Mountain West merger is taking shape

Harry · March 23, 2012

A spokesman for the Mountain West portion of a projected new conference that includes eight members of Conference USA said Wednesday an agreement to begin operations in 2013 is just about complete.

Neal Smatrest, president of Mountain West member UNLV, said in addition to securing a name for the new conference, a location for offices and naming a commissioner, the presidents of the involved institutions will be taking a hard look at expanding from 16 schools. They also will look into setting up a possible multiround playoff system at the end of the regular-season football schedule.

"I'm pretty sure we'll be looking at expanding up a bit in numbers," Smatrest said. "We're working out details on scheduling, and I anticipate there will be a form of a playoff system involving the top teams leading up to a championship game."

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/colleges/ci_20227443/mountain-west-merger-is-taking-shape#ixzz1pwUP14Mx

buff64 · March 23, 2012

Seems odd to me that the MAC does not seem to be involved in any of the shuffling and merger talks. Aren't they the only non-BCS conference not involved ?

UNT90 · March 23, 2012

Seems odd to me that the MAC does not seem to be involved in any of the shuffling and merger talks. Aren't they the only non-BCS conference not involved ?

So now they will start making the "we are the most stable conference" claim that the belt was making as the WAC fell apart?

Spin, spin, spin.

Harry · March 23, 2012

Seems odd to me that the MAC does not seem to be involved in any of the shuffling and merger talks. Aren't they the only non-BCS conference not involved ?

I thought the same thing, but I hear they are fine with being in the shadow of The Big 10 and picking up the scraps.

wardly · March 23, 2012

i am not sure of the count, but i think the MAC has about 14 or so members at present. they are probably the only conference that is not seeking expansion.

NTXCoog · March 23, 2012

Seems odd to me that the MAC does not seem to be involved in any of the shuffling and merger talks. Aren't they the only non-BCS conference not involved ?

Maybe after losing Temple, they're happy with having 12 football members instead of the odd 13 they had previously.

keith · March 23, 2012

Very intrigued by the Alliance concept, but some of the language ("playoff system involving the top teams leading up to a championship") is starting to sound not like a conference championship, but an alternative (lower tier?) national championship (between the BCS and FCS). Is this the beginning of the end that concludes with another classification for football? Some say it's inevitable that there will be another break between the top D1 teams that have been deemed worthy of competing for the real national championship and the rest left to fight over the scraps. Is the Alliance the first step in that direction?

Keith

cdizzle86 · March 23, 2012

Very intrigued by the Alliance concept, but some of the language ("playoff system involving the top teams leading up to a championship") is starting to sound not like a conference championship, but an alternative (lower tier?) national championship (between the BCS and FCS). Is this the beginning of the end that concludes with another classification for football? Some say it's inevitable that there will be another break between the top D1 teams that have been deemed worthy of competing for the real national championship and the rest left to fight over the scraps. Is the Alliance the first step in that direction?

Keith

I completely agree with this, but I think it could be beneficial to be the first D1 "sub-division" to implement a playoff system. The Alliance will have the first crack at TV contract negotiations to get the best time slots. In my opinion, they should be negotiating a long-term contract (5 to 10 years) with ESPN/ABC to cover all playoff games during December. Similar to March Madness, but for football in December.

If we can't join the big guys, then we need to lock them out of the best TV time-slots so they can suffer when we are raking in the $$.

playoffpush · March 23, 2012

I completely agree with this, but I think it could be beneficial to be the first D1 "sub-division" to implement a playoff system. The Alliance will have the first crack at TV contract negotiations to get the best time slots. In my opinion, they should be negotiating a long-term contract (5 to 10 years) with ESPN/ABC to cover all playoff games during December. Similar to March Madness, but for football in December.

If we can't join the big guys, then we need to lock them out of the best TV time-slots so they can suffer when we are raking in the $$.

Pretty wishful thinking. The alliance isn't locking the bcs schools out of squat. These games aren't going to be more appealing to the networks than the conference championship games or even Texas vs. Baylor.

GrayEagle · March 23, 2012

Maybe after losing Temple, they're happy with having 12 football members instead of the odd 13 they had previously.

Actually, they will have 13 again. They are adding UMass this year for football only. It will be a couple of years before they are full FBS but the conference must still schedule for 13 teams.

GrayEagle · March 23, 2012

I'm not sure that the intent is to have a playoff system as it is to have an eligible for the BCS playoff in whatever form it takes.

From what I understand the teams in each division will be seeded after eleven weeks of play. Number one in the east will play number one in the west, number two will play number two, and so on until all are scheduled for the twelfth game. The twelfth will be played at the home of the school with the best attendance.

If true, that would be the only crossover game. It has its good points in that it makes the last game meaningful and it encourages home attendance. The last game should also address mismatches in that no 2-9 team will have to play a 10-1 team for example.

The size of the conference is a strength in my opinion. Large conferences deliver more total attendance, viewers, expenditures, publicity, etc. and gain more revenue. Networks will look primarily at what the conference as a whole can furnish but each individual team could receive less since it's divided more ways and might not be distributed evenly.

Old folks don't normally like change but this concept intrigues me. Someone is thinking outside the box and it could be the wave of the future. There is no guarantee for success but it's certainly worth the try.

Mean Green 93-98 · March 23, 2012

So now they will start making the "we are the most stable conference" claim that the belt was making as the WAC fell apart?

Spin, spin, spin.

The "stability of the Belt" is definitely spin. But I'll buy whatever stability claims the MAC wants to make--half of their member institutions have been in the MAC since the 40's or early '50's. Four of the remaining six entered in '72 and '73. While their product may not be the best, they do have some legitimate history and established rivalries that the modern Belt, WAC, and Alliance can only dream of.