College football conf title game restrictions to be relaxed

College football conference title game restrictions to be relaxed by 2016

April 7, 2015 11:57 am MT



Legislation allowing for the deregulation of conference championship games is now expected to be passed by 2016, CBSSports.com has learned.



The move would directly impact the Big 12 and ACC, which developed the legislation. The Big 12, which is the only Power Five league without a championship game, is merely seeking the option of staging such a contest with 10 teams. The ACC's ultimate intentions with a 14-team league in football, one which already holds a championship game, are not clear.



Current NCAA rules state a league must have at least 12 teams in order to play a conference title game. Those teams also must play a round-robin within each division.



The legislation is now expected to move forward after being delayed somewhat by NCAA governance reform. CBSSports.com reported last year that legislation had formally been submitted.



“I think there's some belief that ACC would play three divisions, have two highest ranked play in postseason,” said Bob Bowlsby, chairman of the new NCAA Football Oversight Committee. “Really, nobody cares how you determine your champion. It should be a conference-level decision.



“But because the ACC has persisted in saying, ‘We're not sure what we'll do,' there's probably a little bit of a shadow over it. In the end, I don't think it'll be able to hold it up. We'll probably have it in place for ‘16.”



That oversight committee would vet the legislation and pass on any recommendations to the NCAA Council for final approval. The new oversight committees in all sports are meant to streamline the rules-making process.



“This isn't really changing the rule, it's deregulating,” Bowlsby said. “It's moving a little bit slow, but I don't think it's not stalled in any way.”



From the beginning, deregulation has been seen as non-controversial. In the College Football Playoff era, the selection committee picks the top four teams, not necessarily conference champions. The champions of the Power Five, however, are all guaranteed a spot in CFP bowls, though not necessarily the playoff.



The ACC has maintained it is not pursuing a specific change to determine its conference champion, just the freedom to do so. As Bowlsby mentioned, the league could theoretically use some sort of metric to match its top two ranked teams in order to better impress the College Football Playoff Selection Committee.



“It's the ability for conferences to make their own decisions,” an ACC spokesman reiterated.



Many observers believe that then-No. 5 Ohio State skunking then-No. 13 Wisconsin 59-0 in the Big Ten title game allowed the Buckeyes to get into that first CFP. However, Michigan State was the league's next-highest ranked team at No. 8. The Spartans finished behind Ohio State in the Big Ten East.



Any conference is worried about its highest-ranked team being upset, knocking it out of a playoff spot. The most ideal matchup in any league champ game would be between the two "best" teams. In 2013 -- the final year of the BCS -- then-No. 1 Florida State did not play the highest-ranked team available in the ACC Championship Game.



The Seminoles defeated No. 20 Duke (then 10-2), the Coastal Division champion. Meanwhile, the league's next-highest ranked team was No. 13 Clemson (also 10-2). It finished as the runner-up to FSU in the ACC Atlantic.



In December, No. 4 Florida State survived No. 11 Georgia Tech 37-35 in the first ACC championship game of the CFP era. The next highest-ranked ACC team in the CFP rankings was Clemson at No. 18, once again the Coastal runner-up.



With Florida State the last two seasons, the ACC has been the home of the 2013 national champion -- in the final year of the BCS -- and fourth participant in the first year of the CFP.



None of this would change the basic math of the CFP. Five Power Five champions do not fit into a four-team playoff. The Big 12 was left out last season when co-champions Baylor (No. 5) and TCU (No. 6) finished outside the top four.



“This isn't really changing the [conference championship game] rule, it's deregulating,” Bowlsby said. “It's moving a little bit slow but I don't think it's stalled in any way.”



Critics have long pined for a so-called “commissioner” of football and basketball. Bowlsby and UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero -- chairman of Basketball Oversight -- are as close to those designations as there is these days.



Both committees will include 12 members -- four from the new NCAA Council, seven non-Council members and one athlete. The football committee will oversee only Division I, which includes the 128 Football Bowl Subdivision programs and the 124 in the Football Championship Subdivision. The committees are still being assembled using competency-based guidelines. Previously, the NCAA adhered to rigid gender and diversity guidelines that critics say didn't always mean the most qualified members were in place.



The new basketball and football committees are expected to lessen coaches' influence in the process, according to Bowlsby. Nick Saban and Arkansas' Bret Bielema spoke to the NCAA football rules committee in 2014 about the so-called 10-second rule. The controversial change in pace of play was ultimately tabled.



“The NFL, they don't ask coaches what they think about the rules,” Bowlsby said. “The owners make the rules.”



The American Football Coaches association has an advisory role to the NCAA rules committee. Now both those organizations' recommendations will flow up through oversight.



Because of the oversight committee's broad power, it is seen more as a true competition committee. The system currently lacks that component. The rules committee is made up of representatives of all four divisions -- FBS, FCS, Division II and III. Some of those members may not be sensitive to the issues of college football at the highest level.



Bowlsby also suggested the current problems regarding college basketball could be remedied by that sport's oversight committee.



“There's really no objection to widening the lane, making the semi-circle [under the basket] four feet instead of three,” Bowlsby said. “Moving the line back, going to a 30-second [shot] clock, cleaning up the post, hand checking. Everybody knows it needs to be done, but if you count on coaches to get it done, it will never get done.”



****************************************

This would reduce the likelihood that the Big 12 needs to expand to have a CCG, which would have benefited BYU. Wait and see, I guess....

This is where the Big XII has been putting all of their effort since bowl selection sunday last December.

In other words, BYU will never be a part of the Big XII.

This is the worst news we could get.

ESPN960Sports Tweet:

Holmoe said that BYU has exhausted their contacts about joining the Big 12 as both a full &football only-member but no one was interested.

What about the possibility of just adding BYU to make it 11 members. It is possible as they say we would add enough revenue to not decrease the payouts to the 10 members. It won't happen now but when they negotiate a new TV contract, it would be looked at.



The next few years, we can make our brand more valuable by being on TV all of the time and getting some big wins/seasons while we wait.

scott715 wrote:
What about the possibility of just adding BYU to make it 11 members. It is possible as they say we would add enough revenue to not decrease the payouts to the 10 members. It won't happen now but when they negotiate a new TV contract, it would be looked at.



The next few years, we can make our brand more valuable by being on TV all of the time and getting some big wins/seasons while we wait.

The math has never worked out. BYU has to add $20 million in value to the Big XII just to make adding BYU a breakeven proposition on the basis of the Big XII's tv contract alone. That doesn't even account for the other schools' giving up 9% or so of their BCS and bowl payouts as well.



If BYU was worth anywhere near $20MM a year, we'd be getting more than the ~$8MM a year we get from our deal with ESPN. BYU fans have always overvalued BYU, and Holmoe's results reflect that more than any fan's back-of-the-envelope wishful valuations of BYU football.



The only leverage BYU had for joining the Big XII was getting them a conference game, but that was just an emotional argument since the math there didn't work out either.

It's independence until the millennium (or until BYU sports is phased out). I had the feeling all along that BYU would not get picked up by the Big XII. I am excited about how independence is working out with me being able to watch way more games and even go to some here in the Southeast, but I am also a little disappointed. Not because I thought my access to BYU would be better in the Big XII. It would undoubtedly be worse. But because I think BYU deserves to be in a Power 5 conference more than the bottom half of almost all of the other power 5 conference teams, the increased revenue would be good, and I think the recruiting would improve slightly. I guess it is time to take the humble pie, realize we are not wanted in a conference, though we are wanted as opponents, and play with a chip on our shoulder every chance we get to play a power five team, including the :utard: . Being considered power 5 by the SEC, ACC, and likely other power 5 conferences will have to be good enough. I'm still going to be rooting for my beloved cougs. Now, let's go kick some power 5 butt!!! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

I just want to point out that last year I pointed out in a CougarCorner podcast that BYU had a better chance of getting into the PAC12 than the Big12. Granted the chances of getting into the Pac12 are next to 0.

hawkwing wrote:
I just want to point out that last year I pointed out in a CougarCorner podcast that BYU had a better chance of getting into the PAC12 than the Big12. Granted the chances of getting into the Pac12 are next to 0.

You were right. Geographically and traditionally, BYU has played far more PAC12 teams and has far more fans in the Pac 12 footprint than in the Big XII. It was a better fit for those reasons.



The PAC 10 messed up in taking Colorado over BYU. BYU and Utah would have made for a nice rilvary in the PAC 12. Oh well. That ship has sailed. It is time to embrace independence...not with arrogance or pride. Clearly we would rather be in a power conference, and the :utard: will always have that over us. But the best way to silence that is to stop losing to them :sulk: and start grinding them into the ground every chance we get :munch: . That would be a nice reminder that titles and affiliation don't mean much. It is what you can do that counts. And we can kick some butt!!! :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Well we can whine about it or, going forward, we can just beat the crap out of TX et al

Here's an idea. Let's load up on a bunch of p5 games, lose most of them', end up barely bowl eligible or not, lose the interest of ESPN, and allow mediocrity to lead to obscurity and have our program cancelled. How to deal with this set back??????? WIN! WIN! WIN!! Like Boise does. Get a moderate, doable schedule. Get your butts to a NY6 bowl (that doesn't require a high SOS) and give up on this non-sensical, unicorn NC aspiration and get relevant. Because BYU just took a few steps back.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Here's an idea. Let's load up on a bunch of p5 games, lose most of them', end up barely bowl eligible or not, lose the interest of ESPN, and allow mediocrity to lead to obscurity and have our program cancelled. How to deal with this set back??????? WIN! WIN! WIN!! Like Boise does. Get a moderate, doable schedule. Get your butts to a NY6 bowl (that doesn't require a high SOS) and give up on this non-sensical, unicorn NC aspiration and get relevant. Because BYU just took a few steps back.

This doesn't make sense. We beat every Power 5 team we played last year. We're not suffering from getting beat up by the Power 5 teams because they're bigger and tougher than us. We had a bunch of injuries suffered while playing G5 teams last year, so your answer to it is to play more of them?

I get that this is the reality that you want to adopt; however I don’t see that it meshes with what is actually happening.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Here's an idea. Let's load up on a bunch of p5 games, lose most of them', end up barely bowl eligible or not, lose the interest of ESPN, and allow mediocrity to lead to obscurity and have our program cancelled. How to deal with this set back??????? WIN! WIN! WIN!! Like Boise does. Get a moderate, doable schedule. Get your butts to a NY6 bowl (that doesn't require a high SOS) and give up on this non-sensical, unicorn NC aspiration and get relevant. Because BYU just took a few steps back.

This doesn't make sense. We beat every Power 5 team we played last year. We're not suffering from getting beat up by the Power 5 teams because they're bigger and tougher than us. We had a bunch of injuries suffered while playing G5 teams last year, so your answer to it is to play more of them?

I get that this is the reality that you want to adopt; however I don’t see that it meshes with what is actually happening.

What we should do is dumb down our schedule until we play no body! We'll win a decent amount of games though, but still lose the interest of ESPN because no body wants to watch BYU duke it out with New Mexico and New Mexico State year in and year out. Maybe 1 year we'll get to a NY6 bowl, but now that they're 2nd tier, no one will care but BYU fans.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
Here's an idea. Let's load up on a bunch of p5 games, lose most of them', end up barely bowl eligible or not, lose the interest of ESPN, and allow mediocrity to lead to obscurity and have our program cancelled. How to deal with this set back??????? WIN! WIN! WIN!! Like Boise does. Get a moderate, doable schedule. Get your butts to a NY6 bowl (that doesn't require a high SOS) and give up on this non-sensical, unicorn NC aspiration and get relevant. Because BYU just took a few steps back.

Yes, Boise State is exactly what we want to be! Oh, wait, they are just considered a mid-major by the rest of the power conferences.



No thanks!



To quote Teddy Roosevelt, "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."



I would rather strive valiantly, even if coming up short again and again, in a worthy cause and know the triumph of high achievement than be a cold, timid soul who plays powder-puff teams.

snoscythe wrote:

If BYU was worth anywhere near $20MM a year, we'd be getting more than the ~$8MM a year we get from our deal with ESPN.

I wouldn't quite go that far. BYU with very 1-2 P5 games was worth $6-8M 4 years ago. BYU with 5 P5 home games a year in 2019 is worth quite a bit more. I think BYU to the B12 would have been revenue neutral at $20M in the past and even now (considering they would have had 5-6 P5 home games a year). Of course, the new rule means BYU would have to bring more than it takes. If BYU ever makes it to that point (like ND), I'd prefer independence.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

Here's an idea. Let's load up on a bunch of p5 games, lose most of them', end up barely bowl eligible or not, lose the interest of ESPN, and allow mediocrity to lead to obscurity and have our program cancelled. How to deal with this set back??????? WIN! WIN! WIN!! Like Boise does. Get a moderate, doable schedule. Get your butts to a NY6 bowl (that doesn't require a high SOS) and give up on this non-sensical, unicorn NC aspiration and get relevant. Because BYU just took a few steps back.

Yes, Boise State is exactly what we want to be! Oh, wait, they are just considered a mid-major by the rest of the power conferences.



No thanks!



To quote Teddy Roosevelt, "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."



I would rather strive valiantly, even if coming up short again and again, in a worthy cause and know the triumph of high achievement than be a cold, timid soul who plays powder-puff teams.

Oh yes, and I'm sure you'll be putting these words to music when BYU is 6-6.

I am simply making the argument once again that 6 P5 teams in one year along with several G5 teams will overwhelm most BYU teams. I only argue for moderation, which is exactly what BSU has managed to create, oh that along with yet another major bowl--their third major bowl game ( how much is that worth in $$?). Some of you "all or nothing" folks have the reasoning power of a third grader. I'm not arguing for all patsies.

BYU can't handle more than 3-4 P5 teams, 4-6 G5 teams and a few easier games on a year on year basis.

My thought is that To be (or in our case), stay a P5 team you must have a P5 schedule. They have to want to include you.



also, I don't think things are as bleak as they seem. The champ touny was our quickest route to membership invite but I think the strongest and most unplanned for is conf changes. If there is a hint of anyone bolting or talk of the SEC or Pac12 expanding we become maybe the most desirable for the b12 or p12 if they feel they need to add and do it quickly. Remember we can join almost overnight. And don't count on the conf being buddy buddy. That all changes when they head back to the hotel so to speak.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

jvquarterback wrote:

scott715 wrote:
If BYU was worth anywhere near $20MM a year, we'd be getting more than the ~$8MM a year we get from our deal with ESPN.

I wouldn't quite go that far. BYU with very 1-2 P5 games was worth $6-8M 4 years ago. BYU with 5 P5 home games a year in 2019 is worth quite a bit more. I think BYU to the B12 would have been revenue neutral at $20M in the past and even now (considering they would have had 5-6 P5 home games a year). Of course, the new rule means BYU would have to bring more than it takes. If BYU ever makes it to that point (like ND), I'd prefer independence.

The $8mm figure is from 2013.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

If BYU was worth anywhere near $20MM a year, we'd be getting more than the ~$8MM a year we get from our deal with ESPN.

I wouldn't quite go that far. BYU with very 1-2 P5 games was worth $6-8M 4 years ago. BYU with 5 P5 home games a year in 2019 is worth quite a bit more. I think BYU to the B12 would have been revenue neutral at $20M in the past and even now (considering they would have had 5-6 P5 home games a year). Of course, the new rule means BYU would have to bring more than it takes. If BYU ever makes it to that point (like ND), I'd prefer independence.

The $8mm figure is from 2013.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

(He's from the future... he's trying to keep it undercover).



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">