Thanks for the infoo, Bullet2.

Big East 2010
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia

New Conference
De Paul
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame
Providence
Saint John's
Seton Hall
Villanova

Point of order for your benefit, David.

The current setup benefits, well, basketball more than anything. The basketball schools in this arrangement don't want to split, because they have more to lose from a split.

The football schools have plenty to gain from a split.

Because of this, the basketball schools are the ones determined to remain in the Big East. NO conference can simply kick out members without extraordinary cause (when it happened to Temple, it was due to a football clause that Temple had probably violated for at least 5 years running). Therefore, if the football schools split, they will have to leave the Big East. Therefore, they are the ones who have to find a new name.

That's even more important if the football schools leave before the 5-year agreement is up. The Big East Conference keeps the auto-bid for the basketball tournament, as well as the "prize money" for all conference schools making the tournament (and winning in it). NCAA allows 8 schools that have been together for 5 years to gain their conference an automatic bid, which is a good chunk of the reason why the Big East schools have a 5-year no-split agreement in the first place.

Well said, Pounder. In the case of Temple, they were never a full member but were classified as an "associate member." No voting privileges. I don't believe that Temple ever had permanent status. The Big East gave them some performance targets with 5 years to achieve them. They never did. I don't see Temple as having been "kicked out" since they were never fully "in" to begin with. The Big East simply terminated the arrangement with due notice because Temple failed to develop & support its program at the level which the BE felt was necessary to maintain their association with the conference.

Pounder, is it your understanding of this rule that the current 5 years will satisfy that provision & that each group will be able to satisfy the requirement at the end of this 5 year period? Or will the clock start ticking anew on the fb schools if they leave the BE to start their own conference?

Now granted, any attempt at the practical application of NCAA "logic" on these matters is an inexact science...that being said, the Mountain West was in 6/5 compliance upon inception and was forced to wait for an automatic bid...it would seem as though any "new" conference (even one in 6/5 compliance) would not be entitled to an automatic bid upon inception...that being said, it's still the NCAA, so...

Granted, the Mountain West was not forced to wait five years prior to the acquisition of its automatic bid...it was forced to wait one...

Read this from the Hartford paper
http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-beastusa.artsep01,0,2521744.story?coll=hc-headlines-sports-college

Are Seton Hall and Providence up to the task of major sports?

I think they are, or they wouldn't be in the Big East. Now the major question is who in the Big East is up to the task for major college football? Thats the real deal at stake.

The financial committment level of both schools not only in bb is amongst the lowest in the BE.The financial committment of the football schools is quite high.Winning requires committment.

Some excerpts:

"The financial rewards the ACC predicted during espansion are not rolling in yet. The Greensboro News-Record reported that the ACC spent about $1.6 million in 2003-04 on litigation resulting from the lawsuit filed by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal on behalf of UConn, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and West Virginia. That lawsuit, settled out of court earlier this year, resulted in $5 million payment to the Big East schools.

"Dee said it would be three more years - four total - before the Miami athletic department covers the expenses of switching conferences.

" 'The exit fees, entrance fees, and litigation have cost us,' Dee said. 'Having access to the financial information and how we share in the league, I do believe year in and year out the ACC will add to our financial security. Not that we're going to get that much more money. We did receive pretty good money, but the problem in the Big East was that it was all (based on) incentives. Some teams got more thanothers. Here it is stabilized. Everybody gets the same amount.'

"Dee said that in 2003 that Miami was betting on the future not the short term when it made the move to the ACC. . . .

"Pacific-10 commissioner Tom Hansen said the primary reason for schools changing conferences in I-A football since 1990 is to gain a greater television footprint. . . .

". . . Hansen said that the Pac-10, like the Big Ten has no interest in membership change. . . .

" 'We don't see an incentive (to expand) the way things are now,' Hansen said. 'The main thing I can think of that would push us in that direction would be if the NCAA political structure changed so that you had representation based on number of members in the I-A conferences. There isn't anybody else who would add to us financially.'

"There is specualtion about baylor's future in the Big 12. If something happened there, Arkansas might be interested in taking Baylor's spot. But Big 12 commissioner KevinWeiberg said that his conference has no interest in espanding beyond 12.

"The possibility of Notre Dame dropping its independent status in football seems to be revisited on a regular basis, despite denials from the Irish. would they go to the Big 10? Would full membership in the Big East be an option? Any of that appears to be a non-factor until at least 2010, when Notre Dame's $9 million-dollar-a-year contract with NBC expires."

Don't worry about ND in 2010.They know how to make deals with networks and leagues.At the worst the BE would make some special deal for them for tv.