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 - Attackcoog - 10-20-2019 12:24 AM

(10-19-2019 10:50 PM)esayem 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.

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.

I’m thinking the Big10 and ACC would be very interested in a rule change. Navy is pretty happy in the AAC. I think the AAC’s best option is to partner with the Big10, ACC, and G5 to craft a rule they can all get behind. That way they can avoid being forced to add a dilutive member nobody wants.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - debragga - 10-20-2019 12:30 AM

App State could be a good addition to the AAC. Maybe just for football


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - The Cutter of Bish - 10-20-2019 02:20 AM

(10-19-2019 10:50 PM)esayem Wrote:  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.

I don't disagree with most of this (Navy is fine; I think they expected and anticipated drop-off far worse if the Big East they originally committed to didn't just totally peel apart, but do agree they should probably go back to independence since they lost that AQ they wanted back then when the Big East still had it). BYU and AFA won't budge, but will be the overwhelming favorites to push. Army probably couldn't say "no" fast enough. Dare the conference go back out there for SDSU or Boise football? Probably might for SDSU (Boise can pound sand after their stunts), but it will not go over.

It's why I think the actual replacement (be it Buffalo, Old Dominion, UMass, UAB, or USM) will probably tear the fragile fabric of the conference apart. It lost value that it wasn't able to re-obtain. Again, not immediately, but, I think we're going to know we're on the path to 2025/6 far more obviously now.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - esayem - 10-20-2019 07:29 AM

(10-20-2019 12:19 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(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.

It’s weird (I should have said unique) because they can legitimately play a round robin with or without divisions and are choosing not to while still trying to hold a CCG. First time this has happened since the rule change.

Plugging them into unbalanced divisions doesn’t really matter, but the NCAA doesn’t require divisions anymore so they’re not going to force it.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - goodknightfl - 10-20-2019 07:40 AM

The important thing here is, the AAC does not have to make some stupid knee jerk add. It can take it's time. As for permanent rule change, Who knows?


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - quo vadis - 10-20-2019 07:48 AM

(10-20-2019 07:40 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The important thing here is, the AAC does not have to make some stupid knee jerk add. It can take it's time. As for permanent rule change, Who knows?

Exactly. It has two years to figure something out, and really three, because the waiver doesn't start until next year. That's a decent amount of time, no need to jerk the knee.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Ohio Poly - 10-20-2019 08:38 AM

(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.

They shouldn't have a live tiger mascot at all.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Crayton - 10-20-2019 08:42 AM

(10-20-2019 07:40 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The important thing here is, the AAC does not have to make some stupid knee jerk add. It can take it's time. As for permanent rule change, Who knows?
If an expansion candidate establishes itself then maybe they expand, but the AAC could simply stay at 11. The new waiver allows the AAC to operate with no hardships (double War on I-4), and I do think the NCAA will take another look at a rule change (round-robin OR 8 conference games [such that no set of 3 teams do not play each other in a given year]).

Also, do we know if this waiver waives the round-robin requirement or simply adjusts it ala the MAC waiver? I’m assuming it’s the former because of Aresco’s August announcement, but was that reiterated yesterday? I missed that announcement.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Fighting Muskie - 10-20-2019 08:44 AM

Ideal AAC expansion:

East: Temple, Cincy, ECU, Memphis, UCF, USF, Tulane
West: SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Wich St/Navy, AFA, BYU, Boise St

They have 2 years to convince the parties involved that this would give them a lock on the G5 slot.

I’d maybe even go so far as to not have any East-West cross division games in football to allow more scheduling opportunities against P5. Someone like BYU, who has lots of P5 games already scheduled would appreciate something like this.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - HiddenDragon - 10-20-2019 08:57 AM

(10-19-2019 08:43 PM)AntiG Wrote:  
(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.

I don't think a northern team will be added if the AAC expands. It will either be a midwest or southern team.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - The Cutter of Bish - 10-20-2019 09:36 AM

(10-20-2019 08:57 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 08:43 PM)AntiG Wrote:  
(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.

I don't think a northern team will be added if the AAC expands. It will either be a midwest or southern team.

Yeah, old CUSA backfilling with more CUSA. Probably why you hear UAB and USM tossed around like that.

I don’t know if Buffalo or any MAC team takes the bait. They would lose a spot in a geographically and institutionally cohesive conference, with Marshall (maybe Temple football too, though now enjoying a good wave of success) serving as the cautionary tale of how the alternative plays out with regard to travel impact and revenue. MAC is not so bad. And it’s something I suspect a school might consider during the future state when the remnants of the next shift settle in their places. More simply put: if you’re going to leave MAC now, you’ve decided you’re ok never going back.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - YNot - 10-21-2019 12:09 PM

(10-20-2019 08:44 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Ideal AAC expansion:

East: Temple, Cincy, ECU, Memphis, UCF, USF, Tulane
West: SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Wich St/Navy, AFA, BYU, Boise St

They have 2 years to convince the parties involved that this would give them a lock on the G5 slot.

I’d maybe even go so far as to not have any East-West cross division games in football to allow more scheduling opportunities against P5. Someone like BYU, who has lots of P5 games already scheduled would appreciate something like this.

IMO, the key isn't to lock up the G5 slot, but to eschew the G5 label and grab a solid bowl game for the expanded AAC champion, outside of the Group of Five selection system.

Get a marque game for your champion. Let Appalachian State, Western Michigan, UAB, and Fresno State fight for a G4 consolation.

THAT would be a power move.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Wedge - 10-21-2019 12:36 PM

(10-19-2019 09:11 PM)goofus Wrote:  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.

No need to require a conference to have 10 football teams to have a CCG. There is already a rule that requires each FBS conference to have at least 8 full members that play football in the conference.

There should be a requirement that any conference that has a CCG and no divisions match the top 2 teams in the regular season conference standings in a CCG. They can break ties for first or second place in any reasonable way, but there's no good reason for a conference to choose any two teams to play in a CCG. This should be a CFP requirement rather than an NCAA requirement -- in other words, if you want the CFP to recognize your conference champ for the purpose of CFP bowl qualification, then your CCG must be a game between either your regular season top 2 or between the winners of your 2 divisions.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Attackcoog - 10-21-2019 12:53 PM

(10-20-2019 09:36 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(10-20-2019 08:57 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 08:43 PM)AntiG Wrote:  
(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.

I don't think a northern team will be added if the AAC expands. It will either be a midwest or southern team.

Yeah, old CUSA backfilling with more CUSA. Probably why you hear UAB and USM tossed around like that.

I don’t know if Buffalo or any MAC team takes the bait. They would lose a spot in a geographically and institutionally cohesive conference, with Marshall (maybe Temple football too, though now enjoying a good wave of success) serving as the cautionary tale of how the alternative plays out with regard to travel impact and revenue. MAC is not so bad. And it’s something I suspect a school might consider during the future state when the remnants of the next shift settle in their places. More simply put: if you’re going to leave MAC now, you’ve decided you’re ok never going back.

So, reading your posts, your view is the "fragile fabric" of the AAC is now about to rip apart and it's unlikely most teams from the MAC or CUSA would want to jump to the AAC.

The problem with that view is the AAC schools dont have anywhere to go that would be better than the AAC. The AAC teams are getting about 7 million each and are in a pretty competitive football conference (thats actually showing pretty well in polls and computers). Additionlly---the AAC is also a solid multi-bid basketball conference. So, unless a P5 conference is going to start adding AAC teams, then where are these AAC teams looking to "rip the fragile fabric" of the AAC apart going to go? The MAC? CUSA? The Sunbelt?

At this point, I suspect the same group of NCAA schools that voted for the AAC waiver, probably wont have much issue with a rule change that allows any conference with 10 or more schools to sponsor a divisionless CCG with an 8 game schedule. I have a feeling the new rule will pass and the AAC will not have to add a 12th team until they really find a school they really want.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Attackcoog - 10-21-2019 12:58 PM

(10-21-2019 12:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 09:11 PM)goofus Wrote:  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.

No need to require a conference to have 10 football teams to have a CCG. There is already a rule that requires each FBS conference to have at least 8 full members that play football in the conference.

There should be a requirement that any conference that has a CCG and no divisions match the top 2 teams in the regular season conference standings in a CCG. They can break ties for first or second place in any reasonable way, but there's no good reason for a conference to choose any two teams to play in a CCG. This should be a CFP requirement rather than an NCAA requirement -- in other words, if you want the CFP to recognize your conference champ for the purpose of CFP bowl qualification, then your CCG must be a game between either your regular season top 2 or between the winners of your 2 divisions.

I think his proposed rule would only apply to teams that want a divisionless CCG. Personally, I'd probably drop that number to 9. The reason being that any conference with 8 or 9 members can already utilize the existing rules to do a divisionless CCG while only playing an 8 game (or less) conference schedule. His proposed rule simply would make that option work for conferences with more than 9 members.

His idea isnt bad. Whatever they do needs to be flexible enough to allow conferences with large memberships enough scheduling flexibility to keep all their big annual rivalry games intact.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - TripleA - 10-21-2019 02:08 PM

(10-19-2019 04:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 04:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As i expected a temporary waiver.

The "waiver" was always going to be temporary. Having a permanently deregulated championship game was always going to require a rule change. It's still possible, and that's one of the things the AAC will probably push for. Next is gonna be will they add someone just to add them or just have unbalanced divisions if there is no rule change?

True, the terms 'temp' and 'waiver' are redundant, but that nit aside, what i meant was i thought the AAC would get temporary relief, whereas some here suggested that Aresco would be able to get other conferences to change the rule so it would be permanent.

They needed the temporary waiver to keep the CCG, since they have no time to add anyone for next July.

It also buys them time to lobby for a permanent rule change, which Aresco says is the AAC's preference. Getting the temp waiver certainly doesn't signal that they won't have a permanent rule change later.

If they don't get it, then they will add a 12th team.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - stever20 - 10-21-2019 02:12 PM

(10-21-2019 02:08 PM)TripleA Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 04:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 04:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  
(10-19-2019 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As i expected a temporary waiver.

The "waiver" was always going to be temporary. Having a permanently deregulated championship game was always going to require a rule change. It's still possible, and that's one of the things the AAC will probably push for. Next is gonna be will they add someone just to add them or just have unbalanced divisions if there is no rule change?

True, the terms 'temp' and 'waiver' are redundant, but that nit aside, what i meant was i thought the AAC would get temporary relief, whereas some here suggested that Aresco would be able to get other conferences to change the rule so it would be permanent.

They needed the temporary waiver to keep the CCG, since they have no time to add anyone for next July.

It also buys them time to lobby for a permanent rule change, which Aresco says is the AAC's preference. Getting the temp waiver certainly doesn't signal that they won't have a permanent rule change later.

If they don't get it, then they will add a 12th team.

true, but at the same time getting the temp waiver certainly doesn't signal that they WILL have a permanent rule change later either.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - AllTideUp - 10-21-2019 02:13 PM

(10-21-2019 12:09 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(10-20-2019 08:44 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Ideal AAC expansion:

East: Temple, Cincy, ECU, Memphis, UCF, USF, Tulane
West: SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Wich St/Navy, AFA, BYU, Boise St

They have 2 years to convince the parties involved that this would give them a lock on the G5 slot.

I’d maybe even go so far as to not have any East-West cross division games in football to allow more scheduling opportunities against P5. Someone like BYU, who has lots of P5 games already scheduled would appreciate something like this.

IMO, the key isn't to lock up the G5 slot, but to eschew the G5 label and grab a solid bowl game for the expanded AAC champion, outside of the Group of Five selection system.

Get a marque game for your champion. Let Appalachian State, Western Michigan, UAB, and Fresno State fight for a G4 consolation.

THAT would be a power move.

I get what you're saying, but right now the best that the AAC could hope for is a NY6 slot on an annual basis.

If the automatic berth in a big bowl game for the AAC champion isn't among the NY6 then I don't see that as an upgrade.

However, if the AAC had the likes of BYU, Boise State, and maybe a couple of others in their fold then I think having a bowl schedule that featured mostly Power competition isn't out of the question. That and more bids to the NCAA basketball tournament. That's where the AAC can make up some ground in perception and also cash in a little more. I think that's a reasonable goal.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - quo vadis - 10-21-2019 04:05 PM

Bottom line is ...

1) The AAC got a waiver, so they don't have to make any rush-moves, and any moves at all, for at least almost 3 years.

2) None of us knows if a permanent rule change will be made. It might, it might not. As of now, the rule is what it is, and the AAC is on the clock to come in to compliance by 2023.

That's all we know.

07-coffee3


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - stever20 - 10-21-2019 04:16 PM

(10-21-2019 04:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is ...

1) The AAC got a waiver, so they don't have to make any rush-moves, and any moves at all, for at least almost 3 years.

2) None of us knows if a permanent rule change will be made. It might, it might not. As of now, the rule is what it is, and the AAC is on the clock to come in to compliance by 2023.

That's all we know.

07-coffee3

Waiver is good thru 2021. So would need to be in compliance by Fall 2022.

So realistically they're going to have to know by spring 2021 so they could invite someone if necessary for start play in Fall 2022.