(02-23-2012 11:08 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  One of our games VS a MAC West team is VERY likely going to be swapped for a MAC East team.
Home
CMU, Toledo or BGSU
for
Ohio

OR

Away
WMU, EMU or BSU
for
Buffalo, Kent St, Miami


My guess is that we will now play Ohio at home instead of BGSU.


OR

They will move BGSU back to the East and keep the rivalry game with Toledo.

Doubtful. It's the same situation as it has been for the last few years, with 13 teams. You always play everyone in your division.

Many fans here said when TU was added to MAC football that it was simply a short term a marriage of convenience and MAC was gonna be used like a concubine.

I was 'butt' one fan among many expressing the forecast.

Truer words were never posted.

The parade of schools in and out of MAC since Marshall, NIU and Buffalo and UCF joined is not that different than what is going on all across the landscape of many conferences.

The entire unstable universe is being turned upside down all across the planet in so many ways that it's near impossible to keep abreast of all the change in the air.

Perhaps the next generation of American achievers need to speak Chinese.

This article has some info on options for the MAC.
UMass could go, apparently, and pay a $500,000 exit fee (if Temple leaves, otherwise it is $2.5 million.)

(02-23-2012 11:59 AM)niusfactuary Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:08 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  One of our games VS a MAC West team is VERY likely going to be swapped for a MAC East team.
Home
CMU, Toledo or BGSU
for
Ohio

OR

Away
WMU, EMU or BSU
for
Buffalo, Kent St, Miami


My guess is that we will now play Ohio at home instead of BGSU.


OR

They will move BGSU back to the East and keep the rivalry game with Toledo.

Doubtful. It's the same situation as it has been for the last few years, with 13 teams. You always play everyone in your division.

No its not the same situation as the past few years because the division numbers have changed from W6/E7 to W7/E6. The East scheduling is the one that was messed up when Temple joined until this year. Now IF BGSU stays in the West it is going to mess us up the West division. All the East teams MUST have 4 home and 4 away games and with only 6 teams in the division that means there are 5 opponents in the East division and they will need 3 cross divisional games instead of 2 which was scheduled now. So most MAC West teams will need to make up for the holes that Temple will leave.

(02-23-2012 11:59 AM)niusfactuary Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:08 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  One of our games VS a MAC West team is VERY likely going to be swapped for a MAC East team.
Home
CMU, Toledo or BGSU
for
Ohio

OR

Away
WMU, EMU or BSU
for
Buffalo, Kent St, Miami


My guess is that we will now play Ohio at home instead of BGSU.


OR

They will move BGSU back to the East and keep the rivalry game with Toledo.

Doubtful. It's the same situation as it has been for the last few years, with 13 teams. You always play everyone in your division.

Not true..

The division with more teams has several who do not play all teams. For a couple of years the Bulls did not play kent

(02-23-2012 12:56 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:59 AM)niusfactuary Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:08 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  One of our games VS a MAC West team is VERY likely going to be swapped for a MAC East team.
Home
CMU, Toledo or BGSU
for
Ohio

OR

Away
WMU, EMU or BSU
for
Buffalo, Kent St, Miami


My guess is that we will now play Ohio at home instead of BGSU.


OR

They will move BGSU back to the East and keep the rivalry game with Toledo.

Doubtful. It's the same situation as it has been for the last few years, with 13 teams. You always play everyone in your division.

No its not the same situation as the past few years because the division numbers have changed from W6/E7 to W7/E6. The East scheduling is the one that was messed up when Temple joined until this year. Now IF BGSU stays in the West it is going to mess us up the West division. All the East teams MUST have 4 home and 4 away games and with only 6 teams in the division that means there are 5 opponents in the East division and they will need 3 cross divisional games instead of 2 which was scheduled now. So most MAC West teams will need to make up for the holes that Temple will leave.

Even though UMass plays a full MAC schedule, they are not eligible to play in the MACC in 2012, nor are they eligible for any of the MAC's post-season bowl tie-ins. Question is, will the games against UMass count in the standings in 2012? We had a somewhat similar situation with Temple in 2006, although they only played six MAC opponents. Our game against Temple in 2006 was essentially a non-conference game.

Link

(02-23-2012 01:17 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 12:56 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:59 AM)niusfactuary Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:08 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  One of our games VS a MAC West team is VERY likely going to be swapped for a MAC East team.
Home
CMU, Toledo or BGSU
for
Ohio

OR

Away
WMU, EMU or BSU
for
Buffalo, Kent St, Miami


My guess is that we will now play Ohio at home instead of BGSU.


OR

They will move BGSU back to the East and keep the rivalry game with Toledo.

Doubtful. It's the same situation as it has been for the last few years, with 13 teams. You always play everyone in your division.

No its not the same situation as the past few years because the division numbers have changed from W6/E7 to W7/E6. The East scheduling is the one that was messed up when Temple joined until this year. Now IF BGSU stays in the West it is going to mess us up the West division. All the East teams MUST have 4 home and 4 away games and with only 6 teams in the division that means there are 5 opponents in the East division and they will need 3 cross divisional games instead of 2 which was scheduled now. So most MAC West teams will need to make up for the holes that Temple will leave.

Even though UMass plays a full MAC schedule, they are not eligible to play in the MACC in 2012, nor are they eligible for any of the MAC's post-season bowl tie-ins. Question is, will the games against UMass count in the standings in 2012? We had a somewhat similar situation with Temple in 2006, although they only played six MAC opponents. Our game against Temple in 2006 was essentially a non-conference game.

Link

Temple was not a MAC team till 2007...that's why the 2006 games did not count as conference wins/losses.

All the games will count vs UMASS.

(02-23-2012 01:20 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:17 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 12:56 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:59 AM)niusfactuary Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:08 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  One of our games VS a MAC West team is VERY likely going to be swapped for a MAC East team.
Home
CMU, Toledo or BGSU
for
Ohio

OR

Away
WMU, EMU or BSU
for
Buffalo, Kent St, Miami


My guess is that we will now play Ohio at home instead of BGSU.


OR

They will move BGSU back to the East and keep the rivalry game with Toledo.

Doubtful. It's the same situation as it has been for the last few years, with 13 teams. You always play everyone in your division.

No its not the same situation as the past few years because the division numbers have changed from W6/E7 to W7/E6. The East scheduling is the one that was messed up when Temple joined until this year. Now IF BGSU stays in the West it is going to mess us up the West division. All the East teams MUST have 4 home and 4 away games and with only 6 teams in the division that means there are 5 opponents in the East division and they will need 3 cross divisional games instead of 2 which was scheduled now. So most MAC West teams will need to make up for the holes that Temple will leave.

Even though UMass plays a full MAC schedule, they are not eligible to play in the MACC in 2012, nor are they eligible for any of the MAC's post-season bowl tie-ins. Question is, will the games against UMass count in the standings in 2012? We had a somewhat similar situation with Temple in 2006, although they only played six MAC opponents. Our game against Temple in 2006 was essentially a non-conference game.

Link

Temple was not a MAC team till 2007...that's why the 2006 games did not count as conference wins/losses.

All the games will count vs UMASS.

Actually, UMass does not have full football membership until 2013. They can't play in the MACC or a MAC bowl game in 2012, can't participate in MAC-televised games and don't receive football-related distributions.

i don't understand this hatred for Temple. They took care of themselves because they were given the chance to. People should be outraged at the MAC leadership that is allowing this conference to be the b*tch of FBS

(02-23-2012 01:31 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:20 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:17 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 12:56 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 11:59 AM)niusfactuary Wrote:  Doubtful. It's the same situation as it has been for the last few years, with 13 teams. You always play everyone in your division.

No its not the same situation as the past few years because the division numbers have changed from W6/E7 to W7/E6. The East scheduling is the one that was messed up when Temple joined until this year. Now IF BGSU stays in the West it is going to mess us up the West division. All the East teams MUST have 4 home and 4 away games and with only 6 teams in the division that means there are 5 opponents in the East division and they will need 3 cross divisional games instead of 2 which was scheduled now. So most MAC West teams will need to make up for the holes that Temple will leave.

Even though UMass plays a full MAC schedule, they are not eligible to play in the MACC in 2012, nor are they eligible for any of the MAC's post-season bowl tie-ins. Question is, will the games against UMass count in the standings in 2012? We had a somewhat similar situation with Temple in 2006, although they only played six MAC opponents. Our game against Temple in 2006 was essentially a non-conference game.

Link

Temple was not a MAC team till 2007...that's why the 2006 games did not count as conference wins/losses.

All the games will count vs UMASS.

Actually, UMass does not have full football membership until 2013. They can't play in the MACC or a MAC bowl game in 2012, can't participate in MAC-televised games and don't receive football-related distributions.

Hua? So if NIU were undefeated and hosting UMASS the game couldn't be on TV? That doesn't seem right.

I know they cant go to the MACC, a bowl game or get some money but everything else counts for the MAC teams they face.

I was just told...

"The conference office is still telling us that we will have our full schedule the first week in March."

We will see.

In 2 years Temple will be no better off than we are when the BCS changes to a four team playoff. Everyone will have a shot then even with very very very thin odds for anybody not in the SEC, PAC 12, B10, Big 12, or ACC. New Big East will be a non factor.

(02-23-2012 02:01 PM)HuskieJ Wrote:  In 2 years Temple will be no better off than we are when the BCS changes to a four team playoff. Everyone will have a shot then even with very very very thin odds for anybody not in the SEC, PAC 12, B10, Big 12, or ACC. New Big East will be a non factor.

Agree, yet I would still be interested in a FB only invite for us to the BE...

(02-23-2012 01:57 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:31 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:20 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:17 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 12:56 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  No its not the same situation as the past few years because the division numbers have changed from W6/E7 to W7/E6. The East scheduling is the one that was messed up when Temple joined until this year. Now IF BGSU stays in the West it is going to mess us up the West division. All the East teams MUST have 4 home and 4 away games and with only 6 teams in the division that means there are 5 opponents in the East division and they will need 3 cross divisional games instead of 2 which was scheduled now. So most MAC West teams will need to make up for the holes that Temple will leave.

Even though UMass plays a full MAC schedule, they are not eligible to play in the MACC in 2012, nor are they eligible for any of the MAC's post-season bowl tie-ins. Question is, will the games against UMass count in the standings in 2012? We had a somewhat similar situation with Temple in 2006, although they only played six MAC opponents. Our game against Temple in 2006 was essentially a non-conference game.

Link

Temple was not a MAC team till 2007...that's why the 2006 games did not count as conference wins/losses.

All the games will count vs UMASS.

Actually, UMass does not have full football membership until 2013. They can't play in the MACC or a MAC bowl game in 2012, can't participate in MAC-televised games and don't receive football-related distributions.

Hua? So if NIU were undefeated and hosting UMASS the game couldn't be on TV? That doesn't seem right.

I know they cant go to the MACC, a bowl game or get some money but everything else counts for the MAC teams they face.

Under Section 1, part d of the UMass membership agreement, it says that, among other things, that beginning in 2013, UMass shall have "eligibility for MAC television participation." I would take that to mean ESPN games and MAC games of the week. The implication is clear that UMass does not have that right in 2012.

(02-23-2012 01:55 PM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  i don't understand this hatred for Temple. They took care of themselves because they were given the chance to. People should be outraged at the MAC leadership that is allowing this conference to be the b*tch of FBS

We are. You're right.

But with that having been said...

F*^k Temple.

(02-23-2012 02:09 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:57 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:31 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:20 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:17 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  Even though UMass plays a full MAC schedule, they are not eligible to play in the MACC in 2012, nor are they eligible for any of the MAC's post-season bowl tie-ins. Question is, will the games against UMass count in the standings in 2012? We had a somewhat similar situation with Temple in 2006, although they only played six MAC opponents. Our game against Temple in 2006 was essentially a non-conference game.

Link

Temple was not a MAC team till 2007...that's why the 2006 games did not count as conference wins/losses.

All the games will count vs UMASS.

Actually, UMass does not have full football membership until 2013. They can't play in the MACC or a MAC bowl game in 2012, can't participate in MAC-televised games and don't receive football-related distributions.

Hua? So if NIU were undefeated and hosting UMASS the game couldn't be on TV? That doesn't seem right.

I know they cant go to the MACC, a bowl game or get some money but everything else counts for the MAC teams they face.

Under Section 1, part d of the UMass membership agreement, it says that, among other things, that beginning in 2013, UMass shall have "eligibility for MAC television participation." I would take that to mean ESPN games and MAC games of the week. The implication is clear that UMass does not have that right in 2012.

That would only be for any of their conference home games. So we could put our game vs them on CSN if ESPN does not pick it up but they couldn't have a game on TV where they would host say Buffalo.

The result still counts in conference though...the only point I was trying to make originally.

(02-23-2012 02:10 PM)cawoo22 Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:55 PM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  i don't understand this hatred for Temple. They took care of themselves because they were given the chance to. People should be outraged at the MAC leadership that is allowing this conference to be the b*tch of FBS

We are. You're right.

But with that having been said...

F*^k Temple.

I am fine with Temple moving up. I just think they should pay a hefty fee for leaving early along with maybe some 1-1 BB games with the MAC East teams along with a 1-1 FB game with UMASS.

The MAC office better have their big boy pants on.

(02-23-2012 02:14 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 02:09 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:57 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:31 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:20 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  Temple was not a MAC team till 2007...that's why the 2006 games did not count as conference wins/losses.

All the games will count vs UMASS.

Actually, UMass does not have full football membership until 2013. They can't play in the MACC or a MAC bowl game in 2012, can't participate in MAC-televised games and don't receive football-related distributions.

Hua? So if NIU were undefeated and hosting UMASS the game couldn't be on TV? That doesn't seem right.

I know they cant go to the MACC, a bowl game or get some money but everything else counts for the MAC teams they face.

Under Section 1, part d of the UMass membership agreement, it says that, among other things, that beginning in 2013, UMass shall have "eligibility for MAC television participation." I would take that to mean ESPN games and MAC games of the week. The implication is clear that UMass does not have that right in 2012.

That would only be for any of their conference home games. So we could put our game vs them on CSN if ESPN does not pick it up but they couldn't have a game on TV where they would host say Buffalo.

The result still counts in conference though...the only point I was trying to make originally.

I don't see anything in the agreement preventing UMass from participating in locally-televised games, such as our CSN games. I do agree with your point about the UMass games counting in the standings. Otherwise, we'll end up with only seven conference games and that won't work.

I'd like to think the MAC presidents have learned a lesson about cutting these football-only deals with schools that don't give a s**t about being in the MAC long-term. We'll see.

(02-23-2012 02:17 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 02:10 PM)cawoo22 Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 01:55 PM)huskiealum03 Wrote:  i don't understand this hatred for Temple. They took care of themselves because they were given the chance to. People should be outraged at the MAC leadership that is allowing this conference to be the b*tch of FBS

We are. You're right.

But with that having been said...

F*^k Temple.

I am fine with Temple moving up. I just think they should pay a hefty fee for leaving early along with maybe some 1-1 BB games with the MAC East teams along with a 1-1 FB game with UMASS.

The MAC office better have their big boy pants on.

What are the chances? It would be a first for them.

Quote:I just think they should pay a hefty fee for leaving early along with maybe some 1-1 BB games with the MAC East teams along with a 1-1 FB game with UMASS.

As small as they think, I'll bet the final deal is something like the original 2.5 mil plus a couple of basketball games.

I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like the MAC bottom feeders just love divvying scraps they can get.

I've talked enough casually with NIU higher ups to know that they don't like the Temple situation and never have. I suspect that Toledo probably doesn't appreciate getting bent over, but the rest of them? I wouldn't give a squirt of piss for 'em.