(06-25-2019 07:49 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:20 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:16 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why do we need a waiver for a CCG? I thought they changed the rule about 12 schools a few years ago?

Yeah I don't really get that part. It seems like rule 1 above allows for divisions "as even as possible". Doesn't really sound like we'd be outside the rules with 6+5.

there is no need for a waiver.....but this is the AAC forum where people do not like to see reality and instead like to believe that situations that make things difficult will always turn out to be really amazingly positive for the AAC or for their school in particular

there is not a need for a waiver and thus I see little chance that there will be enough votes for the AAC to get a waiver simply because it will make it easier for them to schedule

The discussion for a waiver is about going divisionless, but NOT full conference round robin (which would be 10 conference games each), and staging a CCG.
That would require a waiver.
And prior to the UConn news breaking Aresco was talking about divisionless and matching up the top two teams.

If that course is chosen, uneven divisions is still fallback plan if waiver is not granted.

(06-25-2019 07:51 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:45 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:20 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:16 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why do we need a waiver for a CCG? I thought they changed the rule about 12 schools a few years ago?

Yeah I don't really get that part. It seems like rule 1 above allows for divisions "as even as possible". Doesn't really sound like we'd be outside the rules with 6+5.

I see now.

6+5 creates an odd schedule for some schools to have more conference games. The other option is 10 conference games.

Can we kick out Tulsa and go to 9 conference games?

Even if we did, Navy will never agree to more than 8 conference games. Probably other schools here, too.

Yeah hard pass. If the playoff every goes to 8, and we have a decent shot every year of getting a team in, I'd be all for it. Until then, we need OOC help to bolster our records because the conference schedule (sadly) does not yet stand on its own.

(06-25-2019 07:12 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  West (5 teams)

Round robin in the division.
Four games each against the East

So 20 crossover games are needed.

East (6 teams)

Four teams play round robin + three crossover
Two teams play four East + four West

There's your 20 crossover games (12 +8).

And that's the basis of the waiver: that the East comes one game shy of a full round robin. As mentioned above, the MAC got a waiver when it's seven team division came two games shy.

But just because seven American teams play 4 & 4, I don't think the NCAA would allow us to manipulate which five of those seven are called "West" for the purposes of trying to arrange the two best teams for the title game...

UConn was/is in the East, but I see your point. As you said, this would require a waiver, but we could do it without a waiver at all (which so many people just don't seem to want to acknowledge) if we have 2 teams in the 5 team division play a home and home. Which two teams those are can rotate on an annual basis until things change.

USFFan

(06-25-2019 02:40 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 02:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 02:14 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  well every P5 conference gets 2 votes (part of why they are P5) and every G5 conference gets one vote (part of why they are G5)

last time the SEC SEC SEC and AAC AAC AAC voted against the changes

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

it is well known the Big 10 put the change in for the divisional play or the full conference round robin.....some have said they would like to not change that, but Delaney is gone and who knows what the new guy thinks and I doubt they are ready to act on it

of course the AAC would be for it this time so there is 5 votes if all the other G5s vote for it......but are they all going to vote to do a "P6" member a favor.....probably not, but we will pretend they will

so you have 5 voted for

if the Big 12 decided to return the favor and vote against it there is two against.....the SEC SEC SEC will most likely be against so there is two more against and if the Big 10 has not decided what to do yet there is two against

so that is 6 against and 5 for with the PAC 12 and ACC left

the ACC will probably be for a full change, but I doubt they would be for a waiver so if it is a waiver they will vote no most likely so the vote is 8-5 and the PAC 12 vote would not matter

it was said the last time by many reports that the PAC 12 did not vote and was just "present", but later said they were for the change....but would they be for a short term waiver for just one conference

so there is a need for the Big 12 or the ACC to be for the waiver so the Big 12 has to forget the last AAC vote against any changes and the ACC has to be for one conference getting something for a period of time that the ACC was not able to get when they wanted it

but that is of course pretending that the other four G5 members vote like they did last time even though they would be doing their G5 counterpart that does all they can to thumb their noses at them a favor

so if 4 of the 5 vote no now you have 1-4 from the G5

SEC SEC SEC no so 1-6

so only one other P5 has to be against it for it to fail.....Big 10 or Big 12 or perhaps ACC (especially if just for a waiver)

better break out some G5 helmet stickers and marketing materials and try and make up ASAP might need some of those other 4 votes!

The good news is the AAC can have a CCG regardless of the waiver vote. A waiver just makes it easier. That said---Im more optimistic that the Big10, and ACC would be "yes" votes. That might change the calculus a bit.

I don't think full deregulation will be on the table right now

so from a waiver standpoint

I don't see any way it would not be 1-4 from the G5......just no way the MWC, Sunbelt, MAC and CUSA are going to allow the AAC to have their two highest ranked teams in the CCG when they know the AAC does not NEED that to have a CCG

Those would be the leagues that would be getting poached by teh AAC if the AAC has to go to 12, right? (Or the leagues getting poached by the leagues that get poached, etc). I'd expect them to vote in favor of the option that keeps the AAC at 11.

You might be right or wrong about your analysis of how the P5 leagues will vote, but the G5 leagues have a strong incentive to help the AAC out here rather than do another round of realignment.

(06-25-2019 07:12 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  West (5 teams)

Round robin in the division.
Four games each against the East

So 20 crossover games are needed.

East (6 teams)

Four teams play round robin + three crossover
Two teams play four East + four West

There's your 20 crossover games (12 +8).

And that's the basis of the waiver: that the East comes one game shy of a full round robin. As mentioned above, the MAC got a waiver when it's seven team division came two games shy.

But just because seven American teams play 4 & 4, I don't think the NCAA would allow us to manipulate which five of those seven are called "West" for the purposes of trying to arrange the two best teams for the title game...

Shhh... just don't tell the NCAA that is what would be done. Just say that the waiver is to skip 1 round-robin game.

In truth, the spirit of the rule is the round-robin itself, that a division/conference champ would play its divisional competitors. It should not matter which teams are in that division and whether membership changes each year or is manipulated, only that the round-robin is played (minus the waived game).

NOTE TO ALL: discussion of a waiver is not in order to hold a CCG, the conference will do that no matter what. The discussion of the waiver is to allow 1 divisional game to be skipped instead of forcing teams to play an unequal number of games. NCAA rules acknowledge the potential for unequal divisions, so I'd imagine a waiver is a mere formality.

(06-25-2019 07:53 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:49 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:20 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 07:16 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Why do we need a waiver for a CCG? I thought they changed the rule about 12 schools a few years ago?

Yeah I don't really get that part. It seems like rule 1 above allows for divisions "as even as possible". Doesn't really sound like we'd be outside the rules with 6+5.

there is no need for a waiver.....but this is the AAC forum where people do not like to see reality and instead like to believe that situations that make things difficult will always turn out to be really amazingly positive for the AAC or for their school in particular

there is not a need for a waiver and thus I see little chance that there will be enough votes for the AAC to get a waiver simply because it will make it easier for them to schedule

The discussion for a waiver is about going divisionless, but NOT full conference round robin (which would be 10 conference games each), and staging a CCG.
That would require a waiver.
And prior to the UConn news breaking Aresco was talking about divisionless and matching up the top two teams.

If that course is chosen, uneven divisions is still fallback plan if waiver is not granted.

yea I understand that

but that has already been voted on and was specifically voted against

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/artic...-able-hold

when deregulation was passed there were actually two votes the first vote
was on the amendment by the Big 10

Council members adopted a proposal that originated with the Division I Football Oversight Committee but also approved an amendment from the Big Ten Conference. The amendment, offered by the Big Ten late last week, allows conferences with fewer than 12 members to hold championship games in football, as long as they meet one of two additional conditions: Conferences that want to play championship games must either play their championship game between division winners after round-robin competition in each division or between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin, regular-season competition between all members of the conference.

Members voted 77 percent to 23 percent to amend the proposal and then 77 percent to 23 percent to adopt it as amended.

I don't really think the other conferences are going to be too concerned about how the AAC figures out if some teams play more or less conference games and how they determine the division winners (really the only way would be divisional record not overall conference record)

the Big 10 wanted the rule there and the SEC SEC SEC was not for any deregulation at all and I an sure when the rule staying "as even as possible" was put in place they were aware that might lead to an uneven number of conference games if a conference had uneven numbers of teams....but they put the rule in anyway

I don't see the AAC being the conference that gets the waiver I see them as the one being told "figure it out or add someone"

(06-25-2019 08:51 AM)Crayton Wrote:  NOTE TO ALL: discussion of a waiver is not in order to hold a CCG, the conference will do that no matter what. The discussion of the waiver is to allow 1 divisional game to be skipped instead of forcing teams to play an unequal number of games. NCAA rules acknowledge the potential for unequal divisions, so I'd imagine a waiver is a mere formality.

This.

For once, Todge is right. No waiver will be granted for a divisionless CCG involving less than a full round robin. That proposal was voted down.

The Big Ten helped vote it down. And now has apparently had a change of heart. But even they can't get a waiver on it. The actual rule would have to be amended.

(06-25-2019 08:47 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 02:40 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 02:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 02:14 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  well every P5 conference gets 2 votes (part of why they are P5) and every G5 conference gets one vote (part of why they are G5)

last time the SEC SEC SEC and AAC AAC AAC voted against the changes

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/medi...mpionships

it is well known the Big 10 put the change in for the divisional play or the full conference round robin.....some have said they would like to not change that, but Delaney is gone and who knows what the new guy thinks and I doubt they are ready to act on it

of course the AAC would be for it this time so there is 5 votes if all the other G5s vote for it......but are they all going to vote to do a "P6" member a favor.....probably not, but we will pretend they will

so you have 5 voted for

if the Big 12 decided to return the favor and vote against it there is two against.....the SEC SEC SEC will most likely be against so there is two more against and if the Big 10 has not decided what to do yet there is two against

so that is 6 against and 5 for with the PAC 12 and ACC left

the ACC will probably be for a full change, but I doubt they would be for a waiver so if it is a waiver they will vote no most likely so the vote is 8-5 and the PAC 12 vote would not matter

it was said the last time by many reports that the PAC 12 did not vote and was just "present", but later said they were for the change....but would they be for a short term waiver for just one conference

so there is a need for the Big 12 or the ACC to be for the waiver so the Big 12 has to forget the last AAC vote against any changes and the ACC has to be for one conference getting something for a period of time that the ACC was not able to get when they wanted it

but that is of course pretending that the other four G5 members vote like they did last time even though they would be doing their G5 counterpart that does all they can to thumb their noses at them a favor

so if 4 of the 5 vote no now you have 1-4 from the G5

SEC SEC SEC no so 1-6

so only one other P5 has to be against it for it to fail.....Big 10 or Big 12 or perhaps ACC (especially if just for a waiver)

better break out some G5 helmet stickers and marketing materials and try and make up ASAP might need some of those other 4 votes!

The good news is the AAC can have a CCG regardless of the waiver vote. A waiver just makes it easier. That said---Im more optimistic that the Big10, and ACC would be "yes" votes. That might change the calculus a bit.

I don't think full deregulation will be on the table right now

so from a waiver standpoint

I don't see any way it would not be 1-4 from the G5......just no way the MWC, Sunbelt, MAC and CUSA are going to allow the AAC to have their two highest ranked teams in the CCG when they know the AAC does not NEED that to have a CCG

Those would be the leagues that would be getting poached by teh AAC if the AAC has to go to 12, right? (Or the leagues getting poached by the leagues that get poached, etc). I'd expect them to vote in favor of the option that keeps the AAC at 11.

You might be right or wrong about your analysis of how the P5 leagues will vote, but the G5 leagues have a strong incentive to help the AAC out here rather than do another round of realignment.

that is one thought on it

but the MWC is probably not too worried about that they are going to be much more worried about making sure the AAC has the most difficulty possible be it scheduling or making the NYC with less desirable CCG match up

I doubt the MAC is really that worried about it either

so that leaves the CUSA and Sunbelt......I doubt the Sunbelt is seriously worried about it

and the CUSA is full of teams that are dumb enough to think they are mostly all contenders for that spot

so with the CUSA specifically it is like the AAC not signing a GOR to get more money from ESPN and instead taking less because they all believe they are going somewhere else (unlikely for most ever and unlikely for even a couple anytime soon).....but yet the AAC made that decision

so it comes down to the idea that enough teams in each conference are so concerned about losing ODU, Buffalo, UTSA, Texas State, Boise, CSU, MSU, UAB, SDSU or anyone else will they vote to help the AAC out to prevent that or will they not be concerned about that "loss" of a team.....or will the individual ADs that vote to set how the conference votes look out for their individual best interest and hope that by voting no the AAC will have to expand and they will be the one to get the offer

the consensus on this forum was that taking less money for TWELVE YEARS so that a few teams could live out their P5 fantasy was worth the risk and loss of money

I think the consensus with most teams in the G5 would be the "risk" of losing a member is hardly detrimental vs the chance to perhaps take a bit of a "step up" from their current conference.....again with the exception of the MWC that I do not think sees and risk or reward and only sees the chance to make things hard on the AAC to the advantage of the MWC

with the CUSA in particular fans of even loser schools like north Texas state crap on ODU, FIU, FAU, La Tech, UTSA and others and only give some respect to MSU grudgingly and would gladly see all but a couple of them not in the conference....well unless it was to get a better position in the AAC.....but then again those same idiots think their school would probably get the call or they can console themselves that any school that moves to the AAC will be at the bottom and will wilt and die and hurt the AAC in the long run if it is not their school

ADs might think differently.....but ADs in the AAC where academic side subsidies are HIGH pretty much did exactly what fan forum members would have done in relation to the GOR and more money....no reason to think the CUSA and others will not do the same or that the MWC will panic and throw the AAC a bone on a waiver

I don't have time to wade through all the typical thread crap to find the relevant nuggets responding to this article -- but for right now, put me in yes column for the Cincinnati papers suggestion assuming we stay at 11

(06-25-2019 11:40 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  I don't have time to wade through all the typical thread crap to find the relevant nuggets responding to this article -- but for right now, put me in yes column for the Cincinnati papers suggestion assuming we stay at 11

(06-25-2019 09:19 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:51 AM)Crayton Wrote:  NOTE TO ALL: discussion of a waiver is not in order to hold a CCG, the conference will do that no matter what. The discussion of the waiver is to allow 1 divisional game to be skipped instead of forcing teams to play an unequal number of games. NCAA rules acknowledge the potential for unequal divisions, so I'd imagine a waiver is a mere formality.

This.

For once, Todge is right. No waiver will be granted for a divisionless CCG involving less than a full round robin. That proposal was voted down.

The Big Ten helped vote it down. And now has apparently had a change of heart. But even they can't get a waiver on it. The actual rule would have to be amended.

Of course, operating with the 1-game waiver actually allows the conference to operate functionally "divisionless". You can craft a schedule (3, in fact, for annual rotation) where any 2 teams can be put in separate divisions and still skip only the 1 round-robin game.