Why not just eliminate the non-AQ leaques and have just one huge Independent League?

I don't think CUSA adds more than one team if any, the Alliance will be a little smaller and a little less notable market wise, but less diluted as well.

(11-04-2011 04:19 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  The lowest ranked champs sent by each conf to the BCS have been an unranked BE team, number 22 ACC and PAC, number 17 B10, number 13 SEC and number 10 B12. So the 'untouchable' conferences better be careful where they set their bar.

Oh, I hear you. If I were running an AQ league, I wouldn't touch setting some type of ranking minimum. That would invite scrutiny in the same way as the AQ numerical criteria. All of their power is rooted in these guaranteed AQ slots, so it would be way too massive for them to give that up, IMHO. They'd rather take 1 guaranteed slot every year than have a chance at 2 or 3 slots in random years. (It's the old bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush adage.) I was just thinking of a possible way that the Big East might be dealt with specifically (although I personally believe they'll ultimately just be treated as a normal AQ conference like everyone else).

MWC
Wyoming
UNLV
San Diego St.
Colorado St.
New Mexico
Nevada
Hawaii
Fresno St.
UTEP
Utah St.
C-USA
S. Miss
ECU (WKU if ECU goes Big East)
Marshall
Memphis (MTSU if Memphis goes Big East)
UAB
Tulsa
Rice
Tulane
FIU
FAU

(11-04-2011 04:16 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  As I mentioned on the AQ board in passing, there have been five major efforts put forward to fight the BCS.

1. Tulane's president calling on the presidents of the schools to reform the BCS.
2. MWC alternate presented prior to current BCS contract (only helped MWC)
3. MWC's playoff plan that mainly helped MWC and would have paid low seeds less than high seeds in first round.
4. Utah anti-trust.
5. The MWC-CUSA Alliance.

The Alliance is probably dead but was a mess from the start and unlikely to garner support from other non-AQ's which would have killed it.
Utah lost interest when they lost their plaintiff.
The MWC friendly plans were DOA because they were playoffs and didn't do much to help the others.

THE ONE THAT WORKED was Tulane's outreach to all schools. A united front and it garnered improvements in BCS access and increased the money given to the non-AQ by a large amount.

History tells us the BCS can be chipped away at if the non-AQ will work together but ever since the Cowen plan, the efforts have been individual.

The alliance is probably dead?...lol. Is that some "wishful thinking" on your part? The Alliance isn't going anywhere....The Wac...now they need to be worrying. If Boise and Air Force go, the Wac is gone.

I dont think its dead, but it I dont see it being a huge 28 or 30 team giant. I think it will amount to little more than a championship game for the short term. In the future it may be a bigger deal, but I dont see it getting any bigger until it can be guaranteed that increased size will equal extra revenue per team. Given the teams available for expansion, Im not sure that would be the case at this time.

(11-04-2011 01:08 PM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  I would think CUSA would just get tighter geographically. Let UTEP go west...it may still lose Memphis or ECU depending on how things play....I would assume one of them.

So if you go back to 12 and stay East....obviously Temple for football only would be interesting if they don't end up in the BE.

Then I would think you would focus on emerging markets....non just Sun Belt or MAC schools.

A list of like App State, Charlotte, Georgia State along with probably some of FIU, FAU, MTSU, Troy, North Texas.

That is probably it. 4 or 5 of those schools.

Why does everybody think UTEP is going they left the WAC to play in the central and eastern times,and already rejected the MWC once.They are commited to the CUSA.

(11-04-2011 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  As I mentioned on the AQ board in passing, there have been five major efforts put forward to fight the BCS.

1. Tulane's president calling on the presidents of the schools to reform the BCS.
2. MWC alternate presented prior to current BCS contract (only helped MWC)
3. MWC's playoff plan that mainly helped MWC and would have paid low seeds less than high seeds in first round.
4. Utah anti-trust.
5. The MWC-CUSA Alliance.

The Alliance is probably dead but was a mess from the start and unlikely to garner support from other non-AQ's which would have killed it.
Utah lost interest when they lost their plaintiff.
The MWC friendly plans were DOA because they were playoffs and didn't do much to help the others.

THE ONE THAT WORKED was Tulane's outreach to all schools. A united front and it garnered improvements in BCS access and increased the money given to the non-AQ by a large amount.

History tells us the BCS can be chipped away at if the non-AQ will work together but ever since the Cowen plan, the efforts have been individual.

This is exactly right. Well said. Unfortunately most people cannot see the big picture and will instead focus on something totally irrelevant like Maryland's uniform garishness or the Big East's "BCS worthiness" and as they fixate on all of the flashing lights and carnival music they will fail to notice that they are falling further and further behind.

I used to feel badly for them because it is ridiculously unfair and corrupt. However the more I read this board the more convinced I become that they are getting what they deserve.

Why would C-USA greatly weaken their conference by offering invites to these type of schools? I guess they want to replace the Florida market lost when UCF leaves for the BE (FIU or FAU), and La Tech is a nice regional fit (despite all the snide remarks made by numerous C-USA posters here about L-Tech daily). But why do you want to weaken the conference so much as it will still retain a nice contingent of schools. If they go the route that some are suggesting, it'll result in the C-USA "lite" or something of a SunBelt hybrid!