 and MAC usually defer to the B1G on such politics. Win that one and you are most of the way to the legislation or waiver you want.

(06-28-2019 05:35 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Aresco: "There are three arguments about getting either a waiver or legislation: One, a conference should be able to determine its champion any way it wants. Two, why would you encourage us to go back to 12 and essentially raid another conference? Third, why would you force us to contract to 10 [to play a round-robin conference schedule]?

1. Agreed and has ACC agreed with conferences should decide how to do a CCG, but that did not pass NCAA legislation. I am all for the changes to CCG rules.

2. NCAA never gave a crap about conference membership moves. This a bogus straw man argument. AAC took WSU and had no issue with what it did to MVC. Hard to see NCAA granting a waiver with this logic.

3. No one is forcing a 10 game round robin. AAC can have a champion with out CCG. No one is forcing them to have CCG or mandates it is required for NY6. It is highest rated CFP conference champion. AAC easily can have no championship game and have tie-breakers to determine champion. So the 10 team round robin is a valid option. Hard to see NCAA granting a waiver with this logic.

If the AAC wants a CCG and current rules stand. The AAC can add a team for CCG or just determine CCG with conference record. Sorry but there is no hardship. AAC trying to have it both ways. Doubt P5 and NCAA will be very supportive since the rules are stated on what is needed for CCG and AAC can decide to have one or not. Waivers are for hardship not for refusing to make the hard decision. NCAA did not sign a deal with ESPN, the AAC did. NCAA just enforces the rules not the TV contracts. That is between ESPN and the AAC to decide what will have happen if AAC does not meet CCG criteria.





https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ith-uconn/

It’s not so much that the NCAA cares if a conference gets raided—-it’s that the other G5’s might not wish to cast a vote that could very well result in their most valuable school getting poached. The ACC and Big10 have both talked about possibly having a division-less CCG— but that’s impossible for any 14 team conference under the current rule. That’s 9 votes right there that would like to at least have another option for their CCG—whether they ultimately use it or not. Forget a waiver—-Nine votes is all you need to change the actual rule.

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Interesting Wedge. Will a grudge be held? Probably not as this was seen as more a philosophical issue.

"Give us the waiver or pass legislation. We've been talking to the Big Ten. They did it [played with 11 members] for 20 years. … We could play a championship game with our top two teams like the Big 12 … I think we could get that -- have more games between UCF and Memphis and UCF and Houston."

(Note, I suspect one of the UCF was misheard by the reporter and was probably USF)

The B1G as the broker here. No shock. They were the driver in the creation of the division rules. They are also rumbling about going Division-less down the road. But it also makes sense politically as the P12 and MAC usually defer to the B1G on such politics. Win that one and you are most of the way to the legislation or waiver you want.

My Carnac prediction is the vote will be Division-less with a 9 game conference requirement and it passes. Making the the SEC last P5 eight game hold out. Vote will happen Jan 2020.

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Interesting Wedge. Will a grudge be held? Probably not as this was seen as more a philosophical issue.

The Big 12 might hold a grudge, and they've already got what they want anyway. The SEC will probably continue to vote no. The ACC won't hold a grudge if a rule change gives them what they want. The Pac-12 rep (either Larry or one of his minions) didn't even bother to be in the room for the vote last time, so presumably they don't care one way or the other. The other G5 conferences? Who knows. On the one hand, they might not see any benefit for themselves in a change. On the other hand, they might want the AAC to hold a CCG just to give its top team the same opportunity to lose a CCG that every other conference's top team has to go through. Even if their top team has only a 1 in 6 chance of losing its CCG, that means that team, if it's highly ranked, has to play Russian Roulette in order to possibly advance to an access bowl berth. Why not make them do that.

You have the P5, then you have G4 and now you have the L1 as AAC the Losers. It is Aresco's fault for claiming the AAC as a P6 conference. He needed to boot Tulsa and Tulane and added 2 western schools who have much better fan support. I say the votes will be against the AAC, but the contract is for 12 teams, and he can't back out of the deal, or the deal with ESPN should be voided.

(06-28-2019 06:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Interesting Wedge. Will a grudge be held? Probably not as this was seen as more a philosophical issue.

The Big 12 might hold a grudge, and they've already got what they want anyway. The SEC will probably continue to vote no. The ACC won't hold a grudge if a rule change gives them what they want. The Pac-12 rep (either Larry or one of his minions) didn't even bother to be in the room for the vote last time, so presumably they don't care one way or the other. The other G5 conferences? Who knows. On the one hand, they might not see any benefit for themselves in a change. On the other hand, they might want the AAC to hold a CCG just to give its top team the same opportunity to lose a CCG that every other conference's top team has to go through. Even if their top team has only a 1 in 6 chance of losing its CCG, that means that team, if it's highly ranked, has to play Russian Roulette in order to possibly advance to an access bowl berth. Why not make them do that.

CUSA might benefit if ODU joins AAC. It could help spread the money around 13 ways instead of 14.

Interesting. What does the AAC's contract with ESPN say? If they can't get around the NCAA rules, will the AAC have to replace UConn, or drop the title game, and risk losing championship game money tied to their new ESPN deal?

(06-28-2019 06:24 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Interesting Wedge. Will a grudge be held? Probably not as this was seen as more a philosophical issue.

"Give us the waiver or pass legislation. We've been talking to the Big Ten. They did it [played with 11 members] for 20 years. … We could play a championship game with our top two teams like the Big 12 … I think we could get that -- have more games between UCF and Memphis and UCF and Houston."

(Note, I suspect one of the UCF was misheard by the reporter and was probably USF)

The B1G as the broker here. No shock. They were the driver in the creation of the division rules. They are also rumbling about going Division-less down the road. But it also makes sense politically as the P12 and MAC usually defer to the B1G on such politics. Win that one and you are most of the way to the legislation or waiver you want.

My Carnac prediction is the vote will be Division-less with a 9 game conference requirement and it passes. Making the the SEC last P5 eight game hold out. Vote will happen Jan 2020.

Nope

(06-28-2019 06:51 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  You have the P5, then you have G4 and now you have the L1 as AAC the Losers. It is Aresco's fault for claiming the AAC as a P6 conference. He needed to boot Tulsa and Tulane and added 2 western schools who have much better fan support. I say the votes will be against the AAC, but the contract is for 12 teams, and he can't back out of the deal, or the deal with ESPN should be voided.

Edited : My mistake.

(06-28-2019 06:24 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Interesting Wedge. Will a grudge be held? Probably not as this was seen as more a philosophical issue.

"Give us the waiver or pass legislation. We've been talking to the Big Ten. They did it [played with 11 members] for 20 years. … We could play a championship game with our top two teams like the Big 12 … I think we could get that -- have more games between UCF and Memphis and UCF and Houston."

(Note, I suspect one of the UCF was misheard by the reporter and was probably USF)

The B1G as the broker here. No shock. They were the driver in the creation of the division rules. They are also rumbling about going Division-less down the road. But it also makes sense politically as the P12 and MAC usually defer to the B1G on such politics. Win that one and you are most of the way to the legislation or waiver you want.

My Carnac prediction is the vote will be Division-less with a 9 game conference requirement and it passes. Making the the SEC last P5 eight game hold out. Vote will happen Jan 2020.

I doubt there will be a 9 conference game requirement included

1. the SEC SEC SEC will never vote for anything that opens the door to a mandated number of conference games even if they decided to change their hard stand against CCG deregulation

2. the ACC is not looking to play 9 conference games they have studied it and realized it is stupid to the point some of their teams are playing each other in the "OOC" just to play more frequently (which is only slightly less bad for the conference), but they are not going to be locked into that

3. the Big 10 just moved to 9 conference games and is already regretting it and might look to change (they should call themselves the Big Regret Conference it all started with Leaders and Legends)

I doubt they would push something that mandated 9 games when they are thinking 9 games might be a mistake

4. the PAC 12 coaches have come out firmly and said that 9 conference games is bad for the conference and the detailed mathematical study showed it was very bad for the conference, but they have poor leadership that defers to a poor commissioner that only worries about content for a terrible network....but I still doubt they vote to mandate 9 conference games for anyone

5. sadly the Big 12 is stupid enough to be in love with 9 conference games even though it is the worst of all for the Big 12, but I doubt they would support any mandate on deregulation of the CCG when they supported full deregulation of it in the past

6. the G5 conferences need those 4 OOC games be it for wins or money so they would not be supporting that especially to help the AAC out which they are probably not interested in doing already even with any very slight chance that most of them (or any of them) have a team move to the AAC

adding more crap into the rule will not help it pass

plus they are not looking to currently change the rule again that requires "study" right now it is the AAC looking for a waiver (that they do not NEED at all) and I see no reason that any P5 conference will give the AAC something they cannot do themselves even if with a waiver

keep calling out the SEC SEC SEC about their teams being scared to play UCF and see where that gets you.....it gets you two NO votes from the SEC SEC SEC straight off the bat

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  " … We could play a championship game with our top two teams like the Big 12 … I think we could get that -- have more games between UCF and Memphis and UCF and Houston."

(Note, I suspect one of the UCF was misheard by the reporter and was probably USF)

No. UCF is in the East Division and Houston and Memphis are in the West. He was saying the top team in the East would now get to play the top 2 teams in the West more often, b/c right now, they only play 2 of every 4 years.

(06-28-2019 06:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Interesting Wedge. Will a grudge be held? Probably not as this was seen as more a philosophical issue.

The Big 12 might hold a grudge, and they've already got what they want anyway. The SEC will probably continue to vote no. The ACC won't hold a grudge if a rule change gives them what they want. The Pac-12 rep (either Larry or one of his minions) didn't even bother to be in the room for the vote last time, so presumably they don't care one way or the other. The other G5 conferences? Who knows. On the one hand, they might not see any benefit for themselves in a change. On the other hand, they might want the AAC to hold a CCG just to give its top team the same opportunity to lose a CCG that every other conference's top team has to go through. Even if their top team has only a 1 in 6 chance of losing its CCG, that means that team, if it's highly ranked, has to play Russian Roulette in order to possibly advance to an access bowl berth. Why not make them do that.

I was thinking the G5 want to give the AAC what they want so they don't get raided. Old Dominion and Colorado State (if the eastern time zone schools can accept some lost class time for Basketball and Volleyball teams) seem like the most obvious choices after BYU and Army. SBC has to worry about the cascade effect. That is a lot of incentive to vote yes.

But you are right about the Russian Roulette of the AAC CCG. But they need that game to get the full ESPN money. ESPN needs that game to get their full return.

*************

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.

We may soon know if the AAC prefers a CCG rule change and wants it as soon as 2020. In January, the DI Council amended a governance rule for football-specific legislation "to specify that: (a) A conference must submit a legislative concept under consideration for sponsorship as an amendment to the national office by 5 p.m. Eastern time July 15; (b) A conference shall submit an amendment by November 1; and (c ) A conference may sponsor an amendment only if it submitted a concept of the amendment by the preceding July 15 deadline."

(06-29-2019 12:04 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Interesting Wedge. Will a grudge be held? Probably not as this was seen as more a philosophical issue.

The Big 12 might hold a grudge, and they've already got what they want anyway. The SEC will probably continue to vote no. The ACC won't hold a grudge if a rule change gives them what they want. The Pac-12 rep (either Larry or one of his minions) didn't even bother to be in the room for the vote last time, so presumably they don't care one way or the other. The other G5 conferences? Who knows. On the one hand, they might not see any benefit for themselves in a change. On the other hand, they might want the AAC to hold a CCG just to give its top team the same opportunity to lose a CCG that every other conference's top team has to go through. Even if their top team has only a 1 in 6 chance of losing its CCG, that means that team, if it's highly ranked, has to play Russian Roulette in order to possibly advance to an access bowl berth. Why not make them do that.

I was thinking the G5 want to give the AAC what they want so they don't get raided. Old Dominion and Colorado State (if the eastern time zone schools can accept some lost class time for Basketball and Volleyball teams) seem like the most obvious choices after BYU and Army. SBC has to worry about the cascade effect. That is a lot of incentive to vote yes.

But you are right about the Russian Roulette of the AAC CCG. But they need that game to get the full ESPN money. ESPN needs that game to get their full return.

*************

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.

Agree. They wont give the AAC an option nobody else has---they will just give the AAC a waiver to make the same option everyone else has work with an odd number. That said---I think a change in the actual rule that would allow conferences to simply pair their top two teams in a CCG will pass if it is worded in a manner that prevents a conference from abusing it. I think language that links that option to a continuous round robin using a minimum of 8 games a season would probably make the change attractive to a enough conferences to pass. By continuous round robin, I mean a team might not complete a full round robin in one season, but the next season, it would just pick up the round round robin where it left off--season after season.

I agree voting to only change division requirement is most logical and easiest solution. I am not use to seeing FBS actually doing the easiest thing.

AC, if all the conferences vote is against changing the rule, I am not sure how a waiver could be granted. I understand a waiver for the time a school could possibly need to join, IE: 24 month notice could prevent a team from joining the AAC. However, if the AAC is purposely not following the rule by not adding a team, I don't see how the NCAA could grant a waiver. Again, I prefer allowing division-less not requiring a round robing. I agree changing the division round robin probably being the simplest rule change, just don't know if there is enough good will from the other G5 and P5 being that supportive of rule change that helps the AAC. The P6 campaign and some ADs comments could come back to haunt the AAC. Please note this is not stated as going to happen but one of the many outcomes possible,

@AC, note was not meant for you. I want to make sure it is not taken as an offense in anyway. I am grateful to the AAC Board they provided me in a truly scary time.

(06-28-2019 07:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:24 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(06-28-2019 06:15 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Interesting Wedge. Will a grudge be held? Probably not as this was seen as more a philosophical issue.

"Give us the waiver or pass legislation. We've been talking to the Big Ten. They did it [played with 11 members] for 20 years. … We could play a championship game with our top two teams like the Big 12 … I think we could get that -- have more games between UCF and Memphis and UCF and Houston."

(Note, I suspect one of the UCF was misheard by the reporter and was probably USF)

The B1G as the broker here. No shock. They were the driver in the creation of the division rules. They are also rumbling about going Division-less down the road. But it also makes sense politically as the P12 and MAC usually defer to the B1G on such politics. Win that one and you are most of the way to the legislation or waiver you want.

My Carnac prediction is the vote will be Division-less with a 9 game conference requirement and it passes. Making the the SEC last P5 eight game hold out. Vote will happen Jan 2020.

Nope

I agree. The ACC isn't going to a 9 game conference schedule either. My prediction is that if such a rule were to pass, both the SEC and ACC would tell the NCAA to pound sand and go divisionless and play their CCG like everybody else. The NCAA isn't going to war with the SEC, ACC and ESPN over this.

And BTW, I don't believe the B1G ever played a CCG with 11 members.

Again, I am kinda surprised but maybe I am behind the times. I thought the Swofford and the Coaches would like this option for the ACC. It would help eliminate the twice every 12 years option. Could work with single rivalry game,

FSU-MIAMi
Duke vs Wake
VT vs UVA
NCSU vs UNC
BC vs Syc
Clemson vs Ga Tech
Pitt vs Louisville (Actually think Louisville Vs Clemson and Pitt vs Ga Tech would be better)

With less OOC, should be able to get enough FBS body bag home games to get rid of FCS. If ACC and SEC can get division-less with 8 games, that would be even better. B10 may still go with that as well as the AAC and the rest of the G5. Gets rid of the 7-5 vs 12-0 CCG.