Army isn't joining any conference, much less a national conference. Our last attempt at such an alliance ended up like the 1775 invasion of Canada.

(04-11-2014 10:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  This makes no sense, a coast to coast conference couldn't get off the ground for a reason. The American is structured exactly like the comparable Mountain West and it works just fine.

This ^^^^^^ - If you want to increase the TV contract bring Army and BYU in with scheduling agreements of 3 to 4 games a year each and work out bowl contracts with them. Army already plays Navy annually so they would only need a couple of games with Temple, UConn, SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane who they regularly schedule too. They could be opponents in the Miami Bowl and rotate through the Poinsettia Bowl, the Armed Forces Bowl, and Hawaii Bowl with the American. They could also take the American's place in the new Bahama, Mobile, and Boca Raton Bowls if the American could not fill them due to a lack of eligible teams or due to the fact they are available with the American moving up to the Liberty Bowl or Independence Bowl openings.

(04-12-2014 09:46 AM)carolinaknights Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  This makes no sense, a coast to coast conference couldn't get off the ground for a reason. The American is structured exactly like the comparable Mountain West and it works just fine.

This ^^^^^^ - If you want to increase the TV contract bring Army and BYU in with scheduling agreements of 3 to 4 games a year each and work out bowl contracts with them. Army already plays Navy annually so they would only need a couple of games with Temple, UConn, SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane who they regularly schedule too. They could be opponents in the Miami Bowl and rotate through the Poinsettia Bowl, the Armed Forces Bowl, and Hawaii Bowl with the American. They could also take the American's place in the new Bahama, Mobile, and Boca Raton Bowls if the American could not fill them due to a lack of eligible teams or due to the fact they are available with the American moving up to the Liberty Bowl or Independence Bowl openings.

Good grief guys---regional G5 conferences do not make money. How many disappointing crappy G5 contracts have to be signed before you people get it? The regional model DOES NOT make money at the G5 level. If it was going to be successful, don't you think it would have happened by now? All its good for is reducing expenses. I doesn't even provide much of an attendance lift via traveling fan bases---which is supposedly the big selling point of the regional conference.

The only thing that hasn't been actually tried is the nationwide G5 concept. It needs to be actually tried and given a few contract cycles to see if catches on and fares any better (I think it will). If not, then disband, cut expenses---and go back to the rinky-dink regional model. At least at that point, we would do so with the knowledge that everything has been tried and there are truly no better options.

(04-12-2014 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:46 AM)carolinaknights Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  This makes no sense, a coast to coast conference couldn't get off the ground for a reason. The American is structured exactly like the comparable Mountain West and it works just fine.

This ^^^^^^ - If you want to increase the TV contract bring Army and BYU in with scheduling agreements of 3 to 4 games a year each and work out bowl contracts with them. Army already plays Navy annually so they would only need a couple of games with Temple, UConn, SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane who they regularly schedule too. They could be opponents in the Miami Bowl and rotate through the Poinsettia Bowl, the Armed Forces Bowl, and Hawaii Bowl with the American. They could also take the American's place in the new Bahama, Mobile, and Boca Raton Bowls if the American could not fill them due to a lack of eligible teams or due to the fact they are available with the American moving up to the Liberty Bowl or Independence Bowl openings.

Good grief guys---regional G5 conferences do not make money. How many disappointing crappy G5 contracts have to be signed before you people get it? The regional model DOES NOT make money at the G5 level. If it was going to be successful, don't you think it would have happened by now? All its good for is reducing expenses. I doesn't even provide much of an attendance lift via traveling fan bases---which is supposedly the big selling point of the regional conference.

The only thing that hasn't been actually tried is the nationwide G5 concept. It needs to be actually tried and given a few contract cycles to see if catches on and fares any better (I think it will). If not, then disband, cut expenses---and go back to the rinky-dink regional model. At least at that point, we would do so with the knowledge that everything has been tried and there are truly no better options.

Two conferences tried to set one up. MWC/CUSA merger fell apart when the money was not there to support that many schools in a coast to coast model and the AAC/Big East west expansion fell apart when the regional model paid just as well as a national G5 model and the western school said no to that much travel for the same cash.

Nobody pulled it off but it was not due to not trying. TV simply won't pay Decent money for anything other then a P5 conference. Simple fact that people keep ignoring. Maybe a football only national conference where everyone dumped their olympic sports into a different regional conference might, might work

(04-11-2014 12:58 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 11:58 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 08:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 07:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 07:37 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  What the AAC needs is Army and BYU for football only along with Navy.Certainly SD st ,Boise would also be great for football only.

The American may need that ... why would either Army or BYU want that?

An awful lot of Go5 realignment suggestions are a case of "I don't want to be the member of any club that admits people like me."

Realistically, BYU is going to be indy until a P5 asks them or until some G5 conference becomes prominent enough to be viewed as "worthy" of BYU's membership.

And "worthy" means more useful in BYU's evangelizing mission than independence, which given their current media contract is awful hard.

As the AD is quoted as saying (downthread of your comment, upthread of this reply), if Division 1 splits, BYU will try to do what is required to stay on the Power conference side of the divide. Right now, that's the only thing that looks like it would move BYU to seek to go in-conference on terms that a conference would accept.

Maybe in another ten years time the media landscape will have changed and conference direct distribution of sporting events will become more important than TV contracts, but so long as TV contracts are the big deal in media profile,

In short, BYU already has what it wants most, and its not going to give that away if it doesn't have to. A necessary concession to stay on the Power conference football side of a boundary would count as "have to" in that, but little else would.

Army doesn't have the same mission as BYU, but its also got a quite distinctive mission compared to most college football programs. At the moment, there's no clear reason presented to suggest that joining with a "Best of the Rest" conference built by the American tearing itself apart and then tearing the MWC apart would serve either mission.

The Fresno St. Alum Moderator posted a link where BYU states independence was temporary or something along those lines....

Here it is:

Fresno St. Alum Wrote:During the 45-minute roundtable, Holmoe also hit on a number of topics. Some of them included:

Conference realignment has quieted down for now, but Holmoe believes it will pick up again at some point. He thinks all of the power conferences will play a championship game as part of the new playoff system.

The Big 12 currently has only 10 teams and does not play a championship game. Let’s hope the conference decides to expand and invites BYU.

At some point, BYU football will need to have a conference affiliation. Independence is not a long-term solution.

BYU is close to securing a bowl agreement for the upcoming season. Holmoe said BYU’s strong relationship with ESPN can help secure a bowl game.

Holmoe is confident Notre Dame will fulfill its six-game contract with BYU, which both schools agreed to four years ago. With Notre Dame beginning a scheduling agreement with the Atlantic Coast Conference, it may take several years to complete the series with BYU.

If the NCAA foolishly decides to pay college athletes, BYU will be ready for it. “As we’ve studied this over the last couple of years, we’re prepared to do what it takes to be competitive,” Holmoe said.


Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=272&sid=28853333...v47rUHf.99

What this insinuates is that BYU must have plans to eventually join a conference (the B12 is suggested)....


Btw... Thanks Fresno St. Alum.....

(04-12-2014 02:13 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:46 AM)carolinaknights Wrote:  

(04-11-2014 10:05 AM)esayem Wrote:  This makes no sense, a coast to coast conference couldn't get off the ground for a reason. The American is structured exactly like the comparable Mountain West and it works just fine.

This ^^^^^^ - If you want to increase the TV contract bring Army and BYU in with scheduling agreements of 3 to 4 games a year each and work out bowl contracts with them. Army already plays Navy annually so they would only need a couple of games with Temple, UConn, SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane who they regularly schedule too. They could be opponents in the Miami Bowl and rotate through the Poinsettia Bowl, the Armed Forces Bowl, and Hawaii Bowl with the American. They could also take the American's place in the new Bahama, Mobile, and Boca Raton Bowls if the American could not fill them due to a lack of eligible teams or due to the fact they are available with the American moving up to the Liberty Bowl or Independence Bowl openings.

Good grief guys---regional G5 conferences do not make money. How many disappointing crappy G5 contracts have to be signed before you people get it? The regional model DOES NOT make money at the G5 level. If it was going to be successful, don't you think it would have happened by now? All its good for is reducing expenses. I doesn't even provide much of an attendance lift via traveling fan bases---which is supposedly the big selling point of the regional conference.

The only thing that hasn't been actually tried is the nationwide G5 concept. It needs to be actually tried and given a few contract cycles to see if catches on and fares any better (I think it will). If not, then disband, cut expenses---and go back to the rinky-dink regional model. At least at that point, we would do so with the knowledge that everything has been tried and there are truly no better options.

Two conferences tried to set one up. MWC/CUSA merger fell apart when the money was not there to support that many schools in a coast to coast model and the AAC/Big East west expansion fell apart when the regional model paid just as well as a national G5 model and the western school said no to that much travel for the same cash.

Nobody pulled it off but it was not due to not trying. TV simply won't pay Decent money for anything other then a P5 conference. Simple fact that people keep ignoring. Maybe a football only national conference where everyone dumped their olympic sports into a different regional conference might, might work

As the P5 momentum to split builds, a G5 best of the rest national conference will eventually form as the last hope of a group of glass ceiling G5 schools. If it works, they will form a large group of around 20 tag alongs accepted by the P5 (mainly because the networks will prefer a top level of 80-100 schools rather than just 65) that have similar CFP access as the G5 does now (maybe even one of 8 designated playoff spots). Such a conference will end up making far more than regional G5 conferences, but far less than the P5. If it fails completely--no big deal. Staying out of the demoted group for as long as possible is the main goal.

(04-12-2014 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good grief guys---regional G5 conferences do not make money. How many disappointing crappy G5 contracts have to be signed before you people get it? The regional model DOES NOT make money at the G5 level. If it was going to be successful, don't you think it would have happened by now? All its good for is reducing expenses. I doesn't even provide much of an attendance lift via traveling fan bases---which is supposedly the big selling point of the regional conference.

The only thing that hasn't been actually tried is the nationwide G5 concept.

This seems like magical thinking.

(1) Assume that there is some system which magically creates extra media value for Go5 schools which doesn't exist at present.

(2) The current systems that have been tried haven't done that.

(3) Therefore this other approach that has never even been able to get off the ground must be the one that does it.

And in any event, there is one thing that such a conference won't feature:

(04-11-2014 03:02 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Army isn't joining any conference, much less a national conference. Our last attempt at such an alliance ended up like the 1775 invasion of Canada.

It seems quite clear that Army is not joining a conference except as a last resort, and so long as Army's last resort would seem more likely to be rejoining a weakened CUSA than joining the America, let alone any cobbled together transcon Go5 conference, there is ample incentive for the MAC and the Sunbelt to give Army the scheduling flexibility it needs to avoid having to join a conference.

(04-12-2014 03:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Good grief guys---regional G5 conferences do not make money. How many disappointing crappy G5 contracts have to be signed before you people get it? The regional model DOES NOT make money at the G5 level. If it was going to be successful, don't you think it would have happened by now? All its good for is reducing expenses. I doesn't even provide much of an attendance lift via traveling fan bases---which is supposedly the big selling point of the regional conference.

The only thing that hasn't been actually tried is the nationwide G5 concept.

This seems like magical thinking.

(1) Assume that there is some system which magically creates extra media value for Go5 schools which doesn't exist at present.

(2) The current systems that have been tried haven't done that.

(3) Therefore this other approach that has never even been able to get off the ground must be the one that does it.

And in any event, there is one thing that such a conference won't feature:

(04-11-2014 03:02 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Army isn't joining any conference, much less a national conference. Our last attempt at such an alliance ended up like the 1775 invasion of Canada.

It seems quite clear that Army is not joining a conference except as a last resort, and so long as Army's last resort would seem more likely to be rejoining a weakened CUSA than joining the America, let alone any cobbled together transcon Go5 conference, there is ample incentive for the MAC and the Sunbelt to give Army the scheduling flexibility it needs to avoid having to join a conference.

How is it "magical"? Its actually very elementary. You take the most well known, best financed G5 schools---regardless of location and organize them into one conference. Its certainly has more logic behind it than organizing a conference based entirely on distance.

Back when conferences were formed, they were just scheduling arrangments and playing nearby schools was fine. There was no TV---so there really were few other factors to consider. Even then, schools of like kind tended to group together based on additional factors like academics and size. For instance, Sam Houston State is very close to Texas A&M, but they don't share a conference. Obviously, more goes into this than just simple distance calculations. Now that television is a major factor, thinking needs to be altered slightly. Im just suggesting that distance be less of an issue and look more at budgets and name recognition of the schools outside the power conferences. That's not really much of leap from what we have done in the past. A league as spread out as CUSA had never existed until CUSA did it.

Another factor---games that are broadcast on a NATIONAL sports networks go out to the entire nation. Why wouldn't a nationally televised game that involved teams from a league spread across the ENTIRE nation tend to garner more interest from areas across the country? Why would a game with two MAC teams be interesting in California or Florida? Why would an AAC game be of interest in Michigan? On the other hand, a league with teams from states spread from California to Pennslyavania, from Flordia to Illinois----might be a game changer for nationally televised G5 games. Its a way to spur interest in the conference in more regions of the country. Over time, it would become by far the best known, most dominate, most followed, and most watched G5 conference. There is value in that.

(04-12-2014 06:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How is it "magical"? Its actually very elementary. You take the most well known, best financed G5 schools---regardless of location and organize them into one conference. Its certainly has more logic behind it than organizing a conference based entirely on distance.

That's a false dichotomy between "completely ignoring the impact of distance" and "based entirely on distance".

The magic is that there is no present indication that bringing the most well known, best financed G5 schools together, setting distance completely aside as a factor, will collect together enough aggregate media value to cover the extra travel cost, never mind so much more that its a big enough of a game changer to offset the risk involved.

"Why not try it and see, you have nothing to lose" is, of course, ignoring that there is actually quite a bit of money to lose ... and the willingness to risk losing that money could well be in large part because its someone else's money.

(04-12-2014 06:30 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 06:20 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  How is it "magical"? Its actually very elementary. You take the most well known, best financed G5 schools---regardless of location and organize them into one conference. Its certainly has more logic behind it than organizing a conference based entirely on distance.

That's a false dichotomy between "completely ignoring the impact of distance" and "based entirely on distance".

The magic is that there is no present indication that bringing the most well known, best financed G5 schools together, setting distance completely aside as a factor, will collect together enough aggregate media value to cover the extra travel cost, never mind so much more that its a big enough of a game changer to offset the risk involved.

"Why not try it and see, you have nothing to lose" is, of course, ignoring that there is actually quite a bit of money to lose ... and the willingness to risk losing that money could well be in large part because its someone else's money.

If the regional schools were making money you might have a point. They are all losing money. It's cross county conference. Big deal. There is this thing called divisions. The travel issue is overstated. Most travel in football would be in division with a couple of long flights for cross divisional play. Basketball would pl y everyone once--or divisions could even be used in that sport as well. The non revenue sports would be limited to divisional play. Like I said, when formed--CUSA was criticized for its travel. Th difference in travel isn't that much.

not sure...Boise may be on the way down. If they sink they are just a community college in a state nobody gives a rats butt about.

(04-11-2014 03:02 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Army isn't joining any conference, much less a national conference. Our last attempt at such an alliance ended up like the 1775 invasion of Canada.

ND wasn't joining a conference either but is PARTIALLY in one now for FB. See the same thing happening for Army eventually. Partial membership 3-5 games for a small percentage of conference money and bowl deals, leaving at least half of their schedule for national scheduling and lower bottom feeding schools to build their program back up on. In the process they would also keep their TV contract in effect for games outside of the conference games they would be required to play. Don't see why a scheduling agreement can't be worked out with the AAC at this point with Navy coming on board in 2015. That game would be an easy fill for the 3-5 game requirement as it is already in effect going into the agreement. The contracted money and TV coverage could still remain an Academy perc for both sides and remain solely in their hands to negotiate and pocket the proceeds.

(04-12-2014 08:09 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  not sure...Boise may be on the way down. If they sink they are just a community college in a state nobody gives a rats butt about.

News of Boise State's demise has been greatly exaggerated. We brought in the best class in the MWC last year, and are off to a strong start in recruiting for 2015, headlined by the verbal commitment of Brett Rypien, a 4-star QB out of Washington (ranked Top 10 nationally with football in his blood...Brett counts Super Bowl MVP Mark Rypien and college football coaching veteran Chris Tormey as uncles, with whom he is close).

While last year was not up to Boise State's lofty standards, there was a ton of youth on that team. Throw in a broken ankle to our senior starting QB, and our 8-5 record is about what could have been expected.

Coach Petersen had obviously been burnt out the past couple of seasons on The Blue. With Boise State hiring the consummate Bronco in Bryan Harsin (ties to the school couldn't run any deeper), and Coach Harsin hiring a "who's who" of former Bronco assistants and players, the program has been re-energized. No...Boise State's future remains very, very bright. We will be in the conversation for the G5 Access Bowl for the foreseeable future.

(04-13-2014 05:43 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 08:09 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  not sure...Boise may be on the way down. If they sink they are just a community college in a state nobody gives a rats butt about.

News of Boise State's demise has been greatly exaggerated. We brought in the best class in the MWC last year, and are off to a strong start in recruiting for 2015, headlined by the verbal commitment of Brett Rypien, a 4-star QB out of Washington (ranked Top 10 nationally with football in his blood...Brett counts Super Bowl MVP Mark Rypien and college football coaching veteran Chris Tormey as uncles, with whom he is close).

While last year was not up to Boise State's lofty standards, there was a ton of youth on that team. Throw in a broken ankle to our senior starting QB, and our 8-5 record is about what could have been expected.

Coach Petersen had obviously been burnt out the past couple of seasons on The Blue. With Boise State hiring the consummate Bronco in Bryan Harsin (ties to the school couldn't run any deeper), and Coach Harsin hiring a "who's who" of former Bronco assistants and players, the program has been re-energized. No...Boise State's future remains very, very bright. We will be in the conversation for the G5 Access Bowl for the foreseeable future.

I hope so, I actually like Boise. I didn't care for how you used the Big East to bend the MWC over for a Texas-Lite type deal but hey, it worked for you and it's every man for himself so....

(04-13-2014 05:48 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 05:43 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 08:09 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  not sure...Boise may be on the way down. If they sink they are just a community college in a state nobody gives a rats butt about.

News of Boise State's demise has been greatly exaggerated. We brought in the best class in the MWC last year, and are off to a strong start in recruiting for 2015, headlined by the verbal commitment of Brett Rypien, a 4-star QB out of Washington (ranked Top 10 nationally with football in his blood...Brett counts Super Bowl MVP Mark Rypien and college football coaching veteran Chris Tormey as uncles, with whom he is close).

While last year was not up to Boise State's lofty standards, there was a ton of youth on that team. Throw in a broken ankle to our senior starting QB, and our 8-5 record is about what could have been expected.

Coach Petersen had obviously been burnt out the past couple of seasons on The Blue. With Boise State hiring the consummate Bronco in Bryan Harsin (ties to the school couldn't run any deeper), and Coach Harsin hiring a "who's who" of former Bronco assistants and players, the program has been re-energized. No...Boise State's future remains very, very bright. We will be in the conversation for the G5 Access Bowl for the foreseeable future.

I hope so, I actually like Boise. I didn't care for how you used the Big East to bend the MWC over for a Texas-Lite type deal but hey, it worked for you and it's every man for himself so....

It's too bad the Big East didn't follow through with western expansion to give Boise State a true home in the conference...that would have been a fun league. Some funny decisions were made once Louisville and Rutgers defected.

I don't have a problem with the MWC luring the Broncos back with a distribution system that rewards media exposure...it not only helps Boise State (which rightly has the lion's share of TV games in the league, given its history and cache), but it also helps ANY program that makes waves nationally. Fresno State earned a nice payday last year. It gives greater incentive for the bottom-tier programs to improve. And remember, the bonus money for everybody comes from the money Boise State brings to the league from its independent ESPN contract. The base distribution comes from the CBS contract negotiated before the Broncos were part of the conference. I'd say it worked out for everybody in the MWC.

(04-13-2014 07:20 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  It's too bad the Big East didn't follow through with western expansion to give Boise State a true home in the conference...that would have been a fun league. Some funny decisions were made once Louisville and Rutgers defected.

Its Boise State that didn't follow through ... they decided that with the money on the table, only getting 70% of it, plus having to pay the travel subsidy for their Olympic sports, that the MWC offer was just as good and a better conference for them to play in, so they canceled the move.

(04-13-2014 09:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 07:20 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  It's too bad the Big East didn't follow through with western expansion to give Boise State a true home in the conference...that would have been a fun league. Some funny decisions were made once Louisville and Rutgers defected.

Its Boise State that didn't follow through ... they decided that with the money on the table, only getting 70% of it, plus having to pay the travel subsidy for their Olympic sports, that the MWC offer was just as good and a better conference for them to play in, so they canceled the move.

Yup. A huge factor was Boise was going to have to ship thier Olympic sports to the crappy Big West Conference and was going to have to pay 900k a year in travel subsidies for the privilege. The western expansion was a good idea but it was poorly planned and even more poorly executed.

Selecting 4 western teams from the very start and planning a coordinated move of all 4 to the WAC would have probably kept the WAC as a viable FBS conference (as well as a solid warehouse for Big East western football-only members). Personally, I would have preferred making the western guys all-sports members. But if we were not going to do that, at the very least we needed to have a solid well conceived plan that offered all our western members a solid Olympic sports home that allowed them to maintain ties to one another. Apparantly, we were haphazard in our approach and had no real strategy to address the Olympics sports issue out west.....huge mistake.

(04-14-2014 01:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yup. A huge factor was Boise was going to have to ship thier Olympic sports to the crappy Big West Conference and was going to have to pay 900k a year in travel subsidies for the privilege. The western expansion was a good idea but it was poorly planned and even more poorly executed.

Selecting 4 western teams from the very start and planning a coordinated move of all 4 to the WAC would have probably kept the WAC as a viable FBS conference (as well as a solid warehouse for Big East western football-only members). Personally, I would have preferred making the western guys all-sports members. But if we were not going to do that, at the very least we needed to have a solid well conceived plan that offered all our western members a solid Olympic sports home that allowed them to maintain ties to one another. Apparantly, we were haphazard in our approach and had no real strategy to address the Olympics sports issue out west.....huge mistake.

Couldn't agree more...very poorly handled. I suppose Aresco's main focus was on the TV contract at the time, and hindsight is 20/20, but his priority should have been shoring up membership with a well-defined expansion plan. Once that was in place, then he would have had solid ground on which to negotiatve with the networks.

I think adding:

San Diego State
Fresno State
BYU
Boise State
Colorado State
Tulsa
SMU
Houston

would have been a great western division for the AAC.

The Eastern Division should have been:

UConn
Temple
Navy
Old Dominion
Cincinnati
Memphis
Central Florida
South Florida

(04-13-2014 09:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 07:20 PM)NeighSayer Wrote:  It's too bad the Big East didn't follow through with western expansion to give Boise State a true home in the conference...that would have been a fun league. Some funny decisions were made once Louisville and Rutgers defected.

Its Boise State that didn't follow through ... they decided that with the money on the table, only getting 70% of it, plus having to pay the travel subsidy for their Olympic sports, that the MWC offer was just as good and a better conference for them to play in, so they canceled the move.

When I say the Big East didn't follow through, it is because as part of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Boise State to join the league, the Big East was to negotiate in good faith for other western teams to join the league. When Louisville and Rutgers left, the Big East immediately brought in Tulane and East Carolina...hardly a good faith effort to expand westward. Yes, Boise State pulled out of the Big East, but it was due to the league going in a completely different direction than what the Broncos had signed up for in the MOU with the Big East. The Big East did not fullfill the conditions of the MOU; had the Big East been true to those terms, it is likely we would have stayed on board. Boise State's contention is that the Big East failed to meet the terms of the MOU; that is why we are refusing the $5M exit fee, and why we have a court date.

And I'm not saying the money didn't make a difference...of course it did. But the decision-making process of the Big East in regards to long-term membership repulsed Boise State far more than an uncertain TV contract.