Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
David Roche @ dmrnevada
Confirmed: ECU Chancellor says # mwc # cusamerger will have a 4 pod system.
According to a post on the CUSA board, this is what ECU's chancellor Ballard said:
If this merger is to be successful a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, but if it is successful it could be a stronger conference, and almost certainly more stable than the old Conference USA. Secondly we're working almost everyday, we're working today, Terry and Nick more than me, on the importance of regional rivalries. I hope our sister members in the new conference stay committed to the principles they've articulated, which would demand we add many more eastern teams, with the goal of ensuring four divisions of geographical proximity. We look forward to playing traditional rivals such as Southern Miss and Marshall, always great rivalries in virtually every sport; but also adding good regional friends and I hope they include Charlotte and Appalachian State. Such regional divisions are not just appropriate, they are the very best thing for us to protect the academic integrity of what we're doing and the success of our student athletes. I do not believe the new conference will work unless these regional rivalries are not just recognized but implemented as a founding part of the new conference.
He'll probably get one of them to help keep ECU and Marshall relevant. Would come at the expense of UNT or FIU.
I'm still not 100% ruling out any kind of UTEP movement IF it's a full merger and not an alliance. But it only works with a move to 22 or 24 schools if USU and SJSU are both set to join before 7/1.
How does 22/24 work better if you have to play everyone in your div. meaning (pod a & b) and (pod c & d) have to play everyone in their "div" according to the NCAA. At 22, 11/11 that's 10 conf games. at 24 12/12 that's 11 conf. games. No way do I see that.
"Better"? My post was about UTEP and that the only way UTEP can go to the "MWC side" of a full merger, would be for Utah St. or SJSU to NOT be invited OR if they expanded beyond 10 each.
With CUSA/MWC visits to UTSA, mentions of Charlotte & App St., Utah St. and SJSU already being visited, North Texas and FIU being mentioned by other school admins, we're talking already 23 total schools in the mix: 16 plus those 7.
So regardless about the specs of you mention about 10 or 11 conference games, I'm thinking that CUSA/MWC have that taken care of at this point, over 2 months into the process, and wouldn't be expanding to 22 or 24 if that were going to be an obstacle.
I'm concerned w/ how smart our leaders think they are. 2 AQ nonsense, semi finals. I'm not so sure they know about the must play everyone in the div. rule. If the NCAA doesn't change it the only way around it is to stay 2 separate leagues and have 2 conf title games w/ a bowl game between the 2 winners.
Just because a school gets mentioned doesn't mean they'll get in. See USU and SJSU last year. See UNA and NKU to the OVC last year. UTPA, UNO, ACU, UIW all mentioned for the SLC, none invited yet, doubt all will either. App St. got mentioned, I don't see how they get in.
One thing to consider is that what is in the public isn't always going to be exactly how things were discussed internally. For instance, from the start of the alliance talk, one of the things on the table has always been a "semi-final". And that could happen...if they adhere exactly as you are laying it out there regarding the divisional requirements.
Pretty straight forward once we get past all the muck stirred up with all the other variables in play to get the alliance to work:
* They said 24 was an option
* We've all snickered, thinking that is too many schools to handle, too big...10 more schools than the most "populated" BCS conference
* But with a CUSA side at 6/6 in an alliance and a MWC side at 6/6 in the alliance, thats...yup, 24 total schools.
* 6/6 pits 2 CUSA divisional winners in a conference championship, and 2 MWC winners in a MWC "conference" championship.
* The winners essentially go back to the what, old Liberty Bowl setup? Wasn't that CUSA #1 vs MWC #1 (or was it WAC? Can't recall). New bowl likely wouldn't be Liberty level, it would likely have enough clout to bump up the list a bit.
* Big negative is that it means the winner is out of the "BCS 3.0" setup for 2014.
And to get to 24, it means:
CUSA adds 4 from the pool of No. Texas, FIU, FAU, Charlotte, App St., UTSA, NMSU, etc
MWC adds 4 from a similar pool with NMSU, UTSA, No. Texas if they can get UTEP to swap and have the alliance SPLIT the Texas state...and the other 2 spots to Utah St. and SJSU.
So really, you COULD get past the requirement of divisional play.
And it could even be done with some cooperation:
CUSA adding FIU, FAU, Charlotte, App St.
MWC adding No. Texas, UTSA, Utah St. and SJSU
CUSA "trading" UTEP to MWC for UTSA
So you're thinking they go w/ what I said is the only way you could pull off 24. Okay so how do they get a TV deal for all 24 as 1 if they stay 2, 12 team conf.? 2 TV deals? Would that make the per school deal weaker? What if 1 gets a bigger tv deal than the other? I'm guessing if 1 school gets a BCS bowl, they can opt out of the Liberty Bowl.