CSNbbs

MERCURY NEWS
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...nd-others/

(03-21-2012 11:20 AM)MG61 Wrote: [ -> ]MERCURY NEWS
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...nd-others/

Nothing to see here.

I doubt we get down to 6 members, if we do, we won't stay there.

That sounds like more hope for WAC fans left behind then anything. SBC has so many options for raiding that even if 4 teams left, we could fill those slots easily.

Isnt the Mercury News based out of San Jose?

(03-21-2012 01:23 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]That sounds like more hope for WAC fans left behind then anything. SBC has so many options for raiding that even if 4 teams left, we could fill those slots easily.

Isnt the Mercury News based out of San Jose?

You're correct on both counts

I'm still in somewhat disbelief that it was the MWC and CUSA that decided to merge. The sensical thing would have been a MWC/WAC merger and CUSA/SBC merger. I'm not saying that as a SBC fan but as someone that is a football fan.

I just don't get the whole "Alliance" benefit.

(03-21-2012 01:38 PM)Usajags Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still in somewhat disbelief that it was the MWC and CUSA that decided to merge. The sensical thing would have been a MWC/WAC merger and CUSA/SBC merger. I'm not saying that as a SBC fan but as someone that is a football fan.

I just don't get the whole "Alliance" benefit.

The majority of the MWC wants as little to do with the majority of the WAC as the majority of C-USA wants to do with the majority of the Sun Belt.

They both would have stood as is before merging with the WAC and Sun Belt.

I still think the best way is to get rid of all 5 non AQ leagues, and create 4 new leagues. Invite: Georgia State, Charlotte, Georgia Southern, Appalachian State, and Lamar up to Division I, since all appear to be ready and willing.

League I (Eastcoast Athletic Conference

Marshall
East Carolina
Florida International
Florida Atlantic
Troy
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
Charlotte
Appalachian State

League 2: Great South Athletic Conference

UAB
South Alabama
Middle Tennessee
Western Kentucky
Southern Miss
Arkansas State
Tulane
Louisiana Monroe
Louisiana

League 3: Southwest Athletic Association

Louisiana Tech
Tulsa
North Texas
Texas El Paso
New Mexico
New Mexico State
Texas State
Texas San Antonio
Lamar

League 4: Great West Athletic Conference

Colorado State
Air Force
UNLV
Nevada
Fresno State
San Jose State
Utah State
Idaho
Hawaii


Create a cooperative setup. Each team is guaranteed 8 conference game, and then 2 games against teams from the other 4 leagues. They are then given 2 games to schedule for money purposes or FCS purposes.

You allow each league to be set up to maintain as many rivalries as possible. The only rivalries I couldnt keep together in this setup was the Troy/USA rivalry, which can be scheduled in non league play.

I placed La Tech in the division with the Texas teams because of how much they would protest having to play in a league with ULM and UL. I think this works.

I always enjoy these multi-conference solutions. You think La Tech is going to protest being in a league with UL and ULM? Tulane would drop sports before they'd do it. This is much like C-USA's dream that the BE football schools would just join with us since they are mostly former C-USA members anyway. It's not how things work. There are members of C-USA that the BE doesn't want to be associated with, so they invited the ones that they could tolerate. There are members of the Sun-Belt that C-USA doesn't want to associate with so we'll end up inviting the ones we can tolerate the most. Same thing for the MWC and the WAC. Just the way this stupid system works. Of course I'm of the opinion that FBS is far too big and has far too many teams that don't support their programs at levels deserving of being at the top level. I think they should actually enforce the attendance rule to remain FBS, and increase it to at least 20k. Yeah I am quite aware most of C-USA would be gone if that was the rule, and honestly maybe they should be.

(03-21-2012 03:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]You think La Tech is going to protest being in a league with UL and ULM? Tulane would drop sports before they'd do it.

You mean Tulane still has sports?

(03-21-2012 02:11 PM)chiefsfan Wrote: [ -> ]I still think the best way is to get rid of all 5 non AQ leagues, and create 4 new leagues. Invite: Georgia State, Charlotte, Georgia Southern, Appalachian State, and Lamar up to Division I, since all appear to be ready and willing.

League I (Eastcoast Athletic Conference

Marshall
East Carolina
Florida International
Florida Atlantic
Troy
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
Charlotte
Appalachian State

League 2: Great South Athletic Conference

UAB
South Alabama
Middle Tennessee
Western Kentucky
Southern Miss
Arkansas State
Tulane
Louisiana Monroe
Louisiana

League 3: Southwest Athletic Association

Louisiana Tech
Tulsa
North Texas
Texas El Paso
New Mexico
New Mexico State
Texas State
Texas San Antonio
Rice

League 4: Great West Athletic Conference

Colorado State
Air Force
UNLV
Nevada
Fresno State
San Jose State
Utah State
Idaho
Hawaii


Create a cooperative setup. Each team is guaranteed 8 conference game, and then 2 games against teams from the other 4 leagues. They are then given 2 games to schedule for money purposes or FCS purposes.

You allow each league to be set up to maintain as many rivalries as possible. The only rivalries I couldnt keep together in this setup was the Troy/USA rivalry, which can be scheduled in non league play.

I placed La Tech in the division with the Texas teams because of how much they would protest having to play in a league with ULM and UL. I think this works.

Fixed...no to Lamar

I forgot Rice...whoops

(03-21-2012 03:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]I always enjoy these multi-conference solutions. You think La Tech is going to protest being in a league with UL and ULM? Tulane would drop sports before they'd do it. This is much like C-USA's dream that the BE football schools would just join with us since they are mostly former C-USA members anyway. It's not how things work. There are members of C-USA that the BE doesn't want to be associated with, so they invited the ones that they could tolerate. There are members of the Sun-Belt that C-USA doesn't want to associate with so we'll end up inviting the ones we can tolerate the most. Same thing for the MWC and the WAC. Just the way this stupid system works. Of course I'm of the opinion that FBS is far too big and has far too many teams that don't support their programs at levels deserving of being at the top level. I think they should actually enforce the attendance rule to remain FBS, and increase it to at least 20k. Yeah I am quite aware most of C-USA would be gone if that was the rule, and honestly maybe they should be.

Considering La Tech will have to be drug kicking and screaming to the SBC, and that will come only after they find out the alliance doesnt want them...then yes, I think they will do some radical things to stay out of a league with UL and ULM.

If this happened then all those schools just became FBS-2. It would just creat a middle tier with it's own national championship. Could probably keep some bowl alliances and such, kinda like an NIT of college football.

I agree with the thought that the NCAA needs to take control, enforce the rules that are already in place and could probably thin out quite a few schools with the attendance rules.

(03-21-2012 03:47 PM)Vobserver Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 03:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]You think La Tech is going to protest being in a league with UL and ULM? Tulane would drop sports before they'd do it.

You mean Tulane still has sports?

I don't think La Tech has any problem with being in a league with UL. The two schools have a closer bond than most think. I think they would rather chew their arm off than share a league with ULM though. I am starting to think ULL is feeling the same way. ULM needs to drop down already

(03-21-2012 05:19 PM)theATLDawg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 03:47 PM)Vobserver Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 03:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]You think La Tech is going to protest being in a league with UL and ULM? Tulane would drop sports before they'd do it.

You mean Tulane still has sports?

I don't think La Tech has any problem with being in a league with UL. The two schools have a closer bond than most think. I think they would rather chew their arm off than share a league with ULM though. I am starting to think ULL is feeling the same way. ULM needs to drop down already

ULM ain't goin' anywhere. You might as well quit whinning about 'um.

(03-21-2012 05:57 PM)MG61 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 05:19 PM)theATLDawg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 03:47 PM)Vobserver Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 03:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]You think La Tech is going to protest being in a league with UL and ULM? Tulane would drop sports before they'd do it.

You mean Tulane still has sports?

I don't think La Tech has any problem with being in a league with UL. The two schools have a closer bond than most think. I think they would rather chew their arm off than share a league with ULM though. I am starting to think ULL is feeling the same way. ULM needs to drop down already

ULM ain't goin' anywhere. You might as well quit whinning about 'um.

don't be so sure of that. ULM is hurting and bleeding and it doesn't look very much brighter in the future

(03-21-2012 05:57 PM)MG61 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 05:19 PM)theATLDawg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 03:47 PM)Vobserver Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 03:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]You think La Tech is going to protest being in a league with UL and ULM? Tulane would drop sports before they'd do it.

You mean Tulane still has sports?

I don't think La Tech has any problem with being in a league with UL. The two schools have a closer bond than most think. I think they would rather chew their arm off than share a league with ULM though. I am starting to think ULL is feeling the same way. ULM needs to drop down already

ULM ain't goin' anywhere. You might as well quit whinning about 'um.

Did you ask anyone to prom yet MG61

(03-21-2012 05:19 PM)theATLDawg Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 03:47 PM)Vobserver Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-21-2012 03:24 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]You think La Tech is going to protest being in a league with UL and ULM? Tulane would drop sports before they'd do it.

You mean Tulane still has sports?

I don't think La Tech has any problem with being in a league with UL. The two schools have a closer bond than most think. I think they would rather chew their arm off than share a league with ULM though. I am starting to think ULL is feeling the same way. ULM needs to drop down already

We wouldn't mind ULL, but ULM is a problem. It may be moot though, since as ATLDawg noted, ULM is in some deep financial trouble.

Hey, I like this plan. It makes a lot of sense. That's why I think it won't get off of the ground.

A few things.

1. Tech will not be drug kicking and screaming into the Sun Belt. Commissioner Benson has made it clear he desires expansion. If he hasn't already, he will put forth a list of schools that he would like permission to talk to that they would support adding. If Tech is on that list, the conversation will likely be simple. If you want in tell me, if you don't I'll move on. They have to weigh that information knowing that there is a risk that one or more existing WAC schools are also on that list and so far every western school has said no and no other Southland is currently good to go.

2. The San Jose writer really misses hard. Let's say 24 is the Alliance number. There are eight Alliance schools in the Mountain, Pacific, and Hawaiian Time Zones. To get to 24 you have to add four more to the west to get 12. Let's say UTEP is moving. Now you need three. Utah State is easy. San Jose State next logical. That leaves one slot. Who gets it? New Mexico State? Part of UTEP's CUSA desire was getting away from NMSU would they be willing to move west if it is NMSU? How welcoming would New Mexico be? NMSU hasn't been able to get in the same league with New Mexico since 1951 despite much trying. The other option is Idaho. Anyone who has made the Idaho road trip knows how unappealing this option is. That's it. Unless someone moves up into the welcoming arms of the Alliance you can't get to 12 western schools without taking someone that they don't want. If UTEP goes west and 12 is the number the east side needs five. Sun Belt has 10 football members, the max we could lose would be 5 (that assumes none of the eastern WAC is taken). That would leave us with five but there are three eastern WAC schools needing a home. Ta-dah we have 8 members, the magic number for the NCAA and we still have Georgia State, App, Jackson State, Charlotte, and Old Dominion in or near the neighborhood saying they want to play FBS football. If we lose five that means there is no WAC to schedule align with. There is just a dead or dying Idaho or NMSU and if it is Idaho we ain't calling.

That's worse case. What is more likely if the Alliance expands is 18. If UTEP shifts, no one is needed in the West. The east needs two. Worst case, Sun Belt loses two. We still have 8 the NCAA magic number and we have three eastern WAC schools needing a home and five eastern schools in some stage of planning/discussing FBS. We can go 16 in football if we so desire. But that's worst case. ECU and Marshall are pushing for two eastern time zone schools and we have two but what if only one or none is taken? Then we are either at 10 or 9 and have no need for a schedule alliance. Next most likely if the Alliance expands is 20. Worst case for the Sun Belt? They take three if UTEP shifts, two if not. We are at 7 or 8 with an ample supply of candidates and the WAC has lost one or two schools to the Alliance making the pressure on the eastern WAC greater.

There simply isn't a scenario where the Sun Belt finds itself needing a scheduling alliance with the WAC. If the Sun Belt is wanting to expand, there simply isn't a scenario where the WAC survives no matter what the Alliance does.