Big East Stability Tied to Missouri

The problem is the Big East can't be sure if its current members are staying put until Missouri, the Big 12 and the Southeastern Conference figure out what their next steps will be in the ongoing drama of conference realignment.

"The overall landscape is still so very unsettled," Big East Commissioner John Marinatto said Tuesday during a conference call with reporters.

"We're not going to pause until the Missouri situation is settled because it might not be settled for a while."

The Big East's presidents unanimously voted Monday night to increase the league's withdrawal fee from $5 million to $10 million when an expansion plan is executed, Marinatto said.

Marinatto declined to talk about specific schools the Big East wants to add, but did say the Big East has "identified specific teams, and if any one of those teams commits (to joining the league), the exit fee increases."

A person with knowledge of the Big East's plan told The Associated Press that the addition of Navy or Air Force would trigger the increase in the exit fee. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk publicly about which schools the league is targeting.

Navy athletic director Chet Gladchuk said in a phone interview Tuesday the Big East and the academy have been in contact, but he was unaware of the league's most recent move.

"Certainly a reconfigured Big East with stable core members is something the Naval Academy needs to consider," he said.

Air Force spokesman Troy Garnhart said in an email school officials would not comment.

Gladchuk said the two academies communicate, but will make decisions independently.

"I'm not convinced that it needs to be a package deal," Gladchuk said.

The conference's plan to get to 12 members includes Navy, Air Force and Boise State as football-only members and Central Florida, Houston and SMU for all sports, though that has not been made public by the league.

Navy is an independent. AFA and Boise State play in the Mountain West Conference. UCF, Houston and SMU are in Conference USA.

Marinatto said no invitations have gone out and he could not give a timetable for when the Big East hopes to complete its expansion work.

"Stay tuned, we're working diligently," he said. "We're not going to rush ourselves. The sooner the better."

The Big East currently has six football members committed to the conference beyond this season, and eight schools that do not compete in the league in football, including Notre Dame.

Pittsburgh and Syracuse have accepted invitations to join the Atlantic Coast Conference and TCU, previously scheduled to join the Big East in 2012, instead will join the Big 12.

And the Big East is in danger of losing more members. Officials from Boise State, Air Force and Navy have all expressed concerns about that.

"When you go from nine schools to six ... we need to do our due diligence to ask how stable are the remaining six," Gladchuk said.

Marinatto said the current Big East members are operating in "good faith" with one another.

"The exit fee it a sign of stability, but it's not the only thing we're looking at," he said. "Everyone, given the environment that we're all in is looking for one thing: stability."

Including Missouri, which is considering leaving the Big 12 for the SEC, a move that would leave the Big 12 in need of at least one more member.

The Missouri board of curators will meet Thursday and Friday in Kansas City, though it has not announced whether a decision about a conference will be made then.

Big East members West Virginia and Louisville are potential Big 12 replacements for Missouri.

An even worse scenario for the Big East has the Big 12 taking Louisville, West Virginia and Cincinnati from the Big East to get back to 12 members if Missouri leaves.

Marinatto said Big East officials have not discussed the possibility of being whittled down to a point where it would have to give up football.

The league has made protecting its status as an automatic qualifier in the Bowl Championship Series a priority.

"We're designing a plan that would include schools that would help us to do that," Marinatto said.

Adding Boise State, one of the most successful football programs in the country over the last decade, is the linchpin to that plan. Losing AQ status would cost the Big East millions of dollars in revenue and limit its members opportunities to compete for a national championship.

The current BCS contracts lock in the Big East's BCS bid for this season and the next two, Marinatto said. There are no guarantees beyond that for any league, he said.

Neither the MWC and CUSA currently has an automatic BCS bid.

He also reiterated the Big East intends to hold Pitt and Syracuse to the league's 27-month notification rule and keep those schools in the league for the next two years. He said the conference has looked at 14-team models for next season.

View the original article here

Is stability the expansion endgame?

Oklahoma's and Texas' board of regents granted their school presidents the authority to take action regarding conference realignment on Monday, but that doesn't necessarily mean immediate moves are imminent.

Maybe we get a moment to breathe here. Maybe that's a good thing.

There are plenty of folks who remain uncertain about expansion, including Pac-12 administrators. UCLA athletic director Dan Guerrero released a statement Monday on potential Pac-12 expansion:

Expansion just for the sake of expansion is rarely a good thing. Dr. Martin Luther King once said, "We may all have come in different ships, but we are all in the same boat now." Those of us in the same boat, the existing Pac-12 members, need to think long and hard as to the relevancy and value of bringing new members into the boat. Issues of academic compatibility, student-athlete welfare, competitive and financial implications all need to be thought out carefully by the various stakeholders. If further expansion is the right thing to do, then it makes sense to proceed.

The chief question: Is the conference's long-term future best served by being a 12-team league or by adding Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech and becoming a 16-team league? That means Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott needs to paint a picture for the Pac-12 presidents about what might happen if other leagues expand and the Pac-12 doesn't.

One thing to understand: Just about everything here is about self-interest. Treat everything you read -- from named and unnamed sources -- as working an angle and you'll be better off.

Texas coach Mack Brown's speech on the Big 12 conference call? ("As much as we talk about money," Brown said, "as much as we talk about college football, as much as we talk about realignment, as much as we talk about great games, playoffs and all that stuff, we better go back and make sure that we're taking care of the players and that the players and the high school coaches are always considered in the equation.")

Right. Texas wants the Big 12 to survive because its the Texas League, where it gets to do anything it wants. (And what do high school coaches have to do with this?)

Baylor's polling of Big 12 fans about conference expansion? Right. The poll wouldn't exist if Baylor were part of the foursome talking to the Pac-12. Or it might have emerged from Lubbock if Texas Tech were left out.

Even Guerrero, packing a Martin Luther King reference, is working an angle. His chief worry is UCLA falling further down the conference pecking order.

So don't listen to any of these guys. They all have agendas.

But you, the college football fan, do not get enriched by any of this, expansion or no expansion. In fact, you're the one who pay all the bills. You buy tickets. You watch TV. Your passion has created this multi-billion-dollar market that is driving these decisions. Your agenda is the game you love and your willingness to spend money -- and time -- on it.

I wonder if you're being taken for granted. No, wait. I don't wonder. I know. And I hear your massive skepticism.

Still, I am cautiously optimistic a Pac-16 would work and even work well, that it could be organized in a way that satisfies most fans interests. And as a college football entity -- heck, college sports entity -- it would be a powerhouse.

To me the larger issue is reaching an endgame where we can find long-term stability. How much of a guarantee would we have that four or so 16-team super-conferences will settle in for the next decade or so? Not much, I suspect.

That ultimately becomes an issue for the guys on the revenue end to consider: If upheaval becomes the standard, that eventually could significantly erode fan interest.

And then the next set of TV contracts might not end up leaving the schools so fat and happy.

View the original article here