(04-30-2021 12:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, people are overthinking this a bit. As far as AAC strategy is concerned, we only need to focus on one thing - getting the G5 an autobid in any expanded playoff, because we will likely dominate that spot, which will go a long way towards making "P6" a defacto reality. Which is itself a step towards making it a formal reality.

Now sure, as an opening gambit, Aresco might want to ask for an AAC auto-slot, because that's even better of course. But, that approach has pros and cons. The pro- is that it allows the AAC to seem reasonable by then accepting the rejection of that (and it surely would be rejected) and falling back to a G5 autobid position.

The danger is that it would create a rift with the other G4, making them more suspicious of the AAC. Because that's the real rub here: Ironically, the AAC likely will need the G conferences in order to achieve the goal of separating itself from the G conferences, meaning achieving P6. That's basically how the AAC has moved forward with the P6 agenda so far- leveraging the G-dedicated NY6 autobid to raise its profile and claim that it is not in fact a G-conference.

So the AAC needs a unified G-front to push for that G-autobid. If the entire G groups pushes for that, it likely succeeds. If they do not, if it becomes just an AAC thing, it likely fails.

That means keeping those other G suckers in line, because frankly, the other G conferences would be wise to oppose a G5 autobid that does not include something like a play-in game involving two G conference champs. Because the AAC will likely dominate that bid, allowing it to separate from the other Gs, weakening them as a result.

So on balance, IMO the wisest move would to not push for an AAC autobid, but rather immediately rally the other Gs behind a single G5 auto-bid in an expanded playoffs.

As for dealing with the P5, the main issue that could derail a G5 auto-bid is if an 8-team playoff (with P5 autobids) is pushed, because the SEC and B1G may likely be unwilling to surrender one of three valuable at-large slots to the G-group. Heck, factoring in Notre Dame, that really could mean giving the Gs one of two remaining possible at-large spots, and that's bad for them.

So IMO Aresco should push for a 12-team playoff, with a 5-1-6 model. This will achieve the coveted G5 autobid, and satisfy the Ps, who will have more chances to get more at-large teams in.

I absolutely agree with the bolded first paragraph. That couldnt be more correct. I also think your final conclusion is not unreasoanble.

That said--I think your overthinking this concern with the other G5's and a possible riff with the G4. The reality is Aresco should try for a guaranteed slot for the AAC. He's unlikely to get it---but a conference commissioner should act in his conference's own best interests first and foremost. If there is a G4 rift---so what? The G4 isnt going to vote against a G5 slot and the P5 isnt going to give a slot to the G4 and leave the AAC out (the point is to avoid anti-trust issues and leaving out the AAC creates an anit-trust issue). Thus, the feelings the of G4 are irrelevant (hell---they might each be asking for their champs to get auto bids too--and they should be).

My belief? Regardless of whether the AAC can attain its own autobid or not---to me--the Aresco strategy (as well as the rest of the G5) should be to push for the largest playoff possible. I'd push for 16---there is literally no difference in time frame between the 12 team and 16 team options---and 16 games offers more slots and more money. The larger the playoff---the more likely a dedicated AAC slot is, the more likely a guaranteed G5 slot is, and the more likely the G5 is to participate even if its a "straight 16" format. Advocate for the biggest format possible should be the AAC strategy.