(04-02-2013 01:01 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:45 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:30 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:21 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:13 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  Personally I'd like to see the MAC do something with UMass, all-in with JMU (whomever) or walking papers. I'd also like to see the MAC be proactive with bowls. IMO it's up to the schools to improve their positions. Has any MAC member stepped up with an athletic budget approaching BCS teams? Toledo's 2011 budget was under $21 mil. The lowest BCS team listed was WSU with just over $40 mil. I don't think MAC schools want to find an additional $10-20 mil to approach the level of other conferences.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/co...54955804/1

Ohio is over 30 million now and is paying its new women's basketball coach 170k....

I think you'll see more distance between MAC budgets and spending than what you've seen in the past where there is winning.

How does that explain EMU spending $26 mil in 2011? Not much of a difference, and that's 2 years ago.

Bowling Green's budget I believe is around 19 million and that is with carrying the sport of Ice Hockey.

What you are trying to assert is that nobody in the MAC is willing to spend and I call BS. Take a look at how much money Akron is laying out for its men's basketball and soccer coach or Miami for its Hockey coach. The new football HC at Kent State is making 600k a year.

If by $600k you actually mean $375k, you are correct.

All the numbers I have seen for Ohio's athletic budget put it in the mid-low $20M range. You have a link to a $30M budget or did you just make that up, too?

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/SalariesContracts.htm

Here is where it say Haynes is making 600k. They might be including all guaranteed compensation in the number.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=617540

These are numbers taken from the Department of Education's equity in athletics tool cutting site for 2011-12.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Ohio raised its fee student fee by another 8% for 2012-13 hence the 30 million number.

(04-02-2013 01:35 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:01 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:45 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:30 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:21 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Ohio is over 30 million now and is paying its new women's basketball coach 170k....

I think you'll see more distance between MAC budgets and spending than what you've seen in the past where there is winning.

How does that explain EMU spending $26 mil in 2011? Not much of a difference, and that's 2 years ago.

Bowling Green's budget I believe is around 19 million and that is with carrying the sport of Ice Hockey.

What you are trying to assert is that nobody in the MAC is willing to spend and I call BS. Take a look at how much money Akron is laying out for its men's basketball and soccer coach or Miami for its Hockey coach. The new football HC at Kent State is making 600k a year.

If by $600k you actually mean $375k, you are correct.

All the numbers I have seen for Ohio's athletic budget put it in the mid-low $20M range. You have a link to a $30M budget or did you just make that up, too?

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/SalariesContracts.htm

Here is where it say Haynes is making 600k. They might be including all guaranteed compensation in the number.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=617540

These are numbers taken from the Department of Education's equity in athletics tool cutting site for 2011-12.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Ohio raised its fee student fee by another 8% for 2012-13 hence the 30 million number.

The second link has been wrong on UB for at least two years... Out Budget is about 25 Million

(04-02-2013 01:16 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Which conference has improved because of Realignment?

The Big East? nope.
CUSA? nope.
SunBelt? nope.
WAC? nope. (RIP)

I think there are some MAC fans that wish the top MAC programs would leave just so they could feel like their teams are desirable too. That somehow losing NIU and Toledo and replacing them with scattered FCS teams would be good for the conference because we would be "doing something".

Where have you seen that? You don't think EMU/Akron/UMass want to move up on their own merits and not because the league got weaker? If anything people get annoyed by fans of hot teams thinking that they've outgrown the MAC because it holds them back.

that's not what I meant. I was saying that the MAC's lack of activity is viewed as a bad thing by some but I believe that alot of the realignment moves is simply movement for the sake of movement and I'm glad the MAC has avoided that temptation.

I agree with Perimeter post that the MAC has strengthened its hand by "standing pat" and not overreacting to conference realignment. Still, we have that "UMASS problem" and hopefullly the league's commish and leaders do have some options in mind for either dissolving the relationship with UMASS or bringing in one more school...I think JMU might've been a decent fit so long as UMASS stays...I suspect there is little confidence in UMASS hanging around hence the league is a bit stymied as to what to do.

I still like to go over to the C-USA board to get my chuckles for the day. Just a couple years ago those same posters were boasting how C-USA was the "next BCS" conference with football "driving the bus"!. Now, they have switched their tune to better divisional travel arrangements with all the new FBS "nobodies" and "wannabe's" they have invited. Better yet, many of their posters are so delusional they argue that the "new C-USA" is better than a league with UCF, Houston, Memphis ("the" b-ball school in C-USA and all that NCAA money!), Tulsa, and ECU gone. Instead, we have FAU and FIU (if these guys don't win they won't have 10K in the stands), UTSA (which is a good pick up I'd say), and Charlotte (nice potential with new stadium but when I lived in Charlotte I don't recall anyone following their hoops program and I seriously doubt much of the city will care about their football program, either, and now WKU. (which is a good pick-up as well but certainly doesn't make up for the kind of schools that have left).

(04-02-2013 01:55 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 01:16 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Which conference has improved because of Realignment?

The Big East? nope.
CUSA? nope.
SunBelt? nope.
WAC? nope. (RIP)

I think there are some MAC fans that wish the top MAC programs would leave just so they could feel like their teams are desirable too. That somehow losing NIU and Toledo and replacing them with scattered FCS teams would be good for the conference because we would be "doing something".

Where have you seen that? You don't think EMU/Akron/UMass want to move up on their own merits and not because the league got weaker? If anything people get annoyed by fans of hot teams thinking that they've outgrown the MAC because it holds them back.

that's not what I meant. I was saying that the MAC's lack of activity is viewed as a bad thing by some but I believe that alot of the realignment moves is simply movement for the sake of movement and I'm glad the MAC has avoided that temptation.

It's not movement for the sake of movement...the top conferences saw value in adding institutions from other conferences. The round robin effect perpetuated from there, as lower level conferences (including the BE) have tried to keep membership at least high enough to continue playing FBS football (and ideally establish or maintain a conference title game and/or TV contracts monies). Temple was the only school taken from the MAC and there hasn't been a need to replace them, as we still have our title game and the TV contract (as small as it may be) is most likely not impacted...

For the MAC, there really isn't any temptation since survival is not threatened, but for BE, C-USA and SB it is(or was), otherwise they cease to function, so it is not just moving for the sake of it...

(04-02-2013 12:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Which conference has improved because of Realignment?

The Big East? nope.
CUSA? nope.
SunBelt? nope.
WAC? nope. (RIP)

ANS: The Mountain West.

And that's only because they reloaded after a raid, but then the raid came unraveled.

Objectively, it makes all the sense in the world to watch what happens in the next year or so, because what might happen ranges from modest shuffling to massive turmoil.

Just one example: the Big TBA is making noises about how it might like not only Navy but Army and Air Force too. Under some Big5 scenarios, that is quite realistic. Under others, its more likely Navy ends up in the ACC, Air Force would stand pat in the MWC and Army might be looking for a home.

If Army FB-only was available to the MAC, the current structure, including the fact that UMass is FB-only, would be fine. UMass, West Point, Buffalo, OhioU/MiamiU, Kent/Arkon in the East, BG/Toledo the Directional Michigans, Ball State and Northern Illinois in the West in FB. The ten core MAC schools, Northern Illinois and Buffalo in the Olympic sports.

But if its a morass that the OP wants, I'd say the Sunbelt is your poster child. Every time a program moves up to even modest success on the field and at the ticket window, it moves up to Conference USA to drag down their football strength of schedule and BBall RPI, and the Sunbelt has to turn around and find another sucker that wants to lose money transitioning from FCS to Mid-Major FBS football.

(04-02-2013 02:18 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Which conference has improved because of Realignment?

The Big East? nope.
CUSA? nope.
SunBelt? nope.
WAC? nope. (RIP)

ANS: The Mountain West.

Nope.

(04-02-2013 02:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 02:18 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Which conference has improved because of Realignment?

The Big East? nope.
CUSA? nope.
SunBelt? nope.
WAC? nope. (RIP)

ANS: The Mountain West.

Nope.

You've set yourself a task of showing that they are in a negative position: without conference realignment, they don't exist.

The MAC hasn't really improved at all. The other conferences have gone backward. The MAC is in a better position relative to the rest of the Gang of 5, though, and that's something, but really, all have lost ground to the big conferences.

(04-02-2013 02:37 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 02:25 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 02:18 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 12:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Which conference has improved because of Realignment?

The Big East? nope.
CUSA? nope.
SunBelt? nope.
WAC? nope. (RIP)

ANS: The Mountain West.

Nope.

You've set yourself a task of showing that they are in a negative position: without conference realignment, they don't exist.

if the choices are existing and not existing then MWC is obviously better by having survived. But the teams they lost (TCU, BYU, Utah) were better than the teams they gained (USU, SJSU).

MWC's loss isn't nearly as drastic though because they found good teams to replace very good teams and maintained a reasonable conference foot print.

(04-02-2013 02:46 PM)axeme Wrote:  The MAC hasn't really improved at all. The other conferences have gone backward. The MAC is in a better position relative to the rest of the Gang of 5, though, and that's something, but really, all have lost ground to the big conferences.

Surely CUSA has gone backwards dramatically over the past decade. The Sunbelt has obviously gone backwards in its main footprint, and even with its western members, losing NMSU and FB-only Idaho and Utah State to the WAC and only getting FB-only Idaho and NMSU back is also net loss.

And if the Big TBA hadn't gone backward it would be a Big Six and a Group of Four.

(As far as the Mountain West sliding backward over the last decade, compared to where they were in 2003 I'm not seeing it.)

The Group of Five guaranteed spot in the Access Bowls rather than various rankings based formulas is something they pushed for hard, but after the big increases in revenue gaps between the Big 5 and the FBS Mid-Majors, that's rather a consolation prize.

Axeme wrote: The MAC hasn't really improved at all. The other conferences have gone backward. The MAC is in a better position relative to the rest of the Gang of 5, though, and that's something, but really, all have lost ground to the big conferences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ding-ding! We have a winner!

P.S. and the sad (or funny depending how you look at it) part is that half the C-USA posters don't even know how far back they're headed...wait'll til they see their league football Sagarins in a couple of years.

Are we going to see the NCAA divide the FBS up into FBS A and FBS B?

I hope not.

(04-02-2013 03:05 PM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  P.S. and the sad (or funny depending how you look at it) part is that half the C-USA posters don't even know how far back they're headed...wait'll til they see their league football Sagarins in a couple of years.

Just imagine their gloating when one of their new FBS programs manages to beat a MAC program. Because it will happen.

Yeah, didn't Charlotte already schedule EMU??

(04-02-2013 03:09 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  Are we going to see the NCAA divide the FBS up into FBS A and FBS B?

I hope not.

There's no incentive to do that on the basis of Football, though, since they have carved out a de facto FBS A and FBS B with the Guaranteed Access conferences and the Group of Five, and the Group of Five helps maintain enough minor bowls so that even the mid-rank Major schools can go bowling regularly.

Plus the access bowl system and the pro forma access to the championship semi-finals provides some legal and political cover to their collusive cartel behavior.

There's a risk, through, of a split happening as a side effect of other things ~ including living stipend athletic scholarships and a possible grab at the pile of Basketball tournament money that leaves the FBS altogether, either for various pots of tournament surplus or for NCAA operating expenses. And its not guaranteed to be a Big Five / Group of Five split, either ~ they could bring the Big TBA, MWC and New Big East along to help maintain the bowl schedule and stock the BBall championship.

I'm hoping they believe that the risk of killing the goose that laid the golden egg ~ the prospective damage to the brand equity investment in the NCAA BBall tournament of a breakaway fight ~ is greater than the improvement in revenue share available from winnowing out the lower ranks of the Group of Five and the BBall-only Mid Majors.

(04-02-2013 03:09 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  Are we going to see the NCAA divide the FBS up into FBS A and FBS B?

I hope not.

Wont have any effect on UMass either way with those latest rumors swirling around.
I cant comment any further though. But yeah.

(04-02-2013 05:28 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 03:09 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  Are we going to see the NCAA divide the FBS up into FBS A and FBS B?

I hope not.

Wont have any effect on UMass either way with those latest rumors swirling around.
I cant comment any further though. But yeah.

LOL@Miami!! Thanks, mate, I appreciate that rebuttal to Mr. I-know-a-rumor-but-I-won't tell...

(04-02-2013 04:06 PM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  Yeah, didn't Charlotte already schedule EMU??

EMU found the one program to schedule a 1 for 1 with that had less fans through the turnstile in 2012 (in fact none, lol).

(04-02-2013 05:28 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(04-02-2013 03:09 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  Are we going to see the NCAA divide the FBS up into FBS A and FBS B?

I hope not.

Wont have any effect on UMass either way with those latest rumors swirling around.
I cant comment any further though. But yeah.

This has me very worried.