4x4hokies
All American
Posts: 4,970
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 164
I Root For: VT
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-15-2012 07:40 PM)Wedge Wrote: (02-15-2012 06:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: I hadn't heard previously that non-football additions would be considered, but if it's true, b0ndsj0ns is right that it would explain the comment about expansion to as many as 30. And things could get REAL interesting.
30 teams playing for only one automatic bid to NCAA tournaments in basketball and other sports? Makes no sense.
Does it really matter? They'll get more than two in. Do you think the Big East is kicking themselves for not being two leagues of 8 members and getting their two auto bids?
|
|
02-15-2012 08:31 PM |
|
KnightTower
All American
Posts: 4,262
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation: 65
I Root For: UCF
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
Of those 10 teams, I've broken down the probable order of preference, based on a few criteria:
1. Wants teams that add TV value, which means:
a. Name recognition/brand cache
b. Big market
c. Success in football first, bball second
2. Teams that bridge the gap between the western CUSA schools and the far eastern ones, which means:
a. Further east and north
So we get a few tiers of schools from least to most desired:
Future schools, not really ready yet:
Charlotte: Haven't even built a stadium yet, def not ready by '13
Old Dominion: Still FCS, would need at least 2 years to transition
UT-San Antonio: transitioning, but only in 2nd year
UMass: established, successful, ready by '13, a little "out there", though. If I were to take and FCS team, it'd be them, though.
North Texas: Established, good market, but...bad. Just...bad. Too far west.
Louisiana Tech: Arguably the best team left in the WAC. I guess. No market. Not central enough.
Western Kentucky: I know. This sounds odd. But: brand. Basketball brand, but brand nontheless. Decent market. I see potential here.
Middle Tennessee State: Decent enough football, good market. Bridges the geographical gap. Good facilities.
Florida International: Big market. Important recruiting ground. Improving FB. OK bball. Out of the way, but who cares.
Temple: The BIG get. Big market. Decent market penetration. The one who can dictate what they want.
But here's the thing. The new conference needs their bball cache. No basketball, not so much incentive to add them. And they're pretty happy in the A-10.
|
|
02-15-2012 09:33 PM |
|
b0ndsj0ns
Legend
Posts: 27,019
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1010
I Root For: ECU
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-15-2012 07:40 PM)Wedge Wrote: (02-15-2012 06:49 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote: I hadn't heard previously that non-football additions would be considered, but if it's true, b0ndsj0ns is right that it would explain the comment about expansion to as many as 30. And things could get REAL interesting.
30 teams playing for only one automatic bid to NCAA tournaments in basketball and other sports? Makes no sense.
Well the entire 30 theory makes no sense unless there are non-FB members involved. That's the only way you can add quality to the league once you get the numbers that high. It's also the way you could actually bridge geography. There are a bunch of really good east coast non-FB schools, but very few east coast FB schools. I had emailed Holland about non-FB members when this thing was just going to be an alliance and he said it was something he was pushing for, and I'm hoping if that 30 talk is true it's still being pushed.
|
|
02-16-2012 01:27 PM |
|
WilsonPirate
Bench Warmer
Posts: 191
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation: 34
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
I posted this on the CUSA board to show what a 30-team league might look like:
|
|
02-16-2012 01:32 PM |
|
johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
Posts: 16,323
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 988
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-16-2012 01:27 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Well the entire 30 theory makes no sense unless there are non-FB members involved. That's the only way you can add quality to the league once you get the numbers that high. It's also the way you could actually bridge geography. There are a bunch of really good east coast non-FB schools, but very few east coast FB schools. I had emailed Holland about non-FB members when this thing was just going to be an alliance and he said it was something he was pushing for, and I'm hoping if that 30 talk is true it's still being pushed.
What is the incentive for a non-football school to join the Alliance? Say I'm the AD from Belmont, or from George Mason or VCU or Fordham. Why would I go from a league that has an automatic bid, that's somewhat travel-friendly, where I have some conference rivalries, to the football-centric, spread-across-the-country, mediocre-basketball Alliance?
I'm not slamming the Alliance, or not trying to. I'm just not sure why you think schools who aren't trying to protect their TV football revenues will be tempted to sign up with this project.
The only schools I would see as good candidates for non-football membership in the Alliance are the Big East's western members.
|
|
02-16-2012 01:42 PM |
|
b0ndsj0ns
Legend
Posts: 27,019
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1010
I Root For: ECU
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-16-2012 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote: (02-16-2012 01:27 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: Well the entire 30 theory makes no sense unless there are non-FB members involved. That's the only way you can add quality to the league once you get the numbers that high. It's also the way you could actually bridge geography. There are a bunch of really good east coast non-FB schools, but very few east coast FB schools. I had emailed Holland about non-FB members when this thing was just going to be an alliance and he said it was something he was pushing for, and I'm hoping if that 30 talk is true it's still being pushed.
What is the incentive for a non-football school to join the Alliance? Say I'm the AD from Belmont, or from George Mason or VCU or Fordham. Why would I go from a league that has an automatic bid, that's somewhat travel-friendly, where I have some conference rivalries, to the football-centric, spread-across-the-country, mediocre-basketball Alliance?
I'm not slamming the Alliance, or not trying to. I'm just not sure why you think schools who aren't trying to protect their TV football revenues will be tempted to sign up with this project.
The only schools I would see as good candidates for non-football membership in the Alliance are the Big East's western members.
The incentive would obviously be the potential to make more money. Also if you add enough non-FB members the travel ceases to be that bad. I'm just going by the 30 number that was tossed out by our Chancellor. I can't see any reason to get above 20 in football, but if you added 5 non-FB members on each side like in the chart posted below that travel isn't too bad and you are looking at a league that's going to get no less than 5 bids a year and sometimes as high as the 10-12 range. Now of course if teams like that aren't willing to sign up for it I could understand and I wouldn't expect the merger to get above 20.
|
|
02-16-2012 01:50 PM |
|
bluesox
Heisman
Posts: 5,295
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 84
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
So they are basically creating an ncaa division within a conference, which might be helpful if there is ever a split.. I think you could get up to 32 teams with this alliance...than play 7 division games and 1-3 rotating games from the other 3 divisions + 4 team playoff of division winners...basically each 8 team pod is a conference with title hopes = winning the pod system rather than going to a bcs bowl. Reality is these school's aren't winning the title anyways, so having the goal to win the alliance is realistic. For hoops, have each 8 team division have a tourney on campus, than have another final four among winners. This setup could spread to the big leagues at a smaller scale if they want to keep all the money inside the conference rather than having an open 8 team playoff. For hoops, it would change the regular season somewhat by having division tournaments, than having a final four tournament among division winners. I just hope they don't mess up the march madness tournament, that needs to stay basically intact.
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2012 02:03 PM by bluesox.)
|
|
02-16-2012 02:01 PM |
|
uakronkid
Heisman
Posts: 5,824
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 48
I Root For: Akron
Location: Akron
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
Most athletic conferences have members for single sports.
The MAC, for example, has eight schools that contribute to a single sport (or two in the case of Missouri State) but it's still considered a 12 team conference, not a 20 team conference.
Conference USA currently has six single-sport members. What happens to them then the merger happens?
|
|
02-16-2012 02:46 PM |
|
NH_Aggie
Water Engineer
Posts: 2
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 0
I Root For: Utah State
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
So far the posts seem to show an eastern bias. SJSU is TV market #6 while USU is TV market #33/34 (SLC).
Part of the alliance is MWC (MOUNTAIN WEST).
I am an alum of USU living in New Hampshire w/o an east coast bias (just USU biases). Only 4+ months to pull this all together before June 30, 2012.
|
|
02-16-2012 02:49 PM |
|
stever20
Legend
Posts: 46,069
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 716
I Root For: Sports
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-16-2012 02:49 PM)NH_Aggie Wrote: So far the posts seem to show an eastern bias. SJSU is TV market #6 while USU is TV market #33/34 (SLC).
Part of the alliance is MWC (MOUNTAIN WEST).
I am an alum of USU living in New Hampshire w/o an east coast bias (just USU biases). Only 4+ months to pull this all together before June 30, 2012.
I think that this is a great point. June 30 is only like 19 weeks away right now. The volume of decisions that have to be made in the next few months is huge.
|
|
02-16-2012 02:52 PM |
|
b0ndsj0ns
Legend
Posts: 27,019
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1010
I Root For: ECU
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-16-2012 02:49 PM)NH_Aggie Wrote: So far the posts seem to show an eastern bias. SJSU is TV market #6 while USU is TV market #33/34 (SLC).
Part of the alliance is MWC (MOUNTAIN WEST).
I am an alum of USU living in New Hampshire w/o an east coast bias (just USU biases). Only 4+ months to pull this all together before June 30, 2012.
It's not that there is an eastern bias, just there are only 2 of 16 teams in the eastern time zone and that's just not a high enough number. It would be best if there was an even split of teams between time zones, but that would probably be tough to manage. Either way at least one team in the eastern time zone has to be added.
|
|
02-16-2012 02:53 PM |
|
johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
Posts: 16,323
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 988
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-16-2012 02:49 PM)NH_Aggie Wrote: So far the posts seem to show an eastern bias. SJSU is TV market #6 while USU is TV market #33/34 (SLC).
Part of the alliance is MWC (MOUNTAIN WEST).
I am an alum of USU living in New Hampshire w/o an east coast bias (just USU biases). Only 4+ months to pull this all together before June 30, 2012.
OK, I'll try to remember SJSU along with FIU, UNT, Georgia State, Northern Illinois, and Rice next time I point out that being in a market doesn't mean that you have a TV fanbase.
|
|
02-16-2012 02:59 PM |
|
stever20
Legend
Posts: 46,069
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 716
I Root For: Sports
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
Alliance- by time zones-
Eastern- Marshall, ECU(2)
Central- UAB, So Miss, Tulane, Rice, Tulsa(5)
Moutain- UTEP, Colorado St, Wyoming, Air Force, New Mexico (5)
Pacific- Nevada, UNLV, Fresno(3)
Hawaii- Hawaii(fb only)(1)
So, from the looks of the chart, the expansion generally should occur on either coast- with more on the eastern coast. The logical thing would be 3 teams in the Eastern time zone, then 1 on the Pacific time zone(along with a bball only out west).
|
|
02-16-2012 03:02 PM |
|
johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
Posts: 16,323
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 988
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-16-2012 01:50 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: What is the incentive for a non-football school to join the Alliance? Say I'm the AD from Belmont, or from George Mason or VCU or Fordham. Why would I go from a league that has an automatic bid, that's somewhat travel-friendly, where I have some conference rivalries, to the football-centric, spread-across-the-country, mediocre-basketball Alliance?
The incentive would obviously be the potential to make more money.
[/quote]
Where is that money supposed to be coming from? TV revenues? George Mason would be getting 1/30 of the basketball share of a not-great TV contract. Ticket sales? ECU and Marshall aren't going to sell a lot of tickets at the PAtriot Center, never mind UAB or FIU. Tournament shares? Because I think you have a better shot at the tournament from an ordinary conference that has an auto-bid.
|
|
02-16-2012 03:03 PM |
|
No Bull
Hall of Famer
Posts: 13,409
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 815
I Root For: UCF
Location: Deadwood
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
I wouldn't consider anyone who is not currently paying football. to me UTSA and UNC Charlotte are non startes. There are plenty of decent candidates.
Temple
Northern Illinois
Toledo
Ohio
Fiu
FAU
Middle Tenn
Ark State
Appy Sate
WKU
North texas
|
|
02-16-2012 03:04 PM |
|
b0ndsj0ns
Legend
Posts: 27,019
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1010
I Root For: ECU
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-16-2012 03:04 PM)No Bull Wrote: I wouldn't consider anyone who is not currently paying football. to me UTSA and UNC Charlotte are non startes. There are plenty of decent candidates.
Temple
Northern Illinois
Toledo
Ohio
Fiu
FAU
Middle Tenn
Ark State
Appy Sate
WKU
North texas
If our thinking is no non-FB schools then I can't see a reason to get over 20. At 20 you can get 4-5 team pods if that's our goal. I'd say you need 2 on the east coast so Temple and whichever F_U is deemed to be better for TV purposes. After that it's really just add whoever is worth the most. Maybe you add UMASS so you can have a completely eastern time zone pod.
|
|
02-16-2012 04:33 PM |
|
Chappy
Resident Goonie
Posts: 18,888
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 899
I Root For: ECU
Location: Raleigh, NC
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
The combo of MTSU and WKU has been growing on me.
|
|
02-16-2012 07:09 PM |
|
HawaiiMongoose
All American
Posts: 4,709
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 446
I Root For: Hawaii
Location: Honolulu
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-16-2012 07:09 PM)Chappy Wrote: The combo of MTSU and WKU has been growing on me.
They fit well geographically and play good hoops. But neither delivers a substantial market presence (MTSU's proximity to Nashville notwithstanding), and both struggle to exceed 20,000 in football attendance even during a good year.
|
|
02-16-2012 10:38 PM |
|
b0ndsj0ns
Legend
Posts: 27,019
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1010
I Root For: ECU
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
In terms of having as close to equal teams as possible in each time zone ideally you would like to see 3 eastern time zone teams added and one pacific. Kinda doubt that happens but would balance things out nicely.
|
|
02-17-2012 08:58 AM |
|
stever20
Legend
Posts: 46,069
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 716
I Root For: Sports
Location:
|
RE: Alliance Candidates
(02-17-2012 08:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: In terms of having as close to equal teams as possible in each time zone ideally you would like to see 3 eastern time zone teams added and one pacific. Kinda doubt that happens but would balance things out nicely.
I could see not necessarily that- but rather 3 eastern/central time zone teams and then 1 moutain/pacific time zone teams... Central time zone schools are ok- because they can play games at noon et.
|
|
02-17-2012 09:03 AM |
|