(07-05-2020 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 12:24 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  My understanding is that UMass had that ultimatum when they joined. Temple leaving just started the official clock, right?

That's what I recall. The deal between UMass and the MAC was that if the MAC offered UMass full membership, and UMass turned down the offer, the football affiliation was terminated. After Temple left, the MAC made the offer, UMass said no, and thus became a football indy.

Im not sure it makes a lot of difference for the discussion at hand. They knew UMass didnt want full membership when they invited them. There was nothing forcing the MAC to push UMass into a decision. Forcing an all or nothing decision at that moment amounted to forcing them out. Many will point out that the MAC was prepared to add a 14th, but wanted to be sure UMass was going to stay before making the decision to name #14. However, I think the reality is UMass wasnt going anywhere (I think the fact they remain mired in independence tells you they werent going anywhere and had no real prospect of doing so).

Thus, why push the issue at that moment? I say that was just an excuse. I think, for the first time in their history, TV money was actually an issue. The newly renegotiated MAC deal actually paid significant money. The members liked the idea of splitting the new relatively lucrative contract 12 ways rather than 14. Thus, getting rid of UMass had suddenly become profitable.

You may be right, but the MAC’s offer of full membership is quite a bit different than booting them. Although your point about the MAC knowing UMass was unlikely to accept is a good one, especially considering the $$ at stake. JMU was essentially told we were #14. I remember being very angry at the JMU athletics fundraising staff for trying to sell me & others on the MAC. Anyone with a clue knew UMass wasn’t signing on to the MAC full-time & that JMU wasn’t going anywhere at the time.

(07-05-2020 12:24 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  My understanding is that UMass had that ultimatum when they entered. Temple leaving just started the official clock, right?

Contractually they were guaranteed three years when they were invited up to FBS and both Temple and UMass had a term in their affiliation agreement that if the other one left, the remaining FB-affiliate could be presented an all-in or all-out ultimatum.

The pair never played together, as Temple left the exact same time UMass started year two of their transition, the "probationary FBS" year, so the ultimatum was indeed hanging over UMass's head from the year they started.

The rumor at the time was that the MAC had #14 all lined up in JMU, but I believe nobody was surprised when UMass stayed in the A-10 for all-sports.

I think the NMSU/Idaho affiliation agreements with the SBC were tougher ... they needed not just a majority to renew, but a supermajority.

(07-05-2020 09:09 AM)esayem Wrote:  Not voted out, but Dayton was also left out of the Great Midwest/Metro merger.

As I understand it, Conference USA is actually a continuation of the old Metro. The Metro voted to invite all of the members of the GWC, except Dayton, and also voted out two of its own members, Virginia Tech and VCU. Another sordid moment in the history of conference realignment.

From https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pi...70396.htm:

Quote:The Metro Conference presidents say they can oust Virginia Tech and Virginia Commonwealth University just because they want to.

VCU athletic director Dick Sander says a judge will be the judge of that.

The interpretations of the conference constitution are acrimoniously split, but the financial motive behind the Metro's reemptive strike to VCU's threat of a lawsuit is clear.

So is the black eye the Metro has affixed upon itself and college sports, according to VCU officials.

``This sets an incredibly bad precedent for college athletics,'' Sander said.

Said Dr. Eugene Trani, VCU's president: ``Any attempt to force VCU and Virginia Tech out of the Metro is shabby behavior. When the NCAA tells young men and women to abide by the rules and to act responsibly and ethically, it should expect its member institutions to do the same. These are clearly issues the NCAA should seriously examine.''

VCU last week threatened legal action to collect its share - along with Virginia Tech - of accumulated league revenues and a $500,000 per school default fee from any member that left to join the proposed new conference with most of the Great Midwest, as well as Houston from the Southwest Conference.

(Of the Great Midwest schools, only Dayton was not invited. It, too, is threatening legal action.)

Upon hearing of VCU's idea, the Metro presidents, acting without the knowledge of commissioner Ralph McFillen, elected to invite in North Carolina-Charlotte and South Florida and merge with the five other schools for a 12-team league. That will keep the Metro together and leave the two Virginia schools without a conference or any remuneration.

(07-06-2020 09:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:09 AM)esayem Wrote:  Not voted out, but Dayton was also left out of the Great Midwest/Metro merger.

As I understand it, Conference USA is actually a continuation of the old Metro. The Metro voted to invite all of the members of the GWC, except Dayton, and also voted out two of its own members, Virginia Tech and VCU. Another sordid moment in the history of conference realignment.

From https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pi...70396.htm:

Quote:The Metro Conference presidents say they can oust Virginia Tech and Virginia Commonwealth University just because they want to.

VCU athletic director Dick Sander says a judge will be the judge of that.

The interpretations of the conference constitution are acrimoniously split, but the financial motive behind the Metro's reemptive strike to VCU's threat of a lawsuit is clear.

So is the black eye the Metro has affixed upon itself and college sports, according to VCU officials.

``This sets an incredibly bad precedent for college athletics,'' Sander said.

Said Dr. Eugene Trani, VCU's president: ``Any attempt to force VCU and Virginia Tech out of the Metro is shabby behavior. When the NCAA tells young men and women to abide by the rules and to act responsibly and ethically, it should expect its member institutions to do the same. These are clearly issues the NCAA should seriously examine.''

VCU last week threatened legal action to collect its share - along with Virginia Tech - of accumulated league revenues and a $500,000 per school default fee from any member that left to join the proposed new conference with most of the Great Midwest, as well as Houston from the Southwest Conference.

(Of the Great Midwest schools, only Dayton was not invited. It, too, is threatening legal action.)

Upon hearing of VCU's idea, the Metro presidents, acting without the knowledge of commissioner Ralph McFillen, elected to invite in North Carolina-Charlotte and South Florida and merge with the five other schools for a 12-team league. That will keep the Metro together and leave the two Virginia schools without a conference or any remuneration.

It was all about money from all 14 schools.

It was really a new conference but then they got concerned over losing autobids and setting up a new structure so legally CUSA is a renamed Metro Conference.

(07-05-2020 12:10 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Charlotte and St Louis were told to look for another home when C-USA 2.0 was going to get new members for the 2005 season. Britton Banowski didn’t want football only and non football schools. Don’t know if Army was shown the door or they decided C-USA 2.0 wasn’t for them and decided independence was a better option.

There was never a vote on this. Charlotte, St. Louis, and Army were told that we could stay if we wanted but that there would be pressure applied to eventually become full members. In Charlotte and St. Louis's case that would mean committing to starting football programs (2003 was all about football, Banowsky could see the writing on the wall). The AD's at Charlotte and St. Louis asked Banowsky to see if he could find them new homes because neither was in a place to begin football at that time (supposedly). He made arrangements for the two schools to receive A-10 invites. The A-10 was already a stronger basketball conference than C-USA 2.0 was so Charlotte and St. Louis happily left.

I think Army was going to leave C-USA even before the breakup happened. They were doing very poorly in conference and their travel budget was reduced significantly by going Independent.

(07-05-2020 02:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im not sure it makes a lot of difference for the discussion at hand. They knew UMass didnt want full membership when they invited them. There was nothing forcing the MAC to push UMass into a decision.

If how to deal with the unbalanced divisions if one of the two left was not an issue, the term would not have been added to Temple's renegotiated contract nor put in UMass's original contract.

The terms of the contracts suggest they were willing to call up another FCS member for either UMass or Temple as an all-sports member, and they were not willing to do so for either UMass or Temple as an affiliate.

As far as "why did they exercise the term as soon as the contract allowed", the simplest explanation would be that what the terms of the contracts suggested is exactly the case. They were willing to call up another FCS school if one of UMass or Temple left and the other wished to apply to be an all-sports member, and not otherwise.

Now, all sides know what the likely decision would be for either Temple or UMass if it came to that, but if the MAC was not willing to guarantee a place, it wouldn't have been a binding term in the contract. And of course, the contracts were signed before UMass initiated their first, FCS, transition year, and Temple had not yet received their invite back to the old Big East ...

... there was no telling at the time whether the two would play as FB affiliates for five years and then it was a realignment that hit the A10 which led to one of the two finding another home ... in circumstances where remaining in the A10 was no longer such an automatic choice.

Those kinds of uncertainties are why contracts like that include provisions for contingencies that affect the original planned arrangement.
____________________________

(07-06-2020 10:32 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I think Army was going to leave C-USA even before the breakup happened. They were doing very poorly in conference and their travel budget was reduced significantly by going Independent.

One of those years, Army leveraged the Hawaii rule into a 0-13 season. CUSA just was not working out for Army, and their departure seems like it was more by mutual agreement.

(07-06-2020 10:35 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 02:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im not sure it makes a lot of difference for the discussion at hand. They knew UMass didnt want full membership when they invited them. There was nothing forcing the MAC to push UMass into a decision.

If how to deal with the unbalanced divisions if one of the two left was not an issue, the term would not have been added to Temple's renegotiated contract nor put in UMass's original contract.

The terms of the contracts suggest they were willing to call up another FCS member for either UMass or Temple as an all-sports member, and they were not willing to do so for either UMass or Temple as an affiliate.

As far as "why did they exercise the term as soon as the contract allowed", the simplest explanation would be that what the terms of the contracts suggested is exactly the case. They were willing to call up another FCS school if one of UMass or Temple left and the other wished to apply to be an all-sports member, and not otherwise.

Now, all sides know what the likely decision would be for either Temple or UMass if it came to that, but if the MAC was not willing to guarantee a place, it wouldn't have been a binding term in the contract. And of course, the contracts were signed before UMass initiated their first, FCS, transition year, and Temple had not yet received their invite back to the old Big East ...

... there was no telling at the time whether the two would play as FB affiliates for five years and then it was a realignment that hit the A10 which led to one of the two finding another home ... in circumstances where remaining in the A10 was no longer such an automatic choice.

Those kinds of uncertainties are why contracts like that include provisions for contingencies that affect the original planned arrangement.
____________________________

(07-06-2020 10:32 AM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I think Army was going to leave C-USA even before the breakup happened. They were doing very poorly in conference and their travel budget was reduced significantly by going Independent.

One of those years, Army leveraged the Hawaii rule into a 0-13 season. CUSA just was not working out for Army, and their departure seems like it was more by mutual agreement.

It was Army's decision.

(07-05-2020 09:06 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Was Temple actually voted out of Big East football? I believe they had a contractual obligation for a minimum attendance number.

The attendance stuff was pretty much BS. It was for lack of investment in our football program. I believe we were reinvesting football money into our basketball program. Our ADs around them were awful. We've essentially restarted our program since then. We'll probably average in the 40K range in the next decade if we keep our trajectory.

(07-06-2020 12:40 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:06 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Was Temple actually voted out of Big East football? I believe they had a contractual obligation for a minimum attendance number.

The attendance stuff was pretty much BS. It was for lack of investment in our football program. I believe we were reinvesting football money into our basketball program. Our ADs around them were awful. We've essentially restarted our program since then. We'll probably average in the 40K range in the next decade if we keep our trajectory.

The New York Times reported on March 3, 2001:
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/03/sport...-east.html

Quote:Temple, the lone football-only school in the Big East, was voted out of the league, effective June 30, 2002, by the seven other schools yesterday.

''The presidents and chancellors of the seven universities of the Big East Conference's I-A football league have voted to discontinue Temple University's membership,'' the Big East spokesman, John Paquette, said.

Temple Board of Trustees chairman Howard Gittis said he planned to appeal to the Big East university presidents.

Big East Commissioner Michael Tranghese said Temple consistently failed to meet criteria unanimously adopted by the members in 1996, like attendance and nonconference scheduling.

I'm aware of what is out there, but I'm not sure it's true. I don't think they wanted to embarrass us further, which is appreciated. It's much easier to say what they said.

(07-05-2020 11:48 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 11:37 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  The MAC very nearly voted Eastern Michigan out in the eighties if i recall correctly. It failed and EMU went on to win the MAC a year or two later.

And EMU dispatched every single school that voted against them.

EMU was voted out in 1984 with the option of staying in the conference without FB if they wanted.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/07/16/...458798400/

(07-06-2020 12:40 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:06 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Was Temple actually voted out of Big East football? I believe they had a contractual obligation for a minimum attendance number.

The attendance stuff was pretty much BS. It was for lack of investment in our football program. I believe we were reinvesting football money into our basketball program. Our ADs around them were awful. We've essentially restarted our program since then. We'll probably average in the 40K range in the next decade if we keep our trajectory.

There's the reason people who agreed with the motion voted for it, and there's the pro forma reason stated in the motion, which is often what is needed for the motion to be in order.

Temple clearly had not met the requirements that the conference had voted in earlier, and that likely made for a cleaner motion to vote on, even if the reason Presidents voted as they did included matters not mentioned in the motion.

Then reporting the pretext for the vote stated in the motion is an easy cop-out for a reporter, who then doesn't have to chase down on the record remarks about what the vote was really about.

Funny thing about Temple is despite being voted out, just a few years later they were on the shortlist to replace the departures. Besides the three football playing schools that received an invitation, Temple and UCF were the only other serious looks.

Villanova's board voted themselves out of the Big East football experiment in the 90's.

(07-07-2020 06:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 12:40 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:06 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  Was Temple actually voted out of Big East football? I believe they had a contractual obligation for a minimum attendance number.

The attendance stuff was pretty much BS. It was for lack of investment in our football program. I believe we were reinvesting football money into our basketball program. Our ADs around them were awful. We've essentially restarted our program since then. We'll probably average in the 40K range in the next decade if we keep our trajectory.

There's the reason people who agreed with the motion voted for it, and there's the pro forma reason stated in the motion, which is often what is needed for the motion to be in order.

Temple clearly had not met the requirements that the conference had voted in earlier, and that likely made for a cleaner motion to vote on, even if the reason Presidents voted as they did included matters not mentioned in the motion.

Then reporting the pretext for the vote stated in the motion is an easy cop-out for a reporter, who then doesn't have to chase down on the record remarks about what the vote was really about.

One other requirement was stadium control -- Temple was #3 at the Vet in the pecking order. I think there might have been an issue with OOC scheduling as well but I'm not positive.

The largest issue was not investing in the football program or possibly diverting football funds to basketball. Even at that, the Temple president at the time forced the full membership issue to a vote (not sure what the endgame here actually was, full membership would never happen while Villanova was in the Big East).

(07-07-2020 07:16 PM)esayem Wrote:  Funny thing about Temple is despite being voted out, just a few years later they were on the shortlist to replace the departures. Besides the three football playing schools that received an invitation, Temple and UCF were the only other serious looks.

I believe it was TCU/SMU/UCF to have 2 schools in both FL/TX which had first consideration.

The next round was Memphis and Temple. For Temple it was driven largely by their basketball pedigree which was waltzing out of the BE. At that point their FB was acceptable with a stadium secure.

Oddly, Temple's FB program has continued to develop while basketball has taken a backseat in the AAC.

Kit Kat—esayem is referring to replacing schools for 2005 not 2012

(07-07-2020 08:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Kit Kat—esayem is referring to replacing schools for 2005 not 2012

Regardless it was Temple's basketball which had them a firm seat at the table.

Basketball is strength is very important to the Big East and ACC in the overall decision. That is why UConn made a move back to the BE to revive their basketball support in hopes of a Temple type consideration by the ACC down the road when more movement happens.

(07-06-2020 10:12 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-06-2020 09:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 09:09 AM)esayem Wrote:  Not voted out, but Dayton was also left out of the Great Midwest/Metro merger.

As I understand it, Conference USA is actually a continuation of the old Metro. The Metro voted to invite all of the members of the GWC, except Dayton, and also voted out two of its own members, Virginia Tech and VCU. Another sordid moment in the history of conference realignment.

From https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pi...70396.htm:

Quote:The Metro Conference presidents say they can oust Virginia Tech and Virginia Commonwealth University just because they want to.

VCU athletic director Dick Sander says a judge will be the judge of that.

The interpretations of the conference constitution are acrimoniously split, but the financial motive behind the Metro's reemptive strike to VCU's threat of a lawsuit is clear.

So is the black eye the Metro has affixed upon itself and college sports, according to VCU officials.

``This sets an incredibly bad precedent for college athletics,'' Sander said.

Said Dr. Eugene Trani, VCU's president: ``Any attempt to force VCU and Virginia Tech out of the Metro is shabby behavior. When the NCAA tells young men and women to abide by the rules and to act responsibly and ethically, it should expect its member institutions to do the same. These are clearly issues the NCAA should seriously examine.''

VCU last week threatened legal action to collect its share - along with Virginia Tech - of accumulated league revenues and a $500,000 per school default fee from any member that left to join the proposed new conference with most of the Great Midwest, as well as Houston from the Southwest Conference.

(Of the Great Midwest schools, only Dayton was not invited. It, too, is threatening legal action.)

Upon hearing of VCU's idea, the Metro presidents, acting without the knowledge of commissioner Ralph McFillen, elected to invite in North Carolina-Charlotte and South Florida and merge with the five other schools for a 12-team league. That will keep the Metro together and leave the two Virginia schools without a conference or any remuneration.

It was all about money from all 14 schools.

It was really a new conference but then they got concerned over losing autobids and setting up a new structure so legally CUSA is a renamed Metro Conference.

This is only partially true. The Metro was a basketball conference, much like today’s Big East. CUSA added football to the conference. When CUSA was formed most, if not all football members, were independent.