(04-22-2021 12:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Personally, I like it (much more so than an NCAA Tournament-style playoff where every conference gets an auto-bid), but definitely believe the length of this playoff plus the killing of the bowls would realistically make this impossible to implement.

In terms of providing some more access (but not total open access), I’d personally allow the 2 best G5 champs play each other on Championship Weekend and the winner gets a playoff spot. Note that this would require the G5 leagues to determine their champs by Thanksgiving weekend (and possibly give up their own conference championship games). The G5 can split all of the TV and ticket revenue from that “G5 Championship” game. While this doesn’t provide total access to each G5 champ, it at least opens up more chances for each G5 league and keeps more teams in the playoff hunt for longer into the season. (I’m a very big believer that the playoff *race* is actually much more important to keeping the maximum number of fans engaged compared to who actually ends up making the playoff.)

Exactly! Which is one reason why I think the 5-1-2 is such a good system. It efficiently manages to fully engage 65 fan bases (almost half of the FBS teams) with just 1 slot. It makes every P5 conference race important. It adds context to even G5 conference races. And finally, it keeps the "beauty contest" debate factor alive in the wild card and G5 champ selection process---lol---so the "beauty contest" purist still have something to argue about all year.

I agree, although an 11 team playoff isn't a bad way to get more inclusion (not that they will go to 11 immediately).
P5 champs
top 3 of the G5
3 wildcards

P5 seeded into quarterfinals. Wildcards and 3 G5 champs have a mid-December playin round. You could also have 4 G5 champs, encouraging the 5 leagues to consolidate into 4 with only 2 wildcards.

(04-22-2021 01:07 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Personally, I like it (much more so than an NCAA Tournament-style playoff where every conference gets an auto-bid), but definitely believe the length of this playoff plus the killing of the bowls would realistically make this impossible to implement.

In terms of providing some more access (but not total open access), I’d personally allow the 2 best G5 champs play each other on Championship Weekend and the winner gets a playoff spot. Note that this would require the G5 leagues to determine their champs by Thanksgiving weekend (and possibly give up their own conference championship games). The G5 can split all of the TV and ticket revenue from that “G5 Championship” game. While this doesn’t provide total access to each G5 champ, it at least opens up more chances for each G5 league and keeps more teams in the playoff hunt for longer into the season. (I’m a very big believer that the playoff *race* is actually much more important to keeping the maximum number of fans engaged compared to who actually ends up making the playoff.)

This.

It might not ever be implemented by the powers-that-be, but 8 teams with autobids for P5 champs plus the winner of that G5 champs game would be a significant step forward from 4 teams.

I love this,but how about each conference winner in g5 moves up and every bottom feeder in p5 moves down. Almost like a farm system. Then winning will be rewarded and every p5 hanger on will have to get better. Then you will have equality. Hell, do it in every sport. This would be AWESOME but the p5 would not have the cahoonas to do it. Every fan base would be engaged

Sort of like the European soccer leagues do

I am serious
Syracuse football would have went to american
Vanderbilt to sun belt
Illinois to mac
Kansas to conference usa
Arizona to mt west

No big loss just win to stay and then...

Cincinnati to acc
Coastal carolina to sec
Uab to big 12
Ball st to big 10
San jose st to pac 12

Great chance for g5 If you want to stay don't finish last. Independents could either join a conference or wait for an at large bid. Do it in every sport and college sports would completely be off the chains

No, G5 schools don't deserve a shot. Only those who have had exceptional seasons. Right now they have no path. This would give teams having a very strong year a path.

The only other way is top 8, all at-large. 2018 UCF might have gotten in, but somehow I think the politics would have led the committee to swap #9 Washington ahead of them. (2020 was a weird year, so not certain how Cincy would have fared in that #8 spot). But this would only be a once in awhile access.

This is not going the way of the NCAA tournament where seeds 49-68 are one bid conference champions. You create a BYU and Liberty problem in addition to the ND problem, and necessitate a much bigger playoff with a lot more at large spots. That's not happening, and it's not desirable, nor optimal.

The advantages of the proposed 5 +2 +1 are:
1) Every P5 Champion gets in
2) Every P5 CCG is important
3) A real path is open for an annual spot to the top two non-P5 schools
4) A compelling G5 Championship game is created
5) Two spots are open for P5 schools not conference champions (Notre Dame's path)

Obviously the top two non-P5 schools (G5 plus UConn, BYU, Liberty -- Army will opt out in favor of Navy game and vis versa) would have to pass on their CCG as they have a more important game instead.

The logistics of the G5 play-in game would have to be worked out (I'm sure ESPN would want that game), as well as a Bowl placement for the loser, since this G5 playoff spot eliminates the necessity for a NY6 access spot for the G5. My WAG is the Play-In game would be hosted by the higher ranked team. And I'm sure a 2nd tier Bowl (not a 3rd tier most G5 play-in, but a middle level game against say the 3rd P12 or ACC school sort of thing) can be contracted to accept the loser. Otherwise the G5 Bowl spots would be held up for a week awaiting the result of the Play-In game.

(04-23-2021 12:04 PM)jaybird44 Wrote:  I am serious
Syracuse football would have went to american
Vanderbilt to sun belt
Illinois to mac
Kansas to conference usa
Arizona to mt west

No big loss just win to stay and then...

Cincinnati to acc
Coastal carolina to sec
Uab to big 12
Ball st to big 10
San jose st to pac 12

Great chance for g5 If you want to stay don't finish last. Independents could either join a conference or wait for an at large bid. Do it in every sport and college sports would completely be off the chains

150% never ever happening. We see this promotion/relegation concept proposed ALL OF THE TIME on this board and it's a non-starter.

The P5 is about (1) 100% guarantees without any chance whatsoever of relegation (so in a sense, the Super League concept) and (2) being with the "right crowd" of likeminded institutions.

Ohio State *wants* schools like Illinois: large state flagships with top academics that brings in markets like Chicago and St. Louis for the Big Ten Network. The fact that we aren't actually very good at football isn't even a bad thing for them - they get all of the financial, academic and geographic recruiting benefits of our presence and also get more wins in the process.

Same thing with Vanderbilt with respect to the SEC (an academically elite school directly located in a large market). The other schools that you listed are all top tier basketball programs (and in the case of Kansas, a true blue blood that makes more tier 3 revenue in the Big 12 than any other school except for Texas).

These are schools that still provide value to conferences even when they go 0-12 in football. In fact, they're vastly more valuable from a conference realignment perspective than a 12-0 Ball State or Coastal Carolina team, even if that may not necessarily be fair from a competitive perspective. That's simply how the P5 looks at everything. - the Big Ten and SEC aren't just collections of schools, but actual *brands* (see how media publications will refer to "Big Ten schools" similar to Ivy League schools even when referring to stories outside of sports) and they need schools that fit those brands outside of year-to-year football results.

12 teams. All conference champs and 2 at large
Top 4 byes
Next 4 host the last 4 in the first round
That is the only all inclusive way to do this
Not that hard boys and girls

(04-23-2021 12:27 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  12 teams. All conference champs and 2 at large
Top 4 byes
Next 4 host the last 4 in the first round
That is the only all inclusive way to do this
Not that hard boys and girls

Of course it's "not that hard" from your perspective. It's sort of like when a politician proposes something and says, "It's not that hard!" even though the reality is that 50% of the country disagrees with it.

At the end of the day, question #1 for every single playoff proposal should be: "Would the Big Ten and SEC support this?" Unless you can argue that a system will increase their revenue and *relative* power, then it's DOA. A lot of people mistakenly just think increasing revenue is enough, but the *relative* power increase is even more important. Giving $10 more dollars to the Big Ten and SEC is irrelevant to them if the G5 leagues get $20 more dollars. Instead, what the Big Ten Ten and SEC need is $100 more dollars for every $20 that the G5 receives (or more).

It's not about what the G5 wants - whether it's fair or not, they're going to be bystanders in this here. The G5 would be fortunate to get one dedicated slot for their best champ in an 8-team playoff. That's the reality that the G5 needs to push for here. Anything more than that is simply not going to happen.

Is that classist? Yes! Remember that we're dealing with the most elitist and snobbiest profession in America: academia. Having an entrenched top level is their entire goal and they're *rewarded* for it.

(04-23-2021 12:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 12:27 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  12 teams. All conference champs and 2 at large
Top 4 byes
Next 4 host the last 4 in the first round
That is the only all inclusive way to do this
Not that hard boys and girls

Of course it's "not that hard" from your perspective. It's sort of like when a politician proposes something and says, "It's not that hard!" even though the reality is that 50% of the country disagrees with it.

At the end of the day, question #1 for every single playoff proposal should be: "Would the Big Ten and SEC support this?" Unless you can argue that a system will increase their revenue and *relative* power, then it's DOA. A lot of people mistakenly just think increasing revenue is enough, but the *relative* power increase is even more important.

That's one reason I think 5-1-2 won't pass. As I've explained, had 5-1-2 been in effect the past seven years of the CFP, AAC teams like UCF, Cincy, Memphis and Houston would have more trips to the playoffs than nearby SEC and other P5 such as Florida, Kentucky, FSU, Miami, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Texas.

The AAC stands the most to benefit from 5-1-2, and the AAC is mostly in the footprint of the SEC and ACC, and also Texas, which brings Texas in to play. I doubt they want that. As for the B1G, under 5-1-2 Western Michigan would have more playoff trips than Michigan. In 2019, Wisconsin would have missed the playoffs to make room for Memphis

A 5-1-2 model would IMO greatly enhance the relative stature of the AAC, and often at the expense of the SEC and Texas. Does Texas want little brothers like Houston and SMU being able to make the playoffs beating out just other G5 teams - most years just winning the AAC - while they have to get past Oklahoma every year? Does Florida want UCF going to the playoffs twice in three years for beating out Memphis and Cincy while they have to tangle with LSU, Alabama etc.?

Probably not, IMO.

Most years of the CFP, the team that would get booted out of an 8-team playoff had it been "straight 8" or "5+3" to make room for a G5 team would have been an SEC or B1G team. I think they are likely to be aware of that.

(04-23-2021 01:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 12:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 12:27 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  12 teams. All conference champs and 2 at large
Top 4 byes
Next 4 host the last 4 in the first round
That is the only all inclusive way to do this
Not that hard boys and girls

Of course it's "not that hard" from your perspective. It's sort of like when a politician proposes something and says, "It's not that hard!" even though the reality is that 50% of the country disagrees with it.

At the end of the day, question #1 for every single playoff proposal should be: "Would the Big Ten and SEC support this?" Unless you can argue that a system will increase their revenue and *relative* power, then it's DOA. A lot of people mistakenly just think increasing revenue is enough, but the *relative* power increase is even more important.

That's one reason I think 5-1-2 won't pass. As I've explained, had 5-1-2 been in effect the past seven years of the CFP, AAC teams like UCF, Cincy, Memphis and Houston would have more trips to the playoffs than nearby SEC and other P5 such as Florida, Kentucky, FSU, Miami, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Texas.

The AAC stands the most to benefit from 5-1-2, and the AAC is mostly in the footprint of the SEC and ACC, and also Texas, which brings Texas in to play. I doubt they want that. As for the B1G, under 5-1-2 Western Michigan would have more playoff trips than Michigan.

A 5-1-2 model would IMO greatly enhance the relative stature of the AAC, and often at the expense of the SEC and Texas. Does Texas want little brothers like Houston and SMU being able to make the playoffs beating out just other G5 teams - most years just winning the AAC - while they have to get past Oklahoma every year? Does Florida want UCF going to the playoffs twice in three years for beating out Memphis and Cincy while they have to tangle with LSU, Alabama etc.?

Probably not, IMO.

In this case, I could see that there's a trade-off here because I truly don't believe that there will be playoff expansion unless there are P5 auto-bids (or "contract bids" via the bowls). (I know that you may see it differently.) Those P5 auto-bids are really the main impetus behind any legitimate playoff expansion to 8 teams.

So, I could see the G5 pushing for their own slot as a trade-off for the P5 auto-bids just as they pushed for a NY6 bowl slot. Certainly, I don't think the P5 will just willingly hand over a playoff spot to the G5 out of the goodness of their hearts - they'd much rather have a 5-3 model if they had absolute power. However, I just don't think giving up a single at-large slot to the G5 if that's what's required to get P5 auto-bids as being a dealbreaker.

(04-23-2021 12:23 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 12:04 PM)jaybird44 Wrote:  I am serious
Syracuse football would have went to american
Vanderbilt to sun belt
Illinois to mac
Kansas to conference usa
Arizona to mt west

No big loss just win to stay and then...

Cincinnati to acc
Coastal carolina to sec
Uab to big 12
Ball st to big 10
San jose st to pac 12

Great chance for g5 If you want to stay don't finish last. Independents could either join a conference or wait for an at large bid. Do it in every sport and college sports would completely be off the chains

150% never ever happening. We see this promotion/relegation concept proposed ALL OF THE TIME on this board and it's a non-starter.

The P5 is about (1) 100% guarantees without any chance whatsoever of relegation (so in a sense, the Super League concept) and (2) being with the "right crowd" of likeminded institutions.

Ohio State *wants* schools like Illinois: large state flagships with top academics that brings in markets like Chicago and St. Louis for the Big Ten Network. The fact that we aren't actually very good at football isn't even a bad thing for them - they get all of the financial, academic and geographic recruiting benefits of our presence and also get more wins in the process.

Same thing with Vanderbilt with respect to the SEC (an academically elite school directly located in a large market). The other schools that you listed are all top tier basketball programs (and in the case of Kansas, a true blue blood that makes more tier 3 revenue in the Big 12 than any other school except for Texas).

These are schools that still provide value to conferences even when they go 0-12 in football. In fact, they're vastly more valuable from a conference realignment perspective than a 12-0 Ball State or Coastal Carolina team, even if that may not necessarily be fair from a competitive perspective. That's simply how the P5 looks at everything. - the Big Ten and SEC aren't just collections of schools, but actual *brands* (see how media publications will refer to "Big Ten schools" similar to Ivy League schools even when referring to stories outside of sports) and they need schools that fit those brands outside of year-to-year football results.

Not to mention how do you budget when one year you're in the Big10----and next year you may not be? How can you possibly commit to long term multi-year athletic department budget items in that kind of environment? Its unmanageable. You'd have to have to largely budget like a G5 all the time--meaning you likely would never be able to maintain your P5 membership once promoted due to the vastly different budgets. You'd just come up for a cup of coffee and fall right back into the scrum.

(04-23-2021 12:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 12:27 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  12 teams. All conference champs and 2 at large
Top 4 byes
Next 4 host the last 4 in the first round
That is the only all inclusive way to do this
Not that hard boys and girls

Of course it's "not that hard" from your perspective. It's sort of like when a politician proposes something and says, "It's not that hard!" even though the reality is that 50% of the country disagrees with it.

At the end of the day, question #1 for every single playoff proposal should be: "Would the Big Ten and SEC support this?" Unless you can argue that a system will increase their revenue and *relative* power, then it's DOA. A lot of people mistakenly just think increasing revenue is enough, but the *relative* power increase is even more important. Giving $10 more dollars to the Big Ten and SEC is irrelevant to them if the G5 leagues get $20 more dollars. Instead, what the Big Ten Ten and SEC need is $100 more dollars for every $20 that the G5 receives (or more).

It's not about what the G5 wants - whether it's fair or not, they're going to be bystanders in this here. The G5 would be fortunate to get one dedicated slot for their best champ in an 8-team playoff. That's the reality that the G5 needs to push for here. Anything more than that is simply not going to happen.

Is that classist? Yes! Remember that we're dealing with the most elitist and snobbiest profession in America: academia. Having an entrenched top level is their entire goal and they're *rewarded* for it.

Its not really even about what the P5 want. Its about what ESPN, the Big 10 and SEC want.

(04-23-2021 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 01:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 12:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 12:27 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  12 teams. All conference champs and 2 at large
Top 4 byes
Next 4 host the last 4 in the first round
That is the only all inclusive way to do this
Not that hard boys and girls

Of course it's "not that hard" from your perspective. It's sort of like when a politician proposes something and says, "It's not that hard!" even though the reality is that 50% of the country disagrees with it.

At the end of the day, question #1 for every single playoff proposal should be: "Would the Big Ten and SEC support this?" Unless you can argue that a system will increase their revenue and *relative* power, then it's DOA. A lot of people mistakenly just think increasing revenue is enough, but the *relative* power increase is even more important.

That's one reason I think 5-1-2 won't pass. As I've explained, had 5-1-2 been in effect the past seven years of the CFP, AAC teams like UCF, Cincy, Memphis and Houston would have more trips to the playoffs than nearby SEC and other P5 such as Florida, Kentucky, FSU, Miami, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Texas.

The AAC stands the most to benefit from 5-1-2, and the AAC is mostly in the footprint of the SEC and ACC, and also Texas, which brings Texas in to play. I doubt they want that. As for the B1G, under 5-1-2 Western Michigan would have more playoff trips than Michigan.

A 5-1-2 model would IMO greatly enhance the relative stature of the AAC, and often at the expense of the SEC and Texas. Does Texas want little brothers like Houston and SMU being able to make the playoffs beating out just other G5 teams - most years just winning the AAC - while they have to get past Oklahoma every year? Does Florida want UCF going to the playoffs twice in three years for beating out Memphis and Cincy while they have to tangle with LSU, Alabama etc.?

Probably not, IMO.

In this case, I could see that there's a trade-off here because I truly don't believe that there will be playoff expansion unless there are P5 auto-bids (or "contract bids" via the bowls). (I know that you may see it differently.) Those P5 auto-bids are really the main impetus behind any legitimate playoff expansion to 8 teams.

So, I could see the G5 pushing for their own slot as a trade-off for the P5 auto-bids just as they pushed for a NY6 bowl slot. Certainly, I don't think the P5 will just willingly hand over a playoff spot to the G5 out of the goodness of their hearts - they'd much rather have a 5-3 model if they had absolute power. However, I just don't think giving up a single at-large slot to the G5 if that's what's required to get P5 auto-bids as being a dealbreaker.

That makes sense. Its a trade-off. The P5 avoid political problems as they had with Utah senator Hatch during the early BCS.

G5 is always screwed no matter what. You say play tougher competition,nobody wants to play you. You do 12 and 0 like Cincinnati and central Florida did and you still have no shot at championship. I personally think g5 should refuse to play p5, get with a network like TNT or tbs,have their own division. It will not out do the p5,but I bet it could do well enough to survive. Quit bowing to schools that are too high and mighty to give you any share of anything. It is all loaded for them and thinking they will share is just stupid. Look,they go 8 teams in playoff, you can bet the house a g5 will ever make it and they are not gonna give them a chance and for you p5 guys,you have only 6 or 7 teams that can win it anyway. So I say good luck wake forest,vanderbilt,northwestern,etc. You are like us,you will never play for championships. That is only for Oklahoma Texas Ohio state Clemson Alabama USC Georgia LSU Notre dame I think that is about it .9 schools have a chance. Wow! I guess in odd years maybe Auburn or Michigan

(04-23-2021 04:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its not really even about what the P5 want. Its about what ESPN, the Big 10 and SEC want.

That is correct. The Big Ten and SEC have veto power over any changes, and if they're ok with a new playoff format, then it depends on whether ESPN will pay enough money to make it worthwhile to change from the current format.

Anything that would never pass those three gatekeepers is just wishcasting.

For gosh sakes the 5-8 seeds get an extra home gate. That is some serious dollars for a high probability win. Likely B1G or SEC twos in that bunch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see a six team playoff as the next and final step.
Five P5 champs and one 99 percent of the time P5 at large.
The G5 have the option to get over it or move down they'll get over it.

(04-23-2021 06:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 04:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its not really even about what the P5 want. Its about what ESPN, the Big 10 and SEC want.

That is correct. The Big Ten and SEC have veto power over any changes, and if they're ok with a new playoff format, then it depends on whether ESPN will pay enough money to make it worthwhile to change from the current format.

Anything that would never pass those three gatekeepers is just wishcasting.

Was thinking about this earlier and wondered if an expansion means "Top 8". It also made me wonder if the Big Ten and SEC alone get auto-bids (even to the 4-team playoff?), while the remaining teams are picked by committee.

ESPN just needs to make their FPI the sole computer component of a revised BCS formula (maybe using a new value averaging their FPI and SOR). FPI is proprietary, so they can still make a TV show out of it. Anything; get the committee out. I'd also revise their SOR so that it can be applied to all 130 teams.

(04-23-2021 06:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 04:00 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its not really even about what the P5 want. Its about what ESPN, the Big 10 and SEC want.

That is correct. The Big Ten and SEC have veto power over any changes, and if they're ok with a new playoff format, then it depends on whether ESPN will pay enough money to make it worthwhile to change from the current format.

Anything that would never pass those three gatekeepers is just wishcasting.

Agree.

That said I think the 5 + 2 + 1 with a G5 Play-in game is worth public hearing. It seems to be liked by this board anyway.

(04-23-2021 01:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 01:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 12:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 12:27 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  12 teams. All conference champs and 2 at large
Top 4 byes
Next 4 host the last 4 in the first round
That is the only all inclusive way to do this
Not that hard boys and girls

Of course it's "not that hard" from your perspective. It's sort of like when a politician proposes something and says, "It's not that hard!" even though the reality is that 50% of the country disagrees with it.

At the end of the day, question #1 for every single playoff proposal should be: "Would the Big Ten and SEC support this?" Unless you can argue that a system will increase their revenue and *relative* power, then it's DOA. A lot of people mistakenly just think increasing revenue is enough, but the *relative* power increase is even more important.

That's one reason I think 5-1-2 won't pass. As I've explained, had 5-1-2 been in effect the past seven years of the CFP, AAC teams like UCF, Cincy, Memphis and Houston would have more trips to the playoffs than nearby SEC and other P5 such as Florida, Kentucky, FSU, Miami, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee and Texas.

The AAC stands the most to benefit from 5-1-2, and the AAC is mostly in the footprint of the SEC and ACC, and also Texas, which brings Texas in to play. I doubt they want that. As for the B1G, under 5-1-2 Western Michigan would have more playoff trips than Michigan.

A 5-1-2 model would IMO greatly enhance the relative stature of the AAC, and often at the expense of the SEC and Texas. Does Texas want little brothers like Houston and SMU being able to make the playoffs beating out just other G5 teams - most years just winning the AAC - while they have to get past Oklahoma every year? Does Florida want UCF going to the playoffs twice in three years for beating out Memphis and Cincy while they have to tangle with LSU, Alabama etc.?

Probably not, IMO.

In this case, I could see that there's a trade-off here because I truly don't believe that there will be playoff expansion unless there are P5 auto-bids (or "contract bids" via the bowls). (I know that you may see it differently.) Those P5 auto-bids are really the main impetus behind any legitimate playoff expansion to 8 teams.

So, I could see the G5 pushing for their own slot as a trade-off for the P5 auto-bids just as they pushed for a NY6 bowl slot. Certainly, I don't think the P5 will just willingly hand over a playoff spot to the G5 out of the goodness of their hearts - they'd much rather have a 5-3 model if they had absolute power. However, I just don't think giving up a single at-large slot to the G5 if that's what's required to get P5 auto-bids as being a dealbreaker.

I don't think the G5 have the leverage to demand a 5-1-2 format from the P5, if the P5 wants a 8-team playoff with a straight-8 or 5+3 format. I don't think the G5 have that power on their side to force that.

IMO, as negotiations develop, the P5, especially the non-PAC conferences, will come to realize what a relative boon 5-1-2 would be for the AAC, it would basically achieve Aresco's goal of becoming a de-facto "P6" conference, and of the stature that will accrue to the top teams in the G5 more generally, basically the cream of the AAC plus possibly Boise. And that will come at their expense and the expense of many of their P5 schools. Thus, it will not be something they are inclined to give ground on.

But maybe we shall see.