Check out the image below to see view possible schedule grids for the listed options. In options 1-5 and 7, it is assumed the AAC seeks to play a CCG, requesting a waiver if necessary.

Option 5 with the NCAA giving a waiver for a one game not played exception to the round robin rule.

It's the least impact option for all parties, and that is what the powers that be want. No conference wants a school leaving to force their conference or any other to take a new member triggering instability down the line just for numbers, so they'll all vote for it.

I expect a 4 year waiver from the NCAA so it would run to 2023 season before renewal. By then expect Division-less CCG to be approved.

They could also write a Round-Robin Exception rule saying: a conference formerly with an even number of schools (12 or 14) in balanced divisions that loses 1 school -so has an odd number of schools remaining numbering more than 10-- may continue to play a CCG through Division play provided there is no more than one game short of full round robin play, and a minimum of 8 conference games played.

That would also fix the problem and avoid the whole waiver process.

(08-19-2019 10:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Option 5 with the NCAA giving a waiver for a one game not played exception to the round robin rule.

It's the least impact option for all parties, and that is what the powers that be want. No conference wants a school leaving to force their conference or any other to take a new member triggering instability down the line just for numbers, so they'll all vote for it.

I expect a 4 year waiver from the NCAA so it would run to 2023 season before renewal. By then expect Division-less CCG to be approved.

Agree with everything except I don't think they will get a 4-year waiver but rather something like 2 years. That gives the AAC time to come up with a solution that fits the rules.

The rules do exist for a reason, and while nobody wants a conference to get *immediately* stressed should a member leave, the rules on CCGs were written with the knowledge that members do leave, and thus with the idea that a conference will, after a suitable adjustment period, have to comply.

(08-19-2019 11:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 10:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Option 5 with the NCAA giving a waiver for a one game not played exception to the round robin rule.

It's the least impact option for all parties, and that is what the powers that be want. No conference wants a school leaving to force their conference or any other to take a new member triggering instability down the line just for numbers, so they'll all vote for it.

I expect a 4 year waiver from the NCAA so it would run to 2023 season before renewal. By then expect Division-less CCG to be approved.

Agree with everything except I don't think they will get a 4-year waiver but rather something like 2 years. That gives the AAC time to come up with a solution that fits the rules.

The rules do exist for a reason, and while nobody wants a conference to get *immediately* stressed should a member leave, the rules on CCGs were written with the knowledge that members do leave, and thus with the idea that a conference will, after a suitable adjustment period, have to comply.

Nah, the P5 don't want any disruption. I think they'll go for a rule change of "formerly even number member football conference which lose a member" so they don't have to revisit it.

The rule was put in place because the B1G was worried they'd be at a disadvantage to the ACC if they went some strange way with Divisions. But the situation has changed and today the stronger motivation for the P5 is to not be forced to take a G5 member as a replacement should they lose a member. They absolutely do not want to put the lucrative CCGs at risk. But at the same time they have not decided about adding a member to go odd , i.e., Division-less football.

So I expect a exception in perpetuity in the form of the rule change I suggest. The G5 conferences also do not want to be raided, so they'd be in favor as well.

There are two things that seem certain. One, the NCAA will grant at least #4, because of precedence (they should add “as close as possible” to that part of the rule too). Two, the AAC will petition for #5.

I suppose there is a chance the NCAA let’s them play divisionless (maybe as a 1-year experiment?), otherwise it would not be brought up so confidently. I have long noted that even with a waiver to do #4, the conference could operate under #5, IF there was nothing preventing them from (re-)assigning teams to divisions after regular season play.

Blah blah blah
just invite UNT and be done with it already

(08-20-2019 03:43 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 11:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-19-2019 10:41 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Option 5 with the NCAA giving a waiver for a one game not played exception to the round robin rule.

It's the least impact option for all parties, and that is what the powers that be want. No conference wants a school leaving to force their conference or any other to take a new member triggering instability down the line just for numbers, so they'll all vote for it.

I expect a 4 year waiver from the NCAA so it would run to 2023 season before renewal. By then expect Division-less CCG to be approved.

Agree with everything except I don't think they will get a 4-year waiver but rather something like 2 years. That gives the AAC time to come up with a solution that fits the rules.

The rules do exist for a reason, and while nobody wants a conference to get *immediately* stressed should a member leave, the rules on CCGs were written with the knowledge that members do leave, and thus with the idea that a conference will, after a suitable adjustment period, have to comply.

Nah, the P5 don't want any disruption. I think they'll go for a rule change of "formerly even number member football conference which lose a member" so they don't have to revisit it.

The rule was put in place because the B1G was worried they'd be at a disadvantage to the ACC if they went some strange way with Divisions. But the situation has changed and today the stronger motivation for the P5 is to not be forced to take a G5 member as a replacement should they lose a member. They absolutely do not want to put the lucrative CCGs at risk. But at the same time they have not decided about adding a member to go odd , i.e., Division-less football.

So I expect a exception in perpetuity in the form of the rule change I suggest. The G5 conferences also do not want to be raided, so they'd be in favor as well.

I don't think your rule change will work, because all conferences were 'formerly even numbered' at some point. How far back do you go? If the sentiment has changed such that the paramount concern is that nobody ever loses a CCG over membership losses, they would just ditch the rule..

As of now, we're both just blowing smoke, we shall see what happens.

They are in the process of raiding the MWC. Don't worry about the 2020 schedule yet.

(08-20-2019 05:35 AM)Crayton Wrote:  There are two things that seem certain. One, the NCAA will grant at least #4, because of precedence (they should add “as close as possible” to that part of the rule too). Two, the AAC will petition for #5.

I suppose there is a chance the NCAA let’s them play divisionless (maybe as a 1-year experiment?), otherwise it would not be brought up so confidently. I have long noted that even with a waiver to do #4, the conference could operate under #5, IF there was nothing preventing them from (re-)assigning teams to divisions after regular season play.

I don't think the assigning of divisions after the season would fly, but even if it did, it seems like a dicey way of doing things. Who's to say whether the schedule works out such that the two best teams end up having played all the teams in what would later constitute a division? Even allowing for two division mates to not play doesn't give them much wiggle room.

It’s going to be option 4. The NCAA has a precedent for allowing the MAC and SBC playing a CCG with a division of 6 and a division of 7. They will have no qualms about a division of 6 and a division of 5. Their own rules state that divisions should be as even as possible. “As possible” is your loophole to do divisions with an odd number of schools.

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.

(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.

Since the east division is down a team play 5 east / west division games then play three other conference teams. Then rotate the three non division games a every year or two until a new school is added to balance the divisions again. Top 2 ranked teams play in the Conference Championship Game then.

(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.

(08-20-2019 08:47 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 05:35 AM)Crayton Wrote:  There are two things that seem certain. One, the NCAA will grant at least #4, because of precedence (they should add “as close as possible” to that part of the rule too). Two, the AAC will petition for #5.

I suppose there is a chance the NCAA let’s them play divisionless (maybe as a 1-year experiment?), otherwise it would not be brought up so confidently. I have long noted that even with a waiver to do #4, the conference could operate under #5, IF there was nothing preventing them from (re-)assigning teams to divisions after regular season play.

I don't think the assigning of divisions after the season would fly, but even if it did, it seems like a dicey way of doing things. Who's to say whether the schedule works out such that the two best teams end up having played all the teams in what would later constitute a division? Even allowing for two division mates to not play doesn't give them much wiggle room.

So long as there is an 11-team dolly-chain of “missed” games in a given year, you can pit any two teams in the CCG. You just assign teams alternating divisions along the dolly-chain and only one neighboring pair of teams who “missed” a game would be placed in the same division.

With only 2 permanent rivals, there would be no constraints on who those rivals could be because you could always construct 4 dolly-chains of missed games to rotate through over a 4-year period. With more than 2 permanent rivals you start running into some constraints.

(08-20-2019 09:15 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It’s going to be option 4. The NCAA has a precedent for allowing the MAC and SBC playing a CCG with a division of 6 and a division of 7. They will have no qualms about a division of 6 and a division of 5. Their own rules state that divisions should be as even as possible. “As possible” is your loophole to do divisions with an odd number of schools.

That's not a loophole. They just wanted to prevent the number of teams in each division from differing by more than one. However, it doesn't automatically grant a conference with an odd number of football teams to flaunt the round-robin rule. The AAC would still need a waiver for Option 4 or 5.

(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.

(08-20-2019 11:03 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 08:47 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-20-2019 05:35 AM)Crayton Wrote:  There are two things that seem certain. One, the NCAA will grant at least #4, because of precedence (they should add “as close as possible” to that part of the rule too). Two, the AAC will petition for #5.

I suppose there is a chance the NCAA let’s them play divisionless (maybe as a 1-year experiment?), otherwise it would not be brought up so confidently. I have long noted that even with a waiver to do #4, the conference could operate under #5, IF there was nothing preventing them from (re-)assigning teams to divisions after regular season play.

I don't think the assigning of divisions after the season would fly, but even if it did, it seems like a dicey way of doing things. Who's to say whether the schedule works out such that the two best teams end up having played all the teams in what would later constitute a division? Even allowing for two division mates to not play doesn't give them much wiggle room.

So long as there is an 11-team dolly-chain of “missed” games in a given year, you can pit any two teams in the CCG. You just assign teams alternating divisions along the dolly-chain and only one neighboring pair of teams who “missed” a game would be placed in the same division.

With only 2 permanent rivals, there would be no constraints on who those rivals could be because you could always construct 4 dolly-chains of missed games to rotate through over a 4-year period. With more than 2 permanent rivals you start running into some constraints.

I think I see what you mean. So it'd be like this, with A1-5 and B1-6 representing different teams each year.



Blue = ex post facto division champs
Green = games between ex post facto division mates (excl. protected opponents)
Red = missed games between ex post facto division mates
Yellow = protected annual opponents (2 per team)

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.

2 division races would get better TV ratings
(Memphis - Cincinnati) (Navy - East Car) as permanent crossover games
Less travell, better atten, money gain is slight. Take it

(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.