(07-07-2013 11:15 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Then why did ND just sign on to play 5 ACC teams a year? Is it because it's becoming increasingly harder to schedule games towards the end of the season?

While the fact that Army has games scheduled has been presented as proof that independents have no problem scheduling, look at the Army schedules, with their byes backloaded into the second half of the season, still leaving mostly a collection of away games in the second half.

I expect that four of those five games in the ND/ACC agreement are to meet Notre Dame's need to have home games in the last half of the season ... the fifth is the price of getting their Olympic sports into the ACC.

However, ND hopes to go bowling on a regular basis and contest for the national championship in their best years, so home away games in the second half of the season are a bigger priority to the Fighting Irish. Army has different objectives than the regular college athletic department, similar to BYU in a way. Army probably likes to travel to different parts of the country and put Army in local media in a variety of places. The offsetting factor would be a deal that would make it more likely that Army could be bowl eligible.

As far as joining the America, its not clear why Army wants to be on a conference ladder with Navy, when in the large majority of years, Navy will finish ahead of Army. Better to have the rivalry with Navy decided in a single game.

With Navy joining the American, the Army-Navy game is going to have to move to rivalry weekend anyway. Obviously the American would make the concession to Navy to play their rivalry weekend game out of conference, as Clemson/SC and Florida State / Florida.

Army would still be mighty reluctant to play a full conference schedule. Which is why a five game formal scheduling agreement, with the two home game year when Army hosts Navy and the three game year when Navy hosts Army, that might have some appeal.

(07-07-2013 12:43 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 09:41 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 11:10 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Championship game in Cleveland.

I think a conference with attendance issues to begin with, should have its games at the site of the best record/highest ranked division champ.

Why? Championship week occurs during winter break, and most MAC schools are located in college towns. Nobody would show up. Put the championship game in a city where most students/alumni are located during winter break, and things look better.

Thats why I threw out Cleveland. It is in Ohio which is half of the league right there and it's close to Michigan which has another 3 teams. The only ones who are really far away are NIU and UMass.

(07-07-2013 01:17 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 11:15 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Then why did ND just sign on to play 5 ACC teams a year? Is it because it's becoming increasingly harder to schedule games towards the end of the season?

While the fact that Army has games scheduled has been presented as proof that independents have no problem scheduling, look at the Army schedules, with their byes backloaded into the second half of the season, still leaving mostly a collection of away games in the second half.

I expect that four of those five games in the ND/ACC agreement are to meet Notre Dame's need to have home games in the last half of the season ... the fifth is the price of getting their Olympic sports into the ACC.

However, ND hopes to go bowling on a regular basis and contest for the national championship in their best years, so home away games in the second half of the season are a bigger priority to the Fighting Irish. Army has different objectives than the regular college athletic department, similar to BYU in a way. Army probably likes to travel to different parts of the country and put Army in local media in a variety of places. The offsetting factor would be a deal that would make it more likely that Army could be bowl eligible.

As far as joining the America, its not clear why Army wants to be on a conference ladder with Navy, when in the large majority of years, Navy will finish ahead of Army. Better to have the rivalry with Navy decided in a single game.

With Navy joining the American, the Army-Navy game is going to have to move to rivalry weekend anyway. Obviously the American would make the concession to Navy to play their rivalry weekend game out of conference, as Clemson/SC and Florida State / Florida.

Army would still be mighty reluctant to play a full conference schedule. Which is why a five game formal scheduling agreement, with the two home game year when Army hosts Navy and the three game year when Navy hosts Army, that might have some appeal.

Yeah, but BYU is having issues. Playing Army, Idaho and New Mexico St in December is not what they were hoping for. The Pac making a new rule that you can't play OOC games after i think the first week in Oct or the last week in Sept really hurt the Cougs. I think they were expecting to have Utah and ND in Dec every year which would have helped them, but ND and three of the worst teams in FBS is not good enough to make them attractive enough for the new playoff .

(07-07-2013 01:27 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 12:43 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Why? Championship week occurs during winter break, and most MAC schools are located in college towns. Nobody would show up. Put the championship game in a city where most students/alumni are located during winter break, and things look better.

Thats why I threw out Cleveland. It is in Ohio which is half of the league right there and it's close to Michigan which has another 3 teams. The only ones who are really far away are NIU and UMass.

If its going to be played outside, it could alternate Cleveland and Chicago.

I would be open to having the MAC also put together a scheduling agreement with BYU of 4 games to help them with scheduling.

They can play the stronger schools in the MAC like NIU, Toledo, Kent State an Ohio 2 for 2.

Have Army/BYU split the 14th team position in the MAC with 4 games a piece to even out the MAC schedule.......

(07-07-2013 01:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 01:27 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 12:43 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Why? Championship week occurs during winter break, and most MAC schools are located in college towns. Nobody would show up. Put the championship game in a city where most students/alumni are located during winter break, and things look better.

Thats why I threw out Cleveland. It is in Ohio which is half of the league right there and it's close to Michigan which has another 3 teams. The only ones who are really far away are NIU and UMass.

If its going to be played outside, it could alternate Cleveland and Chicago.

Cleveland I feel confident could work as its the #1 city for MAC alumni plus is a good football town with the Browns.

All the MAC East schools would take a good contingent to Cleveland and so would Toledo from the MAC West. There would be no concerns like a NIU-Ohio title game in Detroit with neither school having a large alumni base in the region.

The Cleveland Browns average 90% of capacity with a horrible team so it shows there is a lot of football interest in the city.

(07-07-2013 10:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO any speculating based on 2014 recruitiing classes is a bit premature, don't you think? Let's compare classes on signing day and see what we come up with...

Agree... having this discussion at this time is pointless.

(07-07-2013 03:17 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 01:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 01:27 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 12:43 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Why? Championship week occurs during winter break, and most MAC schools are located in college towns. Nobody would show up. Put the championship game in a city where most students/alumni are located during winter break, and things look better.

Thats why I threw out Cleveland. It is in Ohio which is half of the league right there and it's close to Michigan which has another 3 teams. The only ones who are really far away are NIU and UMass.

If its going to be played outside, it could alternate Cleveland and Chicago.

Cleveland I feel confident could work as its the #1 city for MAC alumni plus is a good football town with the Browns.

All the MAC East schools would take a good contingent to Cleveland and so would Toledo from the MAC West. There would be no concerns like a NIU-Ohio title game in Detroit with neither school having a large alumni base in the region.

The Cleveland Browns average 90% of capacity with a horrible team so it shows there is a lot of football interest in the city.

Cleveland is less centralized than Detroit. Might as well just leave it in Detroit. Unless you're trying to make sure that the East team always has most of the fans there.

(07-07-2013 03:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I would be open to having the MAC also put together a scheduling agreement with BYU of 4 games to help them with scheduling.

They can play the stronger schools in the MAC like NIU, Toledo, Kent State an Ohio 2 for 2.

Have Army/BYU split the 14th team position in the MAC with 4 games a piece to even out the MAC schedule.......

So would that be Army/BYU as a de facto seventh West team, or shift Bowling Green to the West and have Army/BYU as a de facto East team, with both playing 3 games in the six school division and one game in the seven school division? Or allocate the four games for one of them to one division and split the four of the other between the two divisions?

(07-07-2013 03:27 PM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 10:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO any speculating based on 2014 recruitiing classes is a bit premature, don't you think? Let's compare classes on signing day and see what we come up with...

Agree... having this discussion at this time is pointless.

Sometimes it's too early even on signing day. There are many kids who sign with a school that never make it onto campus...

(07-07-2013 01:27 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 12:43 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 09:41 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 11:10 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Championship game in Cleveland.

I think a conference with attendance issues to begin with, should have its games at the site of the best record/highest ranked division champ.

Why? Championship week occurs during winter break, and most MAC schools are located in college towns. Nobody would show up. Put the championship game in a city where most students/alumni are located during winter break, and things look better.

Thats why I threw out Cleveland. It is in Ohio which is half of the league right there and it's close to Michigan which has another 3 teams. The only ones who are really far away are NIU and UMass.

Well history says they do better at the schools. From 1997-2003 the MAC played its Championship games at the site of the highest ranked team - those games drew 20k-25k every year. Since 2004, the conference has played it's Championship Game indoors at Detriot's Ford Field and it has drawn from 11K to 25K, with four of those years drawing under 13,000 fans. Sponsorship and being indoors must be the appeal for the league/tv partners, but the fans do not seem to be impressed by a neutral site Championship Game. Not sure a game in Cleveland would be much more of a draw going outdoors.

(07-07-2013 06:12 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 03:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I would be open to having the MAC also put together a scheduling agreement with BYU of 4 games to help them with scheduling.

They can play the stronger schools in the MAC like NIU, Toledo, Kent State an Ohio 2 for 2.

Have Army/BYU split the 14th team position in the MAC with 4 games a piece to even out the MAC schedule.......

So would that be Army/BYU as a de facto seventh West team, or shift Bowling Green to the West and have Army/BYU as a de facto East team, with both playing 3 games in the six school division and one game in the seven school division? Or allocate the four games for one of them to one division and split the four of the other between the two divisions?

Good questions...

(07-05-2013 11:19 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I'd rather not play any bowls vs the weak AAC, it helps them but doesnt really help us. We beat them and its expected, they beat us and it a major upset and headache.

For example in 2012:
Ball State beat South Florida
Toledo beat Cincinnati
4-8 Western Michigan owned UConn for the 2nd straight year.
Everybody in the MAC owns Temple
Kent beat Rutgers

What kind of credit did we get? Nothing, was expected. The only credit we got was beating non-AAC teams like Penn State, Iowa, and Indiana. We should not schedule AAC teams unless it is 2 for 1 where we play twice at MAC stadiums or AAC at neutral sites.

We need to distance the gap between the MAC and them. Let them play the Sun Belt.

Can't wait for ESPN to finish replacing their blog with ours. LOL.

I disagree. The MAC got a ton of credit for those wins last year. I would even say that you got too much credit. ESPN ranked the MAC as the 5th best conference at one point.

The problem is that you're forgetting several things:
1) The MAC was 4-4 against the Big East. That's hardly dominance.
2) Against the other 5 BCS conferences, the Big East was 10-10 and the MAC was 4-18. And yet ESPN still ranked the MAC above the Big East for much of the season.
3The MAC's losses vs the Big East were mostly blowouts.
4) The MAC's 4 wins were close wins, at home, by the top 4 teams in the MAC.

Who deserves more credit: Ball State for beating a 3-9 team (USF) by 4 points at home, or UC for beating a 4-8 team (Miami) by 38 points at home? Neither is impressive, yet the MAC got more credit for those four wins than the Big East did for 10 wins against the other BCS conferences.

(07-08-2013 12:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-05-2013 11:19 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I'd rather not play any bowls vs the weak AAC, it helps them but doesnt really help us. We beat them and its expected, they beat us and it a major upset and headache.

For example in 2012:
Ball State beat South Florida
Toledo beat Cincinnati
4-8 Western Michigan owned UConn for the 2nd straight year.
Everybody in the MAC owns Temple
Kent beat Rutgers

What kind of credit did we get? Nothing, was expected. The only credit we got was beating non-AAC teams like Penn State, Iowa, and Indiana. We should not schedule AAC teams unless it is 2 for 1 where we play twice at MAC stadiums or AAC at neutral sites.

We need to distance the gap between the MAC and them. Let them play the Sun Belt.

Can't wait for ESPN to finish replacing their blog with ours. LOL.

I disagree. The MAC got a ton of credit for those wins last year. I would even say that you got too much credit. ESPN ranked the MAC as the 5th best conference at one point.

The problem is that you're forgetting several things:
1) The MAC was 4-4 against the Big East. That's hardly dominance.
2) Against the other 5 BCS conferences, the Big East was 10-10 and the MAC was 4-18. And yet ESPN still ranked the MAC above the Big East for much of the season.
3The MAC's losses vs the Big East were mostly blowouts.
4) The MAC's 4 wins were close wins, at home, by the top 4 teams in the MAC.

Who deserves more credit: Ball State for beating a 3-9 team (USF) by 4 points at home, or UC for beating a 4-8 team (Miami) by 38 points at home? Neither is impressive, yet the MAC got more credit for those four wins than the Big East did for 10 wins against the other BCS conferences.

Expectations were much higher for your conference. Not sure which BCS teams you played, but the media is good at downplaying losses by their favorites.

Anyway, we don't need Army. They don't add much, and we'd have yet another football-only school in the conference.

(07-05-2013 11:19 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-05-2013 11:12 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-05-2013 10:12 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-05-2013 09:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  The MAC continues to review its options regarding how to balance the conference given its current 13 school configuration (drop UMass vs. adding a 14th school), and Army faces the same scheduling problem as Notre Dame, i.e, how to fill its schedule in the middle of conference play and how to arrange suitable bowls. Army hasnmultiole open dates, for instance, this year during the heart of conference play. One mutually beneficial solution would be for Army and the MAC to make a scheduling alliance like Notre Dame's deal with the ACC in Football.

For instance, if the MAC split its divisions with 7 in the east (Umass, Buffalo, Kent, Akron, Ohio, Bowling Green and Miami) and 6 in the West, Army could play 4 games against the East that would count as conference games. Eastern division schools could play 2 interdivision games (2x7=14) plus 4 games against Army, and Western Division schools could play 3 interdivision games (3x6=18). Army could play 2 games against Western Division school that did not count as conference games. The MAC could add Army to its bowl rotation, presumably with an extra bowl.

This arrangement would benefit both the MAC and Army.

There is no official scheduling agreement, but Army already plays 4-5 MAC teams every year for the past 15+ years. The MAC would probably be fine signing something official though. Share bowls (MAC backup when Army not eligible, share TV (CBS Sports), etc...

Yes.

The MAC is already playing Army and it is part of an official scheduling agreement with the league. I don't know if there is any contractual maximums or minimums as much as the MAC will help Army as they request to fill out their schedule and that is why you see some flux in the number of games played against the MAC.

What the MAC could really use is a slot in a bowl game vs. Army, BYU and the AAC for its #1 team. That is the biggest thing missing for the MAC, a quality #1 bowl outside of the CFP structure.

I'd rather not play any bowls vs the weak AAC, it helps them but doesnt really help us. We beat them and its expected, they beat us and it a major upset and headache.

For example in 2012:
Ball State beat South Florida
Toledo beat Cincinnati
4-8 Western Michigan owned UConn for the 2nd straight year.
Everybody in the MAC owns Temple
Kent beat Rutgers

What kind of credit did we get? Nothing, was expected. The only credit we got was beating non-AAC teams like Penn State, Iowa, and Indiana. We should not schedule AAC teams unless it is 2 for 1 where we play twice at MAC stadiums or AAC at neutral sites.

We need to distance the gap between the MAC and them. Let them play the Sun Belt.

Can't wait for ESPN to finish replacing their blog with ours. LOL.

Without the wins over Rutgers, Cincy, UConn and USF; NIU does not get a BCS bid. Splitting with the BE gave the MAC credibility as being a BCS bowl worthy conference. The 8 wins over AQ conferences were a large help in getting for the first time a non AQ conference champ who had a loss that year into an AQ bowl game.

Similarly if Ohio beats Lville, Toledo beats Mizzou and or Florida, NIU beats both Purdue & Iowa, BSU beats UVA; if 5 of those 6 games go the MAC;s way and there is a 1 loss MAC program, you will see another MAC program in a BCS bowl and if there is an undefeated MAC program those 5 wins will almost guarantee a MAC AQ bowl bid

(07-08-2013 12:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-05-2013 11:19 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I'd rather not play any bowls vs the weak AAC, it helps them but doesnt really help us. We beat them and its expected, they beat us and it a major upset and headache.

For example in 2012:
Ball State beat South Florida
Toledo beat Cincinnati
4-8 Western Michigan owned UConn for the 2nd straight year.
Everybody in the MAC owns Temple
Kent beat Rutgers

What kind of credit did we get? Nothing, was expected. The only credit we got was beating non-AAC teams like Penn State, Iowa, and Indiana. We should not schedule AAC teams unless it is 2 for 1 where we play twice at MAC stadiums or AAC at neutral sites.

We need to distance the gap between the MAC and them. Let them play the Sun Belt.

Can't wait for ESPN to finish replacing their blog with ours. LOL.

I disagree. The MAC got a ton of credit for those wins last year. I would even say that you got too much credit. ESPN ranked the MAC as the 5th best conference at one point.

The problem is that you're forgetting several things:
1) The MAC was 4-4 against the Big East. That's hardly dominance.
2) Against the other 5 BCS conferences, the Big East was 10-10 and the MAC was 4-18. And yet ESPN still ranked the MAC above the Big East for much of the season.
3The MAC's losses vs the Big East were mostly blowouts.
4) The MAC's 4 wins were close wins, at home, by the top 4 teams in the MAC.

Who deserves more credit: Ball State for beating a 3-9 team (USF) by 4 points at home, or UC for beating a 4-8 team (Miami) by 38 points at home? Neither is impressive, yet the MAC got more credit for those four wins than the Big East did for 10 wins against the other BCS conferences.

Kent's win over an undefeated (at that point) Rutgers was at Rutgers and by 12 pts, that was a solid victory. ESPN gave the MAC a great deal of credit for the Toledo win over Cincy and the Kent win over Rutgers because the 2 BE teams to that point in the season were undefeated and ranked. Neither were ranked after the losses. The other wins that earned the MAC respect were the CMU win over Iowa on the road and Ball State beating Indiana on the road for the 3rd straight game. CMU would not have bowled without that win and while Indiana is a B10 weak sister, any MAC program that beats it's instate B10 rival 3 times earns alot of credit.

MAC has 4 winnable games vs B10 programs this year also
NIU with Iowa & Purdue
Kent with PSU
Bowling Green with Indiana

Winning those 4 and having either an undefeated or 1 loss conference champ will all but guarantee a MAC AQ bowl bid