question, why do all the new big east members spend so much time trying to down play the alliance and it's schools and so much time trying to sugar coat their conference and their schools?

You can ask the same question about all the Alliance members as well.

lets be honest both conferences are no better now than they were 2 years ago. I think the reason why the defectors get a hard time is because some of their fans have come off snobbish lately.

(02-21-2012 05:28 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Actually ECU's best season is better than Houston's but that's beside the point.

I don't think ECU has ever finished the season ranked number 4 in the country?

I think Big East at least in football is going to be stronger. More depth- for one- will allow the conference to play 8 conference games for the 1st time ever. That alone will be huge for the conference. Also with more teams- you have a better chance at a very good team emerging. Syracuse on the field(and no one can deny this)- losing them is addition by subraction. Pitt the last 20 years really has just been very mediocre.

Alliance- I think they have a shot. My point of this thread was is there a school or two that if they left, the alliance becomes questionable. I stand by my thought that if USM and ECU left for the Big East, the remaining C-USA teams would be very vulnerable. My thought is those 2 programs are the "head of the snake" sort of speak. If they left, I just don't see the remaining C-USA schools sticking together.

I think if it does take place, there would be a team or two that now without especially out west- TCU and Boise- would step up. We saw it this year in the WAC where Louisiana Tech who had done nothing when Boise was in the WAC- had a 8 win year.

(02-21-2012 07:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think if it does take place, there would be a team or two that now without especially out west- TCU and Boise- would step up. We saw it this year in the WAC where Louisiana Tech who had done nothing when Boise was in the WAC- had a 8 win year.

and oh my my how it swelled their heads up.

I think the best chance the big east had at hurting the alliance was Memphis and it didn't happen. Out of all the moves the big east did, they really only picked up two good teams, Memphis bball and Boise football. The problem with boise football is, the more they win, the less appeal they have, and moving to the big east doesn't help the underdog love affair people have with them.

(02-21-2012 07:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think Big East at least in football is going to be stronger. More depth- for one- will allow the conference to play 8 conference games for the 1st time ever. That alone will be huge for the conference. Also with more teams- you have a better chance at a very good team emerging. Syracuse on the field(and no one can deny this)- losing them is addition by subraction. Pitt the last 20 years really has just been very mediocre.

Last 20 years. Let's see who's won more games the past 20 years--Pitt, Syracuse, UCF, SMU, Houston, SDSU. OR last 10 years. I'm going to look that up later.

Quote:Alliance- I think they have a shot. My point of this thread was is there a school or two that if they left, the alliance becomes questionable. I stand by my thought that if USM and ECU left for the Big East, the remaining C-USA teams would be very vulnerable. My thought is those 2 programs are the "head of the snake" sort of speak. If they left, I just don't see the remaining C-USA schools sticking together.

I think if it does take place, there would be a team or two that now without especially out west- TCU and Boise- would step up. We saw it this year in the WAC where Louisiana Tech who had done nothing when Boise was in the WAC- had a 8 win year.

USM is better on the field, but not 10-wins-a-year BCS-buster ESPN-darling better. ECU has the biggest fanbase, but not big enough to be an ESPN darling.

The C-USA teams don't want to be associated with the Sun Belt teams. If they have to, they'll backfill with as few Sun Belt teams as they can get away with, rather than join the Sun Belt themselves. Or, if the Alliance somehow completely crashes, form new regional (2-4 state) leagues.

The Alliance doesn't have keystone teams the way the Big East does (Boise State, without whom the Big East has no value to ESPN, or Louisville and UConn, the hinges that hold the football and basketball sides together). The Alliance is what is left after those keystones were pulled out of C-USA and the Mountain West.

(02-21-2012 07:43 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 07:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think Big East at least in football is going to be stronger. More depth- for one- will allow the conference to play 8 conference games for the 1st time ever. That alone will be huge for the conference. Also with more teams- you have a better chance at a very good team emerging. Syracuse on the field(and no one can deny this)- losing them is addition by subraction. Pitt the last 20 years really has just been very mediocre.

Last 20 years. Let's see who's won more games the past 20 years--Pitt, Syracuse, UCF, SMU, Houston, SDSU. OR last 10 years. I'm going to look that up later.

I looked through ESPN's standings for the last 10 years.

School 2011 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 Total
Syracuse 5 8 4 3 2 4 1 6 6 4 43
Pitt 6 8 10 9 5 6 5 8 8 9 74

Let's look at the teams coming in.

Houston 13 5 10 8 8 10 6 3 7 5 75
UCF 5 11 8 4 10 4 8 0 3 7 60
SDSU 8 9 4 2 4 3 5 4 6 4 49
Memphis 2 1 2 6 7 2 7 8 9 3 47
SMU 8 7 8 1 1 6 5 3 0 3 42

So, one of the additions is comparable to Pitt, who "really has just been very mediocre." Except that Pitt was being mediocre in an AQ conference, while Houston was only one win better, in a lower tier league.

Three of the additions are comparable to Syracuse' performance, except, again, Syracuse was in an AQ league and SMU, Memphis and SDSU weren't. But sure, on some planets maybe three rotting mackerel are better than one stinking up your league.

(I didn't run the numbers for Boise State-West Virginia because I think it's agreed that that's a wash.)

So Pitt slightly better than Houston- I'd be ok with saying that. But- Boise- they in the last 10 years are 118-13. West Virginia is 95-33. That's hardly a wash. But, I would say that WV+Pitt=Boise+Houston.

The issue that I have is a team that you ignored. Navy. Last 10 years, they are 77-50. Between them and UCF- that's 2 teams that can't be questioned are better than Syracuse.

Where SDSU, Memphis, and SMU come in is that they provide depth. They allow the conference to go to 12 teams. That gives them the conference title game. That gives them more games to sell to TV.

Lets see.............

Thread..............

No longer about the Alliance

The former CUSA schools are better brands than the ones going to the ACC

All ECU fans classified into one lump sum b*tch group

Welp................

Time to go stare into the Refrigerator for an hour.

My answer to thread's original question is : no one school leaving will hurt the alliance.

One of the purposes of the alliance is to create a conference that can be refilled or restocked with minimal interruption or disturbance. I don't think there is any ONE team that today is THE team.

There are many good programs in the east & the west.

One of the better things about this new alliance is that hopefully no one school thinks they are better than everyone else & will want preferential treatment.

(02-21-2012 08:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  So Pitt slightly better than Houston- I'd be ok with saying that. But- Boise- they in the last 10 years are 118-13. West Virginia is 95-33. That's hardly a wash. But, I would say that WV+Pitt=Boise+Houston.

The issue that I have is a team that you ignored. Navy. Last 10 years, they are 77-50. Between them and UCF- that's 2 teams that can't be questioned are better than Syracuse.

Where SDSU, Memphis, and SMU come in is that they provide depth. They allow the conference to go to 12 teams. That gives them the conference title game. That gives them more games to sell to TV.

Boise State averaged 12 wins a year in the WAC and MWC, vs West Virginia averaging 9.5 wins in the Big East, 3-0 in BCS bowls. West Virginia didn't get to play conference games against SMU, Louisiana Tech, UTEP and San Jose State. (They did get to play Temple, and then a I-AA callup UConn.) So 95 wins in the Big East is comparable to 118 in the WAC.

I forgot about Navy. The thing with Navy is they've been very careful with their schedule. 2010 they scheduled themselves some wins with Army, Georgia Southern, Arkansas State, SMU, Wake Forest, Duke, Louisiana Tech and Central Michigan. They beat Notre Dame, but lost to Duke. So I expect Navy to get used to numbers like 4-8, 3-9, 5-7 in the Big East when they're playing 4-6 mediocre-to-good teams, plus Notre Dame and Air Force.

Having more games to sell to TV doesn't help if the games are between teams no one wants to watch, so they get stuck on ESPN3 or the NBC equivalent.

You mention WV's 3-0 in BCS bowls, but failed to mention Boise being 2-0 in BCS bowls. Let's be fair there. I'm not saying that Boise is way better than West Virginia, but the last 10 years, they have been a hair better- the same gap as Houston vs Pittsburgh.

Gotta love a St John's fan arguing against the Big East.

(02-21-2012 10:16 PM)stever20 Wrote:  You mention WV's 3-0 in BCS bowls, but failed to mention Boise being 2-0 in BCS bowls. Let's be fair there. I'm not saying that Boise is way better than West Virginia, but the last 10 years, they have been a hair better- the same gap as Houston vs Pittsburgh.

Gotta love a St John's fan arguing against the Big East.

I just took Boise States' BCS bowls as assumed. (I actually thought they had been to more). And just like Houston vs Pitt, the New Big East team was better against a MUCH weaker schedule.

I am not real sure how answer the OP

I mean, IMO, there are three top teams in the "East"

ECU, USM, and Marshall.

If the Alliance lost those it really wouldn't change much but making the league a more west/southwest/south league which in turn could make for a pretty solid conference of its own with the MWC+ CUSA W teams.


Not sure who would be tops in the West even though I would venture to guess Fresno State, Nevada, and Hawaii would be considered that. There is no real place for those guys to move to.... don't really think the Alliance would suffer much.

I think there would be a problem legally if the east fell apart. If the "alliance" had the 8 teams from the MWC and then Tulsa and UTEP- I'd guess that Comcast would look to sue for breaking the current MWC TV contract.

I wouldn't put Marshall anywhere near the same class as ECU or Southern Miss.
Marshall last 10 years vs current C-USA teams 30-30
ECU- 47-32
So Miss- 57-25

(02-21-2012 10:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think there would be a problem legally if the east fell apart. If the "alliance" had the 8 teams from the MWC and then Tulsa and UTEP- I'd guess that Comcast would look to sue for breaking the current MWC TV contract.

Unless Comcast is given first opportunity to work with the Alliance?

(02-21-2012 10:54 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 10:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think there would be a problem legally if the east fell apart. If the "alliance" had the 8 teams from the MWC and then Tulsa and UTEP- I'd guess that Comcast would look to sue for breaking the current MWC TV contract.

Unless Comcast is given first opportunity to work with the Alliance?

But, if that happened, it would not be on the open market, which means the alliance would not given as much money as they would otherwise.

(02-21-2012 10:56 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 10:54 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-21-2012 10:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think there would be a problem legally if the east fell apart. If the "alliance" had the 8 teams from the MWC and then Tulsa and UTEP- I'd guess that Comcast would look to sue for breaking the current MWC TV contract.

Unless Comcast is given first opportunity to work with the Alliance?

But, if that happened, it would not be on the open market, which means the alliance would not given as much money as they would otherwise.

I said first opportunity, stever... that's what happened with C-USA and E-Mickey/FOX. C-USA gave E-Mickey first opportunity (so they said), E-Mickey said an email discussion didn't count.. and tried to sue.

They eventually settled (and I think they settled, because E-Mickey realized they were going to lose the lawsuit...)