Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Unless something has changed in the conference voting rules, I don't think the NW schools need to use revenue sharing as a bargaining chip. It requires 75% to pass something, and in the past it had been Washington standing with UCLA and USC against fully equitable TV revenue sharing. Now, with Utah and Colorado entering the mix soon, it would take 4 schools saying "no" to prevent it from happening, and with Washington now favoring full TV revenue sharing, I'm struggling to think of two other schools besides USC and UCLA that would oppose the idea.

The Cal schools seem to be negotiating pretty hard to stay together in one division. I don’t think it would be in Cal or Stanford’s best interest to vote against equal revenue sharing, but who knows?

It’s probably all a lot to do about nothing. The Big-12 will blow up in two years and everything will have to be decided again when we become the Pac-16.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Unless something has changed in the conference voting rules, I don't think the NW schools need to use revenue sharing as a bargaining chip. It requires 75% to pass something, and in the past it had been Washington standing with UCLA and USC against fully equitable TV revenue sharing. Now, with Utah and Colorado entering the mix soon, it would take 4 schools saying "no" to prevent it from happening, and with Washington now favoring full TV revenue sharing, I'm struggling to think of two other schools besides USC and UCLA that would oppose the idea.

That might be why Pat Haden is making the move that he is.

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, if they have no one to stand with them, it's time to use their leverage to hold the conference hostage to their demands.

[Swaggs]

The California schools could probably auction themselves off to the highest bidder (Big Ten and Big Twelve ) and vastly improve their situations. They don't have a "Tech problem" and you have to think a 16-team Big Twelve (with the California and Arizona schools) or a 16-team Big Ten (w/ just the California schools) would be far greater, financially, than the current Pac 10-12.

[I. J. Reilly]

It remains to be seen just how vastly improved their situation would be. There is still a new TV contract to sign and most likely a network to start as well as championship game revenue. Even if the Cal schools don’t do a thing they will be vastly improved financially by 2012, they should be willing to give Scott some time to deliver better TV revenue.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

The California schools could probably auction themselves off to the highest bidder (Big Ten and Big Twelve ) and vastly improve their situations. They don't have a "Tech problem" and you have to think a 16-team Big Twelve (with the California and Arizona schools) or a 16-team Big Ten (w/ just the California schools) would be far greater, financially, than the current Pac 10-12.

Geography works against the western schools. Just like Texas didn't want to be a southern anchor of the Big Ten, having long travel for all of their conference away games, any attempt to pilfer the Pac-10 would need to be more of a merger similar to what was proposed with the Pac-16 adding the Texas and Oklahoma schools - two divisions that make sense geographically to minimize travel concerns.

The California schools by themselves wouldn't be enough to form a whole division in a major conference, so you'd have to bring along more schools. Washington would be one because of the Seattle market and history of success; ASU would probably be another because of the Phoenix market. Oregon would probably get invited too due to the Nike factor and their recent success, and probably Colorado too for the Denver market. At which point all that's really happening is sifting out the weaker sisters in the conference - the teams not located in major markets and not enough pull nationally to overcome a small market.

No, I don't think there's a program in the Pac-10 other than USC that could really pull off independence in football, and I have a hard time seeing a scenario where the California schools peel off from the conference.

[Swaggs]

My point is that the California schools (and to a lesser extent, the Arizona schools) have options that the other six schools do not. They probably do not have a lot of tolerance for schools like Utah or Washington State or Oregon State making decisions that oppose their best interests, so those schools should probably tread lightly despite what the Pac 10-12 bylaws say.

I'm guessing that is what Haden was saying, without saying. USC and UCLA can survive as independents or easily find homes in other conferences. The Oregon and Washington schools, as well as Utah are on an island and probably have even fewer options than Kansas, KSU, and Missouri did (they could at least look at the ACC or Big East).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Certainly shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone but the Texas AD, errrrrr, Chip Brown is reporting that BYU's move to be an independent school is directly tied to a brewing move to the Big 12. They would join the conference along with Arkansas to put the league back to 12 teams.

[tarcone]

Why would Arkansas leave the SEC and join the Big Texas league?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Certainly shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone but the Texas AD, errrrrr, Chip Brown is reporting that BYU's move to be an independent school is directly tied to a brewing move to the Big 12. They would join the conference along with Arkansas to put the league back to 12 teams.

I believe the first part.

Arkansas to the Big 12, not so much. It was highly doubtful that they would leave the SEC for the Big 12 before the recent moves. Now, no way in hell they leave their cherry spot in the SEC to join the instability in the Big 12.

Still, I think you can reasonably make the argument that BYU is preferable to Colorado, at this point. They travel well, get good ratings, and are strong in most sports.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Certainly shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone but the Texas AD, errrrrr, Chip Brown is reporting that BYU's move to be an independent school is directly tied to a brewing move to the Big 12. They would join the conference along with Arkansas to put the league back to 12 teams.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would they negotiate to move to the WCC/Independent and then immediately announce a move to Big XII? Isn't part of the reason they went that route in the first place directly related to the invite that never came from that league after Nebraska and Colorado left?

Arkansas has already said they're happy in the SEC and aren't leaving. Can't imagine they'd leave for a teetering league that's one Texas school exodus away from merging with the Mountain West.

[Izulde]

Arkansas won't leave the SEC. Certainly not for the Big 12. There's no reason for them to and they've said repeatedly they're staying.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Arkansas won't leave the SEC. Certainly not for the Big 12. There's no reason for them to and they've said repeatedly they're staying.

As proven this summer, you can take all of these schools at their word. It's gospel.

[MJ4H]

lol. no. shot.

[Warhammer]

No way in hell that Arkansas leaves the SEC.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

My point is that the California schools (and to a lesser extent, the Arizona schools) have options that the other six schools do not. They probably do not have a lot of tolerance for schools like Utah or Washington State or Oregon State making decisions that oppose their best interests, so those schools should probably tread lightly despite what the Pac 10-12 bylaws say.

Only USC and UCLA stand to lose if TV revenues are shared equally - Cal and Stanford gain in that scenario, so I have my doubts the California schools would all stand together if the issue of more equitable revenue sharing comes up.

USC and UCLA can survive as independents or easily find homes in other conferences. The Oregon and Washington schools, as well as Utah are on an island and probably have even fewer options than Kansas, KSU, and Missouri did (they could at least look at the ACC or Big East).

Sorry, but no. USC alone has a chance of making a go of it as an independent. Other teams could try, but would likely be facing worse revenues than as part of the Pac-10/12. And as I noted above, geography works against all of these schools unless they operate as a large enough block to form the core of a division in a BCS conference so as to reduce travel expenses.

And if USC really thought seriously about going independent, they'd also have to reconcile the reality that their secondary sports would have to make do in a much less respected conference.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Only USC and UCLA stand to lose if TV revenues are shared equally - Cal and Stanford gain in that scenario, so I have my doubts the California schools would all stand together if the issue of more equitable revenue sharing comes up.


Sorry, but no. USC alone has a chance of making a go of it as an independent. Other teams could try, but would likely be facing worse revenues than as part of the Pac-10/12. And as I noted above, geography works against all of these schools unless they operate as a large enough block to form the core of a division in a BCS conference so as to reduce travel expenses.

And if USC really thought seriously about going independent, they'd also have to reconcile the reality that their secondary sports would have to make do in a much less respected conference.

No offense, but you are thinking (and sounding) like the Big East schools did before the ACC raid and the Big 12 schools did before their "realignment." The non-California (and Arizona) schools have a lot more to lose than the rest of the Pac 10 does if the conference fractures apart. USC and UCLA can see how Texas/Oklahoma/A&M told the rest of the Big 12 to bend over and take it. Maybe you are right about USC or UCLA not being able to make it as independents (although, I'm guessing BYU, Notre Dame, and the academies would be happy to play them every year and that they wouldn't have trouble filling out the rest of their schedule), but the Big 12 is looking to make a splash and the Big Ten is looking to "improve their brand." USC can flirt with them and get WSU, Oregon State, Utah and the rest to recognize their value to the Pac 10/12 without going independent.

I don't think the Pac 10/12 is going to break apart, but don't be shocked if you see a similar financial distribution method to the Big 12 coming, where there are different tiers for the big dogs vs the also rans.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

No offense, but you are thinking (and sounding) like the Big East schools did before the ACC raid and the Big 12 schools did before their "realignment." The non-California (and Arizona) schools have a lot more to lose than the rest of the Pac 10 does if the conference fractures apart. USC and UCLA can see how Texas/Oklahoma/A&M told the rest of the Big 12 to bend over and take it. Maybe you are right about USC or UCLA not being able to make it as independents (although, I'm guessing BYU, Notre Dame, and the academies would be happy to play them every year and that they wouldn't have trouble filling out the rest of their schedule), but the Big 12 is looking to make a splash and the Big Ten is looking to "improve their brand." USC can flirt with them and get WSU, Oregon State, Utah and the rest to recognize their value to the Pac 10/12 without going independent.

USC could make a go of it as an independent, and that is significant leverage against the conference. UCLA, I just don't think they have enough juice to be able to make more as an independent than they do in the conference, but they would be the next best candidate.

The thing is, think through conference affiliations - where would USC go? The Big-12? That's a huge amount of travel for not just the football team but all of their non-revenue sports. USC would probably be better off independent than in another conference - at least that way they have a little more control on their travel budget and could park their non-football teams in the WAC or MWC.

I don't think the Pac 10/12 is going to break apart, but don't be shocked if you see a similar financial distribution method to the Big 12 coming, where there are different tiers for the big dogs vs the also rans.

I'm sure USC and UCLA will squawk very loudly when the conference attempts to distribute TV revenues equally. And USC may make some very loud noises about going independent. We'll see what Larry Scott is made of at that point - does he call USC's bluff or give in? Because giving in just leads to a continued path of capitulation. He can rightly point to the Big Ten and SEC as examples of conferences that are extremely successful financially, that also share TV revenues equally.

I think when the new Pac-10 TV negotiations are concluded, USC is probably not going to have much to complain about when they see how much more money they'll be making, full revenue-sharing or not.

[MrBug708]

UCLA has a broad base but until there are college football teams in the Far East, we wouldn't do well independently. But, outside of USC, we'd probably be the most attractive option west of Texas for any conference

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

UCLA has a broad base but until there are college football teams in the Far East, we wouldn't do well independently. But, outside of USC, we'd probably be the most attractive option west of Texas for any conference

Yep. Being in L.A. will always be a major plus for them in terms of being a draw for any conference. And their general success in football and especially basketball also help their cause.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yep. Being in L.A. will always be a major plus for them in terms of being a draw for any conference. And their general success in football and especially basketball also help their cause.

If USC bailed though, it would be interesting to see what happens. I think UCLA would be ok as an independent as enough schools would do a h/h with them at the Rose Bowl. USC, Stanford, Cal, SJSU, FSU, SDSU is six schools right off the bat that they would probably still play in a case like that. If USC did leave though, I'm not so sure BYU would get the invite though. I think it would be either UNLV, BSU, or New Mexico, but none of those three really hit the academic profile. Maybe TCU would replace USC? Mostly speculation though that likely won't amount to anything

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

If USC bailed though, it would be interesting to see what happens. I think UCLA would be ok as an independent as enough schools would do a h/h with them at the Rose Bowl. USC, Stanford, Cal, SJSU, FSU, SDSU is six schools right off the bat that they would probably still play in a case like that. If USC did leave though, I'm not so sure BYU would get the invite though. I think it would be either UNLV, BSU, or New Mexico, but none of those three really hit the academic profile. Maybe TCU would replace USC? Mostly speculation though that likely won't amount to anything

To be clear, the Pac-10/12 would take a major hit if they lost the L.A. schools. Losing the L.A. market would put a major dent in ad revenue for the TV partner and future TV deals would drop quite a bit without an L.A. team in the conference.

That said, Cal would be hurt by losing UCLA from the conference, and thus I wonder if the Chancellors would OK UCLA bolting the conference given the conference impact on Cal.

And as I pointed out above to Swaggs, I'm not sure the Cal schools by themselves would bolt for a Big-12 super conference.

I'm not saying the Pac-12 doesn't have some weaknesses - WSU is clearly riding on the coattails of their rivalry with Washington, otherwise they'd be in the WAC or MWC. And Oregon State, despite their recent success, just doesn't have enough TV pull to be a major draw. They too would be vulnerable if the Pac ever trimmed teams or if the Big-12 initiated a raid of the Pac-12. Arizona would also be vulnerable, with their biggest draw simply being located in the Mountain time zone and not as far away from the Big-12 schools.

Washington has enough draw and history of success that they'd be unlikely to be left out of the BCS mix, and Oregon's recent success, draw in Portland and (perhaps most importantly) their Nike connection likely means they'd find a home too. Arizona State has the Phoenix market and Mountain time zone working in their favor. And the Bay Area schools have major TV market share working in their favor.

I think the likeliest scenario is at some point, whether it be a hostile takeover or a mutual agreement, is the Pac-12 and Big-12 coming together to form a super-conference - the question is which schools would then be left out of the mix, as I doubt you'd see a conference bigger than 16 teams.

[I. J. Reilly]

The final decisions on Pac-12 alignment and revenue sharing are set to be announced tomorrow. Looks like it will be a North/South split with Cal and Stanford in the north and Utah and Colorado in the south.

I still don’t understand why Larry Scott was so dead set against a zipper plan, “it creates confusion” just isn’t a good enough excuse. Basically if you were an original Pac-8 member, you’re getting screwed. Utah and Colorado are making out like bandits here. I have no idea how the Buffs managed this; they get a trip to LA every year, equal revenue, oh and the Pac-10 is fronting them the money to get out of the Big-12. At least Utah has gone to the trouble of putting a good team on the field recently.

I am happy to hear the revenue sharing will eventually be equal, even if the LA schools will get a few years of extra money. I guess at the end of the day the NW schools always knew this was the deal; we were trading access to LA for more money.

[AFShadow]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

UCLA has a broad base but until there are college football teams in the Far East, we wouldn't do well independently. But, outside of USC, we'd probably be the most attractive option west of Texas for any conference

Not to get off track but what do mean "until" there are teams in the Far East? When are we expecting the University of Singapore or Guam A&M to start up a NCAA Division 1 football team?

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

The final decisions on Pac-12 alignment and revenue sharing are set to be announced tomorrow. Looks like it will be a North/South split with Cal and Stanford in the north and Utah and Colorado in the south.

I still don’t understand why Larry Scott was so dead set against a zipper plan, “it creates confusion” just isn’t a good enough excuse. Basically if you were an original Pac-8 member, you’re getting screwed. Utah and Colorado are making out like bandits here. I have no idea how the Buffs managed this; they get a trip to LA every year, equal revenue, oh and the Pac-10 is fronting them the money to get out of the Big-12. At least Utah has gone to the trouble of putting a good team on the field recently.

I am happy to hear the revenue sharing will eventually be equal, even if the LA schools will get a few years of extra money. I guess at the end of the day the NW schools always knew this was the deal; we were trading access to LA for more money.

All political. The PAC 10 has wanted CU for years, CU has wanted the PAC 10 for years. Nobody wanted to make a move until the Nebraska thing happened. When that took place, the floodgates opened and CU to the PAC with a wonderful deal was sealed.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by AFShadow

Not to get off track but what do mean "until" there are teams in the Far East? When are we expecting the University of Singapore or Guam A&M to start up a NCAA Division 1 football team?

Seeing as how basically answered the question yourself, ya

[Abe Sargent]

I can't believe no one ever posted the story about the Big East inviting Villanova's football team to become a full member.

Villanova Wildcats consider Big East football invitation - ESPN


I personally think they are proactively trying to get plans in the works to fend off the eventual raid by other conferences that everyone seems to think will come down the pike sooner or later.

[Abe Sargent]

http://www.staradvertiser.com/sports...ble_moves.html

We missed a lot of news and speculation here. Sad. This was my favorite thread on FOFC over the summer

[Abe Sargent]

Big East considers adding TCU - NYPOST.com

[Abe Sargent]

CollegeSportsInfo.com: UTSA, Texas St, Denver & Others to Make Formal WAC Presentations on 9/28

[Abe Sargent]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/...eague.html.csp

[Butter]

The new WAC = Ew.

[Young Drachma]

That'd sure be one way for TCU to one-up Boise State off the field, by getting into a league with an AQ spot.

[MacroGuru]

Fresno and Nevada to remain in the WAC until 2012..

Appears that the WAC had a leg to stand on...exit fee will be 900K if they stay until 2012.

Fresno State, Nevada to remain in WAC until 2012 - ESPN

[Swaggs]

Big East looks to expand - NYPOST.com

In what several sources around the Big East described as a pivotal meeting, Big East presidents and athletic directors will meet tomorrow in Philadelphia to discuss probable expansion plans, The Post has learned.

The regularly-scheduled meeting of the presidents and athletic directors figures to be intense as the BCS-football playing members of the league intend on pressing their agenda to add teams to the eight-team football conference.

"The goal is to get the presidents' blessing to seriously pursue teams," said one Big East athletic director. "I don't think we're going to get pushback on that."

Several sources confirmed a Post report last month that TCU is a strong candidate. Houston, Central Florida, Temple and/or Villanova, which is in the midst of evaluating a move up from FCS, are other lead candidates.

Two sources said if the presidents give their blessing to explore expansion, invitations could be issued before the end of the college football season. TCU is said to be very interested, as is Central Florida.

By adding TCU and Houston, the Big East would gain TV viewership in two significant markets (Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston) and give football programs a recruiting toehold in talent-rich Texas.

The expansion issue is ultra sensitive. The non-football playing members, who include most of the league's charter members, do not wish to expand the conference from its already bloated 16-team makeup.

Big East spokesman John Paquette reiterated the league's long-standing policy of not commenting on expansion. But sources at the league office confirmed there is concern the football members might be considering breaking away.

Interesting, but hodge-podge collection if true.

Adding markets in Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Philadelphia, and Orlando cannot hurt and none of those teams "own" their home markets very well, but I guess it will get the Big East on TV in those areas. On the bright side, having two schools in both Florida and Texas could help with recruiting and adding TCU would certainly help keep the Big East a step ahead of the MWC.

The bad thing is if the Big 12 falls apart and Kansas, KSU, Missouri, and Iowa State suddenly become available... Those four would have fit in nicely with Cincy and Louisville in creating a nicely aligned Eastern and Western, 12-team Big East football conference and potentially a pretty strong all-around conference (certainly adding those four wouldn't hurt basketball).

[Ksyrup]

At the very least, the Big East openly looking at expansion and the Big 12's already precarious situation should create some nice instability and have more of these rumors flying over the next 6 months or more. I have to admit, I loved following this stuff, even if 95% of it didn't happen.

[Abe Sargent]

I do too! I just eat this stuff up.

I can see why TCU and Houston would want in, but they have to believe that they hold the next tickets on the Big XII express. What happens if they are both offered, and both accept? What would be the Big XII's response? Who would they look at to stabilize them, and prevent further decay in the future (or to replace more recalcitrant members)

[Swaggs]

I get the feeling that the Big 12 feels like they have the state of Texas locked up pretty well (and rightly so), so I doubt that they would want to add redundant markets in Houston or Dallas (which they already own).

In any case, they seem to be in a holding pattern with expansion to see if their television contract is actually going to pay out as well as its projections.

BYU seems like a natural option for them. Possibly Louisville and/or Memphis?

[DeToxRox]

PHILADELPHIA - The BIG EAST Conference submitted the results of its extensive self-analysis and evaluation of the college athletics environment today at its annual Conference Board of Directors meeting. Based on those results, the BIG EAST presidents agreed that the interests of each of the conference’s 16 member institutions would be served by increasing the number of Bowl Subdivision football-playing members to 10. They unanimously approved the process to evaluate the terms and conditions for potential expansion candidates.

"Today, our Board of Directors affirmed a set of key strategic initiatives, including expansion, designed to enhance membership stability and maximize our value," stated Commissioner John Marinatto.

Marinatto said the conference will refrain from commenting further on the expansion process.

[Butter]

How is the Big East going to expand to 10 football schools without ballooning the basketball membership even further? Beyond Villanova, none of their non-football members are ready to make the jump, are they?

[Lathum]

The move seems odd, wouldn't they want to go to 12 for a title game?

There are also a few basketball only schools they could drop to stay at 16 (Depaul, I'm looking at you)

[Young Drachma]

Well if they let DePaul go, that'd free up a basketball spot.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Well if they let DePaul go, that'd free up a basketball spot.

Kind of my point. Seton Hall can also go. I doubt they would dump St Johns because of the history, but they haven't been relevant in forever also.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The move seems odd, wouldn't they want to go to 12 for a title game?

That was my initial reaction - almost seems like they have 2 reasonably sure targets in mind, so they go for the easy expansion now and don't worry about the teams they can't control or are unsure of.

With ND staring at 5-7, maybe NOW they are finally ready to break.

[Young Drachma]

We posted at the same time.

They're not going to get rid of Seton Hall or St. John's. DePaul is just easy because they don't have the history in the league. Though I did forget that Marquette is in the league too, so getting rid of DePaul would eliminate their travel partner, so maybe that plays a part.

No way TCU isn't the primary target here, coupled with Villanova moving up to FBS. That said, I don't see them ditching DePaul. They're Catholic for one and even though they haven't moved the meter in Chicago, the possibility they might is worth keeping them around I suspect.

UCF is salivating at the chance to make the jump, but...I don't think they'll get the nod. This is all about TCU and keeping the AQ berth.

[Young Drachma]

Dola

The other remote possibility is Temple rejoining in football and staying in the MAC for all other sports and Villanova moving up to give them their 10 football teams. It wouldn't move the meter, but...it'd shore things up a bit in terms of membership and tie up a core market for the league I guess.

Just seems remote when you can dangle an AQ (and keep it) to a riser like TCU that you wouldn't take the chance to snap them up even if it means screwing up the balance of your league a bit.

[Swaggs]

I don't think they will drop a school, but Seton Hall would be the one to go. It is no secret that the rest of the schools feel like they have not been putting forth anywhere near the money to field competitive teams (if I'm not mistaken they have not had an Athletic Director for quite some time and have no immediate plans to fill the position). Depaul is safe as long as Notre Dame is part of the league.

I would put it about 90% that the two teams will come from Villanova, TCU, and UCF. I kind of hope Villanova doesn't make the move (they have no upside -- their stadium only seats like 10-15K, they have under 10K students, and they aren't going to pull in anymore of the Philadelphia market than Rutgers probably already does) unless the football schools split.

I think the big news here is that the football schools must have finally grown enough balls to tell the non-football schools that we either need expansion or to split up. I know West Virginia had to pay UNLV $750K (which is probably more than most of the Big East's bowls net after travel) to come in for a one-and-done (and I have read that some SEC and Big Ten schools have been paying over a million). And, I know that Syracuse, USF, and (I think) Rutgers have all had to play multiple subdivision teams, in the same season, because teams have been able to buyout their games to get bigger paydays from bigger money schools (and not leaving enough time to find decent replacements). With only 8 teams in the conference, having only 3-4 guaranteed home games makes scheduling really difficult. Going to ten teams, even if it doesn't strengthen the conference's perception, will improve the bottom line for most of the schools.

[Swaggs]

I think there is no chance that Temple rejoins, but especially not if Villanova moves up. I think Temple's name has been tossed around a bit, but I imagine that has been done by some of the football school's people to try to leverage Villanova.

[RedKingGold]

As someone who lives three miles down from Villanova, moving to I-A might be program suicide. The current Villanova Stadium does not have the seating to qualify for I-A, and even if it did, the team struggles to put butts in the seats on a consistent basis.

Villanova might be ready to make the jump in ten years or so, but I've also read on teh internets and print sources that administration is concerned with moving to I-A now.

[molson]

I assume there must be some kind of stadium plan if Villanova were to make the jump. They just can't be 1-A in that stadium. Why is it that Temple gets to play at Lincoln Financial Field? Is that set in stone?