Delaware to Conference USA?

[Gannonfan]

I frankly doubt that if it came to it, the NCAA would be willing to engage in protracted litigation over denying Delaware a waiver to go FBS independent.

The NCAA is weaker than it has ever been. Another court ruling against one of its regulations would further expose the NCAA for what it is (a cartel imposing anticompetitive restraints on trade). The NCAA would likely rather maintain the illusion of control over its members by granting a waiver than risk that member defeating it in court.

They’re not backing off no bowl waiver for JMU and that is with growing noteriety. I can’t see them bowing to UD at all with a waiver.

But there is a difference between the two - holding JMU to the stipulations of how they could move up and transition is one thing, while placing a barrier to move up at all, or at least dependent on those already there, is a different thing entirely. I doubt UD would care to challenge this, though, as I would think an invite from CUSA or the MAC could be gotten anyway, but one thing is not like the other when comparing how to transition (JMU) versus being allowed to even do it (UD or other school).

[bluehenbillk]

I was talking about the NCAA sticking to its guns. They may back down from the Michigans and North Carolina’s of the world but they’re not going to lose any sleep over a UD.

[Gannonfan]

I was talking about the NCAA sticking to its guns. They may back down from the Michigans and North Carolina’s of the world but they’re not going to lose any sleep over a UD.

And yet they backed down to Liberty. When they get pushed on things that aren't really defensible, they back down (and yes, they also do that to the big boys even for things that are defensible).

[Bluewyn Gold]

They’re not backing off no bowl waiver for JMU and that is with growing noteriety. I can’t see them bowing to UD at all with a waiver.

If I'm not mistaken, JMU is not implying they would challenge the NCAA's anti-trust exemption over post-season eligibility question. The NCAA doesn't operate the FBS post-season.

The thought was that the NCAA acquiesced to Liberty in part because they feared an anti-trust challenge based on the 2011 narrow eligibility requirement (i.e., the conference invitation requirement), when LU met every other membership requirement. Granting LU a waiver to this requirement didn't jeopardize the other significant, financially-based FBS requirements that they were required to meet.

UD can also easily meet every other requirement and, if they had the will, could certainly test the waters. The fact that the NCAA granted a waiver to LU set a precedent the first and (so far) only time an appeal was made to the conference requirement.

In my unlearned opinion, the conference requirement in and of itself opens up the NCAA to challenges that the conferences and organization is colluding to restrain intercollegiate competition. Perhaps someone with a legal background here on GoHens can better explain the significance of established precedence and why the NCAA remains sensitive to antitrust challenges.

For those concerned with the timeline of when reclassifying schools must announce their intentions: the new bylaw 20.6.2.1.2 indicates that applications must be received no later than June 1 (or postmarked by May 25 if received after June 1) two years prior to the desired final reclassification date. If it's happening for UD in '24, news will probably leak out around or just before May 21-31 with an official announcement after June 1.

[bluehenbillk]

It’s not really worth debating because the chances of UD pursuing FBS independence are near infinitesimal. Discussing this offline the NCAA maintains they themselves don’t set any rules, it’s the member schools that do. The NCAA CAN grant waivers though. If the FBS membership wants to erect a gate to prevent or make it much more difficult to enter FBS it just takes a vote. If other schools took the independent route ( even though only Liberty ever has) they could pop an amendment onto legislation and say $5m to move up, which is already legislation, and if you don’t have a conference invite, $50 mil. Not saying that happens but current non-FBS schools have no leverage in the game.

[Housthen18]

I was talking about the NCAA sticking to its guns. They may back down from the Michigans and North Carolina’s of the world but they’re not going to lose any sleep over a UD.

As Gannonfan mentioned, they backed down to Liberty.

The question is not necessarily about a program's clout but whether the NCAA is willing to risk a court ruling that the NCAA's requirement that a school obtain a conference invitation to reclassify is an anticompetitive restraint on trade under the Sherman Act, opening the floodgates.

The NCAA's enforcement of a two-year bowl ban on JMU is also stupid but is distinguishable and more legally defensible than the ban on going FBS without a conference invitation. There is a better case that the policy's justification (preventing schools from arbitrarily moving up and down) outweighs its limited harm (a one-time, temporary bar on playing in a single postseason game), as opposed to potentially permanently limiting a football program (and a university's) earning potential.

[bluehenbillk]

It’s the same thing as real estate rights on Venus, UD isn’t going to attempt the FBS independence route.

[dovetail]

Any MAC lovers out there; check out tonight’s Central Michigan/Northern Illinois game.

[GhostOfThePeeWall]

Any MAC lovers out there; check out tonight’s Central Michigan/Northern Illinois game.

Snow in October

[jd of de]

Any MAC lovers out there; check out tonight’s Central Michigan/Northern Illinois game.

Snow in October

Yep. A couple hundred miles south Buffalo-Toledo was played last night too and it looked the same.

[Steve1981]

Posted this on a realignment thread on cnsbbs, which may interest you why feel a move to CUSA is best for UMass.

Army has been a long time proponent of Independence. Going to a conference, felt it more than just interesting that the UMass President and Chancellor traveled to Army and probably heard first hand why, independence is no longer a good option.

CUSA has more pluses, better depth in basketball, multiple east coast schools, better fan support and growing population. The MAC does have better travel and the ability to build rivals. There is no program that I hate like Buffalo.

You can look at CUSA and it's rebuild as an up and coming league and the MAC cannot offer that outlook.

The basketball depth is probably very important to some of our basketball fans and AD, as we hire South Carolina's Frank Martin for 8.5M over 5 years. Believe our AD does not favor the MAC because how bad the bottom of the league is with 3 teams rated in the 300's. The top is fine and that the thing I stressed while hoping for the MAC.

I'm 110% support a move to the CUSA or the MAC, but the tea leaves point towards CUSA.

Yes, that was a mistake to just use the CUSA rankings in the NCAA NET chart ... but while not an upgrade, from the current A10 to the current CUSA is still much more of a lateral move.

A10: 114.5 / 160 / 207
MAC: 119 / 224.5 / 304
CUSA: 110.75 / 165 / 188.75 (2023/24 membership)

[DaveB]

Purely from a basketball view, sign me up for New Mexico St, MTSU, Liberty, Western Kentucky, UTEP, LA Tech and UMASS if they come along.

I think the top of the CAA is just as good as what I listed but the bottom half of the CAA on a given year is going to be really bad.

[Bluewyn Gold]

Yep. A couple hundred miles south Buffalo-Toledo was played last night too and it looked the same.

Well, the Rockets did land 10k+ more souls in snowy conditions on Halloween night than our Blue Chicks did on a rainy Homecoming Saturday.

Here's hoping we get that level of support when our guys start playing those weeknight FBS games.

[Info Hound]

I'll be there!

[Housthen18]

They’re not backing off no bowl waiver for JMU and that is with growing noteriety. I can’t see them bowing to UD at all with a waiver.

If I'm not mistaken, JMU is not implying they would challenge the NCAA's anti-trust exemption over post-season eligibility question. The NCAA doesn't operate the FBS post-season.

The thought was that the NCAA acquiesced to Liberty in part because they feared an anti-trust challenge based on the 2011 narrow eligibility requirement (i.e., the conference invitation requirement), when LU met every other membership requirement. Granting LU a waiver to this requirement didn't jeopardize the other significant, financially-based FBS requirements that they were required to meet.

UD can also easily meet every other requirement and, if they had the will, could certainly test the waters. The fact that the NCAA granted a waiver to LU set a precedent the first and (so far) only time an appeal was made to the conference requirement.

In my unlearned opinion, the conference requirement in and of itself opens up the NCAA to challenges that the conferences and organization is colluding to restrain intercollegiate competition. Perhaps someone with a legal background here on GoHens can better explain the significance of established precedence and why the NCAA remains sensitive to antitrust challenges.

While I'll accept Bill's proposition that Delaware likely won't apply for independent status, I'm happy to discuss this as a hypothetical.

Two significant NCAA-related antitrust cases are noteworthy. NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma (1984), where the Supreme Court ruled that an NCAA television contract limiting the number of televised games for each program constituted illegal horizontal price-fixing, and NCAA v. Alston (2021), where the court upheld lower court decisions declaring certain NCAA rules restricting student-athlete compensation as illegal and anticompetitive.

In these decisions, the Supreme Court recognized that the NCAA has monopoly power in intercollegiate athletic competition, particularly in basketball and FBS football. Consequently, NCAA-imposed restraints are subject to a fact-specific "rule of reason" analysis wherein a court assesses the anticompetitive effects of the restraint, the procompetitive justifications for the restraint, and whether the procompetitive goals could be achieved through less anticompetitive means. I mean the word "competitive" in the economic sense, not the athletic one, though in this context the two often align.

In a scenario where a school like Delaware meets all FBS membership requirements except for conference invitation, the invitation requirement would likely not withstand this analysis. The requirement has significant anticompetitive effects in that it reduces output while increasing price and denies schools access to a massive, multibillion dollar market (the only market that exists to play high-level college football). The NCAA's procompetitive justification would be that it is acting to preserve consumer demand for FBS football by preventing institutions incapable of fielding competitive teams from reclassifying, thereby weakening the product.

The problem is that the conference-invitation requirement is obviously stricter than necessary to achieve this goal, especially when a school meets every other eligibility requirement. A court would likely determine that those other eligibility requirements are themselves sufficient to preserve the integrity of the FBS football product, and that the additional conference requirement is excessive.

In Delaware's case (a school obviously better-positioned to field competitive football than many existing FBS teams) the facts would be very bad for the NCAA.