Not sure that SEC feels pressure from anything any other conference is doing.Originally Posted by Camel at Sea
|
|
Not sure that SEC feels pressure from anything any other conference is doing.
The B1G agreeing on the East/West at 14...really might have put the kibosh on further East expansion.McMurphyESPN: Legends, Leaders gone in 2014 sources tell @espn. B1G East: IU, Md, Mich, MSU, OSU, PSU, RU; West: Ill, Iowa, Minn, Neb, NW, PU, Wis
I mean, if they add UVA and GT who is going to the West? Indiana?
UVA in the East and Kansas in the West?
Whatever. I'm starting to think not a damn thing further will happen.
The following users like this post: x97
The Maryland lawsuit, for all practical purposes, is irrelevant to the Big 12's prospects of expanding.
The key decision for us, and the ONLY thing that will get us back to 12, is being forced to add a CCG and not being able to play one with 10 teams.
Someone needs to ask Bowlsby about that, FFS.
If the B1G were to add 2 teams then it's no longer an East/West split. It would be 4 pods of 4 teams, with 2 pods forming a "division" you could then rotate the pods between the divisions.
Granted that is all pure speculation.
Speculation, sure, but you are right about the 4-team pods.
I guess my point is - if there is an impending expansion move (even in the next 6-8 months) why bother to get into divisional alignment right now?
I have been certain for months the B1G was moving to 16 and stopping. Now, I am not even sure they are going to 16.
It's just odd timing. Unless it's political 'cover' for them to say "we had no intention of adding UVA but we couldn't say no when they came knocking". Sort of the SEC version when they added A&M and Mizzou.
Well this would be the division alignment if they don't expand. Which as of right now is the statis quo. It won't take much work to change to pods if they add schools, or they have the divisions done if they don't.
I don't read this as a sign that they will or won't expand.
There are several problems with this "pod" idea. First, it's not NCAA sanctioned. You can't have pods and a CCG. The rules clearly state that there must be two divisions (with a minimum of six teams in each division) and you must play every other team in your own division in order to stage a CCG. Pods don't achieve this. Every conference that has inquired on changing the rules for CCG's has been shot down by the NCAA.....including the B1G. Bowlsby's most recent request to have a CCG with 10 members also looks dead in the water.
Secondly, Delany has said recently that B1G schools "really like to play each other". Further expansion would continue to make some of the long term rivalries that exist in the B1G less significant. We've seen the damage that splitting up NU and OU in the B12 did to the conference. Further expansion would continue to distance the conference into basically two separate conferences. That's not a good thing and Delany's comments seem to point to the fact that the B1G realizes this.
Third, the B1G is not going to add Georgia Tech on an island....and that's exactly what would be the case with GT added. The B1G has reiterated over and over that two factors are critical to expansion for them. One being AAU status....and the other being contiguous. If UVA and GT were added then it would be 600 miles and basically 2 states between GT and the next closest B1G team, UVA. While not a WVU type of island.....it's a pretty big distance. Look at such a map. GT would be a huge outlier. I think the B1G would drop one of their two critical requirements (AAU status and contiguous state) for only a major grabs. That would be a Texas or ND type of grab. They'd drop AAU in order to get ND and they'd drop contiguous in order to get Texas. They aren't dropping their 2 major requirements to land a mid-level school like Georgia Tech, however. Nothing against GT but they just don't have the cache of the truly top of the heap programs in the country. This UVA and GT B1G combo is an internet fantasy. It's not realistic.
Fourth, you've failed to mention that pretty every school the B1G may try to target out of the ACC has willingly signed a $50 million exit and has signed off on the conference spending millions in legal fees in order to force Maryland to pay up. UVA, GT, or any of the other schools don't look like they have any interest in leaving the ACC any time soon. You don't spend millions of dollars fighting exits if you yourself want to exit. That's a non-sensical idea.
Now, any one of the four situations above, by itself, would be damning to a B1G raid on the ACC. When all four are present it kills the idea altogether. Remember, that just because Tuxedo Toady or the tool of wv says something doesn't make it true. Logic and track record say they are full of sh*t.
The following users like this post: Derrouse
Still works.This message is hidden because x97 is on your ignore list.
View Post
Remove user from ignore list
9 users like LASooner's post: lauderdaleOU, lobster999, MadMex, Mephistopheles, OU812, oubozfan44, Redhawk, soonerUthenMe, The
Pods does work ad it is legal. The reality is that conf can set their divisions how ever they want. And in a pod system they are just changing the divisions every year. It is not a 4 division system. It is a 2 division system. Where the divisions change every year. And just as the BIG didn't ask permission from the NCAA to reset their divisions in 2014. They wouldn't have to in 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 or 20 either
The following users like this post: Sooner 4 Life
Beyond that, if Jim Delany (and probably Mike Slive with him) petition to change the rules so that they can have four 4-5 team divisions, I think odds are good that the NCAA will change the rules.
Sorry, you are wrong. The concept of pods was that teams could play all the teams in their own 4 team pod and them play a couple out of each of the other pods. That is against NCAA rules. Even if you had a "division of two pods" you wouldn't play every team in your own division since you wouldn't play every team in the other pod in yoru division. You MUST play each team in your own division. There are no exceptions to that rule. Now if you are just rotating divisions around every year that is legal....but the ****est idea ever heard. Not only does it defeat the true "pod" system it creates chaos as no one knows who is playing whom on any given year (fans, etc.). That's one of the reasons the B1G went to an east/west split. Make the divisions definable and make sure everyone knows who is where. It's not chaos.
Sorry, major fail.
Just like the B1G, Pac, B12, ACC, and SEC all petitioned the NCAA for a change in the rules in the past and failed. LOL. The B1G is not going to expand unless they wanted and knew such an arrangement is legal. Get back to me when Delany says he wants pods and petitions the NCAA on pods. You'd at least have a starting point with this internet legend. Umm, well you still would have to challenge and defeat my 4 points above even at that. LOL. And who says Slive is going to join Delany? He doesn't care what the B1G does.
Sparkles is back
6 users like usaosooner's post: Camel at Sea, DelMarSooner, MadMex, Nordeast_Sooner, OU812, silverwheels
Isn't that what the WAC did when they were at 16?
Actually the way the pod system could get around that issue is that the entire pod would not have to be in the same division. Would be crazy confusing though
Teams bouncing all over the place is not pods. It's just a more chaotic version of having pods jump around. It's just teams jumping all over the place. What do you call each division every year when the teams keep moving around? Do they even have names? Who are you playing in your division year after year and who not? It's chaos. The B1G moves indicate they want a normal, geographical positioned, 2 division set up. Divisions that are clear and make some geographical sense. Pods don't jive with such divisions. Let alone no commissioner, president, or AD has ever mentioned pods in a football sense in any of the major conferences. This was an internet legend that began when people couldn't get around the idea that two 8 team divisions was basically 2 separate conferences. They wanted a situation where certain B1G teams would be visiting Camp Randall more than once a decade. A las, pods were born online. Treu pods don't work with NCAA rules.....and no administrator has even indicated they would consider such a move.
Yes. It was chaotic, tough to figure who was where, and eventually lead to the destruction of the WAC as many of the old rivals weren't playing each other very often. For instance, BYU and Colorado State had built up a good rivalry in the early to mid 90's and the pod system destroyed that. BYU and CSU didn't see each other on the gridiron for 4 years (they played in 1995 before the WAC expanded to 16 and didn't play again until 1999 when both were members of the newly formed MWC).
All a pod is - is a scheduling arrangement.
1) You need two "divisions".
2) You need at least six institutions in each "division".
3) You have to play round-robin schedules within your "division".
The emphasis on "two divisions" is about negating conference semi-finals.
You can do any "scheduling pod" that doesn't violate these divisional rules.
And as Boulder said, you can even swap your divisions around. No rule against it. Although probably implausibly chaotic.
Just take a mythical "Big 16". Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State comprise the 'Central Pod'. Baylor, Texas, Texas Christian and Texas Tech comprise the 'South Pod'. All 8 of these teams are in the same "West Division" and must play each other every year. There are two more pods (Rust Belt/Southeast) for a total of 8 in the "East Division." For sake of argument - "Rust Belt Pod" is Cincy, Iowa State, WVU and...just say Louisville.
Geographically defined. Not chaotic. And a regular rotation that fans and media can follow just as well as they followed interleague baseball rotations. And yes, totally legal. And obviously the reason you'd separate them out in pods, is with regard to scheduling the teams in the other division.
Every year Iowa State plays all 7 members of its East Division.
Additionally it would play 2 members of "Central Pod" in Year1.
It would then return the favor (home/away) with those teams in Year 2.
Year 3 is a matchup with the other 2 members of the "Central Pod".
Year 4 is that respective return game (home/away).
Years 5-8 are corresponding matchups with the "South Pod".
And the other 3 in the "East Pod" are matched up with the same pods/teams.
In fact, the only way it works is just as Redhawk said and I agreed with- "with 2 pods forming a 'division'"
Nothing says you wouldn't play every one in your division.
The purpose of the "pod" itself concerns cross-divisional games anyhow.
But yeah, whatever "true pod" system x97 is talking about, with Pod A playing teams from Pod A, B, C, D and E every year is not going to work because of logistics. But "pods" themselves are absolutely NOT illegal according to the NCAA.
I still don't understand why people are directly responding to x97 anymore. He was outed like 2 years ago as a jack**** BYU fan who was gloating about BYU leaving the MWC for the Big 12...which didn't happen then and will probably never happen. Now he's committing his internet existence to talking **** about OU and the Big 12 on an OU message board. What a loser.
The following users like this post: S11-Baylor
I think we are deviating away from what was meant by "pods". What you are describing is just a two division setup where you play the same teams in consecutive years. That's almost worse than just the 2 division setup and going down the list of schools. That means OU wouldn't see schools like West Virginia or Louisville (schools used in your example) for a period of 7 years. Like I said, that's not a conference. Delany saying we "we really like to play each other" doesn't mean Wisconsin and Michigan take a 7 year hiatus from one another.
Under NCAA rules there simply is not a way to form a conference with 16 members where all the schools regularly play each other (never taking more than one year off from playing any one school). In fact, as you showed above schools could literally take many years or most of a decade and never see another school with which they have long, storied history.
I'm not talking **** on OU or the Big 12. People were throwing out theories and I was kindly showing them with facts why those don't work under the current setup and climate.
The pod (quad) idea was so brilliant that it lasted three years before forcing six of the WAC's main members to jump ship and form a new conference, the MWC. The WAC was pretty stable and the most respected mid major conference at nine teams for fifteen years. The decision to create a 16 team four quad conference led to it's demise. What is sad is that the WAC was the highest ranked mid major conference last year with two teams finishing in the Top 25. Watching the final bowl game last year for the WAC was a sad day for me, a life long college football fan. With the direction that Slive and Delany have taken Div. IA college football, I'm sure there will be many more sad days to come.
Your prophet ****ed little girls.
2 users like The's post: keefsmangledfingers, silverwheels
The pod idea is TBD.
Killing off rivalries among the power schools in the WAC16 combined with expanding beyond a financially beneficial number had more to do with it's downfall than anything else. If nobody has money, has to spend out the butt traveling Tulsa to Hawaii, San Diego, and Fresno, and loses their bigger rivalries... well enjoy the time bomb.
^ exactly WAC16 failed for one reason. Cash.
RT @DavidGlennShow: BREAKING: Multiple DG sources says ACC will announce unanimous 15 school agreement extending Grant of Media Rights
................
and im out **** everyone ****ociated with the Big12. EVERYONE
3 users like usaosooner's post: Derrouse, nstinson, Sooner 4 Life
Posting Permissions
