Report: Notre Dame in Talks to Join ACC as Full Member

[CL82]

LOL....Well..I am retired....but in a past life...etc.

You must look at the rule itself...not the casual or offhand discussion of it...

The amendment that was passed...NCAA Division I Proposal 2015-81-1....

Intent: To amend Proposal No. 2015-81, to specify that to be exempted from the limit on the number of contests, a conference championship game shall be either (1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or (2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

The rule, in its amended form...

17.10.5.2 Annual Exemptions.

17.10.5.2.1 Bowl Subdivision. In bowl subdivision football, the maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following:

[17.10.5.2.1-(a) unchanged.]

(b) Conference Championship Game. One conference championship game either:

(1) Between division champions of a conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced in number as possible) and conducts round-robin, regular-season competition in each division; or

(2) Between the top two teams in the conference standings following full round-robin regular-season competition among all members of the conference.

[17.10.5.2.1-(c) through 17.10.5.2.1-(h) unchanged.]


Legislative Services Database - LSDBi

Have to agree with @CTGoonie you are apply a condition (two divisions) from option 1 to the option 2. You can have multiple divisions so long as there is round robin play and the CCG is between the two highest teams in the standings.

The goal of this provision was to prevent a small conference from cherry picking the teams that go to the CCG. If you use the standings or the division champs where there are only two divisions, the CCG participants are automatic and not subject to gerrymandering.

 

[billybud]

my God man....don't go into law or regulation/rule review

It reads pretty plainly..

Two options..and you can do EITHER one or the other...

1...have two divisions and conduct a round robin in each division...

or

2....have a CCG between the top two teams...FOLLOWING A FULL ROUND ROBIN REGULAR SEASON COMPETITION AMONG ALL MEMBERS OF A CONFERENCE..

It is not round robin between assorted members of the conference...it is round robin AMONG ALL members.....


I truly believe that you read it as a round robin in each division if you have more than two divisions......but the language does not say that....round robin among all members means that all members play each other.

 

[CL82]

I truly believe that you read it as a round robin in each division if you have more than two divisions.but the language does not say that....round robin among all members means that all members play each other.

If you are directing this at me, then you believe incorrectly.
The point you seem to be missing is that a conference could have more that two divisions so long as they still have true round robin play.

(I think you retired just in time. You are cranky in your old age.)

 

[billybud]

You have to have round robin play among all conference members....even the Big 10 didn't do that with 11 members...

Yeah...you could have 4 divisions of four members in a conference of 16...or three divisions of four in a 12 team conference....but all teams would still have to play EVERYBODY IN THE CONFERENCE ROUND ROBIN....so...

That lets out every conference but the Big 12....all others would have to play 13 members in a 12 game season.

Not cranky at all....maybe impatient...

But it is either option 1...two divisions... each completing a round robin divisional schedule...

or option 2.....play everybody in the conference round robin and pick your two top teams.


Doesn't matter if you want to divide up into multiple divisions more than just two...you then must play the entire conference...so it makes no sense to have divisions.

 

[Zissou]

Well that settles it then, thanks for the link. Three divisions are not possible.

As reality sets in...

1 division with 7 schools and another with 8 seems unlikely as well due to the round-robin requirement.

You're still not getting the round robin requirement when there are two divisions. The requirement is within the division. The 7 team division has 6 round robin games within the division. The 8 team division has 7 round robin teams within the division. There can be additional conference games cross division. The division winners play for the conference title. An odd number of conference members is not difficult.

 

[CTGoonie]

As reality sets in...



You're still not getting the round robin requirement when there are two divisions. The requirement is within the division. The 7 team division has 6 round robin games within the division. The 8 team division has 7 round robin teams within the division. There can be additional conference games cross division. The division winners play for the conference title. An odd number of conference members is not difficult.

I do get it. I just said it's unlikely to have unbalanced divisions due to the inevitable complaining that will arise when the schedules are not made equally.

 

[Zissou]

I do get it. I just said it's unlikely to have unbalanced divisions due to the inevitable complaining that will arise when the schedules are not made equally.

Schedules are not made equally now. Look at the SEC and cross division play. Or look at the ND scheduling within the ACC.

Divisions not balanced by 1 team is a very small issue.

 

[CTGoonie]

Schedules are not made equally now. Look at the SEC and cross division play. Or look at the ND scheduling within the ACC.

Divisions not balanced by 1 team is a very small issue.

That is true but yet all P-5 conferences have an even number of teams. I'll still hold out hope that the ACC adds UConn even without ND. That is a better possibility than ND joining fulltime with UConn being #16.

 

[Zissou]

That is true but yet all P-5 conferences have an even number of teams. I'll still hold out hope that the ACC adds UConn even without ND. That is a better possibility than ND joining fulltime with UConn being #16.

When Penn State joined the B1G they were the 11th team. They stayed at 11 for two decades. It's just not that big of a deal to have an even number.

ND is not joining the ACC full time for football. The ACC could just add UConn as a singular add. It probably won't happen, but it won't be because of odd or even numbers.

 

[SubZero]

Just like ND never joining the ACC, UCONN will never join the newest version of the Big East.

 

[d1reality]

BC you mean? Actually with BC it's worse, football is bad enough, men's and women's basketball are jokes.

BC was 7-6 in football 2016, with a bowl victory. Would say their 24 wins and 3 bowl appearances in last 4 years would be considered a tad better than what is happening on the gridiron for the Huskies. Get real.

 

[uconnbaseball]

BC was 7-6 in football 2016, with a bowl victory. Would say their 24 wins and 3 bowl appearances in last 4 years would be considered a tad better than what is happening on the gridiron for the Huskies. Get real.

BC fans largely despise Addazio, and for good reason: he wins just enough to avoid getting fired, but that program is going nowhere. Just because they have been less awful than UConn doesn't mean they are remotely good.

Throw in the historical suckage in basketball and you have a real peach of an athletic program.

 

[BUConn10]

BC fans largely despise Addazio, and for good reason: he wins just enough to avoid getting fired, but that program is going nowhere. Just because they have been less awful than UConn doesn't mean they are remotely good.

Throw in the historical suckage in basketball and you have a real peach of an athletic program.

In 2017, if your not in the P5 you don't matter, and if you are no matter how bad you are everything will still be generally peachy. That's the problem with this whole P5 ordeal, it is artificially putting a group of programs on a higher tier/pedestal and nothing they can or can't do really affects them or their bottom line. Everyone else, especially us is out of luck.

 

[SubZero]

In 2017, if your not in the P5 you don't matter, and if you are no matter how bad you are everything will still be generally peachy. That's the problem with this whole P5 ordeal, it is artificially putting a group of programs on a higher tier/pedestal and nothing they can or can't do really affects them or their bottom line. Everyone else, especially us is out of luck.

What's hurting us is now that the teams in the P5 and average value of each has been established for each conference, there will be no school that gets invited to join their party unless they bring more the current average value. And it's ESPN and other networks that will determine what each school is worth. Obviously we didn't generate the average value of the Big 12 schools otherwise we'd be there today.

 

[Adios]

BC fans largely despise Addazio, and for good reason: he wins just enough to avoid getting fired, but that program is going nowhere. Just because they have been less awful than UConn doesn't mean they are remotely good.

Throw in the historical suckage in basketball and you have a real peach of an athletic program.

Part of the top tier in college hockey now, though. It would take wrecking the Hockey East to make them irrelevant in hockey. Which probably may not happen in our lifetimes.

Schools recognize that hockey is one of the sports that has the most allure to the rich kids.

 

[huskyrob1]

BC was 7-6 in football 2016, with a bowl victory. Would say their 24 wins and 3 bowl appearances in last 4 years would be considered a tad better than what is happening on the gridiron for the Huskies. Get real.

Averaging six wins a year against football teams like Duke, UNC, Virginia, Cuse, and Pitt is embarrassing, no matter how you spin it.

 

[LoyalFanCT]

There is no question that the ACC would benefit (financially and in other ways) from having UConn as a member and the ACC is the only P5 conference that makes sense for UConn -- at least for now.

 

[dayooper]

There is no question that the ACC would benefit (financially and in other ways) from having UConn as a member and the ACC is the only P5 conference that makes sense for UConn -- at least for now.

Can I ask why the ACC is the only P5 conference that makes sense for UConn? Not trying to be rude, I'm not sure why that is.

 

[buddy]

Can I ask why the ACC is the only P5 conference that makes sense for UConn? Not trying to be rude, I'm not sure why that is.

I would venture to say, preexisting rivalries and geographic contiguity make the ACC the most sensible conference for UConn. The best conference for UConn far and away would be the B1G, but lack of AAU status, contiguity, and partner to go with UConn, make it even more remote as a possibility. We can hope and dream, but after all of this time, it seems that such is only that..a dream. I do believe that both conferences would benefit financially by adding UConn. I have now discontinued my cable sports package which included the BTN. There really was no need for me to continue to pay for it. Hopefully, others will follow suit and it will wake up the B1G to give CT a look. I don't know if ACCN will be a cable network or streaming, but I will also not pay for that as long as UConn is not a part of it.

 

[Ldandy]

Can I ask why the ACC is the only P5 conference that makes sense for UConn? Not trying to be rude, I'm not sure why that is.

Not the only one but certainly the best one. The reasons are obvious. It is a crying shame that Uconn is not currently a member of the league already. For that matter throw in West Virginia as well.

Pod 1 BC, Uconn, Cuse, Ville
Pod 2 Pitt, WVU, VPI, UVA
Pod 3 UNC, Duke, NCSU, WF
Pod 4 Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami

Everyone gets to play a pod with schools they share both geography and rivalries with. You rotate the pods so that every school gets to play every other one over the course of a few seasons. It also makes sense from a conference standpoint not to lock into a situation where there is a long term competitive imbalance. This is currently seen in The B1G East v. West, and was famous in the old Big 12 North v. South Title Games. Last but not least Notre Dame can continue to play just the tip with the conference if they choose to.

 

[billybud]

I like the pods...I like regionality of opponents.

Blame Delaney for nixing the idea that the ACC had put forth...that would have allowed pods or more than two divisions.

Maybe...Delaney was worried that by playing five ACC games, Notre Dame could be put in a pod...and if they were a pod winner and highly ranked...possibly be slotted for an ACC Championship game. The "open architecture" of having the authority to develop one's own championship methodology that the ACC put forward, had to cause some hiccup somewhere in the Big 10.

 

[CTGoonie]

I like the pods...I like regionality of opponents.

Blame Delaney for nixing the idea that the ACC had put forth...that would have allowed pods or more than two divisions.

Dan Wolken had a column recently about how the SEC should get rid of divisions. I informed him about how the round-robin rule would prevent them from having a championship game under that format. His response was that he believes that rule could be changed again rather quickly if the SEC wanted to.

 

[billybud]

The problem with divisions in a 14 team conference is that you go 12 years between visits from a member of the other division and 6 years between games....

It is difficult to develop any real feel of being connected in a conference when you play so seldom. The SEC groans about scheduling as does the ACC.

Would FSU like to play GT in Atlanta more than once every 12 years (Atlanta has the largest concentration of alumni and is closest rival) rather than play in Syracuse or Boston? You bet.

Auburn points out that the majority of their out of state students come from Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina...all in the SEC East.

 

[Seaa Blue]

Blame Delaney for nixing the idea that the ACC had put forth...that would have allowed pods or more than two divisions..

Wasn't the problem that the ACC didn't really present an "idea" other than "let the conference decide". The gamesmanship of positioning a champion for inclusion in the playoffs would quickly get out of control.

 

[billybud]

I think that Swofford wanted to hide his hand....if the Irish were in play...it would get a "NO" from the B1G.

I also don't think that the ACC had agreed, among themselves, about a methodology for deriving who would play in a CCG. But they did want an open hand.