Quote:A traditional line for predicting bowl eligibility is a Sagarin rating of about 80, of which only 6 alliance programs qualified last year. That is a major issue if only 5 of 16 alliance schools (31.3%) are strong enough to finish with a bowl eligible record. Five of the schools (Colorado State, UAB, UNLV, Tulane, and New Mexico) were rated below 140 in the Sagarins. The MAC by contrast only had one (198. Akron) below the #140 threshold.

The plain fact that football in the alliance isn't very good could go back to affecting the number of bowl agreements signed by the new conference in the upcoming bowl certification cycle (2014-17). To be sure there is going to be some improvement in alliance football but there is no way that they'll ever be able to match the Big East or any AQ conference if the AQ exists in the future or if it does not.

http://www.ubbullrun.com/2012/2/17/28041...k-or-treat

That's a pretty stupid writer if you ask me. Considering these schools will be playing each other somebody will rise to the top. More than 5 schools MUST finish with a record above 6-6. Jeez.

-2

SB Nation is the new Bleacher Report

-5

(02-25-2012 08:27 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  That's a pretty stupid writer if you ask me. Considering these schools will be playing each other somebody will rise to the top. More than 5 schools MUST finish with a record above 6-6. Jeez.

Ask the Sun Belt if that is a given. Also consider the new line for bowl eligibility at 7-5.

CUSA only has 5 schools that made the cut last year out of 12. They are losing 2 of them in SMU and Houston while only adding Wyoming 8-5 and Air Force 7-6 that made the 7 win cut from 2011.

That is 5 bowl eligibles out of 16 for the alliance....

(02-25-2012 08:37 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 08:27 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  That's a pretty stupid writer if you ask me. Considering these schools will be playing each other somebody will rise to the top. More than 5 schools MUST finish with a record above 6-6. Jeez.

Ask the Sun Belt if that is a given. Also consider the new line for bowl eligibility at 7-5.

CUSA only has 5 schools that made the cut last year out of 12. They are losing 2 of them in SMU and Houston while only adding Wyoming 8-5 and Air Force 7-6 that made the 7 win cut from 2011.

That is 5 bowl eligibles out of 16 for the alliance....

Dude, how stupid are you? Regardless of how "strong" the programs are there will be way more than 5 schools with 7 wins. There will be 18 football members playing an 8 game conference schedule. It's simple math AND common sense because the majority of the wins will come from conference play. I really don't know how to explain this, you kind of just have to "get it".

(02-25-2012 08:27 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  That's a pretty stupid writer if you ask me. Considering these schools will be playing each other somebody will rise to the top. More than 5 schools MUST finish with a record above 6-6. Jeez.

-2

I thought they were proposing a new rule that only 7-win teams will be eligible soon.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/...ure_e.html

What impact will that have?

(02-25-2012 08:42 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 08:27 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  That's a pretty stupid writer if you ask me. Considering these schools will be playing each other somebody will rise to the top. More than 5 schools MUST finish with a record above 6-6. Jeez.

-2

I thought they were proposing a new rule that only 7-win teams will be eligible soon.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/...ure_e.html

What impact will that have?

Like I said.......... "record ABOVE 6-6." Wow.

(02-25-2012 08:44 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 08:42 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 08:27 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  That's a pretty stupid writer if you ask me. Considering these schools will be playing each other somebody will rise to the top. More than 5 schools MUST finish with a record above 6-6. Jeez.

-2

I thought they were proposing a new rule that only 7-win teams will be eligible soon.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/...ure_e.html

What impact will that have?

Like I said.......... "record ABOVE 6-6." Wow.

I wasn't directing it toward any particular conference NoQuarter, just that all of college football seems to be changing soon. Bowl Eligibility, Stipends, Realignment, AQ status, Scholarships, etc..

(02-25-2012 08:41 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 08:37 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 08:27 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  That's a pretty stupid writer if you ask me. Considering these schools will be playing each other somebody will rise to the top. More than 5 schools MUST finish with a record above 6-6. Jeez.

Ask the Sun Belt if that is a given. Also consider the new line for bowl eligibility at 7-5.

CUSA only has 5 schools that made the cut last year out of 12. They are losing 2 of them in SMU and Houston while only adding Wyoming 8-5 and Air Force 7-6 that made the 7 win cut from 2011.

That is 5 bowl eligibles out of 16 for the alliance....

Dude, how stupid are you? Regardless of how "stong" the programs are there will be way more than 5 schools with 7 wins. It's simple math.

That is not a given with the crappy football played in the alliance.

Take a look at the Sun Belt's track record for producing bowl eligible teams as an example.

2011 (4 out of 9)
2010 (2 out of 8)
2009 (2 out of 8)
2008 (2 out of 8)
2007 (2 out of 8)
2006 (2 out of 8)
2005 (0 out of 8)

The alliance could be seriously looking at no more than 4 or 5 schools with 7+ wins which is about what the MAC typically has (but using less schools)

I think it's pretty stupid. Even if the teams in the alliance aren't good(and I'm not saying that)- there would be enough teams with good enough conference records to become bowl eligibile. Unless everyone comes in from OOC games at 0-4- the alliance will have I'd guess at least 8 bowl eligible teams.
The 7-5 line will impact things though if that does go thru(though I can't imagine that it eventually will).

I think the point though about the recruiting is spot on. Will guys that have been going to schools like Southern Miss or Tulane or UAB- will they continue to go there, or will they be lured to Houston and Memphis playing in the Big East? Same out west, the guys that the other guys were getting previously- they're going to be going to Boise(and the writer doesn't put it)- Utah in Pac 12 and BYU going Big 12.

I think they should raise the minimum to 7 wins for bowl eligibility. I think they should get rid of about 5 bowls for starters. Most of them are pretty much meaningless in my opinion and shouldn't be used to determine a "successful season." I'm probably in the minority here but if AQ status is removed and a plus one is implemented I think an 8 team playoff is right around the corner. I think it accelerates faster if they start dropping bowls because the playoff would take their place.

All I know about the stipend is that it's proposed at $2,000 per scholarship, I believe. That's peanuts in the grand scheme of things. I know our leadership has already said we'll be all in on that if that's what it takes to play.

(02-25-2012 08:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it's pretty stupid. Even if the teams in the alliance aren't good(and I'm not saying that)- there would be enough teams with good enough conference records to become bowl eligibile. Unless everyone comes in from OOC games at 0-4- the alliance will have I'd guess at least 8 bowl eligible teams.
The 7-5 line will impact things though if that does go thru(though I can't imagine that it eventually will).

I think the point though about the recruiting is spot on. Will guys that have been going to schools like Southern Miss or Tulane or UAB- will they continue to go there, or will they be lured to Houston and Memphis playing in the Big East? Same out west, the guys that the other guys were getting previously- they're going to be going to Boise(and the writer doesn't put it)- Utah in Pac 12 and BYU going Big 12.

USM and Tulane primarily recruit Miss, Alabama and LA. I don't think Houston will be taking anybody from USM. Their roster is full of guys that didn't quite make it into an SEC program. They're also have a great talent pool via the MS JUCO system.

I also don't think Boise and SDSU get ANY recruiting advantage being in the Big East. I actually believe it will hurt them more than it helps. Memphis will still be Memphis, a basketball school with crappy football support surrounded by 7 SEC programs. SMU and Houston will continue to be SMU and Houston in Texas. Being in the Big East doesn't change the heirarchy much there.

Also the article ignored 2 major facts.
1- Nevada finished 7-5 and Hawaii was not eligible but 6-7.
2- the conference games that some teams lost to Houston, SMU, Memphis, Boise, San Diego St, and even TCU.
take Marshall- they lost to UCF and Houston. If they play and win a different conference game(say against Tulane who they didn't play)- they're bowl eligible.

of everything that i've heard, the bowl eligible issue is about the dumbest one I've heard.

Why punish the messenger guys? He did not write the ******* article. And the article does have a point. It is not like it is all a bunch of B.S.

(02-25-2012 08:30 PM)panama Wrote:  SB Nation is the new Bleacher Report

-5

when they start relying on slide shoes and only care about SEO then maybe they are bleacher report

(02-25-2012 08:55 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  I think they should raise the minimum to 7 wins for bowl eligibility. I think they should get rid of about 5 bowls for starters. Most of them are pretty much meaningless in my opinion and shouldn't be used to determine a "successful season." I'm probably in the minority here but if AQ status is removed and a plus one is implemented I think an 8 team playoff is right around the corner. I think it accelerates faster if they start dropping bowls because the playoff would take their place.

All I know about the stipend is that it's proposed at $2,000 per scholarship, I believe. That's peanuts in the grand scheme of things. I know our leadership has already said we'll be all in on that if that's what it takes to play.

The more football the better. Make more bowls. I am fine with it as long as there is more football. I wish there was more MAC, Sunbelt, and smaller schools like North Dakota on TV actually.

I wish there was a college football equivalent of NFL Network

(02-25-2012 09:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Also the article ignored 2 major facts.
1- Nevada finished 7-5 and Hawaii was not eligible but 6-7.
2- the conference games that some teams lost to Houston, SMU, Memphis, Boise, San Diego St, and even TCU.
take Marshall- they lost to UCF and Houston. If they play and win a different conference game(say against Tulane who they didn't play)- they're bowl eligible.

of everything that i've heard, the bowl eligible issue is about the dumbest one I've heard.

Addressing your points:

-If you count Nevada then the alliance has 6 out of 16 with 7 wins or more.

-There is just no way a 16 team alliance could support 8 bowl tie ins if they move the eligibility line to 7-5.

The NCAA will require the alliance to have enough 7 win teams per year average over he previous 4 to justify a bowl tie-in. The alliance might be able to pull off 6 tie-ins if the 7-5 rule comes to pass.

-The current CUSA bowl ratio is 6 bowls to 12 members. The alliance is looking at 6 bowls for 16 to 18 members. The sum of CUSA and the MWC is less than its parts.

(02-25-2012 08:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think it's pretty stupid. Even if the teams in the alliance aren't good(and I'm not saying that)- there would be enough teams with good enough conference records to become bowl eligibile. Unless everyone comes in from OOC games at 0-4- the alliance will have I'd guess at least 8 bowl eligible teams.
The 7-5 line will impact things though if that does go thru(though I can't imagine that it eventually will).

I think the point though about the recruiting is spot on. Will guys that have been going to schools like Southern Miss or Tulane or UAB- will they continue to go there, or will they be lured to Houston and Memphis playing in the Big East? Same out west, the guys that the other guys were getting previously- they're going to be going to Boise(and the writer doesn't put it)- Utah in Pac 12 and BYU going Big 12.

It all depends on the perception of the Big East by then. We all know that going from the MWC to the PAC 12 was a step up. It's not so clear on how the Big East will be viewed compared to the alliance of teams. Both conferences will be just a mishmash of CUSA and MWC teams.

(02-25-2012 09:20 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 09:01 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Also the article ignored 2 major facts.
1- Nevada finished 7-5 and Hawaii was not eligible but 6-7.
2- the conference games that some teams lost to Houston, SMU, Memphis, Boise, San Diego St, and even TCU.
take Marshall- they lost to UCF and Houston. If they play and win a different conference game(say against Tulane who they didn't play)- they're bowl eligible.

of everything that i've heard, the bowl eligible issue is about the dumbest one I've heard.

Addressing your points:

-If you count Nevada then the alliance has 6 out of 16 with 7 wins or more.

-There is just no way a 16 team alliance could support 8 bowl tie ins if they move the eligibility line to 7-5.

The NCAA will require the alliance to have enough 7 win teams per year average over he previous 4 to justify a bowl tie-in. The alliance might be able to pull off 6 tie-ins if the 7-5 rule comes to pass.

-The current CUSA bowl ratio is 6 bowls to 12 members. The alliance is looking at 6 bowls for 16 to 18 members. The sum of CUSA and the MWC is less than its parts.

So right now they had for 7 win teams (it would be 7-6 for hawaii playing teams)- 6 teams. Also had Hawaii at 6-7 and Marshall at 6-6 that were darn close.

The NCAA won't give a rip about the bowl tie-ins. The alliance can have 10 of them. If in a certain year, they don't get enough teams, then they just would lose those bowls for that year. Legally, if a bowl wants the alliance as a tie-in, there's not a damn thing that the NCAA could do about it.