(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I love how people think everyone needs to be like everyone else. Nobody has an original thought around here. They simply spout the same tired words over and over, thinking that repetition will do the job, never minding the fact that nobody that really matters cares for their opinions.

Instead, they ignore anything that doesn't conform to their ideal of making every conference look like every other conference, which, of course, gives them the opportunity to slide their favorite team into the mix. It's agenda driven, and the schools change with each post, since y'all go to different schools.

I totally agree, Bit.

I love how you are agreeing with someone whom hasn't had a single original thought for years while that person tries to project their own inadequacies upon everyone else.

Maybe you truly are just agreeing with the bold part, which would be funny because he is talking about himself as much or more so than he would be talking about anyone else. He has zero original thought capability.

(04-07-2015 07:17 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I love how people think everyone needs to be like everyone else. Nobody has an original thought around here. They simply spout the same tired words over and over, thinking that repetition will do the job, never minding the fact that nobody that really matters cares for their opinions.

Instead, they ignore anything that doesn't conform to their ideal of making every conference look like every other conference, which, of course, gives them the opportunity to slide their favorite team into the mix. It's agenda driven, and the schools change with each post, since y'all go to different schools.

I totally agree, Bit.

I love how you are agreeing with someone whom hasn't had a single original thought for years while that person tries to project their own inadequacies upon everyone else.

Maybe you truly are just agreeing with the bold part, which would be funny because he is talking about himself as much or more so than he would be talking about anyone else. He has zero original thought capability.

I am truly just agreeing with the bold part. That is my only thought (original or otherwise) about conferences.

(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I love how people think everyone needs to be like everyone else. Nobody has an original thought around here. They simply spout the same tired words over and over, thinking that repetition will do the job, never minding the fact that nobody that really matters cares for their opinions.

Instead, they ignore anything that doesn't conform to their ideal of making every conference look like every other conference, which, of course, gives them the opportunity to slide their favorite team into the mix. It's agenda driven, and the schools change with each post, since y'all go to different schools.

I totally agree, Bit.

Same here.

(04-07-2015 07:22 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 06:33 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:34 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I love how people think everyone needs to be like everyone else. Nobody has an original thought around here. They simply spout the same tired words over and over, thinking that repetition will do the job, never minding the fact that nobody that really matters cares for their opinions.

Instead, they ignore anything that doesn't conform to their ideal of making every conference look like every other conference, which, of course, gives them the opportunity to slide their favorite team into the mix. It's agenda driven, and the schools change with each post, since y'all go to different schools.

I totally agree, Bit.

Same here.

Mr. Original Thought right here!

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the Big 12 realizes the lack of a title game hurt them in the CFP selection this past year. Also, a CCG will bring in more money. No brainer ...

Wouldn't have mattered this past year. Even if Baylor and TCU played in the CCG, it would've been a (relatively) close game.

Still not enough to push the winner over Florida St (the 4th best team, going into the playoff) or Ohio St (the 3rd best team, going into the playoff).


The unfortunate reality of the XII last year is that its best team lost to its second best team and its second best team didn't play anyone in non-conference.

They were always going to be the P5 that got screwed out.


How they change that is a tough non-conf. slate and winning those tough games. Then having a blow out win in the CCG for the best team, if they have a CCG. But of course that's never a given.

Yes, it would bring in more money. But Texas and Oklahoma make the decisions and those two already make plenty of money and have the history of getting burnt or almost burnt in recent XII CCG's.

Big 12 never had trouble putting teams in national title game - until they lost their CCG.

(04-07-2015 04:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Other than it would mean they wouldn't have to expand, and therefore have no need to add your currently-G5 school, why not?

Personally, I badly want the Big 12 to expand, because maybe my Bulls would get the call-up. But I honestly can't think of an actual good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to have a title game with 10 schools.

Perfectly good reason: no other P5 conference was allowed to have one with less than 12, so the XII shouldn't get special treatment.

Not a good reason. First, the Big 12 already has had to pay the toughest price under the old rule- they lost their CCG when they fell to 10 teams. Nobody else P5 has experienced that. So it's not like they somehow have gamed the system to their advantage.

Second, we are in a new era, an era of P5 autonomy. No sense in gaining autonomy if you are going to enforce old restrictions. Keeping that rule would be contrary to the spirit of autonomy.

With autonomy, the other P5 are unlikely to stop a fellow P5 from doing this without a really good reason. They do not want to set precedent that autonomy is narrow and very limited.

And helping your G5 school get into Big 12 is not likely to be viewed by SEC or B1G as good reason, lol.

(04-07-2015 06:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:32 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:19 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Are you suggesting that the Pac-12 expansion was ENTIRELY driven for by the desire for a CCG? And even if it was, they were completely within their rights to propose a change in the divisional play rules. They choose not to add schools thay wanted and not worry about the legislative route. That was their choice. These rules changes are following the NCAA legislative process. Rules change. It happens all the time. Hits that used to be good hard nosed big time legal hits now cause kids to be suspended. Times change.

I'm suggesting that the PAC-10 would've very happily played a round-robin in the regular season and had the best two teams play a CCG for game 13.

They would've gotten the same revenue bump and the revenue per school would've been higher than it is now with UT and CO.

That absolutely would've happened.

It is why they did add Utah and CU. So they could get a CCG.

I'll give fans more credit to show how silly it would be to have a CCG with 10 teams when you already play each other.

CCG rematches happen all the time.

Every Pac-12 title game to date has been a rematch. With two 6-team divisions and 9 conference games, each team plays 4 of the 6 teams in the other division each year, meaning that a title game rematch is much more likely than a title game matchup that isn't a rematch.

Would the Pac have stayed with 10 schools, instead of adding UU and CU, after Texas said no? Maybe, if the consultants and TV networks had told them they would get as much money for the 10-team league as for the 12-team league. But maybe not. Extending the footprint farther to the east would have been a reasonable strategic move even if not necessary for a football title game.

Even if the PAC would feel resentful about the Big 12 getting to have a title game with 10 teams, the SEC and B1G are unlikely to feel that way, since they are happy with all schools they have added to get to 12 and beyond.

(04-07-2015 07:05 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:28 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  If the Pac 12 and Big 10 support this, it is rope a dope setting them up for a knockout punch.

The PAC needs this just as much. Divisionless play allows the California schools to play eachother annually, the NW schools to have equal access to Socal as the SW schools, and the SW schools to avoid any possibility of being split into a Texas division apart from the original PAC8 should expansion occur. This change would facilitate expansion while also stabilizing scheduling/access for the current 12.

Alternatively, the Pac-12 could move to 3 divisions of 4: the Washington/Oregon, California, and Colorado/Utah/Arizona divisions. This creates another division race and still helps get the best match-ups for the title game.

Really, I think all conferences will now look at ways of shaking up their divisions or going without divisions entirely. We may also see the first conference semifinal games.

Bowlsby told @dennisdoddcbs there's been talk about ACC going to 3 divisions but Swofford told me "that's unlikely in our league."

If it's deregulated will @Big12Conference have a title game? Bowlsby: "There's certainly some possibility."

Asked Bowlsby if there is a date yet for it to be voted on. He said no, "very preliminary."

Heather Dinich @CFBHeather · 5h 5 hours ago
Bowlsby said "whether the votes will be there to change it is anybody's guess."

(04-07-2015 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Not sure how you do three divisions of 14 teams, unless there's an expansion coming...

Someone would have to define "deregulation". If we are talking more than 2 divisions and therefore implying conference semis and then finals I could see the appeal for the SEC and Big 10, as not only would it enhance revenues, keep a higher percentage of their schools (and their fan bases energized) deeper into the season, but it would also mean that for the sake of additional markets that additions to 16 or even 18 would be manageable. So in that regard CommuterBob it could mean expansion.

If however by "deregulation" we are merely tossing the Big 12 and the ACC a bone that benefits only them, I don't see it happening.

The actual wording of the proposed deregulation has yet to be published, but I have to think that based on this article and others from previous years, it only affects the definition of the allowable 13th game for a CCG, and not allowing more additional games. I agree that a playoff within conferences would be a revenue boon, but I don't think that is what is being discussed here.

I also don't think of the deregulation as throwing the ACC and XII a bone, but rather opening a door for any conference to bolster the SOS for a potential champion, something the CFP committee really stressed as being important. I don't think expanding the CCG to a playoff enhances that, but rather introduces more chance that an inferior team pulls an upset.

(04-07-2015 08:56 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Bowlsby told @dennisdoddcbs there's been talk about ACC going to 3 divisions but Swofford told me "that's unlikely in our league."

If it's deregulated will @Big12Conference have a title game? Bowlsby: "There's certainly some possibility."

Asked Bowlsby if there is a date yet for it to be voted on. He said no, "very preliminary."

Heather Dinich @CFBHeather · 5h 5 hours ago
Bowlsby said "whether the votes will be there to change it is anybody's guess."

And now, you see why I was so entertained by this thread when I came around to see it. Nothing different has happened. It's just propaganda and desperation.

(04-07-2015 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Not sure how you do three divisions of 14 teams, unless there's an expansion coming...

Someone would have to define "deregulation". If we are talking more than 2 divisions and therefore implying conference semis and then finals I could see the appeal for the SEC and Big 10, as not only would it enhance revenues, keep a higher percentage of their schools (and their fan bases energized) deeper into the season, but it would also mean that for the sake of additional markets that additions to 16 or even 18 would be manageable. So in that regard CommuterBob it could mean expansion.

If however by "deregulation" we are merely tossing the Big 12 and the ACC a bone that benefits only them, I don't see it happening.

Not just tossing B12 and ACC a bone, B1G and SEC could make a ton too if it is determined that only one school per conference is likely to make the four team playoffs most years. Addition revenues from a set of conference semi-final games or defacto playoff games would make financial sense in that case.

Few random thoughts:
1. This will easily pass. These did not pass before because it was never even meant to apply at this level and you had to go through the NCAA. The power 5 are cordial enough with each other that with autonomy they are not going to try to stop the Big 12 and/or ACC from making these changes unless it negatively effects them in a significant way (it doesn't).

2. I will be very surprised if the ACC goes to 3 divisions. More likely I think they just end complete round robin play in division and move it so you play 5 of the other 6 in division with the extra game for an added crossover.

2. The Big 12 will add a CCG.

4. I think conference semi-finals are unlikely. The national champion (if playing a CCG) already is playing 15 games and adding more so soon again would get a lot of push back especially when they are trying to emphasize the student part of student athlete. I'm also not convinced they are the revenue boom people imagine they are. Regular season play really is affected by all these moves and it gets harder to really care about paying attention to conferences beyond your own if you know the top teams are basically in the conference playoff regardless. This will hurt attention on the sport in September and October. It would likely require pushing semi-finals to Thanksgiving weekend and throwing off all the rivalry games there.

(04-07-2015 09:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:56 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Bowlsby told @dennisdoddcbs there's been talk about ACC going to 3 divisions but Swofford told me "that's unlikely in our league."

If it's deregulated will @Big12Conference have a title game? Bowlsby: "There's certainly some possibility."

Asked Bowlsby if there is a date yet for it to be voted on. He said no, "very preliminary."

Heather Dinich @CFBHeather · 5h 5 hours ago
Bowlsby said "whether the votes will be there to change it is anybody's guess."

And now, you see why I was so entertained by this thread when I came around to see it. Nothing different has happened. It's just propaganda and desperation.

It's fun to have a Nero moment or two.

(04-07-2015 10:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few random thoughts:
1. This will easily pass. These did not pass before because it was never even meant to apply at this level and you had to go through the NCAA. The power 5 are cordial enough with each other that with autonomy they are not going to try to stop the Big 12 and/or ACC from making these changes unless it negatively effects them in a significant way (it doesn't).

2. I will be very surprised if the ACC goes to 3 divisions. More likely I think they just end complete round robin play in division and move it so you play 5 of the other 6 in division with the extra game for an added crossover.

2. The Big 12 will add a CCG.

4. I think conference semi-finals are unlikely. The national champion (if playing a CCG) already is playing 15 games and adding more so soon again would get a lot of push back especially when they are trying to emphasize the student part of student athlete. I'm also not convinced they are the revenue boom people imagine they are. Regular season play really is affected by all these moves and it gets harder to really care about paying attention to conferences beyond your own if you know the top teams are basically in the conference playoff regardless. This will hurt attention on the sport in September and October. It would likely require pushing semi-finals to Thanksgiving weekend and throwing off all the rivalry games there.

I agree with all.

(04-07-2015 10:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few random thoughts:
1. This will easily pass. These did not pass before because it was never even meant to apply at this level and you had to go through the NCAA. The power 5 are cordial enough with each other that with autonomy they are not going to try to stop the Big 12 and/or ACC from making these changes unless it negatively effects them in a significant way (it doesn't).

2. I will be very surprised if the ACC goes to 3 divisions. More likely I think they just end complete round robin play in division and move it so you play 5 of the other 6 in division with the extra game for an added crossover.

2. The Big 12 will add a CCG.

4. I think conference semi-finals are unlikely. The national champion (if playing a CCG) already is playing 15 games and adding more so soon again would get a lot of push back especially when they are trying to emphasize the student part of student athlete. I'm also not convinced they are the revenue boom people imagine they are. Regular season play really is affected by all these moves and it gets harder to really care about paying attention to conferences beyond your own if you know the top teams are basically in the conference playoff regardless. This will hurt attention on the sport in September and October. It would likely require pushing semi-finals to Thanksgiving weekend and throwing off all the rivalry games there.

Agree with all, although not 100% convinced the Big 12 will host a champ game with 10. I suspect it will, but there is still some anti- champ sentiment out there.

(04-07-2015 10:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few random thoughts:
1. This will easily pass. These did not pass before because it was never even meant to apply at this level and you had to go through the NCAA. The power 5 are cordial enough with each other that with autonomy they are not going to try to stop the Big 12 and/or ACC from making these changes unless it negatively effects them in a significant way (it doesn't).

The hope of those who want to force B12 expansion seems to be that the other P5 will think "this isn't fair! We had to expand to 12 so why should the B12 be able to have a CCG with 10 teams!"? But they keep forgetting that we are now in the P5 autonomy era, and the whole point of getting autonomy was precisely to allow for more freedom for P5 members, to be able to do things like this. It would go against the whole spirit of autonomy for other P5 to reject this, and nobody wants to set a precedent that could bite their conference in the arse at a later date.

Plus, that question implies that the other P5 who expanded to 12 are somehow unhappy with the members they added such that they feel they have been weakened or diluted and therefore the Big 12 should have to suffer the same. But, that is only arguably true in the case of the PAC. The SEC and B1G have never added anyone they aren't thoroughly happy with, so are unlikely to have that spiteful kind of attitude.

So sans any really good reason to object, this will pass, and no P5 has a good reason to vote against it.

(04-08-2015 08:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few random thoughts:
1. This will easily pass. These did not pass before because it was never even meant to apply at this level and you had to go through the NCAA. The power 5 are cordial enough with each other that with autonomy they are not going to try to stop the Big 12 and/or ACC from making these changes unless it negatively effects them in a significant way (it doesn't).

The hope of those who want to force B12 expansion seems to be that the other P5 will think "this isn't fair! We had to expand to 12 so why should the B12 be able to have a CCG with 10 teams!"? But they keep forgetting that we are now in the P5 autonomy era, and the whole point of getting autonomy was precisely to allow for more freedom for P5 members, to be able to do things like this. It would go against the whole spirit of autonomy for other P5 to reject this, and nobody wants to set a precedent that could bite their conference in the arse at a later date.

Plus, that question implies that the other P5 who expanded to 12 are somehow unhappy with the members they added such that they feel they have been weakened or diluted and therefore the Big 12 should have to suffer the same. But, that is only arguably true in the case of the PAC. The SEC and B1G have never added anyone they aren't thoroughly happy with, so are unlikely to have that spiteful kind of attitude.

So sans any really good reason to object, this will pass, and no P5 has a good reason to vote against it.

Do not blur the line of autonomy here. This legislation does not fall under those areas that have been defined in the current legislation and it would take a huge effort to include it as such.

Also, as He1nousOne indicates, a lot of this is puffery by Bowlsby. It has not passed, it has only been brought up again (by Bowlsby) as a potential agenda item for the Football Oversight Committee, which he chairs (but does not control). This is a long way from being enacted. Even if Bowlsby were to get this through his committee, it still has to go through the Council, which the P5 does not have a majority, even with their weighted voting. Plus, I am not sold that the P5 will act in concert on this issue. Bowlsby is a very arrogant and presumptuous guy and it wouldn't surprise me if he's making these sorts of statements simply to try to drum up support, where he may not actually have it.

(04-08-2015 09:36 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 08:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few random thoughts:
1. This will easily pass. These did not pass before because it was never even meant to apply at this level and you had to go through the NCAA. The power 5 are cordial enough with each other that with autonomy they are not going to try to stop the Big 12 and/or ACC from making these changes unless it negatively effects them in a significant way (it doesn't).

The hope of those who want to force B12 expansion seems to be that the other P5 will think "this isn't fair! We had to expand to 12 so why should the B12 be able to have a CCG with 10 teams!"? But they keep forgetting that we are now in the P5 autonomy era, and the whole point of getting autonomy was precisely to allow for more freedom for P5 members, to be able to do things like this. It would go against the whole spirit of autonomy for other P5 to reject this, and nobody wants to set a precedent that could bite their conference in the arse at a later date.

Plus, that question implies that the other P5 who expanded to 12 are somehow unhappy with the members they added such that they feel they have been weakened or diluted and therefore the Big 12 should have to suffer the same. But, that is only arguably true in the case of the PAC. The SEC and B1G have never added anyone they aren't thoroughly happy with, so are unlikely to have that spiteful kind of attitude.

So sans any really good reason to object, this will pass, and no P5 has a good reason to vote against it.

Do not blur the line of autonomy here. This legislation does not fall under those areas that have been defined in the current legislation and it would take a huge effort to include it as such.

Also, as He1nousOne indicates, a lot of this is puffery by Bowlsby. It has not passed, it has only been brought up again (by Bowlsby) as a potential agenda item for the Football Oversight Committee, which he chairs (but does not control). This is a long way from being enacted. Even if Bowlsby were to get this through his committee, it still has to go through the Council, which the P5 does not have a majority, even with their weighted voting. Plus, I am not sold that the P5 will act in concert on this issue. Bowlsby is a very arrogant and presumptuous guy and it wouldn't surprise me if he's making these sorts of statements simply to try to drum up support, where he may not actually have it.

All of that is possible. But, committee chairs are powerful, they can put things on agendas, and I don't see why we would necessarily conclude Bowlsby is engaging in puffery. I see the P5 as being united, and I'm not even sure why the other conferences might want to reject it either.

(04-08-2015 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:36 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 08:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few random thoughts:
1. This will easily pass. These did not pass before because it was never even meant to apply at this level and you had to go through the NCAA. The power 5 are cordial enough with each other that with autonomy they are not going to try to stop the Big 12 and/or ACC from making these changes unless it negatively effects them in a significant way (it doesn't).

The hope of those who want to force B12 expansion seems to be that the other P5 will think "this isn't fair! We had to expand to 12 so why should the B12 be able to have a CCG with 10 teams!"? But they keep forgetting that we are now in the P5 autonomy era, and the whole point of getting autonomy was precisely to allow for more freedom for P5 members, to be able to do things like this. It would go against the whole spirit of autonomy for other P5 to reject this, and nobody wants to set a precedent that could bite their conference in the arse at a later date.

Plus, that question implies that the other P5 who expanded to 12 are somehow unhappy with the members they added such that they feel they have been weakened or diluted and therefore the Big 12 should have to suffer the same. But, that is only arguably true in the case of the PAC. The SEC and B1G have never added anyone they aren't thoroughly happy with, so are unlikely to have that spiteful kind of attitude.

So sans any really good reason to object, this will pass, and no P5 has a good reason to vote against it.

Do not blur the line of autonomy here. This legislation does not fall under those areas that have been defined in the current legislation and it would take a huge effort to include it as such.

Also, as He1nousOne indicates, a lot of this is puffery by Bowlsby. It has not passed, it has only been brought up again (by Bowlsby) as a potential agenda item for the Football Oversight Committee, which he chairs (but does not control). This is a long way from being enacted. Even if Bowlsby were to get this through his committee, it still has to go through the Council, which the P5 does not have a majority, even with their weighted voting. Plus, I am not sold that the P5 will act in concert on this issue. Bowlsby is a very arrogant and presumptuous guy and it wouldn't surprise me if he's making these sorts of statements simply to try to drum up support, where he may not actually have it.

All of that is possible. But, committee chairs are powerful, they can put things on agendas, and I don't see why we would necessarily conclude Bowlsby is engaging in puffery. I see the P5 as being united, and I'm not even sure why the other conferences might want to reject it either.

I agree. What would be the reason, other than spite? And I really don't think there is spite among the conferences like there is on message boards. These guys work together, respect each other and need each other to be on good terms. If an issue if important to one or two of the conferences and it really doesn't affect the other ones (and may even benefit them by having their own flexibility in the future), I don't think battle lines will be drawn. There are bigger issues than this one.