(05-03-2021 02:15 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:27 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(05-03-2021 01:19 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  So many details to work out, but here is a thought: if the 5-1-2 model gets approved, and the G5 gets a guaranteed access spot, does the AAC still fight to be disassociated from the G5?

It's a semantics argument - the phrase "group of 5" was written into the NY6 bowl bid. I wouldn't be surprised if the phrase disappears in the next contract.

Having said that, it will be interesting to see exactly how they write the new requirements, especially if the speculation about moving away from having conference champions tied to specific bowls disappears. They'll have to come up with an official term. Presumably the AAC would still argue for inclusion in that club, and if it's not tied to a contracted bowl that was part of the NY6, then they will work to figure out how to be a member of that club.

USFFan

Well, if the P5 are each given an autobid, and there is one guaranteed spot to the teams designated "G5", I would think that the "G5" language would actually very much remain in play. They cannot give a guarantee to say "non-P5 teams" as they would likely include the Independents (unless of course all Independents are strictly categorized as wild card-only participants, or each Independent is treated different; i.e. ND is clearly P5, BYU would likely be P5 as well, but Army, UConn, etc. - who knows). There would need to be set language that specifies the guaranteed "G5" bid annually; how does that get defined? Non-P5? G5? The highest ranked champion of the AAC/MWC/C-USA/MAC/SBC (which still groups the G5 together)? There will be some term that defines it, P5/G5 or not.

Here is why I bring it up. If the AAC wants to contractually (via whatever new CFP agreement is written) distance itself from the G5, then it wouldn't have access to the G5 guaranteed bid. If they did that, which I don't think they will, then they would only be competing for one of the two wild card spots annually (and likely the spots that ND and the runner-ups to the SEC and B1G). Thus, the way I would interpret it at present is that the AAC still needs the G5 (to get the guaranteed access spot), which is interesting since Aresco has continued to say they want to separate from the G5.

As with everything, contract language will be important. And how the terms of the expanded playoff are explained and defined will be immensely important.

The phrase "G5" doesnt exist in the CFP agreement anywhere right now. The term used to differentiate between power conferences getting a "full share" and the G5 conference getting a smaller share is "contract" and "non-contract" conferences.

So--there is no real danger in the AAC's continued effort to seek to distance themselves from the rest of the "G5" (which is basically a shorthand press created term for non-contract). Regardless---the point of the entire exercise from the AAC's point of view is to eventually become an AQ conference (which is unlikely anytime soon---but its a perception changing first step toward AQ---which is a reasonable long term goal to seek).