(01-01-2015 01:11 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 04:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 09:43 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 08:34 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It doesn't matter if that isn't their main motive, that is what will happen with that legislation. That is what the likes of the Big Ten, SEC and PAC do not want to happen at this time. After what happened this year with the Playoff, I believe that it is more important now to the ACC to protect that 12 team requirement. That is my point so my statement was not lacking in terms of logic.

It may not have been a big deal to them before when they were making statements but a lack of statements now would most likely be due to them having a change of mind in terms of priorities changing.

You are making an assumption that the proposed legislation change is either an all or nothing proposition or that enough conferences will block it entirely just because of the 12-team requirement.

When the full discussion takes place prior to the vote, it can be voted down in its entirety or it can pass in its entirety or it can be amended or recommended that it be amended and brought forth again.

Cheers,
Neil

So you are saying the ACC doesn't want to touch the rules at all for requirements to have a championship game, only the rules on how a conference has to have two divisions in order to have one? Sneaky I suppose, but it would be blatantly obvious that the rule change was to spite The Big 12. You really think these people are willing to be so blatant?

I don't but if they are then I will salute them and you can then consider me a Swofford fan.

The protocol is wrong for that understanding H1. You don't co sponsor a bill you intend to amend in a way that would be at odds with the sponsor. I find this line of reasoning to be extremely faulty from a parliamentary procedure standpoint. If the ACC was truly seeking just the part of the rule applying to the requirement for 2 divisions they would simply sponsor a competing request/amendment/resolution asking for just that.

Remember ESPN doesn't want to lose control of the selection committee. If we move to a P4 they will. You are being played here as Chapel Hill wants favors just like Texas wants. They want committees, politics and smoke filled rooms because that is what they know and what has favored them in the past. They like the basketball selection committee. They want at large positions selected because of market size. Permitting the Big 12 to hold a CCG with 10 schools keeps 5 conferences, and thereby guarantees politics as usual. They fear what a Big 10 / SEC voting block could do with a P4 alignment. They want the Big 12/ACC/ and PAC to vote against what is in the best interest of the Big 10 and SEC. And what's more ESPN wants that leverage too. They may own the largest percentage of the SEC but they know economically we aren't as dependent upon them as the Big 12 and ACC are. If we are a P4 the SEC/Big 10 is a strong leverage alliance.

Politics. If this were just about eliminating the number of divisions I would buy it. But they co sponsored an amendment that would permit deregulation of CCG's in total permitting 10 team CCG's, the elimination of divisions, or a larger number of them. A simple amendment to permit conferences to establish more than 2 divisions if they had more than 12 teams is all that was needed. The devil is in the details.

I actually don't see it as this clandestine. I think the ACC would be fine with the Big 12 getting a championship game with 10, after all, they wanted it themselves back when they were 11. So having two P5 conferences (granted the weakest two) put forth the proposal gives it more weight than only one.

However, if let's say the other three are going to hold fast on the at least 12 teams part of the requirement, I have no doubt Swofford would abandoned that aspect of it if he felt he could do away with the divisional criteria. If the SEC, B1G, and PAC are going to block both aspects then no harm in trying.

Cheers,
Neil

That's feasible. Swofford would have to go very public beforehand though about how the proposal was blocked, then he could come back out with the amended proposal.

That would allow him to not look Machiavellian and in the end The Network would be very happy with him due to how that proposal would damage The Big 12.

It would allow the other conferences to say they agreed on a compromise so that they wouldn't be called stonewallers. To everyone that would say they were out to harm the big 12, the only response that would be necessary would be to say invite two schools into the big 12 and it's no big deal.

Well, they would know that isn't possible and that is a truly Machiavellian move. You put them in an even harder space by giving the ACC what the big 12 wanted but in a way that the big 12 couldn't have.