(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.

This is what I'm afraid of without clear cut divisions. The rise of a program can be stunted or even killed by these kind of things. If the decision makers are deciding who goes to these games based on fan bases = who they think will travel more fans and market - then we have a big problem.

Part of building a fan base is WINNING CHAMPIONSHIPS - giving those people something to identify with as a winner. People want to feel pride in their program and a title (like "SEC EAST CHAMPIONS") at least is something. Also getting in a CCG builds excitement for a program and even if they lose - is something to build off of and expect the next year. It still makes every game in your conference relevant.
Building large fan bases imop - is the most important thing for our conference.

This kind of game isn't supposed to be about ticket sales and advertising, it is supposed to be about a Championship. Let the non-playoff bowls worry about that other stuff.

We basically already have divisions of this conference - we just currently have 6 on one side and 5 on the other.