(02-19-2022 03:34 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 03:32 PM)CompSciJMU92 Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 02:08 PM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 01:11 PM)We Are the Dukes of JMU Wrote:  

(02-19-2022 12:49 PM)MarginalDuke Wrote:  I just don’t get the CUSA’s rationale. They would be compensated with exit fees as well as retain a viable conference at 11. There’s just not much to gain and they solidified themselves as the bottom G5 conference by far.

CUSA will collect the exit fees even if the three schools leave in 2023. The conference obviously hopes to extract additional payments from the schools in exchange for CUSA's agreement to let them leave early. Reading between the lines, it sounds like the three schools have proposed additional monetary compensation in exchange for an early departure, but CUSA hasn't responded. We can take the lack of response to mean that the conference finds the dollar amount inadequate and believes that they can extract more money from the schools through litigation/mediation.

In other words, CUSA seems to believe that they can make a little more money for their members by playing hardball.

No response other than "we expect you to stay" is a strange way to enter hardball negotiations vs saying "$10 million each if you want out." Hard to negotiate when there is no discussion/reply. They seem to be in a weak position for high court damages given the current media deal and their ability to mitigate this scheduling wise. It would likely be worth it to the departing schools to pay a bit more to avoid courts and associated costs. I see CUSA getting less (and attorneys more) if they go to court.

It seems equally likely that CUSA believes their current media deal is in jeopardy or they will be in better position somehow for a new deal if the schools stay. That's not super rational either, but nothing about their actions are.

The last possibility is they are terrified the CUSA/AAC6 would look to depart early also, threatening the very existence of the conference.

If a school says they are leaving a conference are the shut out of conference discussions and votes immediately? If not would I would think the AAC6 and the SBC3 could work together to resolve this issue. It's strange that 5 schools are impacting the schedules of 9 others that seem to have no say in the matter.

Yes, it appears that the CUSA bylaws do exactly that based on what was posted.

That gets me thinking ... what if FIU, UTEP, and LaTech fear that WKU and/or MTSU could depart early also? If the 14 month rule doesn't apply theres a few ways this could get dicey for CUSA.

There were some discussions between WKU/MTSU and the MAC. It's said MTSU decided to stay for now, but WKU is supposedly still engaged in MAC discussions.

There are a couple interesting internet rumors that have emerged in the past week or so. The first is that Delaware tried to hop on the SBC train when it was announced that JMU would be leaving the CAA. If their current administration actually does want FBS, they need to be talking to WKU about seeking MAC membership with them.

The second rumor is that over 30 FCS teams have contacted CUSA to express interest in joining. If that rumor is true, then there's absolutely no existential threat to CUSA. They can add Tarleton State, Abilene Christian, Lamar, Dixie State, Central Arkansas, EKU and a hodgepodge of the 25 other schools that have no business in FBS. Adding a bunch of those schools would leave CUSA in a tier of FBS that effectively exists below the G5 level, but they would technically still be FBS. The NCAA would almost certainly grant CUSA a waiver on membership numbers while the FCS schools transition.