(05-30-2019 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 02:15 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 01:15 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 09:13 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 09:07 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  Per a UConn Twitter account:


https://twitter.com/uconnfbfacts/status/...17219?s=12

They can’t do that without requiring the CCG rules to be revised, right? My recollection is that when the Big XII got its revision it said that a league can only have no divisions AND a CCG if you have fewer than 12 teams and you play a round robin schedule, 12 or more teams require divisions.

The requirement is a round robin schedule for divisions. Either one big one (big 12) or two small ones (sunbelt).

also with two divisions (and you can only have two) the division winners must be in the CCG so you cannot have the two highest ranked teams unless those teams win their divisions also

you can only have the highest ranked teams if you play a full conference round robin (or if the highest ranked happen to win their divisions as said before)

the Big 10 added that requirement to screw the ACC and keep them from having 3 divisions and a CCG with the two highest ranked teams

Which is why it’s odd that the Big10 was exploring the same option. Of everyone, the Big10 should be the most aware of the fact that it’s functionally impossible for the 14 team Big10 to play a full round robin (that would require 13 regular season games).

What stood out for me about Aresco's comments was his pushing for both an expanded playoffs and for a contract bowl - which must mean a spot in an NY6 bowl or that mythical "7th bowl" - for the AAC.

The latter wouldn't make much sense if Aresco thought an expanded playoffs would automatically include the AAC champ, or even if it automatically included the top G5 team. If the former, there's no need for it at all. And if the latter, he has to know there is zero chance of it happening, because basically, a contract bowl would be a fall-back in case the AAC champ is not the top G5 team and thus misses the playoffs, but no real "contract bowl" is going to want an AAC champ that wasn't ranked high enough to be the G5 champ.

So to me, this means Aresco is likely thinking that if we expand to 8, there won't be an auto-spot for the G5 in it. This would enable him to make a pitch to an NY6 (or new) contract-level bowl and say "yes, there's always a chance our champ will make the playoffs, but realistically, the vast majority of years, you will be getting out top team".

Yeah---I dont see that. Honestly, the two are not related. A contract bowl is ENTIRELY contingent on finding a network willing to pay 30-40 million (minimum) for the rights to a CFP Bowl featuring the AAC champ. On the other hand, the CFP slot for the G5 is based more on avoiding anti-trust issues. If expansion to 8 is done in conjunction with P5 champs getting an automatic bid---then the chances that the G5 will get a guaranteed slot are quite high. If P5 champs are not AQ---then there likely will not be a guaranteed slot reserved for the G5 or the AAC. An AAC contract bowl has little to do with that calculus.