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 - oliveandblue - 10-21-2019 04:49 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

It takes 2 years in some cases to leave a conference with no penalty. They need to line a 12th up soon.


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

(10-21-2019 04:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(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

It takes 2 years in some cases to leave a conference with no penalty. They need to line a 12th up soon.

Only if they won't be willing to have a temporary fix while waiting. My bet on the plan of action:

1 - lobby the P5 schools to vote in favor of waiving the requirement for round robin within divisions. (this will take time)

2 - in the background, start doing due diligence on prospective expansion candidates

3 - in the event that they're unable to secure item 1, start approaching candidates, with the temporary backup plan of having 2 teams play a repeat conference game (likely War on I-4 x 2) until the new member can join. This allows for divisional play to be resumed until the new member can join and doesn't require a waiver.

Still think a viable 4th option is to approach BYU about playing 2 AAC games/year that count as conference games and offering to join a bowl coalition with them.

USFFan


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Attackcoog - 10-21-2019 05:19 PM

(10-21-2019 04:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(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

It takes 2 years in some cases to leave a conference with no penalty. They need to line a 12th up soon.

The AAC wont do that until they find out if they can push through a rule change. Obviously, the conference has already looked at the available interested candidates and has judged them all to be dilutive (otherwise, they would have simply added a team that adds value). That said, I suspect they already know the school (or schools in the case of a split invite) that would be the least dilutive. Thus, before adding the current least dilutive team (or teams), they are going to do everything they can to avoid adding a dilutive 12th member.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - HiddenDragon - 10-21-2019 05:39 PM

If the AAC does decide to add a 12th program I hope they move swiftly and not have a chit & pony show like the Big 12 did.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Nerdlinger - 10-21-2019 06:02 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.

Yes, there's no need for any of the three rules Goofus lists. Conferences schedule more than the bare minimum of conference games anyway because it's in their best interest to. And conferences already rotate through all possible matchups within 6 years despite not being required to, so there's no need for such a rule.

I'd say there's not even a need to require which two teams are chosen for the CCG. It's in the conference's best interest to choose their top 2 teams. Having, say, the top team play the worst team in the CCG delegitimizes any victory by the top team and risks placing a not-so-great team in a premier bowl game.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - quo vadis - 10-21-2019 06:12 PM

(10-21-2019 05:04 PM)usffan Wrote:  - in the event that they're unable to secure item 1, start approaching candidates, with the temporary backup plan of having 2 teams play a repeat conference game (likely War on I-4 x 2) until the new member can join. This allows for divisional play to be resumed until the new member can join and doesn't require a waiver.

I'd rather the AAC do this than add an undesirable member.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Attackcoog - 10-21-2019 06:28 PM

(10-21-2019 05:39 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  If the AAC does decide to add a 12th program I hope they move swiftly and not have a chit & pony show like the Big 12 did.

The AAC process will have some similarities and some differences.

1) If the Wichita addition is the model, then I dont think the AAC will try to keep the process out of the public eye. That said, if the rule change fails, from that point on the process will be a bit more public simply (like the Big12 process) because everyone will be aware the process is going on (unlike the Wichita addition). So, it could take on some aspects of the Big12 2016 expansion depending on how good or bad the AAC is at plugging leaks.

2) lol....Here is the biggest difference---If the rule change fails, and the AAC decides to move toward expansion---the AAC will actually add a 12th member (or two partial members). It wont be a dog and pony show head fake followed by standing pat.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Attackcoog - 10-21-2019 06:35 PM

(10-21-2019 06:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-21-2019 05:04 PM)usffan Wrote:  - in the event that they're unable to secure item 1, start approaching candidates, with the temporary backup plan of having 2 teams play a repeat conference game (likely War on I-4 x 2) until the new member can join. This allows for divisional play to be resumed until the new member can join and doesn't require a waiver.

I'd rather the AAC do this than add an undesirable member.

Agree. A unpleasant scheduling issue is temporary. An unwanted member is permanent.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - slhNavy91 - 10-21-2019 08:08 PM

(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.
First off, 5-1(3-1) questions your "slowing down momentum" point.
Second, for whom would it be best for Navy to withdraw and go independent? I'll say not for the AAC: having a top-25 all time wins program with a national brand and bowl cachet is good for the conference. And not for Navy: USNA gave up successful independence for the strategic goal of being on the correct side of the next big restructure; when the Big East that Navy joined lost BCS auto-qual status and fell out of the CFP contract-bowl-conferences, that was a negative, but that's why Navy is all-in on "P6" and Gladchuk is Aresco's BFF. IF Texas/Oklahoma depart the BigXII and the rump BigXII tears apart the AAC, I could see Navy returning to independence, but even then that's only if the AAC fate is sealed into true outsider status. The Academy mission is served by remaining at the top level of DI football, and the institution will act to do so.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Crayton - 10-21-2019 09:50 PM

(10-21-2019 06:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-21-2019 06:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-21-2019 05:04 PM)usffan Wrote:  - in the event that they're unable to secure item 1, start approaching candidates, with the temporary backup plan of having 2 teams play a repeat conference game (likely War on I-4 x 2) until the new member can join. This allows for divisional play to be resumed until the new member can join and doesn't require a waiver.

I'd rather the AAC do this than add an undesirable member.

Agree. A unpleasant scheduling issue is temporary. An unwanted member is permanent.
Ditto.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - toddjnsn - 10-22-2019 06:43 AM

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

I agree. The NCAA is not going to let the AAC sit on 11 team lineup indefinitely, at all.

The MAC one year had a 6 / 7 uneven division lineup. IMO, that'd be better than a 1-division lineup for football if one's going to sit on it. But I dunno how 5 / 6 division lineup would hold up for the NCAA. UConn left, so the AAC will need to bring someone else in.

In reference to what someone else said -- no, I don't think it's "damaging" to add someone, as long as they're reasonably respectable. Losing UConn in basketball is the big 'damaging' part... and just about anyone except UMass would be an equal replacement on the football front. Just get a team with an average mid-major crowd with a decent record usually -- or one with a big mid-major crowd regardless of how swell they are, and you'll be seen as just the same.

Don't add someone in, and it'll only hurt the conference, IMO.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - esayem - 10-22-2019 07:17 AM

(10-21-2019 08:08 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(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.
First off, 5-1(3-1) questions your "slowing down momentum" point.
Second, for whom would it be best for Navy to withdraw and go independent? I'll say not for the AAC: having a top-25 all time wins program with a national brand and bowl cachet is good for the conference. And not for Navy: USNA gave up successful independence for the strategic goal of being on the correct side of the next big restructure; when the Big East that Navy joined lost BCS auto-qual status and fell out of the CFP contract-bowl-conferences, that was a negative, but that's why Navy is all-in on "P6" and Gladchuk is Aresco's BFF. IF Texas/Oklahoma depart the BigXII and the rump BigXII tears apart the AAC, I could see Navy returning to independence, but even then that's only if the AAC fate is sealed into true outsider status. The Academy mission is served by remaining at the top level of DI football, and the institution will act to do so.

7-6, 3-10...they’re off to a good start this year, granted. We’ll see how the season plays out. Doesn’t the one game OOC schedule matter?

The AAC West is a good fit for Navy considering all the Naval bases by their opponents. Old Dominion would be a monster draw if they were to join. I think Rice is the best institutional fit, plus they don’t add travel.

For those touting CSU, their attendance would drop in the AAC because they’d be on an island. Air Force too.

The idea of BYU and Army needs to be forgotten.

*I could see CSU having monetary interest, but they would be burning ALL their bridges to make a move that isn’t necessarily a steady long term outlook.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - johnbragg - 10-22-2019 07:57 AM

(10-22-2019 06:43 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  
Quote:It sounds like the AAC will have to get off the clock and select someone.

I agree. The NCAA is not going to let the AAC sit on 11 team lineup indefinitely, at all.

At all just happened. Indefinitely is now the question.

Quote:The MAC one year had a 6 / 7 uneven division lineup.

8 years. Temple was the 13th from 2007-11, UMass was the 13th from 2011-15.

Quote:IMO, that'd be better than a 1-division lineup for football if one's going to sit on it. But I dunno how 5 / 6 division lineup would hold up for the NCAA. UConn left, so the AAC will need to bring someone else in.

The NCAA *just* approved the 11-school no-divisions CCG for the AAC.

Quote:In reference to what someone else said -- no, I don't think it's "damaging" to add someone, as long as they're reasonably respectable. Losing UConn in basketball is the big 'damaging' part... and just about anyone except UMass would be an equal replacement on the football front. Just get a team with an average mid-major crowd with a decent record usually -- or one with a big mid-major crowd regardless of how swell they are, and you'll be seen as just the same.

If the add is lower-value than the average value of the conference, it's damaging to the conference. Usually conferences have pressures to backfill to meet a number, so they do it anyway. The AAC doesn't have to for at least a year or two.

Quote:Don't add someone in, and it'll only hurt the conference, IMO.
How? Why? If the NCAA lets them stay at 11 football schools, how does that hurt the AAC?


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Wedge - 10-22-2019 11:09 AM

(10-22-2019 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 06:43 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  
Quote:It sounds like the AAC will have to get off the clock and select someone.

I agree. The NCAA is not going to let the AAC sit on 11 team lineup indefinitely, at all.

At all just happened. Indefinitely is now the question.

Right. Instead of assuming the AAC wants to spend two years looking for a 12th football team, IMO we should assume the AAC wants the NCAA to get around to a rule change in the next two years that would mean the AAC doesn't have to make any additions.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - quo vadis - 10-22-2019 11:20 AM

(10-21-2019 04:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  
(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

It takes 2 years in some cases to leave a conference with no penalty. They need to line a 12th up soon.

True, but when's the last time someone actually waited the full period to avoid a penalty?

Usually, when an opportunity arises, a school is willing to move NOW, and pay whatever penalties are involved with not waiting. IIRC, UConn did just that to join the Big East.

So IMO, the AAC really does have some time, up to two years even, to decide, because the bottom line is if the invited school thinks the AAC is a serious step up, they will bite the short-term penalty bullet and come.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - CougarRed - 10-22-2019 11:30 AM

(10-21-2019 05:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The AAC will first find out if they can push through a rule change. Obviously, the conference has already looked at the available interested candidates and has judged them all to be dilutive (otherwise, they would have simply added a team that adds value).

That said, I suspect they already know the school (or schools in the case of a split invite) that would be the least dilutive. Thus, before adding the current least dilutive team (or teams), they are going to do everything they can to avoid adding a dilutive 12th member.

How do you define dilutive? That the TV would be smaller than the deal was with UConn? I don't think that's right.

Now if you mean that each of the remaining school's shares will be smaller than they will be WITHOUT UConn, that's another matter. ESPN may be pressing for more inventory in order to make the $7M payments.

Also, it's quite expensive to change conferences or change independent schedules on short notice. Perhaps the reason for the 2-year waiver is to allow teams time to give the proper notices.... If so, then not adding a school today says nothing about dilution.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - johnbragg - 10-22-2019 11:36 AM

(10-22-2019 11:20 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-21-2019 04:49 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  It takes 2 years in some cases to leave a conference with no penalty. They need to line a 12th up soon.

True, but when's the last time someone actually waited the full period to avoid a penalty?

Nobody has waited out a 2 year period. But most of the moves have given 12 months notice. That's a common notice requirement--either 12 months notice as an "ironclad" requirement (at least on paper), or you pay a lot more exit fee if you give less than 12 months notice.

So if the AAC does need a 12th on July 1, 2022, they probably need to invite in the spring of 2021. Later than that, you need someone to jailbreak their bylaws, and negotiate who pays the tab.

So that gives about 18 months to figure out if you can get a rule change, if you can get Air Force at $7M a year, if you take another CUSA school, or a wildcard like James Madison.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Attackcoog - 10-22-2019 11:43 AM

(10-22-2019 11:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 06:43 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  
Quote:It sounds like the AAC will have to get off the clock and select someone.

I agree. The NCAA is not going to let the AAC sit on 11 team lineup indefinitely, at all.

At all just happened. Indefinitely is now the question.

Right. Instead of assuming the AAC wants to spend two years looking for a 12th football team, IMO we should assume the AAC wants the NCAA to get around to a rule change in the next two years that would mean the AAC doesn't have to make any additions.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Any speculation on #12 presupposes that the AAC cant build a coalition for a rule change. I suspect that if the AAC partners with the ACC, Big10, and G5---to write a divisionless CCG rule they all agree with---the AAC can probably get something passed.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - Shox - 10-22-2019 11:44 AM

The SEC will pressure the other conferences to vote no on Divisonless CCG and with an 8 team playoff coming, the need for it is diminished as there will be a minimum of 2 at larges available. The AAC needs to add Air Force Football only, Boise, BYU, and Colorado State ASAP. If that format works then they can bring on UNLV and SDSU at some point. Throw in a scheduling agreement of some sorts with Army like Notre Dame has and we will get an autobid to the 8 team team CFP. It would be a far flung conference but what's the alternative, not be in the P6? The American schools will be thrilled with the opportunity and will gladly pay and endure the travel expense.

With 6 autobids and two at large it works perfectly. Throw the G4 a carrot giving them an at large if they finish in the CFP poll top 8. It would be almost impossible to do though with the strength of an expanded American and the deep pool of P6 blue bloods.


RE: AAC Waiver Approved - stever20 - 10-22-2019 11:45 AM

(10-22-2019 11:43 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 11:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 07:57 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(10-22-2019 06:43 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  
Quote:It sounds like the AAC will have to get off the clock and select someone.

I agree. The NCAA is not going to let the AAC sit on 11 team lineup indefinitely, at all.

At all just happened. Indefinitely is now the question.

Right. Instead of assuming the AAC wants to spend two years looking for a 12th football team, IMO we should assume the AAC wants the NCAA to get around to a rule change in the next two years that would mean the AAC doesn't have to make any additions.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

Any speculation on #12 presupposes that the AAC cant build a coalition for a rule change. I suspect that if the AAC partners with the ACC, Big10, and G5---to write a divisionless CCG rule they all agree with---the AAC can probably get something passed.

I think that's going to be easier said than done.....