(02-11-2013 10:22 AM)bigredmachine Wrote:  Conference realignment is not over. The MAC will be affected, but how?

(02-11-2013 10:39 AM)wleakr Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 10:22 AM)bigredmachine Wrote:  Conference realignment is not over. The MAC will be affected, but how?

There's is plenty of information on your question in various types of threads on the subject all through this board.

No one knows what the MAC is thinking or planning, so you won't find that answer here.

(02-11-2013 10:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What plan?

You've already indicated the MAC needs 3 plans, and even then it probably doesn't account for the myriad of possibilities.

If the AQ conferences are pushing to get a playoff, while ignoring the non-AQ conferences, then the realignment won't matter much. It will be a new level of play between FBS and FCS. The 12-member MAC would be a stout member of such a division...but it's unclear if that will matter much. The dollars may not stretch that far.

(02-11-2013 11:51 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 10:50 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  What plan?

You've already indicated the MAC needs 3 plans, and even then it probably doesn't account for the myriad of possibilities.

If the AQ conferences are pushing to get a playoff, while ignoring the non-AQ conferences, then the realignment won't matter much. It will be a new level of play between FBS and FCS. The 12-member MAC would be a stout member of such a division...but it's unclear if that will matter much. The dollars may not stretch that far.

The non-AQs are not being ignored, and as most of us know NIU would have gone to a big bowl this year anyway under the new proposed rules. Most people also feel that the 4 team format will lead to an 8 team or larger format, giving us a realistic shot of placing a team now and then. An every-conference-champ-goes scenario is not out of the question either. They won't do it for our benefit, it might happen naturally as a result of the years where the Michigans and Alabamas get left out of the playoff scene...

(02-11-2013 10:56 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  What leverage does the MAC have exactly? They are still not in a position to be agressively taking teams from others FBS conferences. It also seems there is some hesitation by FCS programs to move to the MAC as the perceived benefits may not outweight the negatives. While the BE contract appears to be coming lower than expected it is still miles ahead of what the MAC teams are getting and most likely will not require Tuesday and Wednesday night games to get paid. The MAC's main selling point is stability but there are enough other uncertainties out there that teams are willing to wait on stability for a more lucrative landing place.

(02-11-2013 04:50 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 10:56 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  What leverage does the MAC have exactly? They are still not in a position to be agressively taking teams from others FBS conferences. It also seems there is some hesitation by FCS programs to move to the MAC as the perceived benefits may not outweight the negatives. While the BE contract appears to be coming lower than expected it is still miles ahead of what the MAC teams are getting and most likely will not require Tuesday and Wednesday night games to get paid. The MAC's main selling point is stability but there are enough other uncertainties out there that teams are willing to wait on stability for a more lucrative landing place.

What you have to understand that to attract middling football programs to the Big East like Tulane and East Carolina the BE has to payout equally and at a significant amount.

For leagues like the Mountain West and the MAC which includes long standing members like Wyoming and Eastern Michigan which don't bring much to the table the Boise State's and Northern Illinois type programs have demanded unequal revenue sharing.

There are different components of unequal revenue sharing in the MAC.

1) MAC bowls subsizize the participant to the tune of 400k.

2) MAC schools that participate in an ESPN or ESPNU Midweek game are paid 150,000.

3) The NCAA tournament credits are shared unequally now too.

I'd imagine with the new playoff money, MAC schools will now pick up closer to 300k per game like the MW deal so a school for example like Ohio which is on 6 times a year in football would pocket 1.8 mil. That is not including the basketball money for which about 1/3 is going to Ohio.

The "massive" 1.18 mil per school per year TV the CUSA has doesn't have an ESPN coverage and it really only benefits the ODU's, Charlottes's ect because they know they won't be able to compete in the conference for quite some time. CUSA must have equal revenue sharing to attract those FCS upgrades.

Here lies the problem with unequal revenue sharing for the MAC: Its easy to retain members but its hard to attract FCS moveups with out a fairly decent guarantee. The new playoff money might change that though and ensure the MAC gives everyone at least 500k. Outside of James Madison there probably isn't another FCS school that is ready to compete directly in the MAC hence why there is so many tepid responses out there to joining the league.

(02-11-2013 04:50 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-11-2013 10:56 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  What leverage does the MAC have exactly? They are still not in a position to be agressively taking teams from others FBS conferences. It also seems there is some hesitation by FCS programs to move to the MAC as the perceived benefits may not outweight the negatives. While the BE contract appears to be coming lower than expected it is still miles ahead of what the MAC teams are getting and most likely will not require Tuesday and Wednesday night games to get paid. The MAC's main selling point is stability but there are enough other uncertainties out there that teams are willing to wait on stability for a more lucrative landing place.

What you have to understand that to attract middling football programs to the Big East like Tulane and East Carolina the BE has to payout equally and at a significant amount.

For leagues like the Mountain West and the MAC which includes long standing members like Wyoming and Eastern Michigan which don't bring much to the table the Boise State's and Northern Illinois type programs have demanded unequal revenue sharing.

There are different components of unequal revenue sharing in the MAC.

1) MAC bowls subsizize the participant to the tune of 400k.

2) MAC schools that participate in an ESPN or ESPNU Midweek game are paid 150,000.

3) The NCAA tournament credits are shared unequally now too.

I'd imagine with the new playoff money, MAC schools will now pick up closer to 300k per game like the MW deal so a school for example like Ohio which is on 6 times a year in football would pocket 1.8 mil. That is not including the basketball money for which about 1/3 is going to Ohio.

The "massive" 1.18 mil per school per year TV the CUSA has doesn't have an ESPN coverage and it really only benefits the ODU's, Charlottes's ect because they know they won't be able to compete in the conference for quite some time. CUSA must have equal revenue sharing to attract those FCS upgrades.

Here lies the problem with unequal revenue sharing for the MAC: Its easy to retain members but its hard to attract FCS moveups with out a fairly decent guarantee. The new playoff money might change that though and ensure the MAC gives everyone at least 500k. Outside of James Madison there probably isn't another FCS school that is ready to compete directly in the MAC hence why there is so many tepid responses out there to joining the league.

(02-11-2013 08:15 PM)Big_Man Wrote:  Ken,

To compare NIU basketball to EMU football is ridiculous. EMU is closing in on 2 decades of sub .500 football. Only a few years ago the NIU basketball team played Kansas State in DeKalb and WON. That same year they beat a decent DePaul team on their way to winning the MAC West. When was the last time EMU football came close to a division title in football? How about being over .500 without scheduling two FCS opponents?

NIU basketball is terrible this year, but they certainly have not been as bad as EMU football. EMU football might possibly be the worst program in FBS history.

(02-11-2013 10:12 PM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  Football is king and is running realignment. Having a good basketball team is just a added bonus. Is Navy good at basketball? Is East Carolina? Is Boise? Is SMU? Is Rutgers?

No, no, no, no, no. Football is running realigment.

(02-11-2013 08:15 PM)Big_Man Wrote:  Ken,

To compare NIU basketball to EMU football is ridiculous. EMU is closing in on 2 decades of sub .500 football. Only a few years ago the NIU basketball team played Kansas State in DeKalb and WON. That same year they beat a decent DePaul team on their way to winning the MAC West. When was the last time EMU football came close to a division title in football? How about being over .500 without scheduling two FCS opponents?

NIU basketball is terrible this year, but they certainly have not been as bad as EMU football. EMU football might possibly be the worst program in FBS history.