(06-12-2021 12:18 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:14 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:48 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:23 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The "power" designation will still be "a thing" with fans and the media as we move into the future — for good, bad or both.

Too many folks (including some on this board) either 1. fail to understand or 2. understand but don't acknowledge that "power" in college football is about 95 percent money/resources (and the other 5 percent results). This is why the American and the Mountain are not "power" leagues in football and never will be perceived as such by objective folks. However, both those leagues have "major" to "high-major" football (and basketball, too) programs.

As I've noted many times on the board, I consider the Big East a "power league" in men's basketball because each of the league's 11 programs is of "major to high-major to blueblood" quality. The "worst" BE program is, at the minimum, a "major" program (in terms of results, resources — or both). The same can be said of all the programs in the P5. That cannot be said of the AAC, Mountain West, A10, etc. (in which some programs are essentially in the "mid-major" to "major" category).

Of note, the AAC is as much a "power league" as the Big East overall because it sponsors football, plays strong baseball (the BE does not), has massive enrollments and budgets, etc.

And yet some fail to be able to distinguish between the two.

The American Athletic Conference has sent a letter to the Group of conferences known as the "Autonomous 5". In that letter, the American Athletic Conference is requesting to become a member of that group. They have given examples of why they meet the performance standards or criteria to become a member. This in no way shape or form alters their Media Contracts, Bowl Contracts or any other financial compensation. It merely means that they are requesting to become a member of the group that creates and decides Autonomous Legislation outside/within the current framework of the NCAA.

Some people just have to harp ad nauseum on financial differences between conferences. Yet in the tweet that started all this conversation, they never once mentioned financial compensation. They only referenced that the A5 and G5 designations could change. While many of the "Power Conference" fans took issue with this, they failed to understand that the "A" was being used for Advantage 5 (which alludes to financials) as well as Autonomous 5 (Which alludes to Legislation).

I ask that people please understand the difference. Yes the AAC will still lag far behind the rest of the Autonomous 5 in Financials as they are also the Advantaged 5. The AAC is just attempting to be included in the creation and adaption of Autonomous Legislation, for now. Which would make that group the "Autonomous 6"

Why would the A5 become the A6? What’s the incentive? I quite frankly don’t see any.

The last thing the P5 or A5 want is to give any legitimacy to an outsider.

I never said anything was going to happen. I simply stated that the Letter sent by the American Conference to the Autonomous 5 was the reason for the tweet and this thread. Something could or could not happen. I don't know.

Correct.

I don’t think anything is going to happen. Aresco reminds me of Craig Thompson when the MWC had Utah, BYU and TCU being all over bragging how the MWC belonged as the 7th AQ BCS conference and even questioning the Big East’s AQ status. The cartel took Utah and TCU and ESPN made BYU an independent and semi P5 program. Thompson is hardly to find these days.

If I was Aresco, I’d be careful on what I wish for.

(06-12-2021 09:57 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:02 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  You're reading too much into what I was addressing. You're thinking and not reading. I was merely posting a link to a letter from the American Conference addressing our lack of Autonomous status and the fact that we wish to receive said status. If in fact the American does receive Autonomous status then by definition, the designations change. As in A6 vs A5 and G4 vs G5.

It doesn't change the Go5 designation ... that designation is about being part of the group of five conferences that negotiated as a group and obtained a contractual position in the NY6 bowl system as a group.

There is no G4 unless in a later round of CFP negotiations four conferences negotiate as a group, as opposed to five.

By contrast, it would automatically change the Autonomy 5 into the Autonomy 6.

We will agree to disagree. If the American obtains Autonomous designation then they are clearly apart of the "A" group. Autonomous 6 vs Group of 4 whom do not have Autonomous status.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand this simple concept. :phew:

Except the Go5 existed before the A5 existed. The "group" in Go5 is the group of schools that negotiated in the CFP negotiations as a group. There will be a Group of Four exactly when four conferences negotiate in a round of CFP negotiations as a group.

The A5 is an NCAA thing.

So I do understand the misconception that the Go5 is “the group of non-A5 conferences", I am also aware that it is a misunderstanding.

(06-12-2021 12:38 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:57 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:02 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  You're reading too much into what I was addressing. You're thinking and not reading. I was merely posting a link to a letter from the American Conference addressing our lack of Autonomous status and the fact that we wish to receive said status. If in fact the American does receive Autonomous status then by definition, the designations change. As in A6 vs A5 and G4 vs G5.

It doesn't change the Go5 designation ... that designation is about being part of the group of five conferences that negotiated as a group and obtained a contractual position in the NY6 bowl system as a group.

There is no G4 unless in a later round of CFP negotiations four conferences negotiate as a group, as opposed to five.

By contrast, it would automatically change the Autonomy 5 into the Autonomy 6.

We will agree to disagree. If the American obtains Autonomous designation then they are clearly apart of the "A" group. Autonomous 6 vs Group of 4 whom do not have Autonomous status.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand this simple concept.

Except the Go5 existed before the A5 existed. The "group" in Go5 is the group of schools that negotiated in the CFP negotiations as a group. There will be a Group of Four exactly when four conferences negotiate in a round of CFP negotiations as a group.

The A5 is an NCAA thing.

So I do understand the misconception that the Go5 is “the group of non-A5 conferences", I am also aware that it is a misunderstanding.

To your health good sir!

Aresco push to make the AAC the A6 conference is geared around creating separation from the G4. We understand its a self serving push.

However I think programs in the ACC and XII in particular which escaped a fate in the AAC also want separation from it. How then are they going to vote for the AAC's inclusion? Its the second tier programs in the P5 that value their "club" status.

The G5 revenue sharing model, that I can see going away with the new playoff with each conference picking up an equal base distribution. The remaining portion divided by appearances/conference performance. The G5 with its revenue split pioneered that concept, ranking the conferences 1-5 for bonus distribution.

If the AAC was the 3rd highest rated conference with multiple teams in the Top 10 that inclusion argument is better. But they've played the role of tallest midget. They had a head start on many CUSA/SBC programs because they've been around longer in FBS.

You have to give an FBS program 20 years to see what it can do. Buffalo is a perfect example. When they joined the MAC 20 years ago they were a total project and many MAC fans wanted them dumped from the conference. Then after 10 years they won a MAC title, then became dominant in basketball and now annual contenders in football.

The AAC only averages 30,000 a game in FB. You'd need to have a situation where someone becomes the next Texas A&M and starts averaging 100k for it to feel like the AAC has earned its place in the club which for various reasons isn't possible.

The AAC would have a much better argument if it could put the coast-2-coast design together with 16 or 18 members. At only 11 and the real possibility of losing a few more by the end of the decade you've got to question its relative importance.

(06-12-2021 09:57 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:02 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  You're reading too much into what I was addressing. You're thinking and not reading. I was merely posting a link to a letter from the American Conference addressing our lack of Autonomous status and the fact that we wish to receive said status. If in fact the American does receive Autonomous status then by definition, the designations change. As in A6 vs A5 and G4 vs G5.

It doesn't change the Go5 designation ... that designation is about being part of the group of five conferences that negotiated as a group and obtained a contractual position in the NY6 bowl system as a group.

There is no G4 unless in a later round of CFP negotiations four conferences negotiate as a group, as opposed to five.

By contrast, it would automatically change the Autonomy 5 into the Autonomy 6.

We will agree to disagree. If the American obtains Autonomous designation then they are clearly apart of the "A" group. Autonomous 6 vs Group of 4 whom do not have Autonomous status.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand this simple concept.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand that becoming autonomous does not make the AAC a power conference. There is no such thing as a Group of (insert number of non-autonomous conferences), whether it be 4 or 5. There is a Group of 5, which refers to conferences which are part of the CFP and which have been treated differently (and less favorably) than the other five conferences and Notre Dame which are all signatories on that contract.

As proposed, there would no longer be a G5. All ten conferences would be competing for the spots reserved in the playoff for the six highest ranked conference champions. None of them would be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. Whether the media would continue to use the term P5 to refer to the "high resource" conferences is anybody's guess. My guess is that they would.

The post that started this chain of responses asked how the proposal to increase the number of teams in a playoff has anything at all to do with the terms P5 and G5, and the simple answer is that it doesn't have anything to do with it.

(06-12-2021 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:57 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:02 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  You're reading too much into what I was addressing. You're thinking and not reading. I was merely posting a link to a letter from the American Conference addressing our lack of Autonomous status and the fact that we wish to receive said status. If in fact the American does receive Autonomous status then by definition, the designations change. As in A6 vs A5 and G4 vs G5.

It doesn't change the Go5 designation ... that designation is about being part of the group of five conferences that negotiated as a group and obtained a contractual position in the NY6 bowl system as a group.

There is no G4 unless in a later round of CFP negotiations four conferences negotiate as a group, as opposed to five.

By contrast, it would automatically change the Autonomy 5 into the Autonomy 6.

We will agree to disagree. If the American obtains Autonomous designation then they are clearly apart of the "A" group. Autonomous 6 vs Group of 4 whom do not have Autonomous status.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand this simple concept.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand that becoming autonomous does not make the AAC a power conference. There is no such thing as a Group of (insert number of non-autonomous conferences), whether it be 4 or 5. There is a Group of 5, which refers to conferences which are part of the CFP and which have been treated differently (and less favorably) than the other five conferences and Notre Dame which are all signatories on that contract.

As proposed, there would no longer be a G5. All ten conferences would be competing for the spots reserved in the playoff for the six highest ranked conference champions. None of them would be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. Whether the media would continue to use the term P5 to refer to the "high resource" conferences is anybody's guess. My guess is that they would.

The post that started this chain of responses asked how the proposal to increase the number of teams in a playoff has anything at all to do with the terms P5 and G5, and the simple answer is that it doesn't have anything to do with it.

The point is, I never said it did. The P5 and G5 was posted in the tweet that this thread was started about. I just posted the letter that explains the American's desire to become part of the Autonomous 5 and suggested that the letter is what the person who made that tweet was referring to. I also reminded people that the "A" was also used for Autonomous as well as Advantaged.

(06-12-2021 01:24 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:57 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:02 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  You're reading too much into what I was addressing. You're thinking and not reading. I was merely posting a link to a letter from the American Conference addressing our lack of Autonomous status and the fact that we wish to receive said status. If in fact the American does receive Autonomous status then by definition, the designations change. As in A6 vs A5 and G4 vs G5.

It doesn't change the Go5 designation ... that designation is about being part of the group of five conferences that negotiated as a group and obtained a contractual position in the NY6 bowl system as a group.

There is no G4 unless in a later round of CFP negotiations four conferences negotiate as a group, as opposed to five.

By contrast, it would automatically change the Autonomy 5 into the Autonomy 6.

We will agree to disagree. If the American obtains Autonomous designation then they are clearly apart of the "A" group. Autonomous 6 vs Group of 4 whom do not have Autonomous status.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand this simple concept.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand that becoming autonomous does not make the AAC a power conference. There is no such thing as a Group of (insert number of non-autonomous conferences), whether it be 4 or 5. There is a Group of 5, which refers to conferences which are part of the CFP and which have been treated differently (and less favorably) than the other five conferences and Notre Dame which are all signatories on that contract.

As proposed, there would no longer be a G5. All ten conferences would be competing for the spots reserved in the playoff for the six highest ranked conference champions. None of them would be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. Whether the media would continue to use the term P5 to refer to the "high resource" conferences is anybody's guess. My guess is that they would.

The post that started this chain of responses asked how the proposal to increase the number of teams in a playoff has anything at all to do with the terms P5 and G5, and the simple answer is that it doesn't have anything to do with it.

The point is, I never said it did. The P5 and G5 was posted in the tweet that this thread was started about. I just posted the letter that explains the American's desire to become part of the Autonomous 5 and suggested that the letter is what the person who made that tweet was referring to. I also reminded people that the "A" was also used for Autonomous as well as Advantaged.

So you are saying it isn't you who is confused, but rather the OP, as evidenced by your speculation that he was referring to a letter that he didn't cite or link to in his post, and which has nothing to do with P5 vs G5.

(06-12-2021 01:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 01:24 PM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:57 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:19 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  It doesn't change the Go5 designation ... that designation is about being part of the group of five conferences that negotiated as a group and obtained a contractual position in the NY6 bowl system as a group.

There is no G4 unless in a later round of CFP negotiations four conferences negotiate as a group, as opposed to five.

By contrast, it would automatically change the Autonomy 5 into the Autonomy 6.

We will agree to disagree. If the American obtains Autonomous designation then they are clearly apart of the "A" group. Autonomous 6 vs Group of 4 whom do not have Autonomous status.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand this simple concept.

I find it hard to believe that you fail to understand that becoming autonomous does not make the AAC a power conference. There is no such thing as a Group of (insert number of non-autonomous conferences), whether it be 4 or 5. There is a Group of 5, which refers to conferences which are part of the CFP and which have been treated differently (and less favorably) than the other five conferences and Notre Dame which are all signatories on that contract.

As proposed, there would no longer be a G5. All ten conferences would be competing for the spots reserved in the playoff for the six highest ranked conference champions. None of them would be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. Whether the media would continue to use the term P5 to refer to the "high resource" conferences is anybody's guess. My guess is that they would.

The post that started this chain of responses asked how the proposal to increase the number of teams in a playoff has anything at all to do with the terms P5 and G5, and the simple answer is that it doesn't have anything to do with it.

The point is, I never said it did. The P5 and G5 was posted in the tweet that this thread was started about. I just posted the letter that explains the American's desire to become part of the Autonomous 5 and suggested that the letter is what the person who made that tweet was referring to. I also reminded people that the "A" was also used for Autonomous as well as Advantaged.

So you are saying it isn't you who is confused, but rather the OP, as evidenced by your speculation that he was referring to a letter that he didn't cite or link to in his post, and which has nothing to do with P5 vs G5.

I think the OP referenced the tweet and the tweet was more or less, click bait. If you read the letter, you would have known it had nothing to do with finances or being a Power Conference. It was simply about joining the Autonomous group.

(06-11-2021 09:20 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 08:01 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Me thinks that the big winners in this will be the SEC, Big 10, AAC, and MW. This could be a scheme by the first two to distance themselves from the other three "power" conferences. The AAC and MW theoretically are on a level playing field with at least the Pac-12 and ACC now and maybe even the Big 12. If they go forward with the top 6 conference champions (which I think is for anti-trust reasons) + 6 wild cards, it could turn into a de-facto P6.

The cartel wants all the power to them. If the AAC and MWC start getting spots that the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 believe belongs to them, it’s the day those conferences will expand, taking the best properties and decimating those two conferences to irrelevance. A school like Cincinnati would suddenly find a spot in the cartel while East Carolina would still be left out.

All fine and good, but the "Top-6 conference champs" part of the proposal keeps the AAC in play. Let a 14-16 team Big-12 jockey for their playoff spot while the AAC still gets one to share among 8-10 teams.

To be honest, I'll take the CFP spot over Autonomous status every time. The "P5" can keep being the P5. The AAC will be happy to take the added media value, extra loot, and better footing for recruiting players/coaches against all but the very top of the P5 that removing the invisible wall to the playoffs gives us.

The SEC has gotten 50% of the playoff field before. At best, they can now get 58%. We're going from 0 to at least 8%. We'll take it.

Should be an interesting few years.

(06-12-2021 01:02 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Aresco push to make the AAC the A6 conference is geared around creating separation from the G4. We understand its a self serving push.

However I think programs in the ACC and XII in particular which escaped a fate in the AAC also want separation from it. How then are they going to vote for the AAC's inclusion? Its the second tier programs in the P5 that value their "club" status.

The G5 revenue sharing model, that I can see going away with the new playoff with each conference picking up an equal base distribution. The remaining portion divided by appearances/conference performance. The G5 with its revenue split pioneered that concept, ranking the conferences 1-5 for bonus distribution.

If the AAC was the 3rd highest rated conference with multiple teams in the Top 10 that inclusion argument is better. But they've played the role of tallest midget. They had a head start on many CUSA/SBC programs because they've been around longer in FBS.

You have to give an FBS program 20 years to see what it can do. Buffalo is a perfect example. When they joined the MAC 20 years ago they were a total project and many MAC fans wanted them dumped from the conference. Then after 10 years they won a MAC title, then became dominant in basketball and now annual contenders in football.

The AAC only averages 30,000 a game in FB. You'd need to have a situation where someone becomes the next Texas A&M and starts averaging 100k for it to feel like the AAC has earned its place in the club which for various reasons isn't possible.

The AAC would have a much better argument if it could put the coast-2-coast design together with 16 or 18 members. At only 11 and the real possibility of losing a few more by the end of the decade you've got to question its relative importance.

I think it will be very interesting to see how the CFP revenue is split among the conferences. The P5 used bowl games as a market based mechanism last time which freed them up to allocate more to P5 conferences with big bowl deals and group those "non-contract" conferences together to split a smaller pool of funds. The P5 then left it completely up to the G5 to decide how to split the funds among the 5 conferences.

What I suspect you will see this time around is a similar mechanism--since they are still involved---it may again be the bowls that form a market driven basis for a larger revenue share for each P5. On the other hand, the P5 may just let participation in the playoff drive the numbers (since the bracket will be overwhelmingly filled from the P5 ranks). As for the AAC---I think we are going to see one of two outcomes this time around.

If there is some sort of uneven distribution based on bowls----the AAC will either land a slot in a major bowl (possibly with ESPN's help) in order to get their own seat at the table (which may pay less than the other P5's if the bowl they land has a substantially lower rights fee)----OR----the AAC will push to negotiate its share size on its own as opposed to being thrown into a pool with the other non-contract conferences. No matter what happens---the AAC will fight any agreement that has language grouping them with the MW/CUSA/SB/MAC. I think the AAC will fine being treated like everyone else. I think the AAC will be fine being treated worse than the P5, but better than the G4. I dont think they are going to be willingly lumped in with the G5 this time around. It will be an interesting side show to follow.

It's almost laughable some of the positions being taken. A few short years ago, getting into the Autonomous club seemed like an impossible task. So the usual characters who tried their hardest to pretend the AAC was simply the tallest midget would always harp that they will never be part of the club due to never being able to attain the autonomous status. This was when it seemed like there was a chance, decent or not, of signing with a NY6 bowl. The "A" status was always their backup argument. Now it appears the bowl tie ins are going away and the AAC very well may obtain the Autonomous status...... so now the usually suspect are freaking out grasping straws to say how they are still part of the G4 even when the AAC earned a new official status and they have no reasonable argument.

(06-12-2021 11:48 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:23 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The "power" designation will still be "a thing" with fans and the media as we move into the future — for good, bad or both.

Too many folks (including some on this board) either 1. fail to understand or 2. understand but don't acknowledge that "power" in college football is about 95 percent money/resources (and the other 5 percent results). This is why the American and the Mountain are not "power" leagues in football and never will be perceived as such by objective folks. However, both those leagues have "major" to "high-major" football (and basketball, too) programs.

As I've noted many times on the board, I consider the Big East a "power league" in men's basketball because each of the league's 11 programs is of "major to high-major to blueblood" quality. The "worst" BE program is, at the minimum, a "major" program (in terms of results, resources — or both). The same can be said of all the programs in the P5. That cannot be said of the AAC, Mountain West, A10, etc. (in which some programs are essentially in the "mid-major" to "major" category).

Of note, the AAC is as much a "power league" as the Big East overall because it sponsors football, plays strong baseball (the BE does not), has massive enrollments and budgets, etc.

And yet some fail to be able to distinguish between the two.

The American Athletic Conference has sent a letter to the Group of conferences known as the "Autonomous 5". In that letter, the American Athletic Conference is requesting to become a member of that group. They have given examples of why they meet the performance standards or criteria to become a member. This in no way shape or form alters their Media Contracts, Bowl Contracts or any other financial compensation. It merely means that they are requesting to become a member of the group that creates and decides Autonomous Legislation outside/within the current framework of the NCAA.

Some people just have to harp ad nauseum on financial differences between conferences. Yet in the tweet that started all this conversation, they never once mentioned financial compensation. They only referenced that the A5 and G5 designations could change. While many of the "Power Conference" fans took issue with this, they failed to understand that the "A" was being used for Advantage 5 (which alludes to financials) as well as Autonomous 5 (Which alludes to Legislation).

I ask that people please understand the difference. Yes the AAC will still lag far behind the rest of the Autonomous 5 in Financials as they are also the Advantaged 5. The AAC is just attempting to be included in the creation and adaption of Autonomous Legislation, for now. Which would make that group the "Autonomous 6"

You make some very valid (and important) points.

In my dream world, the AAC would become an autonomous conference.

(06-12-2021 09:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:48 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:23 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The "power" designation will still be "a thing" with fans and the media as we move into the future — for good, bad or both.

Too many folks (including some on this board) either 1. fail to understand or 2. understand but don't acknowledge that "power" in college football is about 95 percent money/resources (and the other 5 percent results). This is why the American and the Mountain are not "power" leagues in football and never will be perceived as such by objective folks. However, both those leagues have "major" to "high-major" football (and basketball, too) programs.

As I've noted many times on the board, I consider the Big East a "power league" in men's basketball because each of the league's 11 programs is of "major to high-major to blueblood" quality. The "worst" BE program is, at the minimum, a "major" program (in terms of results, resources — or both). The same can be said of all the programs in the P5. That cannot be said of the AAC, Mountain West, A10, etc. (in which some programs are essentially in the "mid-major" to "major" category).

Of note, the AAC is as much a "power league" as the Big East overall because it sponsors football, plays strong baseball (the BE does not), has massive enrollments and budgets, etc.

And yet some fail to be able to distinguish between the two.

The American Athletic Conference has sent a letter to the Group of conferences known as the "Autonomous 5". In that letter, the American Athletic Conference is requesting to become a member of that group. They have given examples of why they meet the performance standards or criteria to become a member. This in no way shape or form alters their Media Contracts, Bowl Contracts or any other financial compensation. It merely means that they are requesting to become a member of the group that creates and decides Autonomous Legislation outside/within the current framework of the NCAA.

Some people just have to harp ad nauseum on financial differences between conferences. Yet in the tweet that started all this conversation, they never once mentioned financial compensation. They only referenced that the A5 and G5 designations could change. While many of the "Power Conference" fans took issue with this, they failed to understand that the "A" was being used for Advantage 5 (which alludes to financials) as well as Autonomous 5 (Which alludes to Legislation).

I ask that people please understand the difference. Yes the AAC will still lag far behind the rest of the Autonomous 5 in Financials as they are also the Advantaged 5. The AAC is just attempting to be included in the creation and adaption of Autonomous Legislation, for now. Which would make that group the "Autonomous 6"

You make some very valid (and important) points.

In my dream world, the AAC would become an autonomous conference.

It's actually instructive to note that in a couple interviews in the last week or two, Aresco has specifically differentiated the parallel efforts for AAC inclusion in the autonomy group (A5), and AAC inclusion in the CFP structure, current and future (P6)

(06-12-2021 09:30 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:48 AM)BCSvsBS Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:23 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The "power" designation will still be "a thing" with fans and the media as we move into the future — for good, bad or both.

Too many folks (including some on this board) either 1. fail to understand or 2. understand but don't acknowledge that "power" in college football is about 95 percent money/resources (and the other 5 percent results). This is why the American and the Mountain are not "power" leagues in football and never will be perceived as such by objective folks. However, both those leagues have "major" to "high-major" football (and basketball, too) programs.

As I've noted many times on the board, I consider the Big East a "power league" in men's basketball because each of the league's 11 programs is of "major to high-major to blueblood" quality. The "worst" BE program is, at the minimum, a "major" program (in terms of results, resources — or both). The same can be said of all the programs in the P5. That cannot be said of the AAC, Mountain West, A10, etc. (in which some programs are essentially in the "mid-major" to "major" category).

Of note, the AAC is as much a "power league" as the Big East overall because it sponsors football, plays strong baseball (the BE does not), has massive enrollments and budgets, etc.

And yet some fail to be able to distinguish between the two.

The American Athletic Conference has sent a letter to the Group of conferences known as the "Autonomous 5". In that letter, the American Athletic Conference is requesting to become a member of that group. They have given examples of why they meet the performance standards or criteria to become a member. This in no way shape or form alters their Media Contracts, Bowl Contracts or any other financial compensation. It merely means that they are requesting to become a member of the group that creates and decides Autonomous Legislation outside/within the current framework of the NCAA.

Some people just have to harp ad nauseum on financial differences between conferences. Yet in the tweet that started all this conversation, they never once mentioned financial compensation. They only referenced that the A5 and G5 designations could change. While many of the "Power Conference" fans took issue with this, they failed to understand that the "A" was being used for Advantage 5 (which alludes to financials) as well as Autonomous 5 (Which alludes to Legislation).

I ask that people please understand the difference. Yes the AAC will still lag far behind the rest of the Autonomous 5 in Financials as they are also the Advantaged 5. The AAC is just attempting to be included in the creation and adaption of Autonomous Legislation, for now. Which would make that group the "Autonomous 6"

You make some very valid (and important) points.

In my dream world, the AAC would become an autonomous conference.

It's actually instructive to note that in a couple interviews in the last week or two, Aresco has specifically differentiated the parallel efforts for AAC inclusion in the autonomy group (A5), and AAC inclusion in the CFP structure, current and future (P6)

I appreciate Mike Aresco's efforts. He is hustling and putting forth strong effort.

But because 1. I have followed Cincinnati and Memphis since the 1970s (and have seen the lack of respect) and 2. I am a huge fan of Vanderbilt (and fully understand the mindset of SEC fans) ... I simply don't see the AAC ever being a part of the autonomous group.

(06-12-2021 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  As proposed, there would no longer be a G5. All ten conferences would be competing for the spots reserved in the playoff for the six highest ranked conference champions. None of them would be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. Whether the media would continue to use the term P5 to refer to the "high resource" conferences is anybody's guess. My guess is that they would.

What was proposed was a playoff structure, not the contractual arrangement underlying the playoff structure, so as proposed it depends on whether there are five conferences which go into the negotiation on the playoff structure as a group whether there will be a new Group of Five under the new structure or not.

It could, for example, be replaced by a Group of Three, if the AAC and MWC decide to go into the negotiations individually, and the MAC, CUSA and SBC negotiate as a common block. That would likely rebound to the disadvantage of the AAC, MWC and the Group of Three, but it would likely end with a better revenue share for the "Group of Three" than if they negotiated individually.

It could, for example, be a Group of Fools, if each of the five go into the contract negotiations and negotiate individually.

(06-12-2021 10:36 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 01:11 PM)ken d Wrote:  As proposed, there would no longer be a G5. All ten conferences would be competing for the spots reserved in the playoff for the six highest ranked conference champions. None of them would be guaranteed a spot in the playoffs. Whether the media would continue to use the term P5 to refer to the "high resource" conferences is anybody's guess. My guess is that they would.

What was proposed was a playoff structure, not the contractual arrangement underlying the playoff structure, so as proposed it depends on whether there are five conferences which go into the negotiation on the playoff structure as a group whether there will be a new Group of Five under the new structure or not.

It could, for example, be replaced by a Group of Three, if the AAC and MWC decide to go into the negotiations individually, and the MAC, CUSA and SBC negotiate as a common block. That would likely rebound to the disadvantage of the AAC, MWC and the Group of Three, but it would likely end with a better revenue share for the "Group of Three" than if they negotiated individually.

It could, for example, be a Group of Fools, if each of the five go into the contract negotiations and negotiate individually.

That's a great point. If those five conferences hadn't negotiated as a group there's a decent chance none of them would have gotten any guaranteed access or revenue share.

I was thinking about this today actually and wondering the same.

The 12-team model is actually perfect for what they want.

It stops the P5/G5 anti-trust BS.
It doesn’t give each current P5 an auto berth by name.
It puts every conference and team on “equal” footing to make the playoff.
So it is now all-inclusive, even thought it won’t particularly be.

Each conference can have whatever membership it wants, negotiate its own media deal, have its own network etc. The SEC and Big Ten will still be king. The ACC and B12 right behind. And the PAC-12 brings up the rear as usual.

The wording of it with 6-auto bids for 6 of the highest ranked conference champs, which can be from any of the 10 conferences. It’s never gonna be the MWC, AAC, Sun Belt, MAC, CUSA, and SEC. But it could be based on the wording. It makes every conference champion have “equal access”. They just have to play a schedule worthy enough to garner one of the 6-auto bid spots.

It’s genius really. No one can say we only have one spot for 1/2 of CFB anymore. You want to get a spot, increase your conference membership, play harder in and out of conference teams, get a better media deal that comes with that along the way. It’s pure capitalism.

99% of the time it will always be SEC, Big Ten, ACC, B12. And 90% of the time likely PAC-12.
The 6th spot will always be up for grabs. Most of the time filled by the AAC or MWC. And now instead of a guaranteed major bowl game, you’ll get a 1st round game at someone else’s place most likely. Win that to get the bigger prize.

It’s more money, and gives the current top 4 teams a rest. We can argue whether that’s good or bad a different time.

But this solves all of the issues of fairness and access for everyone, while actually making it harder for the little guy to get to a current major bowl game (in the quarters/semis).

We’ll have to see if the money distributions are fairer. That would be the only thing keeping this system from being unfair from an outside look. Unless the bigger conference payouts go to the teams that make that conf champ spot, and the others get less. Which means it could be whichever conf champ makes it gets the dough. Or just based on how many individual teams make the tourney. Like basketball tourney credits. Which will likely be how that goes.

At least the wording puts it at 6, so now there will be in theory, 6 worthy best leagues. If the AAC can be that league for 10 years solid with no one else getting it, then it deserves the “P6” designation.

I still think biggest names teams best of the rest would cement the league as the de facto 6th league.

(06-12-2021 03:10 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 09:20 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 08:01 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Me thinks that the big winners in this will be the SEC, Big 10, AAC, and MW. This could be a scheme by the first two to distance themselves from the other three "power" conferences. The AAC and MW theoretically are on a level playing field with at least the Pac-12 and ACC now and maybe even the Big 12. If they go forward with the top 6 conference champions (which I think is for anti-trust reasons) + 6 wild cards, it could turn into a de-facto P6.

The cartel wants all the power to them. If the AAC and MWC start getting spots that the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 believe belongs to them, it’s the day those conferences will expand, taking the best properties and decimating those two conferences to irrelevance. A school like Cincinnati would suddenly find a spot in the cartel while East Carolina would still be left out.

All fine and good, but the "Top-6 conference champs" part of the proposal keeps the AAC in play. Let a 14-16 team Big-12 jockey for their playoff spot while the AAC still gets one to share among 8-10 teams.

To be honest, I'll take the CFP spot over Autonomous status every time. The "P5" can keep being the P5. The AAC will be happy to take the added media value, extra loot, and better footing for recruiting players/coaches against all but the very top of the P5 that removing the invisible wall to the playoffs gives us.

The SEC has gotten 50% of the playoff field before. At best, they can now get 58%. We're going from 0 to at least 8%. We'll take it.

Should be an interesting few years.

To your point, why would the B-12 want to add 4 more mouths to feed when it's conference champ is going to be one of the top 6 conference champs 99.9% of the time. What this does do is give allow the AAC to credible approach the BYU or Boise State and say "join us and you will be all but guaranteed to share in the playoff money every year whether you play in it or not".

In the end it all comes down to two issues:

1. How much Gross Total Revenue does the school generate.

2. Will it be enough to pay players should the cap on stipends be removed, or significantly raised.

Those 2 factors will determine either contractually or de facto who is or isn't upper tier whether that is determined by media or by a breakaway, or by new classifications.

What it will do is offer upward mobility for 6 to 9 current G5 members and maybe a bow out for 3 to 5 current P5 members.

Also, I'd rather offer a recruit a contract than a scholarship. It would be more binding for a full 4 years and mandated play in bowl games, and if a player turned pro early subject to a buyout.

(06-21-2021 04:48 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 03:10 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 09:20 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-11-2021 08:01 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  Me thinks that the big winners in this will be the SEC, Big 10, AAC, and MW. This could be a scheme by the first two to distance themselves from the other three "power" conferences. The AAC and MW theoretically are on a level playing field with at least the Pac-12 and ACC now and maybe even the Big 12. If they go forward with the top 6 conference champions (which I think is for anti-trust reasons) + 6 wild cards, it could turn into a de-facto P6.

The cartel wants all the power to them. If the AAC and MWC start getting spots that the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 believe belongs to them, it’s the day those conferences will expand, taking the best properties and decimating those two conferences to irrelevance. A school like Cincinnati would suddenly find a spot in the cartel while East Carolina would still be left out.

All fine and good, but the "Top-6 conference champs" part of the proposal keeps the AAC in play. Let a 14-16 team Big-12 jockey for their playoff spot while the AAC still gets one to share among 8-10 teams.

To be honest, I'll take the CFP spot over Autonomous status every time. The "P5" can keep being the P5. The AAC will be happy to take the added media value, extra loot, and better footing for recruiting players/coaches against all but the very top of the P5 that removing the invisible wall to the playoffs gives us.

The SEC has gotten 50% of the playoff field before. At best, they can now get 58%. We're going from 0 to at least 8%. We'll take it.

Should be an interesting few years.

To your point, why would the B-12 want to add 4 more mouths to feed when it's conference champ is going to be one of the top 6 conference champs 99.9% of the time. What this does do is give allow the AAC to credible approach the BYU or Boise State and say "join us and you will be all but guaranteed to share in the playoff money every year whether you play in it or not".

To your point, why would the American want to add more mouths when they're already dominating the 6th spot? Plus, BYU and Boise State are divas and have proven that over and over.