(07-17-2017 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll say it again, so that the set in stone truth can be repeated for posterity:

the Big Ten and the SEC will blackball any kind of change to NCAA rules that would enable ACC to adjust its divisional alignment such that it would become attractive for Notre Dame to become a full member. They will sell out to stop that, whether that's allowing divisionless (already killed that, last time) or whether that would be allowing more than two divisions .... whatever they perceive as moving the ACC in a helpful direction towards such an end.


When Swofford retires, he will do so without having achieved his dream of getting ND into the conf full-time in football. I think he accepts that.

I can't speak to what the B1G would do, but there are schools within the SEC that an appeal for going divisionless could be made to:

Auburn- historically an SEC East school
MS schools- moved away from the AL schools should the SEC expand west
Bama- would maintain UT game while adding more regular visits to GA and FL

I don't think the SEC is fundamentally against the ACC, but isn't interested in giving the B12 the tools needed to strengthen itself from raids.

All good points.

And yes Terry, it's all moot.

(07-17-2017 04:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is fundamentally against the ACC, but isn't interested in giving the B12 the tools needed to strengthen itself from raids.

Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

(07-18-2017 08:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 04:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is fundamentally against the ACC, but isn't interested in giving the B12 the tools needed to strengthen itself from raids.

Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

Maybe closer to a stay of execution. I'm not sure if the CCG does anything to improve the B12 perception

(07-19-2017 07:28 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 04:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is fundamentally against the ACC, but isn't interested in giving the B12 the tools needed to strengthen itself from raids.

Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

Maybe closer to a stay of execution. I'm not sure if the CCG does anything to improve the B12 perception

Agreed. The way it was approved smells like a trap to me (give your #2 team 2 losses, or else have NO undefeated teams).

(07-17-2017 09:20 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 08:52 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-16-2017 10:14 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  http://www.wralsportsfan.com/solving-sch.../16821914/

Without reading it I want to make a guess: the high schooler who wrote it has ND in as a full member of the ACC? Am I correct?

Correct, and that is just the most obvious flaw. IIRC he also separated UVA from the rest of the original members...

Yes, I would like better ACC football schedules, but that won't work.

What this guy wants to happen is obvious. It's ok to dream, but his ideas are horse ****.

(07-19-2017 09:13 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Agreed. The way it was approved smells like a trap to me (give your #2 team 2 losses, or else have NO undefeated teams).

That's exactly what I was thinking. It screws the XII as a whole. It also guarantees a rematch. Below is a list of FBS CCG that featured a rematch - FYI. If I missed any, let me know. Bold indicates when that conference had more than 12 schools.

32 out 105 (roughly 30%) CCGs were rematches.


SEC (started in 1992)
1999 (Alabama beat Florida twice)
2000 (Florida beat Auburn twice)
2001 (LSU & Tennessee split)
2002 (LSU beat Georgia twice)
2003 (Auburn beat Tennessee twice)
2010 (Auburn beat South Carolina twice)

B1G (started in 2011)
2011 (Wisconsin & Michigan St split)
2012 (Wisconsin & Nebraska split)

PAC (started in 2011)
2012 (Stanford beat UCLA twice)
2013 (Stanford beat Arizona St twice)
2014 (Oregon & Arizona split)
2015 (Stanford beat USC twice)

ACC (started in 2005)
2007 (Virginia Tech & Boston College split)
2008 (Virginia Tech & Boston College split)
2009 (Georgia Tech beat Clemson twice)
2011 (Clemson beat Virginia Tech twice)

XII (1996-2010)
1999 (Nebraska & Texas split)
2000 (Oklahoma beat Kansas St twice)
2001 (Colorado & Texas split)
2005 (Texas beat Colorado twice)
2007 (Oklahoma beat Missouri twice)

AAC (since 2015)
None

MWC (since 2013)
2014 (Boise St beat Fresno St twice)
2016 (San Diego St & Wyoming split)

WAC (1996-1998)
None

CUSA (since 2005)
2006 (Houston & Southern Miss split)
2007 (Central Florida beat Tulsa twice)
2012 (Tulsa beat Central Florida twice)
2016 (Western Kentucky & Louisiana Tech split)

MAC (since 1997)
1999 (Marshall beat Western Michigan twice)
2000 (Marshall & Western Michigan split)
2003 (Miami OH beat Bowling Green St twice)
2004 (Toledo & Miami OH split)
2005 (Akron beat Northern Illinois twice)

(07-18-2017 08:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 04:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is fundamentally against the ACC, but isn't interested in giving the B12 the tools needed to strengthen itself from raids.

Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

It's the Titanic disguised as a life raft. Giving The Big 12 permission to have a CCG with less than 12 teams eliminated the only remaining reason to expand.

No expansion; fewer teams to worry about placing when the Big 12 GOR expires.

The SEC, Big 10, ACC and PAC are going to divide The Big 12 up. By doing so every team in The Big 12 today will find a home in one of the other four conferences.

I figure we have a couple of more years of speculating until things start getting interesting.
CJ

(07-19-2017 10:18 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 04:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is fundamentally against the ACC, but isn't interested in giving the B12 the tools needed to strengthen itself from raids.

Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

It's the Titanic disguised as a life raft. Giving The Big 12 permission to have a CCG with less than 12 teams eliminated the only remaining reason to expand.

No expansion; fewer teams to worry about placing when the Big 12 GOR expires.

The SEC, Big 10, ACC and PAC are going to divide The Big 12 up. By doing so every team in The Big 12 today will find a home in one of the other four conferences.

I figure we have a couple of more years of speculating until things start getting interesting.
CJ

Why would the other conferences be benevolent enough to take on every Big 12 school? Conferences are not altruistic and act in their own self-interest. The Big Ten isn't going to add Iowa State simply because it can and ISU needs a home.

(07-19-2017 10:22 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:18 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 04:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is fundamentally against the ACC, but isn't interested in giving the B12 the tools needed to strengthen itself from raids.

Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

It's the Titanic disguised as a life raft. Giving The Big 12 permission to have a CCG with less than 12 teams eliminated the only remaining reason to expand.

No expansion; fewer teams to worry about placing when the Big 12 GOR expires.

The SEC, Big 10, ACC and PAC are going to divide The Big 12 up. By doing so every team in The Big 12 today will find a home in one of the other four conferences.

I figure we have a couple of more years of speculating until things start getting interesting.
CJ

Why would the other conferences be benevolent enough to take on every Big 12 school? Conferences are not altruistic and act in their own self-interest. The Big Ten isn't going to add Iowa State simply because it can and ISU needs a home.

I believe every team will find a home to avoid legal wrangling and exit fees.

ISU is an AAU land grant university. The Big 10 may not want them but The ACC or PAC may.
CJ

(07-19-2017 10:28 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:22 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:18 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 04:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is fundamentally against the ACC, but isn't interested in giving the B12 the tools needed to strengthen itself from raids.

Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

It's the Titanic disguised as a life raft. Giving The Big 12 permission to have a CCG with less than 12 teams eliminated the only remaining reason to expand.

No expansion; fewer teams to worry about placing when the Big 12 GOR expires.

The SEC, Big 10, ACC and PAC are going to divide The Big 12 up. By doing so every team in The Big 12 today will find a home in one of the other four conferences.

I figure we have a couple of more years of speculating until things start getting interesting.
CJ

Why would the other conferences be benevolent enough to take on every Big 12 school? Conferences are not altruistic and act in their own self-interest. The Big Ten isn't going to add Iowa State simply because it can and ISU needs a home.

I believe every team will find a home to avoid legal wrangling and exit fees.

ISU is an AAU land grant university. The Big 10 may not want them but The ACC or PAC may.
CJ

As crazy as it sounds, the SEC may be a decent landing spot. The SEC only has 4 AAU schools (Texas A&M, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Florida) and it only has 1 basketball-first school (Kentucky). Iowa St is contiguous as it borders Missouri.

(07-19-2017 10:28 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:22 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:18 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 04:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I don't think the SEC is fundamentally against the ACC, but isn't interested in giving the B12 the tools needed to strengthen itself from raids.

Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

It's the Titanic disguised as a life raft. Giving The Big 12 permission to have a CCG with less than 12 teams eliminated the only remaining reason to expand.

No expansion; fewer teams to worry about placing when the Big 12 GOR expires.

The SEC, Big 10, ACC and PAC are going to divide The Big 12 up. By doing so every team in The Big 12 today will find a home in one of the other four conferences.

I figure we have a couple of more years of speculating until things start getting interesting.
CJ

Why would the other conferences be benevolent enough to take on every Big 12 school? Conferences are not altruistic and act in their own self-interest. The Big Ten isn't going to add Iowa State simply because it can and ISU needs a home.

I believe every team will find a home to avoid legal wrangling and exit fees.

ISU is an AAU land grant university. The Big 10 may not want them but The ACC or PAC may.
CJ

If the Big 12 dissolves, there won't be exit fees or any conference to wrangle with in court. And how could ISU sue another conference for not taking them in? ISU too much of a geographic stretch for very little payoff for the ACC or Pac (or SEC for that matter). ISU (and KSU and Baylor, at least) might get hush money from someone, but they're pretty much screwed out of power conference status if the Big 12 goes down.

(07-19-2017 10:39 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:28 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:22 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:18 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

It's the Titanic disguised as a life raft. Giving The Big 12 permission to have a CCG with less than 12 teams eliminated the only remaining reason to expand.

No expansion; fewer teams to worry about placing when the Big 12 GOR expires.

The SEC, Big 10, ACC and PAC are going to divide The Big 12 up. By doing so every team in The Big 12 today will find a home in one of the other four conferences.

I figure we have a couple of more years of speculating until things start getting interesting.
CJ

Why would the other conferences be benevolent enough to take on every Big 12 school? Conferences are not altruistic and act in their own self-interest. The Big Ten isn't going to add Iowa State simply because it can and ISU needs a home.

I believe every team will find a home to avoid legal wrangling and exit fees.

ISU is an AAU land grant university. The Big 10 may not want them but The ACC or PAC may.
CJ

If the Big 12 dissolves, there won't be exit fees or any conference to wrangle with in court. And how could ISU sue another conference for not taking them in? ISU too much of a geographic stretch for very little payoff for the ACC or Pac (or SEC for that matter). ISU (and KSU and Baylor, at least) might get hush money from someone, but they're pretty much screwed out of power conference status if the Big 12 goes down.

Yes, but congress could threaten to look at the not for profit status of college football if Iowa State does not find a P4 home.

(07-19-2017 10:43 AM)goofus Wrote:  Yes, but congress could threaten to look at the not for profit status of college football if Iowa State does not find a P4 home.

I'm sure the NCAA could find the money to pay off whomever in Congress should happen to make a stink.

(07-17-2017 10:20 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'll say it again, so that the set in stone truth can be repeated for posterity:

the Big Ten and the SEC will blackball any kind of change to NCAA rules that would enable ACC to adjust its divisional alignment such that it would become attractive for Notre Dame to become a full member. They will sell out to stop that, whether that's allowing divisionless (already killed that, last time) or whether that would be allowing more than two divisions .... whatever they perceive as moving the ACC in a helpful direction towards such an end.


When Swofford retires, he will do so without having achieved his dream of getting ND into the conf full-time in football. I think he accepts that.

Considering that the SEC hates the Big Ten's guts in just about everything, I don't see the SEC opposing the ACC on this. I can see the Big Ten doing this though. However, there is an end-around, and the SEC is actually leading the charge and it looks like the Big Ten is oblivious to the SEC's trap!!

Well you can believe as you wish. I don't have any facts, just guesses.

But my guess is that the SEC doesn't want the ACC to get any more powerful in football than it already is. Arguable, its top three programs are already better than the in-state SEC competitors in three core SEC states. And a state in core SEC country (N Carolina) doesn't have any SEC teams, only ACC teams.


If you're willing to share your "end around" hypothesis, I'm sure people will like to read it.

(07-19-2017 10:14 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 09:13 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Agreed. The way it was approved smells like a trap to me (give your #2 team 2 losses, or else have NO undefeated teams).

That's exactly what I was thinking. It screws the XII as a whole. It also guarantees a rematch. Below is a list of FBS CCG that featured a rematch - FYI. If I missed any, let me know. Bold indicates when that conference had more than 12 schools.

32 out 105 (roughly 30%) CCGs were rematches.


SEC (started in 1992)
1999 (Alabama beat Florida twice)
2000 (Florida beat Auburn twice)
2001 (LSU & Tennessee split)
2002 (LSU beat Georgia twice)
2003 (Auburn beat Tennessee twice)
2010 (Auburn beat South Carolina twice)

B1G (started in 2011)
2011 (Wisconsin & Michigan St split)
2012 (Wisconsin & Nebraska split)

PAC (started in 2011)
2012 (Stanford beat UCLA twice)
2013 (Stanford beat Arizona St twice)
2014 (Oregon & Arizona split)
2015 (Stanford beat USC twice)

ACC (started in 2005)
2007 (Virginia Tech & Boston College split)
2008 (Virginia Tech & Boston College split)
2009 (Georgia Tech beat Clemson twice)
2011 (Clemson beat Virginia Tech twice)

XII (1996-2010)
1999 (Nebraska & Texas split)
2000 (Oklahoma beat Kansas St twice)
2001 (Colorado & Texas split)
2005 (Texas beat Colorado twice)
2007 (Oklahoma beat Missouri twice)

AAC (since 2015)
None

MWC (since 2013)
2014 (Boise St beat Fresno St twice)
2016 (San Diego St & Wyoming split)

WAC (1996-1998)
None

CUSA (since 2005)
2006 (Houston & Southern Miss split)
2007 (Central Florida beat Tulsa twice)
2012 (Tulsa beat Central Florida twice)
2016 (Western Kentucky & Louisiana Tech split)

MAC (since 1997)
1999 (Marshall beat Western Michigan twice)
2000 (Marshall & Western Michigan split)
2003 (Miami OH beat Bowling Green St twice)
2004 (Toledo & Miami OH split)
2005 (Akron beat Northern Illinois twice)

The SEC has had only 1 rematch since 2003?!?? That's almost mathematically impossible! Only 1 rematch out 14 years? 8% I think? The PAC has had 4 rematchs in their 6 CCG's for perspective....67%.

(07-19-2017 10:35 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  As crazy as it sounds, the SEC may be a decent landing spot. The SEC only has 4 AAU schools (Texas A&M, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Florida) and it only has 1 basketball-first school (Kentucky). Iowa St is contiguous as it borders Missouri.

Not that crazy. It's something that SEC fans have discussed. It only works IMO if the expansion number is 18 or 20 and would require taking KU as well.

(07-19-2017 07:13 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The SEC has had only 1 rematch since 2003?!?? That's almost mathematically impossible! Only 1 rematch out 14 years? 8% I think? The PAC has had 4 rematchs in their 6 CCG's for perspective....67%.

SEC has 2 divisions of 7 teams each and plays 8 conference games, only 2 from the other division - and 1 is fixed. Assuming the fixed rivals almost never rematch, 1/7 = 14%

PAC has 2 divisions of 6 teams and plays 9 conference games, none fixed IIRC, so 4 games are random cross-division. 4/6 = 67%.

(07-19-2017 10:35 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:28 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:22 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-19-2017 10:18 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-18-2017 08:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Didn't the SEC vote for allowing a CCG with less that 12 teams? That was a life raft for the B12.

It's the Titanic disguised as a life raft. Giving The Big 12 permission to have a CCG with less than 12 teams eliminated the only remaining reason to expand.

No expansion; fewer teams to worry about placing when the Big 12 GOR expires.

The SEC, Big 10, ACC and PAC are going to divide The Big 12 up. By doing so every team in The Big 12 today will find a home in one of the other four conferences.

I figure we have a couple of more years of speculating until things start getting interesting.
CJ

Why would the other conferences be benevolent enough to take on every Big 12 school? Conferences are not altruistic and act in their own self-interest. The Big Ten isn't going to add Iowa State simply because it can and ISU needs a home.

I believe every team will find a home to avoid legal wrangling and exit fees.

ISU is an AAU land grant university. The Big 10 may not want them but The ACC or PAC may.
CJ

As crazy as it sounds, the SEC may be a decent landing spot. The SEC only has 4 AAU schools (Texas A&M, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Florida) and it only has 1 basketball-first school (Kentucky). Iowa St is contiguous as it borders Missouri.

This is an interesting mixture of irrelevant and wrong.