With all of the bitching and moaning in this thread, how it is possible nearly 1/2 of the MAC schools have cracked the Top 25 over the last several years?

Hey, y'all - if you head over to http://www.mac-sports.com/ - the lead headline on the front page is "MAC Video Feature: ESPN MAC Relationship"

(11-07-2013 12:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  <snip>
On this thread only a few names have been mentioned, but I'll post my own observation-based opinion:
<snip>
Kent, CMU, WMU, Ball St- Not fully idle, but squandered opportunities. Give appearance of accepting status quo. Perhaps improved status quo from 20 years ago, or perhaps not.
<snip>

Unless you're only looking at Football, I think Kent doesn't belong here. We've been one of the top couple MAC Men's Basketball teams since the 1990s, we've been a national competitor in Golf, we've been the strongest MAC team in Baseball, and are routinely competitive in the other sports we compete in.

(11-07-2013 01:18 PM)Slinkin Street Flash Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 12:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  <snip>
On this thread only a few names have been mentioned, but I'll post my own observation-based opinion:
<snip>
Kent, CMU, WMU, Ball St- Not fully idle, but squandered opportunities. Give appearance of accepting status quo. Perhaps improved status quo from 20 years ago, or perhaps not.
<snip>

Unless you're only looking at Football, I think Kent doesn't belong here. We've been one of the top couple MAC Men's Basketball teams since the 1990s, we've been a national competitor in Golf, we've been the strongest MAC team in Baseball, and are routinely competitive in the other sports we compete in.

I think you squandered some of that cache in bball.

That's my point.

I'm not sure KSU is leveraging their success to move even further forward. KSU is definitely earns more respect than 20 years ago, and is a more competitive program in virtually every way. But, are they moving forward? Maybe I'm overly critical of KSU

Of course one could say that NIU is more of a one trick pony huskie at this point. But they do have demographics working for them to some extent.

(11-07-2013 12:08 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Torch, Michigan doesn't run their universities the way Ohio does. Lansing has no input in the selection of University Presidents, AFAIK.

But - the Michigan legislature is chock full of UM law grads and MSU people and during higher ed appropriations battles, you know how that all ends up. They get the filet mignon and the MAC schools get the hamburger leftovers.

But Lansing does appoint Board of Trustee members. I've heard varied thoughts on how much the BoT influences the decisions of the Presidents.

The MAC isn't holding any school down. Want to improve your lot? Increase your budget by roughly $10 mil. (to get consideration from the AAC), win 80-90% of your games (see Boise), develop a huge fan base (see Boise, ECU), and a few other things. Then be on your way. In the mean time, start digging in your pockets because they $$ will need to come from boosters, probably not the schools.

And those of you that want to drop EMU, that won't magically transform the conference. You are simply looking at FBall.

(11-07-2013 01:50 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  The MAC isn't holding any school down. Want to improve your lot? Increase your budget by roughly $10 mil. (to get consideration from the AAC), win 80-90% of your games (see Boise), develop a huge fan base (see Boise, ECU), and a few other things. Then be on your way. In the mean time, start digging in your pockets because they $$ will need to come from boosters, probably not the schools.

And those of you that want to drop EMU, that won't magically transform the conference. You are simply looking at FBall.

Great post.

Geez, I was just getting excited for a great season of MACtion basketball, but now you got me convinced it sucks to be MAC fans, and there's no fun in being members of a second-class NCAA conference.

Viva MAC wrestling!

(11-07-2013 01:50 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  The MAC isn't holding any school down. Want to improve your lot? Increase your budget by roughly $10 mil. (to get consideration from the AAC), win 80-90% of your games (see Boise), develop a huge fan base (see Boise, ECU), and a few other things. Then be on your way. In the mean time, start digging in your pockets because they $$ will need to come from boosters, probably not the schools.

And those of you that want to drop EMU, that won't magically transform the conference. You are simply looking at FBall.

Football-wise, I'm perplexed as to why any MAC school would consider this.

(11-07-2013 02:38 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  Viva MAC wrestling!

Agree. Although it looks to be a down year. And, I might add, an example of how the MAC is not leveraging its success.

(11-07-2013 10:56 AM)Slinkin Street Flash Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 03:23 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Toledo and Buffalo schedule tough, why can't everybody???
<snip>

Yeah, Kent scheduled LSU and Penn State this year. Rutgers and Kentucky last year. Alabama before that. Is that a tough enough schedule for you?

You snipped the part that said JK... I was playing off the ESPN announcers taking shots at BSU and NIU. I also went on to put down O$U which should grant me points on this board.

Obviously some teams schedule tougher than others, although this year Buffalo and Toledo have pushed through their schedules to a level of success... Kent not so much.

(11-07-2013 03:08 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 10:56 AM)Slinkin Street Flash Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 03:23 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Toledo and Buffalo schedule tough, why can't everybody???
<snip>

Yeah, Kent scheduled LSU and Penn State this year. Rutgers and Kentucky last year. Alabama before that. Is that a tough enough schedule for you?

You snipped the part that said JK... I was playing off the ESPN announcers taking shots at BSU and NIU. I also went on to put down O$U which should grant me points on this board.

Obviously some teams schedule tougher than others, although this year Buffalo and Toledo have pushed through their schedules to a level of success... Kent not so much.

This is also a crapshoot.

Like NIU for example, they schedule lots of BigTen road games. But you don't know what you're going to get from Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue. You do know know what to expect from Nebraska, OSU and Wisconsin. (Some of NIU's recent OOC games and future ones)

Toledo has done a great job of getting teams to Toledo. However, if anyone here said Mizzou was going to be this good, they were lying. Toledo looks much better because Mizzou panned out, they easily could have been like Iowa.

This games are scheduled far enough in advance in most cases that you know you're getting an AQ team, but you don't know how good they will be unless it's a premier one (florida for Toledo, LSU, OSU, etc.)

Five years ago, nobody would have clapped for Buffalo scheduling Baylor. Buffalo going 0-2 and getting whooped in one isn't a level of success, they also took a FCS team to 5 OTs.

Let's be real, they survived the OOC in decent shape 2-2. Competed against OSU, who at that time wasn't playing well, and then has had a nice in conference run.

Call a spade a spade, don't trying making it look better than what it is. All of this has to be looked at through the right frame of mind.

(11-07-2013 12:42 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 12:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 12:01 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

On this thread only a few names have been mentioned, but I'll post my own observation-based opinion:

NIU, Buffalo, Ohio and Akron- Overtly active in trying to improve athletics, and institutions as a whole.

Toledo- pushing forward, but slower pace.

Kent, CMU, WMU, Ball St- Not fully idle, but squandered opportunities. Give appearance of accepting status quo. Perhaps improved status quo from 20 years ago, or perhaps not.

The remaining three- Fair to question their committment to improvement.

I would tend to agree with above. As the names in the top continue to grow, the gap between them and bottom continues to grow as well. It would seem that at some point something will give as I cannot see things staying status long term unless all programs commit to improvement. The MAC has largely remained status but I could see that changing at some point.

How can you say that NIU is committed to improvement when their basketball program has been so bad for so long? Basketball is the other big sport where you should be showing this commitment.

(11-09-2013 12:04 AM)DICK Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 12:42 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 12:13 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(11-07-2013 12:01 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

On this thread only a few names have been mentioned, but I'll post my own observation-based opinion:

NIU, Buffalo, Ohio and Akron- Overtly active in trying to improve athletics, and institutions as a whole.

Toledo- pushing forward, but slower pace.

Kent, CMU, WMU, Ball St- Not fully idle, but squandered opportunities. Give appearance of accepting status quo. Perhaps improved status quo from 20 years ago, or perhaps not.

The remaining three- Fair to question their committment to improvement.

I would tend to agree with above. As the names in the top continue to grow, the gap between them and bottom continues to grow as well. It would seem that at some point something will give as I cannot see things staying status long term unless all programs commit to improvement. The MAC has largely remained status but I could see that changing at some point.

How can you say that NIU is committed to improvement when their basketball program has been so bad for so long? Basketball is the other big sport where you should be showing this commitment.

I don't know what people mean when they talk about schools being committed to improvement. How do they do this? Improve facilities? Hire a big-name coach?

I agree with Optimist, when he said there are only a couple of schools in the league that are trying to improve their programs. I also agree with Dr. Torch's list of schools that are trying, that are at status quo and the ones that are just along for the ride.

I also completely disagree with the whole concept that ESPN despises the MAC. ESPN is going with the money ... and yes, the MAC has made them money. The MAC is, as has been discussed, is good that it is a bunch of like schools that are in close proximity. For ESPN, that is a bad thing. ESPN wants to expand markets when bidding on a product.

With that said (and I know there will be a ton of political pressure that would need to be overcome), but instead of the 4-5 schools that realistically would fight for a spot in the AAC, why not join together and try to create a new league?

1. Akron
2. Ohio
3. NIU
4. Buffalo
5. Toledo

That's a solid core of five schools that are in the group of schools wanting to move on. Plus, four are in large media markets. OU doesn't have the TV market, but with all the joking of flagship, etc., nobody can deny that Ohio does have a brand as big as any in the current MAC, and an administration that is striving to build it even more through athletics.

Add
6. UMass (partial member) to that group. Another school that

You now need 6 more (have to have a football championship game.

Could that sway Cincinnati, Temple and UConn from the AAC? The easy answer is no. But if you look deeper, it actually may be a better scenario for all three when you look at what the AAC is about to become.

For basketball, it would look like this:
1. UConn
2. Cincinnati
3. Temple
4. UMass
5. Akron
6. Ohio
7. Toledo
8. Buffalo
9. Northern Illinois

Akron and OU have been two of the only MAC schools who have even been in the at-large conversation recently. Push them down to the No. 5 and 6 spot in a league, with Cincy, Temple and UConn, and it's easily a 3-4 bid league.

In football, it'll be:
1. Cincinnati
2. Northern Illinois
3. Toledo
4. UConn
5. Ohio
6. Temple
7. Buffalo
8. Akron
9. UMass

Is that as great group, no. But is that just as strong as the future AAC? Probably, especially when you consider proximity (for the minor sports).

The biggest factor, outside of proximity, would be TV markets. You'd have:
1. NIU: No. 3 Chicago. While NIU has direct competition, it's Northwestern, an elite private school.
2. Temple: No. 4 Philadelphia. No direct competition.
3. UMass: No. 7 Boston. While not directly Boston, it's the flagship state school in a big state that only BCS competition is a small, Catholic school.
4. Akron: No. 17 Cleveland. No direct competition.
5. UConn: No. 30 Hartford ... plus it's in the middle of the NY-Boston megalopolis.
6. Cincinnati: No. 34 Cincinnati. No direct competition.
7. Buffalo: No. 51 Buffalo. No direct competition.
8. Toledo: No. 73. No direct competition.
9. Ohio: No market, but we joke about it being a flagship or not. It's still a school with a large fan base in a big state. It's no worse overall than say East Carolina ... and OU brings better academics. ... and a better overall football/basketball mix.

With all that said, you would want to get it to 12 to get a championship game for football. What does that leave?

Well, that's where some of the current MAC schools come into play, along with some aggressive FCS schools.

10. Ball State: No. 25 Indianapolis market. No direct competition. Ball State does have to fight being in an average football state going up against ND. But ND doesn't recruit Indiana all that much. The other two in-state FBS schools (Indiana and Purdue) are mediocre. To get into Indiana's vast hoops recruiting bed, BSU makes sense here.

11. Western Michigan: No. 39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo market: No direct competition. WMU has been a competitive MAC school in both football and basketball, and keeps the new league in Michigan. No, it's not Detroit, but Detroit is MSU and UM territory to begin with.

12. James Madison: No market (and private), but it's a school that seems to be looking to upgrade it's athletic profile. Plus, it's close enough to the No. 9 DC market where it would, even indirectly, add the DMV into the league's profile.

Now, you are looking at:

Basketball:
1. UConn
2. Cincinnati
3. Temple
4. UMass
5. Akron
6. Ohio
7. Western Michigan
8. Ball State
9. Toledo
10. Buffalo
11. James Madison
12. Northern Illinois

Nothing really changes (from the first nine)

Football:
1. Cincinnati
2. Northern Illinois
3. Toledo
4. UConn
5. Ohio
6. Temple
7. Buffalo
8. Ball State
9. Western Michigan
10. Akron
11. James Madison
12. UMass

Again nothing really changes.

But where would it would change ... markets:
1. NIU - No. 3
2. Temple - No. 4
3. UMass - No. 7 (arguably)
4. James Madison - No. 9 (arguably)
5. Akron - No. 17
6. Ball State - No. 25
7. Uconn - No. 30
8. Cincinnati - No. 34
9. Western Michigan - No. 39
10. Buffalo - No. 51
11. Toledo - No. 63
12. Ohio - No. 1,480 (joking, well kind of).

9 of the 12 bring in top 50 market, with Buffalo just missing, and Toledo still being respectable. Ohio doesn't matter. After all, it's "the flagship" ... Flagship or not, still a good fit.

(11-09-2013 05:20 AM)Wadszip Wrote:  With that said (and I know there will be a ton of political pressure that would need to be overcome), but instead of the 4-5 schools that realistically would fight for a spot in the AAC, why not join together and try to create a new league?

Answer: Because if those schools were to separate from their current affiliation, the only schools that would join said group of schools you propose are:

Miami (OH); Kent St, Central Mich, Eastern Mich, Bowling Green St, and possibly UMass (and James Madison is a coin flip)

Which looks a lot like the current configuration...

Cincinatti is not trying to regress in perception any further than they need to when they are a dominoe away from getting back to the power conferences. They'd go independent before joining that group.

The other schools you mention (Temple and UConn) are not leaving a conference with Cincinatti in it, as it is the best they can do for themselves right now...and is Temple really coming back to a group they just left without a significant upside? The only way that happens is if they get put out the AAC...lol...which is how they got to the MAC in the first place...

I agree with your thinking there Wadszip.
If that ball ever got rolling and a conference like you described came together, I think a big help would be that Buffalo is trying to make a push for the "New York" branding. If they can be successful in that (which is much easier said then done), you potentially have an eastern conference to that division that could be UMass, UConn and New York's three flagship schools. Add Temple to that list and that is the very first attempt to throw together a legitimate Northeastern League for college football.
Beyond Buffalo rebranding, I think Ohio and Akron basketball would be appealing more than people realize.

What really frustrates me with the MAC is that we can't convince a good basketball school like UMass to join.

The disparities between the top and bottoms of the MAC are growing. It is very clear some schools are anteing up and some are folding in athletics. The more that happens. Akron, Ohio, NIU, Buffalo and Toledo is a very workable core. I think a couple of these schools have been closer to leaving the MAC then people realize... If you shore up these weaknesses at these schools, look out. Akron football and hoops arena, Ohio's football stadium, NIU hoops

Ohio and Akron hoops would fit perfectly in the AAC today. Get football going there and you are in business.
I think you would hear a lot less complaining about the MAC treading water if the conference made a move to improve the basketball schools. If you add Northern Iowa and UMass, this conference is infinitely better in hoops.

Regarding Cincinnati, they do think highly enough of Ohio that we were able to schedule a home and home in football later this decade.

Glad you included JMU, but JMU is not private. Public Uni with close to 20k students. You also forgot that while not the biggest show in town in either market, JMU has plenty of fans and alums in both the DC and Richmond area...just food for thought.