(04-23-2021 02:54 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote: I'll just leave this here for now.
Maybe later this weekend I'll explain how MULTIPLE scenarios -- not just 5-1-2 -- can end with AAC P6 success (that is, formal inclusion in the CFP or a contract with a CFP bowl)
What are the multiple CFP scenarios that could get the AAC a successful result for the P6 campaign and the current strategic plan?
One overarching point, we're not talking about being granted autonomy in NCAA governance structure. If you've defined success in your strategy by something completely outside your control (a vote you're not guaranteed to win), then you've written a flawed strategy. Besides, the AAC has already dealt with autonomy. When those five conferences were granted autonomy, the AAC response was "We will do everything the the autonomous conferences do." It's woven through the Strategic Plan. Things like full cost of attendance are examples, and are already separating the AAC from the other non-contract-bowl conferences.
Second over-arching point, "P6" is about formal inclusion in the CFP structure and/or a contract relationship with one of the Bowls in the CFP arrangement. The CFP has never said "P5" - the CFP talks about conferences with a contract arrangement with the CFP bowls (the NY6) and conferences without a contract with an NY6 bowl.
6-2
Obviously, an 8-team playoff which was written to give bids to the champions of the AAC, ACC, Big10, Big12, PAC12, and SEC plus two at-large would be a win for the AAC "P6" campaign. The path to that would be continued performance and results over the next four to five years such that the CFP deciders -- ESPN, the governance body of 10 conferences plus ND, and the bowl partners -- acknowledged that the AAC deserved to be there. This is not likely to happen.
5-1-2
A lot of discussion about this, and it seems to have some likelihood of being the model. AAC Commissioner Aresco was reportedly a driving force in including access to the NY6 for non-contract-bowl conferences, and the AAC has benefited. NY6 bowl bids 5 of 7 years. The AAC has separated from the G4 and should be a regular participant in a 5-1-2 CFP.
The counter-argument to this model being selected has been that the contract-bowl-conferences would argue against losing a spot to an auto-bid non-contract-bowl conference champion. Who would have gotten bumped out if this structure had been in place in the seven years of the CFP?
2020: #7 UF (8-3), would not have been the third SEC team. But they would have been bumped by #25, Oregon (4-2) not by #8 Cincinnati
2019: #8 Wisconsin (10-3) would not have been a second Big10 team, bumped by #17 Memphis
2018: #7 Michigan (10-2) would not have been a second Big10 team, but they would have been bumped by #9 Washington (10-3) not #8 UCF
2017: #7 Auburn (10-3) would not have been a third SEC team, bumped by #12 undefeated UCF
2016: #8 Wisconsin (10-3) would not have been a fourth Big10 team, bumped by undefeated #15 WMU
2015: #8 ND (10-2) would have been bumped by one-loss #18 Houston
2014: #8 Michigan State (10-2) would have been bumped by #20 Boise State.
Looking at the last five years, the argument is "Our third best team with three losses should have gotten in!" That is an argument with flaws.
Anyway, 5-1-2 would probably be good for the AAC, but would be a limited success - no guaranteed inclusion falls short of truly accomplishing P6.
5-3
Five conference champions and three at-large would definitely benefit the AAC if that structure specifies the
five best ranked conference champions. In two of the last three years, the AAC champ has been the fifth-highest ranked champion. In 2020 and 2018 Cincinnati and UCF would have been in the playoff as the #5 conference champion, ahead of the PAC12. One can make the argument that the CFP Committee would just rank the AAC champion lower - that might have taken place in 2018 with #9 Washington getting a committee ranking ahead of #8 UCF, but in 2020, the PAC12 champion was #25.
If a 5-3 is set up as "top 5 conference champions" rather than just 5 contract-bowl-conference champions, then the chance for the AAC champion to get to the playoff without an auto-bid is a little stronger case for "P6" even than a 5-1-2, with a "participation trophy," but it would still be a limited success for the P6 campaign - not formal inclusion in the CFP over the G4s.
Straight 8
Some posit an 8-team playoff without conference championship requirements, taking the top 8 teams as ranked by the CFP committee, much like the current 4-team playoff.
On one hand, Cincinnati at #8 in 2020 and UCF at #8 in 2018 would have been included in the playoff if this structure had been in place in those years. Cynics would say that if this structure had been in place those years, the committee "eye test" would have magically had those teams at #9 instead of #8, putting those undefeated teams behind 2-loss UGA (a fourth SEC team in the CFP) and 3-loss Washington...those cynics may be right.
And, the top-8 structure would not be success in and of itself because it would not formally include the AAC in the CFP construct. However, we now turn to the other potential successful endstate of the P6 campaign...
NY6 to NY8 or NY10
An 8-team playoff would almost certainly expand the bowl participants in the CFP arrangement.
The Rose, Sugar, and Orange Bowls' payouts to their contract partners -- the SEC, Big10, PAC12, Big12, and ACC -- represent a significant chunk of the money the conferences get from the CFP construct. Those bowls are going to resist anything that diminishes their importance, like being relegated to quarterfinal status and a new round of semi-finals being inserted outside their control, like the current CFP invitational tournament final. So those three plus the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta will have a voice in the conference setup. Most likely, two or more Bowls will get a Golden Ticket to be added to the CFP construct.
So think about a Straight 8 structure...depending on how rotations are set up, the top eight ranked teams could be committed, and contractual backfills to the Rose, Sugar, Orange could take the teams in the #9-#15 range...the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta or whichever other bowls are added to the NYx CFP structure, could have at-large CFP slots, but be looking at relatively low-ranked teams. In that case, a contract with the AAC - average final CFP ranking of #11 over the last 3-4 years - could grant them some certainty. Cross-promote the AAC all year and work with ESPN who has a contract with your bowl and with the AAC...Locking in #9 Cincinnati (if a magical committe eye test slid them down) instead of #25 Oregon or worse a WMU-like team might look pretty good to those bowls in negotiations in 2024 if the AAC continues current performance.
An NYx contract like that would almost certainly be less money for the AAC than the big five have with the Rose/Sugar/Orange. It could be conditional on ranking like the old "BCS-buster" criteria (off the cuff, higher than #15). It could exempt the Bowl from a backfill -- if they're not a quarterfinal/semifinal but the AAC champ does select the bowl is not obligated to take the next best AAC choice. But even if it's less money and gives the bowl escape clauses, that would be contract-bowl-conference status and formal inclusion in the CFP and therefore P6 success.
I posit this in a Straight 8 scenario, but the same logic on the part of the Cotton/Peach/Fiesta/NYx bowls could still apply in a 5-3 (top five ranked champions), or even a 5-1-2 scenario.