The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

While I agree about the figures and the threat, I still contend WMU has at least recognized the issue and is responding to it in a strong process improvement driven approach, with some measurable success.

That approach is at contrast with EMU, where the downhill slide and sense of impending doom is hanging over the campus like a dark cloud.

The P5 driven environment is a formidable problem. That doesn't mean we at WMU are prepared to lay down and die. Far from it. At the moment our football program probably lies somewhere around the 40-50 rank in on the field success potential, we are competitive with top flight P5 programs, we may not win against teams like Ohio State and MSU but we are fully capable of putting up a battle against them.

How this all shakes out is a battleground for sure, P5 is going for blood, but if I'm betting on someone surviving, it is more likely WMU than EMU.

The MAC has always been a strong league at the niche level, good clean D1 competition with less of the dark underside you find elsewhere.

What I get out of this situation: P5 athletic spending is out of control. It's at such an absurd level, that it's practically semi-pro. The rest of the FBS schools are forced to play catch-up unless they want to be completely irrelevant. Those G5 schools are now catching flak, just for trying to keep up with the Michigans, Alabamas and Ohio States. Not a ridiculous thing to attempt, considering we are all in the same league. A Walmart Wolverine will criticize a MAC school's spending habits, while cheering on their billion-dollar corporate machine. Mid-majors are caught in the crossfire here.

OTL has picked up on this

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=15453642

(04-28-2016 08:38 AM)flushtheherd Wrote:  I think the MAC is a much stronger conference than you give it credit for... I believe its probably one of the more well managed conferences from a compliance and money management stand point than some of the other non-P5 conferences. There is NO way the MAC is going to start shedding teams to remain relevant in the near future. So I think we can watch this all go down with a sense of comfort for now...

Amen.

Folks here may not appreciate it but the MAC is very well balanced with three Michigan schools and of course six schools in the west and six in the east.

Even though EMU has gone through hard times in FB (as Kent did) they (EMU) are an integral part of the MAC.

The MAC is not the the MAFC (Mid-American Football Conference).

During the 90s, EMU was the premier MBB program in the conference. EMU is a dominant team in Olympic sports.

Would anyone want to see Kent drop out of the MAC (and take their MBB team) because of their struggles in FB?

As we've learned with UCF, Temple, UMass, etc. trying to produce a stable conference is not easy. Adding or losing teams is not good. For many mid-major type conferences, I have to go to ESPN.COM to find out which conference a given school is in. (I struggle with the SBC, C-USA, AAC, etc.).

A new thread: "Who should be #12 after EMU leaves" is a good topic for forum gadflies but losing a MAC school and trying to get a replacement to stay 20, 30, 40 or 50 years isn't easy. Anyone think James Madison or Delaware or Stony Brook, etc. would be in the 2050 MAC?

As far as faculty or student government reports, are we the first? Are there similar in other schools? Didn't Akron drop baseball. Haven't other MAC schools dropped Olympic sports for financial reasons, but stayed and kept FB.

As most know and many noted, most FBS schools lose money.

Many at EMU think it was a 'hit job' probably by an insider or two who caught the ear of the HBO folks. The faculty member, Bunsis, has a reputation as a 'gadfly' at EMU.

(05-05-2016 04:59 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 08:38 AM)flushtheherd Wrote:  I think the MAC is a much stronger conference than you give it credit for... I believe its probably one of the more well managed conferences from a compliance and money management stand point than some of the other non-P5 conferences. There is NO way the MAC is going to start shedding teams to remain relevant in the near future. So I think we can watch this all go down with a sense of comfort for now...

Amen.

Folks here may not appreciate it but the MAC is very well balanced with three Michigan schools and of course six schools in the west and six in the east.

Even though EMU has gone through hard times in FB (as Kent did) they (EMU) are an integral part of the MAC.

The MAC is not the the MAFC (Mid-American Football Conference).

During the 90s, EMU was the premier MBB program in the conference. EMU is a dominant team in Olympic sports.

Would anyone want to see Kent drop out of the MAC (and take their MBB team) because of their struggles in FB?

As we've learned with UCF, Temple, UMass, etc. trying to produce a stable conference is not easy. Adding or losing teams is not good. For many mid-major type conferences, I have to go to ESPN.COM to find out which conference a given school is in. (I struggle with the SBC, C-USA, AAC, etc.).

A new thread: "Who should be #12 after EMU leaves" is a good topic for forum gadflies but losing a MAC school and trying to get a replacement to stay 20, 30, 40 or 50 years isn't easy. Anyone think James Madison or Delaware or Stony Brook, etc. would be in the 2050 MAC?

As far as faculty or student government reports, are we the first? Are there similar in other schools? Didn't Akron drop baseball. Haven't other MAC schools dropped Olympic sports for financial reasons, but stayed and kept FB.

As most know and many noted, most FBS schools lose money.

Many at EMU think it was a 'hit job' probably by an insider or two who caught the ear of the HBO folks. The faculty member, Bunsis, has a reputation as a 'gadfly' at EMU.

This is all nicely composed and reasonable, but the main driver remains. Does anybody at EMU care about football? I mean apart from the dwindling group of old timers that remember the glory days?

We are not talking about mid 90's MBB, or having a good shot put program. We're talking about having more than a couple thousand fans showing up for football games.

Would the Ypsies be in this position had they not changed their mascot to the Eagles -- thus losing their most loyal fan base?

(05-09-2016 01:13 PM)anthonybronco Wrote:  Would the Ypsies be in this position had they not changed their mascot to the Eagles -- thus losing their most loyal fan base?

I don't think that would have affected much. They're still a bad team in the shadow of the biggest football stadium in the country.

(05-09-2016 03:20 PM)SilentStryk09 Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 01:13 PM)anthonybronco Wrote:  Would the Ypsies be in this position had they not changed their mascot to the Eagles -- thus losing their most loyal fan base?

I don't think that would have affected much. They're still a bad team in the shadow of the biggest football stadium in the country.

In real estate they say "location, location, location."

On the other hand the scUM football experience with their $50 parking, skinny seats, and lame fans is not that great either, although they do sell a lot of tickets, for a long time now they've featured mostly a lot of hype.