(08-27-2019 06:47 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 06:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 07:12 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:28 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I thought it was already decided (well hinted) that they will scrap divisions (with a waiver), have 2 permanent rivals, then rotate the other 6 opponents.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

That's a can of worms the NCAA would not want to open.

Would the NCAA prefer to cause another round of conference realignment musical chairs?

The NCAA isn't causing anything here. The AAC has at least 3 reasonable options for how to play a CCG with 11 teams under the current rules, plus at least one more (Option 4) that the NCAA has permitted waivers for in the past. If the AAC were to add a school just to get back to 12, it wouldn't really induce much change. Likely just a minor one-for-one cascade that would peter out in FCS at furthest.

The can of worms I refer to is deregulation of CCGs, which would certainly cause much more change. If the NCAA gives a waiver to the AAC for a divisionless CCG without round-robin play, the ACC and Big Ten will want waivers too, and perhaps some other conferences. On what grounds could the NCAA deny them? And if you're waiving that many instances of rule violations, that undermines the NCAA's authority. So then the NCAA makes a rule change, but a rule change in favor of deregulation further undermines their authority. This is why the AAC is not likely to receive a waiver for Option 5. Divisionless CCGs without round-robin play may well come, but it will be via the P5 exercising their autonomy, not via NCAA-prompted rule change.

How is the ACC or Big Ten situation similar to the AAC's situation? The AAC's Options 1 through 3 mathematically require certain conference mates to play fewer or more conference games than the rest of the conference. That is in no way similar to the ACC and Big Ten situation. It seems like a slippery slope argument that just isn't there.

(08-27-2019 05:07 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 04:16 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 03:19 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  Mark Giannotto
@mgiannotto

AAC commissioner Mike Aresco says on Giannotto and Jeffrey
@929espn that the AAC is planning to get rid of divisions in football starting next season. League is applying for a waiver so the football championship game will pit AAC's two best teams.

Can't see that being approved, as it's a back door to end Divisions without a formal decision. Certainly the SEC and B12 would be against it. CUSA, SBC and ACC would want the same waiver, the B1G would probably as well. That's too many potential exceptions, and the waiver would be seen as special treatment, something the B1G objected to with the ACC.

I'm dead certain option #4 will be the waiver they get. But the P5 will speed up the discussion on ending divisions, which I think they will. But they are not going to open Pandora's Box via waivers.

My guess, I think he is trying to get the waiver now and force the other FBS conferences to vote for the change.

AAC can do the uneven divisions. I really think he should have brought it up to a vote with the FBS conferences. I think it would have passed taking effect in 2021 and the NCAA then give the AAC a waiver for 2020. If the NCAA comes back with a no, the AAC is screwed.

No, you really can't. Not without some teams playing 7 games and others 8, or playing teams twice a season.

(08-28-2019 10:41 AM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 06:47 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-27-2019 06:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 07:12 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 12:28 AM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I thought it was already decided (well hinted) that they will scrap divisions (with a waiver), have 2 permanent rivals, then rotate the other 6 opponents.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

That's a can of worms the NCAA would not want to open.

Would the NCAA prefer to cause another round of conference realignment musical chairs?

The NCAA isn't causing anything here. The AAC has at least 3 reasonable options for how to play a CCG with 11 teams under the current rules, plus at least one more (Option 4) that the NCAA has permitted waivers for in the past. If the AAC were to add a school just to get back to 12, it wouldn't really induce much change. Likely just a minor one-for-one cascade that would peter out in FCS at furthest.

The can of worms I refer to is deregulation of CCGs, which would certainly cause much more change. If the NCAA gives a waiver to the AAC for a divisionless CCG without round-robin play, the ACC and Big Ten will want waivers too, and perhaps some other conferences. On what grounds could the NCAA deny them? And if you're waiving that many instances of rule violations, that undermines the NCAA's authority. So then the NCAA makes a rule change, but a rule change in favor of deregulation further undermines their authority. This is why the AAC is not likely to receive a waiver for Option 5. Divisionless CCGs without round-robin play may well come, but it will be via the P5 exercising their autonomy, not via NCAA-prompted rule change.

How is the ACC or Big Ten situation similar to the AAC's situation? The AAC's Options 1 through 3 mathematically require certain conference mates to play fewer or more conference games than the rest of the conference. That is in no way similar to the ACC and Big Ten situation. It seems like a slippery slope argument that just isn't there.

Options 1-3 are absolutely doable and permissible under the current rules. (And Option 3 does not require teams to play a different number of conference games.) Option 4 is a fairly small deviation from the rule, and temporary waivers have been given for it in the past, so it's reasonable to think the AAC would get such a waiver.

The AAC is in a situation of their own making. If there were no solution to the 11-team problem that the AAC found palatable or possible, they could easily add a 12th team. Either that or keep UConn football, and problem solved without further realignment.

In any case, regarding Option 5, what matters is that the AAC would be getting a waiver for a divisionless setup with a CCG but without round-robin play (despite having alternatives), something that the ACC has expressed a desire for, and more recently, the Big Ten as well. Big ol' can of worms.

Here's a review of options taken historically by conferences with uneven divisions. In each case, the conference had 13 teams. The prevalence of Option 4 (in variant form) suggests that this is the most preferable schedule format for uneven divisions.

Option 1 (variant A): Four schools play one fewer conference game than the others (does not require waiver for CCG)

2: MAC 2000-2001

Option 1 (variant B): Six schools play one fewer conference game than the others (does not require waiver for CCG)

1: MAC 2007

Option 4 (variant): Two pairs of division mates do not play one another and instead each of the four teams plays an extra cross-division game (requires waiver for CCG)

12: CUSA 2014-2016; MAC 1999, 2008-2015

Best option would be able to get Army as football only & maybe have the Army-Navy game on Week 0 or something? Or does the Army-Navy game HAVE to be in December after the CCG???