CSNbbs
AAC Waiver Approved - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: AAC Waiver Approved (/thread-885396.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - quo vadis - 10-19-2019 06:28 PM

I don't think the waiver will be extended.

But maybe we will see.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - quo vadis - 10-19-2019 06:32 PM

Watching Tulane vs Memphis, i notice Memphis transports their tiger to the game in a small cage.

I don't think they should do that. IIRC, LSU stopped doing that a few years ago.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - bill dazzle - 10-19-2019 08:02 PM

(10-19-2019 06:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Watching Tulane vs Memphis, i notice Memphis transports their tiger to the game in a small cage.

I don't think they should do that. IIRC, LSU stopped doing that a few years ago.


Of note, earlier today I talked about this topic to my mother and father (who attended what was then Memphis State College in the 1950s). I strongly oppose having the tiger in a small cage at a UofM home football game. Very stressful for what is a beautiful animal. It's an absolute disgrace and one of the things I dislike about college football (though there is much I like about the game in general). It's an example of humans finding a certain odd and sadistic pleasure in the use of animals.

I thought I might want to be a zoologist when I was a kid so I admit I take a militant stance on this.

Would prefer UofM officials discontinue this practice.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - esayem - 10-19-2019 08:12 PM

Waiver makes sense, UConn bailed.

There is no legitimate reason for an extension unless another team takes off, and if that’s the situation, then staying put at 10 with a round robin makes total sense.

The AAC can field a title game with a 10 game round robin right now. They have no argument as to why they need an extension at this point. They will try to fight for autonomy and fail, like the mighty ACC before them, and end up drafting UMass or a C-USA team like UAB or Rice to round out 12.

04-wine


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Attackcoog - 10-19-2019 08:37 PM

(10-19-2019 06:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 06:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Why have any rules at all if they are to keep extending?

They really don't. They pretty much make it up ad hoc as they go along. Whatever the balance-of-forces will approve is approved, either through a waiver or by rearranging the rules to make it legal. And the balance-of-forces is, we now know, OK with an 11 team no-divisions AAC playing a championship game.

A couple of years ago, the balance-of-forces decided that they were OK with the Big 12 playing a CCG without expanding and, poof, the rules changed. (And the Sun Belt took advantage, booted NMSU and Idaho, and nobody who mattered cared.)

Does the ACC get their no-divisions CCG? No telling. We won't know until a decision is announced. The rules will stay the same, or the rules will change, depending on what the balance of power dictates.

First---Im shocked the AAC got the waiver.

Now what Im thinking is---if the majority of conferences didnt care if the AAC gets a waiver to hold a divisionless playoff with only an 8 game schedule (where not a single team completes a full round robin)---why would the same conferences object to every conference having that option? I suspect there are some details to work out and the AAC may be a test case of sorts to see how the divisionless CCG works with some "protected rivalry games". Based on how that plays out---they will craft a rule allowing conferences (of 11 members and larger) a path to hold a divisionless CCG with some mechanism to protect important rivalry games while still insuring that the conference schedules utilize an orderly rotation (with the special protected rivalry games being the exception).


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Attackcoog - 10-19-2019 08:41 PM

(10-19-2019 08:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  Waiver makes sense, UConn bailed.

There is no legitimate reason for an extension unless another team takes off, and if that’s the situation, then staying put at 10 with a round robin makes total sense.

The AAC can field a title game with a 10 game round robin right now. They have no argument as to why they need an extension at this point. They will try to fight for autonomy and fail, like the mighty ACC before them, and end up drafting UMass or a C-USA team like UAB or Rice to round out 12.

04-wine

I disagree. They didnt have to give the AAC the divisonless waiver. They could have said—“No---but we will give your the same thing CUSA and the MAC got---which makes uneven divisions more workable.” They didnt do that. My guess is there is growing support for a rule change that would allow conferences with 11 or more qmembers a path to hold a divisionless CCG while playing just 8 or 9 conference games. I think most conferences think that would be an interesting option to have if it can be done in a way that protects big annual rivalry games.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - AntiG - 10-19-2019 08:43 PM

(10-19-2019 04:29 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  2 years to try and sell BYU and the cream of the MWC that together they can be a true P6.

If that doesn’t work then hello UAB.

probably not UAB. Temple is now left alone in the Northeast with Navy in the western division. Buffalo, Army or UMass.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - goofus - 10-19-2019 09:11 PM

I have a hunch that the Big Ten will want to go with a divisionless format in 2022 where the top 2 teams make the CCG.

Right now the Big Ten is working it's way through a 6-year rotation that runs from 2016 to 2021. During that 6-year period, everybody will play everybody else at least 2 times, playing everybody at least once at home and once away. Once that 6-year rotation is done, I think at that point the Big Ten will want to be done with divisions.

So it makes sense that 2022 will be the year that the NCAA changes the CCG rules permanently to allow for the 2 best teams to make the CCG in a divisionless conference. It's just that there will be some specific rules like

1) elligible members must play at least 8 conference games.
2) conferences must have at least 10 football members
3) all members must play all other members at least once every 6 years.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - The Cutter of Bish - 10-19-2019 09:13 PM

(10-19-2019 08:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 08:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  Waiver makes sense, UConn bailed.

There is no legitimate reason for an extension unless another team takes off, and if that’s the situation, then staying put at 10 with a round robin makes total sense.

The AAC can field a title game with a 10 game round robin right now. They have no argument as to why they need an extension at this point. They will try to fight for autonomy and fail, like the mighty ACC before them, and end up drafting UMass or a C-USA team like UAB or Rice to round out 12.

04-wine

I disagree. They didnt have to give the AAC the divisonless waiver. They could have said—“No---but we will give your the same thing CUSA and the MAC got---which makes uneven divisions more workable.” They didnt do that. My guess is there is growing support for a rule change that would allow conferences with 11 or more qmembers a path to hold a divisionless CCG while playing just 8 or 9 conference games. I think most conferences think that would be an interesting option to have if it can be done in a way that protects big annual rivalry games.

I think the waiver covers the conference’s ability to identify and obtain a replacement. That isn’t going to happen in just one season, and becomes only more reasonable, if even only a little, in two.

They will try very hard for BYU, Army, and Air Force. It’s a football share, and not a full one, with an upgrade over UConn. You can then examine your basketball needs. Again, if none is to be found on that side, you have a mix of associate and full members. Money can spread a little bit.

I’m wary if not worried a new full member, if not AFA or BYU, ramps up some talks of eventual defection down the line. As in, getting the 2025/6 plan really moving.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - quo vadis - 10-19-2019 09:24 PM

(10-19-2019 09:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 08:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 08:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  Waiver makes sense, UConn bailed.

There is no legitimate reason for an extension unless another team takes off, and if that’s the situation, then staying put at 10 with a round robin makes total sense.

The AAC can field a title game with a 10 game round robin right now. They have no argument as to why they need an extension at this point. They will try to fight for autonomy and fail, like the mighty ACC before them, and end up drafting UMass or a C-USA team like UAB or Rice to round out 12.

04-wine

I disagree. They didnt have to give the AAC the divisonless waiver. They could have said—“No---but we will give your the same thing CUSA and the MAC got---which makes uneven divisions more workable.” They didnt do that. My guess is there is growing support for a rule change that would allow conferences with 11 or more qmembers a path to hold a divisionless CCG while playing just 8 or 9 conference games. I think most conferences think that would be an interesting option to have if it can be done in a way that protects big annual rivalry games.

I think the waiver covers the conference’s ability to identify and obtain a replacement. That isn’t going to happen in just one season, and becomes only more reasonable, if even only a little, in two.

They will try very hard for BYU, Army, and Air Force. It’s a football share, and not a full one, with an upgrade over UConn. You can then examine your basketball needs. Again, if none is to be found on that side, you have a mix of associate and full members. Money can spread a little bit.

I’m wary if not worried a new full member, if not AFA or BYU, ramps up some talks of eventual defection down the line. As in, getting the 2025/6 plan really moving.

That is my sense as well. The AAC situation, an abrupt loss of a member, is what the concept of a waiver was created for. Two years sounds like what the NCAA regards as reasonable for the AAC to bring themselves back in to compliance, one way or another.

I expected this waiver, i do not expect that in two years it will be extended or for there to be a new rule that makes it permanent.

We will see.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - PicksUp - 10-19-2019 09:26 PM

Umass? So replace a dying FB program with one that has been just as bad the last few years?

AAC detractors would be happy to see a team like UMass added.

Besides BYU, Army or Air Force, the only other programs that move the needle slightly are Toledo, Buffalo or Marshall. Don’t know if any of the top three choices can be convinced. Don’t know if the Buffalo is desired at all by AAC or ESPN big wigs. I have a feeling AAC wants to stay at 11 for now and the foreseeable future.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Cajuns1252 - 10-19-2019 09:45 PM

(10-19-2019 09:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 08:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 08:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  Waiver makes sense, UConn bailed.

There is no legitimate reason for an extension unless another team takes off, and if that’s the situation, then staying put at 10 with a round robin makes total sense.

The AAC can field a title game with a 10 game round robin right now. They have no argument as to why they need an extension at this point. They will try to fight for autonomy and fail, like the mighty ACC before them, and end up drafting UMass or a C-USA team like UAB or Rice to round out 12.

04-wine

I disagree. They didnt have to give the AAC the divisonless waiver. They could have said—“No---but we will give your the same thing CUSA and the MAC got---which makes uneven divisions more workable.” They didnt do that. My guess is there is growing support for a rule change that would allow conferences with 11 or more qmembers a path to hold a divisionless CCG while playing just 8 or 9 conference games. I think most conferences think that would be an interesting option to have if it can be done in a way that protects big annual rivalry games.

I think the waiver covers the conference’s ability to identify and obtain a replacement. That isn’t going to happen in just one season, and becomes only more reasonable, if even only a little, in two.

They will try very hard for BYU, Army, and Air Force. It’s a football share, and not a full one, with an upgrade over UConn. You can then examine your basketball needs. Again, if none is to be found on that side, you have a mix of associate and full members. Money can spread a little bit.

I’m wary if not worried a new full member, if not AFA or BYU, ramps up some talks of eventual defection down the line. As in, getting the 2025/6 plan really moving.

Nah man, everyone knows Tulane needs a travel partner here comes Louisiana as a full member.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Kit-Cat - 10-19-2019 10:31 PM

(10-19-2019 09:26 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  Umass? So replace a dying FB program with one that has been just as bad the last few years?

AAC detractors would be happy to see a team like UMass added.

Besides BYU, Army or Air Force, the only other programs that move the needle slightly are Toledo, Buffalo or Marshall. Don’t know if any of the top three choices can be convinced. Don’t know if the Buffalo is desired at all by AAC or ESPN big wigs. I have a feeling AAC wants to stay at 11 for now and the foreseeable future.

It sounds like the AAC will have to get off the clock and select someone.

UAB would be my pick with the stadium. Nice tradition in basketball with a Final Four. Academics are in the acceptable range with the medical school.

Then UAB leaving makes the CUSA divisions more seamless especially if that addition is in the west like NMSU, a school that brings some nice basketball to the west.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Kit-Cat - 10-19-2019 10:37 PM

(10-19-2019 03:40 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  1) UConn football is screwed they have no games schedule for next year
2) American has two years to find a team for the 12th spot in football. Please start submitting resumes to aresco@theamerican.org

3) Waiver protects the AAC until year 4 of their TV deal for making a potentially value damaging addition. A school for the remaing years under contract is less likely to tick off ESPN, IMO.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Nerdlinger - 10-19-2019 10:40 PM

(10-19-2019 10:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 09:26 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  Umass? So replace a dying FB program with one that has been just as bad the last few years?

AAC detractors would be happy to see a team like UMass added.

Besides BYU, Army or Air Force, the only other programs that move the needle slightly are Toledo, Buffalo or Marshall. Don’t know if any of the top three choices can be convinced. Don’t know if the Buffalo is desired at all by AAC or ESPN big wigs. I have a feeling AAC wants to stay at 11 for now and the foreseeable future.

It sounds like the AAC will have to get off the clock and select someone.

UAB would be my pick with the stadium. Nice tradition in basketball with a Final Four. Academics are in the acceptable range with the medical school.

Then UAB leaving makes the CUSA divisions more seamless especially if that addition is in the west like NMSU, a school that brings some nice basketball to the west.

The absurdity of CUSA replacing UAB with NMSU aside, I would think that if the AAC picks off a CUSA school, then CUSA does what the AAC initially did. They'd stay at 13 while seeking a waiver for a divisionless CCG. I don't see how the NCAA could turn them down at this point.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - esayem - 10-19-2019 10:50 PM

(10-19-2019 08:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 08:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  Waiver makes sense, UConn bailed.

There is no legitimate reason for an extension unless another team takes off, and if that’s the situation, then staying put at 10 with a round robin makes total sense.

The AAC can field a title game with a 10 game round robin right now. They have no argument as to why they need an extension at this point. They will try to fight for autonomy and fail, like the mighty ACC before them, and end up drafting UMass or a C-USA team like UAB or Rice to round out 12.

04-wine

I disagree. They didnt have to give the AAC the divisonless waiver. They could have said—“No---but we will give your the same thing CUSA and the MAC got---which makes uneven divisions more workable.” They didnt do that. My guess is there is growing support for a rule change that would allow conferences with 11 or more qmembers a path to hold a divisionless CCG while playing just 8 or 9 conference games. I think most conferences think that would be an interesting option to have if it can be done in a way that protects big annual rivalry games.

Those conferences had more than 11 teams, this situation is unique. They weren’t going to force the AAC to play a 10 game conference schedule or force them into a weird five and six team division setup.

But, they do expect the AAC to get their ship in order by either expansion, detraction, a 10 game schedule, or removing the CCG.

I’d like to see the AAC break the mold, I just don’t see them getting it done alone. Throw the Big 10, Pac, and ACC in their corner and you have a formidable voting block.

The pie in the sky picks: BYU isn’t coming. Army would suffer attrition like they did 20 years ago, and as you see Navy slowing down momentum nowadays.

Honestly, the best thing would be for Navy to withdraw and play as an Independent again.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - johnbragg - 10-19-2019 11:22 PM

(10-19-2019 10:50 PM)esayem Wrote:  Those conferences had more than 11 teams, this situation is unique. They weren’t going to force the AAC to play a 10 game conference schedule or force them into a weird five and six team division setup.

Is it any weirder than 6-and-7? Or 5-and-5, which the Sun Belt is doing now?


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - esayem - 10-20-2019 12:05 AM

(10-19-2019 11:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 10:50 PM)esayem Wrote:  Those conferences had more than 11 teams, this situation is unique. They weren’t going to force the AAC to play a 10 game conference schedule or force them into a weird five and six team division setup.

Is it any weirder than 6-and-7? Or 5-and-5, which the Sun Belt is doing now?

Yes. 6 and 7 has a surplus team from the old setup and 5 and 5 is even divisions. Regardless, I don’t think this is proof the AAC is breaking down the barrier. The NCAA gave them a waiver.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Kit-Cat - 10-20-2019 12:13 AM

(10-19-2019 10:40 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 10:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 09:26 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  Umass? So replace a dying FB program with one that has been just as bad the last few years?

AAC detractors would be happy to see a team like UMass added.

Besides BYU, Army or Air Force, the only other programs that move the needle slightly are Toledo, Buffalo or Marshall. Don’t know if any of the top three choices can be convinced. Don’t know if the Buffalo is desired at all by AAC or ESPN big wigs. I have a feeling AAC wants to stay at 11 for now and the foreseeable future.

It sounds like the AAC will have to get off the clock and select someone.

UAB would be my pick with the stadium. Nice tradition in basketball with a Final Four. Academics are in the acceptable range with the medical school.

Then UAB leaving makes the CUSA divisions more seamless especially if that addition is in the west like NMSU, a school that brings some nice basketball to the west.

The absurdity of CUSA replacing UAB with NMSU aside, I would think that if the AAC picks off a CUSA school, then CUSA does what the AAC initially did. They'd stay at 13 while seeking a waiver for a divisionless CCG. I don't see how the NCAA could turn them down at this point.

How is NMSU to CUSA absurd when they've been a shortlist candidate since at least 2005.

If CUSA cant grab a SBC team the realistic remaining options are NMSU, Liberty and UMass if they want an expansion candidate. NMSU might be something the west division could swallow.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Nerdlinger - 10-20-2019 12:19 AM

(10-20-2019 12:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 11:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 10:50 PM)esayem Wrote:  Those conferences had more than 11 teams, this situation is unique. They weren’t going to force the AAC to play a 10 game conference schedule or force them into a weird five and six team division setup.

Is it any weirder than 6-and-7? Or 5-and-5, which the Sun Belt is doing now?

Yes. 6 and 7 has a surplus team from the old setup and 5 and 5 is even divisions. Regardless, I don’t think this is proof the AAC is breaking down the barrier. The NCAA gave them a waiver.

How is having one fewer team than 12 weirder than having one more team? You run into the same scheduling problems.