(08-04-2021 09:27 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  The conferences personal interests aren't the issue when it come to NCAA regulation and the NCAA typically avoids conflict. Point in fact is that the NCAA approved the BE split and autobids, if their only argument is that "Well they're better than you and the BIG10 wants to send their 7th best team instead of your conference champ" then do they really have an argument?

What you wrote is the real reason.

And the NCAA might have a legal argument on that basis, arguing that if the balance-of-power is disrupted, the power leagues could leave the NCAA, which is obviously against the interests of the NCAA and the non-power leagues.

But putting all that aside, the Big East waiver can be justified on the basis of "reliance interests." The C7 (5 at the time) and the Big East football schools (and Notre Dame) made an agreement in 2005 or so governing the mechanics of a split, which assumed the then-existing continuity rules for NCAA autobids. So if the C7 had been denied a waiver, we would have had a pretty plausible lawsuit with significant damages. (One major reason the Big East didn't split in 2003-05 was that neither side had "6 schools for 5 years" without Notre Dame. That's why DePaul and Marquette were added to make 7 basketball schools, why 3 football schools were added. The plan was to split ASAP. That plan was delayed when the new league was rolling in tournament credits and Syracuse, UConn and Louisville were outperforming Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette.)

A CUSA breakaway can't make that argument. 9 of the 14 CUSA members joined CUSA under the current continuity rules, roughly summarized as "no new conferences." The other 5, as far as I know, approved going to 14 teams from Norfolk to El Paso.