(03-20-2018 03:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:31 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Now that we're being all rules-geeky, the NCAA manual can be downloaded from here:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4511-2...-2017.aspx

Easy enough
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport
conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the
requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective
8/1/11)
20.02.5.5 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a multisport conference for two years
following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s noncompliance with the minimum
multisport conference requirements. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

And there you have it.

Sounds to me that you'll need configurations that include at least 7 teams that shared a league for the prior 8 years.

I read it as schools no longer establish continuity, a conference does.

So any new conference, regardless of how long the schools in the conference have been together, would have to establish continuity

So if CUSA East split from CUSA west, whichever one was considered the new conference would have to establish continuity and play together under the new conference banner for 8 consecutive years, a real big barrier for a new one big conference. 7 years without an auto bid is like a death penalty.

what does Gonzaga add to MWC, steal more bids then they add, that's if they keep up thier program. Gonazga falls any, being out of thie element they will become an achour. mid-majors want more bids, there gonna have to take out A-10.
MWC needs thier FB to step up. MWC goes to 16, they will enter Tex, UTEP & UTSA are a given.
AAC implodes, SMU becomes available along with Hous
Hous ends up in Pac-12, Rice moves in
NMST BB/Haw FB
have alliance with NMST FB, IF NM moves on, MWC would need NMST FB

(03-20-2018 06:29 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  MWC needs thier FB to step up. MWC goes to 16, they will enter Tex, UTEP & UTSA are a given.
AAC implodes, SMU becomes available along with Hous

Why does the AAC implode? The only scenarios I can think of are: the Big 12 leftovers, once Texas/Oklahoma/Kansas leave, are able to raid the AAC; or the AAC loses a couple of marquee programs to the Big 12, and their television revenues no longer support a footprint from Connecticut to Tampa to Dallas.

The MWC might be better served waiting to see if Baylor/TCU/Kansas State or SMU/Tulsa might become available.

(03-20-2018 05:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 03:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:31 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Now that we're being all rules-geeky, the NCAA manual can be downloaded from here:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4511-2...-2017.aspx

Easy enough
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport
conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the
requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective
8/1/11)
20.02.5.5 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a multisport conference for two years
following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s noncompliance with the minimum
multisport conference requirements. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

And there you have it.

Sounds to me that you'll need configurations that include at least 7 teams that shared a league for the prior 8 years.

I read it as schools no longer establish continuity, a conference does.

So any new conference, regardless of how long the schools in the conference have been together, would have to establish continuity

So if CUSA East split from CUSA west, whichever one was considered the new conference would have to establish continuity and play together under the new conference banner for 8 consecutive years, a real big barrier for a new one big conference. 7 years without an auto bid is like a death penalty.

idk. It defines a conference and then states that you have to have met those requirements for 8 years to establish continuity. If the 8 teams forming a new conference have met those requirements over the previous 8 years--I dont think there is any way to block them. The new Big East would essentially be exhibit #1 for that idea.

(03-20-2018 07:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 05:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 03:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:31 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Now that we're being all rules-geeky, the NCAA manual can be downloaded from here:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4511-2...-2017.aspx

Easy enough
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport
conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the
requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective
8/1/11)
20.02.5.5 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a multisport conference for two years
following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s noncompliance with the minimum
multisport conference requirements. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

And there you have it.

Sounds to me that you'll need configurations that include at least 7 teams that shared a league for the prior 8 years.

I read it as schools no longer establish continuity, a conference does.

So any new conference, regardless of how long the schools in the conference have been together, would have to establish continuity

So if CUSA East split from CUSA west, whichever one was considered the new conference would have to establish continuity and play together under the new conference banner for 8 consecutive years, a real big barrier for a new one big conference. 7 years without an auto bid is like a death penalty.

idk. It defines a conference and then states that you have to have met those requirements for 8 years to establish continuity. If the 8 teams forming a new conference have met those requirements over the previous 8 years--I dont think there is any way to block them. The new Big East would essentially be exhibit #1 for that idea.

Exactly.
The NCAA will fight when there is money at stake (TV rights, restricted earnings coaches, rule requiring teams play in NCAA tournament if invited or stay have, player likeness) and will fight over player eligibility issues (Bloom and numerous others) or coach punishment (Tarkanian suits).

When it comes to membership issues. If it ain't taking food off the table or isn't creating a problem for the current members the NCAA shows its belly pretty quickly. When Cincinnati sued over reclassification, the NCAA settled by saying if you meet the criteria this year, we will concede, Houston Baptist challenges the change in reclassifying to Division I, the NCAA settled by applying the old rules, Liberty challenges the FBS must invite rule, NCAA rolls over and says meet the criteria on the proper timeline and all is good.

The NCAA is not going to pick a fight on this. More importantly if you follow all the rules all the way around, one of the criteria is that you don't count until the NCAA amends the list of core conferences by way of legislation. They'll run screaming from any challenge to that.

A retired administrator and I were discussing this matter the other day and while he agreed with my reading of the rule, he insists that if a new conference comes knocking on the door asking for an autobid AND that conference does not increase the number of Division I leagues that the NCAA will approve them.

He believes that if six Sun Belt and six CUSA schools struck out to form a new league and the remaining 8 CUSA schools grabbed four more Sun Belt leaving the Sun Belt with 2 and the remaining Sun Belt schools merged with the WAC that the new conference that started it all would get an automatic berth because the NCAA wouldn't want to go through 8 years of having 37 at-large berths in the NCAA Tournament and then reduce it back to 36 with the accompanying complaints of "we would have been at-large if the NCAA hadn't taken away an at-large spot."

(03-20-2018 08:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 07:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 05:55 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 03:18 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 11:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Easy enough
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport
conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the
requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective
8/1/11)
20.02.5.5 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a multisport conference for two years
following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s noncompliance with the minimum
multisport conference requirements. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

And there you have it.

Sounds to me that you'll need configurations that include at least 7 teams that shared a league for the prior 8 years.

I read it as schools no longer establish continuity, a conference does.

So any new conference, regardless of how long the schools in the conference have been together, would have to establish continuity

So if CUSA East split from CUSA west, whichever one was considered the new conference would have to establish continuity and play together under the new conference banner for 8 consecutive years, a real big barrier for a new one big conference. 7 years without an auto bid is like a death penalty.

idk. It defines a conference and then states that you have to have met those requirements for 8 years to establish continuity. If the 8 teams forming a new conference have met those requirements over the previous 8 years--I dont think there is any way to block them. The new Big East would essentially be exhibit #1 for that idea.

Exactly.
The NCAA will fight when there is money at stake (TV rights, restricted earnings coaches, rule requiring teams play in NCAA tournament if invited or stay have, player likeness) and will fight over player eligibility issues (Bloom and numerous others) or coach punishment (Tarkanian suits).

When it comes to membership issues. If it ain't taking food off the table or isn't creating a problem for the current members the NCAA shows its belly pretty quickly. When Cincinnati sued over reclassification, the NCAA settled by saying if you meet the criteria this year, we will concede, Houston Baptist challenges the change in reclassifying to Division I, the NCAA settled by applying the old rules, Liberty challenges the FBS must invite rule, NCAA rolls over and says meet the criteria on the proper timeline and all is good.

The NCAA is not going to pick a fight on this. More importantly if you follow all the rules all the way around, one of the criteria is that you don't count until the NCAA amends the list of core conferences by way of legislation. They'll run screaming from any challenge to that.

A retired administrator and I were discussing this matter the other day and while he agreed with my reading of the rule, he insists that if a new conference comes knocking on the door asking for an autobid AND that conference does not increase the number of Division I leagues that the NCAA will approve them.

He believes that if six Sun Belt and six CUSA schools struck out to form a new league and the remaining 8 CUSA schools grabbed four more Sun Belt leaving the Sun Belt with 2 and the remaining Sun Belt schools merged with the WAC that the new conference that started it all would get an automatic berth because the NCAA wouldn't want to go through 8 years of having 37 at-large berths in the NCAA Tournament and then reduce it back to 36 with the accompanying complaints of "we would have been at-large if the NCAA hadn't taken away an at-large spot."

That's a lot of what ifs. I could see them caving if CUSA actually split and one half came requesting an auto bid. However I don't see them preemptively caving, schools will have to take the chance on the NCAA caving. That is something risk adverse college administrators are not going to do

(03-20-2018 11:21 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 10:56 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  There seem to be too many variables going on to expand to 16.
I know there are some talks going on with a few TV networks, but 16 doesn't seem very feasible for the MW. 14 I can see possibly with NMSU and UTEP with Gonzaga as non-football member. That tightens up the division to a more regional travel
We also know that the MW has thought of going all digital or mostly digital in a way to get better start times for both football and basketball. Would that be a catalyst for going to 16?
Another thought is, is going to 16 including football or is it just adding 3 to 5 schools in non-football? Is there some thought that expanding to 14 or 16 would cut travel costs significantly for non-football sports, getting extra-bids and adding inventory for TV/MW Digital Network?

Seriously though, I think just adding GU would be the best option. If there is a need for more inventory, tighter divisions and BYU saying we are staying Indy in football, then I can see just adding GU, NMSU and UTEP. There would be less cross division playing by 1 game, but the travel savings would be significant I would believe.

So basically--so the 16 talk is likely EXACTLY what you envision here---but with BYU as an additional non-football member.

No football, no BYU, they seem to be content in the WCC until the Big 12 begs them to come.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hey hey NCAA rulebook fans. Here's the thread about it.
http://csnbbs.com/thread-768543.html

(03-20-2018 07:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  idk. It defines a conference and then states that you have to have met those requirements for 8 years to establish continuity. If the 8 teams forming a new conference have met those requirements over the previous 8 years--I dont think there is any way to block them. The new Big East would essentially be exhibit #1 for that idea.

Nope. "Continuity", by the grammar of the rules, is a thing that conferences have, or do not have. The Great Northern Conference, established 2018, can only have continuity going back to 2018.

(03-20-2018 08:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Exactly.
The NCAA will fight when there is money at stake (TV rights, restricted earnings coaches, rule requiring teams play in NCAA tournament if invited or stay have, player likeness) and will fight over player eligibility issues (Bloom and numerous others) or coach punishment (Tarkanian suits).

When it comes to membership issues. If it ain't taking food off the table or isn't creating a problem for the current members the NCAA shows its belly pretty quickly.

But a new league does take food off the table--an at-large bid becomes an autobid.

Quote:The NCAA is not going to pick a fight on this. More importantly if you follow all the rules all the way around, one of the criteria is that you don't count until the NCAA amends the list of core conferences by way of legislation. They'll run screaming from any challenge to that.

Yeah, I don't think that would stand up in court if a new conference somehow held together for 8 years without an autobid.

Quote:A retired administrator and I were discussing this matter the other day and while he agreed with my reading of the rule, he insists that if a new conference comes knocking on the door asking for an autobid AND that conference does not increase the number of Division I leagues that the NCAA will approve them.

No question.

Quote:He believes that if six Sun Belt and six CUSA schools struck out to form a new league and the remaining 8 CUSA schools grabbed four more Sun Belt leaving the Sun Belt with 2 and the remaining Sun Belt schools merged with the WAC that the new conference that started it all would get an automatic berth because the NCAA wouldn't want to go through 8 years of having 37 at-large berths in the NCAA Tournament and then reduce it back to 36 with the accompanying complaints of "we would have been at-large if the NCAA hadn't taken away an at-large spot."

Someone would end up holding the Sun Belt charter, along with its autobid. They'd find enough schools to survive under the WAC rule--UTA, UALR, ULM plus UTRGV, a Southland school or two that sees a ticket to FBS. (Possibly killing the WAC, ironically.) There would be hard feelings, and there would be no appetite to give the new league a new autobid, especially if the WAC somehow survives.

If the new grouping, and the reshuffle don't kill a conference, I think they tuck their tails between their legs and go back to CUSA/SBC.

The trick is getting from the SBC/CUSA lineups we have now to some Promised Land lineup, and that's not easy to sketch out.

(03-20-2018 09:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If the new grouping, and the reshuffle don't kill a conference

I don't think they can manage to kill a conference. I call it Zombie WAC because you can't kill it. The reason you can't kill it is that there's a core of schools no other conference wants, and the NCAA doesn't want 4 or 5 D-I schools left out in the cold and forced to cobble together indy schedules in every sport. Maybe if the end game had only one or two orphans the NCAA would leave 'em out in the cold. But not more than that.

How could you kill Zombie WAC and avoid the "orphan" problem?
1) Cal Baptist stays in Division II.
2) Chicago State exits Division I.
3) UTRGV joins the Southland (or a Zombie Sun Belt, if most of the current schools leave)
4) UMKC joins the Summit or Horizon or MVC (or the aforementioned Zombie Sun Belt).
5) NMSU joins the MWC, or CUSA or SBC if those conferences are still intact.
6) GCU writes a big check and buys an invitation to some conference.
7) Seattle joins the WCC.
8) Utah Valley ... I don't know. Maybe GCU writes a check big enough to buy them a spot, too. Heh.

IMO, that's way too many moving parts to be realistic. I know we have some folks here who think that any scenario you can imagine is not only realistic but probable -- but this scenario is neither.

(03-20-2018 09:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 09:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If the new grouping, and the reshuffle don't kill a conference

I don't think they can manage to kill a conference. I call it Zombie WAC because you can't kill it. The reason you can't kill it is that there's a core of schools no other conference wants, and the NCAA doesn't want 4 or 5 D-I schools left out in the cold and forced to cobble together indy schedules in every sport. Maybe if the end game had only one or two orphans the NCAA would leave 'em out in the cold. But not more than that.

How could you kill Zombie WAC and avoid the "orphan" problem?
1) Cal Baptist stays in Division II.
2) Chicago State exits Division I.
3) UTRGV joins the Southland (or a Zombie Sun Belt, if most of the current schools leave)
4) UMKC joins the Summit or Horizon or MVC (or the aforementioned Zombie Sun Belt).
5) NMSU joins the MWC, or CUSA or SBC if those conferences are still intact.
6) GCU writes a big check and buys an invitation to some conference.
7) Seattle joins the WCC.
8) Utah Valley ... I don't know. Maybe GCU writes a check big enough to buy them a spot, too. Heh.

IMO, that's way too many moving parts to be realistic. I know we have some folks here who think that any scenario you can imagine is not only realistic but probable -- but this scenario is neither.

The Sun Belt got down to three schools with one slated to join. The American South merged with the Sun Belt taking those schools in.

The SMART commissioner with struggling numbers who knows their history goes to the NCAA citing Sun Belt and American South and executes a merger. Why? Because under the SBC/ASC deal both conferences retained their units from the NCAA Tournament. They got a short-term windfall while shoring up their numbers.

In this case. You absorb the WAC, you let Chicago State's contract expire, Seattle heads off the WCC, you take the units and let things work themselves out.

Ok---so this is where the old thread concluded that auto qualification of auto-bids for a newly formed conference might hit a snag. Apparently, in order to get an automatic bid---a conference must be a "core" conference. From the old thread---this is how you become a "core" conference.

31.02.3, core conferences.
Quote:
31.02.3 Core Conference. A core conference is a multisport conference that has been elected to membership
and, as a result of legislation, is identified in the applicable sections of Constitution 4 related to representation in
the NCAA governance structure. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

that has been elected to membership

Article 4 identifies, by name, the conferences that are FBS, FCS, and nonfootball.

So that means that a new conference has no *right* to an automatic bid, even if the members meet the old continuity rule that doesn't seem to be there anymore. Continuity now only seems to mean that an existing conference has been playing a sport for 8+ years.

The bottom line, by the 2015-16 rules, as far as I can tell, CUSA can't mark time until they can legally split with the new "Southwest Conference" and new "American South" leagues, both having autobids.

(03-21-2018 09:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Ok---so this is where the old thread about auto qualification of auto-bids for a newly formed conference might hit a snag. Apparently, in order to get an automatic bid---a conference must be a "core" conference. From the old thread---this is how you become a "core" conference.

31.02.3, core conferences.
Quote:
31.02.3 Core Conference. A core conference is a multisport conference that has been elected to membership
and, as a result of legislation, is identified in the applicable sections of Constitution 4 related to representation in
the NCAA governance structure. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

that has been elected to membership

Article 4 identifies, by name, the conferences that are FBS, FCS, and nonfootball.

So that means that a new conference has no *right* to an automatic bid, even if the members meet the old continuity rule that doesn't seem to be there anymore. Continuity now only seems to mean that an existing conference has been playing a sport for 8+ years.

The bottom line, by the 2015-16 rules, as far as I can tell, CUSA can't mark time until they can legally split with the new "Southwest Conference" and new "American South" leagues, both having autobids.

Not saying any splits will happen soon but there are always ways around the stumbling blocks. One way would be to get a waiver. If that doesn't work schools will have to use existing conferences to execute the split. First and easiest has already been explained by arkstfan which would be the SBC and C-USA do a mix and match seminar and come up with the existing conferences, each with somewhat different membership. No harm, no foul.

Another way would be to utilize an existing non FBS conference that has an auto-bid and wheel and deal to get enough FBS schools (I believe the number is 8 to qualify as an FBS conference). The problem with this is the lack of tv rights and CFP money. It's going to cost schools something and they will have to decide if they save enough on travel to limp thru until time for a new CFP contract.

Maybe one of the legal experts can help me understand how the eight year conference continuity rule would hold up in court. Basically, if the requirement is for the league to exist for eight years before automatic bids become possible, then there will never ever be any new conferences. No school is going to want to be in a league that has no automatic bids to an NCAA championship.

Is that kind of rule not anti-competitive? Is it not convenient that the new Big East in 2013, the Mountain West in 1999, the Big 12 in 1996, C-USA in 1995, and a bunch of others in the late 70's and early 80's (original Big East, Atlantic 10, Sun Belt, CAA, Big South, many more) were able to get automatic bids right from the get-go, but now that is not allowed anymore? How quickly would this rule have been thrown out when the Big 12 was getting established instead of a possible withdrawal by C-USA and Sun Belt schools to form a new league?

I am no legal or rules expert. But it just does not make sense to me. It basically mandates that conferences can cease to exist, which is within the realm of possibility for the WAC, Atlantic Sun, and maybe even the MEAC depending on whether Hampton has started a trend, but no new ones can form. It's these 32 conferences and that's it, forever.

(03-21-2018 10:04 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 09:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Ok---so this is where the old thread about auto qualification of auto-bids for a newly formed conference might hit a snag. Apparently, in order to get an automatic bid---a conference must be a "core" conference. From the old thread---this is how you become a "core" conference.

31.02.3, core conferences.
Quote:
31.02.3 Core Conference. A core conference is a multisport conference that has been elected to membership
and, as a result of legislation, is identified in the applicable sections of Constitution 4 related to representation in
the NCAA governance structure. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

that has been elected to membership

Article 4 identifies, by name, the conferences that are FBS, FCS, and nonfootball.

So that means that a new conference has no *right* to an automatic bid, even if the members meet the old continuity rule that doesn't seem to be there anymore. Continuity now only seems to mean that an existing conference has been playing a sport for 8+ years.

The bottom line, by the 2015-16 rules, as far as I can tell, CUSA can't mark time until they can legally split with the new "Southwest Conference" and new "American South" leagues, both having autobids.

Not saying any splits will happen soon but there are always ways around the stumbling blocks. One way would be to get a waiver. If that doesn't work schools will have to use existing conferences to execute the split. First and easiest has already been explained by arkstfan which would be the SBC and C-USA do a mix and match seminar and come up with the existing conferences, each with somewhat different membership. No harm, no foul.

Another way would be to utilize an existing non FBS conference that has an auto-bid and wheel and deal to get enough FBS schools (I believe the number is 8 to qualify as an FBS conference). The problem with this is the lack of tv rights and CFP money. It's going to cost schools something and they will have to decide if they save enough on travel to limp thru until time for a new CFP contract.

Yes, you need 8 FBS schools to be a FBS conference.

And with AttackCoog analysis above, it looks like forming a new conference won't be able to happen. Which leaves really only 1 possible way for CUSA to split and that is through the WAC.
Depending how certain realignment scenarios, the WAC could add 8 FBS schools to whoever is left in the WAC and therefore keeps the autobid to the NCAA tournament.

The autobid is probably the most important thing followed by the CFP $$. However, depending on how bad schools want to stomach a split, they would get some CFP $$ because they would most likely be classified as Independents until the next CFP contract so they'll still get some CFP $$.


And another thought just occurred. It seems that even if the MW does expand to 16 as 'rumored', there would be really no way to split and form a new conference like before. So, there would be some careful examination on how a conference moves forward with expansion. Focus mostly on travel which would make NMSU and UTEP ideal candidates for the MW to move to 14 members. That puts the whole front range schools with short travel (except for Utah St) and the western schools (except for Hawaii) with short travel also.

The rules technically allow for the creation of the new conference. I would think the NCAA would be allowed to determine the qualifications for an automatic bid to their tournaments.

The way the rules are set up are clearly designed to prevent a new conference from forming and asking for an automatic bid, but I don't know if that is necessarily illegal as there is still a way for new conferences to qualify should they meet the rules. Now if 7 schools have been together as "New Multisport Conference A" for 8 years and then get denied an auto bid due to losing a vote to become a core conference, they might have an issue.

But the rules clearly allow for the creation of a new conference, it is just a very lengthy process.

(03-21-2018 10:52 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The rules technically allow for the creation of the new conference. I would think the NCAA would be allowed to determine the qualifications for an automatic bid to their tournaments.

The way the rules are set up are clearly designed to prevent a new conference from forming and asking for an automatic bid, but I don't know if that is necessarily illegal as there is still a way for new conferences to qualify should they meet the rules. Now if 7 schools have been together as "New Multisport Conference A" for 8 years and then get denied an auto bid due to losing a vote to become a core conference, they might have an issue.

But the rules clearly allow for the creation of a new conference, it is just a very lengthy process.

Its not illegal for a new conference to immediately get an auto bid. In fact, as ArkStfan points out---it appears to be not only possible---but quite likely. From what I can tell (based on JohnBraggs old research--he gets credit for the digging--not me), its just not "automatic". The conference's new bid would ultimately depend upon getting a favorable vote on becoming a "core" conference.

(03-21-2018 10:16 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Maybe one of the legal experts can help me understand how the eight year conference continuity rule would hold up in court. Basically, if the requirement is for the league to exist for eight years before automatic bids become possible, then there will never ever be any new conferences. No school is going to want to be in a league that has no automatic bids to an NCAA championship.

Is that kind of rule not anti-competitive? Is it not convenient that the new Big East in 2013, the Mountain West in 1999, the Big 12 in 1996, C-USA in 1995, and a bunch of others in the late 70's and early 80's (original Big East, Atlantic 10, Sun Belt, CAA, Big South, many more) were able to get automatic bids right from the get-go, but now that is not allowed anymore? How quickly would this rule have been thrown out when the Big 12 was getting established instead of a possible withdrawal by C-USA and Sun Belt schools to form a new league?

I am no legal or rules expert. But it just does not make sense to me. It basically mandates that conferences can cease to exist, which is within the realm of possibility for the WAC, Atlantic Sun, and maybe even the MEAC depending on whether Hampton has started a trend, but no new ones can form. It's these 32 conferences and that's it, forever.

Limiting competition isn't inherently bad. You can't show up with a minor league team or a club team and compete for NCAA championships because it is restricted to certain criteria to create a brand. Consumers understand what NCAA athletics are versus G League basketball or independent minor league baseball or club teams.

The 8 year wait... I think it is suspect. The NCAA allocates revenue from the NCAA Tournament on a six year basis so I can understand a six year wait. Eight may be harder to defend.

The NCAA does have a vested interest in stability of the member organizations, as long as it doesn't use overly market restrictive means to attain that stability.

(03-21-2018 09:02 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 09:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 09:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If the new grouping, and the reshuffle don't kill a conference

I don't think they can manage to kill a conference. I call it Zombie WAC because you can't kill it. The reason you can't kill it is that there's a core of schools no other conference wants, and the NCAA doesn't want 4 or 5 D-I schools left out in the cold and forced to cobble together indy schedules in every sport. Maybe if the end game had only one or two orphans the NCAA would leave 'em out in the cold. But not more than that.

How could you kill Zombie WAC and avoid the "orphan" problem?
1) Cal Baptist stays in Division II.
2) Chicago State exits Division I.
3) UTRGV joins the Southland (or a Zombie Sun Belt, if most of the current schools leave)
4) UMKC joins the Summit or Horizon or MVC (or the aforementioned Zombie Sun Belt).
5) NMSU joins the MWC, or CUSA or SBC if those conferences are still intact.
6) GCU writes a big check and buys an invitation to some conference.
7) Seattle joins the WCC.
8) Utah Valley ... I don't know. Maybe GCU writes a check big enough to buy them a spot, too. Heh.

IMO, that's way too many moving parts to be realistic. I know we have some folks here who think that any scenario you can imagine is not only realistic but probable -- but this scenario is neither.

The Sun Belt got down to three schools with one slated to join. The American South merged with the Sun Belt taking those schools in.

The SMART commissioner with struggling numbers who knows their history goes to the NCAA citing Sun Belt and American South and executes a merger. Why? Because under the SBC/ASC deal both conferences retained their units from the NCAA Tournament. They got a short-term windfall while shoring up their numbers.

In this case. You absorb the WAC, you let Chicago State's contract expire, Seattle heads off the WCC, you take the units and let things work themselves out.

The basketball units, wherever they end up, are the least worrisome of the possible issues in that scenario.

That plan would leave the schools who move into the WAC's zombie body with five members who don't play FBS football, spread out over 3 time zones (plus NMSU that does have FBS football). It has all the same problems the WAC now has -- several low-budget athletic departments, including recent move-ups from Division II, excessive travel -- but just adding 7 FBS schools to it for a 13-team WAC. Those FBS schools aren't going to leave CUSA or the Sun Belt to join that.

(03-21-2018 11:16 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 09:02 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 09:35 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-20-2018 09:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If the new grouping, and the reshuffle don't kill a conference

I don't think they can manage to kill a conference. I call it Zombie WAC because you can't kill it. The reason you can't kill it is that there's a core of schools no other conference wants, and the NCAA doesn't want 4 or 5 D-I schools left out in the cold and forced to cobble together indy schedules in every sport. Maybe if the end game had only one or two orphans the NCAA would leave 'em out in the cold. But not more than that.

How could you kill Zombie WAC and avoid the "orphan" problem?
1) Cal Baptist stays in Division II.
2) Chicago State exits Division I.
3) UTRGV joins the Southland (or a Zombie Sun Belt, if most of the current schools leave)
4) UMKC joins the Summit or Horizon or MVC (or the aforementioned Zombie Sun Belt).
5) NMSU joins the MWC, or CUSA or SBC if those conferences are still intact.
6) GCU writes a big check and buys an invitation to some conference.
7) Seattle joins the WCC.
8) Utah Valley ... I don't know. Maybe GCU writes a check big enough to buy them a spot, too. Heh.

IMO, that's way too many moving parts to be realistic. I know we have some folks here who think that any scenario you can imagine is not only realistic but probable -- but this scenario is neither.

The Sun Belt got down to three schools with one slated to join. The American South merged with the Sun Belt taking those schools in.

The SMART commissioner with struggling numbers who knows their history goes to the NCAA citing Sun Belt and American South and executes a merger. Why? Because under the SBC/ASC deal both conferences retained their units from the NCAA Tournament. They got a short-term windfall while shoring up their numbers.

In this case. You absorb the WAC, you let Chicago State's contract expire, Seattle heads off the WCC, you take the units and let things work themselves out.

The basketball units, wherever they end up, are the least worrisome of the possible issues in that scenario.

That plan would leave the schools who move into the WAC's zombie body with five members who don't play FBS football, spread out over 3 time zones (plus NMSU that does have FBS football). It has all the same problems the WAC now has -- several low-budget athletic departments, including recent move-ups from Division II, excessive travel -- but just adding 7 FBS schools to it for a 13-team WAC. Those FBS schools aren't going to leave CUSA or the Sun Belt to join that.

Right that is why Karl Benson gave up on the WAC and moved to the SBC.

More realistic long term survival chances.

(03-21-2018 11:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 10:52 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The rules technically allow for the creation of the new conference. I would think the NCAA would be allowed to determine the qualifications for an automatic bid to their tournaments.

The way the rules are set up are clearly designed to prevent a new conference from forming and asking for an automatic bid, but I don't know if that is necessarily illegal as there is still a way for new conferences to qualify should they meet the rules. Now if 7 schools have been together as "New Multisport Conference A" for 8 years and then get denied an auto bid due to losing a vote to become a core conference, they might have an issue.

But the rules clearly allow for the creation of a new conference, it is just a very lengthy process.

Its not illegal for a new conference to immediately get an auto bid. In fact, as ArkStfan points out---it appears to be not only possible---but quite likely. From what I can tell (based on JohnBraggs old research--he gets credit for the digging--not me), its just not "automatic". The conference's new bid would ultimately depend upon getting a favorable vote on becoming a "core" conference.

Oh sure. But is say CUSA East going to split from CUSA and form a new conference on the "chance" they may get voted auto bids?

Conference administrators are incredibly risk adverse creatures. They want a sure thing and splitting and hoping for auto bid votes is not likely.

What is likely to happen is a split would be pre negotiated with the NCAA and as long as it didn't increase the number of auto bids, it would be given the waiver.