(05-12-2013 09:43 AM)CoachMaclid Wrote: Okay, if you want a serious answer, here's why this idea doesn't work.
Money and future prestige.
C-USA had TV deals worth 12 times what the MAC has. C-USA has 13 of the top 65 tv markets. We added three schools in UTSA, Charlotte, and Old Dominion that have the potential to significantly grow and mirror what UCF has done. C-USA clearly took a short term hit in order to position themselves for years down the road.
Quite frankly, a league with Southern Miss, Marshall, UTEP, La Tech, three "sleeping giants", and Florida and Texas presence doesn't need to ally with the MAC as its longterm potential alone is greater than anything that can be achieved there. The two leagues ability to generate revenues is not equal, so there no monetary benefit for CUSA.
Finally, your assumption is that this alliance would only help a BCS cause, and I would argue otherwise. Last year, if NIU had to play Tulsa... How would that have benefitted NIU? Tulsa had a squad fully capable of playing with and beating NIU, but didn't have the BCS point system ranking behind them? Similar to the Houston/ Southern Miss situation in 2011, Houston was 7th in the BCS rating, but lost in the CUSA championship to an 25th-ish Southern Miss. This benefit no one (some would obviously argue it benefitted Southerb miss, but that win also cost them a million dollar payout). I make the point that there there has generally emerged only 1 clear candidate traditionally from the nonBCS ranks.
With no history, no money, no benefit, and no comparisons between the two leagues, why is this an idea?
Maclid, thanks. I have always been able to rely on you for a legitimate response, even when we disagree.
And we do still disagree, but let me first say where we agree.
When we get away from all of the subjective "my conference is better than yours" hyperbole, and attempt to simply look at objective measures,
today CUSA 3.0 and MAC are virtual equals. For every CUSA pro or con, there is a MAC pro or con.
Yes, CUSA potentially has the brighter future, particularly because of its Florida and Texas roots. But not decidedly so. MAC has accomplished some things that even exceed MWC and CUSA 2.0, and there's no reason to think that that won't continue to occasionally occur.
Here's the thing: while the crates (conferences) containing the packages (schools) into which the product (talent) is being poured have changed, there is no reason to suspect any change in the amount or quality of talent.
So, will Charlotte (for example) take away from ECU or UCF? Not so much, at least in their first decade. Charlotte is decidedly more likely to take away from Marshall, Appalachian State, Old Dominion... and then maybe some MAC schools, too.
Should the MAC be competitive over the next decade with the likes of Charlotte, Marshall, Appy and ODU? Can't think anyone would argue that.
Here's the second thing: Nothing is ever permanent. Once established, if one conference or the other begins to have advantage perennially, then you simply have language in the agreement that allows one or the other to dissolve the alliance at that point.
Now, as to your other point, which you support using Houston/USM... if you believe the Bill Parcells mantra, as many of us do, that
"you are what your record says you are," Houston got beat and deserved to get beat. You want to put teams into the major bowls who have went through the fire and emerged as being the best. You can't almost be that good... you have to actually be that good.
Tulsa/NIU? Hold up. You're actually citing something that should argue MY point... that's because, effectively, NIU *did* get the SAME benefit of playing a Tulsa because they ended up being blessed to play a high-ranked Kent State in the MAC championship.
The point is that when your best plays your best, if those two "bests" are "best enough," that's going to serve as a springboard for the winner of that contest to be a stronger candidate for the Orange Bowl (in this case) than they would have otherwise been. What this system does is, essentially, set up the MAC and CUSA to *annually* produce that very same mechanism to vault someone into the strongest contention possible.
Here's what I'd like you to address if you're going to continue to disagree with me...
My primary proposition is that, by employing a mini-tournament element within the regular season, you automatically produce *a* (singular) team that has went through the fire and emerged *undefeated* against that higher level of competition. By so doing, you give yourself the best shot at elevating your *true* best team (by virtue of what happens on the field, not perceptions) to getting its due consideration for the lone major bowl slot.
The weakness of the current system is found in that USM team's journey... they perhaps would have been eliminated in a quarter or semi final round had they had to navigate the gauntlet, and Houston wouldn't have even had to play them. But the current system is a round-robin that instantly births two division champions... a loss against Marshall didn't hurt USM in the way that it would have in a tournament situation.
Look, I'm only arguing for what we consider conventional thinking otherwise... tournament play is how the sports universe ordinarily determines champions. Round robin play is normally only used to set the playoff field and to determine seeding. What we have presently cuts out that middle part, and you have teams showing up in championship games that benefited too much from the weakness of their round robin, and then the "on any given day" factor can take over.
The trick for college football is to figure out a rational way to institute that middle part.
This does that.
But moreover, this does that, AND produces two "normal" champions... the best of all worlds.
Your serve.
/
New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
