Bylaws 20.02.5 (Multisport conference) and 20.02.06 (FBS conference)
NCAA bylaws
A multisport conference must have 7 teams, while an FBS conference must have 8 teams (even Notre Dame wouldn't count if it went with the FBS schools, unless it dropped its independence). The kicker is that the schools must have continuity for eight years.
By taking Syracuse and Pitt from the Big East, a Big East football conference can no longer meet the continuity rules of eight years of being together. TCU and another school wouldn't count until 2019.
The Big East, by not going to 10 schools during the last ACC raid, placed itself in jeopardy of not being capable of splitting.
Technically, it may be possible for the Big East to split under two different scenarios:
1. Big East retains Pitt and Cuse for 27 months to accommodate a split as the Big East needs 8 FBS schools together until after July 1, 2013 to meet the NCAA criteria for a split.
2. The seven basketball schools (plus ND if it chose) must secede from the Big East (leaving the football side free to add) and form their own conference. The football schools do not have the option of seceding from the Big East and still maintaining conference status in the eyes of the NCAA if Syracuse and Pitt left before July 1, 2013. (The BCS rules, however, may still grant a BE football conference BCS status regardless of NCAA status.)
Wouldn't this have already come up in terms of the WAC or MWC?
What am I missing?
Cheers,
Neil
(09-25-2011 03:06 PM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn't this have already come up in terms of the WAC or MWC?
What am I missing?
Cheers,
Neil
the NCAA waived this in regards to the WAC
Do you remember the last ACC raid on the Big East?
The football conference was down to:
1. Syracuse
2. Pitt
3. WVU
4. Rutgers
5. Boston College
UCONN was added for 2004.
Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida were added for 2005.
The old "6/5" rule was repealed. The schools themselves don't have to stay together, the conference just needs to have seven members who are active members of Division I to be considered a Division I Conference. To qualify as a FBS Conference, it has to have eight FBS members who play six sports within the conference-one of those must be men's basketball, and football counts as one of the six.
The Big East can thank the WAC for that:
http://blog.mysanantonio.com/utsa/2011/0...onvention/
The WAC's counters for 2012 are Denver, UTSA, Texas State, San Jose State, Utah State, Idaho, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech, and Texas-Arlington; Seattle begins its first season as Division I school in 2012-13, so I'm not sure if they are considered "active" (much like the old "core" designation). Seattle will have finished its transition from Division II as of June 30, 2012.
If this rule had been in place in 2003, the Big East could have split without harming either side. The basketball schools likely would have still taken Marquette and DePaul to get up to the bare minimum of 7, then added at least one of the A-10 programs (St. Louis, Xavier, Dayton) to make life easier for scheduling. The football schools and Notre Dame would have likely added one more from Conference USA to get to 9 for football and 10 overall, since Conference USA would not have lost its AQ status for basketball. Supposedly Memphis was left behind in Conference USA because of the 6/5 rule, but the new football conference could have grabbed TCU then.
One drawback to forming a new conference is that there is an eight year moratorium before the conference would be recognized-most conferences can't suvive eight years without a trip to the Big Dance, but a split-up Big East probably would have a shot.
(09-25-2011 03:06 PM)omniorange Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn't this have already come up in terms of the WAC or MWC?
What am I missing?
Cheers,
Neil
These rules are new.
The eight years of continuity really only come into play for the establishment of new conference (via a split or if a new conference is formed from scratch).
Under the old rules, the WAC would have lost it's NCAA certification, because it would have failed to keep six teams together for five years (only Idaho, NMSU, La Tech, Utah St, and SJSU meet that criteria.)
Under the new rules, the WAC hasn't needed a waiver - yet (it will if it fails to find an 8th FBS team) But even if it fails to the FBS test, it still will retain its multisport conference status. The WAC can entirely turn over its remaining longer term membership in the coming year, and still retain its NCAA conference status if it keeps membership above 7 (or 8 for FBS status.)
The MWC was formed under an entirely different set of rules. Only two or three years was required then (instead of eight now).
(09-25-2011 03:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]One drawback to forming a new conference is that there is an eight year moratorium before the conference would be recognized-most conferences can't suvive eight years without a trip to the Big Dance, but a split-up Big East probably would have a shot.
The rules seem to be written in a way that would accommodate a split if seven (or eight in the case of FBS criteria) leave a conference and those leaving have been in their previous conference continuously for eight or more years. Eight years together in the Big East could theoretically count.
On July 2nd, 2013, the non-football schools could theoretically qualify to split off from Big East football and form their own NCAA-approved conference, but the Big East football schools could only form a football-only conference if Syracuse and Pitt were still part of that group.
(09-25-2011 03:24 PM)CardinalZen Wrote: [ -> ]Do you remember the last ACC raid on the Big East?
The football conference was down to:
1. Syracuse
2. Pitt
3. WVU
4. Rutgers
5. Boston College
UCONN was added for 2004.
Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida were added for 2005.
Boston College stayed for an extra year. Also, the 6/5 rule wasn't a problem, because all the non-football schools counted. The important criteria was the 8 FBS schools (Notre Dame doesn't count toward the 8.)
The eight year continuity rule for a new conference was in effect prior to 2005. So in order to accomplish a split, the Big East has always needed to stay together with at most one membership loss until 2013 - otherwise a true football/non-football split isn't feasible.
(09-25-2011 02:51 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ]Bylaws 20.02.5 (Multisport conference) and 20.02.06 (FBS conference)
NCAA bylaws
A multisport conference must have 7 teams, while an FBS conference must have 8 teams (even Notre Dame wouldn't count if it went with the FBS schools, unless it dropped its independence). The kicker is that the schools must have continuity for eight years.
By taking Syracuse and Pitt from the Big East, a Big East football conference can no longer meet the continuity rules of eight years of being together. TCU and another school wouldn't count until 2019.
The Big East, by not going to 10 schools during the last ACC raid, placed itself in jeopardy of not being capable of splitting.
Technically, it may be possible for the Big East to split under two different scenarios:
1. Big East retains Pitt and Cuse for 27 months to accommodate a split as the Big East needs 8 FBS schools together until after July 1, 2013 to meet the NCAA criteria for a split.
2. The seven basketball schools (plus ND if it chose) must secede from the Big East (leaving the football side free to add) and form their own conference. The football schools do not have the option of seceding from the Big East and still maintaining conference status in the eyes of the NCAA if Syracuse and Pitt left before July 1, 2013. (The BCS rules, however, may still grant a BE football conference BCS status regardless of NCAA status.)
As I read the rules, Notre Dame would count even if it kept its football independent. There would be 7 schools who would then meet the criteria as a multi-sport conference. Since there is no continuity requirement for an FBS conference other than what already applies to a multi-sports conference, Big East Football could then add 2 more football members to meet the requirement of 8 FBS members that play football. Obviously I'm assuming your #1 that they stay together through July 1. 2013, which BTW would not require 27 months - just that they stay together for 1 more year beyond this one.
Thus, the 6 current Big East members with ND could then add TCU & Navy, for example & continue to qualify as an FBS conference. This would not only apply to ND as a 7th member; any BE non-football member who joined the 6 current football members in a split would enable them to meet the requirement in the same way.
Am I missing something?
(09-25-2011 04:17 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2011 03:24 PM)CardinalZen Wrote: [ -> ]Do you remember the last ACC raid on the Big East?
The football conference was down to:
1. Syracuse
2. Pitt
3. WVU
4. Rutgers
5. Boston College
UCONN was added for 2004.
Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida were added for 2005.
Boston College stayed for an extra year. Also, the 6/5 rule wasn't a problem, because all the non-football schools counted. The important criteria was the 8 FBS schools (Notre Dame doesn't count toward the 8.)
The eight year continuity rule for a new conference was in effect prior to 2005. So in order to accomplish a split, the Big East has always needed to stay together with at most one membership loss until 2013 - otherwise a true football/non-football split isn't feasible.
I disagree. The Big East had already met the continuity requirement when the new rule went into effect in 2005.
(09-25-2011 04:04 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2011 03:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]One drawback to forming a new conference is that there is an eight year moratorium before the conference would be recognized-most conferences can't suvive eight years without a trip to the Big Dance, but a split-up Big East probably would have a shot.
The rules seem to be written in a way that would accommodate a split if seven (or eight in the case of FBS criteria) leave a conference and those leaving have been in their previous conference continuously for eight or more years. Eight years together in the Big East could theoretically count.
On July 2nd, 2013, the non-football schools could theoretically qualify to split off from Big East football and form their own NCAA-approved conference, but the Big East football schools could only form a football-only conference if Syracuse and Pitt were still part of that group.
Both sides could split with immediate recognition if Notre Dame (or another non-football member) joined the football schools. Both sides would then have 7 members to meet the continuity rule.
In order for the football side to qualify as an FBS conference, they would then have to add an FBS qualify member(s) to get their number of football schools to 8.
(09-25-2011 11:32 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2011 04:04 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2011 03:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]One drawback to forming a new conference is that there is an eight year moratorium before the conference would be recognized-most conferences can't suvive eight years without a trip to the Big Dance, but a split-up Big East probably would have a shot.
The rules seem to be written in a way that would accommodate a split if seven (or eight in the case of FBS criteria) leave a conference and those leaving have been in their previous conference continuously for eight or more years. Eight years together in the Big East could theoretically count.
On July 2nd, 2013, the non-football schools could theoretically qualify to split off from Big East football and form their own NCAA-approved conference, but the Big East football schools could only form a football-only conference if Syracuse and Pitt were still part of that group.
Both sides could split with immediate recognition if Notre Dame (or another non-football member) joined the football schools. Both sides would then have 7 members to meet the continuity rule.
In order for the football side to qualify as an FBS conference, they would then have to add an FBS qualify member(s) to get their number of football schools to 8.
Any split would have to happen after July 1, 2013, as Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, DePaul, and Marquette wouldn't count for continuity until that date.
But what you are stating could be a way to meet the rules, if done after July 1, 2013: qualify first as a multisport conference and then later add an existing FBS school.
(09-26-2011 12:31 AM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2011 11:32 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2011 04:04 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2011 03:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]One drawback to forming a new conference is that there is an eight year moratorium before the conference would be recognized-most conferences can't suvive eight years without a trip to the Big Dance, but a split-up Big East probably would have a shot.
The rules seem to be written in a way that would accommodate a split if seven (or eight in the case of FBS criteria) leave a conference and those leaving have been in their previous conference continuously for eight or more years. Eight years together in the Big East could theoretically count.
On July 2nd, 2013, the non-football schools could theoretically qualify to split off from Big East football and form their own NCAA-approved conference, but the Big East football schools could only form a football-only conference if Syracuse and Pitt were still part of that group.
Both sides could split with immediate recognition if Notre Dame (or another non-football member) joined the football schools. Both sides would then have 7 members to meet the continuity rule.
In order for the football side to qualify as an FBS conference, they would then have to add an FBS qualify member(s) to get their number of football schools to 8.
Any split would have to happen after July 1, 2013, as Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, DePaul, and Marquette wouldn't count for continuity until that date.
But what you are stating could be a way to meet the rules, if done after July 1, 2013: qualify first as a multisport conference and then later add an existing FBS school.
Agree. It would need to happen after one more season.
If we have learned nothing else about college athletics over the years it is that rules are made to be broken. Remember how a school had to be a member of the AAU to get into the Big Ten? Then they added Nebraska, which was stripped of its AAU status about 10 minutes after the ink had dried on their B1G contract. Remember how to be considered for membership in the Atlantic Coast Conference, that school's state had to touch the ocean? Well, which ocean does Pennsylvania touch? Lake Erie?
If the BE were to split, rest assured that the NCAA would pass a waiver before you could say the words "Providence Mafia."
(09-26-2011 10:08 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]If we have learned nothing else about college athletics over the years it is that rules are made to be broken. Remember how a school had to be a member of the AAU to get into the Big Ten? Then they added Nebraska, which was stripped of its AAU status about 10 minutes after the ink had dried on their B1G contract. Remember how to be considered for membership in the Atlantic Coast Conference, that school's state had to touch the ocean? Well, which ocean does Pennsylvania touch? Lake Erie?
If the BE were to split, rest assured that the NCAA would pass a waiver before you could say the words "Providence Mafia."
Come on, Doc . . . Common sense.
Your Big Ten & ACC examples were never NCAA rules. In fact they weren't even conference rules or by-laws. And even if NCAA by-laws are changed, that process takes time. They are what they are right now.
The fact is that if the Big East is not an FBS conference, they will not get an AQ BCS bid. Individual teams could still be taken as ND, but there would be noo AQ for the conference any time soon.
I'm sorry, Melky but I disagree entirely and I am backed by historical precedent.
The point that I was trying to make is that when it comes to these guys, bylaws are more like guidelines than they are hard, fast rules. After all the people who conjure up these NCAA bylaws are the same people who make up these conference rules.
They call them "waivers" and they grant them every single time something like this happens so as to avoid an expensive lawsuit. Remember when suddenly - out of nowhere - the BCS announced that Louisville's record prior to joining the BE would count towards both the BE's BCS formula and C-USA's formula? How is that even possible? The same was true of USF, Cincy, MIA, BC and VT. All of their records counted for both their old leagues and their new leagues. That's great for the ACC and BE but tell me how that's not patantly unfair to the non-AQ leagues. Guess what? They don't care. That's why they were granted waivers in the first place.
Also, there was a bylaw in place at the time that required that at least six schools to have played together for five consecutuive years to maintain their BCS bid and NCAA automatic bid. Well, after MIA, VT and BC left, that left the BE with just four teams who met that criteria (Pitt, WVU, RUT and Cuse). Guess what? Waiver.
Trust me when I tell you that nobody is going to get left out of anything - not Baylor or Iowa State and certainly no school from the densely populated, demographically well off Northeast. Now they could be marginalized within the AQ structure - as these presidents are after all ruthless thieves - but they will not officially be left out of anything as the prexies also happen to be risk averse thieves. Your BCS bid is secure no matter what.
(09-26-2011 12:27 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sorry, Melky but I disagree entirely and I am backed by historical precedent.
The point that I was trying to make is that when it comes to these guys, bylaws are more like guidelines than they are hard, fast rules. After all the people who conjure up these NCAA bylaws are the same people who make up these conference rules.
They call them "waivers" and they grant them every single time something like this happens so as to avoid an expensive lawsuit. Remember when suddenly - out of nowhere - the BCS announced that Louisville's record prior to joining the BE would count towards both the BE's BCS formula and C-USA's formula? How is that even possible? The same was true of USF, Cincy, MIA, BC and VT. All of their records counted for both their old leagues and their new leagues. That's great for the ACC and BE but tell me how that's not patantly unfair to the non-AQ leagues. Guess what? They don't care. That's why they were granted waivers in the first place.
Also, there was a bylaw in place at the time that required that at least six schools to have played together for five consecutuive years to maintain their BCS bid and NCAA automatic bid. Well, after MIA, VT and BC left, that left the BE with just four teams who met that criteria (Pitt, WVU, RUT and Cuse). Guess what? Waiver.
Trust me when I tell you that nobody is going to get left out of anything - not Baylor or Iowa State and certainly no school from the densely populated, demographically well off Northeast. Now they could be marginalized within the AQ structure - as these presidents are after all ruthless thieves - but they will not officially be left out of anything as the prexies also happen to be risk averse thieves. Your BCS bid is secure no matter what.
I agree, Doc, that the BCS has been haphazard about following their own guidelines. Theirs is more of a business consortium anyway, so nothing surprised me there.
But the NCAA is a much stricter organization with a long history of rules that are followed & are not simply waived. You're confusing 2 different things about 2003 - NCAA conference rules & BCS AQ status. The Louisville situation was in fact made up on the spot, but the 6 schools for 5 years had nothing to do with the BCS bid, which is outside the jurisdiction of the NCAA anyway. That was strictly a requirement for conference formation & continuity as well as a rule for basketball bids. There were enough basketball schools in the Big East for them to meet that requirement. However, you were only counting football members.
(09-26-2011 12:27 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]They call them "waivers" and they grant them every single time something like this happens so as to avoid an expensive lawsuit. Remember when suddenly - out of nowhere - the BCS announced that Louisville's record prior to joining the BE would count towards both the BE's BCS formula and C-USA's formula? How is that even possible? The same was true of USF, Cincy, MIA, BC and VT.
I agree that the BCS did this to avoid a lawsuit . . .
(09-26-2011 12:27 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]All of their records counted for both their old leagues and their new leagues. That's great for the ACC and BE but tell me how that's not patantly unfair to the non-AQ leagues.
. . . but it's not unfair to the non-AQ leagues. Though some sports talkers and internet message board posters like to believe that a non-AQ league would automatically have inherited the Big East's AQ slot if the BE had lost it in 2005, there is nothing in the BCS rules that requires the BCS to award another AQ berth if one goes away. The BCS could easily have continued with five AQ slots. Really, letting the BE stay AQ only cost the other conferences an extra at-large BCS slot every year.
So, one could argue that letting the Big East keep its AQ slot was only "unfair" to the highest-ranked team in each season that was both shut out of the BCS games and ranked higher than the highest-ranked BE team --
#5 Oregon in 2005;
no one in 2006 (because Louisville at #6 was higher ranked than any team left out);
no one in 2007 (b/c WVU at #8 was higher ranked than any eligible team left out; Mizzou was ranked higher but not eligible b/c two other B12 teams were chosen);
#9 Boise State in 2008;
no one in 2009 (b/c Cincinnati was #3);
#10 Boise State in 2010. (#9 Mich. State not eligible b/c two other Big Ten teams were chosen)
So, in three out of six years, the BE champ would have been in as an at-large team even if they didn't get an autobid, and in the other three years, the "shafted" teams were from the Pac-10 and the WAC.
If you want to look at it that way, one could argue that if the Big East didn't keep its AQ slot, Boise would have played in four BCS bowl games instead of only two.
No, I'm with you guys all the way. There was never any chance at all that the BE was ever going to lose its BCS bid after MIA, VT and BC left and barring several more defections there is no chance of that now either.
Just watch and see. The BE will add all kinds of ridiculous teams and nobody of any official capacity will say a word about it. That's just how cartels work.