Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[Peatearpan]

6 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

HAve you watched Training day? Don't F*** with Russians.

I mean, yea I would 100% put my money on Goach. He’s one tough ass dude!

[Jim Johnson]

 

[Outlaw]

19 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

 

Is the AAC guaranteed at least one of those spots in the 5 plus 7 model?

[79 Bull]

15 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

Is the AAC guaranteed at least one of those spots in the 5 plus 7 model?

Nope, highest ranked G5 champion only.  Someone got to him in the hallways.  Hope he was offered something in return for the AAC.

[Triple B]

33 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

So I'm assuming this is for after the 2024 and 2025 seasons .... ?

[Friscobull]

12 hours ago, USFBulls12 said:

Absolutely the most ideal situation to ensure USF has a place to grow and compete over the next 20-30+ years would be to go to the Big 10 and not the ACC. We want don’t want to realign into a new conference but make a lateral or diagonal move. We have to have short term success now and get lucky with an invite to the Big 10. It’s a game changer. 

[Jim Johnson]

24 minutes ago, Triple B said:

So I'm assuming this is for after the 2024 and 2025 seasons .... ?

Not necessarily.

[Triple B]

14 minutes ago, Jim Johnson said:

Not necessarily.

Then I'm not sure what he's doing, unless they know WSU and OSU are going into a current P4.

[Jim Johnson]

At this point, one way or another, there are three possibilities,” Aresco said. “You keep the 6+6 for two years. I don’t think 6+6 survives because one way or another there is going to be some kind of Mountain West; those two teams have to play somewhere. So, that means you basically have a P4 going forward. So, your options are keep 6+6, go to 5+7 or make, like Greg (Sankey) has talked about, it all at-larges. I don’t think there’s going to be any support in the room, except maybe by the SEC and the Big Ten, for all at-larges because it’s too risky. No one likes that kind of risk.

“You want this Playoff to be a national Playoff. You want the 65 schools in our group to be involved. You want the other 65 to be involved. … No one is talking about expanding the Playoff, so if you’re talking 12 teams, I don’t think anyone in our group could accept a (model) with three or four automatics because that means we’re out again. And we were out for 10 years.”

Is this a surprise?

Not really. A 5+7 format has always been the most likely to garner unanimous support if the 6+6 was going to change following the demise of the Pac-12. Sure, the Group of 5 could have held out for 6+6 on the belief it would have at least two guaranteed spots, but this is about more than the next two years. The entire CFP for 2026 and beyond is still technically TBD, and it’s no secret the SEC would prefer 12 at-large berths, which could keep the G5 out in most years. At the moment, it doesn’t need to be a unanimous vote for changes for 2026 and beyond, either. No need to upset the Power 4 conferences now and push them to move to 12 at-larges. And if 5+7 succeeds, the more likely it is to continue with at least one guaranteed spot for the G5 conferences.

 

 

Aresco expresses support for 5+7 CFP format

THEATHLETIC.COM

---

A 5+7 model would feature a 12-team playoff made up of the five highest-ranked conference champions and the seven best at-large teams.

 

[Triple B]

1 minute ago, Jim Johnson said:

At this point, one way or another, there are three possibilities,” Aresco said. “You keep the 6+6 for two years. I don’t think 6+6 survives because one way or another there is going to be some kind of Mountain West; those two teams have to play somewhere. So, that means you basically have a P4 going forward. So, your options are keep 6+6, go to 5+7 or make, like Greg (Sankey) has talked about, it all at-larges. I don’t think there’s going to be any support in the room, except maybe by the SEC and the Big Ten, for all at-larges because it’s too risky. No one likes that kind of risk.

“You want this Playoff to be a national Playoff. You want the 65 schools in our group to be involved. You want the other 65 to be involved. … No one is talking about expanding the Playoff, so if you’re talking 12 teams, I don’t think anyone in our group could accept a (model) with three or four automatics because that means we’re out again. And we were out for 10 years.”

Is this a surprise?

Not really. A 5+7 format has always been the most likely to garner unanimous support if the 6+6 was going to change following the demise of the Pac-12. Sure, the Group of 5 could have held out for 6+6 on the belief it would have at least two guaranteed spots, but this is about more than the next two years. The entire CFP for 2026 and beyond is still technically TBD, and it’s no secret the SEC would prefer 12 at-large berths, which could keep the G5 out in most years. At the moment, it doesn’t need to be a unanimous vote for changes for 2026 and beyond, either. No need to upset the Power 4 conferences now and push them to move to 12 at-larges. And if 5+7 succeeds, the more likely it is to continue with at least one guaranteed spot for the G5 conferences.

 

 

Aresco expresses support for 5+7 CFP format

THEATHLETIC.COM

---

A 5+7 model would feature a 12-team playoff made up of the five highest-ranked conference champions and the seven best at-large teams.

 

Actually read that and thought I was missing something. Am I off base for thinking that whatever conference configuration that Wazzu and the Beavers end up in, outside the P4, that conference would be the probable 5th auto bid, at least for 2024 and 25?