(02-23-2017 09:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 05:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 04:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 01:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My guess is the AAC would go with unbalanced division and seek an NCAA waiver, if necessary. Frankly, Im not convinced you'd have to have a waiver under the new rules. Based on my reading, as long as each division played a full divisional round robin---the rest of the conference schedule doesn't matter.

No waiver would be needed ... so long as every team in each division plays every other team in the division.

I think the problem is that not all conference teams can play the same number of conference games. I'm not exactly sure of that, but other people on this board have mentioned the problem before. It screws up even scheduling, somehow.

Right. Let's say you have a 5-6 East-West split.
5 East division teams play a round robin, they each have 4 games. 6 West division teams play a round robin, they each have 5 games.

For an 8 game schedule, the East side needs 20 (4x5) cross-division games and the West needs 18 (3x6). 18 <> 20. The only way to square the circle with uneven, round-robin division is to have two West division schools play 9 conference games while everyone else plays 8.

Almost. Actually one game would not be played. Almost certainly it would be Navy in the West rotating one East and one West opponent not played (they are the "National" squad in the bunch). The MAC and CUSA did that with 13; the larger division simply didn't play one round robin game..

I am pretty sure no waiver is needed, or if it is technically, the NCAA never bothered to enforce it. I don;t see why they would start now.

No school is going to sacrifice that 4th OOC (need the revenue game, and the "free" FCS win), and nobody is going to accept a team getting an extra game (8-1 beats 7-1 eve if you lose head to head), meaning that 9th game would not count anyway.

From the NCAA's press release:

Quote:Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

The rule says round robin. They didn't enforce the rule on the MAC, who was doing Temple a favor, or on CUSA, who was caught off-guard by the UAB situation. I don't know if the AAC would get the same consideration just to avoid having to give an FBS indy a home.

I see that changing and conferences getting more opportunities for pods.

There isn't 1 P-5 conference who is happy where they are at right now with membership numbers and all need that to happen so they can have a very lucrative semifinal with division champs.

(02-23-2017 09:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 09:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 05:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 04:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 01:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  My guess is the AAC would go with unbalanced division and seek an NCAA waiver, if necessary. Frankly, Im not convinced you'd have to have a waiver under the new rules. Based on my reading, as long as each division played a full divisional round robin---the rest of the conference schedule doesn't matter.

No waiver would be needed ... so long as every team in each division plays every other team in the division.

I think the problem is that not all conference teams can play the same number of conference games. I'm not exactly sure of that, but other people on this board have mentioned the problem before. It screws up even scheduling, somehow.

Right. Let's say you have a 5-6 East-West split.
5 East division teams play a round robin, they each have 4 games. 6 West division teams play a round robin, they each have 5 games.

For an 8 game schedule, the East side needs 20 (4x5) cross-division games and the West needs 18 (3x6). 18 <> 20. The only way to square the circle with uneven, round-robin division is to have two West division schools play 9 conference games while everyone else plays 8.

Almost. Actually one game would not be played. Almost certainly it would be Navy in the West rotating one East and one West opponent not played (they are the "National" squad in the bunch). The MAC and CUSA did that with 13; the larger division simply didn't play one round robin game..

I am pretty sure no waiver is needed, or if it is technically, the NCAA never bothered to enforce it. I don;t see why they would start now.

No school is going to sacrifice that 4th OOC (need the revenue game, and the "free" FCS win), and nobody is going to accept a team getting an extra game (8-1 beats 7-1 eve if you lose head to head), meaning that 9th game would not count anyway.

From the NCAA's press release:

Quote:Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

The rule says round robin. They didn't enforce the rule on the MAC, who was doing Temple a favor, or on CUSA, who was caught off-guard by the UAB situation. I don't know if the AAC would get the same consideration just to avoid having to give an FBS indy a home.

I don't think any FBS conference would really care if the AAC got a waiver---but, worst case scenario is you comply with the round robin and get as close as you can to 8 games each with the rest of the schedule.

(02-23-2017 05:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Let's say you have a 5-6 East-West split.
5 East division teams play a round robin, they each have 4 games. 6 West division teams play a round robin, they each have 5 games.

For an 8 game schedule, the East side needs 20 (4x5) cross-division games and the West needs 18 (3x6). 18 <> 20. The only way to square the circle with uneven, round-robin division is to have two West division schools play 9 conference games while everyone else plays 8.

Ah, yes. Good analysis, thank you.

In that case, there could be another "solution": rather than make two teams in the larger division play an extra (9th in this case) conf game, you could just have the two residual teams in the East that still need an 8th conf game play each other again. Maybe that's a worse solution.

Or you could just have them each find reasonable non-conf opponents to "count" as a conf game. Or they could all just agree that two teams in the smaller conf are OK with playing one less conf game.


Going up to 9 conf games, in the same scenario: East needs 25 more conf games after their divisional round robin (5 teams x 5 games), while the West needs 24 more conf games (6 teams x 4 games). Now you only have one team in the smaller division that is missing a game.


And at 10 conf games: East needs 30 (5 teams x 6 games), and the West needs 30 (6 teams x 5 games). Which of course makes sense, as that de facto just means every conf team players every other conf team. And at that point, as I mentioned earlier, the conf would also have the option of just taking the #1 vs #2 for the CCG.

(02-23-2017 09:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The MAC and CUSA did that with 13; the larger division simply didn't play one round robin game..

I am pretty sure no waiver is needed, or if it is technically, the NCAA never bothered to enforce it. I don;t see why they would start now.

(02-23-2017 09:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  The rule says round robin. They didn't enforce the rule on the MAC, who was doing Temple a favor, or on CUSA, who was caught off-guard by the UAB situation. I don't know if the AAC would get the same consideration just to avoid having to give an FBS indy a home.

(02-24-2017 01:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't think any FBS conference would really care if the AAC got a waiver---but, worst case scenario is you comply with the round robin and get as close as you can to 8 games each with the rest of the schedule.

Guys, I think the confusion here on why the NCAA "didn't enforce the rule" or why those conferences didn't need a "waiver" is simply that they didn't break the rule. The rule only required, in those cases, that each of the seven teams in the larger division play all six other teams in that division, and that each of the six teams in the smaller division play all five other teams in that division.

That's interesting.

So technically the Big 12 could add BYU and go to a 5 and 6 team division and if you played all the teams in your division you are within the rules.

(02-23-2017 04:05 PM)p23570 Wrote:  I think you are on track here to some degree but it lead me to believe that at some point conference networks might show content of "lesser" teams in the same footprint, especially on games during the week. MAC games on B1G network would be a good example. Or MW games on a PACN. Having 3-4 games on Saturday as well as a game or 2 during the week is a big improvement over 1-2 games and a bunch of coaches shows.

The B1G should have set this up from the onset because it makes the most sense. All they had to do is throw them a 2-4 million dollar bone per team for their content for Mid-Week games and they STILL would not be hurt. I do see that happening.....

(02-24-2017 02:35 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 04:05 PM)p23570 Wrote:  I think you are on track here to some degree but it lead me to believe that at some point conference networks might show content of "lesser" teams in the same footprint, especially on games during the week. MAC games on B1G network would be a good example. Or MW games on a PACN. Having 3-4 games on Saturday as well as a game or 2 during the week is a big improvement over 1-2 games and a bunch of coaches shows.

The B1G should have set this up from the onset because it makes the most sense. All they had to do is throw them a 2-4 million dollar bone per team for their content for Mid-Week games and they STILL would not be hurt. I do see that happening.....

I think it makes sense to have more programming but if there was a conference who needed some other content it would be the PAC.

I believe the B1G and PAC could easily do this and it would be nice to have more games during football season.

I know I have watched more MAC games the last few years becasue they were during the week when nothing else was on.

(02-24-2017 11:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Guys, I think the confusion here on why the NCAA "didn't enforce the rule" or why those conferences didn't need a "waiver" is simply that they didn't break the rule. The rule only required, in those cases, that each of the seven teams in the larger division play all six other teams in that division, and that each of the six teams in the smaller division play all five other teams in that division.

In the MAC, when we had Massachusetts, the seven-team East Division was not a round robin. I specifically remember that Bowling Green and Miami did not play for two years in a row -- probably the first time that happened since the 1950s.

(02-24-2017 11:25 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-23-2017 05:45 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Let's say you have a 5-6 East-West split.
5 East division teams play a round robin, they each have 4 games. 6 West division teams play a round robin, they each have 5 games.

For an 8 game schedule, the East side needs 20 (4x5) cross-division games and the West needs 18 (3x6). 18 <> 20. The only way to square the circle with uneven, round-robin division is to have two West division schools play 9 conference games while everyone else plays 8.

Ah, yes. Good analysis, thank you.

In that case, there could be another "solution": rather than make two teams in the larger division play an extra (9th in this case) conf game, you could just have the two residual teams in the East that still need an 8th conf game play each other again. Maybe that's a worse solution.

Or you could just have them each find reasonable non-conf opponents to "count" as a conf game. Or they could all just agree that two teams in the smaller conf are OK with playing one less conf game.


Going up to 9 conf games, in the same scenario: East needs 25 more conf games after their divisional round robin (5 teams x 5 games), while the West needs 24 more conf games (6 teams x 4 games). Now you only have one team in the smaller division that is missing a game.


And at 10 conf games: East needs 30 (5 teams x 6 games), and the West needs 30 (6 teams x 5 games). Which of course makes sense, as that de facto just means every conf team players every other conf team. And at that point, as I mentioned earlier, the conf would also have the option of just taking the #1 vs #2 for the CCG.

(02-23-2017 09:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The MAC and CUSA did that with 13; the larger division simply didn't play one round robin game..

I am pretty sure no waiver is needed, or if it is technically, the NCAA never bothered to enforce it. I don;t see why they would start now.

(02-23-2017 09:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  The rule says round robin. They didn't enforce the rule on the MAC, who was doing Temple a favor, or on CUSA, who was caught off-guard by the UAB situation. I don't know if the AAC would get the same consideration just to avoid having to give an FBS indy a home.

(02-24-2017 01:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't think any FBS conference would really care if the AAC got a waiver---but, worst case scenario is you comply with the round robin and get as close as you can to 8 games each with the rest of the schedule.

Guys, I think the confusion here on why the NCAA "didn't enforce the rule" or why those conferences didn't need a "waiver" is simply that they didn't break the rule. The rule only required, in those cases, that each of the seven teams in the larger division play all six other teams in that division, and that each of the six teams in the smaller division play all five other teams in that division.

Actually, there were years when teams from the 7 team division missed one team from that same division. 7 and 6 means that will happen.

Cheers!

(02-23-2017 09:29 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Right. Let's say you have a 5-6 East-West split.
5 East division teams play a round robin, they each have 4 games. 6 West division teams play a round robin, they each have 5 games.

For an 8 game schedule, the East side needs 20 (4x5) cross-division games and the West needs 18 (3x6). 18 <> 20. The only way to square the circle with uneven, round-robin division is to have two West division schools play 9 conference games while everyone else plays 8.

Couldn't those 2 games count as conference games for the East side, but count as nonconference games for the West side?

The NCAA/P5 wont force the AAC (or any conference) to add a team just for that rule. The rule is in place to stop some strange configuration the ACC was supposedly floating out there about. It was also to allow the B12 to add a CCG without having to expand.

I hope you see the common theme there in interpretation. A CCG is independent of expansion. The CCG is about revenue, and that is the golden rule, an unwritten law that takes priority over all byLaws; never prevent a member from getting his gold. The NCAA will not force any G5 league to take a way two of their schools 4th OOC game. Call it a waiver, call it a rule unenforced, but it's established practice that the division with an extra team will have one match not played. (If the schools really want to play it, then like UNC-Wake they are free to schedule it as a non-conference game)

UConn leaving the AAC would be no different than Temple leaving the MAC or UAB dropping Football. The conference was not at fault. I see no reason it would be looked at differently.

And yes if the B12 finds an 11th they really want, it is an interesting question. I rather doubt the other conferences would force the B12 to have two schools play 10 games, so the same procedure of one match-up from the larger division would not take place. There is no way the P5 will not accept that, as to oppose it would be to go against Jerry Jones (and the NFL who own those stadiums with neutral site games they so love), FOX (odd years) and ESPN (even years) who are contracted for the B12 CCG --- the Golden Rule. This is of course completely hypothetical, but I'm sure the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC (e.g., ND) would not want to be forced to add an "inferior" school, just to get an even number. So politics and money are the only fixed rule.

(02-26-2017 02:32 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The NCAA/P5 wont force the AAC (or any conference) to add a team just for that rule. The rule is in place to stop some strange configuration the ACC was supposedly floating out there about. It was also to allow the B12 to add a CCG without having to expand.

I hope you see the common theme there in interpretation. A CCG is independent of expansion. The CCG is about revenue, and that is the golden rule, an unwritten law that takes priority over all byLaws; never prevent a member from getting his gold. The NCAA will not force any G5 league to take a way two of their schools 4th OOC game. Call it a waiver, call it a rule unenforced, but it's established practice that the division with an extra team will have one match not played. (If the schools really want to play it, then like UNC-Wake they are free to schedule it as a non-conference game)

UConn leaving the AAC would be no different than Temple leaving the MAC or UAB dropping Football. The conference was not at fault. I see no reason it would be looked at differently.

And yes if the B12 finds an 11th they really want, it is an interesting question. I rather doubt the other conferences would force the B12 to have two schools play 10 games, so the same procedure of one match-up from the larger division would not take place. There is no way the P5 will not accept that, as to oppose it would be to go against Jerry Jones (and the NFL who own those stadiums with neutral site games they so love), FOX (odd years) and ESPN (even years) who are contracted for the B12 CCG --- the Golden Rule. This is of course completely hypothetical, but I'm sure the B1G, SEC, P12 and ACC (e.g., ND) would not want to be forced to add an "inferior" school, just to get an even number. So politics and money are the only fixed rule.

I have still not seen any actual contrat numbers for the Big 12 CCG. Even the article that ways Fox and ESPN are splitting the games has no dollar figures.

I personally believe that is still being negotiated, along with expansion/pro rata removal.

There are no published numbers, beyond Dennis Dodd saying he was told the package (TV and AT&T Stadium, Merchandise, et al) is expected to be $27-30m annually. This is in line with the B1G and SEC Championships.

The official announcement was here: http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=211303891

We know the general parameters. I suspect the lack of exact numbers is similar to the revenue from the networks which has gone up, as it has with other power conferences, based most likely on advertising revenue, rather than a fixed price. If so, that means there is no fixed number, rather an escalator.

(02-23-2017 09:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I am pretty sure no waiver is needed, or if it is technically, the NCAA never bothered to enforce it. I don;t see why they would start now.

The MAC applied for (and, obviously, received) a waiver for every year of unbalanced division play. So a waiver is "needed", but they granted it to the MAC even when it was "the MAC's fault" in taking Temple without inviting a 14th at the same time, as well as when it was "not the MAC's fault" in Temple leaving while they were on the hook in their affiliation agreement to keep UMass for a minimum of four years.

(02-27-2017 01:46 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There are no published numbers, beyond Dennis Dodd saying he was told the package (TV and AT&T Stadium, Merchandise, et al) is expected to be $27-30m annually. This is in line with the B1G and SEC Championships.

The official announcement was here: http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=211303891

We know the general parameters. I suspect the lack of exact numbers is similar to the revenue from the networks which has gone up, as it has with other power conferences, based most likely on advertising revenue, rather than a fixed price. If so, that means there is no fixed number, rather an escalator.

If Dodd stated it, you can take it to the bank that it will be for less.

(02-27-2017 01:46 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There are no published numbers, beyond Dennis Dodd saying he was told the package (TV and AT&T Stadium, Merchandise, et al) is expected to be $27-30m annually. This is in line with the B1G and SEC Championships.

The official announcement was here: http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...=211303891

We know the general parameters. I suspect the lack of exact numbers is similar to the revenue from the networks which has gone up, as it has with other power conferences, based most likely on advertising revenue, rather than a fixed price. If so, that means there is no fixed number, rather an escalator.

The deal is not done. When it is we will know how much the game is worth.

The pro rata clause has also not been removed. When it is done we will know it with either expansion or announcement for a small increase in pay.

My point is none of this stuff has been finalized. There was lots of talk but quietly it was never finished.

I think people kinda forgot abut it but we are getting close to spring ball and games aren't' that far off.