(06-13-2021 07:34 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 06:50 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  “Oh, and if you do go to that link, you'd see that that "erector set" was ranked as the #9 overall stadium overall, ahead of LSU, Notre Dame, the Rose Bowl and every stadium in the state of Texas.”

And about sums up the accuracy of said stadium rankings. UCF’s “erector field” ranks higher than Univ of Texas’ stadium, A&Ms Kyle Field, TCUs Amon Carter, etc.? Please!! That statement is laughable.

Must feel bad to know that your team will never sniff the level of UCF’s accomplishments. The highlight of your program was beating the worst Arkansas team of all time with a fake punt return. You’re like the little brother that only gets attention by annoying people as much as possible.



Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

As bad as SMU has been for years, we still hold a 33-6 record over UnT.

(06-13-2021 07:45 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 07:34 PM)BraveKnight Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 06:50 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  “Oh, and if you do go to that link, you'd see that that "erector set" was ranked as the #9 overall stadium overall, ahead of LSU, Notre Dame, the Rose Bowl and every stadium in the state of Texas.”

And about sums up the accuracy of said stadium rankings. UCF’s “erector field” ranks higher than Univ of Texas’ stadium, A&Ms Kyle Field, TCUs Amon Carter, etc.? Please!! That statement is laughable.

Must feel bad to know that your team will never sniff the level of UCF’s accomplishments. The highlight of your program was beating the worst Arkansas team of all time with a fake punt return. You’re like the little brother that only gets attention by annoying people as much as possible.



Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

As bad as SMU has been for years, we still hold a 33-6 record over UnT.

You got me there ponyman.

Here is the response:

Dear AAC:

TLDR; we aint skinin off no dollars for you. Dont call us, we'll call you.

Xxoo-
The Syndicate

One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Great post and interesting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I had to drop a line on CUSA....they are clueless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06-13-2021 10:46 PM)smu89 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Actually, I think this is what is disingenuous about Aresco's letter and other public pronouncements: from a legal perspective, the P5 *can't* make a decision about including the AAC as either an autonomous conference or a contract bowl league and he knows it. From a PR standpoint, Aresco is preying on the general public's mistaken belief that the P5 has an up-or-down vote on the AAC when he knows full well that the P5 has structured everything to ensure that they get their advantages *without* a collective vote that would violate antitrust laws.

Note that when it comes to NCAA rules, all schools can choose to follow the A5 rules regardless of whether they are a part of that A5 group. It's also the *rest* of the NCAA that granted the A5 their autonomy status as opposed to the A5 themselves. So, the AAC doesn't need to convince the A5 conferences of anything to get autonomy status. Instead, the AAC has to convince the rest of the NCAA (including the G5 conferences) that it should be granted autonomy status... and *that* is the real challenge (as the other G5 leagues will surely fight that tooth and nail).

Similarly, when it comes to contract bowls, once again, the AAC needs to convince the contract bowls themselves (as opposed to the P5) that their auto-bid is worth more than a 2nd/3rd place P5 team. That has always been the P5 position from a legal standpoint all along: if a G5 league can convince a contract bowl on their own to enter into an agreement, then that's perfectly fine because that's the free market speaking. If they can't convince them, then that's also the free market speaking.

Now, I totally understand why Aresco is doing all of this from a PR perspective. It's just that he knows that the A5/P5 inherently *can't* make a collective decision one way or the other from an antitrust perspective. You can argue that the P5 can heavily influence others, which is why Aresco phrases everything as asking for P5 "support" as opposed to the P5 directly taking action. However, from a pure legal standpoint, the P5 can't directly take a collective effort to do anything because that's a prima facie antitrust violation. The fact that the NCAA autonomous rules and the contract bowls specifically provide advantages from the P5 has to be disentangled from the legal process that ensures that the P5 aren't *directly* and *collectively* providing themselves those advantages (and that it's others outside of the P5 themselves that are indirectly empowering those advantages from a legal standpoint).

(06-14-2021 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 10:46 PM)smu89 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Actually, I think this is what is disingenuous about Aresco's letter and other public pronouncements: from a legal perspective, the P5 *can't* make a decision about including the AAC as either an autonomous conference or a contract bowl league and he knows it. From a PR standpoint, Aresco is preying on the general public's mistaken belief that the P5 has an up-or-down vote on the AAC when he knows full well that the P5 has structured everything to ensure that they get their advantages *without* a collective vote that would violate antitrust laws.

Note that when it comes to NCAA rules, all schools can choose to follow the A5 rules regardless of whether they are a part of that A5 group. It's also the *rest* of the NCAA that granted the A5 their autonomy status as opposed to the A5 themselves. So, the AAC doesn't need to convince the A5 conferences of anything to get autonomy status. Instead, the AAC has to convince the rest of the NCAA (including the G5 conferences) that it should be granted autonomy status... and *that* is the real challenge (as the other G5 leagues will surely fight that tooth and nail).

Similarly, when it comes to contract bowls, once again, the AAC needs to convince the contract bowls themselves (as opposed to the P5) that their auto-bid is worth more than a 2nd/3rd place P5 team. That has always been the P5 position from a legal standpoint all along: if a G5 league can convince a contract bowl on their own to enter into an agreement, then that's perfectly fine because that's the free market speaking. If they can't convince them, then that's also the free market speaking.

Now, I totally understand why Aresco is doing all of this from a PR perspective. It's just that he knows that the A5/P5 inherently *can't* make a collective decision one way or the other from an antitrust perspective. You can argue that the P5 can heavily influence others, which is why Aresco phrases everything as asking for P5 "support" as opposed to the P5 directly taking action. However, from a pure legal standpoint, the P5 can't directly take a collective effort to do anything because that's a prima facie antitrust violation. The fact that the NCAA autonomous rules and the contract bowls specifically provide advantages from the P5 has to be disentangled from the legal process that ensures that the P5 aren't *directly* and *collectively* providing themselves those advantages (and that it's others outside of the P5 themselves that are indirectly empowering those advantages from a legal standpoint).

Correct. But membership into that A-5 group is an NCAA decision and the NCAA, in the final analysis, is an entity unto itself. Thus, the blocking of any and all schools from joining that A5 group with no defined path as to how they were selected or how to "move up" into that group very well could constitute an anti-trust issue for the NCAA. As you've said many time before, the NCAA is a walking anti-trust violation and this is just one more example of that inherent issue.

(06-14-2021 11:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 10:46 PM)smu89 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Actually, I think this is what is disingenuous about Aresco's letter and other public pronouncements: from a legal perspective, the P5 *can't* make a decision about including the AAC as either an autonomous conference or a contract bowl league and he knows it. From a PR standpoint, Aresco is preying on the general public's mistaken belief that the P5 has an up-or-down vote on the AAC when he knows full well that the P5 has structured everything to ensure that they get their advantages *without* a collective vote that would violate antitrust laws.

Note that when it comes to NCAA rules, all schools can choose to follow the A5 rules regardless of whether they are a part of that A5 group. It's also the *rest* of the NCAA that granted the A5 their autonomy status as opposed to the A5 themselves. So, the AAC doesn't need to convince the A5 conferences of anything to get autonomy status. Instead, the AAC has to convince the rest of the NCAA (including the G5 conferences) that it should be granted autonomy status... and *that* is the real challenge (as the other G5 leagues will surely fight that tooth and nail).

Similarly, when it comes to contract bowls, once again, the AAC needs to convince the contract bowls themselves (as opposed to the P5) that their auto-bid is worth more than a 2nd/3rd place P5 team. That has always been the P5 position from a legal standpoint all along: if a G5 league can convince a contract bowl on their own to enter into an agreement, then that's perfectly fine because that's the free market speaking. If they can't convince them, then that's also the free market speaking.

Now, I totally understand why Aresco is doing all of this from a PR perspective. It's just that he knows that the A5/P5 inherently *can't* make a collective decision one way or the other from an antitrust perspective. You can argue that the P5 can heavily influence others, which is why Aresco phrases everything as asking for P5 "support" as opposed to the P5 directly taking action. However, from a pure legal standpoint, the P5 can't directly take a collective effort to do anything because that's a prima facie antitrust violation. The fact that the NCAA autonomous rules and the contract bowls specifically provide advantages from the P5 has to be disentangled from the legal process that ensures that the P5 aren't *directly* and *collectively* providing themselves those advantages (and that it's others outside of the P5 themselves that are indirectly empowering those advantages from a legal standpoint).

Correct. But membership into that A-5 group is an NCAA decision and the NCAA, in the final analysis, is an entity unto itself. Thus, the blocking of any and all schools from joining that A5 group with no defined path as to how they were selected or how to "move up" into that group very well could constitute an anti-trust issue for the NCAA. As you've said many time before, the NCAA is a walking anti-trust violation and this is just one more example of that inherent issue.

That's a very fair point that the AAC could use regarding the NCAA. You're correct that there isn't any objective criteria to being an A5 conference, so that plays into the NCAA being a walking antitrust violation.

The contract bowl situation is actually a bit clearer: if no bowl believes that the AAC champ is worth $40 million per year, then they won't get a contract bowl based on legal free market principles.

(06-14-2021 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 10:46 PM)smu89 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Actually, I think this is what is disingenuous about Aresco's letter and other public pronouncements: from a legal perspective, the P5 *can't* make a decision about including the AAC as either an autonomous conference or a contract bowl league and he knows it. From a PR standpoint, Aresco is preying on the general public's mistaken belief that the P5 has an up-or-down vote on the AAC when he knows full well that the P5 has structured everything to ensure that they get their advantages *without* a collective vote that would violate antitrust laws.

Note that when it comes to NCAA rules, all schools can choose to follow the A5 rules regardless of whether they are a part of that A5 group. It's also the *rest* of the NCAA that granted the A5 their autonomy status as opposed to the A5 themselves. So, the AAC doesn't need to convince the A5 conferences of anything to get autonomy status. Instead, the AAC has to convince the rest of the NCAA (including the G5 conferences) that it should be granted autonomy status... and *that* is the real challenge (as the other G5 leagues will surely fight that tooth and nail).

Similarly, when it comes to contract bowls, once again, the AAC needs to convince the contract bowls themselves (as opposed to the P5) that their auto-bid is worth more than a 2nd/3rd place P5 team. That has always been the P5 position from a legal standpoint all along: if a G5 league can convince a contract bowl on their own to enter into an agreement, then that's perfectly fine because that's the free market speaking. If they can't convince them, then that's also the free market speaking.

Now, I totally understand why Aresco is doing all of this from a PR perspective. It's just that he knows that the A5/P5 inherently *can't* make a collective decision one way or the other from an antitrust perspective. You can argue that the P5 can heavily influence others, which is why Aresco phrases everything as asking for P5 "support" as opposed to the P5 directly taking action. However, from a pure legal standpoint, the P5 can't directly take a collective effort to do anything because that's a prima facie antitrust violation. The fact that the NCAA autonomous rules and the contract bowls specifically provide advantages from the P5 has to be disentangled from the legal process that ensures that the P5 aren't *directly* and *collectively* providing themselves those advantages (and that it's others outside of the P5 themselves that are indirectly empowering those advantages from a legal standpoint).

Why. How would this affect them in any way. What's it to them if there are 5 or 6 autonomy conferences, and how would this affect them in any way at all.

As far as the contract bowls, my understand is that all 6 contract bowls will be a part of the CFP under the new system (4 for the quarterfinals, and 2 for the semis), so that part is irrelevant.

(06-14-2021 11:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 11:05 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 10:46 PM)smu89 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Actually, I think this is what is disingenuous about Aresco's letter and other public pronouncements: from a legal perspective, the P5 *can't* make a decision about including the AAC as either an autonomous conference or a contract bowl league and he knows it. From a PR standpoint, Aresco is preying on the general public's mistaken belief that the P5 has an up-or-down vote on the AAC when he knows full well that the P5 has structured everything to ensure that they get their advantages *without* a collective vote that would violate antitrust laws.

Note that when it comes to NCAA rules, all schools can choose to follow the A5 rules regardless of whether they are a part of that A5 group. It's also the *rest* of the NCAA that granted the A5 their autonomy status as opposed to the A5 themselves. So, the AAC doesn't need to convince the A5 conferences of anything to get autonomy status. Instead, the AAC has to convince the rest of the NCAA (including the G5 conferences) that it should be granted autonomy status... and *that* is the real challenge (as the other G5 leagues will surely fight that tooth and nail).

Similarly, when it comes to contract bowls, once again, the AAC needs to convince the contract bowls themselves (as opposed to the P5) that their auto-bid is worth more than a 2nd/3rd place P5 team. That has always been the P5 position from a legal standpoint all along: if a G5 league can convince a contract bowl on their own to enter into an agreement, then that's perfectly fine because that's the free market speaking. If they can't convince them, then that's also the free market speaking.

Now, I totally understand why Aresco is doing all of this from a PR perspective. It's just that he knows that the A5/P5 inherently *can't* make a collective decision one way or the other from an antitrust perspective. You can argue that the P5 can heavily influence others, which is why Aresco phrases everything as asking for P5 "support" as opposed to the P5 directly taking action. However, from a pure legal standpoint, the P5 can't directly take a collective effort to do anything because that's a prima facie antitrust violation. The fact that the NCAA autonomous rules and the contract bowls specifically provide advantages from the P5 has to be disentangled from the legal process that ensures that the P5 aren't *directly* and *collectively* providing themselves those advantages (and that it's others outside of the P5 themselves that are indirectly empowering those advantages from a legal standpoint).

Correct. But membership into that A-5 group is an NCAA decision and the NCAA, in the final analysis, is an entity unto itself. Thus, the blocking of any and all schools from joining that A5 group with no defined path as to how they were selected or how to "move up" into that group very well could constitute an anti-trust issue for the NCAA. As you've said many time before, the NCAA is a walking anti-trust violation and this is just one more example of that inherent issue.

That's a very fair point that the AAC could use regarding the NCAA. You're correct that there isn't any objective criteria to being an A5 conference, so that plays into the NCAA being a walking antitrust violation.

The contract bowl situation is actually a bit clearer: if no bowl believes that the AAC champ is worth $40 million per year, then they won't get a contract bowl based on legal free market principles.

Correct. The contract bowl provisions are market driven. I dont think there is much the AAC can do about that situation. They basically would have to convince ESPN or another network to ante up 20-30 million for an AAC Champions bowl. The thing is, under the current systm---the AAC champ who probably rarely ever be in that bowl---but such a bowl would remain relevant in a new 12 team CFP era. Meanwhile, bowls outside the CFP will become even less relevant than they are now---and some with will simply not survive as there will be fewer bowl teams available under a 12 team playoff system. So--I dont know. Being part of the CFP---even as the "AAC Champions Bowl" might be substantially more attractive to some higher end bowls than it was in 2012---we will just have to see.

(06-14-2021 11:24 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 10:46 PM)smu89 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Actually, I think this is what is disingenuous about Aresco's letter and other public pronouncements: from a legal perspective, the P5 *can't* make a decision about including the AAC as either an autonomous conference or a contract bowl league and he knows it. From a PR standpoint, Aresco is preying on the general public's mistaken belief that the P5 has an up-or-down vote on the AAC when he knows full well that the P5 has structured everything to ensure that they get their advantages *without* a collective vote that would violate antitrust laws.

Note that when it comes to NCAA rules, all schools can choose to follow the A5 rules regardless of whether they are a part of that A5 group. It's also the *rest* of the NCAA that granted the A5 their autonomy status as opposed to the A5 themselves. So, the AAC doesn't need to convince the A5 conferences of anything to get autonomy status. Instead, the AAC has to convince the rest of the NCAA (including the G5 conferences) that it should be granted autonomy status... and *that* is the real challenge (as the other G5 leagues will surely fight that tooth and nail).

Similarly, when it comes to contract bowls, once again, the AAC needs to convince the contract bowls themselves (as opposed to the P5) that their auto-bid is worth more than a 2nd/3rd place P5 team. That has always been the P5 position from a legal standpoint all along: if a G5 league can convince a contract bowl on their own to enter into an agreement, then that's perfectly fine because that's the free market speaking. If they can't convince them, then that's also the free market speaking.

Now, I totally understand why Aresco is doing all of this from a PR perspective. It's just that he knows that the A5/P5 inherently *can't* make a collective decision one way or the other from an antitrust perspective. You can argue that the P5 can heavily influence others, which is why Aresco phrases everything as asking for P5 "support" as opposed to the P5 directly taking action. However, from a pure legal standpoint, the P5 can't directly take a collective effort to do anything because that's a prima facie antitrust violation. The fact that the NCAA autonomous rules and the contract bowls specifically provide advantages from the P5 has to be disentangled from the legal process that ensures that the P5 aren't *directly* and *collectively* providing themselves those advantages (and that it's others outside of the P5 themselves that are indirectly empowering those advantages from a legal standpoint).

Why. How would this affect them in any way. What's it to them if there are 5 or 6 autonomy conferences, and how would this affect them in any way at all.

As far as the contract bowls, my understand is that all 6 contract bowls will be a part of the CFP under the new system (4 for the quarterfinals, and 2 for the semis), so that part is irrelevant.

It's not going to be irrelevant at least regarding the money. The contractual justification for the P5 receiving significantly higher CFP revenue (and this is strictly playoff revenue - we're not talking about the non-playoff contract bowl revenue) is that the P5 leagues are giving up their contract bowl slots in semifinal years. In fact, the CFP contract specifically states that the conferences with contracts with the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls each receive "x" amount guaranteed each year, while the other conferences split "y" amount.

You can be assured that this won't change even if the practical effect is that all of the contract bowls end up being playoff games every single year. It might be different phrasing with qualifications (e.g. the highest ranked top 4 Big Ten or Pac-12 champ will contractually go to the Rose Bowl when it's a quarterfinal game), but the P5 definitely aren't giving up their guaranteed income in this deal and those contract tie-ins are how they do it from a legal perspective.

(06-14-2021 11:47 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 11:24 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 10:46 PM)smu89 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Actually, I think this is what is disingenuous about Aresco's letter and other public pronouncements: from a legal perspective, the P5 *can't* make a decision about including the AAC as either an autonomous conference or a contract bowl league and he knows it. From a PR standpoint, Aresco is preying on the general public's mistaken belief that the P5 has an up-or-down vote on the AAC when he knows full well that the P5 has structured everything to ensure that they get their advantages *without* a collective vote that would violate antitrust laws.

Note that when it comes to NCAA rules, all schools can choose to follow the A5 rules regardless of whether they are a part of that A5 group. It's also the *rest* of the NCAA that granted the A5 their autonomy status as opposed to the A5 themselves. So, the AAC doesn't need to convince the A5 conferences of anything to get autonomy status. Instead, the AAC has to convince the rest of the NCAA (including the G5 conferences) that it should be granted autonomy status... and *that* is the real challenge (as the other G5 leagues will surely fight that tooth and nail).

Similarly, when it comes to contract bowls, once again, the AAC needs to convince the contract bowls themselves (as opposed to the P5) that their auto-bid is worth more than a 2nd/3rd place P5 team. That has always been the P5 position from a legal standpoint all along: if a G5 league can convince a contract bowl on their own to enter into an agreement, then that's perfectly fine because that's the free market speaking. If they can't convince them, then that's also the free market speaking.

Now, I totally understand why Aresco is doing all of this from a PR perspective. It's just that he knows that the A5/P5 inherently *can't* make a collective decision one way or the other from an antitrust perspective. You can argue that the P5 can heavily influence others, which is why Aresco phrases everything as asking for P5 "support" as opposed to the P5 directly taking action. However, from a pure legal standpoint, the P5 can't directly take a collective effort to do anything because that's a prima facie antitrust violation. The fact that the NCAA autonomous rules and the contract bowls specifically provide advantages from the P5 has to be disentangled from the legal process that ensures that the P5 aren't *directly* and *collectively* providing themselves those advantages (and that it's others outside of the P5 themselves that are indirectly empowering those advantages from a legal standpoint).

Why. How would this affect them in any way. What's it to them if there are 5 or 6 autonomy conferences, and how would this affect them in any way at all.

As far as the contract bowls, my understand is that all 6 contract bowls will be a part of the CFP under the new system (4 for the quarterfinals, and 2 for the semis), so that part is irrelevant.

It's not going to be irrelevant at least regarding the money. The contractual justification for the P5 receiving significantly higher CFP revenue (and this is strictly playoff revenue - we're not talking about the non-playoff contract bowl revenue) is that the P5 leagues are giving up their contract bowl slots in semifinal years. In fact, the CFP contract specifically states that the conferences with contracts with the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls each receive "x" amount guaranteed each year, while the other conferences split "y" amount.

You can be assured that this won't change even if the practical effect is that all of the contract bowls end up being playoff games every single year. It might be different phrasing with qualifications (e.g. the highest ranked top 4 Big Ten or Pac-12 champ will contractually go to the Rose Bowl when it's a quarterfinal game), but the P5 definitely aren't giving up their guaranteed income in this deal and those contract tie-ins are how they do it from a legal perspective.

Agree. I do think when its all said and done, the AAC will negotiate a deal where it is compensated independently from the other 4 non-contract conferences--locking in that separation that Aresco desires.

(06-14-2021 03:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 11:47 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 11:24 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 10:46 PM)smu89 Wrote:  Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Actually, I think this is what is disingenuous about Aresco's letter and other public pronouncements: from a legal perspective, the P5 *can't* make a decision about including the AAC as either an autonomous conference or a contract bowl league and he knows it. From a PR standpoint, Aresco is preying on the general public's mistaken belief that the P5 has an up-or-down vote on the AAC when he knows full well that the P5 has structured everything to ensure that they get their advantages *without* a collective vote that would violate antitrust laws.

Note that when it comes to NCAA rules, all schools can choose to follow the A5 rules regardless of whether they are a part of that A5 group. It's also the *rest* of the NCAA that granted the A5 their autonomy status as opposed to the A5 themselves. So, the AAC doesn't need to convince the A5 conferences of anything to get autonomy status. Instead, the AAC has to convince the rest of the NCAA (including the G5 conferences) that it should be granted autonomy status... and *that* is the real challenge (as the other G5 leagues will surely fight that tooth and nail).

Similarly, when it comes to contract bowls, once again, the AAC needs to convince the contract bowls themselves (as opposed to the P5) that their auto-bid is worth more than a 2nd/3rd place P5 team. That has always been the P5 position from a legal standpoint all along: if a G5 league can convince a contract bowl on their own to enter into an agreement, then that's perfectly fine because that's the free market speaking. If they can't convince them, then that's also the free market speaking.

Now, I totally understand why Aresco is doing all of this from a PR perspective. It's just that he knows that the A5/P5 inherently *can't* make a collective decision one way or the other from an antitrust perspective. You can argue that the P5 can heavily influence others, which is why Aresco phrases everything as asking for P5 "support" as opposed to the P5 directly taking action. However, from a pure legal standpoint, the P5 can't directly take a collective effort to do anything because that's a prima facie antitrust violation. The fact that the NCAA autonomous rules and the contract bowls specifically provide advantages from the P5 has to be disentangled from the legal process that ensures that the P5 aren't *directly* and *collectively* providing themselves those advantages (and that it's others outside of the P5 themselves that are indirectly empowering those advantages from a legal standpoint).

Why. How would this affect them in any way. What's it to them if there are 5 or 6 autonomy conferences, and how would this affect them in any way at all.

As far as the contract bowls, my understand is that all 6 contract bowls will be a part of the CFP under the new system (4 for the quarterfinals, and 2 for the semis), so that part is irrelevant.

It's not going to be irrelevant at least regarding the money. The contractual justification for the P5 receiving significantly higher CFP revenue (and this is strictly playoff revenue - we're not talking about the non-playoff contract bowl revenue) is that the P5 leagues are giving up their contract bowl slots in semifinal years. In fact, the CFP contract specifically states that the conferences with contracts with the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls each receive "x" amount guaranteed each year, while the other conferences split "y" amount.

You can be assured that this won't change even if the practical effect is that all of the contract bowls end up being playoff games every single year. It might be different phrasing with qualifications (e.g. the highest ranked top 4 Big Ten or Pac-12 champ will contractually go to the Rose Bowl when it's a quarterfinal game), but the P5 definitely aren't giving up their guaranteed income in this deal and those contract tie-ins are how they do it from a legal perspective.

Agree. I do think when its all said and done, the AAC will negotiate a deal where it is compensated independently from the other 4 non-contract conferences--locking in that separation that Aresco desires.

Attack’s long post on A5 autonomy is spot on. What’s more, the NCAA did not include an expiration clause or a look in period to that A5 autonomy legislation. Since it would be difficult to force NCAA legislation that solely adds the AAC to A5, Aresco is circumventing the process by simply petitioning the A5 to include the AAC in their autonomy related deliberations. It’s a brilliant strategy perception-wise, a P6 move that goes hand in hand with the 6th playoff conference he has already negotiated in the proposed CFP format.

(06-14-2021 11:47 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 11:24 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 10:51 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 10:46 PM)smu89 Wrote:  

(06-13-2021 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing I thought was really interesting in the letter was that the AAC actually qualifies as a "AQ" conference under the old criteria that was written into the BCS agreement.

"AQ conference" was of course the BCS version of a "P5 conference". The old BCS agreement had a set of criteria approved by the power conferences that, if achieved by any "non-AQ" conference, that conference would be granted "AQ" BCS status (which meant it's champion would be an "automatic qualifier" for a BCS NYD Bowl slot each year). According to the letter, the AAC has surpassed all three of those required milestones and would qualify as a BCS conference if that agreement was still in force today.

Exactly...this is legal. As mentioned in prior post:

If based on the factual evidence provided you wont include us, what exactly is your reasonable requirement to be included?

I assume their best defense...if they dont want to include AAC is to expand by taking a few AAC teams to B12 or other.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Actually, I think this is what is disingenuous about Aresco's letter and other public pronouncements: from a legal perspective, the P5 *can't* make a decision about including the AAC as either an autonomous conference or a contract bowl league and he knows it. From a PR standpoint, Aresco is preying on the general public's mistaken belief that the P5 has an up-or-down vote on the AAC when he knows full well that the P5 has structured everything to ensure that they get their advantages *without* a collective vote that would violate antitrust laws.

Note that when it comes to NCAA rules, all schools can choose to follow the A5 rules regardless of whether they are a part of that A5 group. It's also the *rest* of the NCAA that granted the A5 their autonomy status as opposed to the A5 themselves. So, the AAC doesn't need to convince the A5 conferences of anything to get autonomy status. Instead, the AAC has to convince the rest of the NCAA (including the G5 conferences) that it should be granted autonomy status... and *that* is the real challenge (as the other G5 leagues will surely fight that tooth and nail).

Similarly, when it comes to contract bowls, once again, the AAC needs to convince the contract bowls themselves (as opposed to the P5) that their auto-bid is worth more than a 2nd/3rd place P5 team. That has always been the P5 position from a legal standpoint all along: if a G5 league can convince a contract bowl on their own to enter into an agreement, then that's perfectly fine because that's the free market speaking. If they can't convince them, then that's also the free market speaking.

Now, I totally understand why Aresco is doing all of this from a PR perspective. It's just that he knows that the A5/P5 inherently *can't* make a collective decision one way or the other from an antitrust perspective. You can argue that the P5 can heavily influence others, which is why Aresco phrases everything as asking for P5 "support" as opposed to the P5 directly taking action. However, from a pure legal standpoint, the P5 can't directly take a collective effort to do anything because that's a prima facie antitrust violation. The fact that the NCAA autonomous rules and the contract bowls specifically provide advantages from the P5 has to be disentangled from the legal process that ensures that the P5 aren't *directly* and *collectively* providing themselves those advantages (and that it's others outside of the P5 themselves that are indirectly empowering those advantages from a legal standpoint).

Why. How would this affect them in any way. What's it to them if there are 5 or 6 autonomy conferences, and how would this affect them in any way at all.

As far as the contract bowls, my understand is that all 6 contract bowls will be a part of the CFP under the new system (4 for the quarterfinals, and 2 for the semis), so that part is irrelevant.

It's not going to be irrelevant at least regarding the money. The contractual justification for the P5 receiving significantly higher CFP revenue (and this is strictly playoff revenue - we're not talking about the non-playoff contract bowl revenue) is that the P5 leagues are giving up their contract bowl slots in semifinal years. In fact, the CFP contract specifically states that the conferences with contracts with the Rose, Sugar and Orange Bowls each receive "x" amount guaranteed each year, while the other conferences split "y" amount.

You can be assured that this won't change even if the practical effect is that all of the contract bowls end up being playoff games every single year. It might be different phrasing with qualifications (e.g. the highest ranked top 4 Big Ten or Pac-12 champ will contractually go to the Rose Bowl when it's a quarterfinal game), but the P5 definitely aren't giving up their guaranteed income in this deal and those contract tie-ins are how they do it from a legal perspective.

You still didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it. Why would the G4 conferences care if the AAC was autonomous or not. How does this affect them in any way. You said the group of 4 conferences would "fight this tooth and nail"

WHY? Does it affect their lives or existence in any way. No. Does it make them get less money, No. Does it get them less of anything. No. Does it affect their bottom line. No. Does it affect their TV contracts. No. Does it affect their athletes. No. Does it affect their schools. No. Give me one reason why the AAC being autonomous or not affects any other conference among the so called group of 5.

Here's an analogy. Me and 4 other families live in a small neighborhood with 5 comparable houses. My neighbor has a slightly better house than mine. He buys a brand new car and now also has a better car than me, and gets a raise at his job. Do I care. No. Does it affect my salary. No. Does it affect my house. No. Does it affect the car I drive. No. Does it affect my life in any way. No. Why would I fight him tooth and nail for bettering himself, and better yet, why would I even care.

(06-12-2021 09:04 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Letter was sent to the wrong people.

Should have read, "Dear ESPN".

You mean "Dear College Football Fans"

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(06-12-2021 09:04 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Letter was sent to the wrong people.

Should have read, "Dear ESPN".

In today's PC world of academic institutions, I am surprised that Woke university presidents didn't op for a "gender neutral" salutation like:

Dear Everyone:
Dear Persons:
Dear You People:
Dear Sir/Madam/Non-Binary/Undecided:
Dear Fellow Human:
Dear Beings that Hold Positions of Importance in the NCAA Autonomy Group: