(12-31-2014 08:23 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:41 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 10:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 07:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  But that also allows for no divisions and that doesn't really favor the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC. So how about you keep up because obviously you aren't. Stop being a ******* while you are at it.

I am well aware of the situation. The other conferences aren't going to want to do away with divisions. That only helps the Big 12 stay as they are. Is that completely lost upon you? You are coming off as desperate for this if you cant understand why others wouldn't want it as the Big 12 is proposing. Has the ACC made any public statements about it yet now that we have seen the Playoff situation play out? I bet we don't see one.
Like I said, this isn't the ACC forum. If you cant keep that idiocy out of here then move on.

Not sure I agree that the "no divisions" aspect of the proposed rule isn't something the SEC, PAC, and maybe even the BiG wouldn't support.

The SEC West is too powerful at the moment and having it stacked as it is right now and for the foreseeable future, could result in the SEC East becoming viewed as the old Big 12 North in relative terms - which means because it is the SEC it will be better overall but in terms of comparison with the SEC West it will be considered weak. They may not change right away, but seeing the ACC experiment with it might be a good litmus test to see if it might work in the future.

The PAC may like divisions now at 12, but if expansion takes the conference to 14 or above, supporting the "no divisions" part of the clause might help later on. Why not see what the ACC does with it to see if it can help or not? I actually see the California schools liking it since they got to keep their round-robin amongst them with a 12-team conference and 9 game schedule but know they would likely lose that in a 14 team conference with required divisions in it.

The BiG probably likes things the way they are now, especially since they now have much clearer divisions instead of the Legends and Leaders nonsense of a few years back. But if Harbaugh quickly elevates Michigan to Meyer level Ohio State then there is the danger of the East division dominating the West division a few years down the road as well.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And just because a proposal comes forward worded in one way, does it mean it can't be modified during the vetting process in order to allow it to pass?

I think a conference not having at least 12 teams might be the stumbling block more so than the divisional requirement.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

No divisions causes more problems than it solves. Everything that you said no divisions helps with for the Big Ten, PAC and SEC...that can all be solved by having four divisions as well. So that is why I say it is a false logic to say that no divisions is the solution those three conferences will want. The biggest problem with no divisions is that it brings the Big 12 back to equal standing with them and that is the "game winning" reason why they would rather just wait out the big 12 and then go with four divisions.

As I have said, we have yet to see the ACC come out for no divisions since the final four teams for the playoff were announced. I say this because I don't see why the ACC would care to help the big 12 now.

The "no divisional" requirement is precisely why the ACC is a co-sponsor of this proposal. The regulation in place now only has three requirements - at least 12 teams with divisions whereby everyone in the same division must play one another.

If the ACC is looking to change the current status quo with this proposal, it certainly isn't to eliminate the 12 team requirement, right?

Cheers,
Neil

Bingo!
By changing the requirements that there be two divisions and every team in that division has to play every other team in that division frees up each conference to schedule an internal championship tournament. It puts a partial member (Notre Dame and maybe Texas) "in play" to participate in that conference tournament. It also would allow conferences to divide into as many sub-divisions (pods) as they wanted give flexibility in their scheduling.
If the SEC, PAC and B1G really want to kill off the Big 12, they simply pass the proposal about divisions and uphold the 12 team requirement. If you were wondering how the Big 12 could be dissolved without finding a home for every member because of lawsuits there is your answer. Why would the conference stay together if they wouldn't be able to participate in the national championship tournament? They wouldn't.

While this would certainly be possible if the proposal passes, I don't believe it would have the internal support within the ACC to bring this about if passed. However, it could lend itself nicely to adding a 15th football member for the conference without having to worry about uneven divisions.

Cheers,
Neil