Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Who'sYourData?]

3 hours ago, Triple B said:

Front runners in the media means absolutely nothing. 

There once was a time that UCF was the "front runner" to get into the Big East, and some school named USF wasn't even in the conversation.

And then a funny thing happened on the way to expanding the Big East...

[Sellular1]

4 minutes ago, DataBull said:

There once was a time that UCF was the "front runner" to get into the Big East, and some school named USF wasn't even in the conversation.

And then a funny thing happened on the way to expanding the Big East...

When our AD says we aren't even in the conversation, I'd say the odds are pretty good we are screwed

[Who'sYourData?]

Just now, Sellular1 said:

When our AD says we aren't even in the conversation, I'd say the odds are pretty good we are screwed

There is official, and unofficial.

I do have a question though.  I'm certain I read on these boards that the only way to get into a P5 conference was to win a lot of games. 

Now I'm hearing that UConn is a lock to get into the Big 12.  Who is right?  Who are the people that said we needed to win a lot of games?

[Sellular1]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/jon-solomon/25444865/will-ncaa-vote-force-big-12-to-expand-for-conference-title-game

[Sellular1]

Very interesting

http://www.vanquishthefoe.com/2016/1/10/10745780/byu-conference-championship-deregulation-vote-big-12

[Triple B]

5 hours ago, Triple B said:

Front runners in the media means absolutely nothing. 

 

5 hours ago, Sellular1 said:

Ok trip... 

Well, it certainly took long enough for you to finally come around ...

[Triple B]

1 hour ago, DataBull said:

There is official, and unofficial.

I do have a question though.  I'm certain I read on these boards that the only way to get into a P5 conference was to win a lot of games. 

Now I'm hearing that UConn is a lock to get into the Big 12.  Who is right?  Who are the people that said we needed to win a lot of games?

A year ago, UCF was a lock if they expanded and Houston and Cincy were having a dueling attendance battle to see who got the other spot ... and that was based on a double secret email from an ESPN employee (hey, he said he was an employee) to a Houson blogger. When it's all over, someone will be right but it will be like a broken clock that has the correct time twice a day ...

And I wouldn't even take much from what Harlan has been reported here as saying. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the motive in telling a group of boosters that our current level of contributions isn't enough to get us into a P5 conference. Although, he may be right, I don't think it's because anybody has said anything to him .... probably just a gut feeling like we all go on.

[Dogma]

On 1/5/2016 at 6:12 PM, Dogma said:

I agree with Trip.

The B12 wants to add the additional rule to allow a non divisional CCG. The AAC is with them as they want to do a similar setup.

The B1G added the proposal that the rule HAS to include a divisional format because it is not fair to the other conferences that already set and play with divisions. The SEC is with the B1G on this. However with this mandatory division rule added, they are OK (from what I read and understand) with allowing the B12 to have a CCG with 10 teams. So no expansion is necessary.

No link available of what I read since I'm on my phone.

See this is what I meant about all of this being confusing and not making any sense:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/big-ten-issues-amendment-to-block-deregulation-of-conference-championships-220524302.html

This article mentions that the B1G which supposedly is the one MOST against the B12 actually supports the B12 in not wanting to expand.  They just want it to stay as divisions.  In fact the article mentions that they added an amendment to the proposed rule that states that a CCG can be played with 10 teams, as long as they are split into divisions:

 

---

"I agree a conference should not have to expand in order to have a championship game," Delany told ESPN.com. "That wouldn't be right. That's tail wagging dog. On the other hand, I want to have some familiarity — some knowledge as to how these things are going to play out. I don't want unintended consequences. I don't want to wake up one morning and see some odd structure that's unfamiliar.

"We don't think he should have to expand to have the same option we have," Delany said, "but we feel he should have a structure similar to ours."

The Big Ten’s amendment is calling for little change in the current structure. It wants championship games to be between two members that are divisional champions.

The Big Ten’s argument centers more around the ACCs plans with deregulation rather than the Big 12s. Delany agreed the Big 12 should be treated differently because of its smaller membership, but he was concerned what the ACC would do if it was able to just select the teams it wanted to play in its conference title game and the trickle-down effect from that decision.

---

 

So what the heck is actually being voted on??? This says that they are voting on having a CCG games with 10 teams as long as they have divisions (the B1G amendment.)  And the B1G is all good with that .

If something else is being voted on and fails, then why can the B12 just request a re-vote with this amendment.  Either way the B12 will need to split into divisions.  This allows them to do so without expanding, which is their #1 desire.

[bullsfan27]

Our only chance of getting into the big 12 now would be if hey expanded by 4. If they expand by 2 they won't add any of the Florida schools

[WoolyBully]

Never expand unless you absolutely have to, is the Big XII line of thinking. If you have to divvy up divisions, OWSH. That pretty much thwarts the 'championship game' being the two teams in your conference with the best records (cherry picking). Just gotta be smart about how you set up the divisions...