(04-26-2011 09:03 PM)Bearcat 1984 Wrote:  I'm not in this business, but maybe one of you have more experience in this area.

Why couldn't schools be required to post a surety bond against leaving? Or have a portion of their annual payout diverted into the conference's Surety Fund?

The problem with "exit fees" is that the school balks, and doesn't want to pay, and find some way to weasel out of it. Fine. Take the money up front (long before they leave) from all members and hold it in a reserve against anyone leaving. Over time that money helps the conference weather these storms.

Everyone says "blah blah" but the reality is that it's not a zero sum game. A school or multiple schools leave and it puts the other members in jeopardy. We've seen that and spoken about it ENDLESSLY for the last five or more years.

That's not a bad idea...but it seems for most (i.e. Nebraska, Colorado and Utah come to mind) that they are still able to negotiate a smaller payout required to leave their last conf as one just needs to threaten to delay, take it to court, etc...which costs both parties (school and conf) in the long run...so most just agree to a smaller payment.

Your above proposal makes sense...but would it set up that since some $$$ are put in equity for a team for when a team leaves...would it cause virtually EVERY TEAM to try and market itself to another/higher paying BCS Conf 24/7/365 since there wouldn't be much of an added penalty if they left? (All the $$$$ are already in some equity account teams can't touch and are forced to pay anyway).