The first observation of your previous post is how do your force out a team in hybrid that is no longer needed? If you look back in history, the ACC was formed in a break away from the old Southern Conference. The new Big East and the old Southern Conference have some of the very same issues. The only way to accomplish expansion of football in the future for the Big East is to break away. I just do not see any way to accomplish expansion of more schools that play 1A football.
Agreed, it is much easier to breakaway than try and get a few to leave voluntarily. But the original post that started this thread - which is what I was responding to - began with the assumption that partial hybrids might prove to be successful. In this scenario, the assumption is that programs like Georgetown, Villanova, etc. see the value of a partial hybrid over a separate bb conference only, like the A10. Thus, in that scenario, a super-majority would be needed to persuade some to leave or else they simply dissolve the league.
The other question, why do you believe Notre Dame and Penn State are vital to the Big East football future? Neither school have helped to secure the current BCS automatic Big East bid. The Big East football schools have accomplished this on their own with out any help from Notre Dame or Penn State. Both schools would be a great addition if they were willing and available to join. The point that need to be made very clear is that both schools are not and will not be available in the future.
First, at no point in my post did I make the claim that ND and Penn State are vital to Big East football future. However, I did make it clear that they are clearly the preferred teams should the Big East decide to expand.
I also take exception to your final sentence in the above paragraph. While the likelihood of them coming to the Big East is not great, your statement unequivocally says they will never be available for expansion in the future.
ND's independence in football could very well come to an end by the 2020 decade and when the Big East approached Penn State about coming "home" during the last expansion, their reply was indeed "No, thank you" but they asked that the league be careful as to which teams they did offer an invite to. Why would they care which teams the Big East let in if they never saw any possibility whatsoever of some kind of future membership in the league? It isn't as though they are 100% satisfied with Big Ten membership. ;)
Retaining Georgetown and Villanova in hybrid break way just to maintain the potential of attracting Notre Dame and Penn State does not provide any value.
Again, assuming what the original poster posited that partial hybrids might be the wave of the future (which I disagreed with, but agreed that the Big East would likely benefit from this situation), Nova and G'Town provide value regardless of whether or not PSU and ND decide to join or not.
The Big East (or whatever it calls itself should there be a split) sells itself as being a conference representing "eastern" markets, particularly "northeastern" ones. If there is indeed a split, the league is only going to go to 9 or 10 teams during the first decade or so of the all-sports league. The one or two teams to be invited will likely come from UCF, ECU, and Memphis. The league will continue to monitor teams like UMass, Temple, and perhaps even Navy, but they won't rely on them at the start.
With Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt the only Top 50 northeastern markets they can stake a claim to are NYC, Hartford, and Pitt. At least with the Wildcats and the Hoyas, they can stake a claim to Philly and DC. And remember, these are claims, not outright ownership of these markets. With Temple and Navy they could get the same thing, but they obviously don't feel strongly enough about either, otherwise they would have been offered full membership over Cincinnati.
If the Big East football schools get serious and realize they need more football schools, the only option to accomplish this is in a break away conference.
You are stating the obvious here. The question this thread is considering is that if there is a break-up, should it be all-sports only? or should a partial hybrid be considered?
For the other 5 super-conferences, I believe the answer is all-sports only. For other leagues, a partial hybrid might be the better answer.
Of course this assumes in the Big East's case that the bb schools would be willing to break ranks with their brethren - which very well might not be the case. However, in this thread we assume for the moment that they would be willing to do so.
The first test will probably come sooner than latter when Big Ten finally decides to expand to long overdue number 12.
At that time assuming the Big Ten is able to attract one of the 8 Big East schools, the 7 remaining Big East football schools would be foolish to just add a replacement when a minimum of two football schools would be needed to ensure 8 conference game schedule.
A break away conference would probably want to keep as much of the eastern flavor as possible and UMass and Temple would be probably get the invite to reach 9 schools.
I disagree. They already chose Louisville and Cincinnati over those northeastern markets. The only time market came into play was when they chose USF over UCF when BC announced they would be ACC #12.
And that was because there simply was no great difference between the two in terms of athletics. The Big East football schools problems are manyfold. It is not simply the scheduling of an 8th league game. It includes their non-BCS Bowl line-ups as well as the perception that their fans do not travel well. Temple and UMass would only heighten those other areas of weakness and not help considerably in terms of markets.
The realistic choices, assuming ND and PSU continue to say "No", remain UCF, ECU, and Memphis.
This time around the BCS automatic bid is not longer an issue or concern. WVU and Louisville have taken care of this requirement for the immediate future.
Yes, under the coaching of Petrino and RichRod. Both of whom are gone now. The league remains subject to the new criteria until such time as they have a BCS Bowl tie-in. The criteria has been met for 2008 and 2009 and the league is off to a great start for auto-bid status in 2010 and 2011 since the next 4-year review period for BCS auto-bids will take into account the 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 seasons.
However, the league will never be 100% secure in its auto-bid without having an anchor BCS Bowl. There are too many factors that could threaten it - Big 10 expansion, the success of conference networks such as the BTN, the anti-Big East bias that exists in both the good ole boys college football community and the media, etc.
The topic we should probably be debating; in a break away do you expand to 12 team or go with 9 teams and expand latter to 12.
I think the answer to that realistically is 10 football schools, just in case the Big Ten does target a Big East school for expansion. The only reason to go to 12 is for a conference championship game. And let's face it - if the ACC can't make a success of it with theirs, why should the Big East even bother? It's not as though the "realistic" candidates are all that compelling anyway.
As for the topic of this thread, what if the hybrid is working for the Big East. Check back with me latter after the Big Ten makes a decision on number 12.
That could be quite a while! ;)