(04-18-2014 10:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  it won't matter who joins if the CCG is deregulated

(04-18-2014 10:42 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  it won't matter who joins if the CCG is deregulated

yeah, but you'll want a CCG played by two equally weighted divisions; hard to have that with an odd number of schools.

(04-18-2014 10:43 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  That's also true. But even if that fails and you assume status quo the earliest you can have a CCG is 2015, and more realistically in 2016. No rush to add and really no point.
I'd love a CCG but no need to force the issue this year.

(04-18-2014 11:11 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Not at all.
In fact, I suspect that if/when this deregulation happens, the SEC, for example will devise a ccg formula that has nothing to do with the divisions. Too many times in the past, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU have had the two best teams in the SEC. Under deregulation, the SEC will figure out a way to always have their two best teams in the ccg.
It is about revenue.

Further, you can schedule such that you have de facto virtual divisions, but without having them defined, there is less of a necessity to have a balance.
In other words, 11 teams would work.

(04-18-2014 11:23 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 11:11 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Not at all.
In fact, I suspect that if/when this deregulation happens, the SEC, for example will devise a ccg formula that has nothing to do with the divisions. Too many times in the past, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU have had the two best teams in the SEC. Under deregulation, the SEC will figure out a way to always have their two best teams in the ccg.
It is about revenue.

Further, you can schedule such that you have de facto virtual divisions, but without having them defined, there is less of a necessity to have a balance.
In other words, 11 teams would work.

1.) I won't adress you're first point because you can't compare the 'catch-up mode' Sun Belt to the 'leading edge' SEC (the SEC is thinking NC's and play-offs and the Belt is thinking a Conference champioin to crown).

2.) I don't understand what a 'de facto virtual' division is. With a 'normal' division of six schools, you play everyone in your divion plus a rotating three from the other one; pretty stright forward.

Finally, staying at 11 or going to 12 costs the Sun Belt nothing, the CFP will pay you $11 million for 11 members and $12 million for 12 members. In other words there's no real advantage to not go to the 12 school maximum and it facilitates the formation of divisions.

(04-18-2014 11:15 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:43 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  That's also true. But even if that fails and you assume status quo the earliest you can have a CCG is 2015, and more realistically in 2016. No rush to add and really no point.
I'd love a CCG but no need to force the issue this year.

i don't agree. it takes time to put football schedules together. The 2014 season is gone, as you suggest, however, if you want to add that 12th school for the 2015 season, the invite has to go out and be accepted by, what is it, June 1st or thereabouts. Then divisions must be created, schedules made, CCG location determined, tv negotiated, sponsorship sold, etc.. If that can't be in time for 2015, then you're looking at 2016.

You say no rush, however i believe it's been stated that the Belt wants to go to 12 and wants to have a CCG; if this isn't true, then you're right, no hurry. If it is true, then there is no time to lose.

(04-18-2014 10:42 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  it won't matter who joins if the CCG is deregulated

yeah, but you'll want a CCG played by two equally weighted divisions; hard to have that with an odd number of schools.

(04-18-2014 11:46 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  My main point is that there is no reason to rush and many reasons to wait.

(04-18-2014 11:37 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 11:23 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 11:11 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Not at all.
In fact, I suspect that if/when this deregulation happens, the SEC, for example will devise a ccg formula that has nothing to do with the divisions. Too many times in the past, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU have had the two best teams in the SEC. Under deregulation, the SEC will figure out a way to always have their two best teams in the ccg.
It is about revenue.

Further, you can schedule such that you have de facto virtual divisions, but without having them defined, there is less of a necessity to have a balance.
In other words, 11 teams would work.

1.) I won't adress you're first point because you can't compare the 'catch-up mode' Sun Belt to the 'leading edge' SEC (the SEC is thinking NC's and play-offs and the Belt is thinking a Conference champioin to crown).

2.) I don't understand what a 'de facto virtual' division is. With a 'normal' division of six schools, you play everyone in your divion plus a rotating three from the other one; pretty stright forward.

Finally, staying at 11 or going to 12 costs the Sun Belt nothing, the CFP will pay you $11 million for 11 members and $12 million for 12 members. In other words there's no real advantage to not go to the 12 school maximum and it facilitates the formation of divisions.

1.) It is still ultimately about revenue. The two best teams, or those perceived as the two best teams, will usually generate the most attendance, advertising, and media monies.

2.) Not as much of an issue with the ccg, but If those divisions are unbalanced, one or more schools in one of the divisions, or the division as a whole, will see itself at a disadvantage especially in the defined NCAA format. If you don 't have defined divisions, then the conferences can schedule as they see fit, and historic natural rivalries won't have to be placed in separate divisions to satisfy the NCAA.

3.)That is correct. But by the same token, you don't have to add someone tomorrow in order just to get the revenue producing ccg, which also likely would otherwise put you at a disadvantage in the G5 playoff determination.
In other words, you can take your time and determine what is best for the SBC long term, instead of a "panic" add.

(04-18-2014 11:58 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:42 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  it won't matter who joins if the CCG is deregulated

yeah, but you'll want a CCG played by two equally weighted divisions; hard to have that with an odd number of schools.

With deregulation of the CCG, there are no divisions, just a set schedule and the two best teams meeting for the CCG.

(04-18-2014 12:00 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 11:46 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  My main point is that there is no reason to rush and many reasons to wait.

OK. Let's disect this. Right now the SBC is an eight team FBS conference. They lose WKU and add NMSU and Idaho which makes 9 schools for the 2014 season. As far as I know, App St. and GA Southern finish their 2 year transition in 2014. So for the 2015 season the Sun Belt sits at 11 full FBS members.

Will there be a CCG for 2015? Well, UMass can leave a year early, divisions can be created and a best record can host the CCG. So again, if the Sun Belt's timeline is to have this game in time for the end of the 2015 season, they have six weeks to get that 12th team in. Otherwise you can have some strange hybrid of the first place team hosting the second place team to determine a champion; which appears kind of awkward to me.

(04-18-2014 10:42 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  it won't matter who joins if the CCG is deregulated

yeah, but you'll want a CCG played by two equally weighted divisions; hard to have that with an odd number of schools.

(04-18-2014 12:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:42 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  it won't matter who joins if the CCG is deregulated

yeah, but you'll want a CCG played by two equally weighted divisions; hard to have that with an odd number of schools.

Equally weighted?

East - USA, Ga State, Ga Southern, App, UMass/Liberty/EKU, Troy
West - ULL, Ark State, Texas State, ULM, NMSU, Idaho.

Not so much.

(04-18-2014 12:07 PM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 12:00 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 11:46 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  My main point is that there is no reason to rush and many reasons to wait.

OK. Let's disect this. Right now the SBC is an eight team FBS conference. They lose WKU and add NMSU and Idaho which makes 9 schools for the 2014 season. As far as I know, App St. and GA Southern finish their 2 year transition in 2014. So for the 2015 season the Sun Belt sits at 11 full FBS members.

Will there be a CCG for 2015? Well, UMass can leave a year early, divisions can be created and a best record can host the CCG. So again, if the Sun Belt's timeline is to have this game in time for the end of the 2015 season, they have six weeks to get that 12th team in. Otherwise you can have some strange hybrid of the first place team hosting the second place team to determine a champion; which appears kind of awkward to me.

Just a note: GS and APP are eligible to win the Conference Championship THIS year. That point may be moot, but we are clear to win it IF WE CAN. We are just not bowl eligible until 2015.

That being said, if we add an FCS program, it needs to be my June 1st this year in order to have a CCG for 2015.

Since the 2014 Schedules are already set, it would still be 2015 before we could have a CCG anyway. The difference is that we could bring in a FBS program (UMASS) after the June 1 deadline and before the 2015 Schedule was set and still have the CCG.

The 6/1 deadline on the 2015 CCG for us only holds if we bring up an FCS and not UMass.

(04-18-2014 12:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:42 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-18-2014 10:35 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  it won't matter who joins if the CCG is deregulated

yeah, but you'll want a CCG played by two equally weighted divisions; hard to have that with an odd number of schools.

Equally weighted?
East - USA, Ga State, Ga Southern, App, UMass/Liberty/EKU, Troy
West - ULL, Ark State, Texas State, ULM, NMSU, Idaho.
Not so much.