(09-23-2018 06:39 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Rutgers to the Big Ten was mentioned in the early 90s. They have been on the radar for the Big Ten for a while. They fit academically and demographically of the other Big Ten schools perfectly. They also provide the Big 3 of the Big Ten in opportunity to play every other year in the New York City metro. Which is huge for recruiting both student athletes and students. Not to mention the New York area is a large alumni hub for many of the Big Ten schools.

This.

Anyone that does not understand why Rutgers was added to the B1G simply does not realize that the school is an academic and institutional peer to all of the conference schools. The NY/NJ market is a huge hub for B1G alumni, and it is an incredibly strong recruiting area for all of the schools to tap into.

Rutgers was not admitted into the B1G in order to win league championships in football and basketball. It was invited to grow the league, connect with alumni in a strong part of the country and create a pipeline for recruiting in revenue sports. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

(09-23-2018 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I cannot answer the question in regard to the Big Ten.

I do know the Sun Belt bylaws and there are two paths.
1. A motion is made to expel a member and after discussion a vote is taken with the school subject to removal not voting and out of the room. It requires a unanimous vote to expel.
2. Change the minimum membership criteria which Sun Belt used to push Denver and New Orleans to the exits. Requires a 3/4ths vote of the membership and the effected schools get a vote.

Then of course there is the old PCC method. Dissolve the conference then eventually reform it with not everyone included.

My guess is every conference can use the change the membership criteria method and has a similar supermajority requirement but not every league has a specific expulsion method.

The PCC method might be hard to pull off. Who gets the tournament credits of a defunct conference? The P5 and the rest of the other G5s would also be quick to say the new conference wasn't entitled to the Playoff money because the new entity was not in the original contract.

If they would simply guarantee the weaker SBC schools that they'd never vote them out or force through a bylaw change that would push them out so long as they voted yes on legislation requiring FBS football then UTA and UALR would have no recourse.

There will eventually come a time when someone in the footprint who has or wants FBS football and they will be unable to add them due to the dead weight. It would be different if both those schools were basketball powerhouses and were picking up at large bids and making it to the round of 32 or deeper but they aren't.

(09-23-2018 07:24 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 04:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I cannot answer the question in regard to the Big Ten.

I do know the Sun Belt bylaws and there are two paths.
1. A motion is made to expel a member and after discussion a vote is taken with the school subject to removal not voting and out of the room. It requires a unanimous vote to expel.
2. Change the minimum membership criteria which Sun Belt used to push Denver and New Orleans to the exits. Requires a 3/4ths vote of the membership and the effected schools get a vote.

Then of course there is the old PCC method. Dissolve the conference then eventually reform it with not everyone included.

My guess is every conference can use the change the membership criteria method and has a similar supermajority requirement but not every league has a specific expulsion method.

The PCC method might be hard to pull off. Who gets the tournament credits of a defunct conference? The P5 and the rest of the other G5s would also be quick to say the new conference wasn't entitled to the Playoff money because the new entity was not in the original contract.

If they would simply guarantee the weaker SBC schools that they'd never vote them out or force through a bylaw change that would push them out so long as they voted yes on legislation requiring FBS football then UTA and UALR would have no recourse.

There will eventually come a time when someone in the footprint who has or wants FBS football and they will be unable to add them due to the dead weight. It would be different if both those schools were basketball powerhouses and were picking up at large bids and making it to the round of 32 or deeper but they aren't.

Conference dissolves the units go to the school earning the units. NCAA bylaws cover that.
As to the playoff, depends on who we are talking about. If it is CUSA they might well say we will talk to you next contract cycle. If it is P5, well ESPN isn't risking that the new Pac-10 isn't in the playoff.

MAC fans have wanted Eastern Michigan booted from the Conference forever now. Not sure exactly why the MAC itself has never really considered it.

They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

(09-23-2018 08:56 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  MAC fans have wanted Eastern Michigan booted from the Conference forever now. Not sure exactly why the MAC itself has never really considered it.

Did expel them in the early 80's EMU sued and the MAC backed down.

(09-23-2018 10:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:56 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  MAC fans have wanted Eastern Michigan booted from the Conference forever now. Not sure exactly why the MAC itself has never really considered it.

Did expel them in the early 80's EMU sued and the MAC backed down.

Interesting. Did not know that. Why'd they sue?

(09-23-2018 10:18 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:56 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  MAC fans have wanted Eastern Michigan booted from the Conference forever now. Not sure exactly why the MAC itself has never really considered it.

Did expel them in the early 80's EMU sued and the MAC backed down.

Interesting. Did not know that. Why'd they sue?

According to [url= https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/5j...e_mac/]the reddit post[/url] I saw about this, this was all part of the fight over the MAC being relegated to Div1-AA (FCS) level where after a year at the 1-AA level, they had 6 out of 10 schools meet 1-A attendance requirements, so they returned to 1-A (FBS). But then WMU looked like it would not meet the requirements, and the rule was "more than half". So there was a 7-2-1 vote to kick out EMU (WMU & EMU voting against, CMU abstaining).

The NCAA had wanted to tamp down on realignment, not generate it, so they reinterpreted the rule so that WMU's status would be determined following the end of the football season, a ten-school MAC would be 1-A in 1984, and the EMU decision was reversed (I don't know about an EMU suit, but that might also have helped spur the NCAA to reinterpret the rule). Then in 1985, WMU qualified as 1-A, so there was no need to kick out EMU again. Later on, the NCAA rewrote the rules to be turnstile OR ticket sale attendance, and EMU worked out a ticket sale deal that met the new target.

The next four years were some of EMU's best years, with four winning seasons and in 1987 a 10-win season where they went to and won a bowl game. In 1987 EMU beat every MAC team that had voted to expel them in 1984.

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

The only reason Rutgers doesn't make sense right now is because they aren't good. They're in a state that borders PSU and are close to Maryland. They appease the Eastern Schools.

I don't like Rutgers but can we please stop making threads about kicking them out of the B1G? They haven't been good since they joined the conference. So what? If a conference could kick a school out for being perennial underachievers Wake, Vandy, EMU, and Northwestern would have all been kicked by now.

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

So being an AAU school that is the flagship in a state system whose campus is closer to half the conference than NYC is isn't enough to get you into the B1G? Gotcha. Now if they hadn't dropped football and scholarship athletics from 1970 until the early 90's, they would have had a shot.

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

Jesus God YES.

It's about as ridiculous as people who claim the next round of realignment will bring Iowa State & Rice into the B1G.

People forget about the THEY NEED TO ADD VALUE into their thinking. Adding a Texas or Oklahoma ADDS VALUE to the conference. It ADDS VALUE to potential rights deals.

I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

I mean they're a fine MAC school, but a B1G school? Child please.....

(09-23-2018 11:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:18 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:56 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  MAC fans have wanted Eastern Michigan booted from the Conference forever now. Not sure exactly why the MAC itself has never really considered it.

Did expel them in the early 80's EMU sued and the MAC backed down.

Interesting. Did not know that. Why'd they sue?

According to [url= https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/5j...e_mac/]the reddit post[/url] I saw about this, this was all part of the fight over the MAC being relegated to Div1-AA (FCS) level where after a year at the 1-AA level, they had 6 out of 10 schools meet 1-A attendance requirements, so they returned to 1-A (FBS). But then WMU looked like it would not meet the requirements, and the rule was "more than half". So there was a 7-2-1 vote to kick out EMU (WMU & EMU voting against, CMU abstaining).

The NCAA had wanted to tamp down on realignment, not generate it, so they reinterpreted the rule so that WMU's status would be determined following the end of the football season, a ten-school MAC would be 1-A in 1984, and the EMU decision was reversed (I don't know about an EMU suit, but that might also have helped spur the NCAA to reinterpret the rule). Then in 1985, WMU qualified as 1-A, so there was no need to kick out EMU again. Later on, the NCAA rewrote the rules to be turnstile OR ticket sale attendance, and EMU worked out a ticket sale deal that met the new target.

The next four years were some of EMU's best years, with four winning seasons and in 1987 a 10-win season where they went to and won a bowl game. In 1987 EMU beat every MAC team that had voted to expel them in 1984.

Thanks I remember stumbling across articles about it years ago, didn't remember the particulars other than had to do with I-A eligibility.

Q: Other than a probational or part-time member, have any full members ever been expelled from any FBS conference at any time? I'm aware of Temple and the Big East, but wasn't that probational or something (I can't remember, tbh).

(09-24-2018 02:40 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Q: Other than a probational or part-time member, have any full members ever been expelled from any FBS conference at any time? I'm aware of Temple and the Big East, but wasn't that probational or something (I can't remember, tbh).

Temple was not a full member, only a football affiliate.

FWIW New Jersey , the lower Hudson Valley and I think Long Island are Cablevision territory (optimum) Verizon is also a factor both carry BTN

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

Jesus God YES.

It's about as ridiculous as people who claim the next round of realignment will bring Iowa State & Rice into the B1G.

People forget about the THEY NEED TO ADD VALUE into their thinking. Adding a Texas or Oklahoma ADDS VALUE to the conference. It ADDS VALUE to potential rights deals.

I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

I mean they're a fine MAC school, but a B1G school? Child please.....

I think people are saying is that Buffalo gotten their men's basketball into the tournament by winning their conference championships. Their football does not have the history yet, but Buffalo's men's basketball could help boast the Big 10's conference RPI better than Rutgers. I agree that Iowa State would bring nothing to the Big 10. Rice is on again and of again on both football and basketball. We know Houston is a no go.

As for Buffalo? It does bring a new market just like Rice. Right now, Buffalo is much hotter right now.

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

No they couldn't. The Big 10 is not as popular in the South as some seem to think it is and GT would be a greater disadvantage than Northwestern. This obsession with making money is insane because it ignores the costs.


If you make 100K and you mortgage and other costs of living are 8K a month you are okay.


If you get a raise to 150K, but you have to move to where the cost of living are 12K a month, are you better off?


Are you going to move for a net 2K?


Maryland has already shown that the extra money of the B10 is not worth the cost. Most of the rest of the ACC knew that, but only MD had grown to hate Duke and UNC so bad that they would move (amongst other internal MD system skullduggery).

(09-24-2018 04:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

Jesus God YES.

It's about as ridiculous as people who claim the next round of realignment will bring Iowa State & Rice into the B1G.

People forget about the THEY NEED TO ADD VALUE into their thinking. Adding a Texas or Oklahoma ADDS VALUE to the conference. It ADDS VALUE to potential rights deals.

I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

I mean they're a fine MAC school, but a B1G school? Child please.....

I think people are saying is that Buffalo gotten their men's basketball into the tournament by winning their conference championships. Their football does not have the history yet, but Buffalo's men's basketball could help boast the Big 10's conference RPI better than Rutgers. I agree that Iowa State would bring nothing to the Big 10. Rice is on again and of again on both football and basketball. We know Houston is a no go.

As for Buffalo? It does bring a new market just like Rice. Right now, Buffalo is much hotter right now.

Hahahaha bring a new market? The NFL isn't even happy being in Buffalo and im sure the B1G rather be in Buffalo than NYC.

Also people aren;t saying anything, it's just you.

Rutgers is a tremendous university. They are an asset to The Big Ten. Though we don’t have as many RU fans around as we did when they posted on The Big East board, you would find them to be some of the best fans on the internet.
CJ