Will the alliance be competitive in football? Absolutely. I think Marshall is about to explode back on the scene, ECU isn't going to stay down long, Fresno is an always competitive program that isn't going to stay down long, and I think CSU made a very good hire and has all the potential to get back where they were in the early 00's. People wondered if the BE would be competitive in football after the first raid and what happened, teams stepped up. People wondered if C-USA would be competitive after the first raid and teams stepped up. Someone I probably didn't even bring up will likely step up in the next couple of years and be good. You've got programs like Air Force, Fresno, Nevada, Hawaii, ECU, USM, and Tulsa who the past 5 years have done some very good things. Several of those just happened to have down 2011's, but that's not the end of the world.

(02-27-2012 03:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Will the alliance be competitive in football? Absolutely. I think Marshall is about to explode back on the scene, ECU isn't going to stay down long, Fresno is an always competitive program that isn't going to stay down long, and I think CSU made a very good hire and has all the potential to get back where they were in the early 00's. People wondered if the BE would be competitive in football after the first raid and what happened, teams stepped up. People wondered if C-USA would be competitive after the first raid and teams stepped up. Someone I probably didn't even bring up will likely step up in the next couple of years and be good. You've got programs like Air Force, Fresno, Nevada, Hawaii, ECU, USM, and Tulsa who the past 5 years have done some very good things. Several of those just happened to have down 2011's, but that's not the end of the world.

I think speaking to your point- La Tech in the WAC. Boise leaves, and what happens, La Tech wins 8 games for 2nd time in 11 years. Part of it that La Tech instead of playing Boise played someone else.

(02-27-2012 03:29 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 03:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Will the alliance be competitive in football? Absolutely. I think Marshall is about to explode back on the scene, ECU isn't going to stay down long, Fresno is an always competitive program that isn't going to stay down long, and I think CSU made a very good hire and has all the potential to get back where they were in the early 00's. People wondered if the BE would be competitive in football after the first raid and what happened, teams stepped up. People wondered if C-USA would be competitive after the first raid and teams stepped up. Someone I probably didn't even bring up will likely step up in the next couple of years and be good. You've got programs like Air Force, Fresno, Nevada, Hawaii, ECU, USM, and Tulsa who the past 5 years have done some very good things. Several of those just happened to have down 2011's, but that's not the end of the world.

I think speaking to your point- La Tech in the WAC. Boise leaves, and what happens, La Tech wins 8 games for 2nd time in 11 years. Part of it that La Tech instead of playing Boise played someone else.

Exactly someone will fill the voids left behind, not to mention some of the teams who were a little down this year aren't teams that will stay down real long. When Louisville, USF, and Cincy left you had teams like Tulsa, Houston, ECU, UCF, and USM step up and carry the load. Teams will do the same in the merger.

(02-27-2012 02:20 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Wow, there sure is a lot of speculating going here about scheduling. You guys are splitting hairs.

The Alliance will be as credible as the old CUSA, MWC or new Big East when it comes to crowning its Champ. It has already been stated that the goal is to have semi-finals and finals...which pits two of the best teams against each other and then does it again. The Champ will have a nice record after that. If it performs OOC, its SOS should be strong, because it played 2 extra games against the best of the league...some of those who may have beaten quality competition.

As for scheduling OOC...with a significant number of teams, scheduling is never going to be an issue. It can go to 10 conference games if it has to (& keep in mind what I already said about the champ) and not schedule I-AA. For the most part Alliance members dont want to schedule SB or MAC schools anyway because they dont want to have to return a trip and they arent helping for recruiting purposes. Power Conference programs would prefer to play regional Alliance members even if they have a return trip because they have more credibility. We know what ECU/Southern Miss/Tulsa traditionally line up. Fresno, Hawaii, UNLV, even Wyoming (played Texas at home) routinely play Power 5 conference members.

There is no reason the Alliance shouldnt proceed with its plans.

^^^^THIS^^^^

(02-27-2012 04:33 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 02:20 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Wow, there sure is a lot of speculating going here about scheduling. You guys are splitting hairs.

The Alliance will be as credible as the old CUSA, MWC or new Big East when it comes to crowning its Champ. It has already been stated that the goal is to have semi-finals and finals...which pits two of the best teams against each other and then does it again. The Champ will have a nice record after that. If it performs OOC, its SOS should be strong, because it played 2 extra games against the best of the league...some of those who may have beaten quality competition.

As for scheduling OOC...with a significant number of teams, scheduling is never going to be an issue. It can go to 10 conference games if it has to (& keep in mind what I already said about the champ) and not schedule I-AA. For the most part Alliance members dont want to schedule SB or MAC schools anyway because they dont want to have to return a trip and they arent helping for recruiting purposes. Power Conference programs would prefer to play regional Alliance members even if they have a return trip because they have more credibility. We know what ECU/Southern Miss/Tulsa traditionally line up. Fresno, Hawaii, UNLV, even Wyoming (played Texas at home) routinely play Power 5 conference members.

There is no reason the Alliance shouldnt proceed with its plans.

^^^^THIS^^^^

The ony question- will the semifinal game be a regular season game(#12)? If so, the SOS boost would be rather minimal- and comparable to a good OOC game.

(02-27-2012 07:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 04:33 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 02:20 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Wow, there sure is a lot of speculating going here about scheduling. You guys are splitting hairs.

The Alliance will be as credible as the old CUSA, MWC or new Big East when it comes to crowning its Champ. It has already been stated that the goal is to have semi-finals and finals...which pits two of the best teams against each other and then does it again. The Champ will have a nice record after that. If it performs OOC, its SOS should be strong, because it played 2 extra games against the best of the league...some of those who may have beaten quality competition.

As for scheduling OOC...with a significant number of teams, scheduling is never going to be an issue. It can go to 10 conference games if it has to (& keep in mind what I already said about the champ) and not schedule I-AA. For the most part Alliance members dont want to schedule SB or MAC schools anyway because they dont want to have to return a trip and they arent helping for recruiting purposes. Power Conference programs would prefer to play regional Alliance members even if they have a return trip because they have more credibility. We know what ECU/Southern Miss/Tulsa traditionally line up. Fresno, Hawaii, UNLV, even Wyoming (played Texas at home) routinely play Power 5 conference members.

There is no reason the Alliance shouldnt proceed with its plans.

^^^^THIS^^^^

The ony question- will the semifinal game be a regular season game(#12)? If so, the SOS boost would be rather minimal- and comparable to a good OOC game.

It would be a "TBD opponent" for game #12 from what I understand. Not set in stone but I believe the last game of the season would have #1 vs #2 ranked football team in each division play each other. Obviously a rematch but it helps bump the SOS at the end of the year. Essentially we'll have 9 conference games but I'm not sure how season tickets would work in that situation. The winner of that semi-final game advances to the Alliance championship game at the highest ranked programs home field.

Everybody else in the league matches up #3 vs #4, 5 vs 6, and 7 vs 8 and 9 vs 10 for their final games. At least that's how I understand it working.

Obviously the biggest kink to work out is where does the semi final games get played and how do you work that into the season ticket package.

(02-27-2012 07:25 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 07:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 04:33 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(02-27-2012 02:20 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  Wow, there sure is a lot of speculating going here about scheduling. You guys are splitting hairs.

The Alliance will be as credible as the old CUSA, MWC or new Big East when it comes to crowning its Champ. It has already been stated that the goal is to have semi-finals and finals...which pits two of the best teams against each other and then does it again. The Champ will have a nice record after that. If it performs OOC, its SOS should be strong, because it played 2 extra games against the best of the league...some of those who may have beaten quality competition.

As for scheduling OOC...with a significant number of teams, scheduling is never going to be an issue. It can go to 10 conference games if it has to (& keep in mind what I already said about the champ) and not schedule I-AA. For the most part Alliance members dont want to schedule SB or MAC schools anyway because they dont want to have to return a trip and they arent helping for recruiting purposes. Power Conference programs would prefer to play regional Alliance members even if they have a return trip because they have more credibility. We know what ECU/Southern Miss/Tulsa traditionally line up. Fresno, Hawaii, UNLV, even Wyoming (played Texas at home) routinely play Power 5 conference members.

There is no reason the Alliance shouldnt proceed with its plans.

^^^^THIS^^^^

The ony question- will the semifinal game be a regular season game(#12)? If so, the SOS boost would be rather minimal- and comparable to a good OOC game.

It would be a "TBD opponent" for game #12 from what I understand. Not set in stone but I believe the last game of the season would have #1 vs #2 ranked football team in each division play each other. Obviously a rematch but it helps bump the SOS at the end of the year. Essentially we'll have 9 conference games but I'm not sure how season tickets would work in that situation. The winner of that semi-final game advances to the Alliance championship game at the highest ranked programs home field.

Everybody else in the league matches up #3 vs #4, 5 vs 6, and 7 vs 8 and 9 vs 10 for their final games. At least that's how I understand it working.

Obviously the biggest kink to work out is where does the semi final games get played and how do you work that into the season ticket package.

Gotta figure you'd have 5 home 5 away games before the semifinal in game 11. Most home schedules range from 5 to 7 games anyway, so you're already at the low number. Season tickets would be for 5 home games. The semifinal and final would be like buying a bowl ticket (but could be reduced for season ticket holders).

Semi final would be game 12. Final (game 13) would be Conference championship vs MWC division. I'm thinking there will be only 18 teams in the Alliance for 8 divisional games, 4 home, 4 away. That leaves room for 3 OOC games and the "To Be Determined" opponent for game 12.

It's so simple. The 12th game is someone you haven't played which would mean you will be playing a crossover game. 3rd seed plays 3rd seed, 4th plays 4th & so on unless they have played before.

Teh only thing is- if it's just playing 1 vs 2 in division- I'm not sure that the rules will allow it. I believe the conference title game MUST be the winners of divisions where everyone has played each other.

To do something like a semi-final situation- you'd have to have 4 divisions. The 4 division winners play each other in semis, then the 2 winners play in the finals.

(02-28-2012 03:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Teh only thing is- if it's just playing 1 vs 2 in division- I'm not sure that the rules will allow it. I believe the conference title game MUST be the winners of divisions where everyone has played each other.

To do something like a semi-final situation- you'd have to have 4 divisions. The 4 division winners play each other in semis, then the 2 winners play in the finals.

Your semifinals could be EAst 2 @ West 1 and West 2 @ EAst 1. To avoid giving everybody a second crossover game, everyone else's flex game could be East 8 @ East 3, East 7 @ East 4, East 5 @ East 6. Also helps #3 and #4 get a 7th win for bowl-eligibility.

(02-28-2012 06:03 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 03:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Teh only thing is- if it's just playing 1 vs 2 in division- I'm not sure that the rules will allow it. I believe the conference title game MUST be the winners of divisions where everyone has played each other.

To do something like a semi-final situation- you'd have to have 4 divisions. The 4 division winners play each other in semis, then the 2 winners play in the finals.

Your semifinals could be EAst 2 @ West 1 and West 2 @ EAst 1. To avoid giving everybody a second crossover game, everyone else's flex game could be East 8 @ East 3, East 7 @ East 4, East 5 @ East 6. Also helps #3 and #4 get a 7th win for bowl-eligibility.

It won't be that....

There are two potential configurations. Either 2 Divisions or 4 Divisions.

If there is 2 Divisions, then the top two teams play each other (again) in a semi final for the right to play the winner of the other divisions semi game. IMO, what they should then do is have a flex schedule where the East plays the West on down....3 v 3, 4 v 4, etc....schedule it at West sites one year and East sites the next.

Or, if there are 4 divisions, then each division winner plays a semi game. Think SE plays Central, Mountain plays West. Then cross divisional games could be played the same way....SE plays Mountain, Central plays West....2v2, 3v3, etc...

Personally I think the Alliance will expand quickly to 24 utilizing WAC teams and a few Sun Belt additions. Here is my prediction:

Southeast Division

FAU*
FIU*
ECU
Marshall
UAB
Southern Miss

Central

Tulane
Rice
Tulsa
La Tech*
North Texas*
UTSA*

Mountain

UTEP
New Mexico St*
New Mexico
Colorado State
Air Force
Wyoming

West

Nevada
Fresno
UNLV
Utah State*
Hawaii
San Jose State*

I noted the additions. This set-up will promote rivalries as well as bring in major markets. UNT, FAU, FIU all have brand new stadiums, all others were WAC programs. This will eliminate the WAC (Idaho will have to go back to I-AA) and give the Alliance additional leverage in TV negotiations. Most likely the Sun Belt backfills with Texas State and two I-AA move-ups...I'd bet Georgia State and Jacksonville State. Then they can look at one additional member to get to 12. They can try and entice App State to join at that point. App may want to wait to see what happens with Charlotte, ODU, James Madison.

There isn't going to be a semi final without pods. That's the only way it really makes sense to have one. I don't think we are going to get to pods right away unless networks show there is going to be a huge financial gain to doing it, which maybe there is. I like the semi final idea a lot, but the parts to get us there have to be valuable enough to not lessen each of our payouts.

(02-28-2012 09:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There isn't going to be a semi final without pods. That's the only way it really makes sense to have one. I don't think we are going to get to pods right away unless networks show there is going to be a huge financial gain to doing it, which maybe there is. I like the semi final idea a lot, but the parts to get us there have to be valuable enough to not lessen each of our payouts.

I think there will be semi's either way....why not? It pits the two best teams in each division against each other for the right to play in a champ game. And it also gives you the ability for 1 cross division game which can be interesting for the home team. The Thanksgiving weekend works perfect for this "flex" game because there are less classes and the conference can schedule on Friday or Saturday for TV purposes.

Ballard has said on multiple occasions that they expand to 18 by May and then evaluate the VALUE in expanding further. Key word is value. That's what makes me believe we don't go to 24.

I hope that doesn't happen.

(02-28-2012 09:39 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Ballard has said on multiple occasions that they expand to 18 by May and then evaluate the VALUE in expanding further. Key word is value. That's what makes me believe we don't go to 24.

I hope that doesn't happen.

You must have missed his interview on Pirate Radio where he casually said that the new conference would be "at least" 24 members. He wasnt questioned about that comment, but he did use the term "at least". He also added the value comment, which I believe he meant in terms of the 1)school, 2)market, 3)rival, and 4)athletic program.

(02-28-2012 09:34 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 09:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There isn't going to be a semi final without pods. That's the only way it really makes sense to have one. I don't think we are going to get to pods right away unless networks show there is going to be a huge financial gain to doing it, which maybe there is. I like the semi final idea a lot, but the parts to get us there have to be valuable enough to not lessen each of our payouts.

I think there will be semi's either way....why not? It pits the two best teams in each division against each other for the right to play in a champ game. And it also gives you the ability for 1 cross division game which can be interesting for the home team. The Thanksgiving weekend works perfect for this "flex" game because there are less classes and the conference can schedule on Friday or Saturday for TV purposes.

How do you possibly determine home schedules and season ticket packages for that last game without pods? Are teams just going to leave the last week out of the season ticket package and then sell it that week? With pods you could make it work because you could determine 2 pods that would host all of the flex week games and rotate it every year. Otherwise it just seems like a logistical nightmare.

(02-28-2012 09:45 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 09:39 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Ballard has said on multiple occasions that they expand to 18 by May and then evaluate the VALUE in expanding further. Key word is value. That's what makes me believe we don't go to 24.

I hope that doesn't happen.

You must have missed his interview on Pirate Radio where he casually said that the new conference would be "at least" 24 members. He wasnt questioned about that comment, but he did use the term "at least". He also added the value comment, which I believe he meant in terms of the 1)school, 2)market, 3)rival, and 4)athletic program.

If that's the case he definatly contradicted a very specific statement on "exploring the value beyond 18" in a previous interview. I'm sorry but 24 is a horrible idea IMO. That makes it that much harder to get into an future FBS playoff if conference champions get bids. It also splits the pie too many ways and nearly gurantees a 12 / 12 split later on down the road. Pretty tough to get 16 members on the same page, 24 would be a nightmare.

Literally every time I've heard the number 24 in interviews it is preceeded by words / phrases like "possibly will expand to", "could go to", "might even go to" or something like that.

I know what I heard and it's apparent that they aren't sure what they're going to do other than 18 is a guarantee.