Nobody wants it. Most fans of them Power schools did not attend the Power schools. You're asking them to abandon decades of tradition and root for the school they actually attended. We can blame the media but the reality is most fans are perfectly ok with a world where Ohio State and Alabama and Clemson or the like end up in the playoff again. And they are perfectly ok with morning drive radio being 97% devoted to Old State U.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(04-21-2021 01:23 PM)panama Wrote:  Nobody wants it. Most fans of them Power schools did not attend the Power schools. You're asking them to abandon decades of tradition and root for the school they actually attended. We can blame the media but the reality is most fans are perfectly ok with a world where Ohio State and Alabama and Clemson or the like end up in the playoff again. And they are perfectly ok with morning drive radio being 97% devoted to Old State U.

"most fans are perfectly ok with a world where Ohio State and Alabama and Clemson or the like end up in the playoff again."

That's just conjecture, without factual basis.

There is strong and growing sentiment against continuing the 4-team CFP.

.

(04-22-2021 02:43 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 01:23 PM)panama Wrote:  Nobody wants it. Most fans of them Power schools did not attend the Power schools. You're asking them to abandon decades of tradition and root for the school they actually attended. We can blame the media but the reality is most fans are perfectly ok with a world where Ohio State and Alabama and Clemson or the like end up in the playoff again. And they are perfectly ok with morning drive radio being 97% devoted to Old State U.

"most fans are perfectly ok with a world where Ohio State and Alabama and Clemson or the like end up in the playoff again."

That's just conjecture, without factual basis.

There is strong and growing sentiment against continuing the 4-team CFP.

I'm not going to waste any more time reading or responding to the authors who write a steady stream of generally distracting and pointless posts.

.

I think he is correct depending on which region of the country you look at. It is certainly true here in Memphis, where a plurality of Memphis grads seem to be content rooting for TN or Ole Miss, or Alabama in football, but when it's basketball season, they seem to be nothing but Blue and Grey. It's disgusting.

.

So glad to have him on "ye olde ignore list."

(04-22-2021 02:43 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 01:23 PM)panama Wrote:  Nobody wants it. Most fans of them Power schools did not attend the Power schools. You're asking them to abandon decades of tradition and root for the school they actually attended. We can blame the media but the reality is most fans are perfectly ok with a world where Ohio State and Alabama and Clemson or the like end up in the playoff again. And they are perfectly ok with morning drive radio being 97% devoted to Old State U.

"most fans are perfectly ok with a world where Ohio State and Alabama and Clemson or the like end up in the playoff again."

That's just conjecture, without factual basis.

There is strong and growing sentiment against continuing the 4-team CFP.

.

You're kidding right?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(04-22-2021 02:57 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:43 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(04-21-2021 01:23 PM)panama Wrote:  Nobody wants it. Most fans of them Power schools did not attend the Power schools. You're asking them to abandon decades of tradition and root for the school they actually attended. We can blame the media but the reality is most fans are perfectly ok with a world where Ohio State and Alabama and Clemson or the like end up in the playoff again. And they are perfectly ok with morning drive radio being 97% devoted to Old State U.

"most fans are perfectly ok with a world where Ohio State and Alabama and Clemson or the like end up in the playoff again."

That's just conjecture, without factual basis.

There is strong and growing sentiment against continuing the 4-team CFP.

I'm not going to waste any more time reading or responding to the authors who write a steady stream of generally distracting and pointless posts.

.

I think he is correct depending on which region of the country you look at. It is certainly true here in Memphis, where a plurality of Memphis grads seem to be content rooting for TN or Ole Miss, or Alabama in football, but when it's basketball season, they seem to be nothing but Blue and Grey. It's disgusting.

And I certainly am not saying I like it. But to act like that isn not the reality is to just stick your head in the sand.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

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)

So I am going to post totally unsupported supposition but...

I think part of why (many years back) BSU became a ESPN darling for a while was PARTLY because some people wanted a Cinderella underdog to root for. Obviously not everyone but enough to provide value to ESPN.

And partly because we were able and willing to play time slots no one else was willing to fill and that was able to capture a least a little bit of interest in those otherwise down timeslots.

(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)

And now they can officially say... we considered it... Sorry about the pessimism.

Yes there are a number of scenarios that the AAC could pursue that could put them in a better position if change happens. Part of the problem is getting the cart or the horse first.

None of us wants to make a change before we know what the results would be but you will not be in the position to get the results you want unless you are in a strongest position possible to acquire those results.

(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)

The Athletic story appears to be out from behind the paywall

(04-23-2021 03:20 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  

(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)

And now they can officially say... we considered it... Sorry about the pessimism.

Yes there are a number of scenarios that the AAC could pursue that could put them in a better position if change happens. Part of the problem is getting the cart or the horse first.

None of us wants to make a change before we know what the results would be but you will not be in the position to get the results you want unless you are in a strongest position possible to acquire those results.

Good post. I am also pessimistic about our shared situation (that being the AAC, BYU Boise, SDSU, AFA and yes maybe even Gonzaga). We as a group are going to have to get the balls to take the last viable conference (the AAC) and supercharge it by combining forces and trust that it'll be enough to if not make it to the p5 level then to atleast create a very defined separation from the G4. I think this could become a situation where as they say "If you build it they will come ". If believe that could end up becoming our only real leverage left to use towards getting an AQ into an expanded playoffs. They could take the 5-1-2 setup and use it as a way to reassign the AAC as something more than the g4 by giving it built in special considerations for the non-p5 slot while on paper still leaving it vulnerable for an occasional g4 champ that's on a special run. That on paper would be a step forward for the other g4 conferences while protecting espn and the bowl bigwigs from possibility of an EMU or FIU killing them financially.

I assume whatever change that will eventually be made, it will include guaranteed slots for each of the P-5 conferences with a total of 8-10-12 or 16 schools in total. Don't agree with that approach but it's virtually certain to occur. So I'm resigned to it but would like for there to be a caveat for that initial privilege - that if one of the guaranteed slots teams lose to a school from a non-guaranteed slots conference that non-guaranteed conference assumes the guaranteed slots until that conference losses a first round playoff game in subsequent seasons. So let's say Cincy wins the AAC and gets to the playoff by virtue of being the G-5 rep. Then Cincy beats the PAC-12 champ in the first playoff round. For the next year(s) thereafter, if the AAC champs continues to win it's guaranteed first round game it continues to maintain the guaranteed slot that previously had been a P-5 conference champ (that showed by losing it wasn't deserved). This approach at least provides some continued benefit for the AAC or another conference for knocking off a P-5 conference champ & keeps everyone motivated.

(04-14-2021 09:43 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  2020 was a bit of an anomaly because many major conferences weren’t playing until halfway through or season.

But they were still in the rankings

"That on paper would be a step forward for the other g4 conferences while protecting espn and the bowl bigwigs from possibility of an EMU or FIU killing them financially. "

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(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.

(04-25-2021 11:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(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.

[b]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 P[/b]6.

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.

The truth is---I can live with being the top G5 in a 5-1-2 playoff world. "P6" really means---we are one of the top 6 conferences in FBS. Most years thats already true. But in a 5-1-2 world---more often than not---being number the #6 conference means we are sending a team to the playoff. Honestly---if we as AAC members have a legit path to the play off on opening day of every season---then the whole P5-G5 thing is much less of issue to me.

Dont get me wrong---Im still all for pursuing full fledged power conference status as it means more money, better bowls, and more prestige---but the biggest disadvantage in recruiting and popularity were driven by being perceived as "outside of the CFP race" for all practical purposes.

If you can actually get to the play off from a AAC school---then the recruiting calculus changes for a ton of talented kids that were looking at second and third tier P5 schools. The truth is, it may be much easier to make the playoff from someplace like UCF or Houston than it is from someplace like Texas Tech or Ole Miss. Over time---that one difference in recruiting perception will, over time, change the way the AAC is seen on the field and by the general public. True legit P6 status for the AAC could literally have its genesis in the adoption of the 5-1-2 playoff format.

The truth is---I can live with being the top G5 in a 5-1-2 playoff world. "P6" really means---we are one of the top 6 conferences in FBS. Most years thats already true. But in a 5-1-2 world---more often than not---being number the #6 conference means we are sending a team to the playoff. Honestly---if we as AAC members have a legit path to the play off on opening day of every season---then the whole P5-G5 thing is much less of issue to me.

Dont get me wrong---Im still all for pursuing full fledged power conference status as it means more money, better bowls, and more prestige---but the biggest disadvantage in recruiting and popularity were driven by being perceived as "outside of the CFP race" for all practical purposes.

If you can actually get to the play off from a AAC school---then the recruiting calculus changes for a ton of talented kids that were looking at second and third tier P5 schools. The truth is, it may be much easier to make the playoff from someplace like UCF or Houston than it is from someplace like Texas Tech or Ole Miss. Over time---that one difference in recruiting perception will, over time, change the way the AAC is seen on the field and by the general public. True legit P6 status for the AAC could literally have its genesis in the adoption of the 5-1-2 playoff format.
[/quote]

Coug, you are capturing a lot of my thoughts right there. Just my opinion, but I think the path forward is in single steps. jumping to the top of the ladder is not going to happen (I do not know why I mention that because everyone here has already dismissed that high a jump as impossible)

I think the only question is where are the steps.

I would postulate:

1) differentiate from non-autos
2) push for a 5-1-2
if it ends up a 5-3 or an 8 or whatever... make it work.
3) capture the 1 every year
4) recruit like you can take it all.
5) Take it all at some point.
6) negotiate new contracts more money
7) repeat

I am also using this opportunity to show boat my complete ineptness... I still have not figured out how to properly do these "quote cleanups" And I still have not figured out how to give people rep points....

I am old and stupid.

(04-27-2021 02:39 PM)4xGrad Wrote:  I am also using this opportunity to show boat my complete ineptness... I still have not figured out how to properly do these "quote cleanups" And I still have not figured out how to give people rep points....

I am old and stupid.

It's all good. Are you on a computer, or your phone? The phone makes it a lot harder.

(04-25-2021 11:09 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(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)

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.

Seems to me like the 6 NY6 bowls would probably be agreeable to a 3-year rotation where they would be a quarter-final game 2 years and a semi-final for 1. You'd have to think that a quarter-final would get better ratings than a go-nowhere bowl.

You're the right man to ask this question. Would #6 Oregon vs. #8 Wisconsin with no stakes be a bigger draw than (for example) #8 Cindy vs. #5 Texas A&M with a semi-final birth on the line, even if that game gets the "less favorable" G5 rep (I realize the seeding would likely be different, just throwing examples around)? We don't know the answer because it hasn't happened, but the semi-finals have pulled 2-4x the ratings numbers of the non-playoff NY6 bowls in recent years.