(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote: So what happens in 2022?
Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?
Let's consider these one by one, with the order rearranged:
a. Apply for another waiver? Unlikely.
The NCAA made a special exception for two years to give the AAC enough time to come up with a lasting solution. They decided that two years is enough time for the AAC to find a lasting solution, and the AAC may well have promised such a solution in order to get the special and exceptional waiver.
Within two years, three types of lasting solutions are permitted: Play a full round robin schedule, have two divisions with 5 and 6 members, or add a new member. A round robin schedule is least preferred but possible by dropping the FCS game. Two divisions of 5 and 6 might be somewhat complicated to schedule, but would be eminently possible to arrange. Adding a new member might be most satisfactory solution.
b. Drop a team? Extremely unlikely.
The only way to shrink to 10 members would be to persuade a current member to leave. There is no legal way to force a member out if they maintain an FBS program and meet the minimum requirements of the conference as set forth in their existing contract.
Moreover, there is no requirement to drop a team. A better option is to play with 5 and 6 member divisions. Playing a full round robin schedule with 11 teams is another, but less attractive alternative (although the AAC could do so by dropping the FCS game.
c. Add a team? Very likely.
While the two preferred FB only additions (BYU, Army) may be out of the picture, there are close to half a dozen universities that would add solid FB programs, perhaps 2-3 for all sports, and half a dozen very good BB/olympic sports universities. The options are reminiscent of a Chinese menu; i.e., no shortage of options. The selection can take place in as little as a year, with all the details ironed out within 2 years.
d. Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver? [b]Somewhat unlikely.
The NCAA would resist approving such a rule change, unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless put under strong pressure to do so).[/b]
They've already considered the options regarding conference championships in detail and permitted the existing options. Why they opposed complete deregulation of conference championships may not be entirely clear, but it was probably done to avoid the kinds of difficulties that could arise by having unequal and unfair championship arrangements.
I would have agreed a week ago. I thought the chances of the AAC getting a divisionless waiver was about zero.
The fact they gave the AAC that waiver makes me think there is a very good chance that there is significant support for a rule change allowing conferences with 10+ members the ability to have a divisionless CCG with only an 8 game schedule. I mean, think about it---the same body that found the AAC waiver reasonable is the same body that would be voting on a similar rule change.
Triple A pointed out the NCAA rejected a similar request by the ACC only a few years ago. No one understands the arbitrary and capricious nature of the NCAA more than Tiger fans, but precedence does not favor a rule change.
It looks like we will be forced to add a member - at least for football.
Here's the thing. When the ACC presented their proposal to deregulate conference title games, guess who was against it. The Big 10 was the one who opposed the ACC proposal, and it was the Big10 that proposed a more narrow rule change that allowed the Big12 to have the CCG they wanted, but created such a narrow methodology for it (full conference round robin) that it was useless to most any conference with more than 10 members.
Now, skip ahead a few years and low and behold---its the Big10 who is contemplating getting rid of divisions.
So, my guess is it is very possible that there has been a shift in the way FBS views the idea of a divisionless CCG. I think that is why Aresco was pretty confident that he would get the waiver.
(This post was last modified: 10-21-2019 12:57 AM by Attackcoog.)
(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote: So what happens in 2022?
Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?
Let's consider these one by one, with the order rearranged:
a. Apply for another waiver? Unlikely.
The NCAA made a special exception for two years to give the AAC enough time to come up with a lasting solution. They decided that two years is enough time for the AAC to find a lasting solution, and the AAC may well have promised such a solution in order to get the special and exceptional waiver.
Within two years, three types of lasting solutions are permitted: Play a full round robin schedule, have two divisions with 5 and 6 members, or add a new member. A round robin schedule is least preferred but possible by dropping the FCS game. Two divisions of 5 and 6 might be somewhat complicated to schedule, but would be eminently possible to arrange. Adding a new member might be most satisfactory solution.
b. Drop a team? Extremely unlikely.
The only way to shrink to 10 members would be to persuade a current member to leave. There is no legal way to force a member out if they maintain an FBS program and meet the minimum requirements of the conference as set forth in their existing contract.
Moreover, there is no requirement to drop a team. A better option is to play with 5 and 6 member divisions. Playing a full round robin schedule with 11 teams is another, but less attractive alternative (although the AAC could do so by dropping the FCS game.
c. Add a team? Very likely.
While the two preferred FB only additions (BYU, Army) may be out of the picture, there are close to half a dozen universities that would add solid FB programs, perhaps 2-3 for all sports, and half a dozen very good BB/olympic sports universities. The options are reminiscent of a Chinese menu; i.e., no shortage of options. The selection can take place in as little as a year, with all the details ironed out within 2 years.
d. Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver? [b]Somewhat unlikely.
The NCAA would resist approving such a rule change, unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless put under strong pressure to do so).[/b]
They've already considered the options regarding conference championships in detail and permitted the existing options. Why they opposed complete deregulation of conference championships may not be entirely clear, but it was probably done to avoid the kinds of difficulties that could arise by having unequal and unfair championship arrangements.
I would have agreed a week ago. I thought the chances of the AAC getting a divisionless waiver was about zero.
The fact they gave the AAC that waiver makes me think there is a very good chance that there is significant support for a rule change allowing conferences with 10+ members the ability to have a divisionless CCG with only an 8 game schedule. I mean, think about it---the same body that found the AAC waiver reasonable is the same body that would be voting on a similar rule change.
I think they gave us the waiver to give us time to find a 12th team. UConn leaving was not our doing, and it was too short a turn-around for us to add anybody, so a waiver was the only reasonable solution.
Plus, nobody we want (a short list) seems willing to jump.
If they (NCAA or maybe P5) really wanted a rule change, they could have done that any time. Remember, a lot of them had to add teams back when they lost teams, in order to comply with the current rule. Plus they turned down a similar request from the AAC. So I think this is simply a 2-year reprieve before we have to add a 12th team.
(This post was last modified: 10-21-2019 02:42 AM by TripleA.)
(10-19-2019 04:49 PM)CougarRed Wrote: So what happens in 2022?
Apply for another waiver?
Add a team?
Drop a team?
Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver?
Let's consider these one by one, with the order rearranged:
a. Apply for another waiver? Unlikely.
The NCAA made a special exception for two years to give the AAC enough time to come up with a lasting solution. They decided that two years is enough time for the AAC to find a lasting solution, and the AAC may well have promised such a solution in order to get the special and exceptional waiver.
Within two years, three types of lasting solutions are permitted: Play a full round robin schedule, have two divisions with 5 and 6 members, or add a new member. A round robin schedule is least preferred but possible by dropping the FCS game. Two divisions of 5 and 6 might be somewhat complicated to schedule, but would be eminently possible to arrange. Adding a new member might be most satisfactory solution.
b. Drop a team? Extremely unlikely.
The only way to shrink to 10 members would be to persuade a current member to leave. There is no legal way to force a member out if they maintain an FBS program and meet the minimum requirements of the conference as set forth in their existing contract.
Moreover, there is no requirement to drop a team. A better option is to play with 5 and 6 member divisions. Playing a full round robin schedule with 11 teams is another, but less attractive alternative (although the AAC could do so by dropping the FCS game.
c. Add a team? Very likely.
While the two preferred FB only additions (BYU, Army) may be out of the picture, there are close to half a dozen universities that would add solid FB programs, perhaps 2-3 for all sports, and half a dozen very good BB/olympic sports universities. The options are reminiscent of a Chinese menu; i.e., no shortage of options. The selection can take place in as little as a year, with all the details ironed out within 2 years.
d. Hope for a rule change deregulating CCG so we can stay at 11 without needing a waiver? [b]Somewhat unlikely.
The NCAA would resist approving such a rule change, unless absolutely necessary (e.g., unless put under strong pressure to do so).[/b]
They've already considered the options regarding conference championships in detail and permitted the existing options. Why they opposed complete deregulation of conference championships may not be entirely clear, but it was probably done to avoid the kinds of difficulties that could arise by having unequal and unfair championship arrangements.
I would have agreed a week ago. I thought the chances of the AAC getting a divisionless waiver was about zero.
The fact they gave the AAC that waiver makes me think there is a very good chance that there is significant support for a rule change allowing conferences with 10+ members the ability to have a divisionless CCG with only an 8 game schedule. I mean, think about it---the same body that found the AAC waiver reasonable is the same body that would be voting on a similar rule change.
Triple A pointed out the NCAA rejected a similar request by the ACC only a few years ago. No one understands the arbitrary and capricious nature of the NCAA more than Tiger fans, but precedence does not favor a rule change.
It looks like we will be forced to add a member - at least for football.
Here's the thing. When the ACC presented their proposal to deregulate conference title games, guess who was against it. The Big 10 was the one who opposed the ACC proposal, and it was the Big10 that proposed a more narrow rule change that allowed the Big12 to have the CCG they wanted, but created such a narrow methodology for it (full conference round robin) that it was useless to most any conference with more than 10 members.
Now, skip ahead a few years and low and behold---its the Big10 who is contemplating getting rid of divisions.
So, my guess is it is very possible that there has been a shift in the way FBS views the idea of a divisionless CCG. I think that is why Aresco was pretty confident that he would get the waiver.
The prudent course is pursue a rule change while vetting applicants.
The main thing here is AAC has time to act. Work the rule change, see how it looks. If not add a school next year to start in 2022. Gives the new school time to handle they buy out, and in of changing Conf. as well as handling schedule issues, [important if it was BYU]. My guess is 15 to 18 mos from now we either know rule change happens, or who the new member will be. It seems to me the best add for AAC and ESPN would be BYU. ESPN could shed the BYU contract, while adding little or none to the AAC contract, AAC gets another big name added, and BYU would get a moderate bump in TV cash. And the fix could be as simple as ESPN letting BYU to replay home games, on BYU TV after 24 or 48 hours.
(10-21-2019 06:43 AM)goodknightfl Wrote: The main thing here is AAC has time to act. Work the rule change, see how it looks. If not add a school next year to start in 2022. Gives the new school time to handle they buy out, and in of changing Conf. as well as handling schedule issues, [important if it was BYU]. My guess is 15 to 18 mos from now we either know rule change happens, or who the new member will be. It seems to me the best add for AAC and ESPN would be BYU. ESPN could shed the BYU contract, while adding little or none to the AAC contract, AAC gets another big name added, and BYU would get a moderate bump in TV cash. And the fix could be as simple as ESPN letting BYU to replay home games, on BYU TV after 24 or 48 hours.
Yep...gives whoever becomes the top candidate enough time to minimize any penalties from their current conf (if they belong to a conf) and/or find a home for their Olympic Sports if they become a football only member like Navy.
AAC is not a power conference. Until that happens BYU will not give up its independence status. I don't know why some of you don't get that but BYU's pride will always be bigger than what it probably should be. But BYU will never want to be viewed as inferior to Utah no matter what outsiders may think about them.
(10-21-2019 10:09 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote: AAC is not a power conference. Until that happens BYU will not give up its independence status. I don't know why some of you don't get that but BYU's pride will always be bigger than what it probably should be. But BYU will never want to be viewed as inferior to Utah no matter what outsiders may think about them.
It's a pipedream but hey, keep on dreaming.
BYU and Army aren't coming...but AF might as a football only member. We now have time to cultivate that possibility.
(10-21-2019 10:09 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote: AAC is not a power conference. Until that happens BYU will not give up its independence status. I don't know why some of you don't get that but BYU's pride will always be bigger than what it probably should be. But BYU will never want to be viewed as inferior to Utah no matter what outsiders may think about them.
(10-21-2019 10:09 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote: AAC is not a power conference. Until that happens BYU will not give up its independence status. I don't know why some of you don't get that but BYU's pride will always be bigger than what it probably should be. But BYU will never want to be viewed as inferior to Utah no matter what outsiders may think about them.
It's a pipedream but hey, keep on dreaming.
2019 AAC >>>>>> 2013 AAC
2019 byu <<<<<< 2013 byu
yet its confirmed they wanted into the AAC in 2013, they just wanted a separate tv deal and full separate ownership of their tv rights that aresco said we couldn't agree too
in 2017 their AD said he isn't in denail about the reality of byus situation and would join the AAC/MWC if need be
Can't pinpoint the reasoning behind this two year waiver so unsettling.
I'm thinking the AAC already has it's future member... And this two years is merely to repair whatever needs improvements before your new club (AAC) buddies arrive To play in your backyard.
(10-21-2019 10:09 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote: AAC is not a power conference. Until that happens BYU will not give up its independence status. I don't know why some of you don't get that but BYU's pride will always be bigger than what it probably should be. But BYU will never want to be viewed as inferior to Utah no matter what outsiders may think about them.
It's a pipedream but hey, keep on dreaming.
2019 AAC >>>>>> 2013 AAC
2019 byu <<<<<< 2013 byu
yet its confirmed they wanted into the AAC in 2013, they just wanted a separate tv deal and full separate ownership of their tv rights that aresco said we couldn't agree too
in 2017 their AD said he isn't in denail about the reality of byus situation and would join the AAC/MWC if need be
(10-21-2019 10:09 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote: AAC is not a power conference. Until that happens BYU will not give up its independence status. I don't know why some of you don't get that but BYU's pride will always be bigger than what it probably should be. But BYU will never want to be viewed as inferior to Utah no matter what outsiders may think about them.
It's a pipedream but hey, keep on dreaming.
Come get you some AAC...
Now quit pouting like little school girls like Nacua did and face a real Power Conference.
(10-21-2019 10:09 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote: AAC is not a power conference. Until that happens BYU will not give up its independence status. I don't know why some of you don't get that but BYU's pride will always be bigger than what it probably should be. But BYU will never want to be viewed as inferior to Utah no matter what outsiders may think about them.
It's a pipedream but hey, keep on dreaming.
BYU and Army aren't coming...but AF might as a football only member. We now have time to cultivate that possibility.
AF isn't coming either. I am sure their AD had a word wjth their HC.
![[Image: hope-its-full-of-wonderful-surprises-meme.jpg]](https://sayingimages.com/wp-content/uploads/hope-its-full-of-wonderful-surprises-meme.jpg)
