(04-09-2014 11:18 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:10 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:09 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:03 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I don't see that the Sun Belt owes UMass anything. Idaho joined this year knowing that it was only a 2 year football agreement. The Sun Belt does not owe them anything beyond that either.

Its a 4 year agreement, with a 2 year option to expel, renew, or keep the original agreement.

Yes. We can terminate the agreement after two years, with two years notice. Which is why you hear the talk we'll play 13 if need be. It would only be for a couple years while Idaho plays out its time, and getting the Waiver would be easy.

Given all the realignment possibilities out there the chances of Idaho getting the boot with 2 years notice in 2016 are probably no better than 25%.

All it takes is one realignment move to trickle down to the SBC.....B1G->ACC->-AAC->CUSA->SBC and all of the sudden those 13 football members become 12.

CUSA could grab 2 more SBC's before its next TV deal kicks in and then the SBC is at 11 hoping UMass is still on the market.

Nope. Don't see that as a likely scenario. CUSA is at 14 and in some ways regret being at that number. They have two teams to lose before they even decide to go back to 14. I think the biggest big boys are done with the exception of the Big 12 and their TV agreement has them in no hurry as well. The AAC might add a school, but whatever happens I think the domino theory would be limited to 1-2 conferences. The MAC staying at 12 and the AAC only really needing one school pretty much insures there will be no additional movements for a while. If JMU in fact accepts an SBC invite all sports, that will be the biggest proof of all that realignment is played out for the time being.