Based on Sankey comment B1G and SEC appear to be united

Changes to the rules on championship games could effect the SEC. This one move could open the door for all 5 conferences to have 1 v 2 conference championships, eliminating division champions even if divisions remain. Delaney is dead right about "unintended consequences."

In the recent past this would have led to some match ups like Bama/LSU 2011 in ATL instead of New Orleans. The winner playing there.

Could be a great move for the Power 5, could trash traditions. Hope it is adequately debated

quote:

---

Clearly not an SEC story.

---

Do you even SEC bro?

quote:

---

I read an article somewhere that goes into more detail on the procedural aspects of the vote, but, IIRC, I believe that the vote this week requires a 2/3 super majority or something like that, but that the threshold might be lower at a later vote. So, I'm not sure that failing this week would kill the move.

---

3/4 to make it a permanent rule. just 51% to have it instituted on a trial basis for a certain period like 3months or 3 years.

I understand that, in the short term, this is an easy way to stick it to the Big XII. By requiring divisional play, you either force them into a rather stupid scheduling model, or you force them to expand when they don't want to.

But it frustrates me that, rather than supporting the deregulation, the SEC is comfortable with their own stupid scheduling model.

It's an interesting dynamic that is taking place ... but it's all hypocritical bullshite on behalf of the NCAA and every P5 conference really, as long as Notre Dame is out there operating with impunity. And that goes for the ACC as well, unless UNC is nailed for their academic violations.

My point is, the NCAA really should have no say-so over what the Big 12, the SEC or anyone else wants to do as long as they allow the ACC and Notre Dame to do whatever the heck they want to do.

quote:

---

The Big 10 and SEC are trying to make sure that the Big XII is shoehorned into the dumbest model possible, as that will likely hurt the Big XII going forward.

---

Not sure how you get that?

Corporations started changing the college game in 1977 when ESPN went on the air. Right now the ACC has a few good teams and the B12 has a few good teams but neither has the money or depth to compete with the B1G and SEC. The PAC can operate in their own world due to geography but the ACC and B12 probably could not as of 2010.

The ACC at least made the effort to expand and fill the hole after Maryland left. Also, to their credit that got Notre Dame as a partial member by contract and full member by future terms. The B12 just sat there while the others passed them by. Now they want to change the rules because other conferences took the better teams before they acted.

The B12 was hurt the summer of 2010 when they sat there and did nothing, so now they have only themselves to blame as the results have now come home to roost.

quote:

---

But this isn't about expansion.

---

It is all about expansion!

Well, the expansion of the power conferences by contracting the weaker ones and it has been going on since the beginning of college football. Prior to ESPN you had 8 teams (more or less) conferences and local markets. Since the 80's that compressed when the SWC and IND's went bye bye, next it was the Big East, and before 2025 it will compress further at the expense of the ACC or B12 or possibly both if they merge.

Imagine if in 2010 the B12 added Pittsburgh and West Virginia, then added Louisville and Cincinnati when TAMU and MU were out the door. By now the ACC would be on life support and the B12 would have become the 4th power conference. Instead, they waited and now they are the one with the best chance to fail. When the model moved to 12 or more teams and a CCG the B12 had to move with this or get left behind. Well, now they have been left behind.

Once you get corporations involved it will always mean culling the herd with fewer and fewer primary players. Name 1 business that did not concentrate wealth to fewer and fewer survivors after 20 to 40 years? Just look at the oil or auto business and the consolidation over the past 100 years or so.

I don't feel it is right to force the Big12 to expand, but they can't get everything on a silver platter:

1. No expansion (only conference w a champ game at 10 teams)
2. No divisions (only conf w a champ game w no divisions)
3. Keep round robin model
4. Create own criteria for champ game selection (all others determined by division tie breakers or record)

Currently the conferences are pigeon-holed into a specific model. New legislation threatens to open all 5 conferences up to all sorts of self serving moves.

Perhaps the ACC invents criteria for a team not in a division to play in their game (ND)

If the Big12 gets permission for 2-3 years to play a champ game make some fake divisions and keep your round robin. They want the conference office to invent the game matchup instead of letting it feel itself out as the SEC has done for 25 years.

Had to laugh at bamawriter complaining about the SEC's scheduling format. As everyone in the league knows, it's bama leading the way, AU, Ga. & UT following their leader, in forcing all the other teams to schedule around it's "traditional rival", UT & their Third Wkend In Oct. b.s. Remove that obstacle & there is no being 'stuck with seeing home games with 6 conference opponents once every 12 yrs".