(02-15-2022 08:04 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 06:42 AM)otown Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:42 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:51 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

Neither do P5's, but Sanky who prefers 6+6 has publicly stated the SEC is perfectly fine with just 4 and the rest are wearing on the SEC's generosity. Bowlsby is in favor of 6+6 as well. He knows the media contract haircut they are going to take, plus no candidates to up his contract value. If B12 can get by without losing Houston they could be safe and the 6+6 is their best model.

We'll see if realignment goes the way of a P4. I've read conferences are looking at POD's which may mean the go to model is 4 and 64.

There's really no telling what is going on behind close doors.

Not sure what the bolded part, haven’t read anywhere that Houston is leaving the big12.

That post was just mental gymnastics to make him feel better. He really was just trying to throw water on the Big 12 when it should have been about the playoff expansion. Realize the tell tail signs of a desperate post. "P4", "media deal haircut", "Houston leaving". It's really comical at this point.

The post really took a turn when he says Bowlsby is in favor of the 6÷6 because he sees a perceived poster's wet dream writing on the wall of the conference being demoted. However much a fantasy that this was, the autobids that are specifically supported by the alliance includes all P5, which includes the Big 12. There has been ZERO talk of a P4 other than G5 fanboys who want more company and spew that nonsense on message boards.

Now my opinion? I would rather the 6÷6 for completely other reasons. One thing I'm not worried about is the Big 12 getting left out in a 6÷6 scenario, passed by 2 G leagues. I think that distinction is to the ACC and PAC.

If Bowlsby and Sankey and the G5 are all in favor of the "6+6," then what is all the broughaha about?

Are we all talking about the same thing when he use the term "6+6?"

As I understand it, "6+6" means that the top 6 conference champs get auto bids, and the G5 favors that because it means that if the top two G5 champs are among the top 6, they're both in the playoff.

Another question: If Sankey and Bowlsby and the G5 are all in favor of the "6+6" formula, how can it fail when there's a majority vote?

Lastly, there have been some ingenious ideas about going with a flexible arrangement that would be basically "6+6," but with a fudge factor that would turn "6+6" into "7+5" when needed so that all the P5 conf. champs can squeeze into the playoffs.

Why is the debate always seem to be stuck on "5+1+6" vs. "6+6?"

The G5 folks would support a "6+6" with a "contingency 7+5" provision if that's what it would take to bring the Alliance on board, and it's unlikely that Sankey or Bowlsby would do anything to block that.

Are the three Alliance conferences intent on sabotaging the G5, come hell or high water, by blocking anything but a "5+1" option? Or could it be something even more nefarious?

"Inquiring minds want to know..."

.

About the bold, there really is no majority vote, not now or in 2026.

Regarding changing the current CFP before it expires in 2026: Every single conference has a veto over that, as does Notre Dame, because changing the current system before it expires requires a unanimous vote.

Even after the CFP expires, no conference can be forced to join a system it doesn't want to join. E.g., if in 2026, seven conferences vote to create a new 12-team playoff, but 3 conferences vote no, those three can choose not to join the new playoff system. They aren't compelled to join because a majority of others creates it.

At that point, it will just be how important those three conferences are. E.g., if it is three G5 conferences, they will be ignored and TV will be happy to pay huge dollars for the 7-conference expanded playoff.

But if the three include one or more P5 conferences, especially if one is the SEC or B1G, then that wrecks the whole applecart, because TV won't be willing to pay if those key players aren't included.

That IMO is the real bottom line here - the SEC and B1G each have an effective veto over any playoff system, now or in 2026, because a playoff without them will lack credibility and media appeal. So they have to be accomodated.

Right now, the SEC is firmly on the side of the AAC and other G5, and that is big.

(02-15-2022 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:04 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 06:42 AM)otown Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:42 PM)Acres Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:51 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  Neither do P5's, but Sanky who prefers 6+6 has publicly stated the SEC is perfectly fine with just 4 and the rest are wearing on the SEC's generosity. Bowlsby is in favor of 6+6 as well. He knows the media contract haircut they are going to take, plus no candidates to up his contract value. If B12 can get by without losing Houston they could be safe and the 6+6 is their best model.

We'll see if realignment goes the way of a P4. I've read conferences are looking at POD's which may mean the go to model is 4 and 64.

There's really no telling what is going on behind close doors.

Not sure what the bolded part, haven’t read anywhere that Houston is leaving the big12.

That post was just mental gymnastics to make him feel better. He really was just trying to throw water on the Big 12 when it should have been about the playoff expansion. Realize the tell tail signs of a desperate post. "P4", "media deal haircut", "Houston leaving". It's really comical at this point.

The post really took a turn when he says Bowlsby is in favor of the 6÷6 because he sees a perceived poster's wet dream writing on the wall of the conference being demoted. However much a fantasy that this was, the autobids that are specifically supported by the alliance includes all P5, which includes the Big 12. There has been ZERO talk of a P4 other than G5 fanboys who want more company and spew that nonsense on message boards.

Now my opinion? I would rather the 6÷6 for completely other reasons. One thing I'm not worried about is the Big 12 getting left out in a 6÷6 scenario, passed by 2 G leagues. I think that distinction is to the ACC and PAC.

If Bowlsby and Sankey and the G5 are all in favor of the "6+6," then what is all the broughaha about?

Are we all talking about the same thing when he use the term "6+6?"

As I understand it, "6+6" means that the top 6 conference champs get auto bids, and the G5 favors that because it means that if the top two G5 champs are among the top 6, they're both in the playoff.

Another question: If Sankey and Bowlsby and the G5 are all in favor of the "6+6" formula, how can it fail when there's a majority vote?

Lastly, there have been some ingenious ideas about going with a flexible arrangement that would be basically "6+6," but with a fudge factor that would turn "6+6" into "7+5" when needed so that all the P5 conf. champs can squeeze into the playoffs.

Why is the debate always seem to be stuck on "5+1+6" vs. "6+6?"

The G5 folks would support a "6+6" with a "contingency 7+5" provision if that's what it would take to bring the Alliance on board, and it's unlikely that Sankey or Bowlsby would do anything to block that.

Are the three Alliance conferences intent on sabotaging the G5, come hell or high water, by blocking anything but a "5+1" option? Or could it be something even more nefarious?

"Inquiring minds want to know..."

.

About the bold, there really is no majority vote, not now or in 2026.

Regarding changing the current CFP before it expires in 2026: Every single conference has a veto over that, as does Notre Dame, because changing the current system before it expires requires a unanimous vote.

Even after the CFP expires, no conference can be forced to join a system it doesn't want to join. E.g., if in 2026, seven conferences vote to create a new 12-team playoff, but 3 conferences vote no, those three can choose not to join the new playoff system. They aren't compelled to join because a majority of others creates it.

At that point, it will just be how important those three conferences are. E.g., if it is three G5 conferences, they will be ignored and TV will be happy to pay huge dollars for the 7-conference expanded playoff.

But if the three include one or more P5 conferences, especially if one is the SEC or B1G, then that wrecks the whole applecart, because TV won't be willing to pay if those key players aren't included.

That IMO is the real bottom line here - the SEC and B1G each have an effective veto over any playoff system, now or in 2026, because a playoff without them will lack credibility and media appeal. So they have to be accomodated.

Right now, the SEC is firmly on the side of the AAC and other G5, and that is big.

The only difference between SEC and BigTen, is that SEC is fine with ESPN having the CFP entirely and the BigTen is not. That’s why I keep saying the playoffs will expand for 2026 with more than one Media partner, more likely with a 5+1+6 because the PAC and Big12 will push for that.

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Pretty sure we are locked into the current system till contract expires in 2025. This 6+6 letter is useless till meetings start up again around 2024.

Right now the PAC has switched gears to its tv deal.
The rest of us have realignment exit fees and dates to iron out.

Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

This is a great point. I'm aligned with Aresco on this and believe the 6/6 model is better than the 5+1/6 model, but there could be worse alternatives if they wait too long.

(02-15-2022 11:27 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Pretty sure we are locked into the current system till contract expires in 2025. This 6+6 letter is useless till meetings start up again around 2024.

Right now the PAC has switched gears to its tv deal.
The rest of us have realignment exit fees and dates to iron out.

Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

This is a great point. I'm aligned with Aresco on this and believe the 6/6 model is better than the 5+1/6 model, but there could be worse alternatives if they wait too long.

I don’t think the 5+1+6 or 6+6, is the thing that holds up playoffs from expanding

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Pretty sure we are locked into the current system till contract expires in 2025. This 6+6 letter is useless till meetings start up again around 2024.

Right now the PAC has switched gears to its tv deal.
The rest of us have realignment exit fees and dates to iron out.

Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

Correct.

Arseco is trying to get the contract extended now while the G5 is still included in it and still has some voting rights on it.

If this current contract expires...the P5 Conf can then decide they don't want or need any of the G5 and can come up with their own deal starting in 2026...and Aresco knows that...hence trying to get something done NOW to extend the deal with new expansion.

(02-15-2022 12:52 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Pretty sure we are locked into the current system till contract expires in 2025. This 6+6 letter is useless till meetings start up again around 2024.

Right now the PAC has switched gears to its tv deal.
The rest of us have realignment exit fees and dates to iron out.

Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

Correct.

Arseco is trying to get the contract extended now while the G5 is still included in it and still has some voting rights on it.

If this current contract expires...the P5 Conf can then decide they don't want or need any of the G5 and can come up with their own deal starting in 2026...and Aresco knows that...hence trying to get something done NOW to extend the deal with new expansion.

I don’t believe that’s the case, the reality is the playoff situation will not be decided by the G5. His push is to include the AAC in playoffs prior to 2026 and to eliminate the P designation in the champions that get in.

The so-called P-5 designated conferences are powerful but doesn't mean the conferences that are not described as such should give up on trying for a more equitable playoff solution.

(02-15-2022 11:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:04 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 06:42 AM)otown Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 11:42 PM)Acres Wrote:  Not sure what the bolded part, haven’t read anywhere that Houston is leaving the big12.

That post was just mental gymnastics to make him feel better. He really was just trying to throw water on the Big 12 when it should have been about the playoff expansion. Realize the tell tail signs of a desperate post. "P4", "media deal haircut", "Houston leaving". It's really comical at this point.

The post really took a turn when he says Bowlsby is in favor of the 6÷6 because he sees a perceived poster's wet dream writing on the wall of the conference being demoted. However much a fantasy that this was, the autobids that are specifically supported by the alliance includes all P5, which includes the Big 12. There has been ZERO talk of a P4 other than G5 fanboys who want more company and spew that nonsense on message boards.

Now my opinion? I would rather the 6÷6 for completely other reasons. One thing I'm not worried about is the Big 12 getting left out in a 6÷6 scenario, passed by 2 G leagues. I think that distinction is to the ACC and PAC.

If Bowlsby and Sankey and the G5 are all in favor of the "6+6," then what is all the broughaha about?

Are we all talking about the same thing when he use the term "6+6?"

As I understand it, "6+6" means that the top 6 conference champs get auto bids, and the G5 favors that because it means that if the top two G5 champs are among the top 6, they're both in the playoff.

Another question: If Sankey and Bowlsby and the G5 are all in favor of the "6+6" formula, how can it fail when there's a majority vote?

Lastly, there have been some ingenious ideas about going with a flexible arrangement that would be basically "6+6," but with a fudge factor that would turn "6+6" into "7+5" when needed so that all the P5 conf. champs can squeeze into the playoffs.

Why is the debate always seem to be stuck on "5+1+6" vs. "6+6?"

The G5 folks would support a "6+6" with a "contingency 7+5" provision if that's what it would take to bring the Alliance on board, and it's unlikely that Sankey or Bowlsby would do anything to block that.

Are the three Alliance conferences intent on sabotaging the G5, come hell or high water, by blocking anything but a "5+1" option? Or could it be something even more nefarious?

"Inquiring minds want to know..."

.

About the bold, there really is no majority vote, not now or in 2026.

Regarding changing the current CFP before it expires in 2026: Every single conference has a veto over that, as does Notre Dame, because changing the current system before it expires requires a unanimous vote.

Even after the CFP expires, no conference can be forced to join a system it doesn't want to join. E.g., if in 2026, seven conferences vote to create a new 12-team playoff, but 3 conferences vote no, those three can choose not to join the new playoff system. They aren't compelled to join because a majority of others creates it.

At that point, it will just be how important those three conferences are. E.g., if it is three G5 conferences, they will be ignored and TV will be happy to pay huge dollars for the 7-conference expanded playoff.

But if the three include one or more P5 conferences, especially if one is the SEC or B1G, then that wrecks the whole applecart, because TV won't be willing to pay if those key players aren't included.

That IMO is the real bottom line here - the SEC and B1G each have an effective veto over any playoff system, now or in 2026, because a playoff without them will lack credibility and media appeal. So they have to be accomodated.

Right now, the SEC is firmly on the side of the AAC and other G5, and that is big.

The only difference between SEC and BigTen, is that SEC is fine with ESPN having the CFP entirely and the BigTen is not. That’s why I keep saying the playoffs will expand for 2026 with more than one Media partner, more likely with a 5+1+6 because the PAC and Big12 will push for that.

I agree with the way you put this.

Because I also think the SEC is fine with multiple media partners as well. It's fine either way. Whereas the B1G and maybe the PAC too really want multiple partners.

So when one bigwig is indifferent and another cares, the one that cares is likely to get their way.

And yeah, multiple partners can't be swung before 2026, as ESPN won't go for that. It would be tough to negotiate just a two-year expanded deal with ESPN.

One thing about ESPN - if you want to reopen an existing deal, they seem to want an extension in order to do it.

(02-14-2022 06:51 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Pretty sure we are locked into the current system till contract expires in 2025. This 6+6 letter is useless till meetings start up again around 2024.

Right now the PAC has switched gears to its tv deal.
The rest of us have realignment exit fees and dates to iron out.

Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

Neither do P5's, but Sanky who prefers 6+6 has publicly stated the SEC is perfectly fine with just 4 and the rest are wearing on the SEC's generosity. Bowlsby is in favor of 6+6 as well. He knows the media contract haircut they are going to take, plus no candidates to up his contract value. If B12 can get by without losing Houston they could be safe and the 6+6 is their best model.

We'll see if realignment goes the way of a P4. I've read conferences are looking at POD's which may mean the go to model is 4 and 64.

There's really no telling what is going on behind close doors.

This post shows how pathetic some ECU fans are. This post by this butt pirate is all fantasy. “ hold on to Houston”? And all the other BS comments about big 12 haircut and p4 and such are all just desperate comments from a fan of a school with small wiener complex. Keep dreaming pal

(02-15-2022 02:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 11:01 AM)Cubanbull1 Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 10:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 08:04 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 06:42 AM)otown Wrote:  That post was just mental gymnastics to make him feel better. He really was just trying to throw water on the Big 12 when it should have been about the playoff expansion. Realize the tell tail signs of a desperate post. "P4", "media deal haircut", "Houston leaving". It's really comical at this point.

The post really took a turn when he says Bowlsby is in favor of the 6÷6 because he sees a perceived poster's wet dream writing on the wall of the conference being demoted. However much a fantasy that this was, the autobids that are specifically supported by the alliance includes all P5, which includes the Big 12. There has been ZERO talk of a P4 other than G5 fanboys who want more company and spew that nonsense on message boards.

Now my opinion? I would rather the 6÷6 for completely other reasons. One thing I'm not worried about is the Big 12 getting left out in a 6÷6 scenario, passed by 2 G leagues. I think that distinction is to the ACC and PAC.

If Bowlsby and Sankey and the G5 are all in favor of the "6+6," then what is all the broughaha about?

Are we all talking about the same thing when he use the term "6+6?"

As I understand it, "6+6" means that the top 6 conference champs get auto bids, and the G5 favors that because it means that if the top two G5 champs are among the top 6, they're both in the playoff.

Another question: If Sankey and Bowlsby and the G5 are all in favor of the "6+6" formula, how can it fail when there's a majority vote?

Lastly, there have been some ingenious ideas about going with a flexible arrangement that would be basically "6+6," but with a fudge factor that would turn "6+6" into "7+5" when needed so that all the P5 conf. champs can squeeze into the playoffs.

Why is the debate always seem to be stuck on "5+1+6" vs. "6+6?"

The G5 folks would support a "6+6" with a "contingency 7+5" provision if that's what it would take to bring the Alliance on board, and it's unlikely that Sankey or Bowlsby would do anything to block that.

Are the three Alliance conferences intent on sabotaging the G5, come hell or high water, by blocking anything but a "5+1" option? Or could it be something even more nefarious?

"Inquiring minds want to know..."

.

About the bold, there really is no majority vote, not now or in 2026.

Regarding changing the current CFP before it expires in 2026: Every single conference has a veto over that, as does Notre Dame, because changing the current system before it expires requires a unanimous vote.

Even after the CFP expires, no conference can be forced to join a system it doesn't want to join. E.g., if in 2026, seven conferences vote to create a new 12-team playoff, but 3 conferences vote no, those three can choose not to join the new playoff system. They aren't compelled to join because a majority of others creates it.

At that point, it will just be how important those three conferences are. E.g., if it is three G5 conferences, they will be ignored and TV will be happy to pay huge dollars for the 7-conference expanded playoff.

But if the three include one or more P5 conferences, especially if one is the SEC or B1G, then that wrecks the whole applecart, because TV won't be willing to pay if those key players aren't included.

That IMO is the real bottom line here - the SEC and B1G each have an effective veto over any playoff system, now or in 2026, because a playoff without them will lack credibility and media appeal. So they have to be accomodated.

Right now, the SEC is firmly on the side of the AAC and other G5, and that is big.

The only difference between SEC and BigTen, is that SEC is fine with ESPN having the CFP entirely and the BigTen is not. That’s why I keep saying the playoffs will expand for 2026 with more than one Media partner, more likely with a 5+1+6 because the PAC and Big12 will push for that.

I agree with the way you put this.

Because I also think the SEC is fine with multiple media partners as well. It's fine either way. Whereas the B1G and maybe the PAC too really want multiple partners.

So when one bigwig is indifferent and another cares, the one that cares is likely to get their way.

And yeah, multiple partners can't be swung before 2026, as ESPN won't go for that. It would be tough to negotiate just a two-year expanded deal with ESPN.

One thing about ESPN - if you want to reopen an existing deal, they seem to want an extension in order to do it.

And this is why playoffs won’t expand until 2026. Alliance won’t led ESPN keep complete inventory and ESPN wot open it unless it can get an extension.
At the end of the day SEC and BigTen are fine with status quo until 2926 because they both know on most years they’ll fill 3 out of 4 spots and they’ll have a representative every year.
The ACC,PAC and Big12 will be the ones missing qualifying on a yearly basis.

(02-14-2022 10:45 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt is excited to have an actual commish again!

#P6

Absolutely brother!! Back a few years ago when realignment first made everyone nuts, Aresco took a lot of heat from within his own conference... but honestly he's amazing and worth every damn penny. He got the G5 the access bowl slot, smartly banked on huge exposure on a short deal with ESPN that paid off big time, got us our huge second TV deal (relatively speaking), knew how to stay friends with ESPN, and has fought tirelessly for P6.

What I've found most frustrating is that the MWC/MAC/SBC/cUSA never really got on board with our crusade. It was basically Aresco versus the other 9 conferences at times... Instead they basically argued to keep us down, instead of working to join us and make it P7, P8 or whatever. It's like they all gave up and accepted their fate. The G5 should have access, or separate from the P5 and hold their own championship ... no arbitrary fuzzy lines of 'separate but equal' just for show... and a playoff they will never let us compete in...

(02-15-2022 04:10 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:51 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Pretty sure we are locked into the current system till contract expires in 2025. This 6+6 letter is useless till meetings start up again around 2024.

Right now the PAC has switched gears to its tv deal.
The rest of us have realignment exit fees and dates to iron out.

Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

Neither do P5's, but Sanky who prefers 6+6 has publicly stated the SEC is perfectly fine with just 4 and the rest are wearing on the SEC's generosity. Bowlsby is in favor of 6+6 as well. He knows the media contract haircut they are going to take, plus no candidates to up his contract value. If B12 can get by without losing Houston they could be safe and the 6+6 is their best model.

We'll see if realignment goes the way of a P4. I've read conferences are looking at POD's which may mean the go to model is 4 and 64.

There's really no telling what is going on behind close doors.

This post shows how pathetic some ECU fans are. This post by this butt pirate is all fantasy. “ hold on to Houston”? And all the other BS comments about big 12 haircut and p4 and such are all just desperate comments from a fan of a school with small wiener complex. Keep dreaming pal

(11-24-2021 05:20 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  Tough to say, who in the hell knows where Greenville is anyway. I would be afraid of a Deliverance like experience since most of you ECU boys like other mens purty mouth

(02-12-2022 12:37 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  By the look of the ECU football players’ mugshots they probably asked the victim if he had a “purdy mouth”

I'm so sorry for whoever caused your unhealthy obsession. Please don't be ashamed to get help.

(02-16-2022 12:37 AM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 04:10 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:51 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Pretty sure we are locked into the current system till contract expires in 2025. This 6+6 letter is useless till meetings start up again around 2024.

Right now the PAC has switched gears to its tv deal.
The rest of us have realignment exit fees and dates to iron out.

Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

Neither do P5's, but Sanky who prefers 6+6 has publicly stated the SEC is perfectly fine with just 4 and the rest are wearing on the SEC's generosity. Bowlsby is in favor of 6+6 as well. He knows the media contract haircut they are going to take, plus no candidates to up his contract value. If B12 can get by without losing Houston they could be safe and the 6+6 is their best model.

We'll see if realignment goes the way of a P4. I've read conferences are looking at POD's which may mean the go to model is 4 and 64.

There's really no telling what is going on behind close doors.

This post shows how pathetic some ECU fans are. This post by this butt pirate is all fantasy. “ hold on to Houston”? And all the other BS comments about big 12 haircut and p4 and such are all just desperate comments from a fan of a school with small wiener complex. Keep dreaming pal

(11-24-2021 05:20 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  Tough to say, who in the hell knows where Greenville is anyway. I would be afraid of a Deliverance like experience since most of you ECU boys like other mens purty mouth

(02-12-2022 12:37 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  By the look of the ECU football players’ mugshots they probably asked the victim if he had a “purdy mouth”

I'm so sorry for whoever caused your unhealthy obsession. Please don't be ashamed to get help.

Thanks for posting that montage of my posts! Youse a good butt pirate!

(02-17-2022 07:55 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  

(02-16-2022 12:37 AM)mikeinoki Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 04:10 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:51 PM)Pirate Rep Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

Neither do P5's, but Sanky who prefers 6+6 has publicly stated the SEC is perfectly fine with just 4 and the rest are wearing on the SEC's generosity. Bowlsby is in favor of 6+6 as well. He knows the media contract haircut they are going to take, plus no candidates to up his contract value. If B12 can get by without losing Houston they could be safe and the 6+6 is their best model.

We'll see if realignment goes the way of a P4. I've read conferences are looking at POD's which may mean the go to model is 4 and 64.

There's really no telling what is going on behind close doors.

This post shows how pathetic some ECU fans are. This post by this butt pirate is all fantasy. “ hold on to Houston”? And all the other BS comments about big 12 haircut and p4 and such are all just desperate comments from a fan of a school with small wiener complex. Keep dreaming pal

(11-24-2021 05:20 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  Tough to say, who in the hell knows where Greenville is anyway. I would be afraid of a Deliverance like experience since most of you ECU boys like other mens purty mouth

(02-12-2022 12:37 PM)shocknawe Wrote:  By the look of the ECU football players’ mugshots they probably asked the victim if he had a “purdy mouth”

I'm so sorry for whoever caused your unhealthy obsession. Please don't be ashamed to get help.

Thanks for posting that montage of my posts! Youse a good butt pirate!

(02-15-2022 12:52 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Pretty sure we are locked into the current system till contract expires in 2025. This 6+6 letter is useless till meetings start up again around 2024.

Right now the PAC has switched gears to its tv deal.
The rest of us have realignment exit fees and dates to iron out.

Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

Correct.

Arseco is trying to get the contract extended now while the G5 is still included in it and still has some voting rights on it.

If this current contract expires...the P5 Conf can then decide they don't want or need any of the G5 and can come up with their own deal starting in 2026...and Aresco knows that...hence trying to get something done NOW to extend the deal with new expansion.

Hate to be the kinds of guys to say we told them so…

(02-18-2022 12:12 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-15-2022 12:52 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 06:22 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Pretty sure we are locked into the current system till contract expires in 2025. This 6+6 letter is useless till meetings start up again around 2024.

Right now the PAC has switched gears to its tv deal.
The rest of us have realignment exit fees and dates to iron out.

Locked into the current system until 2025 unless all 10 conference commissioners agree unanimously to a change.

In 25’ the P5 can do what it wants with or without the G5 agreeing to it. I’d say it is in the AAC’s interest to agree to something before then. All G5’s don’t even agree with Aresco on this yet.

Correct.

Arseco is trying to get the contract extended now while the G5 is still included in it and still has some voting rights on it.

If this current contract expires...the P5 Conf can then decide they don't want or need any of the G5 and can come up with their own deal starting in 2026...and Aresco knows that...hence trying to get something done NOW to extend the deal with new expansion.

Hate to be the kinds of guys to say we told them so…

LOL. You really think that Aresco was the reason playoffs didn’t expand.

I think if he got behind the 5+1 proposal that the AAC would likely have a participant in the CFP most years.

I’m sure he will put a sternly worded press release soon. Lol

(02-18-2022 12:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I think if he got behind the 5+1 proposal that the AAC would likely have a participant in the CFP most years.

I’m sure he will put a sternly worded press release soon. Lol

did you actually read the open letter? honest question

I did. Heard his interviews too. He’s been pushing for a year and people like the Pac10 were not interested.

Perhaps he gets what he wants in 2026. Perhaps his conference isn’t even part of the next agreement altogether.

(02-18-2022 01:14 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I did. Heard his interviews too. He’s been pushing for a year and people like the Pac10 were not interested.

Perhaps he gets what he wants in 2026. Perhaps his conference isn’t even part of the next agreement altogether.

Come 2026 the CFP will expand. It will probably be 5+1+6 and it’s media rights will be split among ESPN and other Media outlets.