The B12 and PAC12 are worried about open-ended language. There are years that one or both of them could miss the playoffs.

(11-13-2021 08:30 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The B12 and PAC12 are worried about open-ended language. There are years that one or both of them could miss the playoffs.

The B12, PAC, and ACC should be worried. The committee will always shill for the B1G and SEC

(11-13-2021 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 07:53 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:08 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Aresco has come out foursquare against the Alliance proposal for P5 autobids plus a single bid for the G5 in an expanded 12-team playoff.

I say KUDOS to Aresco!

Yes, 5+1 does give the G5 what it wants in a technical sense, a guaranteed playoff spot. But IMO at a large ideological/symbolic cost. It validates the Little 12 that took three AAC teams as a Power conference, and it formally divides the P5 and G5 in the playoffs. We should have the same thing with Top 6, where there is no distinction between P and G.

Good on Aresco.

Credit to "Kit-Kat" on the realignment board:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/...ar-AAQDza4

Agree.

However, Aresco has rarely gotten anywhere with his protests or demands.

In order to get anywhere, he's going to have to make a mutually-acceptable counter-proposal:

A 12-team CFP with automatic bids for the top 6 ranked conference champions and the 5 P5 champions.

It sounds impossible, but it can easily be done. Here's how it would work:

Many years, the top 6-ranked conference champions will include the P5 champions.

Occasionally, the top 6 champs will include 2 G5 champions.

---In these years, the lowest-ranked of the 7 conference champions would play the lowest-ranked of the 6 "at-large" teams in a play-in game. The winner would advance.

---The play-in game would be considered part of the playoffs, with 13 teams in the playoffs when there are play-in games.

---If it's impossible to hold a play-in game, then a selection procedure could be used to determine which of the two "play-in" teams would compete in the playoffs.

-----A "possession arrow" solution could be used. The first "play-in" situation would send the champion or at-large team into the playoff based on a coin toss (or perhaps the team with the higher academic standing).

-----If a P5 team gets in for the first "play-in" year, the G5 team would get in the next time, and so on, alternating back and forth, like BB possession arrow.

.

That's a simple, logical, and feasible compromise position. If an actual play-in game were held, it would satisfy the Alliance's wish for all P5 champions to compete in the playoffs, and it would also satisfy the other conferences' wish for the top 6 ranked conference champions to do so.

.

IMO, the objection to the Alliance proposed 5+1 model is probably less about the likely very rare occasion where the G5 would have two of the top six conference champs.

It is more about the symbolism of all of the Ps having guaranteed spots for their champs while the Gs would not. That symbolism codifies the P5/G5 split that, which while we all know is real, is what Aresco and probably other Gs have always been fighting against.

That may be the case, but the idea of including the top 6 conference champions was considered a winner because it would help to offset anti-trust concerns.

Limiting the G5 conferences to only 1 auto-bid could land the P5 in court, and would create a negative "symbolism" from the standpoint of the U.S. Department of Justice's anti-trust division.

(11-12-2021 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  will be curious how this plays out

this 5+1 with 12 teams was a compromise between the sec, big 12 & the alliance

the other g5 dont mind being labeled g5...and accept they are arent competing with the p5

push come to shove the aac will likely be only one opposed to this if its agreed on by the p5

we'll see how much influence the aac has... aresco is obviously making the "smart" move for the aac...if the sunbelt and mwc were ambitious theyd be doing the same, but that is unlikelyto happen

now we'll see if aresco has enough influence to actually oppose it, and also noting the p5 will decide the distribution of the new playoff system..so it might be unwise to create to much ire with the p5

Well technically, he can successfully oppose it all by himself, if we're talking about early expansion to 12. It only takes one "no" to sink that, and Aresco has a vote.

Now after 2025, things are different.

I personally say push for it. I don't think the new Little 12 should be validated as a "P", and I don't think there should be a P/G distinction. Top Six, IMO.

The Big XII doesn't have to be validated as a P5 when they are an autonomous conference. It would take a vote from the presidents of the power conferences to take that status away from the Big XII and they have pretty much said they will not take that action.

(11-13-2021 09:57 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  will be curious how this plays out

this 5+1 with 12 teams was a compromise between the sec, big 12 & the alliance

the other g5 dont mind being labeled g5...and accept they are arent competing with the p5

push come to shove the aac will likely be only one opposed to this if its agreed on by the p5

we'll see how much influence the aac has... aresco is obviously making the "smart" move for the aac...if the sunbelt and mwc were ambitious theyd be doing the same, but that is unlikelyto happen

now we'll see if aresco has enough influence to actually oppose it, and also noting the p5 will decide the distribution of the new playoff system..so it might be unwise to create to much ire with the p5

Well technically, he can successfully oppose it all by himself, if we're talking about early expansion to 12. It only takes one "no" to sink that, and Aresco has a vote.

Now after 2025, things are different.

I personally say push for it. I don't think the new Little 12 should be validated as a "P", and I don't think there should be a P/G distinction. Top Six, IMO.

The Big XII doesn't have to be validated as a P5 when they are an autonomous conference. It would take a vote from the presidents of the power conferences to take that status away from the Big XII and they have pretty much said they will not take that action.

I think that Autonomy does not by itself make the new B12 a Power conference. It just makes them an autonomous conference. Yes, it's one marker of Power, but IMO not a major one. The real markers of power are things like Contract Bowl ties and the size of the media deal.

The media deal (sans TX and OU) is TBA. Contract bowl ties are likely going away with an expanded playoffs. So the Alliance proposal would formalize new B12 status as a "power" conference in a way that is IMO much more symbolic than Autonomy, which they got as a result of Texas and Oklahoma, and which they will retain merely because there's no formal way to strip them of it.

(11-13-2021 09:57 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  will be curious how this plays out

this 5+1 with 12 teams was a compromise between the sec, big 12 & the alliance

the other g5 dont mind being labeled g5...and accept they are arent competing with the p5

push come to shove the aac will likely be only one opposed to this if its agreed on by the p5

we'll see how much influence the aac has... aresco is obviously making the "smart" move for the aac...if the sunbelt and mwc were ambitious theyd be doing the same, but that is unlikelyto happen

now we'll see if aresco has enough influence to actually oppose it, and also noting the p5 will decide the distribution of the new playoff system..so it might be unwise to create to much ire with the p5

Well technically, he can successfully oppose it all by himself, if we're talking about early expansion to 12. It only takes one "no" to sink that, and Aresco has a vote.

Now after 2025, things are different.

I personally say push for it. I don't think the new Little 12 should be validated as a "P", and I don't think there should be a P/G distinction. Top Six, IMO.

The Big XII doesn't have to be validated as a P5 when they are an autonomous conference. It would take a vote from the presidents of the power conferences to take that status away from the Big XII and they have pretty much said they will not take that action.

Sure but the status only means something inasmuch as it gives them bowl access. If there are no names obligated in then you can play your way to relevance.

(11-13-2021 01:12 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 08:27 PM)owl at the moon Wrote:  I’m not understanding the differences in position between Aresco and everyone else.

P5 wants the champions of the official top 5 conferences, plus one more champion picked by a committee.

Aresco wants the top 6 champions picked by a committee picked by the official top 5 conferences.

I guess the first method is less controversial and generates less griping about committee selections.

But either way the same teams are getting picked.


6-7 UCLA is obviously superior to a 13-0 Liberty because SoS.

No, it's not the same... What Aresco is fighting for is the highest ranked conference champions, that could mean that it is possible to have a representative from the AAC and the Sun Belt or a representative from the MAC and the MW qualify in the same tear like when the PAC-12 champ is ranked 17 or any other Piss5 champ is ranked no better than #7.

Right now Aresco is the only one fighting for the G5, every G4 commissioner has no balls, and Judy McCloud is the only one with a valid excuse!

Those last 11 words really made me smile.

I agree with opposing it.

Should be 10 conference champions plus 2 at large to give independents a shot but every team starts the season at least eligible

If it’s 1 G5 between the 5 conferences you run into where UTSA having an undefeated season in CUSA can get left out to a 1 loss houston or Cincinnati and they are eliminated before the season starts.

(11-13-2021 03:39 PM)vcoog Wrote:  I agree with opposing it.

Should be 10 conference champions plus 2 at large to give independents a shot but every team starts the season at least eligible

If it’s 1 G5 between the 5 conferences you run into where UTSA having an undefeated season in CUSA can get left out to a 1 loss houston or Cincinnati and they are eliminated before the season starts.

Well they would have to lose the championship game to get left out. If undefeated cincy wins (under this scenario) they would rightfully get the nod.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

(11-13-2021 03:57 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 03:39 PM)vcoog Wrote:  I agree with opposing it.

Should be 10 conference champions plus 2 at large to give independents a shot but every team starts the season at least eligible

If it’s 1 G5 between the 5 conferences you run into where UTSA having an undefeated season in CUSA can get left out to a 1 loss houston or Cincinnati and they are eliminated before the season starts.

Well they would have to lose the championship game to get left out. If undefeated cincy wins (under this scenario) they would rightfully get the nod.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

So if at the end of the year if UC is undefeated and UTSA is undefeated under this system UTSA just does what? Plays in the Alamo bowl vs okie state or something?

No thanks give all the conferences one bid just like in basketball

(11-13-2021 05:07 PM)vcoog Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 03:57 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 03:39 PM)vcoog Wrote:  I agree with opposing it.

Should be 10 conference champions plus 2 at large to give independents a shot but every team starts the season at least eligible

If it’s 1 G5 between the 5 conferences you run into where UTSA having an undefeated season in CUSA can get left out to a 1 loss houston or Cincinnati and they are eliminated before the season starts.

Well they would have to lose the championship game to get left out. If undefeated cincy wins (under this scenario) they would rightfully get the nod.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

So if at the end of the year if UC is undefeated and UTSA is undefeated under this system UTSA just does what? Plays in the Alamo bowl vs okie state or something?

No thanks give all the conferences one bid just like in basketball

That will never happen. So they can either accept this system or get nothing.


Sent from the Warp via the ruinous powers of Chaos!

It must be 12Teams (6+6), because on any give year the BIG XII, PAC-12 or the ACC will not qualify meaning there will be 2 both AAC and C-USA making the playoff.

(11-13-2021 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 09:57 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  will be curious how this plays out

this 5+1 with 12 teams was a compromise between the sec, big 12 & the alliance

the other g5 dont mind being labeled g5...and accept they are arent competing with the p5

push come to shove the aac will likely be only one opposed to this if its agreed on by the p5

we'll see how much influence the aac has... aresco is obviously making the "smart" move for the aac...if the sunbelt and mwc were ambitious theyd be doing the same, but that is unlikelyto happen

now we'll see if aresco has enough influence to actually oppose it, and also noting the p5 will decide the distribution of the new playoff system..so it might be unwise to create to much ire with the p5

Well technically, he can successfully oppose it all by himself, if we're talking about early expansion to 12. It only takes one "no" to sink that, and Aresco has a vote.

Now after 2025, things are different.

I personally say push for it. I don't think the new Little 12 should be validated as a "P", and I don't think there should be a P/G distinction. Top Six, IMO.

The Big XII doesn't have to be validated as a P5 when they are an autonomous conference. It would take a vote from the presidents of the power conferences to take that status away from the Big XII and they have pretty much said they will not take that action.

I think that Autonomy does not by itself make the new B12 a Power conference. It just makes them an autonomous conference. Yes, it's one marker of Power, but IMO not a major one. The real markers of power are things like Contract Bowl ties and the size of the media deal.

The media deal (sans TX and OU) is TBA. Contract bowl ties are likely going away with an expanded playoffs. So the Alliance proposal would formalize new B12 status as a "power" conference in a way that is IMO much more symbolic than Autonomy, which they got as a result of Texas and Oklahoma, and which they will retain merely because there's no formal way to strip them of it.

I agree with this. As a Houston fan, I am thrilled with the alliance proposal. As a football fan, I strongly disagree with it. I think the Alliance proposal retains current contract bowl system and guarantees major bowl conferences a slot in the playoffs.

(11-13-2021 08:30 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The B12 and PAC12 are worried about open-ended language. There are years that one or both of them could miss the playoffs.

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^
You can add the ACC to that group.

(11-13-2021 07:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 08:30 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The B12 and PAC12 are worried about open-ended language. There are years that one or both of them could miss the playoffs.

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^
You can add the ACC to that group.

How many times in the last 10 years would any of those conferences miss out? Last year doesnt count.

Going forward should be the same. You guys are nuts if you think the AAC, MW and/or SB would regularly supplant one of those conference.

(11-13-2021 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 09:57 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  will be curious how this plays out

this 5+1 with 12 teams was a compromise between the sec, big 12 & the alliance

the other g5 dont mind being labeled g5...and accept they are arent competing with the p5

push come to shove the aac will likely be only one opposed to this if its agreed on by the p5

we'll see how much influence the aac has... aresco is obviously making the "smart" move for the aac...if the sunbelt and mwc were ambitious theyd be doing the same, but that is unlikelyto happen

now we'll see if aresco has enough influence to actually oppose it, and also noting the p5 will decide the distribution of the new playoff system..so it might be unwise to create to much ire with the p5

Well technically, he can successfully oppose it all by himself, if we're talking about early expansion to 12. It only takes one "no" to sink that, and Aresco has a vote.

Now after 2025, things are different.

I personally say push for it. I don't think the new Little 12 should be validated as a "P", and I don't think there should be a P/G distinction. Top Six, IMO.

The Big XII doesn't have to be validated as a P5 when they are an autonomous conference. It would take a vote from the presidents of the power conferences to take that status away from the Big XII and they have pretty much said they will not take that action.

I think that Autonomy does not by itself make the new B12 a Power conference. It just makes them an autonomous conference. Yes, it's one marker of Power, but IMO not a major one. The real markers of power are things like Contract Bowl ties and the size of the media deal.

The media deal (sans TX and OU) is TBA. Contract bowl ties are likely going away with an expanded playoffs. So the Alliance proposal would formalize new B12 status as a "power" conference in a way that is IMO much more symbolic than Autonomy, which they got as a result of Texas and Oklahoma, and which they will retain merely because there's no formal way to strip them of it.

There is a formal way to strip them of it, the other P4 presidents could vote to strip them of autonomous status. They just won't do it. Besides, I don't think it will mean much down the line to have a P-tag to identify your conference status.

(11-13-2021 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 09:57 AM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-12-2021 06:25 PM)pesik Wrote:  will be curious how this plays out

this 5+1 with 12 teams was a compromise between the sec, big 12 & the alliance

the other g5 dont mind being labeled g5...and accept they are arent competing with the p5

push come to shove the aac will likely be only one opposed to this if its agreed on by the p5

we'll see how much influence the aac has... aresco is obviously making the "smart" move for the aac...if the sunbelt and mwc were ambitious theyd be doing the same, but that is unlikelyto happen

now we'll see if aresco has enough influence to actually oppose it, and also noting the p5 will decide the distribution of the new playoff system..so it might be unwise to create to much ire with the p5

Well technically, he can successfully oppose it all by himself, if we're talking about early expansion to 12. It only takes one "no" to sink that, and Aresco has a vote.

Now after 2025, things are different.

I personally say push for it. I don't think the new Little 12 should be validated as a "P", and I don't think there should be a P/G distinction. Top Six, IMO.

The Big XII doesn't have to be validated as a P5 when they are an autonomous conference. It would take a vote from the presidents of the power conferences to take that status away from the Big XII and they have pretty much said they will not take that action.

I think that Autonomy does not by itself make the new B12 a Power conference. It just makes them an autonomous conference. Yes, it's one marker of Power, but IMO not a major one. The real markers of power are things like Contract Bowl ties and the size of the media deal.

The media deal (sans TX and OU) is TBA. Contract bowl ties are likely going away with an expanded playoffs. So the Alliance proposal would formalize new B12 status as a "power" conference in a way that is IMO much more symbolic than Autonomy, which they got as a result of Texas and Oklahoma, and which they will retain merely because there's no formal way to strip them of it.

As soon as UT and OU leave the BIG XII ceases to exist as power conference!

(11-13-2021 08:57 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 07:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 08:30 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The B12 and PAC12 are worried about open-ended language. There are years that one or both of them could miss the playoffs.

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^
You can add the ACC to that group.

How many times in the last 10 years would any of those conferences miss out? Last year doesnt count.

Going forward should be the same. You guys are nuts if you think the AAC, MW and/or SB would regularly supplant one of those conference.

No I get it, UTEP knows it's place.

Any member of the "G5" that is against a 12 Team (6+6) playoff is ignorant at best, despite what the odds might be, a 12 Team (6+6) playoff should be the bare minim of what AAC, CUSA, MAC, MW, and SBC should demand. Even the SEC and the BIG XII, to a lesser extent, are in favor of this format.

What part of monopoly/forced compliance don't you understand?

They are saing your team and your conference $uck and you are here agreeing with them... SMFH.

(11-13-2021 09:48 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 08:57 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 07:46 PM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(11-13-2021 08:30 AM)ECBrad Wrote:  The B12 and PAC12 are worried about open-ended language. There are years that one or both of them could miss the playoffs.

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^
You can add the ACC to that group.

How many times in the last 10 years would any of those conferences miss out? Last year doesnt count.

Going forward should be the same. You guys are nuts if you think the AAC, MW and/or SB would regularly supplant one of those conference.

No I get it, UTEP knows it's place.

Any member of the "G5" that is against a 12 Team (6+6) playoff is ignorant at best, despite what the odds might be, a 12 Team (6+6) playoff should be the bare minim of what AAC, CUSA, MAC, MW, and SBC should demand. Even the SEC and the BIG XII, to a lesser extent, are in favor of this format.

What part of monopoly/forced compliance don't you understand?

They are saing your team and your conference $uck and you are here agreeing with them... SMFH.

Forced compliance? You can’t read the writing on the wall? UCF went back to back undefeated seasons and couldn’t get in the playoffs as a non autonomous conference champion. This is a guaranteed spot for a non autonomous champion to make the playoffs, and your widdle feelings are hurt because autonomous conference champions are getting in and the AAC isn’t guaranteed to get in anymore because the cream has been skimmed off the top by the big12 with the departure of UC, UH, and UCF. Now the Sunbelt or MW could supplant the AAC as the top non autonomous conference, the AAC might not fill that playoff spot. If the model isn’t approved we will stay status quo until 2025 with a 4 team invitational, and no G5 team will ever get in. Then starting in 2026 moving forward the autonomous conferences will make their own playoff model and no G5 will ever have a chance to compete for the National championship. Don’t like it? Make your own revenue generating playoff model without the autonomous conferences, or else play by the money maker’s rules. See they make the money, the G5 conferences don’t. I know it sucks, but it’s true. Btw, every year the AAC got the NY6 bowl game it’s champion would have been in the playoffs under this model. If you think the AAC is the same as the Big12 then try and tell me with a straight face that Temple or any other AAC program wouldn’t jump at the chance if an invitation was extended.

The ruling (Alsten Case) in essence eliminates "P5" and creates a "P10", and if the CFP is assuming the responsibility of the NCAA in regards to FBS level football, then the same "That means most any rule passed by the NCAA (or by any other group of conferences acting in collusion) that seeks to limit athlete compensation is an anti-trust violation" also applies to the CFP.

Since the SEC, AAC+, and the BIG XII are not part of the alliance, make a counteroffer, decide before the end of December by choosing...

1. 10 FBS Conference champs + 2 at-large (NO AQ)... or

2. Top 8 FBS Conference champs + 4 at-large (NO AQ)... or

3. Top 6 FBS Conference champs + 6 at-large (NO AQ)