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
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,476
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #181
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-03-2021 02:10 PM)dave108 Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 07:19 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

Are you joking? Schedule a game with BYU at YOUR stadium, 1,500 miles from Provo. and re-assess this comment the next day.

I do agree that Boise with a harder schedule and worse record has way diminished value. BYU, however, will come in with a 1-6 record and fill a third of your stadium, which means that their fans everywhere else are watching on TV.

no kidding. BYU played at UC a few years ago, and I was amazed how many BYU fans were there. too bad it was when the senator was still (nominally) coaching, which led to BYU kicking the crap out of UC that day.

Right. The value of BYU is not really in dispute. They currently make about the same on their contract as ESPN pays each of us for ours, so they are probably a unanimous add if they wanted to be our 12th, and would be in the top half in value immediately.
05-03-2021 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Alanda Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 963
Joined: May 2019
Reputation: 99
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #182
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-02-2021 03:51 PM)colohank Wrote:  Boise and BYU are must-see TV? Maybe in the 1-15/I-84 corridor, but in the existing AAC footprint, I doubt many viewers give a hoot about either school or its fortunes.

After what happened between Memphis and BYU in their bowl game, I think that could provide a little something for the conference.



05-03-2021 06:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,318
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #183
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-03-2021 01:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 01:24 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  
(04-21-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-21-2021 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(04-20-2021 01:54 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
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).

That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. From a P5 standpoint, there will be 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher of literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but its far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

I like a 6 team playoff with the top G-6 (Cincinnati) in play. The format of a bye for the top two teams means that the top G-6 (six seed) will be paired up against the three seed. Beating the three seed and advancing to playing the two seed would be a nice path to playing in the championship game.

Six teams sounds like it is probably among the least likely formats from what I just read.

This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of ths the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion.

Three interesting things---MOST CFP Management members (10 conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD) were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion. This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning. And of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

Very interesting article - thanks for posting.

One of the keys will be whether those who say that they are "open" to the idea of expansion are just saying that to be diplomatic, or whether they are really "open."

There are 11 members. Here's the breakdown:

5 G5 Presidents
6 P5 Presidents (including Notre Dame's President)

It is said in the article that 5 are definitely in favor of expansion, including the AAC and PAC-12 representatives who are most strongly supporting expansion.

Presumably, the other 3 in support of expansion are G5 Presidents.

Q: How many votes do the Presidents have?

There was a recent post stating that the G5 Presidents have 1 vote apiece, and the P5 Presidents each have 2 votes. That's all I know - it may or may not be the case.

If it is true, then here's how the vote would go:

Total votes: 5 (G5) + 12 (P5) votes = 17 total votes.

5 in favor (4 have 1 vote apiece; 1 has 2 votes) = 6 total votes (4 G5, 1 P5).

3 say they are are "open" to the idea: probably 5 votes (2 P5, 1 G5).

3 are noncommittal or opposed to expansion: probably 6 votes (3 P5s).

.

It looks like a tie vote at this point, with the tie being broken by the Presidents that say they are "open" to expansion.

If they are just saying that they're "open" to the idea of expansion, but would actually oppose the specific expansion proposals, then a vote to expand would fail.

To win a vote, the pro-expansion group would need 3 more votes (presumably 1 from the G5 President and 2 from one of the P5 Presidents who say they're "open" to expansion).

Q: Which two P5 Presidents are most likely to be "open" to expansion?

A: The Big Ten and Big 12 Presidents.

Q: Why?

A: Because there have been two CFPs without a Big 12 team (2016, 2020) and two CFPs without a Big 10 team (2017, 2018) in the past five years.

The ACC, Notre Dame, and SEC Presidents would have no particular reason to support expansion.

.

In order for a motion to expand to pass, the Big Ten and/or Big 12 President on the Board might have to support the motion.

The prospects for expansion would be a lot rosier if each of the 11 Presidents have one vote. In that case, the six G5 and PAC-12 Presidents would constitute a majority.

.
05-04-2021 01:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #184
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-04-2021 01:29 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 01:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 01:24 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  
(04-21-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(04-21-2021 10:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
That's one way to look at it. Another is that a guaranteed spot for the G5 - or for any of the other P5 for that matter - could take a spot away from yet another SEC or B1G team.

Under 5-1-2, and using CFP rankings as a guide, in 2020, Florida would have missed the playoffs due to the PAC champ getting in. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs due to the G5 team (Memphis) getting in.

Those are sports those conferences may not want to give up, and thus prefer a straight-8 model or 5-3 model.

But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. From a P5 standpoint, there will be 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher of literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but its far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

I like a 6 team playoff with the top G-6 (Cincinnati) in play. The format of a bye for the top two teams means that the top G-6 (six seed) will be paired up against the three seed. Beating the three seed and advancing to playing the two seed would be a nice path to playing in the championship game.

Six teams sounds like it is probably among the least likely formats from what I just read.

This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of ths the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion.

Three interesting things---MOST CFP Management members (10 conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD) were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion. This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning. And of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

Very interesting article - thanks for posting.

One of the keys will be whether those who say that they are "open" to the idea of expansion are just saying that to be diplomatic, or whether they are really "open."

There are 11 members. Here's the breakdown:

5 G5 Presidents
6 P5 Presidents (including Notre Dame's President)

It is said in the article that 5 are definitely in favor of expansion, including the AAC and PAC-12 representatives who are most strongly supporting expansion.

Presumably, the other 3 in support of expansion are G5 Presidents.

Q: How many votes do the Presidents have?

There was a recent post stating that the G5 Presidents have 1 vote apiece, and the P5 Presidents each have 2 votes. That's all I know - it may or may not be the case.

If it is true, then here's how the vote would go:

Total votes: 5 (G5) + 12 (P5) votes = 17 total votes.

5 in favor (4 have 1 vote apiece; 1 has 2 votes) = 6 total votes (4 G5, 1 P5).

3 say they are are "open" to the idea: probably 5 votes (2 P5, 1 G5).

3 are noncommittal or opposed to expansion: probably 6 votes (3 P5s).

.

It looks like a tie vote at this point, with the tie being broken by the Presidents that say they are "open" to expansion.

If they are just saying that they're "open" to the idea of expansion, but would actually oppose the specific expansion proposals, then a vote to expand would fail.

To win a vote, the pro-expansion group would need 3 more votes (presumably 1 from the G5 President and 2 from one of the P5 Presidents who say they're "open" to expansion).

Q: Which two P5 Presidents are most likely to be "open" to expansion?

A: The Big Ten and Big 12 Presidents.

Q: Why?

A: Because there have been two CFPs without a Big 12 team (2016, 2020) and two CFPs without a Big 10 team (2017, 2018) in the past five years.

The ACC, Notre Dame, and SEC Presidents would have no particular reason to support expansion.

.

In order for a motion to expand to pass, the Big Ten and/or Big 12 President on the Board might have to support the motion.

The prospects for expansion would be a lot rosier if each of the 11 Presidents have one vote. In that case, the six G5 and PAC-12 Presidents would constitute a majority.

.

I think that vote depends on the format and on the cash offer from ESPN. You may have missed it—but for the playoff to be modified early—the vote must be unanimous.
05-04-2021 01:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,318
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 145
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #185
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-04-2021 01:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 01:29 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 01:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 01:24 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  
(04-21-2021 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
But with respect to Wisconsin---the Pac12 WOULD favor it because the Pac-12 champ would have been INCLUDED. The fact is, every P5 has been left out except the SEC. From a P5 standpoint, there will be 3 more slots open to P5's EVERY year than there are now. The problem the P5 has is the current argument that "the G5 is eligible for the playoff" will be dead after 12 years of the Selection Committee saying the undefeated G5's simply dont have the strength of schedule to be ranked that high. Effectively, the structure of the CFP is saying the G5 is not eligible. Furthermore, making it a 8 team playoff---while leaving the selection committee heavily tilted in favor of P5 representation simply makes it more likely that the 9th ranking slot will become the new G5 "glass ceiling" as promoting a G5 above that rank will cost a P5 conference a slot.

The problem is there is no real way to determine relative strength when a team wins all its games against a weaker schedule. All we know is they were better than everyone they played. What we HAVE seen is that when tested against top 10 P5 team's that did play a tough P5 schedule---these undefeated G5 teams are generally quite competitive and quite often win. Thus, in light of the fact G5's can do little to make their schedules look like a P5 schedule---and in light of fact that the top G5 representative when tested has proven worthy far more often than not---there is really no logical argument to continue with any system that will essentially forever lock out the top finisher of literally half of the FBS conferences.

Giving each P5 champion a playoff slot and awarding the top G5 champ a playoff slot (effectively treating the entire 65 member G5 the same as one power conference) may not be the perfect answer---but its far more reasonable and equitable than the current system. To me---its the only logical compromise that makes much sense.

I like a 6 team playoff with the top G-6 (Cincinnati) in play. The format of a bye for the top two teams means that the top G-6 (six seed) will be paired up against the three seed. Beating the three seed and advancing to playing the two seed would be a nice path to playing in the championship game.

Six teams sounds like it is probably among the least likely formats from what I just read.

This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of ths the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion.

Three interesting things---MOST CFP Management members (10 conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD) were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion. This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning. And of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

Very interesting article - thanks for posting.

One of the keys will be whether those who say that they are "open" to the idea of expansion are just saying that to be diplomatic, or whether they are really "open."

There are 11 members. Here's the breakdown:

5 G5 Presidents
6 P5 Presidents (including Notre Dame's President)

It is said in the article that 5 are definitely in favor of expansion, including the AAC and PAC-12 representatives who are most strongly supporting expansion.

Presumably, the other 3 in support of expansion are G5 Presidents.

Q: How many votes do the Presidents have?

There was a recent post stating that the G5 Presidents have 1 vote apiece, and the P5 Presidents each have 2 votes. That's all I know - it may or may not be the case.

If it is true, then here's how the vote would go:

Total votes: 5 (G5) + 12 (P5) votes = 17 total votes.

5 in favor (4 have 1 vote apiece; 1 has 2 votes) = 6 total votes (4 G5, 1 P5).

3 say they are are "open" to the idea: probably 5 votes (2 P5, 1 G5).

3 are noncommittal or opposed to expansion: probably 6 votes (3 P5s).

.

It looks like a tie vote at this point, with the tie being broken by the Presidents that say they are "open" to expansion.

If they are just saying that they're "open" to the idea of expansion, but would actually oppose the specific expansion proposals, then a vote to expand would fail.

To win a vote, the pro-expansion group would need 3 more votes (presumably 1 from the G5 President and 2 from one of the P5 Presidents who say they're "open" to expansion).

Q: Which two P5 Presidents are most likely to be "open" to expansion?

A: The Big Ten and Big 12 Presidents.

Q: Why?

A: Because there have been two CFPs without a Big 12 team (2016, 2020) and two CFPs without a Big 10 team (2017, 2018) in the past five years.

The ACC, Notre Dame, and SEC Presidents would have no particular reason to support expansion.

.

In order for a motion to expand to pass, the Big Ten and/or Big 12 President on the Board might have to support the motion.

The prospects for expansion would be a lot rosier if each of the 11 Presidents have one vote. In that case, the six G5 and PAC-12 Presidents would constitute a majority.

.

I think that vote depends on the format and on the cash offer from ESPN. You may have missed it—but for the playoff to be modified early—the vote must be unanimous.

I was thinking that perhaps they would vote first on whether to expand and second on the format, but if they can't agree on a format, perhaps there would be no point in a preliminary vote on whether to expand.

As far as a cash offer from ESPN, my guess would be that they're not going to offer any more than they have to. Thus, if the only way to get an approval would hinge on getting a wheel barrow full of cash, it wouldn't seem likely to happen, especially with ESPN's coffers being dented by the pandemic.

As far as a unanimous vote is concerned, requiring a unanimous vote is tantamount to giving veto power to any President that wishes to oppose an expansion proposal.

They're all talking nicely about being open-minded right now, but they're just trying to be diplomatic right now. When crunch time comes, if anyone is opposed to expansion, they could simply nix it by being the 1 vote against the proposal, and that would be that.

As upbeat as the article was, many of the positive things were said may turn out to be nothing more than a pretense or a smokescreen.

Now, I can understand why Commissioner Aresco was so pessimistic and frustrated about the situation.

.
05-04-2021 03:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,476
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #186
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-04-2021 03:21 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 01:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 01:29 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 01:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 01:24 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  I like a 6 team playoff with the top G-6 (Cincinnati) in play. The format of a bye for the top two teams means that the top G-6 (six seed) will be paired up against the three seed. Beating the three seed and advancing to playing the two seed would be a nice path to playing in the championship game.

Six teams sounds like it is probably among the least likely formats from what I just read.

This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of ths the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion.

Three interesting things---MOST CFP Management members (10 conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD) were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion. This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning. And of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

Very interesting article - thanks for posting.

One of the keys will be whether those who say that they are "open" to the idea of expansion are just saying that to be diplomatic, or whether they are really "open."

There are 11 members. Here's the breakdown:

5 G5 Presidents
6 P5 Presidents (including Notre Dame's President)

It is said in the article that 5 are definitely in favor of expansion, including the AAC and PAC-12 representatives who are most strongly supporting expansion.

Presumably, the other 3 in support of expansion are G5 Presidents.

Q: How many votes do the Presidents have?

There was a recent post stating that the G5 Presidents have 1 vote apiece, and the P5 Presidents each have 2 votes. That's all I know - it may or may not be the case.

If it is true, then here's how the vote would go:

Total votes: 5 (G5) + 12 (P5) votes = 17 total votes.

5 in favor (4 have 1 vote apiece; 1 has 2 votes) = 6 total votes (4 G5, 1 P5).

3 say they are are "open" to the idea: probably 5 votes (2 P5, 1 G5).

3 are noncommittal or opposed to expansion: probably 6 votes (3 P5s).

.

It looks like a tie vote at this point, with the tie being broken by the Presidents that say they are "open" to expansion.

If they are just saying that they're "open" to the idea of expansion, but would actually oppose the specific expansion proposals, then a vote to expand would fail.

To win a vote, the pro-expansion group would need 3 more votes (presumably 1 from the G5 President and 2 from one of the P5 Presidents who say they're "open" to expansion).

Q: Which two P5 Presidents are most likely to be "open" to expansion?

A: The Big Ten and Big 12 Presidents.

Q: Why?

A: Because there have been two CFPs without a Big 12 team (2016, 2020) and two CFPs without a Big 10 team (2017, 2018) in the past five years.

The ACC, Notre Dame, and SEC Presidents would have no particular reason to support expansion.

.

In order for a motion to expand to pass, the Big Ten and/or Big 12 President on the Board might have to support the motion.

The prospects for expansion would be a lot rosier if each of the 11 Presidents have one vote. In that case, the six G5 and PAC-12 Presidents would constitute a majority.

.

I think that vote depends on the format and on the cash offer from ESPN. You may have missed it—but for the playoff to be modified early—the vote must be unanimous.

I was thinking that perhaps they would vote first on whether to expand and second on the format, but if they can't agree on a format, perhaps there would be no point in a preliminary vote on whether to expand.

As far as a cash offer from ESPN, my guess would be that they're not going to offer any more than they have to. Thus, if the only way to get an approval would hinge on getting a wheel barrow full of cash, it wouldn't seem likely to happen, especially with ESPN's coffers being dented by the pandemic.

As far as a unanimous vote is concerned, requiring a unanimous vote is tantamount to giving veto power to any President that wishes to oppose an expansion proposal.

They're all talking nicely about being open-minded right now, but they're just trying to be diplomatic right now. When crunch time comes, if anyone is opposed to expansion, they could simply nix it by being the 1 vote against the proposal, and that would be that.

As upbeat as the article was, many of the positive things were said may turn out to be nothing more than a pretense or a smokescreen.

Now, I can understand why Commissioner Aresco was so pessimistic and frustrated about the situation.

.

I see it happening in some form. The overwhelming majority of the parties involved have something to gain from expansion. Even the obvious detractors (SEC Commissioner mainly), can only ignore the universal appeal of expansion among the viewers and their fatigue with the current system for so long.
05-04-2021 08:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Atlanta Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,365
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 526
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Metro Atlanta
Post: #187
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going to be."
$$ will likely be the determining factor. The SEC will want to know they have a good chance to get a 2nd-3rd team in at large. The PAC-12 want a guaranteed slot (as do all of the P-5). And even the ACC will have a different prospective the first time Clemson fails to win the ACC or has two losses - either case will likely result in the ACC being left out under current format. Absent agreement to expand, the P-5 might just consider to reallocate payouts to make the left out P-5 conference feel placated.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2021 09:53 AM by Atlanta.)
05-04-2021 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 35,513
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1897
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #188
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-04-2021 03:21 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 01:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 01:29 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 01:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-03-2021 01:24 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  I like a 6 team playoff with the top G-6 (Cincinnati) in play. The format of a bye for the top two teams means that the top G-6 (six seed) will be paired up against the three seed. Beating the three seed and advancing to playing the two seed would be a nice path to playing in the championship game.

Six teams sounds like it is probably among the least likely formats from what I just read.

This is an article by SI that was written after actually speaking with all but one of the 1 member of ths the CFP Management Committee about playoff expansion.

Three interesting things---MOST CFP Management members (10 conference commissioners + Notre Dame's AD) were for expansion. NONE were definitely against expansion. This exploration of expansion has been going on for 27 months. So---we are much closer to end of the process than the beginning. And of great interest here---the concept of auto bids for the P5 champs and the top G5 champ apparently has pretty broad support among the committee members.

https://www.si.com/.amp/college/2021/05/...ssion=true

Very interesting article - thanks for posting.

One of the keys will be whether those who say that they are "open" to the idea of expansion are just saying that to be diplomatic, or whether they are really "open."

There are 11 members. Here's the breakdown:

5 G5 Presidents
6 P5 Presidents (including Notre Dame's President)

It is said in the article that 5 are definitely in favor of expansion, including the AAC and PAC-12 representatives who are most strongly supporting expansion.

Presumably, the other 3 in support of expansion are G5 Presidents.

Q: How many votes do the Presidents have?

There was a recent post stating that the G5 Presidents have 1 vote apiece, and the P5 Presidents each have 2 votes. That's all I know - it may or may not be the case.

If it is true, then here's how the vote would go:

Total votes: 5 (G5) + 12 (P5) votes = 17 total votes.

5 in favor (4 have 1 vote apiece; 1 has 2 votes) = 6 total votes (4 G5, 1 P5).

3 say they are are "open" to the idea: probably 5 votes (2 P5, 1 G5).

3 are noncommittal or opposed to expansion: probably 6 votes (3 P5s).

.

It looks like a tie vote at this point, with the tie being broken by the Presidents that say they are "open" to expansion.

If they are just saying that they're "open" to the idea of expansion, but would actually oppose the specific expansion proposals, then a vote to expand would fail.

To win a vote, the pro-expansion group would need 3 more votes (presumably 1 from the G5 President and 2 from one of the P5 Presidents who say they're "open" to expansion).

Q: Which two P5 Presidents are most likely to be "open" to expansion?

A: The Big Ten and Big 12 Presidents.

Q: Why?

A: Because there have been two CFPs without a Big 12 team (2016, 2020) and two CFPs without a Big 10 team (2017, 2018) in the past five years.

The ACC, Notre Dame, and SEC Presidents would have no particular reason to support expansion.

.

In order for a motion to expand to pass, the Big Ten and/or Big 12 President on the Board might have to support the motion.

The prospects for expansion would be a lot rosier if each of the 11 Presidents have one vote. In that case, the six G5 and PAC-12 Presidents would constitute a majority.

.

I think that vote depends on the format and on the cash offer from ESPN. You may have missed it—but for the playoff to be modified early—the vote must be unanimous.

I was thinking that perhaps they would vote first on whether to expand and second on the format, but if they can't agree on a format, perhaps there would be no point in a preliminary vote on whether to expand.

As far as a cash offer from ESPN, my guess would be that they're not going to offer any more than they have to. Thus, if the only way to get an approval would hinge on getting a wheel barrow full of cash, it wouldn't seem likely to happen, especially with ESPN's coffers being dented by the pandemic.

As far as a unanimous vote is concerned, requiring a unanimous vote is tantamount to giving veto power to any President that wishes to oppose an expansion proposal.

They're all talking nicely about being open-minded right now, but they're just trying to be diplomatic right now. When crunch time comes, if anyone is opposed to expansion, they could simply nix it by being the 1 vote against the proposal, and that would be that.

As upbeat as the article was, many of the positive things were said may turn out to be nothing more than a pretense or a smokescreen.

Now, I can understand why Commissioner Aresco was so pessimistic and frustrated about the situation.

.

Two points.

1). The vote must be unanimous to expand the CFP before the current deal expires. That’s because there is already an existing signed contract. An existing contract can only be altered if ALL parties agree to alter it. However, once this current deal runs its course, CFP expansion can happen with a simple majority. In other words—it’s going to happen sooner or later—-but it’s probably no more than 5 or 6 years away...and could be sooner.

2). Don’t underestimate the size of the budget hole left by Covid and it’s affect on schools budgets. Furthermore, Covid will likely still be a factor regarding stadium capacity into 2021-2022 in many areas. Also keep in mind, this budget hole is happening in an environment where many states are cutting back on higher education funding. At the end of the day, conferences are made up of individual schools and those individual school presidents are the ones charting the path for the conference. Do not be surprised if this is a vote that ends up being less about “big picture conference strategy” issues and hinges more on "little picture finances at the individual school level" issues.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2021 10:24 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-04-2021 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,153
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 559
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #189
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-04-2021 03:21 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  I was thinking that perhaps they would vote first on whether to expand and second on the format, but if they can't agree on a format, perhaps there would be no point in a preliminary vote on whether to expand.

As far as a cash offer from ESPN, my guess would be that they're not going to offer any more than they have to. Thus, if the only way to get an approval would hinge on getting a wheel barrow full of cash, it wouldn't seem likely to happen, especially with ESPN's coffers being dented by the pandemic.

As far as a unanimous vote is concerned, requiring a unanimous vote is tantamount to giving veto power to any President that wishes to oppose an expansion proposal.

They're all talking nicely about being open-minded right now, but they're just trying to be diplomatic right now. When crunch time comes, if anyone is opposed to expansion, they could simply nix it by being the 1 vote against the proposal, and that would be that.

As upbeat as the article was, many of the positive things were said may turn out to be nothing more than a pretense or a smokescreen.

Now, I can understand why Commissioner Aresco was so pessimistic and frustrated about the situation.

.

Wut?

Where is pessimistic/frustrated?

Here is the April 2021 quote, WITH WHICH YOU KICKED OFF THIS ENTIRE THREAD

(04-16-2021 04:34 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco Believes The College Football Playoff Will Expand

“There will be discussions coming up in a few weeks at the CFP meetings. Do I think some proposals will be made regarding an expanded playoff – yes. Do I think down the road it could well happen – yes.”
AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco on playoff expansion

— Paul Finebaum (@finebaum) April 7, 2021

(jedclampett's original post edited here - I didn't pick up on it earlier, but the finebaum tweet with the Aresco quote ended there...jedclampett included the quote below, which is actually attributable to the Daily Caller article's author, David Hookstead. jedclampett additionally emphasized (italics/bold) the "when will it happen? I have no idea..." excerpt)

"As I’ve said too many times to count, the playoff is 100% going to expand. It’s absolutely going to happen. Now, when will it happen? I have no idea..."

https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/07/aac-c...ly-expand/

Was the pessimism/frustration the 14 March "crossroads" remarks?
Because we've addressed that already - it was a couple minutes of response to a question (during the basketball conference tourney presser), it didn't say anything that hadn't been the Commissioner's messaging for years, it actually was talking about separation from the G4 not conference expansion -- that separation has always been a key line of effort in the P6 AAC strategy.
Heck, one minute and twenty seconds before the first use of the word "crossroads" Commissioner Aresco says "In terms of the future of the conference...I am bullish on our prospects." And then one minute and thirty seconds after the first use of the word "crossroads" Commissioner Aresco says "I think there's a great future for this league." That's the opposite of pessimism and frustration.

He does touch on CFP expansion:
"If the playoff expands, we are going to have to fight hard for an automatic bid, because a two-loss team in our conference I think is often the best team in the so-called Group of Five. We get lumped into that back at the very beginning, when, again, people weren't even sure our conference would survive, and we've clearly outgrown it...we have a TV deal that gives us tremendous exposure...I see a bright future for the league, but we are at a turning point. We definitely have to get out of the situation we're in."
That's identifying the problem, talking about the way ahead, and doing so with "I see a bright future" not with pessimism or frustration.

Then he says about "frustration":
"As you know its very frustrating when they talk about non-power, and then you win a championship, you win a big bowl game, you do the things we're doing, of course we're powerful. But unfortunately that's a term that got coined and we have to deal with it. "
Frustration with the 2013 to present lumping in as "Group of Five" same as he's said for 6 years. Not with the probability/pace of CFP expansion.

Then back to the second and final mention of CFP expansion, as well as second use of the word "crossroads":
"I think the future is bright, I really do, but we are at a crossroads, we've got to figure out in the next year or two, if that playoff gets expanded, we've got to be at the table."
Note the acceptance of a non-immediate time frame, in the next year or two. No impatience here, or frustration with the pace.
And that's where the "gotta figure out" line comes in.

See posts #7 and #17 in this thread.
05-04-2021 11:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,476
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 199
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #190
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-04-2021 11:26 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 03:21 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  I was thinking that perhaps they would vote first on whether to expand and second on the format, but if they can't agree on a format, perhaps there would be no point in a preliminary vote on whether to expand.

As far as a cash offer from ESPN, my guess would be that they're not going to offer any more than they have to. Thus, if the only way to get an approval would hinge on getting a wheel barrow full of cash, it wouldn't seem likely to happen, especially with ESPN's coffers being dented by the pandemic.

As far as a unanimous vote is concerned, requiring a unanimous vote is tantamount to giving veto power to any President that wishes to oppose an expansion proposal.

They're all talking nicely about being open-minded right now, but they're just trying to be diplomatic right now. When crunch time comes, if anyone is opposed to expansion, they could simply nix it by being the 1 vote against the proposal, and that would be that.

As upbeat as the article was, many of the positive things were said may turn out to be nothing more than a pretense or a smokescreen.

Now, I can understand why Commissioner Aresco was so pessimistic and frustrated about the situation.

.

Wut?

Where is pessimistic/frustrated?

Here is the April 2021 quote, WITH WHICH YOU KICKED OFF THIS ENTIRE THREAD

(04-16-2021 04:34 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco Believes The College Football Playoff Will Expand

“There will be discussions coming up in a few weeks at the CFP meetings. Do I think some proposals will be made regarding an expanded playoff – yes. Do I think down the road it could well happen – yes.”
AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco on playoff expansion

— Paul Finebaum (@finebaum) April 7, 2021

(jedclampett's original post edited here - I didn't pick up on it earlier, but the finebaum tweet with the Aresco quote ended there...jedclampett included the quote below, which is actually attributable to the Daily Caller article's author, David Hookstead. jedclampett additionally emphasized (italics/bold) the "when will it happen? I have no idea..." excerpt)

"As I’ve said too many times to count, the playoff is 100% going to expand. It’s absolutely going to happen. Now, when will it happen? I have no idea..."

https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/07/aac-c...ly-expand/

Was the pessimism/frustration the 14 March "crossroads" remarks?
Because we've addressed that already - it was a couple minutes of response to a question (during the basketball conference tourney presser), it didn't say anything that hadn't been the Commissioner's messaging for years, it actually was talking about separation from the G4 not conference expansion -- that separation has always been a key line of effort in the P6 AAC strategy.
Heck, one minute and twenty seconds before the first use of the word "crossroads" Commissioner Aresco says "In terms of the future of the conference...I am bullish on our prospects." And then one minute and thirty seconds after the first use of the word "crossroads" Commissioner Aresco says "I think there's a great future for this league." That's the opposite of pessimism and frustration.

He does touch on CFP expansion:
"If the playoff expands, we are going to have to fight hard for an automatic bid, because a two-loss team in our conference I think is often the best team in the so-called Group of Five. We get lumped into that back at the very beginning, when, again, people weren't even sure our conference would survive, and we've clearly outgrown it...we have a TV deal that gives us tremendous exposure...I see a bright future for the league, but we are at a turning point. We definitely have to get out of the situation we're in."
That's identifying the problem, talking about the way ahead, and doing so with "I see a bright future" not with pessimism or frustration.

Then he says about "frustration":
"As you know its very frustrating when they talk about non-power, and then you win a championship, you win a big bowl game, you do the things we're doing, of course we're powerful. But unfortunately that's a term that got coined and we have to deal with it. "
Frustration with the 2013 to present lumping in as "Group of Five" same as he's said for 6 years. Not with the probability/pace of CFP expansion.

Then back to the second and final mention of CFP expansion, as well as second use of the word "crossroads":
"I think the future is bright, I really do, but we are at a crossroads, we've got to figure out in the next year or two, if that playoff gets expanded, we've got to be at the table."
Note the acceptance of a non-immediate time frame, in the next year or two. No impatience here, or frustration with the pace.
And that's where the "gotta figure out" line comes in.

See posts #7 and #17 in this thread.

Can't say enough how much I appreciate you contributing to this forum.

[Image: giphy.gif?cid=790b76111a7a3c5c17a2d2ba73...p;amp;ct=g]
05-04-2021 11:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,580
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 584
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #191
RE: AAC at a crossroads: "We’re trying to figure out what our strategy is going ...
(05-04-2021 11:38 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 11:26 AM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  
(05-04-2021 03:21 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  I was thinking that perhaps they would vote first on whether to expand and second on the format, but if they can't agree on a format, perhaps there would be no point in a preliminary vote on whether to expand.

As far as a cash offer from ESPN, my guess would be that they're not going to offer any more than they have to. Thus, if the only way to get an approval would hinge on getting a wheel barrow full of cash, it wouldn't seem likely to happen, especially with ESPN's coffers being dented by the pandemic.

As far as a unanimous vote is concerned, requiring a unanimous vote is tantamount to giving veto power to any President that wishes to oppose an expansion proposal.

They're all talking nicely about being open-minded right now, but they're just trying to be diplomatic right now. When crunch time comes, if anyone is opposed to expansion, they could simply nix it by being the 1 vote against the proposal, and that would be that.

As upbeat as the article was, many of the positive things were said may turn out to be nothing more than a pretense or a smokescreen.

Now, I can understand why Commissioner Aresco was so pessimistic and frustrated about the situation.

.

Wut?

Where is pessimistic/frustrated?

Here is the April 2021 quote, WITH WHICH YOU KICKED OFF THIS ENTIRE THREAD

(04-16-2021 04:34 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco Believes The College Football Playoff Will Expand

“There will be discussions coming up in a few weeks at the CFP meetings. Do I think some proposals will be made regarding an expanded playoff – yes. Do I think down the road it could well happen – yes.”
AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco on playoff expansion

— Paul Finebaum (@finebaum) April 7, 2021

(jedclampett's original post edited here - I didn't pick up on it earlier, but the finebaum tweet with the Aresco quote ended there...jedclampett included the quote below, which is actually attributable to the Daily Caller article's author, David Hookstead. jedclampett additionally emphasized (italics/bold) the "when will it happen? I have no idea..." excerpt)

"As I’ve said too many times to count, the playoff is 100% going to expand. It’s absolutely going to happen. Now, when will it happen? I have no idea..."

https://dailycaller.com/2021/04/07/aac-c...ly-expand/

Was the pessimism/frustration the 14 March "crossroads" remarks?
Because we've addressed that already - it was a couple minutes of response to a question (during the basketball conference tourney presser), it didn't say anything that hadn't been the Commissioner's messaging for years, it actually was talking about separation from the G4 not conference expansion -- that separation has always been a key line of effort in the P6 AAC strategy.
Heck, one minute and twenty seconds before the first use of the word "crossroads" Commissioner Aresco says "In terms of the future of the conference...I am bullish on our prospects." And then one minute and thirty seconds after the first use of the word "crossroads" Commissioner Aresco says "I think there's a great future for this league." That's the opposite of pessimism and frustration.

He does touch on CFP expansion:
"If the playoff expands, we are going to have to fight hard for an automatic bid, because a two-loss team in our conference I think is often the best team in the so-called Group of Five. We get lumped into that back at the very beginning, when, again, people weren't even sure our conference would survive, and we've clearly outgrown it...we have a TV deal that gives us tremendous exposure...I see a bright future for the league, but we are at a turning point. We definitely have to get out of the situation we're in."
That's identifying the problem, talking about the way ahead, and doing so with "I see a bright future" not with pessimism or frustration.

Then he says about "frustration":
"As you know its very frustrating when they talk about non-power, and then you win a championship, you win a big bowl game, you do the things we're doing, of course we're powerful. But unfortunately that's a term that got coined and we have to deal with it. "
Frustration with the 2013 to present lumping in as "Group of Five" same as he's said for 6 years. Not with the probability/pace of CFP expansion.

Then back to the second and final mention of CFP expansion, as well as second use of the word "crossroads":
"I think the future is bright, I really do, but we are at a crossroads, we've got to figure out in the next year or two, if that playoff gets expanded, we've got to be at the table."
Note the acceptance of a non-immediate time frame, in the next year or two. No impatience here, or frustration with the pace.
And that's where the "gotta figure out" line comes in.

See posts #7 and #17 in this thread.

Can't say enough how much I appreciate you contributing to this forum.

[Image: giphy.gif?cid=790b76111a7a3c5c17a2d2ba73...p;amp;ct=g]

Now picturing slhNavy91 as Jay-Z

[Image: giphy.gif]

If you havin' jed problems I feel bad for you son
I got 99 problems but his 01-rivals ain't one

USFFan
05-05-2021 09:08 AM
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.