(05-20-2014 12:43 AM)GoApps70 Wrote: (05-20-2014 12:27 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: We don't even know whether the NCAA CCG deregulation will deregulate the conference size requirement or just the play in two division round robin requirement, since if the divisional headache has actually prevented the Big12 from an expansion it would otherwise like to make, deregulating the two division round robin would be enough to eliminate the division headache.
Is that up for vote?
People concluding what the rule will be based on the ACC proposal could perhaps remember the "proposal" part of that phrase.
The proposal has got the inside track, and if you had to bet, that would be the best bet, but its the NCAA, and what is actually voted on has sometimes changed in surprising ways in the past. Especially if inter-divisional politics come into play, given that the original rule was a Division 2 rule.
~~~~~~~~
(05-20-2014 03:10 AM)WKUYG Wrote: If Western voted NO on UMSU for all sports in the SBC why would Western then turn around and want NMSU in C-USA?
It would be possible to invent rationales. For instance:
(1) You think that the Sunbelt won't be strong enough to land an at-large bid except for the bubble buster scenario, but that CUSA is on the edge of being a two-bid conference, so going for the extra hoops strength is worth more in the second scenario.
(2) You are going to be in the division traveling to visit them ever second year or in sports with no divisions traveling to Las Cruces frequently in one case, and you are going to be in the division traveling to visit them ever fourth year, with more team sports split into divisions, in the other case.
But the general argument would be if you cast a vote based on the circumstances, rather than on some kind of animosity, "the same add" wouldn't automatically be the same circumstance.
Indeed, those in the Sunbelt who didn't pull the trigger on NSMU all-sports at this point in time could well include schools willing to do so in other circumstances.