(09-27-2023 09:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 06:45 PM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

A more direct quote from the AAC commissioner.

That’s actually quite a public concession from Aresco to say that he’s fine with 5+7. He’s not dying on the hill for 6+6 or 2 slots for G5 champs despite being so vocal about G5 representation. This makes me think that 5+7 is coming sooner rather than later.

Even if it’s inevitable it’s a weird thing to just concede, unless this is more about trying to ensure any reconstruction attempts by the PAC doesn’t get recognized as anything above a G5 league.

That’s quite possible. I guess if we’re looking at it from the standpoint of the AAC’s self-interest, the one thing that they wouldn’t want is a “best of the rest” Pac-12 to form. That puts the AAC at risk of being poached of schools like Memphis. In contrast, a Pac-2/MWC merger would likely keep the AAC intact. Aresco used his words carefully there: this is a guy that absolutely loathes publicly acknowledging that power conferences exist at all, yet he mentioned that there’s a “P4” going forward. For as much as he likely can’t stand Sankey bringing up a “top 12” playoff format in every meeting, the last thing that Aresco would want is a reformulated Pac-12 having any hint of power status.

WSU/OSU (or Oliver Luck/Kirk Schultz if they're pulling the strings) are seeing their last hope of establishing a best-of-the-rest conference expire. Aresco is hammering the final nails on the PAC coffin, as Kliavkoff remains quietly on the sidelines. Aresco needs to protect the AAC; Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, USF, Navy (FB only), etc. would be strong candidates for a best-of-the-rest approach.

MWC is obviously going to be the #5 conference with OSU/WSU.

They may as well go to 18 and bring in Memphis, Tulane, Rice and Tulsa. Wichita St for FB only.

Ross Dellenger with an update:

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-uncertainl...35567.html

https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...Dnc9g&s=19

Seems like aresco is willing to block changes for next year. I get it, but hopefully he's just trying to get some concessions on the new deal before changing 6+6 for next season. I don't love that format as things stand now even if I do want g5 access.

(09-27-2023 10:42 AM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...Dnc9g&s=19

Seems like aresco is willing to block changes for next year. I get it, but hopefully he's just trying to get some concessions on the new deal before changing 6+6 for next season. I don't love that format as things stand now even if I do want g5 access.

Make the 5th and 6th slots play-ins.

5 vs. 8
6 vs. 7

Its time for some creativity for once.

(09-26-2023 10:55 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Once again, I think the format discussion is a red herring. Ultimately, neither the Big Ten nor SEC are going to make a huge stink about 5+7 compared to Top 12. (6+6 may be in place for the current contract, but it’s DOA afterwards.)

The *money* share is where the real debate will be. Never take your focus off that here.

Agreed. How much more will the SEC and Big 10 get vs. ACC and Big 12?

Some think 50% more. Here's hoping for less than that. I can't imagine it will be less than 25% more.

(09-27-2023 10:32 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:53 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 08:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:36 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 10:10 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That’s actually quite a public concession from Aresco to say that he’s fine with 5+7. He’s not dying on the hill for 6+6 or 2 slots for G5 champs despite being so vocal about G5 representation. This makes me think that 5+7 is coming sooner rather than later.

Even if it’s inevitable it’s a weird thing to just concede, unless this is more about trying to ensure any reconstruction attempts by the PAC doesn’t get recognized as anything above a G5 league.

That’s quite possible. I guess if we’re looking at it from the standpoint of the AAC’s self-interest, the one thing that they wouldn’t want is a “best of the rest” Pac-12 to form. That puts the AAC at risk of being poached of schools like Memphis. In contrast, a Pac-2/MWC merger would likely keep the AAC intact. Aresco used his words carefully there: this is a guy that absolutely loathes publicly acknowledging that power conferences exist at all, yet he mentioned that there’s a “P4” going forward. For as much as he likely can’t stand Sankey bringing up a “top 12” playoff format in every meeting, the last thing that Aresco would want is a reformulated Pac-12 having any hint of power status.

WSU/OSU (or Oliver Luck/Kirk Schultz if they're pulling the strings) are seeing their last hope of establishing a best-of-the-rest conference expire. Aresco is hammering the final nails on the PAC coffin, as Kliavkoff remains quietly on the sidelines. Aresco needs to protect the AAC; Memphis, Tulane, UTSA, USF, Navy (FB only), etc. would be strong candidates for a best-of-the-rest approach.

MWC is obviously going to be the #5 conference with OSU/WSU.

They may as well go to 18 and bring in Memphis, Tulane, Rice and Tulsa. Wichita St for FB only.

I'm sure this was a typo but if the MWC did this, I hope Wichita St would hire Ted Lasso back as their head coach

So wait are the other G5s just willingly going along with going to 5-7 immediately?

(09-27-2023 10:58 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 10:42 AM)Hootyhoo Wrote:  https://twitter.com/RossDellenger/status...Dnc9g&s=19

Seems like aresco is willing to block changes for next year. I get it, but hopefully he's just trying to get some concessions on the new deal before changing 6+6 for next season. I don't love that format as things stand now even if I do want g5 access.

Make the 5th and 6th slots play-ins.

5 vs. 8
6 vs. 7

Its time for some creativity for once.

Keeping G5's out as an autobid is bush league.nice to see Aresco fight.

Sent from my SM-G988U using Tapatalk

(09-27-2023 11:33 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So wait are the other G5s just willingly going along with going to 5-7 immediately?

Could be part of the larger CFP renewal negotiations. Giving up a little now to get more later is sometimes a good idea.

(09-27-2023 10:40 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Ross Dellenger with an update:

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-uncertainl...35567.html

Some people quoted him out of context. As I reread what he said, he was saying the G5 access and the guaranteed slot for champions were essential. So when he said 5-7 was essential, that was what he was referring to, not 5 instead of 6. He was speaking against a straight 12.

https://sports.yahoo.com/its-totally-wei...40730.html

Update. They didn't really talk about it. Article has a few quotes and speculation.

"...American Athletic Conference commissioner Mike Aresco will not vote for the format change unless CFP executives present a compromise, such as a long-term guarantee for Group of 5 access, he told Yahoo Sports in an interview Wednesday.

The CFP’s existence spans just two more years. There is no binding agreement after the 2025 football season for both a playoff format and a television contract. There is fear among some at the Group of 5 level that they might lose automatic access to future playoffs starting in 2026.

“We’ve got to have access,” Aresco said. “That’s where we draw the line. Without five [AQs] in the future, after 2025, you’re not going to have access necessarily. I would think the Big 12 and others are concerned about that, too.

“I’d talk to my membership if there’s some compromise offered. We haven't discussed it yet. It’s hard right now because nobody knows what’s going on with the Mountain West.”

Aresco anticipates that the two remaining Pac-12 schools will eventually, in some way, merge with the Mountain West. The lingering uncertainty is causing a delay in any deep discussion on a format.

“We need more information,” Swarbrick said. “I know it’s of public interest. There’s nobody in the room saying, ‘Hey, you’ve got to have this discussion right now.’”

In fact, a discussion on a format could extend well into next year, Hancock said. He suggested that officials could wait until the middle of the 2024 season to make the change for the 2024 playoff.

Ambiguity around the Pac-12 situation has created murky waters in the CFP room...."

As I said there is no urgency to decide.

They could wait until mid 2024 to decided autoqualifiers for 2024 according to Bill Hancock. Thus the powers that be could wait all the way up to 2026 for 2026.

The concession I would want wouldn't be a guaranteed autobid but major bowl for each conference champion. Require at least 12 FB members for it (looking at you CUSA). Add the major bowl games as part of the CFP package.

(09-27-2023 06:47 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  As I said there is no urgency to decide.

They could wait until mid 2024 to decided autoqualifiers for 2024 according to Bill Hancock. Thus the powers that be could wait all the way up to 2026 for 2026.

The concession I would want wouldn't be a guaranteed autobid but major bowl for each conference champion. Require at least 12 FB members for it (looking at you CUSA). Add the major bowl games as part of the CFP package.

You can't change the rules in the middle of the season. That was one of the dumber things Hancock has said, and he has said many such things. July 2024 is the deadline.

(09-27-2023 07:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:47 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  As I said there is no urgency to decide.

They could wait until mid 2024 to decided autoqualifiers for 2024 according to Bill Hancock. Thus the powers that be could wait all the way up to 2026 for 2026.

The concession I would want wouldn't be a guaranteed autobid but major bowl for each conference champion. Require at least 12 FB members for it (looking at you CUSA). Add the major bowl games as part of the CFP package.

You can't change the rules in the middle of the season. That was one of the dumber things Hancock has said, and he has said many such things. July 2024 is the deadline.

July 2024 is mid 2024.

(09-27-2023 07:11 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:47 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  As I said there is no urgency to decide.

They could wait until mid 2024 to decided autoqualifiers for 2024 according to Bill Hancock. Thus the powers that be could wait all the way up to 2026 for 2026.

The concession I would want wouldn't be a guaranteed autobid but major bowl for each conference champion. Require at least 12 FB members for it (looking at you CUSA). Add the major bowl games as part of the CFP package.

You can't change the rules in the middle of the season. That was one of the dumber things Hancock has said, and he has said many such things. July 2024 is the deadline.

July 2024 is mid 2024.

That isn't what he said. The direct quote is: "...In fact, a discussion on a format could extend well into next year, Hancock said. He suggested that officials could wait until the middle of the 2024 season to make the change for the 2024 playoff...."

(09-27-2023 07:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:11 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:47 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  As I said there is no urgency to decide.

They could wait until mid 2024 to decided autoqualifiers for 2024 according to Bill Hancock. Thus the powers that be could wait all the way up to 2026 for 2026.

The concession I would want wouldn't be a guaranteed autobid but major bowl for each conference champion. Require at least 12 FB members for it (looking at you CUSA). Add the major bowl games as part of the CFP package.

You can't change the rules in the middle of the season. That was one of the dumber things Hancock has said, and he has said many such things. July 2024 is the deadline.

July 2024 is mid 2024.

That isn't what he said. The direct quote is: "...In fact, a discussion on a format could extend well into next year, Hancock said. He suggested that officials could wait until the middle of the 2024 season to make the change for the 2024 playoff...."

But he didn't say middle of the "FB" season. I interpreted him meaning athletic year e.g. July 1st.

Doesn't matter. The guy looks like he died before the CFP first year. How he is still involved is beyond me.

(09-27-2023 07:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:47 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  As I said there is no urgency to decide.

They could wait until mid 2024 to decided autoqualifiers for 2024 according to Bill Hancock. Thus the powers that be could wait all the way up to 2026 for 2026.

The concession I would want wouldn't be a guaranteed autobid but major bowl for each conference champion. Require at least 12 FB members for it (looking at you CUSA). Add the major bowl games as part of the CFP package.

You can't change the rules in the middle of the season. That was one of the dumber things Hancock has said, and he has said many such things. July 2024 is the deadline.

Of course you can change the rules mid season. Happens all the time. Generally frowned upon but as long as you get the votes it can happen.
Remember that there is no contract on Earth that can't be changed if the parties agree.

(09-27-2023 11:33 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So wait are the other G5s just willingly going along with going to 5-7 immediately?

I could see CUSA and MAC being fine with it. For one, the MAC seems to do whatever the Big 10 wants. Secondly, a 2nd G5 is likely to benefit the AAC and MWC most. So it could lead to some separation within the G5. Only one NY6 team (WMU) has been outside the AAC or MWC. It would be kind of the same thinking as what happened with the 4 team playoff. It created a huge separation between the regulars, Alabama, Georgia, Clemson and Ohio St., and the rest of FBS. And it drove the Pac into the dirt on ratings as they ceased to be relevant. The 2 team BCS didn't do that.

And they could also just be being practical. In a 5/7 without the Pac, they are in a slightly better position than a 6/6 with the Pac. They lost UH, SMU, Cincy and UCF (5 of the 8 NY6 participants) and gained WSU and OSU.

(09-27-2023 07:55 PM)clunk Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 06:47 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  As I said there is no urgency to decide.

They could wait until mid 2024 to decided autoqualifiers for 2024 according to Bill Hancock. Thus the powers that be could wait all the way up to 2026 for 2026.

The concession I would want wouldn't be a guaranteed autobid but major bowl for each conference champion. Require at least 12 FB members for it (looking at you CUSA). Add the major bowl games as part of the CFP package.

You can't change the rules in the middle of the season. That was one of the dumber things Hancock has said, and he has said many such things. July 2024 is the deadline.

Of course you can change the rules mid season. Happens all the time. Generally frowned upon but as long as you get the votes it can happen.
Remember that there is no contract on Earth that can't be changed if the parties agree.

When did it ever happen in sports except for baseball's strike year?
You won't get 134 schools to agree.