(07-01-2020 11:51 AM)Wedge Wrote: (06-30-2020 07:16 PM)Inkblot Wrote: People on this board tend to talk about NCAA Tournament auto bids like they're taxi medallions. I don't think that's how it works.
You're right. Nobody really knows how the NCAA would deal with shenanigans like what is suggested in this thread.
If every member of Conference X departs and an entirely new group of schools "joins" the empty shell and adopts the Conference X name and bylaws, there's no guarantee that the NCAA (probably specifically the Division I council) would let this new Conference X group march on as if the previous group had never left.
I think it is safe to assume that this hypothetical group of new MEAC schools would not even try this unless the NCAA guaranteed them in advance that it would work the way the schools want. For that matter, if the rationale is just that the MEAC autobid is vanishing, so why not let these schools take it, then if the MEAC actually dissolves, this group of schools could simply form a new conference and ask the NCAA to give them an instant autobid based on the argument that the number of autobids would be the same as it was in the previous year. In reality it's a new conference and they need the NCAA's permission to have the autobid anyway, so why not be upfront about it instead of trying to fool the NCAA with a magic trick.
The schools involved would be very well advised to sound out the other conferences as to how this would all be received.
1. Would CUSA and the Sun Belt back this move, as a way to reduce everyone's travel in a friendly way, or would they see it as a destructive maneuver?
If CUSA, the Sun Belt and the MEAC are all in agreement, then step 2
2. Sound out the P5, who I doubt will care too much. The number of autobids and at-large bids remains the same.
3. Sound out the AAC, MWC and MAC. Dividing the next CFP lower-FBS share 6 ways instead of 5--are there ways to mitigate that from the AAC/MWC/MAC point of view? (Less guaranteed money, more performance-pool money?)
4. If the FBS conferences are agreed, sound out the rest of Division I.
Much like a lawyer doing cross-examination, never ask a question you don't know the answer to.
(07-01-2020 03:39 PM)mturn017 Wrote: I doubt they could do anything about it. Can they say to the remaining MEAC schools "you can't invite these schools from CUSA and the Sun Belt and keep your autobid"? Can they tell the members of the MEAC they can't vote according to their charter to dispel members or decide who gets conference assets or rename themselves?
This is a level of shenanigans that, if they were so inclined, the other Division I schools could easily change the rules to block, and declare that the MEAC noobs were abusing the rules in bad faith.
(07-03-2020 01:49 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: That is quite so ... also, they wrote this rule specifically to rescue the WAC for the members stuck in the WAC ... they could just as easily amend the rule to require a minimum membership continuity of three on a year by year basis to prevent the autobid from being sold like a taxi medallion.
They could. But I'm not sure they would. Again, if the parties involved are smart, they'll do their homework diplomatically before they make any actual moves.
(07-03-2020 02:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: I’m talking about buying shell after all the existing MEAC members have moved to other conferences or down to D2.
I think part of the deal would have to be that the existing MEAC members get grandfathered in to the New Conference. Why go through all this membership turnover and FBS conference shenanigans if the endgame is CIAA anyway?
/
Is it crazy to suggest that C-USA/SBC members might buy the MEAC shell?
