belgianbull Posted September 7, 2023 Group: Member Topic Count: 0 Content Count: 2,038 Reputation: 1,025 Days Won: 10 Joined: 12/02/2022 Share Posted September 7, 2023 (edited) 13 minutes ago, TallyBull said: So that means we keep the 6+6 format for at least the next three years? If that's the case, not sure there's that big of an advantage to the MWC to a reverse merger in terms of CFP access (I understand that there would be other advantages/revenues). The AAC will still be the sixth-best conference, unless something crazy happens and we're overtaken by CUSA or the Sun Belt, which seems very unlikely to me. Am I reading that right? with SMU gone, and if the AAC is not looking Westward, in a few years it would be a good time to look to add two teams to the AAC, to reinforce our best of the rest status. Perhaps wait to see what teams from those conferences separate themselves from others. Marshall, Appalachian State, WKU, Toledo, Liberty,... perhaps should be options if they keep winning. Don't want to be in a situation where we win the conference, but get outranked by one of those teams for the playoffs, Edited September 7, 2023 by belgianbull 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Johnson Posted September 7, 2023 Group: TBP Subscriber III Topic Count: 1,834 Content Count: 5,486 Reputation: 1,798 Days Won: 13 Joined: 12/02/2018 Share Posted September 7, 2023 26 minutes ago, TallyBull said: So that means we keep the 6+6 format for at least the next three years? If that's the case, not sure there's that big of an advantage to the MWC to a reverse merger in terms of CFP access (I understand that there would be other advantages/revenues). The AAC will still be the sixth-best conference, unless something crazy happens and we're overtaken by CUSA or the Sun Belt, which seems very unlikely to me. Am I reading that right? It might go to 5-7 with the new Mountain-PAC not getting the automatic bid and competing with AAC for that last auto-qualifier slot. I don't think that change would be controversial, it's the revenue distribution that would be -- PAC gets $79M per year for three more years; MWC/AAC/SBC/C-USA/MAC split $103M five ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinRicky Posted September 7, 2023 Group: TBP Subscriber III Topic Count: 583 Content Count: 22,718 Reputation: 5,859 Days Won: 109 Joined: 09/13/2007 Share Posted September 7, 2023 44 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said: Just a note -- it's not a bond. It's a loan. The differences are: Bonds require issuance by the Florida State Board of Administration. They cannot be easily refinanced. Loans are just a form of contract, which only requires Board of Governors approval. They can easily be refinanced. So if we default on the loan they'll come take the stadium away? Hmmm. Do these trucks come in a larger size? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallyBull Posted September 7, 2023 Group: Member Topic Count: 23 Content Count: 3,685 Reputation: 1,186 Days Won: 14 Joined: 01/19/2011 Share Posted September 7, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said: It might go to 5-7 with the new Mountain-PAC not getting the automatic bid and competing with AAC for that last auto-qualifier slot. I don't think that change would be controversial, it's the revenue distribution that would be -- PAC gets $79M per year for three more years; MWC/AAC/SBC/C-USA/MAC split $103M five ways. So that'll be the fight then. Here's hoping that Aresco is up to the task! But to clarify, in the meantime (the next three years), we're staying at 6-6? And because of that, the merged PAC/MWC doesn't really have an access advantage over the AAC - is that right? Edited September 7, 2023 by TallyBull Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Johnson Posted September 7, 2023 Group: TBP Subscriber III Topic Count: 1,834 Content Count: 5,486 Reputation: 1,798 Days Won: 13 Joined: 12/02/2018 Share Posted September 7, 2023 6 minutes ago, TallyBull said: But to clarify, in the meantime (the next three years), we're staying at 6-6? And because of that, the merged PAC/MWC doesn't really have an access advantage over the AAC - is that right? I don't know that is certain. We know the Big 10 and SEC want just the top 12 with no automatic qualifiers starting in 2024... the 5-7 model (top 5 champions and 7 at large) might be the compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallyBull Posted September 7, 2023 Group: Member Topic Count: 23 Content Count: 3,685 Reputation: 1,186 Days Won: 14 Joined: 01/19/2011 Share Posted September 7, 2023 14 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said: I don't know that is certain. We know the Big 10 and SEC want just the top 12 with no automatic qualifiers starting in 2024... the 5-7 model (top 5 champions and 7 at large) might be the compromise. Understood, thanks. But that 5-7 compromise would begin, at the soonest, in three years, right - that's my question? Because we're locked in to 6-6 for the next three years (unless there's unanimous approval to do otherwise, which won't happen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Johnson Posted September 7, 2023 Group: TBP Subscriber III Topic Count: 1,834 Content Count: 5,486 Reputation: 1,798 Days Won: 13 Joined: 12/02/2018 Share Posted September 7, 2023 14 minutes ago, TallyBull said: Understood, thanks. But that 5-7 compromise would begin, at the soonest, in three years, right - that's my question? Because we're locked in to 6-6 for the next three years (unless there's unanimous approval to do otherwise, which won't happen). No ... I am saying it would begin in 2024. The CFP committee started meeting last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple B Posted September 7, 2023 Group: Moderator Topic Count: 1,615 Content Count: 74,711 Reputation: 10,930 Days Won: 424 Joined: 11/25/2005 Share Posted September 7, 2023 3 hours ago, TallyBull said: I look forward to seeing the ponies get pummeled every year by Wake and Duke (not to mention FSU and Clemson). It’s been mentioned already but SMU had the buying players routine down when it was illegal …. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallyBull Posted September 7, 2023 Group: Member Topic Count: 23 Content Count: 3,685 Reputation: 1,186 Days Won: 14 Joined: 01/19/2011 Share Posted September 7, 2023 7 minutes ago, Triple B said: It’s been mentioned already but SMU had the buying players routine down when it was illegal …. Yeah. Different time. FSU and Clemson can buy a few players, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallyBull Posted September 7, 2023 Group: Member Topic Count: 23 Content Count: 3,685 Reputation: 1,186 Days Won: 14 Joined: 01/19/2011 Share Posted September 7, 2023 20 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said: No ... I am saying it would begin in 2024. The CFP committee started meeting last week. Thought I'd read that we were locked into 6 AQ + 6 at large for a few years. Thanks for the correction. FWIW here's a relevant article with some good background: https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-a-shrinking-pac-12-could-alter-the-selection-process-for-the-the-12-team-college-football-playoff/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now