The MAC blogger round table (posted on hustlebelt) is discussing a move for the conference down to FCS and asks each bloggers opinion.

Only 2 bloggers voiced concerns about moving down to FCS (Reps for NIU & Buffalo) What say you?

http://www.hustlebelt.com/mac-football/2...mac-to-fcs

Here is my proposal. A true national championship. The G5 runs an eight team playoff and the P5 runs an eight team playoff. First round games for both playoffs are held just after conference championships. Higher seeds hosts the first game. Winners then play in New Year's Day bowls. G5 and P5 championships on Jan 8 with true championship on Jan 20. Winners of each conference are in playoff with next 3 highest rated of both G5 and P5. We will change the name of G5 from group if five to Great 5.

This could rival March Madness! It would create more money, more excutement, more intense conference battles and would save college football.

We need to pull together all G5 conferences and create our own playoff and push to have this champion matched up against the P5 champion. Bowls can also be preserved. For example, quarter, semis and even championship games can be rotated to top bowl games each year. The secondary bowls will remain in tact for all teams outside of the top eight teams selected for G5 playoff.

Now who wants to join me and get this started? We need to appeal on the side of financial benefit, and I guarantee this would significantly increase revenue. It would help if we could get a committee of influential alumni from each G5 conference in a room and discuss. I would be happy to outline a plan. But need help from each of you MAC brothers to get the right passionate people to the table. We have so many great schools in the G5 and we have a large fan base and influential alumni. Now is the time to make some noise about the atrocities of D1 football. Let's go men!

To the future Great 5!!! Go MAC!!!

Why even discuss this? This is exactly what the "P5" wants us to talk about. We can't let them win!

Maybe EMU should consider this, but i think Huskie Stadium would burn to the ground before NIU went fcs.

Some programs from the MAC I could see dropping down, but programs that have any ambition to be good on a national level, or have any sort of national recognition (i.e. NIU, Toledo, maybe 2 or 3 others), would rather leave the conference than drop down.

There is no benefit. The loss of revenue streams more than offsets any savings from less scholarships. Either play FBS or drop football entirely. Those are the only options.

Quote:Looking at this from a strictly NIU perspective (of which I do more times than not), a hypothetical drop to the FCS would not include Northern. Like it or not, NIU is the national face of the conference, and has broken through barriers once thought to be impossible to reach for a conference at this level.

This particular blogger is making the mistake of looking at a snapshot in time. Granted, NIU's 'snapshot' of 5 years has been particularly impressive. But the tides of who dominates the league ebbs and flows.

Before NIU, CMU had a couple hot years, and before them Toledo and Miami ruled the roost with Top 25 teams, and Marshall put together a long dominating string around Y2K. Dating back before many of our times, Miami was playing - and beating - Florida, Georgia and South Carolina in back-to-back-to-back bowl games during 1970s. A couple decades later, MU would have the distinction of handing the Big Ten champion's only loss of the season.

NIU's appearance in the Orange Bowl could be considered a barrier broken for the MAC. But Top 25 finishes, NFL first round draft picks and Heisman candidates, while infrequent, aren't exactly new in the conference.

(12-07-2014 01:25 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  There is no benefit. The loss of revenue streams more than offsets any savings from less scholarships. Either play FBS or drop football entirely. Those are the only options.

While some teams do move up to FBS from FCS (Georgia Southern, Texas State, Appalachian State) There are some FCS programs that have turned down moving up to FBS (Delaware, Montana, McNeese State) who do have the resources to do so.

For an FCS team that draws well i.e. Montana, Delaware, ND ST; they'd have to either build or move their games to a larger facility to realize additional revenue.

If a team does move down to FCS they can also subtract an additional 22-23 scholarships from a revenue losing women's sport to realize even more $ saved.

(12-07-2014 04:20 PM)Policiious Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 01:25 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  There is no benefit. The loss of revenue streams more than offsets any savings from less scholarships. Either play FBS or drop football entirely. Those are the only options.

While some teams do move up to FBS from FCS (Georgia Southern, Texas State, Appalachian State) There are some FCS programs that have turned down moving up to FBS (Delaware, Montana, McNeese State) who do have the resources to do so.

For an FCS team that draws well i.e. Montana, Delaware, ND ST; they'd have to either build or move their games to a larger facility to realize additional revenue.

If a team does move down to FCS they can also subtract an additional 22-23 scholarships from a revenue losing women's sport to realize even more $ saved.

Each of those teams are the only real show in their state.

(12-07-2014 04:20 PM)Policiious Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 01:25 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  There is no benefit. The loss of revenue streams more than offsets any savings from less scholarships. Either play FBS or drop football entirely. Those are the only options.

While some teams do move up to FBS from FCS (Georgia Southern, Texas State, Appalachian State) There are some FCS programs that have turned down moving up to FBS (Delaware, Montana, McNeese State) who do have the resources to do so.

For an FCS team that draws well i.e. Montana, Delaware, ND ST; they'd have to either build or move their games to a larger facility to realize additional revenue.

If a team does move down to FCS they can also subtract an additional 22-23 scholarships from a revenue losing women's sport to realize even more $ saved.

I can't speak for the other schools, but the University of Montana wouldn't need to build a thing. Washington-Grizzly Stadium is a good, modern venue. It was renovated recently, it seats over 25k, has nice luxury boxes, and has great sight lines. The stadium is even well equipped for television coverage as they expect to host FCS playoff games every year. Truthfully, it is better than probably half of the stadiums in the MAC. However, they have no real interest in moving up. The school enjoys doing well ever year in FCS, doesn't want to lose the rivalry with Montana St, and has other issues to straighten out before even considering such a move. There may be other obstacles to moving up, but Montana's stadium isn't one of them.

Won't happen. A new sub-division may come about in the next 5-15 years though. I would Like to see that under these conditions for the "FGS" (Football General System):

(a) FCS still gets 63 scholarships
(b) FGS gets 75 scholarships (a little money saved)
© FBS still gets 85 scholarships

- FBS teams can't schedule FCS teams anymore
- FBS teams are Required to schedule at least 1 FGS team every year
- FGS teams can't schedule more than 2 FCS teams a year; recommended just 1 otherwise will hurt chances of getting into playoff
- More money is trickled down to FGS, undoing some of the previous rule in order to push for this kind of separation

- Missouri Valley Conference moves up to FGS (ND State, Illinois State, Northern Iowa, etc -- the SEC of FCS)
- Now known as the "G6"
- 8-team playoff (4 of the Top G6 conf champs go automatically)
- Other 7-5-or-better G6 teams go to bowls -- sometimes playing a few FBS/P5 teams in the lower bowls as it rolls currently

Think about it. It wouldn't affect OUR teams' schedules this year. At all. NIU & Marshall would be in a G6 playoff, so the bowls would be different, but that's about it.

IF IT WAS THIS YEAR:
PLAYOFF (Limit 2 teams per conference if not in Top 4; no teams from same conference play in 1st round):
#1 Boise State vs #8 LA-Tech
#4 Northern Illinois vs #5 Memphis
#2 Marshall vs #7 Cincinnati
#3 Colorado St vs #6 N Dakota St

DIVISION 1-FGS RANKINGS (Not claiming, just an example for POV purposes):
1. Boise State (11-2)
2. Marshall (12-1)
3. Colorado St (10-2)
4. N Illinois (11-2)
5. Memphis (9-3)
6. N Dakota St (11-1)
7. Cincinnati (9-3)
8. UCF (9-3)
9. Utah State (9-4)
10. LA-Tech (8-5)
11. Air Force (9-3)
12. E Carolina (8-4)
13. GA-Southern (9-3)
14. Nevada (8-4)
15. Toledo (8-4)
16. W Michigan (8-4)
17. Illinois St (10-1)
18. Navy (7-5)
19. W Kenucky (7-5)
20. N Iowa (9-4)
21. LA-Lafayette (8-4)
22. Houston (7-5)
23. San Diego State (7-5)
24. Rice (7-5)
25. C Michigan (7-5)

(12-07-2014 04:20 PM)Policiious Wrote:  For an FCS team that draws well i.e. Montana, Delaware, ND ST; they'd have to either build or move their games to a larger facility to realize additional revenue.

But you don't get the money put into building an FBS stadium back if you drop down, so the financial calculation is different for a move up versus a move down.

Now that the P5 have "autonomy", the G5 needs to come up with its own brand name. Stop with the FBS/FCS alphabet soup, call it the Mid-Major League (MML) or some such thing and create its own football playoff.

(12-08-2014 11:23 AM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  Now that the P5 have "autonomy", the G5 needs to come up with its own brand name. Stop with the FBS/FCS alphabet soup, call it the Mid-Major League (MML) or some such thing and create its own football playoff.

No.

Idk about everyone else but I want to stay d1a. If there is a cut into the g5, some teams will survive it. No way Boise, ECU, etc all go down with thr EMU's of the g5. That list would never be a fgs. Teams like the ones at the top are here to stay.

The P5 has put a stranglehold on the rest of the BCS, slowly cutting off its oxygen. The playoffs were a shrewd move on their part because it eliminates the G5 from the the top prize. Having Boise or Utah or UCF or NIU getting one of the prize bowls was just not acceptable. So they create a new top tier--the playoff--and teams outside the power conferences have no shot at it. Then the former leftover BCS bowls are watered down versions of what they were and the G5 gets a token seat at that new now lesser table.

Next, the conferences move to 9 game conf. schedules, have a greater need to schedule each other OOC to improve the now critical SOS.

The two tiers of BCS football are increasingly distinct. Will there be a final tipping point where they split off entirely? Not in the next several years, I but wouldn't bet against it in the next decade.

If the P5 increase scholarship limits for themselves to 100 and start paying substantial stipends to athletes, the split will be complete.

(12-07-2014 01:25 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  There is no benefit. The loss of revenue streams more than offsets any savings from less scholarships. Either play FBS or drop football entirely. Those are the only options.

Agree 100% (actually 100% x 10).

FCS is a loser for D-I football. It has all of the financial drawbacks of FBS and some additional (loss of big revenue from television, college football playoff monies, and some big money guarantees).

Is 'soft dollars' saving of having 20 fewer football players in an English or psych class worth it to move down?

Lest I been Rip Van Winkle, the trend is for colleges to move UP to FBS, not move down.

Another quick point: I have been following MAC FB for almost 25 years (actually 23).

When I started following it there was no television, no Internet radio of the games, one bowl game (Las Vegas), etc.

THEN, THEN, THEN we were the poor kids living in a proverbial house with no indoor plumbing, etc. etc.

Now we have 5 bowls, all MAC home games are streamed, we have games on ESPN and the MACC at Ford Field, have had a BCS game, etc. etc. Teams like MSU play at MAC stadiums.

Why would anyone want to give that up after spending decades building up the conference?????

I just can't believe anyone who has followed the MAC for the last quarter century not fighting to preserve what we've built...

(12-09-2014 01:57 PM)emu steve Wrote:  Another quick point: I have been following MAC FB for almost 25 years (actually 23).

When I started following it there was no television, no Internet radio of the games, one bowl game (Las Vegas), etc.

THEN, THEN, THEN we were the poor kids living in a proverbial house with no indoor plumbing, etc. etc.

Now we have 5 bowls, all MAC home games are streamed, we have games on ESPN and the MACC at Ford Field, have had a BCS game, etc. etc. Teams like MSU play at MAC stadiums.

Why would anyone want to give that up after spending decades building up the conference?????

I just can't believe anyone who has followed the MAC for the last quarter century not fighting to preserve what we've built...

I agree w/ you to some extent, but you've failed to put this in context. Look at what the SBC has done in that same time frame. Look at what the B1G has accomplished in that time frame. Look at ESPN's involvement in the bowl games.

In the proper context the MAC's accomplishments look more like accepting what's been given to them, rather than noteworthy achievements.