(10-23-2019 01:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

I am taking that into account, but that was also a big reason I didn't think that Aresco was going to get the 11-team no-divisions waiver AT ALL. The logical outcome of "Big Ten says no" would have been to give the AAC the MAC/UAB waiver, for 5-and-6 rather than 6-and-7.

Is there actually a waiver needed to have the uneven division numbers? I thought the rules on that were just simply you have to play every team in your division. That would certainly be possible to accomplish, albeit in a funky way with a 5-6 division structure.

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.

Doesn't read like a waiver for that would be needed at all

The waiver is to get around the round-Robin provision.
you cant play round-Robin with uneven divisions and have everyone play the same number of conference games. (Withoutba home-and-home anywsy)

you can say "just play H&H" or "so what if 9 teans play 8 conference games and 2 play 9" but college football people react with horror. They. Dont. Wanna. And YOU cant make them.

(10-23-2019 05:14 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If the AAC can't get a rule change to have a division-less championship permanently, and none of the obvious suspects will say yes for me the best option would be App State FB only. Then either say at 11 for hoops (since that really doesn't cause any huge issues scheduling wise) or you can consider VCU for all sports minus football.

To me, if the AAC can't get the rule changed, the best option would be to just have unbalanced divisions, with one pair of teams playing each other twice, on a rotating basis.

IMO, that is better than adding another mouth to feed that doesn't add value.

USFFan

Y'know, you could go 11 teams in divisions of 6&5, and have uneven scheduling rather than two teams meet up twice.
You can have nine teams with eight conference games and two teams with seven conference games.
Or you can have nine teams with eight conference games and two teams with nine conference games.

I would definitely prefer the first to having an in season rematch and I think I would even prefer the second (though someone misses an OOC opportunity).

(10-23-2019 06:48 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 05:14 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If the AAC can't get a rule change to have a division-less championship permanently, and none of the obvious suspects will say yes for me the best option would be App State FB only. Then either say at 11 for hoops (since that really doesn't cause any huge issues scheduling wise) or you can consider VCU for all sports minus football.

To me, if the AAC can't get the rule changed, the best option would be to just have unbalanced divisions, with one pair of teams playing each other twice, on a rotating basis.

IMO, that is better than adding another mouth to feed that doesn't add value.

USFFan

Y'know, you could go 11 teams in divisions of 6&5, and have uneven scheduling rather than two teams meet up twice.
You can have nine teams with eight conference games and two teams with seven conference games.
Or you can have nine teams with eight conference games and two teams with nine conference games.

I would definitely prefer the first to having an in season rematch and I think I would even prefer the second (though someone misses an OOC opportunity).

You're right in that you could, but it creates an awful situation from a tiebreaker perspective. What happens if the East standings one season is this:

USF 7-1
Temple 6-1
Cincinnati 6-1

USF's only loss on the season is to Temple, Temple's only loss to the season is to Cincinnati and Cincinnati's only loss on the season is to USF. Do you just let USF be the champion of the East because they played one extra game? It's no longer a level playing field. Therefore, I'd rather just do the rematch that rotates every year.

USFFan

(10-23-2019 08:34 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 06:48 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 05:14 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If the AAC can't get a rule change to have a division-less championship permanently, and none of the obvious suspects will say yes for me the best option would be App State FB only. Then either say at 11 for hoops (since that really doesn't cause any huge issues scheduling wise) or you can consider VCU for all sports minus football.

To me, if the AAC can't get the rule changed, the best option would be to just have unbalanced divisions, with one pair of teams playing each other twice, on a rotating basis.

IMO, that is better than adding another mouth to feed that doesn't add value.

USFFan

Y'know, you could go 11 teams in divisions of 6&5, and have uneven scheduling rather than two teams meet up twice.
You can have nine teams with eight conference games and two teams with seven conference games.
Or you can have nine teams with eight conference games and two teams with nine conference games.

I would definitely prefer the first to having an in season rematch and I think I would even prefer the second (though someone misses an OOC opportunity).

You're right in that you could, but it creates an awful situation from a tiebreaker perspective. What happens if the East standings one season is this:

USF 7-1
Temple 6-1
Cincinnati 6-1

USF's only loss on the season is to Temple, Temple's only loss to the season is to Cincinnati and Cincinnati's only loss on the season is to USF. Do you just let USF be the champion of the East because they played one extra game? It's no longer a level playing field. Therefore, I'd rather just do the rematch that rotates every year.

USFFan

Well, anything other than a full conference round robin is a less than level playing field.
In the current construct, Navy played UCF, Temple, and Cincinnati last year, but ECU, USF, and UConn this year. Memphis has Temple and Cincinnati this year, and conceivably Navy could win the West with a loss to Memphis because Memphis has a tougher cross-division slate.
Any uneven division setup is messy, and just difficult for the schedulers.
With a rematch setup, you could end up with the two rematch teams splitting and being 7-1, if you want to create hypothetical messes.
I don't like rematches for the same reason bowls don't like rematches.

(10-21-2019 02:12 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-21-2019 02:08 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 04:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 04:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 04:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As i expected a temporary waiver.

The "waiver" was always going to be temporary. Having a permanently deregulated championship game was always going to require a rule change. It's still possible, and that's one of the things the AAC will probably push for. Next is gonna be will they add someone just to add them or just have unbalanced divisions if there is no rule change?

True, the terms 'temp' and 'waiver' are redundant, but that nit aside, what i meant was i thought the AAC would get temporary relief, whereas some here suggested that Aresco would be able to get other conferences to change the rule so it would be permanent.

They needed the temporary waiver to keep the CCG, since they have no time to add anyone for next July.

It also buys them time to lobby for a permanent rule change, which Aresco says is the AAC's preference. Getting the temp waiver certainly doesn't signal that they won't have a permanent rule change later.

If they don't get it, then they will add a 12th team.

true, but at the same time getting the temp waiver certainly doesn't signal that they WILL have a permanent rule change later either.

I never said it did. I was simply replying to the statement above:

"i thought the AAC would get temporary relief, whereas some here suggested that Aresco would be able to get other conferences to change the rule so it would be permanent."

That implies the temp waiver won't lead to a permanent rule change. Nobody knows that yet.

(10-23-2019 06:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 06:21 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:46 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:31 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yeah, I agree.

Everyone needs to remember that the Big Ten explicitly FOUGHT the divisionless CCG game proposal from the ACC. The Big Ten was fine with a 10-team conference that plays a round robin schedule as a compromise, but they went out of their way to kill the ACC's proposal for larger conferences that aren't able to play a round robin.

I am taking that into account, but that was also a big reason I didn't think that Aresco was going to get the 11-team no-divisions waiver AT ALL. The logical outcome of "Big Ten says no" would have been to give the AAC the MAC/UAB waiver, for 5-and-6 rather than 6-and-7.

Quote:Maybe the Big Ten's thinking has changed on this (see some of Jim Delany's comments last year when Ohio State got shut out of the playoff), but the point is that the league very actively didn't want the rule change not very long ago.

Or maybe the Big Ten (for inscrutable reasons) is very much against the ACC playing divisionless, but doesn't give a rip what the G5 leagues do.

Quote:To be clear, I'm not saying the Big Ten is correct here: I personally think just taking the top two schools from a 14-team Big Ten as opposed to having divisions would be fantastic. However, we have to go by with how very actively the Big Ten fought against that format previously... and this wasn't simply a passive disapproval, but a true explicit fight against it. That's what anyone that wants to change the rules going forward is going to go up against.

I think the likely outcomes are:
1. AAC waiver gets extended "temporarily" for 2 years at at time until there is a shift in the landscape. No divisionless ACC though.
2. The rule is changed. (What exactly the new rule looks like, I don't know. Either the Big Ten has a change of heart/leadership and approves a free-for-all, or they write some baroque rule that allows AAC to be divisionless, but not ACC)

I don't think, over the next year-and-a-half as Aresco pushes for the rule change, there is going to be much sentiment to force the AAC to pick a 12th team. So either the rule gets rewritten, or the temporary waiver gets extended. And once it gets extended, it's basically a permanent fixture.

They’re not going to get an extension, there are no grounds for that. The waiver is literally giving them time to figure their s*** out.

The only way they get a waiver extension is if they invite a 12th team and have to wait for them to join a season later or so.

I don't think it matters much whether they have grounds for the waiver. What matters is whether The Powers That Be *want* to give them a waiver. And TPTB just approved no-divisions for a couple of years.

if TPTB cared about the CCG rules, they'd have made the AAC play divisions and given the MAC/UAB waiver. clearly they dont care much if the AAC goes divisionless.

Obviously some people care because it’s a waiver and not an actual rule. So yeah, we’ll see if they keep sputtering along in limbo.

Hopefully TCTM (The Conferences That Matter) are using this as an experiment and implement it soon.

(10-19-2019 06:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 06:08 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 06:05 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 03:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-19-2019 03:43 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  If this is actually a waiver for a CCG with non-round-robin divisionless play, kudos to Aresco.

it looks like it is for 2 years.... It's not a long term waiver- something that is highly unlikely to be granted.

(10-19-2019 04:09 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So I guess we now have a timeline for when the AAC is going to have to do something.

Or not. The AAC plays with 11 in 2020, has a CCG, the sky doesn't fall. Big 12 and Sun Belt keep playing CCGs with 10 teams, sky doesn't fall.

So why not extend the waiver? Either make it permanent, or if the ACC is jealous, extend for 2 or 4 more years?

We've been arguing about whether the political balance-of-forces would block the AAC from getting the waiver they want--11 teams no divisions, I CAN HAZ CCG NOW--or the waiver that the 13-team MAC and CUSA got--play divisions with no round robin.

We know that answer now--nobody cares enough to tell the AAC "screw you, the rules are the rules." At least not in the fall of 2019.

What's going to change between now and the fall of 2021 to change that?

"Temporary" arrangements can last a long, long time.

Why have any rules at all if they are to keep extending?
The MAC actually had a plan in place to stick to the rules. But Temple and UMass blew that up.

The MAC also *wanted* to expand eastwards, for somewhat similar reasons as their Big Ten big brothers--access to recruits and high school applicants from the I-95 corridor. If UMass had said "yes", rumor had it the next MAC target was James MAdison. (Not exactly part of the BosNYWash corridor, but adjacent).

Majority of JMU Alum are from the Washington DC metro area... JMU is getting close to the alumni numbers UVA and VT are in Northern VA/DC along with Virginia Beach and Richmond.

Been late to the board, I am one to admit that when I miss a prediciton and was WRONG. Congrats, for the waiver. Hopefully this leads to other conferences to follow. I think it is a better idea. Guess will find out when the conferences meet to discuss rule changes after the season. I do think this will kill future expansion of the other conferences go for it. B10 and SEC will likely be the deciders.

Another point, I do think this waiver does help the AAC in the power drive.

(10-23-2019 02:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I think Delany's comments here indicate that the Big10 has CLEARLY had a change of heart. Now, that doesnt mean that the Big10 is going to get rid of divisions---but it certainly indicates the Big10 would be open to a rule that gives them that option. The devil would be in the details.

If I am an AAC fan who wants a rule change, then I am hoping that the B1G once again misses the playoffs this year. Because that seems to have been the impetus for Delany's statement.

If the B1G does make the playoffs, then I imagine he and others in the B1G thinking about this will rest easier, and be less motivated to change any rules. At root, they would prefer not to change the rule, but one thing has been made clear the past few years is that P5 conferences are very concerned about any aspects of their structure that seem to be an impediment to making the playoffs.

Are y'all talking about this Dennis Dodd tweet:

To Delany: Should Big Ten champ game match two best teams. "It's an item that has been discussed before. There is actually more discussion now than there was four years ago." Wow

************

If:

1. The playoff was expanded to 8
2. The 5 power conference champs were all invited
3. The best AAC+G4 champ was invited
4. Two at-large bids for independents, others
5. All the conferences went to 1 vs 2 in their title games

Then the conference title games would become hugely meaningful. All but at most 2 of them would be elimination games. It would be like having a 13+ team playoff. Many more teams would be in the playoff hunt each year. Very exciting.

(10-23-2019 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If the AAC can't get a rule change to have a division-less championship permanently, and none of the obvious suspects will say yes for me the best option would be App State FB only. Then either say at 11 for hoops (since that really doesn't cause any huge issues scheduling wise) or you can consider VCU for all sports minus football.

To me, if the AAC can't get the rule changed, the best option would be to just have unbalanced divisions, with one pair of teams playing each other twice, on a rotating basis.

IMO, that is better than adding another mouth to feed that doesn't add value.

If they were to indeed finish undefeated this year and then backed it up with another big year next season they'd for me be the top choice FB only if the obvious suspects won't say yes. Aresco has been saying that he doesn't want to do the unbalanced divisions thing. Now maybe that's just because he wants to publicly posture for the rule change as long as possible and if that's not gonna happen we'll just do the 6-5 thing, but if true that we really don't want to sit at 11 without the rule change then they probably bring the most to the table FB only and wouldn't dilute basketball in any way.

(10-24-2019 03:16 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If the AAC can't get a rule change to have a division-less championship permanently, and none of the obvious suspects will say yes for me the best option would be App State FB only. Then either say at 11 for hoops (since that really doesn't cause any huge issues scheduling wise) or you can consider VCU for all sports minus football.

To me, if the AAC can't get the rule changed, the best option would be to just have unbalanced divisions, with one pair of teams playing each other twice, on a rotating basis.

IMO, that is better than adding another mouth to feed that doesn't add value.

If they were to indeed finish undefeated this year and then backed it up with another big year next season they'd for me be the top choice FB only if the obvious suspects won't say yes. Aresco has been saying that he doesn't want to do the unbalanced divisions thing. Now maybe that's just because he wants to publicly posture for the rule change as long as possible and if that's not gonna happen we'll just do the 6-5 thing, but if true that we really don't want to sit at 11 without the rule change then they probably bring the most to the table FB only and wouldn't dilute basketball in any way.

Frankly---I think we dont have a candidate that is additive to value at this time. We might possibly have a "football only" addition and a "non-football" addition we could pair that would be acceptable--but I dont think we want to go that direction. Thus, the best option is to do whats necessary to function smoothly as an 11 member conference.

That said---regardless of what happens with the rule change---I think an 11 team AAC without divisions is a temporary condition. The extremely spread out geography of the AAC lends itself best to a divisional format. Less travel---more games against the closer schools that the fans would naturally tend to have more interest in.

(10-24-2019 03:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 03:16 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 03:58 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-23-2019 01:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  If the AAC can't get a rule change to have a division-less championship permanently, and none of the obvious suspects will say yes for me the best option would be App State FB only. Then either say at 11 for hoops (since that really doesn't cause any huge issues scheduling wise) or you can consider VCU for all sports minus football.

To me, if the AAC can't get the rule changed, the best option would be to just have unbalanced divisions, with one pair of teams playing each other twice, on a rotating basis.

IMO, that is better than adding another mouth to feed that doesn't add value.

If they were to indeed finish undefeated this year and then backed it up with another big year next season they'd for me be the top choice FB only if the obvious suspects won't say yes. Aresco has been saying that he doesn't want to do the unbalanced divisions thing. Now maybe that's just because he wants to publicly posture for the rule change as long as possible and if that's not gonna happen we'll just do the 6-5 thing, but if true that we really don't want to sit at 11 without the rule change then they probably bring the most to the table FB only and wouldn't dilute basketball in any way.

Frankly---I think we dont have a candidate that is additive to value at this time. We might possibly have a "football only" addition and a "non-football" addition we could pair that would be acceptable--but I dont think we want to go that direction. Thus, the best option is to do whats necessary to function smoothly as an 11 member conference.

That said---regardless of what happens with the rule change---I think an 11 team AAC without divisions is a temporary condition. The extremely spread out geography of the AAC lends itself best to a divisional format. Less travel---more games against the closer schools that the fans would naturally tend to have more interest in.

The AAC doesn’t need a non-football add, only a football add.

(10-24-2019 02:19 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  The best AAC+G4 champ

Strange way to write "G5". Do AAC fans really buy into the Aresco propaganda?

slhNavy91 Wrote:  I don't like rematches for the same reason bowls don't like rematches.

And what would that reason be?

(10-24-2019 04:55 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

slhNavy91 Wrote:  I don't like rematches for the same reason bowls don't like rematches.

And what would that reason be?

Bowl perspective, you've got the risk of a ratings bust - people may be less likely to tune in for a matchup they've already seen.
Also - and this definitely applies for in-season, in- conference - seems like a lose-lose: if you end up with a split what have you proven? If team A beats Team B a second time, what have you gained?

I think both apply for CCGs too, whether inder divisions or in BigXIi like scenario. However "championship" cachet, either in a conference or CFP can blunt that.

Others may feel differently.

What would the MAC, C-USA or SBC to the AAC upgrade be worth?
For A Buffalo would a big stadium renovation be worth the upgrade.
I think the whole P6 thing means a school would need to be near P5 .
In the right circumstances they could fit in .
Rutgers had P5 facilities and academics good coaching hires is all they need. Everyone is spending more and more on facilities and coaches.

(10-24-2019 06:07 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 04:55 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

slhNavy91 Wrote:  I don't like rematches for the same reason bowls don't like rematches.

And what would that reason be?

Bowl perspective, you've got the risk of a ratings bust - people may be less likely to tune in for a matchup they've already seen.
Also - and this definitely applies for in-season, in- conference - seems like a lose-lose: if you end up with a split what have you proven? If team A beats Team B a second time, what have you gained?

I think both apply for CCGs too, whether inder divisions or in BigXIi like scenario. However "championship" cachet, either in a conference or CFP can blunt that.

Others may feel differently.

It's just so bizarre that one would be excited about watching a game between their team and a rival in one year, and excited about them playing each other the previous year and the next year, but not for a second time within a season. Even if they've swapped venues. NFL teams play their division mates twice every year, and do you see ratings drop for that?

(10-24-2019 08:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 06:07 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 04:55 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

slhNavy91 Wrote:  I don't like rematches for the same reason bowls don't like rematches.

And what would that reason be?

Bowl perspective, you've got the risk of a ratings bust - people may be less likely to tune in for a matchup they've already seen.
Also - and this definitely applies for in-season, in- conference - seems like a lose-lose: if you end up with a split what have you proven? If team A beats Team B a second time, what have you gained?

I think both apply for CCGs too, whether inder divisions or in BigXIi like scenario. However "championship" cachet, either in a conference or CFP can blunt that.

Others may feel differently.

It's just so bizarre that one would be excited about watching a game between their team and a rival in one year, and excited about them playing each other the previous year and the next year, but not for a second time within a season. Even if they've swapped venues. NFL teams play their division mates twice every year, and do you see ratings drop for that?

College and NFL are different.
I don't even watch football on Sundays.
If the argument is "make college football more like the NFL" or even "it's okay for the NFL, so it should be good for college football" that argument doesn't convince me.
Again, others may differ.

(10-24-2019 08:20 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 08:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 06:07 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(10-24-2019 04:55 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

slhNavy91 Wrote:  I don't like rematches for the same reason bowls don't like rematches.

And what would that reason be?

Bowl perspective, you've got the risk of a ratings bust - people may be less likely to tune in for a matchup they've already seen.
Also - and this definitely applies for in-season, in- conference - seems like a lose-lose: if you end up with a split what have you proven? If team A beats Team B a second time, what have you gained?

I think both apply for CCGs too, whether inder divisions or in BigXIi like scenario. However "championship" cachet, either in a conference or CFP can blunt that.

Others may feel differently.

It's just so bizarre that one would be excited about watching a game between their team and a rival in one year, and excited about them playing each other the previous year and the next year, but not for a second time within a season. Even if they've swapped venues. NFL teams play their division mates twice every year, and do you see ratings drop for that?

College and NFL are different.
I don't even watch football on Sundays.
If the argument is "make college football more like the NFL" or even "it's okay for the NFL, so it should be good for college football" that argument doesn't convince me.
Again, others may differ.

Whatevs. It's irrational. I suppose I just don't understand college football fans.