(12-05-2015 03:07 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  Question: if conferences would still be required under certain instances to have divisions, how is that still deregulation?

It's not, it is really just a clarification of the existing rule by the Big 10's proposal and a clarification with a modification of one aspect relating to the Big 12 by the SEC's proposal.

(12-05-2015 01:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Big Ten has no need to change a thing. The Big Ten already has one CFP winner and is the only conference currently with 100% assurance to have a team in this year's CFP. The Big Ten West teams no longer need to face Ohio State and Michigan. That is an outdated thought, sorry.

But it still can easily work against you. Sure it worked this year & the B1G got Ohio State in on the last day last year but what if this year Iowa hadn't gone undefeated? Iowa would be in NC situation & if they beat Michigan St then the B1G could be out. You seriously don't think that the west teams wouldn't benefit from having the B1G marquee brands on their schedule more often?

With the ACC proposal of eliminating round robin division play, what's wrong with that? For example, FSU would be replacing WF or Syracuse for GT or VT. It makes for stronger schedules. It would help the SEC & B1G as well as it will create better content for their networks & help balance the schedules. Ohio St could drop Maryland one year & add Nebraska for example. I think you would have to set 2-3 divisional rivals that you have to play every year while mandating that you have to play 4-5 divisional teams. The B1G could go back to 8 conference games.

(12-05-2015 03:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 03:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 03:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 03:12 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 03:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  There is only one of us that wants that and it is clear which one that is.

Unfortunately for Todge, he doesn't know when to stop. I do. Have fun Todge.

My little puppet.

Be the one to let it go then. It's an interesting discussion but you guys are ruining it.

Oh stop crying little TCU fan. You have enough to cry about this season already.

Weak. Regardless this has been one of my favorite seasons of all time. Team has overcome so much and any season you blow out UT, snatch victory from defeat at Tech and crush Baylor's playoff hopes is a fun season.

I guess this is where you prove that you don't live up to your own advice?

Fair enough. I shouldn't have responded. I do like this Frog team, though. One of my favorite to root for.

I'll bring the topic back around. Does anyone know the voting process? Do they vote on the amendment first, or the primary resolution, then the amendment?

(12-05-2015 03:25 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Big Ten has no need to change a thing. The Big Ten already has one CFP winner and is the only conference currently with 100% assurance to have a team in this year's CFP. The Big Ten West teams no longer need to face Ohio State and Michigan. That is an outdated thought, sorry.

But it still can easily work against you. Sure it worked this year & the B1G got Ohio State in on the last day last year but what if this year Iowa hadn't gone undefeated? Iowa would be in NC situation & if they beat Michigan St then the B1G could be out. You seriously don't think that the west teams wouldn't benefit from having the B1G marquee brands on their schedule more often?

With the ACC proposal of eliminating round robin division play, what's wrong with that? For example, FSU would be replacing WF or Syracuse for GT or VT. It makes for stronger schedules. It would help the SEC & B1G as well as it will create better content for their networks & help balance the schedules. Ohio St could drop Maryland one year & add Nebraska for example. I think you would have to set 2-3 divisional rivals that you have to play every year while mandating that you have to play 4-5 divisional teams. The B1G could go back to 8 conference games.

You have a weak position when all you have are "What If's". My position is one with actual evidence. Thus, The Big Ten is sitting pretty and the evidence shows that while your what if's don't.

I understand your points, but what if's do not equal actual evidence. Times change, West teams don't need to change a winning formula just so that they play Michigan and Ohio State more. I understand why outsiders might try to claim that is the truth but it's not.

(12-05-2015 01:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:51 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:36 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Who has the votes?

It will be close

I have read the vote counts are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame so the magic number 14

So ACC + Big 12 + Notre Dame (Assuming they will go w/ ACC) = 7 For

Sunbelt likely in favor = 9 For

Big 10 is against = 3 against

MAC will likely do what the Big 10 tells them = 5 Against

UNCERTAIN P5 = PAC 12, SEC - 6 Undecided
UNCERTAIN G5 = CUSA, MWC, AAC - 6 Undecided

SO......they way I see it

If the PAC 12 and SEC go against the Big 10 it will pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC go for the Big 10, it will need the remaining G5 conferences to go against the Big 10 for it to pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC split their votes, 1 G5 conference have to go against the Big 10 in order for it to pass as is.

One other thing I am worried about for the ACC is the Big 12 voting for the proposal AND the amendment. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 gets what it wants and might go along with the Big 10's amendment to force the ACC to have divisions.

Unfortunately, I had a feeling this was not going to sail through as easily as everyone projected.

Sankey's comment in the article linked up top, if that ends up being the official proposal of the SEC, means there are 3 options for changing the current rule:

1) Big 12/ACC proposal -- All FBS conferences can have a football CCG, no restrictions on how teams are chosen for the CCG

2) Big Ten proposal -- FBS conferences can have a football CCG if they have two divisions for football and CCG matches the division winners

3) SEC (Sankey) proposal -- Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have 1st place team play 2nd place team in a CCG if they play a full round-robin

Just a second there professor. According to the XII, if you play a round-robin then that defeats the point of a CCG in the first place.

That's what they've been crowing all along. So that's what they get to sleep with.


No CCG allowed. Not that they're actually serious about holding one, anyway.

Like it or not, it's becoming clear that as long as the Big 12 is willing to create 5-team divisions, which they surely would, they will be able to have a CCG with no expansion.

That's like saying "like it or not, the Catholic Church has the opportunity to change its ways and allow women to be priests".


Guaranteed fact: if OU had to play in a XII CCG this weekend, it would lose. Down in flames. The XII is cursed when it comes to CCG's.


And why wouldn't you skip the CCG, if you can just bypass that risk and go directly to the CFP?

(12-05-2015 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 12:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 10:51 AM)solohawks Wrote:  It will be close

I have read the vote counts are 3 for P5, 2 for G5 and 1 for Notre Dame so the magic number 14

So ACC + Big 12 + Notre Dame (Assuming they will go w/ ACC) = 7 For

Sunbelt likely in favor = 9 For

Big 10 is against = 3 against

MAC will likely do what the Big 10 tells them = 5 Against

UNCERTAIN P5 = PAC 12, SEC - 6 Undecided
UNCERTAIN G5 = CUSA, MWC, AAC - 6 Undecided

SO......they way I see it

If the PAC 12 and SEC go against the Big 10 it will pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC go for the Big 10, it will need the remaining G5 conferences to go against the Big 10 for it to pass as is

If the PAC 12 and SEC split their votes, 1 G5 conference have to go against the Big 10 in order for it to pass as is.

One other thing I am worried about for the ACC is the Big 12 voting for the proposal AND the amendment. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 gets what it wants and might go along with the Big 10's amendment to force the ACC to have divisions.

Unfortunately, I had a feeling this was not going to sail through as easily as everyone projected.

Sankey's comment in the article linked up top, if that ends up being the official proposal of the SEC, means there are 3 options for changing the current rule:

1) Big 12/ACC proposal -- All FBS conferences can have a football CCG, no restrictions on how teams are chosen for the CCG

2) Big Ten proposal -- FBS conferences can have a football CCG if they have two divisions for football and CCG matches the division winners

3) SEC (Sankey) proposal -- Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have 1st place team play 2nd place team in a CCG if they play a full round-robin

Just a second there professor. According to the XII, if you play a round-robin then that defeats the point of a CCG in the first place.

That's what they've been crowing all along. So that's what they get to sleep with.


No CCG allowed. Not that they're actually serious about holding one, anyway.

That's the compromise Bison. It doesn't mandate a CCG just says it allows them to opt for one as long as there is round robin play. Round robin play means they don't have to have divisions at all, but may still opt to have a CCG. That is precisely what they have now. The stipulation for two divisions is for holding a CCG with no round robin play and that is aimed directly at the ACC. Therefore Sankey's proposal takes nothing away from what the Big 12's options are already, in fact it augments them with permission in the future to opt for a CCG (provided they don't expand and break into divisions) while preventing the ACC from moving away from divisions and thereby keeping pressure on them to balance the ones they have (either by realigning them competitively which helps ESPN's content value) or adding brands (which helps ESPN's content value).

I think the bolded part is what the ACC wants. I don't think they want a single 14-team division. They want to be able to skip the round robin and permit more instate North Carolina games, and they probably want to keep the current divisions and avoid the internal battle that happens in a conference whenever they talk about realigning their divisions.

Maybe the Big Ten would want the same thing eventually. Skipping one division opponent each year would give the west division teams more opportunities to play Michigan and Ohio State.

1) what West team wants to play both Michigan and Ohio State as its crossover games?!? Are you nuts??

Minnesota had to do that this year, and it cost them dearly.


2) if division teams aren't playing a round-robin against the division, then that's no different than just having a single division with some arbitrary "scheduling arrangement".

Divisions have no context outside of a round-robin.

So let's make sure not to let the ACC pretend like its having divisions when what it really has (and what it really wants) is a single division with crafty scheduling.

(12-05-2015 03:25 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Big Ten has no need to change a thing. The Big Ten already has one CFP winner and is the only conference currently with 100% assurance to have a team in this year's CFP. The Big Ten West teams no longer need to face Ohio State and Michigan. That is an outdated thought, sorry.

But it still can easily work against you. Sure it worked this year & the B1G got Ohio State in on the last day last year but what if this year Iowa hadn't gone undefeated? Iowa would be in NC situation & if they beat Michigan St then the B1G could be out. You seriously don't think that the west teams wouldn't benefit from having the B1G marquee brands on their schedule more often?

With the ACC proposal of eliminating round robin division play, what's wrong with that? For example, FSU would be replacing WF or Syracuse for GT or VT. It makes for stronger schedules. It would help the SEC & B1G as well as it will create better content for their networks & help balance the schedules. Ohio St could drop Maryland one year & add Nebraska for example. I think you would have to set 2-3 divisional rivals that you have to play every year while mandating that you have to play 4-5 divisional teams. The B1G could go back to 8 conference games.

What does the removal of round robin play mean for the little guys of the P5?

Does it mean no opportunities for television or a national championship if your a 40,000 seater P5 program?

Conference commissioners are only working for the benefit of their very few elite football programs. The chances of the 26 schools of the B1G/PAC earning a Rose Bowl invite are no better than the 60 schools P5 earning that Fiesta, Cotton or Peach Bowl. Percentage wise the same amount of schools have a realistic chance.

(12-05-2015 03:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 03:25 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 01:41 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Big Ten has no need to change a thing. The Big Ten already has one CFP winner and is the only conference currently with 100% assurance to have a team in this year's CFP. The Big Ten West teams no longer need to face Ohio State and Michigan. That is an outdated thought, sorry.

But it still can easily work against you. Sure it worked this year & the B1G got Ohio State in on the last day last year but what if this year Iowa hadn't gone undefeated? Iowa would be in NC situation & if they beat Michigan St then the B1G could be out. You seriously don't think that the west teams wouldn't benefit from having the B1G marquee brands on their schedule more often?

With the ACC proposal of eliminating round robin division play, what's wrong with that? For example, FSU would be replacing WF or Syracuse for GT or VT. It makes for stronger schedules. It would help the SEC & B1G as well as it will create better content for their networks & help balance the schedules. Ohio St could drop Maryland one year & add Nebraska for example. I think you would have to set 2-3 divisional rivals that you have to play every year while mandating that you have to play 4-5 divisional teams. The B1G could go back to 8 conference games.

You have a weak position when all you have are "What If's". My position is one with actual evidence. Thus, The Big Ten is sitting pretty and the evidence shows that while your what if's don't.

I understand your points, but what if's do not equal actual evidence. Times change, West teams don't need to change a winning formula just so that they play Michigan and Ohio State more. I understand why outsiders might try to claim that is the truth but it's not.

Sorry but my crystal ball is in the shop so I'm unable to read the future right now. This is only year 2 of the new process, do you really think that we have already seen all of the possible scenarios? Planning for the future to ensure you can put yourself in the strongest position possible isn't a weak argument.

(12-05-2015 10:21 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The Big 10's amendment goes directly against the ACC. The Big 10 does not care about the 12 team requirement, which is what the Big 12 wants to eliminate, but it wants the 2 round robin division requirement to remain, which is what the ACC wants to eliminate.

My question is why does it matter if the ACC has divisions or not?

The Big 10 knows that scheduling is an issue with the ACC and due to their geography they cannot cleanly do north/south or east/west divisions like the other conferences without upsetting and isolating some key schools. By forcing the ACC to keep divisions they keep the ACC in a weaker state; therefore, the schools may be more likely to join the Big 10 as time goes on.

Big 10 did not do this without reason.

It doesn't truly affect the ACC as much as you make it out to be. While they were never public with their intentions, most anecdotal evidence points to that they wanted to eliminate the requirement to play every team in your division every year, or allow smaller divisions, not to eliminate divisions. It was all about allowing teams to play more often, without having to increase the number of conference games.

(12-05-2015 03:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 03:25 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  But it still can easily work against you. Sure it worked this year & the B1G got Ohio State in on the last day last year but what if this year Iowa hadn't gone undefeated? Iowa would be in NC situation & if they beat Michigan St then the B1G could be out. You seriously don't think that the west teams wouldn't benefit from having the B1G marquee brands on their schedule more often?

You have a weak position when all you have are "What If's". My position is one with actual evidence. Thus, The Big Ten is sitting pretty and the evidence shows that while your what if's don't.

His position has real actual evidence as well. Unless your memory only dates back to September, his proof was just last season. Had Wisconsin won, instead of Ohio St, the B1G was sitting home. Actual proof, valid evidence.

Valid proof of what? I don't think you even realize what the discussion was about if you think Wisconsin losing to Ohio State was proof of something. If you are saying that the West isn't as good as the East? So what?

The point was that the West teams would want to play Michigan and Ohio State more during the regular season so they would want to have no divisions.

Your attempt at making a point has nothing to do with that and is just you trying to, once again, come at me. Read up again. Wisconsin lost, I don't see how playing Michigan or Ohio State during the season changes that. It doesn't.

(12-05-2015 05:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Valid proof of what? I don't think you even realize what the discussion was about if you think Wisconsin losing to Ohio State was proof of something. If you are saying that the West isn't as good as the East? So what?

The point was that the West teams would want to play Michigan and Ohio State more during the regular season so they would want to have no divisions.

Your attempt at making a point has nothing to do with that and is just you trying to, once again, come at me. Read up again. Wisconsin lost, I don't see how playing Michigan or Ohio State during the season changes that. It doesn't.

The point wasn't to get rid of divisions, merely pointing out that advantages of eliminating the round robin format of divisional play. It can boost your confidence top teams SOS by letting them replace a team that's predicted to finish near the bottom to play a stronger team from the other division. In the B1G case this would allow more meetings for Wisconsin, as an example, to play the marquee east teams more often. This could've helped Iowa SOS this year for example. This also helps create better content for the networks as it improves SOS in conference. For example if Ohio State could have switched Rutgers for Nortwestern.

Edit: sure you can do this with 9 conference games but what I like about it is that you can keep the CG down to 8 to promote P5 play. Having the conferences play each other more would be good for the committee, it establishes comparisons.

(12-05-2015 06:06 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-05-2015 05:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Valid proof of what? I don't think you even realize what the discussion was about if you think Wisconsin losing to Ohio State was proof of something. If you are saying that the West isn't as good as the East? So what?

The point was that the West teams would want to play Michigan and Ohio State more during the regular season so they would want to have no divisions.

Your attempt at making a point has nothing to do with that and is just you trying to, once again, come at me. Read up again. Wisconsin lost, I don't see how playing Michigan or Ohio State during the season changes that. It doesn't.

The point wasn't to get rid of divisions, merely pointing out that advantages of eliminating the round robin format of divisional play. It can boost your confidence top teams SOS by letting them replace a team that's predicted to finish near the bottom to play a stronger team from the other division. In the B1G case this would allow more meetings for Wisconsin, as an example, to play the marquee east teams more often. This could've helped Iowa SOS this year for example. This also helps create better content for the networks as it improves SOS in conference. For example if Ohio State could have switched Rutgers for Nortwestern.

Edit: sure you can do this with 9 conference games but what I like about it is that you can keep the CG down to 8 to promote P5 play. Having the conferences play each other more would be good for the committee, it establishes comparisons.

I will clarify, I absolutely understand the thought process behind what you are saying. It makes sense, it truly does. I don't think it helps The Big Ten though in terms of rankings and getting into the CFP. The Big Ten had no problems this year having their teams ranked. Some of the West teams just needed to win some of their OOC games that they lost.

Them playing Ohio State and Michigan being something that they would want is an outdated idea. The conference isn't going to go without divisions unless it helps the conference. It currently gets strong enough ratings and is performing well when it comes to getting to the CFP so I don't see why they are going to feel any pressure to change what they are doing.

What I do like about your idea is the part about getting back to 8 games. I think everyone has gotten the memo about how FCS games hurt your chances so I don't think having that extra game would lead to more FCS games. The Big Ten, for all the crap people like to fling at them, isn't afraid of scheduling strong in the ooc.

The ACC wants to get rid of divisions entirely, and create a crafty schedule to boost up whoever it thinks its top two teams will be.

Exact same thing that happened in the XII this year

(12-05-2015 05:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Valid proof of what? I don't think you even realize what the discussion was about if you think Wisconsin losing to Ohio State was proof of something. If you are saying that the West isn't as good as the East? So what?

The point was that the West teams would want to play Michigan and Ohio State more during the regular season so they would want to have no divisions.

Your attempt at making a point has nothing to do with that and is just you trying to, once again, come at me. Read up again. Wisconsin lost, I don't see how playing Michigan or Ohio State during the season changes that. It doesn't.

To be clear, I don't come at you." I have no time for gimmicks. You live in your imaginary "it's all a show" world, where as you state, you "need me."

You said the Big Ten was sitting pretty, and he gave an example of how the B1G could have been left out. You said he had nothign but "what ifs." Well last year wasn't a "what if," it was actual proof of his point, well an assumption if you will backed up by poll position, that had OSU not won, the Big Ten champion would have not been in the playoff, the "what if" example he was using for this year to prove that. Wisconsin as Big Ten champ would have been left out, and Baylor or TCU in.