(08-21-2019 06:57 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 04:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 10:15 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 09:56 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Here is an interesting thought....if two schools play one less conference game would that be something Navy would automatically volunteer for?

Considering the Midshipman like to play a national schedule one less game would provide them more room.

It makes sense to me since they are an affiliate and not truly “West”. Everyone gets the same access to playing the service academy. Temple could use some Conference games against another Northeastern school.

Give Navy the same status that the ACC gives to Notre Dame. Have two five team divisions: Cincinnati, Temple, ECU, USF and UCF in the east, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane in the west.

Each team plays a round robin in its division and skips one team each year from the other division. Navy skips one team each year from each division. Navy isn't eligible for the CCG, but they are considered in conference for bowl selection and CFP eligibility.

Interesting idea, although I don't know if Navy would be on board with this. If not, the AAC would risk losing them altogether. This would of course solve the problem of an odd number of football teams, although likely not how the conference would want it solved.

If Navy isn't eligible for the CCG they won't be eligible for the NY6 Access Bowl. I don't see that scenario as a viable idea.

I believe Notre Dame shares eligibility for at least some bowls with the ACC, despite not being a full FB member. Perhaps a similar arrangement could be worked out with Navy, even though they'd be a partial FB affiliate as opposed to a non-FB member? If not, then, again, Navy might not sign off on this.

(08-21-2019 07:27 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 06:57 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 04:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 10:15 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It makes sense to me since they are an affiliate and not truly “West”. Everyone gets the same access to playing the service academy. Temple could use some Conference games against another Northeastern school.

Give Navy the same status that the ACC gives to Notre Dame. Have two five team divisions: Cincinnati, Temple, ECU, USF and UCF in the east, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane in the west.

Each team plays a round robin in its division and skips one team each year from the other division. Navy skips one team each year from each division. Navy isn't eligible for the CCG, but they are considered in conference for bowl selection and CFP eligibility.

Interesting idea, although I don't know if Navy would be on board with this. If not, the AAC would risk losing them altogether. This would of course solve the problem of an odd number of football teams, although likely not how the conference would want it solved.

If Navy isn't eligible for the CCG they won't be eligible for the NY6 Access Bowl. I don't see that scenario as a viable idea.

I believe Notre Dame shares eligibility for at least some bowls with the ACC, despite not being a full FB member. Perhaps a similar arrangement could be worked out with Navy, even though they'd be a partial FB affiliate as opposed to a non-FB member? If not, then, again, Navy might not sign off on this.

Or, a move like this could spur the CFP to open up access to the NY6 slot to all independents except Notre Dame (which is eligible for the playoff spot). If Army and Navy petitioned for this it might be harder politically to turn them down than it is to turn down BYU.

But the date of the Army-Navy game already creates a complication for the CFP. The selections are normally made after the CCG's but before the Army-Navy game. What happens if Navy is the highest ranked G5 champion (but only slightly) going into that game and then loses? Is there a provision whereby if Navy is in line for the spot it is provisional, or the selections are held up a week?

Add Air force gives them one more non conference game.
They can play Wyoming , CSU and New Mexico out of conference most years.
Houston , SMU , Tulsa , Tulane , Navy, is not a bad division for them.
Memphis moves to the East.
Air Force becomes Big Sky conference number 12 travel partner for UNC.
Or they join the Summit either one would take their weaker programs.

The MWC would stay at eleven or take Rice.

Eleven is great for basketball not good for football.

(08-20-2019 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 10:15 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 09:56 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Here is an interesting thought....if two schools play one less conference game would that be something Navy would automatically volunteer for?

Considering the Midshipman like to play a national schedule one less game would provide them more room.

It makes sense to me since they are an affiliate and not truly “West”. Everyone gets the same access to playing the service academy. Temple could use some Conference games against another Northeastern school.

Give Navy the same status that the ACC gives to Notre Dame. Have two five team divisions: Cincinnati, Temple, ECU, USF and UCF in the east, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane in the west.

Each team plays a round robin in its division and skips one team each year from the other division. Navy skips one team each year from each division. Navy isn't eligible for the CCG, but they are considered in conference for bowl selection and CFP eligibility.

Didn't Navy join the AAC to have a chance to play for a Conference Championship as well as having the ability to schedule post season bowls easier.

(08-21-2019 08:26 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 07:27 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-21-2019 06:57 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 04:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  Give Navy the same status that the ACC gives to Notre Dame. Have two five team divisions: Cincinnati, Temple, ECU, USF and UCF in the east, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane in the west.

Each team plays a round robin in its division and skips one team each year from the other division. Navy skips one team each year from each division. Navy isn't eligible for the CCG, but they are considered in conference for bowl selection and CFP eligibility.

Interesting idea, although I don't know if Navy would be on board with this. If not, the AAC would risk losing them altogether. This would of course solve the problem of an odd number of football teams, although likely not how the conference would want it solved.

If Navy isn't eligible for the CCG they won't be eligible for the NY6 Access Bowl. I don't see that scenario as a viable idea.

I believe Notre Dame shares eligibility for at least some bowls with the ACC, despite not being a full FB member. Perhaps a similar arrangement could be worked out with Navy, even though they'd be a partial FB affiliate as opposed to a non-FB member? If not, then, again, Navy might not sign off on this.

Or, a move like this could spur the CFP to open up access to the NY6 slot to all independents except Notre Dame (which is eligible for the playoff spot). If Army and Navy petitioned for this it might be harder politically to turn them down than it is to turn down BYU.

But the date of the Army-Navy game already creates a complication for the CFP. The selections are normally made after the CCG's but before the Army-Navy game. What happens if Navy is the highest ranked G5 champion (but only slightly) going into that game and then loses? Is there a provision whereby if Navy is in line for the spot it is provisional, or the selections are held up a week?

First off, Navy would almost certainly say "no" to being some kind of affiliate not eligible to be champion.
I don't have a vote, but as a fan, I would be willing in an uneven schedule situation for Navy to have one fewer conference game - because then we would in those years have a little schedule flexibility that we don't have with three OOC opponents set every year.

The NY6 bowl vs Army-Navy was discussed at length then in 2015 (Navy@Houston game was de facto West Division championship matchup) and in 2016 (going into the AAC CCG, the CFP committee talked about Navy overtaking WMU). Yes, CFP Committee will have a scheduled conference call for after A-N in the event that Navy is AAC Champ and in the mix (either the top ranked, or close enough that Army win could vault them over the top ranked). Can be done to only affect two bowls, Navy and that other team would switch NY6/other dependent on outcome.

Option 8: The Cincinnati Bengals are welcomed into the AAC as a football-only member and immediately enjoy the same status and reputation accorded UConn.

(08-21-2019 12:01 PM)colohank Wrote:  Option 8: The Cincinnati Bengals are welcomed into the AAC as a football-only member and immediately enjoy the same status and reputation accorded UConn.

Zac Taylor is leading us to the promised land first. gassing up the ryan finley train

Option 4: Two division mates do not play one another and instead each play an extra cross-division game (holding CCG would violate NCAA round-robin rule)*

We'll get a waiver. That shouldn't be an issue.



The conference wouldn't make sense without USF/UCF & Houston/SMU rivalry games, so even if there wasn't divisions we'd still have protected rivals. How do you have protected rivals in an 11-team conference? That gets complicated.

Anyways, 8 of the 11 schools probably favor keeping the divisions.

Schools that are 100% in favor of divisions
ECU - really wants Cincinnati & the Florida twins every year.
Temple - really wants Cincinnati & the Florida twins every year.
USF - wants UCF & Cincinnati every year
Tulsa - wants SMU & knows they won't get SMU as protected rival. Also probably Houston & Memphis & Tulane every year.

Prefer divisions
UCF - wants to play USF
SMU - wants to play Houston & probably Tulsa or Tulane every year
Houston - wants to play SMU & probably Memphis & Tulane every year
Tulane - wants Memphis & Houston every year, and would probably prefer the private schools (Tulsa, SMU, & Navy) over the other Eastern schools.

Indifferent
Cincinnati - Memphis & USF every year. We'd prefer UCF & Temple & Houston over the rest.
Memphis - Cincinnati & Tulane & Houston every year.

Opposed to divisions
Navy - They want more of a national schedule & would probably prefer to rotate opponents.

Bearcat—I think every member but Navy would like to keep divisions.

The simple solution is that Navy will be one of the two western teams that misses a division opponent to play a 4th cross-divisional game each year.

Everyone gets to keep their divisions; Navy gets a national schedule.

Hang on -- where did you all jump to the conclusion that Navy is "opposed to divisions" ?!?

Navy likes being in the West division for frequent Texas and Tennessee exposure, as well as the ties to and annual contests versus the private schools - we fell we are like-minded institutions and we have more history on field vs SMU and Tulane than any other AAC team. If the AAC is allowed to go divisionless with an eight game schedule, my guess is Navy's list of preferred permanent opponents would start with those two.

I personally think that if the AAC ends up uneven divisions and uneven scheduling, Navy would take their share of seasons with fewer conference games and turn that into a positive by adding a national profile twelfth game.

Another reason for Navy preferring divisions is that it fends off discussion of more than eight conference games - a non-starter for Navy, that I believe is built into the 2012 membership agreement.

Can we stop with the “not all AAC teams will play the same number of games” talk?! The MAC and C-USA did uneven divisions for years. The ncaa will permit the AAC to do the same.

(08-21-2019 06:57 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 04:52 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 11:01 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 10:15 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 09:56 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Here is an interesting thought....if two schools play one less conference game would that be something Navy would automatically volunteer for?

Considering the Midshipman like to play a national schedule one less game would provide them more room.

It makes sense to me since they are an affiliate and not truly “West”. Everyone gets the same access to playing the service academy. Temple could use some Conference games against another Northeastern school.

Give Navy the same status that the ACC gives to Notre Dame. Have two five team divisions: Cincinnati, Temple, ECU, USF and UCF in the east, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane in the west.

Each team plays a round robin in its division and skips one team each year from the other division. Navy skips one team each year from each division. Navy isn't eligible for the CCG, but they are considered in conference for bowl selection and CFP eligibility.

Interesting idea, although I don't know if Navy would be on board with this. If not, the AAC would risk losing them altogether. This would of course solve the problem of an odd number of football teams, although likely not how the conference would want it solved.

If Navy isn't eligible for the CCG they won't be eligible for the NY6 Access Bowl. I don't see that scenario as a viable idea.

Also if they go the "notre Dame approach" which first off ignores the fact that ND plays in all the other ACC sports, also ignores the fact that Navy would then get it's home FB game TV rights back.

(08-21-2019 04:34 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Can we stop with the “not all AAC teams will play the same number of games” talk?! The MAC and C-USA did uneven divisions for years. The ncaa will permit the AAC to do the same.

The MAC did spend a few years scheduling members with different numbers of conference FB games.

(08-20-2019 08:25 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  The daisy chain of protected opponents could perhaps go something like:

ECU/Temple/USF/UCF/Cincinnati/Memphis/Houston/SMU/Navy/Tulane/Tulsa

... and back around again (Tulsa/ECU).

Nevertheless, this sort of gaming of the system would most likely not fly, and would probably prevent the AAC from even receiving the waiver for two division mates not to play. In any case, the NCAA is likely to interpret its current requirement for round-robin divisions for a CCG to mean the divisions have to be in place before the season. Clever thinking, though.

The rivalries need not form an 11-team chain, but the 2 opponents a team skips in a given year must. I think you could even do 4 annual rivals for each team (perhaps largely divisional) without much worry about creating 3 “bye” chains to rotate through annually.

If the waiver process is simply “our larger division will be a game short of a full round-robin”, there would be nothing for the NCAA to balk at. You can just release standings as a single table each week until the last. If the NCAA has to sign off on each conference’s tie-breaking method, then the AAC may as well go all in on option #5.

You forgot one option:
The east teams only play 7 conference games the west plays 8. The eastern teams would just get five non conference games

Thought Aresco was contacting the B-10 to get their formula for operating at 11 conference teams after adding Penn State. Personally I would schedule 5 East and 5 West division games with 3 cross overs for a season or two starting in 2020 until a 12th member is taken in to replace UConn. The two highest rated teams at season end can play in the Conference Championship Game. The AAC is going to have to get a temporary waiver for the Championship Game no matter how they approach this situation until they balance the divisions again any way or at least until the NCAA changes the legislation on the Championship Game down the road at some future point in time.

(08-22-2019 05:02 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  You forgot one option:
The east teams only play 7 conference games the west plays 8. The eastern teams would just get five non conference games

Math wouldn’t add up. That has the East playing 15 cross division games while the West plays 18; those two numbers gotta match. Also, you couldn’t have an odd-numbered total of games, because each game features an even 2 teams.

Counting non-conference games as conference games is something to consider IF the conference plays a game short. Navy-Air Force is an easy choice for 1. Navy would not accept an affiliate position where they are not eligible for the G5 CFP spot. If you did ask them to play 7 or 6 games, you’d have to keep them championship eligible.

I still think the AAC should just end up adding UAB for all-sports next July and call it a day. UAB is a national university (#159), with strong endowment ($500 million), now-growing football program (with a history with majority of the AAC), a brand-new football stadium coming and a historically strong men's basketball program. In addition, they are right in the middle of the footprint of the AAC (and are located in a big Southern city with top-50 media market).

Adding a UAB also wouldn't require the modification of the current divisional format; UAB could just take UConn's slot in the East.

(08-22-2019 08:47 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I still think the AAC should just end up adding UAB for all-sports next July and call it a day. UAB is a national university (#159), with strong endowment ($500 million), now-growing football program (with a history with majority of the AAC), a brand-new football stadium coming and a historically strong men's basketball program. In addition, they are right in the middle of the footprint of the AAC (and are located in a big Southern city with top-50 media market).

Adding a UAB also wouldn't require the modification of the current divisional format; UAB could just take UConn's slot in the East.

I’m more for adding a UConn clone but with far better football.

UMass

Add NIU. Done.
Don't like that? Drop Navy, add NIU and one other (Buffalo, Toledo).