A Modest Proposal for the MAC / SunBelt
Well the Big East just gutted any potential alliance between the Mountain West and Conference USA by snatching away five of the premier schools occupying the pool. Speaking of the pool who is left?
| Conference | Average | With Losses |
|---|---|---|
| 8 CONFERENCE USA | 66.51 | 63.27 |
| 9 MOUNTAIN WEST | 66.37 | 58.26 |
| 10 WESTERN ATHLETIC | 63.95 | 63.95 |
| 11 MID-AMERICAN | 63.04 | 63.04 |
| 13 SUN BELT | 58.64 | 58.64 |
The Mountain west is now the awkward kids who you know is going to relieve himself, and Conference USA is now within the Margin of error and the WAC, who was gutted last season, is oddly king of the pack (until they add more IAA schools).
The idea of some alliance helping get an AQ spot was foolish on its face but it did get me to thinking. Is there a way for the Mid-Majors to boost their status, even just a little, without changing the world.
Instead of some huge alliance with far flung aspirations that a few cute girls will get all the uggo's into the AQ party why not focus on helping the few teams who might actually benefit in a given year.
What if the MAC and the Sun Belt decided to each reserve the last week of the season for cross over games aimed at boosting resumes on top and giving some winnable games at the bottom? Take the coaches preseason polls for each conference and schedule. (no the #1 and #2 is not a typo, if you have each conference with teams ranked in the top 25 why eat each other)
SBC #2 at MAC #1
MAC #2 at SBC #1
MAC #3 at SBC #3
SBC #4 at MAC #4
...
The obvious problem is that there is a disparate number of teams between the conferences. I suspect the Sun Belt will be climbing to 12 but even then that leaves two MAC teams with nothing to do that week. Maybe you make arrangements with an independent, or let the two worst MAC teams try to pick up a second FCS game.
This is just something spinning around in my head.. Thoughts?
This post was submitted by one of our esteemed readers and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or thoughts of Hustle Belt.
7 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
CUSA would be the first choice but they have their 'alliance' already set
I don’t think they would want block off one more game per school…
Is the MAC even going to need CUSA?
With the MAC coming out of the realignment round relatively unscathed one could argue that it will be a peer conference with CUSA.
Does the MAC just want to try and muscle up on the bowl games? If the MAC had more tie-ins and won its bowl games it would lead to more respect in the polls.
In the East I could see Army/Navy having an arrangement where they play in DC/NY bowls in 2 of the four years with the MAC providing a team in years when they aren’t hosting an academy. That is like what the WAC is doing in SF/SD bowls right now behind the academies. The rise of Temple football as a regular bowl participant and UMass might help in regards to landing a spot in the DC game over CUSA.
I have a sense the MAC will have more clout in bowl negotiations moving forward than it has in previous cycles. Better bowls will lead to better recruiting and better teams at the top of the conference.
Sun belt has 11
South Alabama starts sun belt football play in 2012
If they add Georgia State they would be at 12
Interesting discussion regarding MWC and it’s alliance with CUSA here
http://www.mwcconnection.com/2011/11/4/2537949/long-term-potential-of-mountain-west-conference-usa
Future of non-AQ's unclear
Before the MAC can do anything to try and boost its resume it has to figure out what the future is going to be.
The SEC, ACC, PAC-12, Big Ten look pretty satisfied with their expansions and have settled down. The Big XII can’t get the votes to get back to 12 with Texas not wanting it. All the TV contracts in the near term in the Big XII are set for 10 schools anyways.
The Big East though is a mystery machine. Nobody not even the Big East leadership itself knows who is going to be on board by 2014. Its looking more like the Big East is going to hit the MWC more heavily than first anticipated for replacements.
Mount-USA is going to be losing so many teams that one has to wonder if it doesn’t make sense just to fold in the remaining MWC schools minus Hawaii (crazy travel) into Conference USA. I’m assuming here Boise/SDSU/UNLV to the BE from the MWC and UCF/Houston/SMU to the BE from CUSA
CUSA East: Marshall, ECU, UAB, Memphis, Tulsa, Tulane, So Miss, Rice
CUSA West: UTEP, New Mex, AFA, CSU, WYO, Nevada, Fresno State
Then you have a situation where Hawaii moves back to the WAC to once again give it the 8 schools it wants for its football conference. The non-AQ’s have the following members
CUSA (16)
MAC (14)
SBC (10)
WAC (10)
The MAC has gone from the #4 non-AQ conference behind MWC/CUSA/WAC to the obvious #2 conference. It would be in the MAC’s interest to try and at least have 1 bowl game against the WAC/SBC/CUSA with some better destinations.
I don’t think it makes as much sense for the MAC to pursue a bracket buster type series with another non-AQ. What makes more sense is to try and use its new found status to improve bowl tie-ins for the 2014 season vs. the other non-AQ conferences.
MAC #1 vs. Big Ten #8 (Detroit)
MAC #2 vs. CUSA #2 (New Orleans)
MAC #3 vs SBC #2 (Miami)
MAC #3 vs. WAC #4 (San Antonio)
The real competition for the bowls is going to be between the ACC, Big Ten, PAC-12, SEC, Big XII. The BE with its East-West setup will pick up all the scraps once those conferences are done picking. BE #4 schools will be playing SEC #8’s for example. The BE #5 against the PAC #6 in Las Vegas.
The MAC and CUSA might be able to get a #8 or #9 pick from a BCS league to play them while the SBC and WAC won’t even be able to get that. Its going to be slim pickings but if the MAC can at least get out of small markets like Boise and Mobile and into San Antonio and Miami that would be progress.

by 




































