(05-06-2012 05:02 AM)johnbragg Wrote: (05-06-2012 03:34 AM)LastMinuteman Wrote: Indeed, why tolerate having half the UMass sports that matter when you could have none.
1. Because Massachusetts is well outside the traditional MAC footprint.
It's got nothing to do with that.
First off, even including UMass, the MAC remains by far the smallest FBS conference. The only other one that's even close is the SEC, and they're still almost 100 miles bigger at their furthest points and far more spread out in between. Without UMass, the MAC is only 512 miles long, less than half the size of the average FBS conference even if you throw out Hawaii. That's a great asset if these were still the 1950s. In the era of blockbuster TV deals, it's hurting them as much as helping them.
Second, the MAC can't actually kick UMass out without UMass's cooperation. What many people don't know is, it's not "join MAC for all sports or we kick you out after 2 years." What happens contractually is that, once the MAC gives UMass 2 years' notice, that triggers UMass's right to join the MAC for all sports without an entry fee. The MAC cannot decline UMass all-sports membership. Thus, going back to 12 members isn't within the MAC's power. It's entirely UMass's choice.
Third, right now the MAC is on the hook for 8 travel games to UMass per year, 6 of which are in revenue sports and 2 of which are in non-revenue sports (women's basketball). Traveling in revenue sports makes sense, since it increases exposure and you can sell it to TV. Ergo, San Diego in the Big East. Whereas long distance travel in non-revenue sports is money flushed straight down the toilet. Ergo, San Diego not in the Big East for anything except football. But if the MAC gives UMass 2 years' notice, and UMass exercises its clause to join the MAC for all sports, what happens is the MAC gains 10 more games in revenue sports (half home, half at UMass) and
124 more games in the non-revenue sports, not including the 1.5 MAC tournaments per season that will be cycled through UMass's campus as part of the normal rotation in the various sports.
Does that sound like a good plan to alleviate the geographic distance issue to you? Increase from 16 games to 150+ games, over 85% of which are in non-revenue sports that nobody cares about?
Now the second point you brought up that I didn't quote, the 13 member football conference, that's a legit issue. 13 sucks. But unless the MAC gets assurances from UMass that they won't exercise their full membership rights, or someone else leaves, the MAC is going to have to find a 14th member anyway.
The best move for the MAC is probably to test drive UMass for a few years, because UMass does have the most unconventional setup in football what with playing so far off campus. If UMass takes off like Boise, the MAC would regret prematurely scaring UMass out of the conference. If UMass flops, and nobody comes to the games, the MAC will regret committing to another member that plays like Akron and draws like EMU. UMass might terminate itself rather than make the MAC do it.
If the MAC wants more games for its trouble, add another basketball series. Add a soccer match for Akron. Add a hockey series for Bowling Green and WMU. Add a game against the #1 ranked UMass lacrosse team, if a MAC member ever takes up the sport. We can come up with the equivalent of the 5 more home games the MAC would receive in revenue sports if UMass joined in all sports. Don't add 130 worthless friggin trips in sports nobody watches. That will just put all sides further in the red than when this collaboration started. Just take 5 games that are worth something.
