Interesting discussion but let's be real here. I guarantee all those espousing the viability of an antitrust case by the G-5 will intellectually reverse that opinion should we receive a P-5 invite. It's funny how once you're in the club all the exclusionary rules you once railed about become suddenly tolerable.
The common denominator to every intercollegiate conference affiliation move, independence or not, all of it - is broadcasting transmission revenue contracts around football. Can't lose sight of that in any of this. It's all about the television revenue contracts.
With regards to UCONN, I'm hopeful that BL will chime back in, especially with the letters from congress to Mark Emmert that I posted today. BL's statement above is incredibly accurate and insightful.
With regards to our own interests at UCONN, and with regards to the precedence that is out there, (and I'm no lawyer) but my understanding would be that the precedence set by the supreme court back in the 1980s would dictate that the proper step forward, would be the deregulation of revenue sharing around basketball by the NCAA - just as it was deregulated around college football.
That would mean that the NCAA would no longer be in charge of revenue distribution with regards to the NCAA men's b-ball tournament, and the existing contract would be scrapped.
My guess, would be that if that happened, the NCAA would essentially cease to exist as it does, and there would be all kinds of fracturing of intercollegiate athletics associations/conferences , etc.
the basketball tournament generates a HUGE amount of money though, and that money would be up for grabs - and UCONN - would have a huge say in where that money goes and to whom and why.
A deregulation of revenue sharing control by the NCAA over intercollegiate basketball, which would involve something following the same pattern as the Oklahoma regents vs. NCAA case did- might be a very good thing for UCONN.
I'm no lawyer though, just participating in the Holiday Inn express open mic night.