Just me firing off some thoughts:
1. I would start off with laying the ground for what was 'common' in the period to all parties. What is the shared legacy that exists, say, around 300-320?
2. Tease out the origins of that legacy, and how the Arian crisis emerged; don't neglect the politics of the Alexandrian scene.
3. Talk about Nicaea as the confluence of 3 things: a new world order that has to reckon with Constantine, a church that needs to deal with Arius and his theology, and a theological solution that left no-one happy
4. If you get 1 and 2 clear, then the next part of the syllabus should really deal with the trajectory of the major non-Nicene party under the two Eusebii. What is the common set of theological principles that shape this group?
5. It's then worth playing out the story of Marcellus, to see the other extreme, and the constant opponent of the non-Nicenes.
6. Only then would I take up Athanasius. Talk about both his theological inheritance, and his theological solutions and brilliance. Discuss his exiles, and how time in Rome aligns him with the West in a unique way. Also talk about how the connection with Marcellus both helps and hinders, and the politics of calling opponents 'Arian'.
7. Now you're ready to take the story forward through the decades, deal with a few councils, the moves and countermoves.
8. I think you can break down this part of the story into a chronological division, where Athanasius leaves off and the controversies move into a second stage. Again I would work on the streams and developments among non-Nicenes. Particularly the emergence of homoian/homoiousian/heteroousian theologies is worth giving flesh to.
9. Don't neglect Hilary. While the debates are mostly an Eastern ballgame, these are still Empire-wide affairs, and Hilary is a key bridge-figure, he makes Eastern theology intelligible in the West, and whether he keeps/brings it back/lays a foundation for later, he is certainly pro-Nicene.
10. Now you can talk about the Cappadocians. Again, trace the emergence of their thought. How the 3 hypostaseis/1 ousia 'solution' is an emerging grammar that helps dissolve some of the sameness/diversity tensions, while thoroughly refuting the extremist heteroousian position.
11. Politics. Just as Constantine is a key figure in resolving the Arian crisis with the council of Nicaea, Theodosius is key to resolving the ongoing debate with the council of Constantinople. But it is not 'all politics', it is the very real world interplay of theology and 4th century politics. Certainly emperors were not really dictating to the church what to believe (except, perhaps in Theodosius' edict pre-dating the council).
12. Solution vs. resolution: I would wrap up by talking about how Constantinople resolves the issues, and does represent a victory of one side, but that itself is not 'solution', it wasn't an answer that existed from the start, it was the end-point of a theological process. And, to be fair, it sets the stage for another 70 years of controversy over the two natures of Christ.