Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
Author Message
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,197
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #61
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 11:20 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 08:37 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  There is a huge problem with what many are posting here on whether the AAC is Equal to the P5. Many keep posting rankings, wins vs G4 and P5 opponents but really miss the big picture on what it takes to be in that Power group. A BIG name with tradition and huge support. All of the Power leagues have it, the AAC does not.

You take Texas and OU out of Big12 and they are no longer a Power conference bringing in big tv money, they would be at best the AAC.

Since the AAC is not going to get one of those schools anchoring those Power leagues to join, in my book TV money wise it will never be in the same level money wise.

Now the AAC can continue to grow in wining on the field and increasing fan support that would lead to better bowl access, more tv money and CFP access but it would not match the other Power conferences.

That’s why I think most of the fans here realize that the best for the AAC would be the following
1. CFP to expand to 8 with a 5-1-2 break up where the best champion outside of P5 gets a bid and the AAC gets that as often as it currently gets the NY6 bowl.
2. Get a NY6 bowl tie in where our champ could land vs a Power opponent in the case we don’t get CFP spot
3. I think going to 14 and bringing in best football names out there it’s a must, to go to divisions and limit divisional crossover games to 2. This would make it more likely that our championship game would not be a rematch and have both teams ranked.
4. Adding BYU would be main target, they have better fan support than any AAC team or any other option out there, they also have a National Championship in their past., Boise would be second choice and my third would be SDSU because of location, name and support. Big question is would Boise and SDSU be able to put Olympic sports elsewhere as they were planning when joining Big East.

I think if the AAC can get 1,2 done and get ESPN to put in a few more dollars to get the three I mention, that it could happen as money wise and access wise would be comparable to what Boise and SDSU were ok with in Big East time.

But first domino will be CFP expansion, which Aresco said talks will start this year

^This^


Most logical and best scenario for the AAC. This is the strategic plan. I do think there will be a way to include BSU and SDSU olymics if BYU comes along.

California state law would have to be rescinded for that to happen, which I think would be a super-dooooper long-shot.
04-19-2021 01:10 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,491
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #62
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-18-2021 10:35 PM)hammannja Wrote:  The most likely current path to college football play-off expansion is a 6-team play-off. In my opinion, the AAC needs to figure out how to get some sort of conference-champion and Top 8 criteria into a six-team playoff scenario. If any conference champion is Top 8 (this includes the Pac-12, Big 10, AAC, MWC, etc. . . . and maybe even the ACC now that Trevor Lawrence is gone . . . heck, everyone but the SEC), then they get a spot in the play-off even over a higher-ranked second conference team. That should still almost always leave room for Alabama in the Alabama Invitationals in the event they are the second-best team in their conference.

Interesting. When playoff expansion is discussed, it's almost always an 8-team model that is brought up. But, a desire for expansion is obviously not universal among the P5, otherwise we would probably have it right now.

So a six-team model could be a compromise among the various Power leagues. And in that case, as you say, it will be up to the AAC to try and maneuver for a format that gives us the best chance to get a team in to it.

I see any less conventional option (like a 6-team playoff) as very unlikely. Look---the biggest logistics issue with expanding the playoff is time. The time window is limited. Thus, if your going to add an extra week to the playoff (like a 6 team playoff would require), it makes no sense to play less than the maximum number of teams that will fit into that time window. Adding 4 extra teams and a full first round brings more interest, more money, and maximizes the value of the expansion vs the 6-team alternative. Furthermore, if you go to 8 teams rather than 6---the chances of any one league landing 2 teams in the playoff increases---thus---its hard for me to see why any conference would have much incentive to vote for a 6 team playoff over an 8 team playoff if both require the same time frame. Eight means more money and more opportunity to make the playoff.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2021 07:29 PM by Attackcoog.)
04-19-2021 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 659
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #63
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-18-2021 10:35 PM)hammannja Wrote:  The most likely current path to college football play-off expansion is a 6-team play-off. In my opinion, the AAC needs to figure out how to get some sort of conference-champion and Top 8 criteria into a six-team playoff scenario. If any conference champion is Top 8 (this includes the Pac-12, Big 10, AAC, MWC, etc. . . . and maybe even the ACC now that Trevor Lawrence is gone . . . heck, everyone but the SEC), then they get a spot in the play-off even over a higher-ranked second conference team. That should still almost always leave room for Alabama in the Alabama Invitationals in the event they are the second-best team in their conference.

Interesting. When playoff expansion is discussed, it's almost always an 8-team model that is brought up. But, a desire for expansion is obviously not universal among the P5, otherwise we would probably have it right now.

So a six-team model could be a compromise among the various Power leagues. And in that case, as you say, it will be up to the AAC to try and maneuver for a format that gives us the best chance to get a team in to it.

I see any less conventional option (like a 6-team playoff) as very unlikely. Look---the biggest logistics issue with expanding the playoff is time. The time window is limited. Thus, if your going to add an extra week to the playoff (like a 6 team playoff would require), it makes no sense to play less than the maximum number of teams that will fit into that time window. Adding 4 extra teams and a full first round brings more interest, more money, and maximizes the value of the expansion vs the 6-team alternative. Furthermore, if you add 8 teams rather than 6---the chances of any one league landing 2 teams in the playoff increases---thus---its hard for me to see why any conference would have much incentive to vote for a 6 team playoff over an 8 team playoff if both require the same time frame. Eight means more money and more opportunity to make the playoff.

Agreed.

The biggest hurdle is the expanded schedule, where a 6-team playoff adds another round in the exact same manner as an 8-team playoff yet doesn't maximize revenue. The 6-team playoff concept has never made sense to me logistically. I get it from a pure message board competitive standpoint, but if the powers that be are willing to go to 6 teams, then there's pretty much no reason why they wouldn't be willing to go to 8 teams. Now, I think any further expansion beyond 8 teams is extremely unlikely. Once we get to the point where every P5 champ gets a guaranteed playoff spot, the desire to go beyond that is essentially nil for the interests that have power.
04-19-2021 04:56 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TonyTiger06 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 158
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #64
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-16-2021 10:09 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 06:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only new ground in those comments when they were uttered is the idea of going to 14 is acceptable. ... that was an option when the AAC was still the Big East.

I get it - - you're trying to down the significance of his statement, and that's ok with me. I would just point out that:

Even though it it was always "an option," it's not something that the Commissioner had ever talked about publicly before January 21st

.

Nevertheless, if you consider that to be the only new ground in the Commissioner's comments, then I gather that you didn't find this statement by the Commissioner to be the least bit newsworthy or interesting:

"We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."

.

If you didn't find that noteworthy, I can only assume that you're enough of an AAC insider to have known that this has been the situation for quite some time now, and if you were, then it might not have been news to you.

.

It was news to me, however, and that's why I created this thread - - to try to present some helpful ideas about the kinds of strategies that might be implemented successfully.

.

I think that the conference should at least consider expanding to 16 with the support/approval of ESPN, of course. If they will approve eight $8 million per team expansion contract agreement for the remainder of our contract time, I would be cool with it ... 07-coffee3.

If they did, I would be cool with taking 4 all sports team from the mountain west conference and Air Force as a football only member with the Olympic sports team to be determined.

I think that is 16 team conference might experience less growing pangs than just 12 or 14, if we really wanted Boise State.
04-19-2021 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JHS55 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,357
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #65
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 05:37 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 10:09 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 06:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only new ground in those comments when they were uttered is the idea of going to 14 is acceptable. ... that was an option when the AAC was still the Big East.

I get it - - you're trying to down the significance of his statement, and that's ok with me. I would just point out that:

Even though it it was always "an option," it's not something that the Commissioner had ever talked about publicly before January 21st

.

Nevertheless, if you consider that to be the only new ground in the Commissioner's comments, then I gather that you didn't find this statement by the Commissioner to be the least bit newsworthy or interesting:

"We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."

.

If you didn't find that noteworthy, I can only assume that you're enough of an AAC insider to have known that this has been the situation for quite some time now, and if you were, then it might not have been news to you.

.

It was news to me, however, and that's why I created this thread - - to try to present some helpful ideas about the kinds of strategies that might be implemented successfully.

.

I think that the conference should at least consider expanding to 16 with the support/approval of ESPN, of course. If they will approve eight $8 million per team expansion contract agreement for the remainder of our contract time, I would be cool with it ... 07-coffee3.

If they did, I would be cool with taking 4 all sports team from the mountain west conference and Air Force as a football only member with the Olympic sports team to be determined.

I think that is 16 team conference might experience less growing pangs than just 12 or 14, if we really wanted Boise State.

we don’t want Boise State...
04-19-2021 05:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,197
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #66
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
Who is "we"...
04-19-2021 06:39 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pony94 Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 23,859
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 779
I Root For: SMU
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Post: #67
AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
(04-19-2021 05:41 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 05:37 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 10:09 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 06:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only new ground in those comments when they were uttered is the idea of going to 14 is acceptable. ... that was an option when the AAC was still the Big East.

I get it - - you're trying to down the significance of his statement, and that's ok with me. I would just point out that:

Even though it it was always "an option," it's not something that the Commissioner had ever talked about publicly before January 21st

.

Nevertheless, if you consider that to be the only new ground in the Commissioner's comments, then I gather that you didn't find this statement by the Commissioner to be the least bit newsworthy or interesting:

"We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."

.

If you didn't find that noteworthy, I can only assume that you're enough of an AAC insider to have known that this has been the situation for quite some time now, and if you were, then it might not have been news to you.

.

It was news to me, however, and that's why I created this thread - - to try to present some helpful ideas about the kinds of strategies that might be implemented successfully.

.

I think that the conference should at least consider expanding to 16 with the support/approval of ESPN, of course. If they will approve eight $8 million per team expansion contract agreement for the remainder of our contract time, I would be cool with it ... 07-coffee3.

If they did, I would be cool with taking 4 all sports team from the mountain west conference and Air Force as a football only member with the Olympic sports team to be determined.

I think that is 16 team conference might experience less growing pangs than just 12 or 14, if we really wanted Boise State.

we don’t want Boise State...


Might want to talk to the AAC Presidents about your opinion then...
04-19-2021 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,491
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #68
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 04:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-18-2021 10:35 PM)hammannja Wrote:  The most likely current path to college football play-off expansion is a 6-team play-off. In my opinion, the AAC needs to figure out how to get some sort of conference-champion and Top 8 criteria into a six-team playoff scenario. If any conference champion is Top 8 (this includes the Pac-12, Big 10, AAC, MWC, etc. . . . and maybe even the ACC now that Trevor Lawrence is gone . . . heck, everyone but the SEC), then they get a spot in the play-off even over a higher-ranked second conference team. That should still almost always leave room for Alabama in the Alabama Invitationals in the event they are the second-best team in their conference.

Interesting. When playoff expansion is discussed, it's almost always an 8-team model that is brought up. But, a desire for expansion is obviously not universal among the P5, otherwise we would probably have it right now.

So a six-team model could be a compromise among the various Power leagues. And in that case, as you say, it will be up to the AAC to try and maneuver for a format that gives us the best chance to get a team in to it.

I see any less conventional option (like a 6-team playoff) as very unlikely. Look---the biggest logistics issue with expanding the playoff is time. The time window is limited. Thus, if your going to add an extra week to the playoff (like a 6 team playoff would require), it makes no sense to play less than the maximum number of teams that will fit into that time window. Adding 4 extra teams and a full first round brings more interest, more money, and maximizes the value of the expansion vs the 6-team alternative. Furthermore, if you add 8 teams rather than 6---the chances of any one league landing 2 teams in the playoff increases---thus---its hard for me to see why any conference would have much incentive to vote for a 6 team playoff over an 8 team playoff if both require the same time frame. Eight means more money and more opportunity to make the playoff.

Agreed.

The biggest hurdle is the expanded schedule, where a 6-team playoff adds another round in the exact same manner as an 8-team playoff yet doesn't maximize revenue. The 6-team playoff concept has never made sense to me logistically. I get it from a pure message board competitive standpoint, but if the powers that be are willing to go to 6 teams, then there's pretty much no reason why they wouldn't be willing to go to 8 teams. Now, I think any further expansion beyond 8 teams is extremely unlikely. Once we get to the point where every P5 champ gets a guaranteed playoff spot, the desire to go beyond that is essentially nil for the interests that have power.

Agree. I personally think 8 teams---if its a 5-1-2 plan where there is a legitimate access point for the G5---is about as close to a perfect long run compromise as there is to make. I think its a workable solution that could be there a long long time. 04-cheers
04-19-2021 07:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMemphis Away
Official MT.org Ambassador of Smack
*

Posts: 47,266
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 928
I Root For: Univ of Memphis
Location: Bartlett, TN

Donators
Post: #69
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 05:41 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 05:37 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 10:09 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 06:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only new ground in those comments when they were uttered is the idea of going to 14 is acceptable. ... that was an option when the AAC was still the Big East.

I get it - - you're trying to down the significance of his statement, and that's ok with me. I would just point out that:

Even though it it was always "an option," it's not something that the Commissioner had ever talked about publicly before January 21st

.

Nevertheless, if you consider that to be the only new ground in the Commissioner's comments, then I gather that you didn't find this statement by the Commissioner to be the least bit newsworthy or interesting:

"We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."

.

If you didn't find that noteworthy, I can only assume that you're enough of an AAC insider to have known that this has been the situation for quite some time now, and if you were, then it might not have been news to you.

.

It was news to me, however, and that's why I created this thread - - to try to present some helpful ideas about the kinds of strategies that might be implemented successfully.

.

I think that the conference should at least consider expanding to 16 with the support/approval of ESPN, of course. If they will approve eight $8 million per team expansion contract agreement for the remainder of our contract time, I would be cool with it ... 07-coffee3.

If they did, I would be cool with taking 4 all sports team from the mountain west conference and Air Force as a football only member with the Olympic sports team to be determined.

I think that is 16 team conference might experience less growing pangs than just 12 or 14, if we really wanted Boise State.

we don’t want Boise State...

Boise just doesn't look like the same the level of program they were say 5-6 years ago. JMHO
04-19-2021 08:42 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Memphis Yankee Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,689
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Las Vegas
Post: #70
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 06:39 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  Who is "we"...

Yeah, who is we?
04-19-2021 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Memphis Yankee Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,689
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Las Vegas
Post: #71
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 08:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 05:41 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 05:37 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 10:09 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 06:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only new ground in those comments when they were uttered is the idea of going to 14 is acceptable. ... that was an option when the AAC was still the Big East.

I get it - - you're trying to down the significance of his statement, and that's ok with me. I would just point out that:

Even though it it was always "an option," it's not something that the Commissioner had ever talked about publicly before January 21st

.

Nevertheless, if you consider that to be the only new ground in the Commissioner's comments, then I gather that you didn't find this statement by the Commissioner to be the least bit newsworthy or interesting:

"We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."

.

If you didn't find that noteworthy, I can only assume that you're enough of an AAC insider to have known that this has been the situation for quite some time now, and if you were, then it might not have been news to you.

.

It was news to me, however, and that's why I created this thread - - to try to present some helpful ideas about the kinds of strategies that might be implemented successfully.

.

I think that the conference should at least consider expanding to 16 with the support/approval of ESPN, of course. If they will approve eight $8 million per team expansion contract agreement for the remainder of our contract time, I would be cool with it ... 07-coffee3.

If they did, I would be cool with taking 4 all sports team from the mountain west conference and Air Force as a football only member with the Olympic sports team to be determined.

I think that is 16 team conference might experience less growing pangs than just 12 or 14, if we really wanted Boise State.

we don’t want Boise State...

Boise just doesn't look like the same the level of program they were say 5-6 years ago. JMHO

From a competition/name brand, who's a better choice? They're certainly at the top of the land of misfit toys.
04-19-2021 10:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
hammannja Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 12
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 9
I Root For: Houston Cougars
Location:
Post: #72
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 09:58 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  First, your post is way too mature and sober for this board, or most college sports message boards. It's better to be hyper emotional, prone to suggestion, willing to run with any conjecture as fact, be unpersuadable, blinded by hatred for other fans unless they agree with you and as a bonus you should also be a substance abuser.

I think you accurately summarize why I almost never post. But hey, FrankTheTank stepped out of the witness protection program to make a comment relating to my post, so I must be doing something right!

Loved your blog during realignment, Frank! Required reading at the time!

As a personal comment, I think eight makes more sense than six for an expanded play-off. I have heard that the 6-team format was favored over 8 teams, but that was a year or two ago and I can't even source those articles anymore. Moreover, opinions change.

One thing I will mention is a comment apparently attributed to Jim Delany with respect to the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Delany felt that it was his job to serve the best interests of the Big10 Conference and its members, not the best interests of the NCAA membership as a whole. He is reported to have told a conference commissioner of a mid-major conference that providing more access to mid-majors would hurt the access to more Big10 teams in the tournament and therefore he was against it.

Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.
04-20-2021 01:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Online
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,452
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #73
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 04:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 01:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-18-2021 10:35 PM)hammannja Wrote:  The most likely current path to college football play-off expansion is a 6-team play-off. In my opinion, the AAC needs to figure out how to get some sort of conference-champion and Top 8 criteria into a six-team playoff scenario. If any conference champion is Top 8 (this includes the Pac-12, Big 10, AAC, MWC, etc. . . . and maybe even the ACC now that Trevor Lawrence is gone . . . heck, everyone but the SEC), then they get a spot in the play-off even over a higher-ranked second conference team. That should still almost always leave room for Alabama in the Alabama Invitationals in the event they are the second-best team in their conference.

Interesting. When playoff expansion is discussed, it's almost always an 8-team model that is brought up. But, a desire for expansion is obviously not universal among the P5, otherwise we would probably have it right now.

So a six-team model could be a compromise among the various Power leagues. And in that case, as you say, it will be up to the AAC to try and maneuver for a format that gives us the best chance to get a team in to it.

I see any less conventional option (like a 6-team playoff) as very unlikely. Look---the biggest logistics issue with expanding the playoff is time. The time window is limited. Thus, if your going to add an extra week to the playoff (like a 6 team playoff would require), it makes no sense to play less than the maximum number of teams that will fit into that time window. Adding 4 extra teams and a full first round brings more interest, more money, and maximizes the value of the expansion vs the 6-team alternative. Furthermore, if you add 8 teams rather than 6---the chances of any one league landing 2 teams in the playoff increases---thus---its hard for me to see why any conference would have much incentive to vote for a 6 team playoff over an 8 team playoff if both require the same time frame. Eight means more money and more opportunity to make the playoff.

Agreed.

The biggest hurdle is the expanded schedule, where a 6-team playoff adds another round in the exact same manner as an 8-team playoff yet doesn't maximize revenue. The 6-team playoff concept has never made sense to me logistically. I get it from a pure message board competitive standpoint, but if the powers that be are willing to go to 6 teams, then there's pretty much no reason why they wouldn't be willing to go to 8 teams. Now, I think any further expansion beyond 8 teams is extremely unlikely. Once we get to the point where every P5 champ gets a guaranteed playoff spot, the desire to go beyond that is essentially nil for the interests that have power.

The 8-team model makes too much sense to ignore based on the current NY6 setup.

Right now you have 6 NY6 bowls and a moving national championship venue. Right now those 6 bowls rotate through which 2 get to host the semi-final games for the 4 invited teams every year. The rest have their normal conference tie-in games that don't advance.

With an 8-team playoff, you make 4 bowls quarter-finals (8 teams), and make two semi-finals (4-teams). You rotate through which are quarter vs semis each year. So each bowl is a quarter 2 years and a semi 1 year on the 3-year rotation.

Now every NY6 bowl is a playoff game every year. It solves all the conference tie-in issues with those bowls, because they would all vote to be a playoff game every year.

Beyond that, the whole question of 0-8-0, 5-3-0, 5-2-1 is still up for debate.
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2021 07:19 AM by CoastalJuan.)
04-20-2021 07:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Online
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,452
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #74
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 09:58 AM)ultraviolet Wrote:  First, your post is way too mature and sober for this board, or most college sports message boards. It's better to be hyper emotional, prone to suggestion, willing to run with any conjecture as fact, be unpersuadable, blinded by hatred for other fans unless they agree with you and as a bonus you should also be a substance abuser.

I think you accurately summarize why I almost never post. But hey, FrankTheTank stepped out of the witness protection program to make a comment relating to my post, so I must be doing something right!

Loved your blog during realignment, Frank! Required reading at the time!

As a personal comment, I think eight makes more sense than six for an expanded play-off. I have heard that the 6-team format was favored over 8 teams, but that was a year or two ago and I can't even source those articles anymore. Moreover, opinions change.

One thing I will mention is a comment apparently attributed to Jim Delany with respect to the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Delany felt that it was his job to serve the best interests of the Big10 Conference and its members, not the best interests of the NCAA membership as a whole. He is reported to have told a conference commissioner of a mid-major conference that providing more access to mid-majors would hurt the access to more Big10 teams in the tournament and therefore he was against it.

Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I might be naïve here, but I think our conference has a shot at fielding a team in an 8-team all at-large system. Once that happens a couple of times, then the invisible walls start coming down.

I like the idea of earning it vs. being handed it anyway, but would obviously also be pissed in years where I feel like we're being snubbed. It will be interesting to see if the P5 will want a handout auto-bid for THEIR teams in an 8-team format.

Either way, it's a shot, and it's a better one than we're getting now.
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2021 07:27 AM by CoastalJuan.)
04-20-2021 07:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,197
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #75
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
One argument for "all conference champs" instead of the top 8 ranked teams (among several arguments) is that you can do away with the anguish over the BigX and the PacXII by someone's metric not getting in the Rose Bowl to face each other. Forget about pitting 8v1, 7v2, 6v3, and 5v4. Just "return to tradition" and make some new ones with traditional tie-ins. The Fiesta and Peach can always be the semi's. The final can rotate between the 4 older bowl venues, just call it the championship bowl.
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2021 10:05 AM by geosnooker2000.)
04-20-2021 10:04 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
THUNDERStruck73 Offline
Complete Jackass
*

Posts: 9,315
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 522
I Root For: The Herd!!
Location: Huntington, WV
Post: #76
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 05:37 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 10:09 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 06:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only new ground in those comments when they were uttered is the idea of going to 14 is acceptable. ... that was an option when the AAC was still the Big East.

I get it - - you're trying to down the significance of his statement, and that's ok with me. I would just point out that:

Even though it it was always "an option," it's not something that the Commissioner had ever talked about publicly before January 21st

.

Nevertheless, if you consider that to be the only new ground in the Commissioner's comments, then I gather that you didn't find this statement by the Commissioner to be the least bit newsworthy or interesting:

"We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."

.

If you didn't find that noteworthy, I can only assume that you're enough of an AAC insider to have known that this has been the situation for quite some time now, and if you were, then it might not have been news to you.

.

It was news to me, however, and that's why I created this thread - - to try to present some helpful ideas about the kinds of strategies that might be implemented successfully.

.

I think that the conference should at least consider expanding to 16 with the support/approval of ESPN, of course. If they will approve eight $8 million per team expansion contract agreement for the remainder of our contract time, I would be cool with it ... 07-coffee3.

If they did, I would be cool with taking 4 all sports team from the mountain west conference and Air Force as a football only member with the Olympic sports team to be determined.

I think that is 16 team conference might experience less growing pangs than just 12 or 14, if we really wanted Boise State.

If you were going to expand to 16, wouldn’t you have to add another non FB schools as well?
04-20-2021 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 22,197
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 950
I Root For: Tiger Football
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #77
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-20-2021 10:30 AM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  
(04-19-2021 05:37 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 10:09 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 06:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only new ground in those comments when they were uttered is the idea of going to 14 is acceptable. ... that was an option when the AAC was still the Big East.

I get it - - you're trying to down the significance of his statement, and that's ok with me. I would just point out that:

Even though it it was always "an option," it's not something that the Commissioner had ever talked about publicly before January 21st

.

Nevertheless, if you consider that to be the only new ground in the Commissioner's comments, then I gather that you didn't find this statement by the Commissioner to be the least bit newsworthy or interesting:

"We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."

.

If you didn't find that noteworthy, I can only assume that you're enough of an AAC insider to have known that this has been the situation for quite some time now, and if you were, then it might not have been news to you.

.

It was news to me, however, and that's why I created this thread - - to try to present some helpful ideas about the kinds of strategies that might be implemented successfully.

.

I think that the conference should at least consider expanding to 16 with the support/approval of ESPN, of course. If they will approve eight $8 million per team expansion contract agreement for the remainder of our contract time, I would be cool with it ... 07-coffee3.

If they did, I would be cool with taking 4 all sports team from the mountain west conference and Air Force as a football only member with the Olympic sports team to be determined.

I think that is 16 team conference might experience less growing pangs than just 12 or 14, if we really wanted Boise State.

If you were going to expand to 16, wouldn’t you have to add another non FB schools as well?

No. 17 BB schools equals 16 conference games minimum. Go to 20 and play 4 schools twice.
04-20-2021 12:13 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,584
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 149
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #78
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-19-2021 05:37 PM)TonyTiger06 Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 10:09 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(04-16-2021 06:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The only new ground in those comments when they were uttered is the idea of going to 14 is acceptable. ... that was an option when the AAC was still the Big East.

I get it - - you're trying to down the significance of his statement, and that's ok with me. I would just point out that:

Even though it it was always "an option," it's not something that the Commissioner had ever talked about publicly before January 21st

.

Nevertheless, if you consider that to be the only new ground in the Commissioner's comments, then I gather that you didn't find this statement by the Commissioner to be the least bit newsworthy or interesting:

"We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."

.

If you didn't find that noteworthy, I can only assume that you're enough of an AAC insider to have known that this has been the situation for quite some time now, and if you were, then it might not have been news to you.

.

It was news to me, however, and that's why I created this thread - - to try to present some helpful ideas about the kinds of strategies that might be implemented successfully.

.

I think that the conference should at least consider expanding to 16 with the support/approval of ESPN, of course. If they will approve eight $8 million per team expansion contract agreement for the remainder of our contract time, I would be cool with it ... 07-coffee3.

If they did, I would be cool with taking 4 all sports team from the mountain west conference and Air Force as a football only member with the Olympic sports team to be determined.

I think that is 16 team conference might experience less growing pangs than just 12 or 14, if we really wanted Boise State.

Won't work without BYU all sports and a minimum of $10 million per all sports school in the conference. The AAC would have to gut the MWC for 4 teams to rebalance the western division and clearly bypass / over shadow the NBE in BB in the process too. "Ain't gonna" happen. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2021 12:24 PM by panite.)
04-20-2021 12:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,063
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1260
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #79
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2021 12:25 PM by quo vadis.)
04-20-2021 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Online
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,452
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #80
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(04-20-2021 12:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-20-2021 01:49 AM)hammannja Wrote:  Within the discussion of college football play-off expansion, the goal of both the Big10 and the SEC may be to increase the chances of getting additional Big10 and SEC teams into the playoffs while not watering down the per game pay-offs. Nothing more, nothing less. It is likely not about some notion of access or fairness. A G-5 auto-bid might reasonably be perceived as counter-productive to their leagues' goals and picking an expanded format that removes this option as a possibility might be where the two most important conferences in college football settle. And if that's where these two conferences settle, I suspect that is where expansion will settle.

Totally unfair, yes. But the commissioners are charged by their Boards of Governors with thinking about the interests of their member schools, not the interests of college football as a whole. The same can be said for Aresco.

I tend to think that is correct, and it is a point that gets missed around here. On these boards, the overwhelming belief seems to be that an 8-team playoff with a 5-1-2 structure, one that guarantees an autobid to a G5 team, is the most likely outcome of playoff expansion. It's also a favorite of sportswriters, because it allows them to take a "populist stance" against the perceived established powers of the sport.

But I have my doubts, for the reason you expressed - that may not maximize the benefits to the SEC and B1G, the two 800-pound gorillas of college football.

That gets missed on football boards because 5-1-2 would obviously benefit the G5, and the AAC likely most of all, and of course on this forum and others around here, G5 and AAC fans tend to predominate. But that doesn't mean this view reflects the views of those who will make the decisions.

Seems like the Big 10 and SEC (the SEC at least) would be the most likely recipients of the 2 in that scenario. Doesn't seem like two more at-large opportunities would hurt them. The recipient last year would have been Texas A&M or Florida(assuming Oklahoma and USC are shifted into the mix with titles).
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2021 02:00 PM by CoastalJuan.)
04-20-2021 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.