The MWCUSA: ECU Chancellor Steve Ballard Talks Conference Merger, Shared Title Game
by Adrian Mac on Aug 25, 2010 12:02 PM MDT
in NCAA Conference Realignment
Email
PrintEast Carolina University Chancellor Steve Ballard recently spoke with Pirate Radio 1250 about the proposed Conference USA- MWC Merger that has been floated around the press the last few weeks (UCFSports.com has published a transcript). Ballard was asked about a proposed merger or merged title game and his quotes definitely make it seem like the discussions have progressed past the point of a "think tank" session.
Ballard told Pirate Radio:
"So we worked very hard and we want to be ready if anything happens. The most encouraging thing to me is this: I think Conference USA, through a lot of hard work, has positioned itself to get into the probability of an automatic qualifier status working with the Mountain West. There's a lot of work left to do to get that actually in writing, but both the Mountain West and Conference USA seem really anxious to make that happen. So I am very optimistic." (emphasis added)
Ballard believes that a proposed merger would most likely consist of two separate conferences that had some sort of play-in for an automatic bid to a BCS bowl.
"More of the latter probably, but with the possibility of mergers down the road. A championship game where the champion of each conference would play and the winner of that game would be a automatic qualifier."
Remember that just last week, UTEP athletic director Bob Stull was asked about a proposed merger and responded:
"That would be really attractive," UTEP athletic director Bob Stull said. "Probably more attractive than a conference championship game."
With BYU still in limbo and the MWC possible resorting to adding Utah State, it seems clear, to me, that the MWC might be best served to use this proposed plan as their best avenue towards an AQ spot, even a shared one. The question is, will Commissioners Banowsky and Thompson take this to the next level? BYU would probably need to recommit to the MWC for this to be a possibility.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is hypothetical, but
What happens if lets say the MWC has two undefeated teams in Boise St and BYU, and CUSA has an 11-1 Houston team. First of all who would play in the championship game from the MWC and second what happens if Houston wins the championship game? Then what happens to the last undefeated who didn’t even play in the championship game? Would the BCS then give two BCS bids to the MWCUSA including a loss champ?? It may end up hurting the teams overall by settling for one guaranteed bid when maybe more would be possible without the merger.
Hopefully not possible-
Each “league” or “division” would have to determine their champion- the MWC theoretically wouldn’t have to have a MWC title game, but they initiate their own tie-breaker procedures or whatever. Most likely no league will ever have 2 teams go undefeated, it just won’t happen because the two teams, say Boise/TCU should play in conference play.
Last year was the first time 2 non-BCS teams made it (Boise/TCU) but with Boise joining the MWC it’s highly unlikely that will ever happen again since they will all now meet in the conference.
I think 1 guaranteed spot is better than one. Because, say TCU beats Boise but Boise Beats BYU but BYU beats TCU- got that?— if nobody goes undefeated in the MWC right now, chances are the league won’t get any team in the BCS. With this system, the champion would still have a chance, say by beating a 9-3 Houston or a East Carolina or UCF.
An Auto Bid- even split two ways might be a better long term option for the MWC- a league which I don’t see getting an AQ anytime soon (although that fact is heavily disputed at the MWC Connection).
Axes Up. Miner Rush - For UTEP Miners Fans
Good Point
As far as a team with a loss still having a chance, but I also think it’s still possible to multiple unbeatens because of the fact that there will be 11 or 12 teams in the conference and you cant play everyone. There may be a year where two teams have great seasons and just don’t happen to play each other.
Regardless, I’m just still having trouble in accepting that the BCS will grant the auto bid. I think it’s safe to say the MWC was close to AQ but were not there yet. I think its also safe to say that CUSA was no where in the conversation for AQ so how does combining the two make them worthy of AQ? Idk I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
One more thing
Using your scenario A-MAC with a 9-3 CUSA champ. Don’t you think the BCS would completely hate to see a 9-3 midmajor playing in their Orange Bowl or Fiesta Bowl or whatever it might be? Those kind of possibilities may also hurt the conferences chances of gaining that auto-bid.
They would, but
1) They would never have 2 non-Big 6 schools in- No more TCU vs. Boise Fiesta Bowls, only 1 “mid major” would be given a spot every year
2) This would get Orrin Hatch off their backs.. for good..
Axes Up. Miner Rush - For UTEP Miners Fans
I'd like this proposal more if...
Both conferences were somehow about 9-10 teams each. I certainly don’t want them merging (that’d be a mess in other sports – I’d still like to see each conference get it’s own basketball tourney invite, for example). I can’t say I’m a fan of there being conference title games, then a play-in game, then a BCS bowl game, however, unless I think it’ll lead to a playoff someday, which is doubtful. If anything, this proposal may delay the possibility of a playoff.
In all my configuring of ways for there to be a playoff, my favorite remains 12 teams:
The top 8 conference champions + 4 at-large teams, with the top 4 conference champions being given a bye, and the other 4 conference champions being given a home game in the opening round. All matches from the Round of 8 (Quarter-Finals) onward would be on neutral fields. Preferably, for the quarter-final round, neutral field locations would be in major cities between regions.
Pros of the above proposal:
-Still ‘maintains the integrity of the regular season.’ You still have to more or less go at least 9-3 to make the playoffs, more likely 10-2 or better (with rare exception).
-The best teams are still rewarded with either a bye or a home first round match.
-It should prevent ‘super-conferences’
-No team would play more games than an FCS team does, so screw the ‘student-athlete’ hypocrisy (as if there aren’t thousands of other examples of such hypocrisy)
The idea of 8 autos and 4 at larges in a playoff
sounds great, but as it stands we’re lightyears away from that. The current BCS setup runs through 2014 and the only mid-majors who have any chance of an outcry for a playoff system are working on putting themselves in formation with everyone else when the new BCS talks come around. They’re basically conceding the fact that no playoff is happening any time soon and would rather settle for a guaranteed spot at the adult’s table.
I don't disagree
That’s just my personal preference.
In all honesty, I think 12-team conferences are too large and anti-academic. I’d like to see some conference contraction before I see expansion.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 25, 2010 4:27 PM MDT up reply actions
This talk about MWC and CUSA having a playoff title game gives me a headache!!
I do not feel that it is even possible———-due to CUSA no where near AQ status and MWC possibly but with UTAH gone and BYU about to depart no way either.
Therefore why would the BCS buy into this idea??
Well...
The BCS would buy into this idea because when there is a good team or two from the MWC/C-USA there’s an automatic path for them. That way, the BCS doesn’t have to deal with the public clamoring for a playoff.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 25, 2010 3:55 PM MDT up reply actions
I agree that the presence of BYU makes this more likely
We’ll see, they might be off to the WCC now in non-football sports ….
Axes Up. Miner Rush - For UTEP Miners Fans
Cut the CONF USA fat, Not the MWC fat
I think the MWC needs to take Houston and call it a day. There is no reason the MWC should include the Conf USA teams, they are not on the same level. None of them have ever even come close to a BCS game. I thought the options at the end of the article were funny, cut the MWC fat…. That’s rich. The opposite is true, cut the conf usa fat and take the better teams to bolster the MWC.
I respectfully disagree
The MWC is not what it used to be- I think that’s evident by the fact that BYU was willing to dump it’s non-football sports off at the WAC butcher shop for a chance to jump ship. You must have also missed when the MWC added Fresno State, Utah, and was turned down by Utah State.
Again- conference strength and stability isn’t determined solely by winning- sadly- because if it was the MWC would be an AQ conference by now. Unfortunately, TV money is what makes the world go round and the MWC simply doesn’t have enough of it and adding Utah State, Fresno, and Nevada isn’t going to fix that.
The merger isn’t being pushed solely by the C-USA. The MWC’s commissioner is considering it as well because the weakened MWC just might need a backup plan in its pursuit to get an AQ Bid.
Axes Up. Miner Rush - For UTEP Miners Fans
That's about right
That, and the BCS may be more than willing to let this happen if it kills any potential playoff momentum.
Even with the consistency and talent from schools like Boise State, TCU, and BYU, the fact remains that the C-USA actually has more $ potential due to it’s market reach and more-populated geography. Though the C-USA isn’t as talented (in my opinion) as the MWC, it has better infrastructure and better access to tv markets.
A partnership between the leagues could do quite well.
However I still remain opposed to the conference champs from each conference having to play 1 extra game between the end of their seasons and the BCS. I’d much prefer a system that somehow matches up the best two teams from each conference without subjecting them to a conference title game first. The only way to do that would be to trim 3 teams overall, sadly.
by VA Libertarian on Aug 25, 2010 10:46 PM MDT up reply actions
I agree completely
The best solution is two, 10 team leagues, with a true round robin schedule. Winner takes all- no C-USA/MWC champ game and the two round robin winners meet in the shared title game.
Axes Up. Miner Rush - For UTEP Miners Fans
Agreed
I know Air Force doesn’t want a 9-game conference schedule, but i think it’s the best approach. Maybe AF could apply for a Hawaii-like exemption for a 13th game, since with academy play their schedule basically becomes an 11-game schedule?
by VA Libertarian on Aug 26, 2010 3:13 PM MDT up reply actions
Invite Houston and...
CUSA will just invite BYU to play in all other sports except football.
CUSA could then take Temple to be the 12th football member.
Sorry snake, but BYU and Utah ran the MWC, Utah bounced and BYU wants desperately out….
doesn’t say much for the MWC which is even more diluted now with the additions of Fresno and Nevada. (A move made to keep BYU from bolting)
Calm down buddy, the MWC isn’t that great and the 2 conferences should align to try and get at least 1 spot in the BCS.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
