Answers to questions about the Big East

Harry · December 12, 2012

It appears that Temple cannot prevent the Big East basketball schools from dissolution which frankly makes more sense:

http://zagsblog.com/temple/temple-can-stop-catholic-dissolution-of-big-east/

Cerebus · December 12, 2012

All I get out of this thread is that we should try our best to get into the MWC ASAP. It's all about reputation and who you hang out with, and we've failed at that endeavor for decades. Get in a relatively stable conference full of flagship universities and we've reached our nirvana. At least for now.

What?

MWC payout is below that of CUSA. CUSA is going to have the nearby schools with alumni in DFW.

We don't want to play out west. Do you remember the Big West years?

Cerebus · December 12, 2012

It appears that Temple cannot prevent the Big East basketball schools from dissolution which frankly makes more sense:

http://zagsblog.com/...on-of-big-east/

That is the report I talked about above. If it is correct it seems the Catholic BB schools are just waiting for their commisioner to finalize the V deal. When it's not what they want: They dissolve/reform without the schools as ArkstFan detailed above, as a BB only conference.

IMHO, the current non Catholic BB schools in the BE are boned.

Mean Green 93-98 · December 12, 2012

No. NCAA is not creating new autobids for a new league.

How long did it take the MWC to get an autobid?

If by decent you mean near CUSA levels, then that is probably right.

What is the draw there?

I'm not for a moment suggesting that this would be their preferred outcome. Obviously, they would all want the BE to stay together. But if it doesn't, they have other--and better--alternatives to going back to the new C-USA.

We still get the money and we have a bunch of road trips that we can travel to and with programs that have alumns in DFW. That is the plan to grow our program.

That's a pretty weak plan. If that's all we need to do to grow our program, we might as well go back to the Southland. I'm being facetious of course. But providing name brand opponents at home, whether from near or far, will do more for a program than providing close road trips, although those can be a nice plus.

foutsrouts · December 12, 2012

What?

MWC payout is below that of CUSA. CUSA is going to have the nearby schools with alumni in DFW.

We don't want to play out west. Do you remember the Big West years?

The MWC isn't the Big West (which I remember well), and screw the payout when CUSA is looking like it's going to change as often as the U.S. tax code. Find some stability with some quality schools and be done with it for now. If in my wildest dreams they would have us.

Arkstfan · December 12, 2012

I think there are three significant things that make it quite possible that we are in a bubble.

#1. The bubble created because advertisers needed a way to defeat DVR commercial skipping. A college football game drawing a 4.0 rating is basically worth the same as the same amount of scripted programming delivering a 7.5 or an 8.0. Think Detroit circa 1950-1972. The world competition had been bombed out and lacked the technology to compete but found a way to get there. There is such a premium out there that other advertising mediums now have a huge incentive to tackle the 30 second commercial as primary delivery method. With the younger highly desired audience more likely to consume more and more content via mobile devices and game consoles they will be even harder to reach. The 30 second spot regular viewer is growing older.

#2. Ala carte programming for cable and satellite is the idea Congress won't allow to die. If it ever hits critical mass, the low estimate is an ESPN package costs you at least $20 a month and estimates go as high as $35. Now imagine the license paid by bars goes up 7X to 12X. Fewer places default to showing ESPN and the audience sizes shrink. Ala carte can dramatically slice the number of viewers.

#3. Alternate delivery. Right now internet delivery and on-demand and IPTV stuff is mostly bleeding edge (with a semi-exception for UVverse and FIOS neither of which is fully fleshed to potential). The audience using these bleeding edge options is mostly young but growing. The hold up is the right device with the right UI. The Pac-12 is tenatively stepping this direction with their on-demand product. Some one cracks this nut and the likely outcome is conferences selling their own rights (Big 10/Pac-12 style) or schools doing it (LHN). If it becomes about subscriber bases, we may see the conference TV deal fade away.

Cerebus · December 12, 2012

How long did it take the MWC to get an autobid?

There are 31 autobids, there are not going to be more. The BE's autobid is going to go (most likely) to the BB only schools.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that this would be their preferred outcome. Obviously, they would all want the BE to stay together. But if it doesn't, they have other--and better--alternatives to going back to the new C-USA.

I never said they would all go back to CUSA. I just said they won't form a new conference. SMU/UH might well try and save face and go MWC, but they aren't forming a new league.

That's a pretty weak plan. If that's all we need to do to grow our program, we might as well go back to the Southland. I'm being facetious of course. But providing name brand opponents at home, whether from near or far, will do more for a program than providing close road trips, although those can be a nice plus.

So name brand opponents is the magic bullet now? Well first off, there aren't name brands in the MWC that would change our situation all that much. Would more people show up for Boise State than LaTech? Maybe. Would more people show up for SDSU than LaTech? No.

Second, THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET. It wasn't winning a conference title, it wasn't winning a bowl game, it wasn't getting a new coach, it wasn't getting the athletics fee passed, it wasn't tailgating, it wasn't hiring a new coach, it wasn't even getting a stadium built. There is no magic bullet.

They only way we build this program is step by step from the ground up. And playing schools that fans can travel to, and talk to alumns with at work/in the neighborhood is the best way to do that. I would hate to lose UTEP because they have a ton of alumni in DFW and show up. But so does LaTech, and UTSA, and if we need to add them TxState.

Get fans involved. Get them to talk smack to that LaTech guy at work, get them to bring thier UTEP neighbor to a game, have them take that road trip to Rice, that's how you build a fanbase.

Cerebus · December 12, 2012

The MWC isn't the Big West (which I remember well), and screw the payout when CUSA is looking like it's going to change as often as the U.S. tax code. Find some stability with some quality schools and be done with it for now. If in my wildest dreams they would have us.

What makes SDSU a quality school and makes Rice not a quality school?

VideoEagle · December 12, 2012

Two things make a bubble - an asset has seen a great price run up and investors have unreasonable expectations of greater returns. Both are two for college football.

It takes less than a week to set up a on line pay per view that is scalable to the size of your audience. You only pay for the bandwidth you need. Production costs still exist and you can't just can't get people to buy your program is you are using consumer cameras, etc. But if you spend time to do it right, you can get subscribers. Forbes reports Glenn Beck's GBTV has about 300,00 subscribers. College football is a lot more popular than Glenn Beck!

Once universities feel confident about selling the program themselves, it is Katie bar the door for sports networks. Of course, it's the big boys who will be able to do this and the lower ranked schools in the power conferences will find themselves in the same boat as the rest of us.

MeanGreenTexan · December 12, 2012

What?

MWC payout is below that of CUSA. CUSA is going to have the nearby schools with alumni in DFW.

We don't want to play out west. Do you remember the Big West years?

If MWC wants to move east and pick up 4 schools (say UTEP, Tulsa, UNT, *gulp*UTSA), I'm on board with this move. Then you still have those nearby schools that would probably be in your division, meaning only 1 or 2 away games in Mountain or Pacific time. When UNT was in the Big West, we were on a deserted island with AR St.

Now if we make a move from the existing C-USA to the existing MWC... then I'm not on board.

Cerebus · December 12, 2012

#1. The bubble created because advertisers needed a way to defeat DVR commercial skipping. A college football game drawing a 4.0 rating is basically worth the same as the same amount of scripted programming delivering a 7.5 or an 8.0. Think Detroit circa 1950-1972. The world competition had been bombed out and lacked the technology to compete but found a way to get there. There is such a premium out there that other advertising mediums now have a huge incentive to tackle the 30 second commercial as primary delivery method. With the younger highly desired audience more likely to consume more and more content via mobile devices and game consoles they will be even harder to reach. The 30 second spot regular viewer is growing older.

You are right, delivery methods are changing. People who don't want to wait for a commercial, or don't want to pay for it can just pirate it (Cable is how much? Screw that, I'll download Game of Throne). However, that is all non time sensitive. So, smart programmers are already trying to make it more time sensitive. What AMC does with the Walking Dead is genius. A show about the show right afterwards, and a online chat with stars, directors, etc during the show. If you want the full experience you HAVE to watch it then and sit through the commercials, not pirate or DVR it later.

Second, sports is not like that. No one WANTS to watch sports after it is done. Doesn't matter how it gets streamed to people in the future, that desire for live coverage is what makes sports different. Even if the model no longer works for the rest of the material, and the cable companies all go under, someone is going to be able to leverage those captive eyeballs to advertisers.

#2. Ala carte programming for cable and satellite is the idea Congress won't allow to die. If it ever hits critical mass, the low estimate is an ESPN package costs you at least $20 a month and estimates go as high as $35. Now imagine the license paid by bars goes up 7X to 12X. Fewer places default to showing ESPN and the audience sizes shrink. Ala carte can dramatically slice the number of viewers.

I think for the most part people suck it up and pay for it. People may be able to live without Hell On Wheels but they can't miss out on college football. In the end, it may be a gain. I don't even watch 80% of the channels I get. I pay $120+ for my cable. If I could cherry pick, pay $60 a month for it and get only what I wanted, isn't that better?

#3. Alternate delivery. Right now internet delivery and on-demand and IPTV stuff is mostly bleeding edge (with a semi-exception for UVverse and FIOS neither of which is fully fleshed to potential). The audience using these bleeding edge options is mostly young but growing. The hold up is the right device with the right UI. The Pac-12 is tenatively stepping this direction with their on-demand product. Some one cracks this nut and the likely outcome is conferences selling their own rights (Big 10/Pac-12 style) or schools doing it (LHN). If it becomes about subscriber bases, we may see the conference TV deal fade away.

Talking to a guy who watches "tv" on:

An Actual TV
An HPTC running WMC
A PS3 with streaming apps
A XBOX360 with streaming apps
A Cablecard stand alone networked decoder
Another device on an iMac
Other ways

I understand what you are saying. The cable companies and their big deal may not be there. But does that mean sports just dissapears form the airwaves, and the only way to watch them is to wear bowler hats and crowd the outfield at the polo grounds? No, there will be a deliver mechanism to some devices. Someone will figure out how to charge for that. People will pay it as long as people want to see LIVE sports.

I agree with you that cable companies are in trouble. The delivery method may not work in the future. Sports is different. As long as people want to see live sports, there will be a huge revenue stream.

Mean Green 93-98 · December 12, 2012

There are 31 autobids, there are not going to be more. The BE's autobid is going to go (most likely) to the BB only schools.

If there were 41 autobids, they would make a 42nd for a conference including Memphis, UConn, et al. You say they won't, but I believe you are wrong.

I never said they would all go back to CUSA. I just said they won't form a new conference. SMU/UH might well try and save face and go MWC, but they aren't forming a new league.

Maybe not. Just putting it forth as a possibility, and, should the BE break up, it will at least be that.

So name brand opponents is the magic bullet now? Well first off, there aren't name brands in the MWC that would change our situation all that much. Would more people show up for Boise State than LaTech? Maybe. Would more people show up for SDSU than LaTech? No.

I don't believe there is any "magic bullet." I said what would do more for a program. And we were talking about a C-USA stocking up on more Belt programs. There are several regional teams in C-USA that I am excited about--Tulsa, Rice, and to a lesser extent LaTech and UTEP. But if the good teams start bailing on C-USA, don't try to kid yourself into thinking that we're in just of good a position because the schools are just as close or closer.

Second, THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET. It wasn't winning a conference title, it wasn't winning a bowl game, it wasn't getting a new coach, it wasn't getting the athletics fee passed, it wasn't tailgating, it wasn't hiring a new coach, it wasn't even getting a stadium built. There is no magic bullet.

They only way we build this program is step by step from the ground up. And playing schools that fans can travel to, and talk to alumns with at work/in the neighborhood is the best way to do that. I would hate to lose UTEP because they have a ton of alumni in DFW and show up. But so does LaTech, and UTSA, and if we need to add them TxState.

Get fans involved. Get them to talk smack to that LaTech guy at work, get them to bring thier UTEP neighbor to a game, have them take that road trip to Rice, that's how you build a fanbase.

Would you call that the "magic bullet"?

Cerebus · December 12, 2012

If there were 41 autobids, they would make a 42nd for a conference including Memphis, UConn, et al. You say they won't, but I believe you are wrong.

I base my opinion on the new rules that the NCAA passed in January of this year changing how Autobid eligibility is maintained and on public and private statements NCAA officials have made to members of the media and athletics personnel. I believe I'm right. However, you may have better information than I do. If I saw that, I would change my mind. Until then, no more autobids.

Memphis, UCONN, etc will find homes. As Arkstfan said above UCONN goes to the BE for BB and moves other sports somewhere else. The rest of the schools will find homes in currently existing conferences.

Would you call that the "magic bullet"?

No, I call that a step, one of many, that will over a decade or so build us up to a new level.

foutsrouts · December 12, 2012

The best move IMO would be for us to hook up with a conference that contains flagship universities. We have NEVER done that before in our history, and it would be the next step to our possibly reaching the ultimate goal of joining a "Big 12 like" conference down the road. We've got to finally start thinking ahead, especially since some of these regional CUSA schools could abandon the current setup at any time. TCU managed to deal with the horrible pain of playing out west, so why can't we?

foutsrouts · December 12, 2012

What makes SDSU a quality school and makes Rice not a quality school?

Maybe because Rice will jump out of our bed at their first opportunity?

Cerebus · December 12, 2012

The best move IMO would be for us to hook up with a conference that contains flagship universities.

I agree. However, that is like saying, "I think the best I could do for my social life is to start dating a Brazilian super model." It might be true, doesn't mean we can make it happen right now.

TCU managed to deal with the horrible pain of playing out west, so why can't we?

TCU was several year ahead of us at that point. They already had won for years in the WAC/CUSA. They also were miles ahead on where we are on attendence, season tickets, and athletic giving.

Cerebus · December 12, 2012

Maybe because Rice will jump out of our bed at their first opportunity?

So then that was a different SDSU that jumped out of the WAC bed to the MWC bed, then out of the MWC bed to the BE bed, but before even landing there is rumored to be getting cold feet, and might get kick out of that bed anway?

Every school is trying to get to the big money. If we aren't a school doing that and you just want stability DII is a perfect fit.

foutsrouts · December 12, 2012

So then that was a different SDSU that jumped out of the WAC bed to the MWC bed, then out of the MWC bed to the BE bed, but before even landing there is rumored to be getting cold feet, and might get kick out of that bed anway?

Every school is trying to get to the big money. If we aren't a school doing that and you just want stability DII is a perfect fit.

SDSU is irrelevant to the argument unless they were to come back before us and preclude our membership due to membership number limitations. Also, they may not be Rice, but they aren't as bad of a school as you seem to think. They have MANY nationally ranked programs.

If your point is that the MWC is not relatively stable or would potentially be a financial disaster for us, then I beg to differ on that point. SDSU and Boise left for obvious reasons, but those reasons are fading fast. We need to be proactive, and not just stick with the status quo of sitting on our butts and letting others determine our fate.

Also, your DII thoughts fit perfectly with our D1AA history, but I don't think anyone is looking in that direction. Somehow I think we'll go the way of UTA before we start scheduling Commerce.

Arkstfan · December 13, 2012

The NCAA Bylaws and the United States Courts say there won't be a cap on autobids unless that cap is based on some criteria such as performance. That may be bad news for the new WAC but it won't be for new Big East.

Sports are different but let's be realistic here. Until Board of Regents vs. NCAA if you wanted college football you had to contract with the NCAA who had 180 then around 130 schools under their umbrella. After that you had to contract with the CFA, Big 10, Pac-10, and Notre Dame, that was all conferences except Big West and MAC and all but the smallest independents. By the time the BCS formed you could reach essentially the same audience with 7 contracts (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac-10, SEC, Notre Dame). Today you can reach that audience with six contracts (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC, Notre Dame) and now up to 1/3rd of the Notre Dame games are in the ACC package.

During much of that time there were differences but the ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, and SEC deals were all pretty close. Then trailing far behind was the Big East. The gap between the big 5 and Big East was as large as the gap between the Big East and CUSA/MWC there was then another less dramatic gap down to WAC/MAC/SBC.

The Big East "projections" of $14 million per full member as a percentage would have meant the Big East at 82% of the ACC contract per team would actually be closer in revenue than at any other time. A Big East lacking Miami, Va.Tech, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, Rutgers, and Louisville would have grown more than the ACC contract after adding Pitt/Syracuse and before losing Maryland.

If the $80 million figure pans out that would mean the Big East has lost value vs. the ACC moving from around 50% of the ACC to 31% of the ACC's value.

There doesn't have to be a bubble. The fact that every school that was part of the BCS when it formed (minus Temple plus Utah, TCU, and Louisville) are now contained in five conferences with partial inclusion of Notre Dame vs six conferences and ND means the schools delivering the greatest value are concentrated giving them greater negotiating leverage.

10 years ago if you missed on one contract there were five other high value deals. With three tier contracting there were 18 value deals available. Today that value is in five contracts or 15 deals in the three tier system, except Big 10 and Pac-12 own their own third tier deals, leaving only 13 available for bid.

If you don't believe there is a bubble you have to concede that moving from 18 deals to 13 deals has created a premium on those deals. You can look at the ratings numbers and there isn't a great deal of value out there outside of those 13 deals to demand a premium.

Maybe there isn't a bubble but the constriction of supply of the highly valued contracts is what is causing part of the run-up.

GL2Greatness · December 13, 2012

silly response from buffoon that does not know the rules, but thinks he does

http://fs.ncaa.org/D...ylaws 20-21.pdf

20.02.6 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference. A conference classified as a Football Bowl Subdivision

conference shall be comprised of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdivision

requirements. An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members

only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men’s and eight women’s conferencesponsored

sports, including men’s basketball and football and three women’s team sports including women’s basketball.

A conference-sponsored sport shall be a sport in which regular season and/or championship opportunities

are provided, consistent with the minimum standards identified by the applicable NCAA sport committee for

automatic qualification. (Adopted: 10/31/02 effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)

20.02.6.1 Exception. A Football Bowl Subdivision member institution shall be permitted to count as one

of its required six men’s sports and one of its required eight women’s sports a sport in which its conference does

not sponsor or conduct a championship, provided the sport is one in which it participates in another Division

I multi- or single-sport conference. Different sports may be counted for men and women. (Adopted: 4/29/04

effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)

20.02.6.2 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference

for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member

requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements.

(Adopted: 4/28/05 effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)

********************

So for D1-A football you need 8 teams that are full members, if you fall below 8 teams that are full members you have 2 years to make that up

the Big East without the basketball schools has 8 football teams that are also full members

the Big East has UConn, Temple, Cincy, USF, UH, SMU, UCF, Memphis even after Louisville leaves and before Tulane joins as a full member and if they have an issue ECU can easily be a full member

so football is taken care of

***********************************************************

http://fs.ncaa.org/D...11_AQ Bylaw.pdf

31.3.4.2 Requirements—National Collegiate Championship. [#] To be eligible for automatic qualification in National Collegiate Championship, a member conference must meet the following general requirements: (Adopted: 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06)

(a) Have at least six active members that sponsor the applicable sport in any division (note: a provisional member in the process of becoming an NCAA member cannot be used to meet the requisite number);

( The six active members must have conducted conference competition together for the preceding two years in the applicable sport;

(d) Any new member added to a conference that is eligible for an automatic bid shall be immediately eligible to represent the conference as the automatic qualifier.

31.3.4.3 Notification—Automatic Qualification in Jeopardy. A governing sports committee must issue a written warning one year in advance to a conference that is in jeopardy of losing its automatic qualification. (Note: This regulation does not apply to the following championships in which a play-in system has been established: baseball, women’s softball, women’s volleyball and men’s soccer.) (Adopted: 10/3/06)

**********************************************************************

so for sports besides basketball you need 6 teams that have been together for 2 years and you get a one year notification

so the Big East without the basketball schools in 2013 will have Cincy, UConn, Temple, USF UH, UCF, SMU, Memphis as full members

those 8 members will not have been together for 2 years......but they have to get a 1 year advance warning

so depending on when the NCAA sends the required 1 year advance warning things could get tricky......if the basketball schools state their intention to leave for 2014 then the NCAA could potentially give notice at the same time and if that comes very soon then the warning year would be 2013 so the Big East would still have an AQ because the basketball schools would still be members in 2013 and the Big East would meet the requirements

but they would not meet them for a single year in 2014......but by 2015 the above schools would have been together for 2 years......2013 and 2014 so they would qualify in 2105 for an AQ bid

so the most they could be out at this point is a single year for sports besides basketball

*************

additional rules for mens basketball

31.3.4.5 Additional Requirements, Men’s Basketball. The member conference must include seven core institutions. For the purposes of this legislation, core refers to an institution that has been an active member of Division I the eight preceding years. Further, the continuity-of-membership requirement shall be met only if a minimum of six core institutions have conducted conference competition together in Division I the preceding five years in men’s basketball. There shall be no exception to the five-year waiting period. Any new member added to a member conference that satisfies these requirements shall be immediately eligible to represent the conference as the automatic qualifier. (Revised: 8/14/90, 12/3/90, 4/27/00, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04)

31.3.4.5.1 Grace Period. A conference shall remain eligible for automatic qualification for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s membership to fall below seven institutions, or below six members with continuity of membership, provided the conference maintains at least six Division I members. (Adopted: 4/27/00, Revised: 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04)

*****************

7 core institutions (a core institution is a member that has been D1-A for 8 years)......in 2013 the Big East will have that.....in 2014 they will have that as well even without the basketball schools

then you need 6 teams that have been together for 5 years......the Big East will have that in 2013 because the basketball schools will be there

in 2014 they will not have that they will have UConn, Cincy, and USF that have been together for 5+ years

and the will have SMU, UH, Memphis, and UCF that have been together for 5+ years......but of course all 7 have not been together for 5 years

there is also a two year grace period that starts AFTER the teams that leave break the continuity so that two year grace period would be 2014 and 2015 if the basketball schools leave after 2013......so if the Big East (without the basketball schools) is not able to find a solution they would not get a basketball AQ bid for 2016 and 2017 and after 2017 the above 7 schools would have been together for 5 years (2013-2017)

the solution for that is for the above 7 schools to find a way to get ECU (as a full member) and Tulane to join at the same time that UH, SMU, UCF, and Memphis join.......because if ECU (as a full member) and Tulane both move at the same time that SMU, UH, UCF, and Memphis move then they would have 7 core members and 6 of those core members would have been together for 5 years......because SMU, UH, ECU, Tulane, Memphis, and UCF would have been together in CUSA for at least 5 years and if they all move for 2013 then they would stay together

the rule does NOT say you have to be in the same conference you were always in.....it only states you had to be together in A conference.....or really it says you had to have "conducted conference competition" for the previous 5 years

and if UH, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, UCF, and ECU (as a full member) all move to the Big East that will be 6 teams that "conducted conference competition" for the previous 5 years and any of the others USF, Cincy, Temple and UConn would make the 7th core member......so that group would get an AG for basketball and all other sports immediately if ECU (as a full member) and Tulane can jump from CUSA for 2013 instead of 2014

now some clown like carebareus would say "screw them" and "let them rot", but that is where it could backfire for the CUSA

in 2013 if Tulane and ECU are forced to stay the CUSA will have UAB, USM, Marshall, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP along with ECU and Tulane

so in 2013 the CUSA will have 8 schools that have been together for 5 years......if ECU and Tulane were allowed to leave they would have 6 which is the min needed

they will add LaTech, FIU, UTSA, and north Texas in 2013

so in 2014 without ECU and Tulane they will still have 6 teams together for 5 years (USM, UAB, Marshall, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP) and they will start towards having 4 more teams (the 4 new ones) working towards two years and 5 years of being together

BUT if things happen very quickly and the Big East knows they need to act for the 2013 season to get Tulane and ECU in.....and the CUSA says no you can't leave.....then all the Big East has to do is say they are inviting any one of or several of USM, UAB, Marshall, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP)

and if the can invite them for 2014 that would mean the CUSA would get a one year notice for all sports besides basketball and that notice would possibly be for the 2013 season because as soon as the invites go out the NCAA would know there is an issue

and just like with the Big East if the CUSA had any of the 6 leave in 2014 that would mean in 2015 the CUSA would not be in compliance and would be out of AQ for the olympic sports in the 2015 season

and for basketball it would be 2017 missed for an AQ in mens BB because the 2 year grace period would be 2015 and 2016 and compliance would not be in place for 2017 because the 4 new members and at least two of the 6 would not have been together for 5 years.....so the CUSA would not get an AQ in 2017 for mens basketball

and it could be much worse for the CUSA if the Big East wants to make it tough on them for saying no to Tulane and ECU moving in 2013

if the Big East teams decided to invite 5 out of the 6 members (Rice, UAB, Marshall, USM, Tulsa, and UTEP) that would mean the CUSA would also not be in compliance for 2018 as well......because FIU, north Texas, LaTech, and UTSA + one other school is only 5 members together for 5 years......and only when FAU, and MTSU join in 2014 would the clock start on 6 members together for 5 years......so the remaining members of CUSA could be out of an AQ bid for 2017 and 2018 just like the Big East if ECU and Tulane are not allowed to move for 2013

and at that point facing that you never know what might happen depending on who is not invited would some jump ship to the Belt or the MAC and depending on who it could get really ugly

if the big East really wanted to play games they could see if the MWC is interested in Tulsa or UTEP and take the remainig 4 AND they could take one of the members joining in 2014....that would mean continuity of 6 members would not start until 2015 and the CUSA would not get an auto bid for mens BB in 2017-2019 (3 years)

or the Big East could ask 5 of the remaining 6 to join AND take either FAU and MTSU......that would also put the CUSA into a position of not getting an AQ bid for 2017-2019 because again there would not be 6 members together until the 2015 season and there would be a two year grace period out of 5

and really if the Big East makes the right moves more than likely a team like Marshall or FAU or MTSU of left out of the movement and looking at 2+ seasons without an AQ for mens BB they would be jumping back the the Belt or the MAC

so the reality is the CUSA could be faced with a choice of letting Tulane and ECU go for the 2103 season and hanging on to Marshall, Rice, UAB, USM, UTEP, and Tulsa to have 6 members together for 5 years or they could say no and watch the Big East invite one of those members (and then possibly one or two of them beg for the MWC) and then the CUSA would at best be facing one year of non-AQ bids for all sports besides mens BB and facing a non-AQ bid for a year in mens BB as well and if the Big East was mad about that they could force the CUSA into a position of actually missing 2 or even 3 mens BB AQ bids and that would probably lead to others going back "home" or the the MAC and the CUSA would be in a world of hurt then

if any team out of Rice, UAB, USM, UTEP, Tulsa or Marshall leaves the CUSA by 2014 then the CUSA will miss at least one AQ mens BB bid in 2017 and if 5 teams out of that 6 leave then the CUSA could be looking at 2 or more seasons with no AQ bid

H-towngreen · December 13, 2012

There is no way UCONN, Temple and Cincy stay in that league, so that last post is pointless. BE is dead

Arkstfan · December 13, 2012

There is no way UCONN, Temple and Cincy stay in that league, so that last post is pointless. BE is dead

I'd never rule out Temple or UConn making that choice IF they can get a football only invite. You have to look at where their money comes from.

H-towngreen · December 13, 2012

They're gone dude. At least Cincy and UCONN. As soon as that ACC offer comes they're gone.

Arkstfan · December 13, 2012

They're gone dude. At least Cincy and UCONN. As soon as that ACC offer comes they're gone.

Well duh, if ACC comes available that's a no brainer. But it hasn't so far.

Cerebus · December 13, 2012

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="GL2Greatness" data-cid="695171" data-time="1355379328"><p>WALL OF TEXT

</p></blockquote>I know those rules. Those left over schools aren't going to stick together. The ACC is going to take the best of the left overs. And the left left overs are going to have to scramble.

Oh, and AWAY.. WE... Go!

Edited December 13, 2012 by Cerebus