They don't want Rice or UTEP, and probably not Houston or SMU.

Interesting analysis on the Big 12's grant of rights

http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/myth- ... rights.php

Great article, Phlipper !

The problem with the article is what it misses. How the Big XII executed their GoR might make it useless to some large extent. That it is synced to a current media deal, with look-in's, and that it was finalized right AFTER that deal potentially make it legal Swiss cheese.

However, in the B1G, it's asynchronous to media deals. It may hold no more or less water by itself, but because it is not aligned to any existing/current deal, it's purpose is one solely on unity and equality as a collective. So, that it works aside from any deal means there is an understanding of commitment that maximizes the legitimacy of the gesture.

In other words: B1G's = "no matter what." B12's = "as per this current deal."

If what Alvarez said about the UMD and Rutgers acquisitions as doting on a lonesome PSU with wanderlust is true, and the B1G has something like a 25-year'ish GoR, that should say how little GoR really stands up. It doesn't. All it would do is give the conference more legal leverage to get what it wants than the departing party's claim for suitable settlement.

No, I didn't miss that. The conversation with AFA was never more than casual. The AFA AD's reason for not wanting to be in the Big XII is because he doesn't want his players hurt. AFA can't recruit players of the same size and speed.

AFA and BYU were contacted when the Big XII only had 8 school and were desperate to get 2 more to keep the tv contract. After WVU and TCU joined, the conference and it's tv partners did a study of all schools which might be available. Only, Notre Dame would have added enough to the bottom line to justify an invitation.

BTW, ESPN and Fox were willing to accommodate BYU not playing on Sunday.

That would = becoming a bottom feeder, can you not see that or are you just being a pain?
Great for Fox, were they going to allow reruns on BYUtv? Just as important to them as anything.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

I am very pleased to see a major college conference such as the Big 12 challenge the NCAA rule requiring 12 teams to play a conference football championship game. By now everyone is or should be aware of my view of this very damaging rule that has negatively influenced college sports over the last several years. This rule is a direct result of the killing of the SWC, Big East, Big 8, WAC and so many century old college football rivalry games which makes college football so special.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... rence-rule

I wanted the ACC to take this approach in 2003 and only take Miami for 10. The ACC may not be so unstable today with threats of the Big Ten becoming a 16 or 20 super conference if the ACC would have been persistent with its challenge of this rule at that time with 11 schools as result of the Virginia government tampering with expansion plans.

The ACC by taking the easy approach and expanding to 12 and coming back for Boston College kept the momentum of raiding other leagues alive. The ACC could have avoided this issue all together and probably have been more stable today if the conference would have taken the compromise approach that Duke and North Carolina wanted by only taking Miami for 10 schools.

Would the Pac 12 which was much better aligned as the Pac 10 expanded to 12 if the rule were changed?

Would the Big Ten been so pressured to expand to 12 and latter 14 if a championship game were possible with any number of schools?

Since we currently have 14 member leagues, the argument of other leagues have expanded to 12 and so should all leagues have 12 schools if that want to play a championship game.. The championship game did not require the SEC, Big Ten, or ACC to expand to 14 so why would it matter if a conference wanted to play a championship game with 10 or for that matter the minimum number of 8 schools the NCAA requires to be a valid FBS league.

Maybe this move by the Big 12 may bring some much needed stability in the BCS leagues. At the very minimum this rule change would keep the Big 12 from wanting or needing to raid other leagues just to play a made for TV college football championship game.

This would be a most welcome change.

Might it also encourage the SWAC to participate in the FCS Championship tournament ?

They, like the IVY league "play by their own rules", and do not enter the FCS Championship.
Not sure what the deal is with the IVY, I do know they have their own rules about scholarship equivalents.
I'm not certain I have the history of this correct, but my recollection is that the SWAC did particpate in the FCS,
and thought they were getting screwed over somehow, so they decided to forego the FCS championships and hold their own conference championship (for 10 teams),
which violated the 12-team rule.

If someone out there has better knowledge of that situation, please post.

From a time back in the late 70s' when the Pennsylvania State Colleges (Division II) formed a conference championship with their 14 members with two divisions, a team, if invited, could play in the conference championship game OR go to the D2 playoffs. It had to do with school preference, and due to scheduling, a representative could not do both. I know of one school that opted for the CCG instead of going to the playoffs. They got to be conference title champions. Had they gone to the playoff, a conference title was not an option. I believe the timing and procedures on this have changed.

As to NCAA rules per sanctioning championship games, the policy was not an administrative edict by the executives. Schools voted by majority to implement the policy. They can also vote to change it if enough dissatisfaction exist. A minumum of twelve was the number decided upon as the reasonable figure since less than that, near all conference members have played each other already anyway. Round-robin can be done with as much as ten. I am not advocating the policy necessarily, just saying that I recall it was part of the reasoning for the policy. The organization can certainly re-visit the issue.

Should the BIX look at Florida St., Clemson, Georgia Tech, and either Miami (not sure about them) or North Carolina St. as a far eastern division and add West Virginia to them? Maybe include Louisville and Cincinnati?
And what is the hold-up with going to 12? I am hearing that the BIX will try to petition the NCAA for the ability to hold a CCG with their 10team conference, any truth to this?

I believe the Big 12 will be successful with its pursuit of getting the NCAA rule changed to allow a conference football championship game with 10 schools.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... rence-rule

The Big 12 could either take the top two teams in the final standings or maybe a more interesting situation would be to split into two five team divisions to allow more opportunities for more schools to reach the championship game.

Each of the 10 Big 12 schools would continue to play a 9 game round robin schedule, however, the top two teams of each division could advance to the championship game. This would allow a division team to possible loss a couple games and have the opportunity to play for the conference title.

East: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Baylor, West Virginia

West: Texas, Texas Tech, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State

In this type of scenario Texas for example could lose to both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and have a 7-2 record and both the Oklahoma schools could be either be 9-0 and 9-1 and Texas would still advance to the Big 12 championship game by having the better record of the West divisions schools.

By taking the top two ranked schools may have a better shot of the winner reaching the new four team playoff, the division setup would provide more interest to the fans and provide more opportunities for an underdog to reach the conference championship game.

Also would the Big 12 consider playing the championship game at the highest ranked school or move the champions game to Dallas Cowboy stadium?

Being that the Big Ten and Pac-10 tried the same thing at under 12 schools and were rejected...and then expanded to get to 12 to achieve that goal, I'd think that the Big 12 chances are slim to none.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Quinn,
I have to disagree with you here.

I do not believe either conference pushed the issue because it was just more easy to expand to 12 schools.

I am sure the Pac 10 did not push the issue as there was never no reports out west of the Pac 10 pushing the issue with the NCAA.

The ACC simply backed off and did not push the issue because Boston College was willing to jump and the conference was already at an unwieldy number of 11 due to Virginia politics. Ditto Big Ten.

The Big 12 has a much better benefit of being persistent in getting this rule changed to keep 10 members.

I have always followed this rule progress very closely simple because I hate this rule.

We shall see as I for one am keeping a close eye and supporting the Big 12 all the way on getting this most destructive rule overturned once and for all.

I would support this issue to the extent of donating money to cause to get this issue legally changed.

Noting the ACC also tried when just Miami came onboard and was at 11 for the moment. Lash may be correct about the depth of the efforts then.

There may be some support from schools in less prominent conferences due to several of them having difficulty maintaining 12 members or constantly having to address divisional line-ups. There's just not enough current FBS schools for every exisiting conference to be at 12, 14, or 16 members.

Still, the question remains, why have the CCG if round-robin play exists? Even at 12, re-matches can get frequent. Not opposed to re-matches, but every year? Schools that did expand to 12-plus shall claim they expanded for the CCG, and abolishing the rule after-the-fact would be unreasonable due to the resources that were committed for it.

Here's a thought. Maybe the B12 is putting the issue on the table again first, in order to justify or convince the majority of conference schools to actually expand for a CCG? The argument would be, "well we tried with ten, and it did not get accepted, so let's look to add." Could this be at-work again?

The fundamental question is has circumstances changed enough to overturn the rule? With the trend ever greater for fewer but larger mega-conferences, it appears the rule would stand. On the other side of the argument, let conferences do what they want to do in that they have so much freedom with expansion, raids, TV contracts, bowl deals, etc. Organizational (the NCAA) is flexible on some big stuff and hard-nose on other stuff---as dictated by power concentration.

However, the basic question is more interactive now, with the playoff structure and new bowl agreements.

Sec03,
The problem with college football is perception.

It would have been a total joke this year had the new four team playoff system been in place this year because Notre Dame, Alabama, Oregon, and most likely Florida would have made the four team playoff.

Kansas State would have most likely been left out because there was not an extra championship game to compare Kansas State with Florida.

Since the experts would point to Florida as not having the opportunity to play in the SEC championship game by losing to SEC Championship game participant Georgia, Kansas State would have a bigger perception issue as a member of league that did not have a championship game for comparison.

Maybe Kansas State did not deserve to be one of the four teams if the system would have been in place this year by losing in the Fiesta Bowl, one thing for certain the University of Florida did not belong either based on getting totally pounded by Big East co champ Louisville in the Sugar Bowl. The fact is perception of the SEC would of helped Florida get one of the four team bids and this is a major problem with college football.

I think the Kansas State football coach and several other Big 12 guys just want a fair comparison by playing the same number of games including a potential 13 championship game to ensure a fair comparison of making the four team playoff.

The OOC cupcake games can be corrected with stronger OOC schedules for better comparison of which schools deserve one of the four playoff sports, the championship game comparison is at the mercy of a very stupid and outdated NCAA rule requiring 12 members to play this made for TV 13 regular season game.

I believe most of the current power leagues would welcome a Big 12 championship with or without 12 schools to make it more fair comparison of which schools are selected for the new four team playoff.

Either all in NCAA or all out in major football

Again maybe this is a test to get traction for the power leagues to split from the NCAA.