(01-14-2022 12:04 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:56 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-14-2022 11:53 AM)orangefan Wrote:  My guess is that the ACC is absolutely committed to getting automatic qualification for its champion as part of any expansion, and will oppose expansion without it.

If anything I think this would strengthen the resolve of the others to go with 6-6 at the end of the contract and force the ACC's hand.

If the Big 10 can be pacified and it is 9 v 1 the ACC will have no choice but to join in as they are not strong enough to hold up expansion reform on their own.

That’s not how an alliance works. And I think the Big Ten and PAC knew that about the ACC when they all got in bed together. The other two can just simply shift some blame away from them on this front.

And I suspect, more now that we see where the differences are even between the PAC and ACC, that this “alliance” has little hinging them together. The common thread is just none of the three want a new model at this time proposed by others without them at the start.

The part that may really infuriate me is if we still get 6/6 or 5/1/6 out of this but it comes down the line and done “the right way” with those blockheads in the room. That this will all have been done due to being upset about procedure. Aggrieved by the appearance and optics of what was previously attempted.

I don’t think the AAC and PAC are strategically misaligned at all. Both commissioners publically want to wait until the contract is up and the alliance can try to shove 5 + 6 + 1 down the working groups throat. The only difference is public PR strategy. The ACC is upfront and the PAC is on the “wasn’t me” campaign.