Sooooo... was this a basketball decision?
Everyone was expecting FB based expansion but they seemed to be catering to their basketball membership.
What the BE needed, football wise, was a) a minimum of 8 members playing 1-A ball, and b) reasonable enough additions to bolster their claim to a BCS berth. But, as has been discussed extensively throughout other threads, the negotiations in choosing those schools meant certain compromises in order to keep the BE non-fb schools happy. In this case, equal number of members who play or don't play 1-A football.
The BE was and remains a basketball first conference, so it was inevitable that would be addressed somehow. They may yet split into different conferences someday, too, and this secures the minimum membership for each in that regard. These additions essentially equate to the Gavitt plan proposed in early August. Most everyone, I thought, knew something like this would happen unless there was indeed a split right away.
Does this mean C-USA can sue them since they took twice as many members as did the ACC?
The idea of 4 schools insstead of 2 has little, if anything to do with a legal issue here. The BE was suing the ACC because they claim the ACC and Miami a) agreed to conditions on realignment without any discussion with the BE conference, and b) that part of the ACC plans were designed to specifically damage the BE to the point it might lose it's BCs status. Erego, they set out to kill the BE on purpose.
In looking towards CUSA schools, the BE has been fairly forthcoming to the CUSA about its plans and who it was interested in, and the membership within CUSA will remain large enough that they would not lose their eligibility to remain a 1-A conference. And while CUSA will have some realignment issue of its own to address now, they did not have a BCS status to lose to begin with so there is even less claim to the concept of the BE setting out to destroy CUSA. IMO