If It All Goes Down...

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 8 2010, 02:31 PM) [snapback]571677[/snapback]
someone else can quote the rule. I can't remember the number. Maybe 5.

edit: see RSF



At the time of the Big East shuffle, the Big East was never below 7 (BC stayed behind an extra year, and they still had temple). The next year BC left, Temple was dropped and they added Louisville, Cincy and USF to get to 8. At the time 7 was enough per NCAA rules.

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 8 2010, 02:33 PM) [snapback]571679[/snapback]
I think I read where a conference has to have six members which have spent five consecutive years together in order to survive. With either one or two going to the Big 10 and six to the PAC 10, Big 12 loses their status.



I believed that, too, but it is no longer the case. The rule is 8 members, and no limit on how long they need to be together.

 

[West Coast Johnny]

Under the circumstances you describe, it would make sense for the rump big 12 to stay together and invite the best of the MWC (TCU, Utah, BYU, AF, CSU), C-USA (Memphis), Big East (Louisville).

I see this as a way of getting rid of the trash of the MWC.

 

[gohornedfrogs]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 8 2010, 03:34 PM) [snapback]571680[/snapback]
At the time of the Big East shuffle, the Big East was never below 7 (BC stayed behind an extra year, and they still had temple). The next year BC left, Temple was dropped and they added Louisville, Cincy and USF to get to 8. At the time 7 was enough per NCAA rules.

I believe you have to keep at least six teams, and all of them had to have been in the league for a minimum period of time.

Big 12 is dead if PAC 16 happens, because that means eight teams left the conference.

On edit: RSF has different intel. Where did that come from?

 

[Dogfrog]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 8 2010, 02:35 PM) [snapback]571681[/snapback]
I believed that, too, but it is no longer the case. The rule is 8 members, and no limit on how long they need to be together.


Is it possible there is a distinction between min. # of teams (8) required by NCAA to form a conference, and separate requirements set up by BCS for BCS conferences maintaining their BCS status should it lose members?

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(gohornedfrogs @ Jun 8 2010, 02:39 PM) [snapback]571686[/snapback]
I believe you have to keep at least six teams, and all of them had to have been in the league for a minimum period of time.

Big 12 is dead if PAC 16 happens, because that means eight teams left the conference.

On edit: RSF has different intel. Where did that come from?



JimSwinkLives posted the rule recently about 8 teams, then confirmed to me that the 5 year rule was removed in 2007.

 

[Dogfrog]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 8 2010, 02:45 PM) [snapback]571698[/snapback]
JimSwinkLives posted the rule recently about 8 teams, then confirmed to me that the 5 year rule was removed in 2007.


JimSwinkLives would be all over NCAA rules, but aren't we talking about rules to keep BCS status if you lose members?

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 8 2010, 02:59 PM) [snapback]571715[/snapback]
JimSwinkLives would be all over NCAA rules, but aren't we talking about rules to keep BCS status if you lose members?



You can't keep your status if you don't have enough members to be a conference.

 

[ectofrog]

Hey - I'm talking about if the Big XII invites eight teams to come in the very same year the eight leave. They never get below eight teams that way, and thus do not lose their status as a conference or their auto-bid. The next time the conference review happens, they could lose their auto-bid, but if the 5-years-together rule no longer exists, why wouldn't they invite TCU, BYU, Utah, Boise, and four others to join as soon as they lose their eight teams?

Say this all goes down next week and those invitations happen. Starting with 2011 football, the XII goes from UT, TAMU, TTU, BU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, NU, CU, Mizzou, and ISU to KU, KSU, CU, ISU, TCU, BYU, Utah, BSU, CSU, Fresno, UH, USAFA. In 2011 that 12-team league will have an autobid, and then each conference will be evaluated on their total last four years.

Those 12 teams would retain their auto-bid based on the strength primarily of what TCU, Utah, BYU, and Boise have done up top with Kansas, KSU, Colorado, Air Force, Fresno, and Houston providing a solid middle of the pack for average ranking purposes.

My question is why the four left behind, who would remain a conference if they could get immediate members (and retain an AQ at least temporarily if they never dipped below 8 teams), would NOT pursue this strategy rather than Kansas and K-State going to a league that's still fighting for an auto-bid and ISU and CU (or Baylor) knocking on the doors of the WAC and C-USA?

 

[gdu]

QUOTE(ectofrog @ Jun 8 2010, 08:08 PM) [snapback]571731[/snapback]
Hey - I'm talking about if the Big XII invites eight teams to come in the very same year the eight leave. They never get below eight teams that way, and thus do not lose their status as a conference or their auto-bid. The next time the conference review happens, they could lose their auto-bid, but if the 5-years-together rule no longer exists, why wouldn't they invite TCU, BYU, Utah, Boise, and four others to join as soon as they lose their eight teams?

Say this all goes down next week and those invitations happen. Starting with 2011 football, the XII goes from UT, TAMU, TTU, BU, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, NU, CU, Mizzou, and ISU to KU, KSU, CU, ISU, TCU, BYU, Utah, BSU, CSU, Fresno, UH, USAFA. In 2011 that 12-team league will have an autobid, and then each conference will be evaluated on their total last four years.

Those 12 teams would retain their auto-bid based on the strength primarily of what TCU, Utah, BYU, and Boise have done up top with Kansas, KSU, Colorado, Air Force, Fresno, and Houston providing a solid middle of the pack for average ranking purposes.

My question is why the four left behind, who would remain a conference if they could get immediate members (and retain an AQ at least temporarily if they never dipped below 8 teams), would NOT pursue this strategy rather than Kansas and K-State going to a league that's still fighting for an auto-bid and ISU and CU (or Baylor) knocking on the doors of the WAC and C-USA?


Under your scenario, they would lose their bid unless they got an exception.

 

[ectofrog]

QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 8 2010, 03:09 PM) [snapback]571734[/snapback]
Under your scenario, they would lose their bid unless they got an exception.


Why?

And when? Certainly not for the 2011 season.

 

[Dogfrog]

QUOTE(RSF @ Jun 8 2010, 03:06 PM) [snapback]571727[/snapback]
You can't keep your status if you don't have enough members to be a conference.


I'm sure you're right, but you could keep your status as a conference if you were allowed to add teams to get to eight, especially if the five year rule was removed. Then, separately, what would the BCS require to maintain your BCS status under those circumstances? I don't know the answer, I'm asking.

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(ectofrog @ Jun 8 2010, 03:08 PM) [snapback]571731[/snapback]
My question is why the four left behind, who would remain a conference if they could get immediate members (and retain an AQ at least temporarily if they never dipped below 8 teams), would NOT pursue this strategy rather than Kansas and K-State going to a league that's still fighting for an auto-bid and ISU and CU (or Baylor) knocking on the doors of the WAC and C-USA?


There's no question they'll try. At least ISU and Baylor would - they wouldn't have a choice.


The question is whether they could succeed. The MWC teams (plus Boise) could conceivably sit tight and (according to Mandel) wait for the AQ berth (the 7th one) to fall into their lap. Any other team they (the rump Big 12) could lure wouldn't give them much stroke. So it becomes a game of chicken between the MWC and the Kansas schools.

 

[Delmonico]

QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 8 2010, 03:11 PM) [snapback]571736[/snapback]
I'm sure you're right, but you could keep your status as a conference if you were allowed to add teams to get to eight, especially if the five year rule was removed. Then, separately, what would the BCS require to maintain your BCS status under those circumstances? I don't know the answer, I'm asking.



Don't think there is an answer on removing one of the 6 original AQ teams. But you have to think if the Big 12 is suddenly the rump Big 12 plus the CUSA West, that might not sit too well with the others. Just an opinion.