(04-12-2013 08:47 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  No; that can never happen. Our philosophies and goals are too different. I view the MAC as a graveyard for athletic programs and would be embarrassed if USM even played at a MAC team, even once.

So you're saying that it would be embarrassing for USM to come up to play in Toledo... Well, I guess that wasn't the case for Boise State, Pitt, Cincy, Navy, 3 Big 10 teams, and 3 Big 12 teams to show up at the Glass Bowl... Also Missouri next year, U Miami -2015... The shame of it all...

(04-12-2013 11:43 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 08:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

CUSA-MAC Alliance (PPT Flash Movie)

Waste of time to even talk about it. The new revenue sharing from the BCS is not setup in a way to make it worthwhile. The majority of those schools in the Mac have no real commitment to athletics or getting better anyway. Wast of time. We have great schools that are wanting to get better and investing in facilities right here in CUSA. There is not one current member in CUSA that I would trade for another Mac member.

Most of the MAC schools are improving their facilities, but don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

CUSA used to be better than the MAC in football. I doubt that it is now. It could be again if the newbies pan out, but right now it isn't.

Boise State played @ Toledo (as part of a 1-1). But USM is too good to play at a MAC school?

I'm not arguing, its a fact. BTW, Notice I said the "majority" of Mac schools. The only schools in the Mac that I've heard about improving facilities are Akron, Ohio, Toledo etc. I'm sure NIU is improving facilities as well.

Then you have schools like Eastern Michigan, Ball State and the others that just dont seem to care. You being a Mac school member and fan know exactly what I'm talking about.

(04-12-2013 12:03 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:43 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 08:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

CUSA-MAC Alliance (PPT Flash Movie)

Waste of time to even talk about it. The new revenue sharing from the BCS is not setup in a way to make it worthwhile. The majority of those schools in the Mac have no real commitment to athletics or getting better anyway. Wast of time. We have great schools that are wanting to get better and investing in facilities right here in CUSA. There is not one current member in CUSA that I would trade for another Mac member.

Most of the MAC schools are improving their facilities, but don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

CUSA used to be better than the MAC in football. I doubt that it is now. It could be again if the newbies pan out, but right now it isn't.

Boise State played @ Toledo (as part of a 1-1). But USM is too good to play at a MAC school?

I'm not arguing, its a fact. BTW, Notice I said the "majority" of Mac schools. The only schools in the Mac that I've heard about improving facilities are Akron, Ohio, Toledo etc. I'm sure NIU is improving facilities as well.

Then you have schools like Eastern Michigan, Ball State and the others that just dont seem to care. You being a Mac school member and fan know exactly what I'm talking about.

Ball State conducted a $14 mil stadium upgrade in 2007 that improved the press box, concessions, and added an endzone berm and new luxury suites.

I watched the slide show and would support a similar system that included all 5 of the conferences currently left out except for 1 spot among them in the new bcs system.

It would be better to take the top team from each of the 5 and have that playoff. The 2 lowest seeds would have a play-in game to get to the field of 4 or just take the top 4 champs. The regular season schedules could be modified as suggested in the slide show so that everyone ends up playing 12 games except the 2 finalists who would play 13. Better to decide who goes to the "big bowl" thru a mini playoff than to let a committee decide it.

(04-12-2013 12:37 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I watched the slide show and would support a similar system that included all 5 of the conferences currently left out except for 1 spot among them in the new bcs system.

It would be better to take the top team from each of the 5 and have that playoff. The 2 lowest seeds would have a play-in game to get to the field of 4 or just take the top 4 champs. The regular season schedules could be modified as suggested in the slide show so that everyone ends up playing 12 games except the 2 finalists who would play 13. Better to decide who goes to the "big bowl" thru a mini playoff than to let a committee decide it.

Yea I'm a big fan of deciding it on the field instead of taking a vote.

sturt, if you think your stuff gets dismissed as asinine on Herd Fans just wait if you decide to act the same way over here. I'm glad you found this board, it may expand your myopic view and lessen your love affair with the MAC and its "superior football".

I watched the power point.

At the end of the day, CUSA does not gain from a MAC alliance. It is lose lose for CUSA.

What's best for each conference is that their teams simply perform well.

No alliance needed, just win. And that is true for all in the Group of 5.

(04-12-2013 12:03 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:43 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 08:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

CUSA-MAC Alliance (PPT Flash Movie)

Waste of time to even talk about it. The new revenue sharing from the BCS is not setup in a way to make it worthwhile. The majority of those schools in the Mac have no real commitment to athletics or getting better anyway. Wast of time. We have great schools that are wanting to get better and investing in facilities right here in CUSA. There is not one current member in CUSA that I would trade for another Mac member.

Most of the MAC schools are improving their facilities, but don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

CUSA used to be better than the MAC in football. I doubt that it is now. It could be again if the newbies pan out, but right now it isn't.

Boise State played @ Toledo (as part of a 1-1). But USM is too good to play at a MAC school?

I'm not arguing, its a fact. BTW, Notice I said the "majority" of Mac schools. The only schools in the Mac that I've heard about improving facilities are Akron, Ohio, Toledo etc. I'm sure NIU is improving facilities as well.

Then you have schools like Eastern Michigan, Ball State and the others that just dont seem to care. You being a Mac school member and fan know exactly what I'm talking about.

Most of the MAC schools are upgrading their facilities. That's the least of our worries. EMU is in a tough spot, that will be a hard one to turn around.

NIU built an endzone facility about 5 years ago and will be completing an IPF this year. Also replacing the scoreboard. We do need to renovate the West side of stadium still.

(04-12-2013 12:37 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I watched the slide show and would support a similar system that included all 5 of the conferences currently left out except for 1 spot among them in the new bcs system.

It would be better to take the top team from each of the 5 and have that playoff. The 2 lowest seeds would have a play-in game to get to the field of 4 or just take the top 4 champs. The regular season schedules could be modified as suggested in the slide show so that everyone ends up playing 12 games except the 2 finalists who would play 13. Better to decide who goes to the "big bowl" thru a mini playoff than to let a committee decide it.

I'm all for a playoff if you can make it happen. Something like you're describing would be optimal. I'm just proposing something that might be more in our control to make happen.

(04-12-2013 12:54 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 12:37 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I watched the slide show and would support a similar system that included all 5 of the conferences currently left out except for 1 spot among them in the new bcs system.

It would be better to take the top team from each of the 5 and have that playoff. The 2 lowest seeds would have a play-in game to get to the field of 4 or just take the top 4 champs. The regular season schedules could be modified as suggested in the slide show so that everyone ends up playing 12 games except the 2 finalists who would play 13. Better to decide who goes to the "big bowl" thru a mini playoff than to let a committee decide it.

I'm all for a playoff if you can make it happen. Something like you're describing would be optimal. I'm just proposing something that might be more in our control to make happen.

If you think this is such a great idea, why not forward your little powerpoint to Jon Steinbrecher and Britton Banowsky and see what they think about it.

Sturat. Not many if any CUSA schools except us have any relationships with MAC schools. This would be like asking the PAC 12 to have a challenge or alliance with the ACC. Neither conferece has anything in common except they are a power conference. What does Washington have in common with say UVA or Oregon State have in common with new member Louisville.

(04-12-2013 09:40 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:39 AM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  Andre is talking about the "good ol' days" of C-USA when they had a great match-up with the MWC champ in the Liberty Bowl. Long gone now with the new conference "landscape" and most of the better C-USA football programs now departing or about to depart for AAC.

I know it, and maybe a MAC deal makes sense for Impostor CUSA. I'll put it like this, though: it doesn't make sense for any conference that includes USM. I'd prefer we drop football and focus on hoops if it's really come to that.

your such a 13yr old whiny *****

(04-12-2013 09:21 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:09 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  If there wasn't enough money to make it work with the MWC, then there won't be with the MAC. They're a lesser league in a constricted footprint dominated by the B1G.

1. We never were told any of the specifics of the nature of the alliance that Thompson and Banowsky had intended, other than that they advocated that there was additional TV revenue to be had. What's proposed here may or may not be what they had in-mind.

As such, your assertion that there "wasn't enough money to make it work" is built on a series of presumptions you've made.

2. I'd like to see how you make the case that "they're a lesser league." That's absurd.

3. What Group of Five conference doesn't exist in a geographic area dominated by one of the power conferences?

Again... dismiss the emotion, understand precisely what is being proposed, and use your left brain on this. This can only help both conferences to have a better shot at the BCS berth, and that is where the big money is. History says that to not do so is to, in most years, yield that berth and that money to either the AAC or MWC.

Actually, it's to yield that berth/money to the MWC in most years. The aac has no member who has earned a bcs bid while playing outside an auto bid conference. Those who HAVE played in one, from within an auto bid conference, did so only when that league was not at her best.

I fully anticipate that cinci will quickly play their way back to the rest of the pack, while usf and uconn aren't really even there any longer. uh and ecu have peaked - and no I'm not saying they'll go DOWN, I just believe they have attained the level they can attain without being placed in a mega dollar conference (even if the difference/increase is $2 million - at their higher end C-USA budget levels that isn't nearly enough to make any measurable difference in their programs). UH has a chance to improve drastically with regard to basketball - lots of talent in that city.....but that's where they'll prosper on a national scale, not football.

No, there is but one Go5 conference who will typically be favored to get that bid - and really only two teams in that conference will be fighting for that bid.

(04-12-2013 08:47 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  No; that can never happen. Our philosophies and goals are too different. I view the MAC as a graveyard for athletic programs and would be embarrassed if USM even played at a MAC team, even once.

I believe it most definitely is a great idea. I've proposed this for C-USA for a long long time. I proposed it with the MWC 3 years before the commissioners had a brilliant idea.

As a USM fan I am most familiar with the USM history, but imagine an 11 game season in which USM ended it 9-2 (keep the Marshall and UAB losses but drop one of the two OOC dump game wins)......have that same conference championship game beat down of houston as game 12 (now 10-2 with a solid/impressive win over uh) followed by one more game with a high-end MAC opponent. Win that and it may have been the little bit we needed to get back into the top 16....dropping a W against Alcorn and picking one up against the then highest ranked MAC opponent can ONLY help - it absolutely cannot hurt.

THIS is indeed a concept well worth developing. This is a concept that WILL work. The cartel conferences are placing the Go5 conferences in a box. Whichever Go5 conference(s) can learn to think OUTSIDE that box will be the conference(s) that places itself/themselves at the top of the Go5 heap. I will say this, it likely won't work for the primary purpose the stupid commissioners hoped it would work for (tv revenue) but it will definitely work to increase the ranking/value of the winner of the MAC/C-USA affiliation of conferences.

(04-12-2013 12:45 PM)banker Wrote:  sturt, if you think your stuff gets dismissed as asinine on Herd Fans just wait if you decide to act the same way over here. I'm glad you found this board, it may expand your myopic view and lessen your love affair with the MAC and its "superior football".

banker, honestly?

Your narcissistic behaviors are superior to any I've ever encountered on a sports forum, and that's saying something... so persuaded of your own authority on a given topic, and when someone presents facts that counter that authority, you conveniently ignore it or you change the criteria in order to make your conclusion fit as you recently did not once but twice... and now, following me around as-if your opinion is meaningful.

It's futile for me to say, but I'll say it anyway... don't flatter yourself. My stuff gets dismissed, when it gets dismissed, largely by people who want to debate on the basis of their anecdotal impressions, not on the basis of any factoids they've brought to the discussion. What's more, your perception is skewed... it's routinely only those who disagree who bother to post. Otherwise, it's not been unusual for someone to write to me on the side to tell me they didn't bother entering into a given debate about something I brought up simply because they knew I could more than stand on my own feet.

(04-12-2013 01:06 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  If you think this is such a great idea, why not forward your little powerpoint to Jon Steinbrecher and Britton Banowsky and see what they think about it.

Who says I didn't?

In before HerdZoned goes psycho.

(04-12-2013 01:59 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 01:06 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  If you think this is such a great idea, why not forward your little powerpoint to Jon Steinbrecher and Britton Banowsky and see what they think about it.

Who says I didn't?

PPT's are reasonably quick to prepare - but I doubt seriously he prepared it for a bunch of fat ass guys well beyond their youth who like to hang out on message boards. Oh, and younger fat ass guys who can't catch the girls regardless of how much protest is ..... n.o.w......o.n......i.t.s......w.a.y.

(04-12-2013 01:49 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 08:47 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  No; that can never happen. Our philosophies and goals are too different. I view the MAC as a graveyard for athletic programs and would be embarrassed if USM even played at a MAC team, even once.

I believe it most definitely is a great idea. I've proposed this for C-USA for a long long time. I proposed it with the MWC 3 years before the commissioners had a brilliant idea.

As a USM fan I am most familiar with the USM history, but imagine an 11 game season in which USM ended it 9-2 (keep the Marshall and UAB losses but drop one of the two OOC dump game wins)......have that same conference championship game beat down of houston as game 12 (now 10-2 with a solid/impressive win over uh) followed by one more game with a high-end MAC opponent. Win that and it may have been the little bit we needed to get back into the top 16....dropping a W against Alcorn and picking one up against the then highest ranked MAC opponent can ONLY help - it absolutely cannot hurt.

THIS is indeed a concept well worth developing. This is a concept that WILL work. The cartel conferences are placing the Go5 conferences in a box. Whichever Go5 conference(s) can learn to think OUTSIDE that box will be the conference(s) that places itself/themselves at the top of the Go5 heap. I will say this, it likely won't work for the primary purpose the stupid commissioners hoped it would work for (tv revenue) but it will definitely work to increase the ranking/value of the winner of the MAC/C-USA affiliation of conferences.

This is true, and would actually work even better as a four team playoff among the first four Go5 conferences to agree to it. In the end, it would hurt our perception too much and only give the power conferences an excuse to shut us out completely except for giving that one champion its guaranteed bowl spot. I honestly do not look forward to nothing but Go5 bowl games and nothing but guarantee games against the power conferences outside that one spot.

That said, we are probably headed that direction long term anyway. I guess what I am really wondering is if it would be better in this case to be proactive or reactive.

(04-12-2013 02:39 PM)WinOrLoseEAGLE Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 01:59 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 01:06 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  If you think this is such a great idea, why not forward your little powerpoint to Jon Steinbrecher and Britton Banowsky and see what they think about it.

Who says I didn't?

PPT's are reasonably quick to prepare - but I doubt seriously he prepared it for a bunch of fat ass guys well beyond their youth who like to hang out on message boards. Oh, and younger fat ass guys who can't catch the girls regardless of how much protest is ..... n.o.w......o.n......i.t.s......w.a.y.

You don't know sturt. He wastes inordinate amounts of time putting together information that only serves to entertain himself. He also likes to write endless 6-12 paragraph posts that, again, only have value to him. He's legendary for such on certain Marahall boards.