UMASS and the MAC??

Hello There, Guest! (Login — Register)

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode UMASS and the MAC??
Author	Message

RecoveringHillbilly Offline

1st String

Posts: 1,474
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Buffalo, WVU
Location: Niagara Falls, ON

Post: #130

RE: UMASS and the MAC??

(12-01-2010 11:42 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: I'd also like to add- If you want to add your Football team to the MAC, you better be prepared to bring Basketball too. The more I think about it, the more angry I get about the rumor of UMass pulling a Temple and holding out their bball program.

Joining the MAC as football only devalues the conference in 2 ways-
1. MAC football is viewed as a place of refuge for wayward fb programs with delusions of grandeur. This in turn devalues any success you have in the MAC because its viewed as a result of being in a weak conference, a stereotype you've helped perpetuate by not committing fully. So now, doing well isn't good enough, you're going to have to dominate the MAC to get a look from a bigger conference (ask Temple).

People can also view it in a completely different flavor. You do realize that historically the MAC is the MOST STABLE non-AQ conference. Check out the histories of the other leagues sometime. Through our history we've had only a few teams leave, most in the 40's and 50's. NIU left then came back, as did Marshall. Marshall is the only full-member to leave for good since 1955. UCF was the only FB member to go. We are not the poster-child for 'wayward' programs that CUSA, SBC, and WAC have been.

Secondly, all these teams talking to the MAC means we are not 'weak'. It mean schools know we are stable, and NOT the weakest league. The fact that Marshall, UCF, and Temple all chose the MAC over the SBC to play FB proves it. The MAC has invited schools through thorough study and decided what schools add value, and which do not (YSU, WKU). Your schools' own former prez even hinted UMass and SBU were schools that the MAC thought well of not long ago.

(12-01-2010 11:42 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: 2. Bringing a well established bball program to the MAC signals a confidence in the MAC as a worthy conference. It also increases the likelihood of the MAC getting multiple bids in the tourney. Basketball success makes the MAC look good, making the MAC look good builds the brand value for all sports, which in turn helps football, which helps you get to that magical BCS conference sooner (see pt 1).

Reality blows your point out of the water. The recent shifts in conference affiliation prove that for FBS conferences basketball is secondary, by far, to football. Basketball is only important to the MVC, Horizon, MAAC, ect. Even the strong BE is doing it, taking USF and TCU when Memphis has been begging for years, and the ACC taking Va Tech when UVA didn't want SU, nor did they look at adding UConn.

(12-01-2010 11:42 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: Simply put, Temple, UMass, and whoever else wouldn't be joining the MAC if they had another choice. This needs to be a mutually beneficial agreement and using MAC football as a holding spot for your school is bad for the brand.

Are you contending your school's president, and every other one, does not know what they are doing, and the MAC leaders and AD's have not studied who brings true value?

(This post was last modified: 12-02-2010 12:51 AM by RecoveringHillbilly.)

12-02-2010 12:47 AM