I want to respond simply because of the four-team merger element. That is worthy of its own topic.
When the Alliance was first proposed, it was a three league deal, MWC, WAC, C-USA and WAC got cut out early in (I presume about the time MWC took Boise).
While there is some appeal to such an idea because of the TV leverage (which you get in return for giving up voting and auto bids in the NCAA), the fundamental problem remains. You get a disconnect as some schools are more committed than others either because of the administration or access to resources.
The SEC can tolerate a Vandy or Miss St because every TV contract showers new unprecedented wealth. That just isn't the case for MAC, MWC, CUSA, Sun Belt and we will soon see whether it is true of the Big East.
I've said it before and fully believe that CUSA, MWC, Sun Belt and MAC would be better served going to very large regional leagues following the international pro soccer format for divisions. There are two ways to deal with it.
Version 1. You can have an 18 team league or even a 36 team league. In the 36 format, 18 east, 18 west. In football the 9 highest rated east by whatever power ranking system go into the Eastern Red division, the 9 lowest in the Blue division. Same deal in the east. Conference championship the two Red division champs meet. That gives you the greatest possible strength of schedule. Each year you rebalance based on the ratings. Sharing money you give a bonus share of league revenue to the Red division teams to reward their success. But the blue division isn't all bad. Programs trying to rebuild or build are playing a softer schedule and as a result have a greater chance of posting a winning record and making a bowl. Become better than a red division school, you replace them.
Version 2. This is a bit more complicated but it retains the integrity of the current conference alignments a little better. C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt create a new league entity, the College Premier League or National Football Conference (wait think that's taken
). The CPL would be a football only conference. NCAA rules require an FBS league to have 8 full members so each conference is capped on the number of CPL teams based on how many teams they have in excess of 8. MWC has 10 so they can only send up to 2. MAC has 13 can send up to 5. We have 10 and can send 2. CUSA has 14 and can send up to 6 once Charlotte completes transition. That's 15 available schools but only 9 would be taken. Each year you rank all schools in the four conferences from 1-47 based on whatever mix of rankings you want to use. You then pull the nine highest rated available schools. You negotiate a stand-alone TV and bowl arrangement deal for the CPL. Revenue is divided into 18 shares. One share for each school and one share to the conference that sent that school to the CPL.
Example using BCS ratings.
USM
Northern Illinois
Arkansas State
Louisiana Tech
Tulsa
Wyoming
Toledo
Marshall
Louisiana
The lowest rated team would be higher rated than the bottom five of the new Big East. It would provide the MWC with an incentive to add NMSU and Idaho because it would increase the number of potential spots they might take if the league rebounds. It becomes an extremely serious challenger for the strongest league outside of the Big 5 and it is totally results oriented. You either achieve high enough to be a member or you don't. It forces the Sun Belt, CUSA, and MAC to approach the idea of adding new members cautiously because if you bring in a drag you knock someone out of the CPL. By splitting revenue between the schools participating and their home league you provide financial incentive for the schools less likely to make it to approve the idea. You don't give up your home league vote or auto bids.
Never going to happen but makes loads more sense than the current fill in the gap realignment strategies.