(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:25 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The MAC might want to expand, but who out there would be attracted TO them. I doubt any MWC, AAC, and/or CUSA schools would do it.

(1) None of the MWC would make the slightest bit of sense for the MAC and none would have the least interest in moving to the MAC so they can all be ruled out.

(2) The American is seen as a stronger football conference, while being inarguably a multi-bid as opposed to single big BBall conference, so there isn't going to be any school leaving the American for the MAC except the exception case of a school getting booted out of the American ... and the Temple scenario really is very, very rare.

(3) CUSA v2.0 was seen as clearly better than the MAC, whether or not CUSA v3.0 remains better than the MAC, there are no CUSA members where a lateral move to the MAC offers any obvious advantage.

And very few pairs of FCS schools offer enough to the MAC to justify making the invite.

at this point in time none of the MAC, AAC, or MWC schools are in position to poach each other. The one school that could of been poached (umass) is already on the way out.

The MAC does not need to expand now that UMass is leaving. How did this thread grow legs?

(05-04-2014 06:30 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 11:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 10:42 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 07:27 PM)john01992 Wrote:  here is my beef with the MAC ==> there is nothing special about them worth mentioning for why they should be a d4 conference. Don't get me wrong they are clearly in the same class as the mwc/aac however

the mwc has deep historical rivalries with each other & with the pac12/byu to lean on as well as producing quality football teams from time to time.

the aac has less history/rivalries but they make up for that by producing even better football teams.

what does the mac have? The only ooc rivalry worth mentioning that involves a mac team is cincy-miami. they had some success with NIU but NIU never won anything nor had the consistency as other mwc/aac (and be) teams had.

huh?

The MAC has deep historical rivalries- Ohio/Miami have played the Battle of the Bricks since 1908, BGSU/Toledo have played the I-75 rivalry since 1919, Ohio/Marshall have played the Battle for the Bell since 1905, Akron/Kent have played for the Wagon Wheel since 1923. The MAC has several rivalries that are older than most of the colleges in the MWC.

The MAC has more than its fair share of winning programs too. Ranking all FBS teams by their all-time winning percentage Miami is #21, Central Michigan is #22 and Bowling Green is #30. Compare that to the top 3 teams in the AAC- #45 Tulsa, #51 Navy, #58 Houston, and the MWC- #24 Fresno State, #49 Hawaii, #55 Air Force.

Some other tidbits about the MAC-
-Toledo has the 2nd longest winning streak in FBS in the last 100 years with 35 straight from '69-'71, only Oklahoma with 47 from '53-'57 has more.
-In the past 15 years the MAC has had 2 teams finish ranked in the top 10.
-Last year the #1 pick in the NFL draft was from the MAC and there's a strong chance the #1 pick will be from the MAC again this year.
- Miami is known as the Cradle of Coaches, former coaches include Paul Brown, Ara Parseghian, Woody Hayes, Bo Schembechler and John Harbough.
- Nick Saban, Lou Holtz and Gary Pinkel were MAC coaches. Currently, 5 B1G coaches are from the MAC, including Urban Meyer and Brady Hoke.
- In the 2011 Super Bowl the SEC had the most players represented on the Steelers and Packers rosters. The MAC had the second most. More than the B1G, more than the ACC, more than the B1g XII.

There's plenty special worth mentioning about the MAC.

series records

Ohio:
miami 90
kent st. 66
bowling green 65
w. michigan 59
marshall 57
c. michigan 50

lets compare that to.....

Colorado st.
wyoming 105
colorado 85
utah 79
utah st 71
byu 69
new mexico 61
air force 52 (started playing in the 50s)

Wyoming
CSU 105
utah 83
BYU 77
New mexico 66
utah st 64
Air Force 52

Utah St.
utah 111
byu 83
csu 71
wyoming 64

you really don't have to look that far to see what i am getting at here. your typical MWC school has more history with the members of its conference than your typical MAC school. Look at one of the schools i listed ==> utah st. they just joined the MWC and was never one of the core members of the wac, and yet they have much deeper rivalries with the MWC than what ohio has with the MAC. The mwc has deeper ties with each other because there is a stronger historical attachment between these institutions. even with all the realignment that hit this group of schools they still managed to have a much higher amount of games played than the MAC. and if you wanna have this argument "year started" is the worst stat for you to bring up.
uu-usu 1892
csu-cu 1893
id-wsu 1894
nm-nms 1894
wy-csu 1899

the west developed big time college football earlier than the MAC schools. they created a number of conferences that were in their day far more nationally relevant than the MAC and obtained a status that the MAC never reached in those time periods. the RMAC was one of the earliest conferences to be formed and said to be a power in its day, the WAC at its height was equal to ACC as the next class of power conferences after the b8, b10, swc, & pac. And then there was the MWC that produced a number of BCS busters.

part of what makes the collection of western g5 schools better than the collection of MAC schools IMO is that 3 of them (asu, zona, utah) later become p5 members. You also had colorado & texas tech spending significant chunks of their FB history with these schools plus TCU have some of the best days in its programs history with these schools as well. All while producing the strongest g5 school (BYU). meanwhile the MAC doesn't have a rivalry with a single b10 school, and never had a program run the table like so many of the western g5 teams have.

You're splitting hairs about rivalries. The MAC has rivalries. Long rivalries. Passionate rivalries. Meaningful rivalries. Period. They're just as meaningful to those schools as the rivalries between schools in the MWC. Its a silly argument. The MAC doesn't have long standing rivalries with B1G schools? Of course not, they refuse to play MAC schools with any regularity without a government mandate (literally). And seriously, do you think that a rivalry game started in the 1890s is significantly more meaningful than one started in the 1910s? C'mon. Splitting hairs.

Comparing Arizona and Arizona St. moving up to the MAC teams not moving up? Those are the two largest schools in the state, who was going to stop them? What's the next closest P5 school, UCLA? There are ELEVEN (11!) MAC schools within 150 miles of 3 of the biggest franchises in college football. It's a completely different set of challenges.

And again, your assertion that no MAC team has "never run the table like so many western g5 teams have" shows that you're oblivious to history. And focused on western schools. I grew up in the Midwest and the allmightyness of these schools you are pimping is completely lost on me.

In no way shaper or form are the current schools of MWC vastly superior to the schools in the MAC. None. nada. zilch.

and the MWC has longer, more historical, & more passionate rivalries.

here is the reality: most mwc schools were playing fellow mwc schools on a regular basis since the 1890s. for the mac outside of 1-3 schools there is very little pre-MAC history between MAC schools. The MWCs predecessors were established in the 1900s-1930s. The MAC wasn't established until 1946 and has literally no predecessor.

you can't win the MAC has as much history and as for your bold part:

that is my point exactly. The MWC schools are in large part either the flagships on the secondary state schools. They have better resources, better market footholds, actual inter-state rivalries that is relevant to the state as a whole, and the better wealth/attendance that comes along with it.

arizona/asu were able to get into the pac because they had good football, large fanbases, terrific athletics, and made the academic cut. you act like they were added simply when it was their god given right when in reality it was because those schools had tremendous foresight/planning of which the mAC schools never had

oh wow man, the MWC schools were playing each other regularly in the 1890s and the MAC wasn't playing each other regularly until the early 1900s.

OMG THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

The MAC did very well two years ago and then slid last year. What are your prediction for the MAC this year.
!) Return to the level two years ago.
2) About the same as last year.
3) Continue the slight slid.

(05-04-2014 10:13 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The MAC did very well two years ago and then slid last year. What are your prediction for the MAC this year.
!) Return to the level two years ago.
2) About the same as last year.
3) Continue the slight slid.

4) UMass 2014 MAC Champions

(05-03-2014 02:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Yeah, that's reasonable. At the very least, the MAC was considering it. Whether there was a fourteenth, or the recruitment of one was needed, or if there still is and now UMass is off the conveyor belt, if the MAC just wanted twelve, it seems like the MAC could have just dumped UMass and choose to sever without the offer.

They couldn't have done that this year, UMass's option to join all-sports if the MAC set a deadline on FB-only was written into the agreement.

But the MAC knew what they were doing when they negotiated that agreement in the first place ... in the event that either Temple or UMass had left, they would have been thrilled to have the other one exercise their option to join all-sports.

I think they thought they knew what they were doing. It's just that when Temple got tossed from the Big East, who knew the conference wouldn't just come back for their football, but take all of their sports? To the MAC, I bet Temple looked like a very good decision on paper. And to UMass, I bet Temple looked pretty stable within the MAC. Who knew the Big East would reach out to Temple before so many of those other schools, and who knew Temple would leave both the MAC and UMass in the lurch?

UMass knew it wouldn't get a game with Temple its first year in FBS? The MAC knew Toledo and BGSU were going to be severed longer than originally expected?

It doesn't sound like UMass is handling its matters well in athletics. After stuff like this transition, you have to wonder if the MAC really pressed UMass, with the MAC having all the leverage and reason to acquire them, and UMass foolishly still wanting to follow Temple, despite Temple hosing them. If that was the case, I would applaud the MAC for dropping them. Don't get into bed with an athletic department like that...

(05-04-2014 09:52 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  oh wow man, the MWC schools were playing each other regularly in the 1890s and the MAC wasn't playing each other regularly until the early 1900s.

OMG THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

we must have different definitions of "1900s" or different definitions of "playing regularly." ohio's most played rival (miami) didn't become a regular rivalry until 1928, their 2nd most played rivalry started in 1949 and had just one prior game played (in 36) before that. meanwhile their third most played rivalry (bowling green) played its first game in 1945.

meanwhile.......

since 1899 csu-wyoming first started playing they have played 105 times.

since 1900 utah-utah st has played 111 times

this is not a 10 year difference that I am getting at here, this is at best a 30 year difference for a couple of MAC rivalries, and a 45-50 year difference for most MAC rivalries.

As a Texas State fan, I have no interest in the the MAC. Sun Belt may not have the best reputation nationally, but I'd rather be there playing teams from Louisiana and Arkansas (that I can travel to) than games in Ohio or Michigan

(05-02-2014 02:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  If I were a G5 commissioner right now my focus would be getting the membership to adopt tougher scheduling and other standards to force my weaker members to get better or get out, rather than looking to expand.

I don't know about this..

I'd like EMU to play 2 FCS games a year because, well, they need some wins at home..

THe Goal should be building up and retaining fan bases, thats going to be different from school to school..

(05-03-2014 03:08 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:38 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:51 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Going into Texas is WAY overstretching cultural fit, not to mention travel and other costs associated with the long distances. The MAC has a very solid regional hold, and they do not need to risk it. They should certainly gobble here and there when a natural fit emerges, but there is no reason to push things. Remember, bowl and other monetary payouts keep getting cut slimmer the more schools you add beyond 12. With UMass soon departing, they are sitting pretty.

Depending on how FBS ends up, they may end up backfilling more than trying to go beyond 12. By almost every metric, Eastern Michigan is a low man on the totem pole along with Louisiana-Monroe. I would think the next addition to the MAC could be a replacement for Eastern Michigan to get back to 12 more than trying to go beyond that number. If some of the low FBS teams do end up being shuffled out, there is a very good opportunity for the MAC to pluck a school like Marshall. Western Kentucky would not be a terrible add, either, if it came to it.

What is a natural fit that is good?

I think a lot of the responses are missing the point.....I'm talking about the MAC making some moves and elevating themselves from a quiet regional conference to a mid-major player, specifically in FOOTBALL

You can only build so much from within, because you're in the shadow of one of the biggest conferences....it's not a solid regional hold.

If the MAC ever wants to evolve into something more than it is, they're going to have to think outside the box


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

who says the MAC is a "quiet regional conference" and not a "mid-major player, specifically in football"? Simply by NOT going crazy with alignment the MAC has elevated itself as one of the better G5 conferences. The MAC is much closer to the top of the pile than the bottom, as is.

The "outside of the box" thinking is to actually not give into temptation and confuse change with growth but rather focus on improving its current lineup.

How is the "MAC" anywhere near the top of the G5 pile? 0-5 in bowls in last season. 2-5 the year before that. A 2-10 bowl performance over the last 2 years---largely against G5 competition. BTW---The 2 wins were against Sunbelt teams. Last year the MAC's super duper BCS buster got beat by the MW runner up---who was playing without their starting QB. I'm not seeing how you put the MAC near the top of the G5. When the MAC's best start to perform well against the best teams from the other G5 conferences, then maybe it would then make sense for the MAC to claim upper end G5 status---until then, that claim is hard to defend. The MAC is certainly better than it used to be, but I don't think its on a par with the MW and AAC yet. That said, the beauty of the current system for the MAC is that it doesn't have to be better than anyone else. It just needs to have one team that's better than all the rest of the G5 champs to claim a access bowl.

(05-04-2014 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:25 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The MAC might want to expand, but who out there would be attracted TO them. I doubt any MWC, AAC, and/or CUSA schools would do it.

(1) None of the MWC would make the slightest bit of sense for the MAC and none would have the least interest in moving to the MAC so they can all be ruled out.

(2) The American is seen as a stronger football conference, while being inarguably a multi-bid as opposed to single big BBall conference, so there isn't going to be any school leaving the American for the MAC except the exception case of a school getting booted out of the American ... and the Temple scenario really is very, very rare.

(3) CUSA v2.0 was seen as clearly better than the MAC, whether or not CUSA v3.0 remains better than the MAC, there are no CUSA members where a lateral move to the MAC offers any obvious advantage.

And very few pairs of FCS schools offer enough to the MAC to justify making the invite.

at this point in time none of the MAC, AAC, or MWC schools are in position to poach each other. The one school that could of been poached (umass) is already on the way out.

I think the AAC could poach Buffalo Or Ohio but I'm not sure and G5 conference *wants* to grow at this point. Even the Sun Belt seems like they want to catch their breath..

(05-04-2014 10:59 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 02:03 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:39 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Yeah, that's reasonable. At the very least, the MAC was considering it. Whether there was a fourteenth, or the recruitment of one was needed, or if there still is and now UMass is off the conveyor belt, if the MAC just wanted twelve, it seems like the MAC could have just dumped UMass and choose to sever without the offer.

They couldn't have done that this year, UMass's option to join all-sports if the MAC set a deadline on FB-only was written into the agreement.

But the MAC knew what they were doing when they negotiated that agreement in the first place ... in the event that either Temple or UMass had left, they would have been thrilled to have the other one exercise their option to join all-sports.

I think they thought they knew what they were doing. It's just that when Temple got tossed from the Big East, who knew the conference wouldn't just come back for their football, but take all of their sports? To the MAC, I bet Temple looked like a very good decision on paper. And to UMass, I bet Temple looked pretty stable within the MAC. Who knew the Big East would reach out to Temple before so many of those other schools, and who knew Temple would leave both the MAC and UMass in the lurch?

UMass knew it wouldn't get a game with Temple its first year in FBS? The MAC knew Toledo and BGSU were going to be severed longer than originally expected?

It doesn't sound like UMass is handling its matters well in athletics. After stuff like this transition, you have to wonder if the MAC really pressed UMass, with the MAC having all the leverage and reason to acquire them, and UMass foolishly still wanting to follow Temple, despite Temple hosing them. If that was the case, I would applaud the MAC for dropping them. Don't get into bed with an athletic department like that...

Everyone is entitled to a view. You probably never saw this so will quote when the UMass FBS era started; Dec 26, 2013.

Quote:The surprise firing of University of Massachusetts football coach Charley Molnar was not announced until the day after Christmas, which shows they still have a heart in Amherst.

What UMass officials realized, however, was that they no longer had time. Whether or not Molnar deserved more than two years of a five-year contract to build a Football Bowl Subdivision team from scratch, the wolves were either howling or losing interest.

Administrators on campus tried to convince themselves it was getting better and needed more time. In this high-stakes game of athletic expansion, such patience usually loses out to the demands of a fan base that never warmed up personally to Molnar, and would have probably demanded a change even if they had liked the guy.

What is startling is that UMass would pay a reported $836,000 of buyout money to jettison a coach of any sport. Mark down Dec. 26, 2013 as the real date the history of FBS football at UMass began.

At other universities, pompous millionaire alums normally pool their riches, call the athletic director and say they'll pay to buy out a losing coach. UMass alums have been known to make such demands, especially in basketball, and then expect the university or the state's taxpayers to foot the cost.

This time, UMass AD John McCutcheon said the buyout will be paid by "external'' sources. It's not clear what that means, though it's being interpreted in some quarters to suggest UMass might have some of those deep-pocketed alums as well.

Full Article Limk

(05-04-2014 12:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:25 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The MAC might want to expand, but who out there would be attracted TO them. I doubt any MWC, AAC, and/or CUSA schools would do it.

(1) None of the MWC would make the slightest bit of sense for the MAC and none would have the least interest in moving to the MAC so they can all be ruled out.

(2) The American is seen as a stronger football conference, while being inarguably a multi-bid as opposed to single big BBall conference, so there isn't going to be any school leaving the American for the MAC except the exception case of a school getting booted out of the American ... and the Temple scenario really is very, very rare.

(3) CUSA v2.0 was seen as clearly better than the MAC, whether or not CUSA v3.0 remains better than the MAC, there are no CUSA members where a lateral move to the MAC offers any obvious advantage.

And very few pairs of FCS schools offer enough to the MAC to justify making the invite.

at this point in time none of the MAC, AAC, or MWC schools are in position to poach each other. The one school that could of been poached (umass) is already on the way out.

I think the AAC could poach Buffalo Or Ohio but I'm not sure and G5 conference *wants* to grow at this point. Even the Sun Belt seems like they want to catch their breath..

buffalo is clearly the closest to being poachable. but imo i dont see them leaving the comfort of the MAC which fits in much better with their traditional footprints than the AAC which has zero cultural fit with a SUNY school.

(05-03-2014 01:38 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:51 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Going into Texas is WAY overstretching cultural fit, not to mention travel and other costs associated with the long distances. The MAC has a very solid regional hold, and they do not need to risk it. They should certainly gobble here and there when a natural fit emerges, but there is no reason to push things. Remember, bowl and other monetary payouts keep getting cut slimmer the more schools you add beyond 12. With UMass soon departing, they are sitting pretty.

Depending on how FBS ends up, they may end up backfilling more than trying to go beyond 12. By almost every metric, Eastern Michigan is a low man on the totem pole along with Louisiana-Monroe. I would think the next addition to the MAC could be a replacement for Eastern Michigan to get back to 12 more than trying to go beyond that number. If some of the low FBS teams do end up being shuffled out, there is a very good opportunity for the MAC to pluck a school like Marshall. Western Kentucky would not be a terrible add, either, if it came to it.

What is a natural fit that is good?

I think a lot of the responses are missing the point.....I'm talking about the MAC making some moves and elevating themselves from a quiet regional conference to a mid-major player, specifically in FOOTBALL

You can only build so much from within, because you're in the shadow of one of the biggest conferences....it's not a solid regional hold.

If the MAC ever wants to evolve into something more than it is, they're going to have to think outside the box


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Ohio State & Michigan would be quality adds, and a good geographic fit as well...

(05-04-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 09:52 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  oh wow man, the MWC schools were playing each other regularly in the 1890s and the MAC wasn't playing each other regularly until the early 1900s.

OMG THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

we must have different definitions of "1900s" or different definitions of "playing regularly." ohio's most played rival (miami) didn't become a regular rivalry until 1928, their 2nd most played rivalry started in 1949 and had just one prior game played (in 36) before that. meanwhile their third most played rivalry (bowling green) played its first game in 1945.

meanwhile.......

since 1899 csu-wyoming first started playing they have played 105 times.

since 1900 utah-utah st has played 111 times

this is not a 10 year difference that I am getting at here, this is at best a 30 year difference for a couple of MAC rivalries, and a 45-50 year difference for most MAC rivalries.

WHO CARES?????

(05-04-2014 11:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 03:08 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:38 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 02:51 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  Going into Texas is WAY overstretching cultural fit, not to mention travel and other costs associated with the long distances. The MAC has a very solid regional hold, and they do not need to risk it. They should certainly gobble here and there when a natural fit emerges, but there is no reason to push things. Remember, bowl and other monetary payouts keep getting cut slimmer the more schools you add beyond 12. With UMass soon departing, they are sitting pretty.

Depending on how FBS ends up, they may end up backfilling more than trying to go beyond 12. By almost every metric, Eastern Michigan is a low man on the totem pole along with Louisiana-Monroe. I would think the next addition to the MAC could be a replacement for Eastern Michigan to get back to 12 more than trying to go beyond that number. If some of the low FBS teams do end up being shuffled out, there is a very good opportunity for the MAC to pluck a school like Marshall. Western Kentucky would not be a terrible add, either, if it came to it.

What is a natural fit that is good?

I think a lot of the responses are missing the point.....I'm talking about the MAC making some moves and elevating themselves from a quiet regional conference to a mid-major player, specifically in FOOTBALL

You can only build so much from within, because you're in the shadow of one of the biggest conferences....it's not a solid regional hold.

If the MAC ever wants to evolve into something more than it is, they're going to have to think outside the box


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

who says the MAC is a "quiet regional conference" and not a "mid-major player, specifically in football"? Simply by NOT going crazy with alignment the MAC has elevated itself as one of the better G5 conferences. The MAC is much closer to the top of the pile than the bottom, as is.

The "outside of the box" thinking is to actually not give into temptation and confuse change with growth but rather focus on improving its current lineup.

How is the "MAC" anywhere near the top of the G5 pile? 0-5 in bowls in last season. 2-5 the year before that. A 2-10 bowl performance over the last 2 years---largely against G5 competition. BTW---The 2 wins were against Sunbelt teams. Last year the MAC's super duper BCS buster got beat by the MW runner up---who was playing without their starting QB. I'm not seeing how you put the MAC near the top of the G5. When the MAC's best start to perform well against the best teams from the other G5 conferences, then maybe it would then make sense for the MAC to claim upper end G5 status---until then, that claim is hard to defend. The MAC is certainly better than it used to be, but I don't think its on a par with the MW and AAC yet. That said, the beauty of the current system for the MAC is that it doesn't have to be better than anyone else. It just needs to have one team that's better than all the rest of the G5 champs to claim a access bowl.

hey look everybody, this guys back to trot out his same tired trope about the MAC losing bowls the last two years SO THEREFORE the only logical conclusion is that it sucks. Because that's the measure of a team- a bowl game in a town nobody wants to go to, against a team nobody cares about, without a coaching staff because they've already moved on to their new P5 job.

That makes total sense.

(05-04-2014 02:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 09:52 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  oh wow man, the MWC schools were playing each other regularly in the 1890s and the MAC wasn't playing each other regularly until the early 1900s.

OMG THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

we must have different definitions of "1900s" or different definitions of "playing regularly." ohio's most played rival (miami) didn't become a regular rivalry until 1928, their 2nd most played rivalry started in 1949 and had just one prior game played (in 36) before that. meanwhile their third most played rivalry (bowling green) played its first game in 1945.

meanwhile.......

since 1899 csu-wyoming first started playing they have played 105 times.

since 1900 utah-utah st has played 111 times

this is not a 10 year difference that I am getting at here, this is at best a 30 year difference for a couple of MAC rivalries, and a 45-50 year difference for most MAC rivalries.

WHO CARES?????

you do obviously. all I said was that the MAC has nowhere near the amount of history as the western g5 schools and you threw a hissy fit over that comment while ignoring the fact that the MAC was formed in 1946, has no predecessor, and didn't emerge into its current form until the 70s.

get over it and stop saying "who cares" when i am responding to a question that you keep asking.

(05-04-2014 02:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 12:14 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 09:01 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:54 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 08:25 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  The MAC might want to expand, but who out there would be attracted TO them. I doubt any MWC, AAC, and/or CUSA schools would do it.

(1) None of the MWC would make the slightest bit of sense for the MAC and none would have the least interest in moving to the MAC so they can all be ruled out.

(2) The American is seen as a stronger football conference, while being inarguably a multi-bid as opposed to single big BBall conference, so there isn't going to be any school leaving the American for the MAC except the exception case of a school getting booted out of the American ... and the Temple scenario really is very, very rare.

(3) CUSA v2.0 was seen as clearly better than the MAC, whether or not CUSA v3.0 remains better than the MAC, there are no CUSA members where a lateral move to the MAC offers any obvious advantage.

And very few pairs of FCS schools offer enough to the MAC to justify making the invite.

at this point in time none of the MAC, AAC, or MWC schools are in position to poach each other. The one school that could of been poached (umass) is already on the way out.

I think the AAC could poach Buffalo Or Ohio but I'm not sure and G5 conference *wants* to grow at this point. Even the Sun Belt seems like they want to catch their breath..

buffalo is clearly the closest to being poachable. but imo i dont see them leaving the comfort of the MAC which fits in much better with their traditional footprints than the AAC which has zero cultural fit with a SUNY school.

NYC sends more students to UB than anywhere else in the world. Buffalo fits institutionally with UConn and Temple and is something of an institutional oddball in the MAC.

The problem with tagging "Buffalo's" traditional anything is that until the 60's UB was a smallish private school which was mostly Buffalo but as the years go on the Alumni base has shifted more and more towards NYC and the east coast.

I honestly don't see UB turning down the AAC if invited but I don't think the AAC invited Buffalo so its moot..

(05-04-2014 03:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 02:24 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 09:52 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  oh wow man, the MWC schools were playing each other regularly in the 1890s and the MAC wasn't playing each other regularly until the early 1900s.

OMG THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING.

we must have different definitions of "1900s" or different definitions of "playing regularly." ohio's most played rival (miami) didn't become a regular rivalry until 1928, their 2nd most played rivalry started in 1949 and had just one prior game played (in 36) before that. meanwhile their third most played rivalry (bowling green) played its first game in 1945.

meanwhile.......

since 1899 csu-wyoming first started playing they have played 105 times.

since 1900 utah-utah st has played 111 times

this is not a 10 year difference that I am getting at here, this is at best a 30 year difference for a couple of MAC rivalries, and a 45-50 year difference for most MAC rivalries.

WHO CARES?????

you do obviously. all I said was that the MAC has nowhere near the amount of history as the western g5 schools and you threw a hissy fit over that comment while ignoring the fact that the MAC was formed in 1946, has no predecessor, and didn't emerge into its current form until the 70s.

get over it and stop saying "who cares" when i am responding to a question that you keep asking.

but seriously, WHO CARES?