I am hoping that Missouri takes it to Alabama and an irate UAB booster knocks over Bear Bryant's statue. The Little Cub was just following his dearest daddy's wishes.

(11-30-2014 03:55 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Wow, I hope they at least let them play their bowl game before turning out the lights

Why? Greed is good. Watch the P5 and college football destroy themselves over the next 20 years. Read about the history of cartels and see the future.

Quote:UMass couldn't nut up for the MAC, what would give you any indication they would for CUSA?

They improved this year, but yeah, they're not good. I think they have the potential to be a 'real team'. CUSA seems to like FCS imports, kinda like the Sun Belt. CUSA would have to tell them they'd have to join CUSA in basketball too -- and I think UMass would rather join CUSA for basketball than the MAC.

Or just stay independent for a while. Might not be a bad endeavor. One has more control over their SoS, and they could bring in a good amount of money going to big-name schools playing them (like BYU does) -- and using that money to keep building their program where they could then say "football only" and any G5 conference would say "OK."

I think they may want to join the AAC, and stay independent building things until they can pry that open. AAC is a good basketball conference and a top G5 conference.

That's sad.
Sadly, this is how most people want the G5: doors shut from D1 for good.

(11-30-2014 06:22 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:UMass couldn't nut up for the MAC, what would give you any indication they would for CUSA?

They improved this year, but yeah, they're not good. I think they have the potential to be a 'real team'. CUSA seems to like FCS imports, kinda like the Sun Belt. CUSA would have to tell them they'd have to join CUSA in basketball too -- and I think UMass would rather join CUSA for basketball than the MAC.

Or just stay independent for a while. Might not be a bad endeavor. One has more control over their SoS, and they could bring in a good amount of money going to big-name schools playing them (like BYU does) -- and using that money to keep building their program where they could then say "football only" and any G5 conference would say "OK."

I think they may want to join the AAC, and stay independent building things until they can pry that open. AAC is a good basketball conference and a top G5 conference.

I would have rather had UMass in the AAC than Navy, but I may be in the minority on that one.

(11-30-2014 06:07 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 05:30 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 05:08 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  I wonder if UMass is on the replacement list.

I'm sure UMass will talk to CUSA about membership. CUSA I believe will demand all sports and that might be too much for UMass to agree to. Then again the leadership of UMass might say to itself we struck out with the AAC and CUSA is the next best thing.

The more I think about it, the more I think UMass could probably get into CUSA if it wanted. They like big enrollments, big names, big markets ideally.

Then UAB could take UMass's spot in the Atlantic 10....the only problem is its tough to imagine a program on its death bed getting accepted into a conference full of striving upward programs. UAB might even drop out of Division 1 all together and play at a lower level like Huntsville.

UMass couldn't nut up for the MAC, what would give you any indication they would for CUSA?

*shrugs*

New Mexico State might then be the way to go and a way to prevent the western defection from happening.

One issue the Texas schools have is not getting enough votes to hold championship competitions in their state. They'll demand a western member to rebalance the voting East.

Go for the grand compromise and 16 with NMSU, ULL and UMass. That might be what it takes to get the networks interested in signing another TV deal with CUSA. Plenty of inventory and too many schools not to have someone perform well.

Why doesn't CUSA keep UAB for all sports but football and add UMass for just football. Seems like a quality solution to me.

(11-30-2014 06:07 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 05:30 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 05:08 PM)wildthing202 Wrote:  I wonder if UMass is on the replacement list.

I'm sure UMass will talk to CUSA about membership. CUSA I believe will demand all sports and that might be too much for UMass to agree to. Then again the leadership of UMass might say to itself we struck out with the AAC and CUSA is the next best thing.

The more I think about it, the more I think UMass could probably get into CUSA if it wanted. They like big enrollments, big names, big markets ideally.

Then UAB could take UMass's spot in the Atlantic 10....the only problem is its tough to imagine a program on its death bed getting accepted into a conference full of striving upward programs. UAB might even drop out of Division 1 all together and play at a lower level like Huntsville.

UMass couldn't nut up for the MAC, what would give you any indication they would for CUSA?

Speaking out of my butt, maybe they thought the MAC was bluffing? UMAss posters certainly have a high (delusional) opinion of their value, maybe that reflects the administration thinking?

(11-30-2014 06:34 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why doesn't CUSA keep UAB for all sports but football and add UMass for just football. Seems like a quality solution to me.

That does make sense. which is probably why it wont happen

(11-30-2014 06:34 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why doesn't CUSA keep UAB for all sports but football and add UMass for just football. Seems like a quality solution to me.

They might. UAB is not automatically out if they drop football. John Infante, who blogs about NCAA compliance and rules, looked at the CUSA bylaws and writes that it would take a three-fourths vote of CUSA presidents to kick UAB out of the league.

That means that if UAB can find four CUSA presidents to vote in their favor, they can stay in CUSA without football.

Quote:My reading of the C-USA bylaws (admittedly from 2011-12 so a little out of date) did not find a requirement that schools field a football team. For instance the Mountain West does require that institutions sponsor football (as well as volleyball, and men’s and women’s basketball). C-USA only requires that institutions participate in conference competition for all sports an institutions sponsors if those sports are conference sports. That means if the conference no longer wants UAB as a member, it would have to take action to expel UAB from the conference, which requires a 3/4 vote of the Board of Directors.

http://30mileradius.com/2014/11/what-uab...all-means/

(11-30-2014 07:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 06:34 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why doesn't CUSA keep UAB for all sports but football and add UMass for just football. Seems like a quality solution to me.

They might. UAB is not automatically out if they drop football. John Infante, who blogs about NCAA compliance and rules, looked at the CUSA bylaws and writes that it would take a three-fourths vote of CUSA presidents to kick UAB out of the league.

That means that if UAB can find four CUSA presidents to vote in their favor, they can stay in CUSA without football.

Quote:My reading of the C-USA bylaws (admittedly from 2011-12 so a little out of date) did not find a requirement that schools field a football team. For instance the Mountain West does require that institutions sponsor football (as well as volleyball, and men’s and women’s basketball). C-USA only requires that institutions participate in conference competition for all sports an institutions sponsors if those sports are conference sports. That means if the conference no longer wants UAB as a member, it would have to take action to expel UAB from the conference, which requires a 3/4 vote of the Board of Directors.

http://30mileradius.com/2014/11/what-uab...all-means/

Parsing out Bankowski's quote, he said that there wasn't the support to keep UAB in the conference... I'd guess that they (the member school's presidents) have already pondered this contingency and that 3/4 of them are going to move to expel UAB.

(11-30-2014 07:44 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 07:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 06:34 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Why doesn't CUSA keep UAB for all sports but football and add UMass for just football. Seems like a quality solution to me.

They might. UAB is not automatically out if they drop football. John Infante, who blogs about NCAA compliance and rules, looked at the CUSA bylaws and writes that it would take a three-fourths vote of CUSA presidents to kick UAB out of the league.

That means that if UAB can find four CUSA presidents to vote in their favor, they can stay in CUSA without football.

Quote:My reading of the C-USA bylaws (admittedly from 2011-12 so a little out of date) did not find a requirement that schools field a football team. For instance the Mountain West does require that institutions sponsor football (as well as volleyball, and men’s and women’s basketball). C-USA only requires that institutions participate in conference competition for all sports an institutions sponsors if those sports are conference sports. That means if the conference no longer wants UAB as a member, it would have to take action to expel UAB from the conference, which requires a 3/4 vote of the Board of Directors.

http://30mileradius.com/2014/11/what-uab...all-means/

Parsing out Bankowski's quote, he said that there wasn't the support to keep UAB in the conference... I'd guess that they (the member school's presidents) have already pondered this contingency and that 3/4 of them are going to move to expel UAB.

I didn't see a quote from Banowsky, the only thing I saw was an unquoted statement from an unnamed source:

Quote:Another person with direct knowledge of Conference USA matters told USA TODAY Sports that the league's commissioner, Britton Banowsky, did not have enough support among school presidents to keep UAB in the league without football.

That might mean UAB would lose a 3/4 vote, but it might also mean this unnamed source mistakenly thinks they can be voted out on a majority vote or that they need a majority in their favor to stay in.

It may not be about UAB staying in CUSA football or not. UAB dropping football could be the issue that nukes CUSA and forces the creation of a SW and SE conference.

(11-30-2014 08:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It may not be about UAB staying in CUSA football or not. UAB dropping football could be the issue that nukes CUSA and forces the creation of a SW and SE conference.

let the idea of all the new conferences go. It just ain't happening under the current playoff media contract

Is there any way UAB could get an injunction to prevent the formal shutdown of Blazer football? They may lose in the end, but once the BOT pulls the plug no lawsuit will be able to heal the damage that's been done.

(11-30-2014 08:46 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Is there any way UAB could get an injunction to prevent the formal shutdown of Blazer football? They may lose in the end, but once the BOT pulls the plug no lawsuit will be able to heal the damage that's been done.

Who would have standing?

FWIW, there are some bills pre-filed in the next legislative session to alter the composition of the UA System Board. It would take two years to bear fruit, but UAB could exact revenge on its houndstooth overlord in 2017 and reinstate football for 2019 or 2020.

(11-30-2014 08:55 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  FWIW, there are some bills pre-filed in the next legislative session to alter the composition of the UA System Board. It would take two years to bear fruit, but UAB could exact revenge on its houndstooth overlord in 2017 and reinstate football for 2019 or 2020.

Except that isn't a real option.

The Board's composition is in the State Constitution.

I will forever remember Hackney and Roddy White.

It's a shame.

(11-30-2014 08:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-30-2014 08:46 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Is there any way UAB could get an injunction to prevent the formal shutdown of Blazer football? They may lose in the end, but once the BOT pulls the plug no lawsuit will be able to heal the damage that's been done.

Who would have standing?

The coaching staff who will be on the unemployment line, the players who lose their scholarships, the teams who were scheduled to play UAB in 2015 and 2016, the City of Birmingham for terminating their lease at Legion Field, etc.

In reality I'm not very sure, I'm no lawyer. I'm just throwing out ideas to see if they could somehow save the program, this whole situation sucks for UAB. I wonder if the UAH hockey program is on the chopping block next.

Someone on the MAC boards was worried that this might be the start of a trend where football programs at non-P5 public universities are cut to maintain P5 ones. While that's not much of an immediate concern for the MAC (none of our schools are affiliated with the OSU or UM systems for example), are others in danger of having the same thing happen to them? In Texas, UTEP and UTSA are under the same umbrella as UT-Austin, although I have no clue about anything in Texas so this is probably a bad comparison.