(05-06-2010 03:18 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(05-06-2010 03:09 PM)TripleA Wrote:  the bottom tier of the BE

Hey, just think, you could be a Memphis alum. That's worse right now.

We've been trying for years to get into a league that is likely going to disappear. I also think WVU will be fine.

There is no rule establishing the number of autobid conferences. All there is a contract entered into by 11 conferences, four bowl committees and one television network.

The contract provides that changes in membership can change the status of the signers.

The BCS is merely a vehicle to maximize revenue as long as the presidents deny the creation of a playoff. The Big East is a component because it brings a valuable audience. It expanded last time by adding three institutions in valuable markets who had varying degrees of success. I don't believe there is a candidate with two countable top 25 finishes in the polls available nor are there three candidates bringing the TV value. If there were, they'd probably already be in.

(05-06-2010 03:22 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(05-06-2010 03:18 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(05-06-2010 03:09 PM)TripleA Wrote:  the bottom tier of the BE

Hey, just think, you could be a Memphis alum. That's worse right now.

We've been trying for years to get into a league that is likely going to disappear. I also think WVU will be fine.

I think WVU will be fine, but it's definitely a scary time.

Same for Memphis, definitely. From the Memphis perspective, you could either be:

a) on the cusp of finally getting BE membership if the league can stay together after the Big 10 raid, or

b) seeing someone else from CUSA get a spot in the BE, thereby not only leaving Memphis disappointed again, but also weakening CUSA, or

c) seeing the BE completely torn apart, it's schools absorbed by the Big 10, ACC and/or SEC, and seeing Memphis stuck in CUSA with no reasonable hope for BCS status anytime soon.

Ugh... my hope is that all involved end up as good as if not better than before, but I am definitely pessimistic about the whole situation. I would love to have Memphis, ECU and UCF all in the Big East; maybe we'll just lose Rutgers, add 3 on the football side to get to 10, 2 on the basketball side to get to 20 overall, and have a helluva Big East network. Things could work out well..... time will tell.

Just wish they'd hurry this up!!!

Politics will be a big part of all this. Look at who is on the radar: Missouri and Nebraska, two schos who can just say yes without worrying about leaving behind Nebraska State or Missouri Tech. Same for Colorado.

Sure, schools like KSU, TTU and OSU know they offer no elite academics, markets or athletics but they still feel entitled to remain with their bigger brothers for no other reason than they know they make their departure either difficult or maybe even not at all.

I wonder if a backdoor deal could be made with the SEC to let A&M and either Tech or Okie State to join with them.

(05-06-2010 11:30 AM)bluesox Wrote:  If the western alliance happened, can't see it not being the most dominate league in the country no matter what the big 10/sec did.

I don't think so. For one, the Pac 10 is made up of a lot of secondary type teams. It woudl still really be only Texas and USC as power teams, and Oklahoma assuming they were involved. Also being on the west coast will limit the value of their national TV contracts not only due to less market penetration, but because the timezone difference will affect their ability to draw many national TV games.

(05-06-2010 07:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-06-2010 11:30 AM)bluesox Wrote:  If the western alliance happened, can't see it not being the most dominate league in the country no matter what the big 10/sec did.

I don't think so. For one, the Pac 10 is made up of a lot of secondary type teams. It woudl still really be only Texas and USC as power teams, and Oklahoma assuming they were involved. Also being on the west coast will limit the value of their national TV contracts not only due to less market penetration, but because the timezone difference will affect their ability to draw many national TV games.

The rumor I heard yesterday discussed the fact that such an alliance would try to schedule OOC games in the ET and CT time zones, and would also consider game start times to coincide with prime time in the east, when appropriate. There are ways to greatly alleviate the issue.

(05-06-2010 03:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is no rule establishing the number of autobid conferences. All there is a contract entered into by 11 conferences, four bowl committees and one television network.

The contract provides that changes in membership can change the status of the signers.

What he is saying is, if you now have more non-BCS conference than BCS conferences, the non-BCS conferences may be able to vote in a playoff, which would kill the BCS. I do not know if the votes are purely by team, or by conference and by team, but it can be an issue.

(05-06-2010 07:34 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-06-2010 03:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is no rule establishing the number of autobid conferences. All there is a contract entered into by 11 conferences, four bowl committees and one television network.

The contract provides that changes in membership can change the status of the signers.

What he is saying is, if you now have more non-BCS conference than BCS conferences, the non-BCS conferences may be able to vote in a playoff, which would kill the BCS. I do not know if the votes are purely by team, or by conference and by team, but it can be an issue.

I don't think that would be an issue. They can vote in whatever they want, it's not going to work unless the BCS conferences are part of it and they can't force any conference to join. The bowl alliance was successful, but could never really claim to crown a national champion until the Big Ten, PAC-10, and Rose Bowl joined. A playoff without the BCS teams wouldn't help. In fact, it would give the BCS conferences an excuse to either create their own playoff (if they wanted) that existed on their terms without the need to shell out any money to the non-BCS conferences or else exclude the non-BCS teams from the BCS bowls and treat them like I-AA teams. These actions would be extreme, but no more extreme than the non-BCS conferences creating a playoff without the BCS conferences joining.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/06/192...iance.html

These scenarios work (sort of) for football, but basketball, baseball, volleyball, etc. would be a mess. Washington State at Texas A&M for a mid-week soccer game?

(05-06-2010 06:47 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  I wonder if a backdoor deal could be made with the SEC to let A&M and either Tech or Okie State to join with them.

Yeah, i was wondering the same thing. Not so much a backdoor deal, or A&M, but Ok State might be very tempting for the SEC. A combination of OK State, WVU, FSU and Clemson sure would be nice :)

As I noted yesterday, the "Western Alliance" is a TELEVISION alliance, not a new conference.

Although clearly there are some who would like it to be a new conference, the reality is that the Pac 10 only views some of the Big 12 schools as worthy. And even then it would take something very close to a miracle to get agreement to go to 14 or 16. 12 will be difficult enough.

(05-06-2010 08:23 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(05-06-2010 06:47 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  I wonder if a backdoor deal could be made with the SEC to let A&M and either Tech or Okie State to join with them.

Yeah, i was wondering the same thing. Not so much a backdoor deal, or A&M, but Ok State might be very tempting for the SEC. A combination of OK State, WVU, FSU and Clemson sure would be nice :)

I was thinking along the lines of A&M, Okie State, FSU, and WV. It works out into 4 perfect quads.

A&M, Arkansas, LSU, Okie State
Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss. State
Florida, FSU, Georgia, South Carolina
Tenn, KY, Vandy, WV

(05-06-2010 08:39 PM)Bearcat 1984 Wrote:  As I noted yesterday, the "Western Alliance" is a TELEVISION alliance, not a new conference.

Although clearly there are some who would like it to be a new conference, the reality is that the Pac 10 only views some of the Big 12 schools as worthy. And even then it would take something very close to a miracle to get agreement to go to 14 or 16. 12 will be difficult enough.

Yeah, that article, and the formal meetings, were to discuss the TV alliance, but you know they discussed other possibilities, too.

The rumor I heard out of Texas was NOT a merger of ALL the teams, only the best from each conference, that would maximize TV value for all included.

(05-06-2010 07:34 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-06-2010 03:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  There is no rule establishing the number of autobid conferences. All there is a contract entered into by 11 conferences, four bowl committees and one television network.

The contract provides that changes in membership can change the status of the signers.

What he is saying is, if you now have more non-BCS conference than BCS conferences, the non-BCS conferences may be able to vote in a playoff, which would kill the BCS. I do not know if the votes are purely by team, or by conference and by team, but it can be an issue.

Why does the Big XII has imbalanced revenue sharing? Because the members know that you don't make the cash cow unhappy. Why did the SWC kill expansion after Arkansas left despite having a 6-2 vote in favor of expansion? Because UT and TAMU were going to use that as justification to leave.

Do you really think the Sun Belt or CUSA votes for a playoff in opposition to the SEC knowing that if the SEC doesn't like it they will leave? Even if they did vote for a playoff the Big 10 merely does what the SWAC does in FCS and says "we ain't playing". There is a NCAA rule that could be used to force them to play but it is questionable whether it complies with anti-trust law. The NCAA was concerned enough that they bought the NIT to avoid a verdict.