(01-10-2017 10:11 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  The MAC had to offer UMass full membership as they couldn't boot them as a football only member without doing that first per the clause in their contract. They knew full well that UMass wasn't going to leave the A10 or at least had a strong feeling they wouldn't. At the time UMass was invited the MAC needed a 14th team and the CFP money pool wasn't in existence. If the A10 for whatever reason fell apart and UMass needed a home, I don't think the MAC would expand for them. Now if a team like Wichita State decided they wanted FBS football and were willing to bring their basketball program with them, I think the MAC would listen.

In order for it to make financial sense for the MAC to expand, the MAC needs to grow its pie by at least 17% to accommodate the 2 extra teams without taking anything away from the current members. CFP money is capped and the MAC is already locked into a favorable TV deal for years to come. The only real place to gain revenue is tourney credits. Wichita State is worth their weight in gold meanwhile UMass has made 1 tourney this century. Sure they might have won the MAC a few times since 2000 had they played in it, but stealing an auto bid the conference already owned doesn't add anymore value to the conference.

UMass would make sense to fill out the conference as a 14th team if another school emerged to justify the MAC going to 14. UMass would also make sense as a 12th team to replace someone that left. I don't however see them as a driver for expansion.

Two issues with your post, which are in bold. MAC comish, Steinbrecher was part of the negotiations for the CFP and knew the terms. To say we only been to the big dance once in 2014 is a serious down play. Let's use the last ten years. Last year was a low point, but we are seldomly bad and just missed the NCAA twice due to the A10 tournament performance and on the bubble. Once the whole team had the flue and lost in overtime and the next year Goldwire was on fire and could not miss. We tied Xavier in 2006-7 for regular season champs, we been to the NIT four times and half of those went all the way to the NIT Final 4. Beating Akron, Syracuse, Florida and losing to Ohio State in the championship game.

(01-10-2017 10:35 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 10:11 AM)kreed5120 Wrote:  The MAC had to offer UMass full membership as they couldn't boot them as a football only member without doing that first per the clause in their contract. They knew full well that UMass wasn't going to leave the A10 or at least had a strong feeling they wouldn't. At the time UMass was invited the MAC needed a 14th team and the CFP money pool wasn't in existence. If the A10 for whatever reason fell apart and UMass needed a home, I don't think the MAC would expand for them. Now if a team like Wichita State decided they wanted FBS football and were willing to bring their basketball program with them, I think the MAC would listen.

In order for it to make financial sense for the MAC to expand, the MAC needs to grow its pie by at least 17% to accommodate the 2 extra teams without taking anything away from the current members. CFP money is capped and the MAC is already locked into a favorable TV deal for years to come. The only real place to gain revenue is tourney credits. Wichita State is worth their weight in gold meanwhile UMass has made 1 tourney this century. Sure they might have won the MAC a few times since 2000 had they played in it, but stealing an auto bid the conference already owned doesn't add anymore value to the conference.

UMass would make sense to fill out the conference as a 14th team if another school emerged to justify the MAC going to 14. UMass would also make sense as a 12th team to replace someone that left. I don't however see them as a driver for expansion.

Two issues with your post, which are in bold. MAC comish, Steinbrecher was part of the negotiations for the CFP and knew the terms. To say we only been to the big dance once in 2014 is a serious down play. Let's use the last ten years. Last year was a low point, but we are seldomly bad and just missed the NCAA twice due to the A10 tournament performance and on the bubble. Once the whole team had the flue and lost in overtime and the next year Goldwire was on fire and could not miss. We tied Xavier in 2006-7 for regular season champs, we been to the NIT four times and half of those went all the way to the NIT Final 4. Beating Akron, Syracuse, Florida and losing to Ohio State in the championship game.

I wasn't trying to bring discredit to your basketball team. There have been a few years you were on the bubble and missed out and UMass would instantly be 1 of, if not the top, team in the conference for basketball. That however matters for not if it doesn't translate into the MAC consistently getting a 2nd bid to the tourney. UMass making the NIT or stealing the auto-bid from Akron, Buffalo, Ohio, or whoever doesn't bring in any additional revenue into the conference. UMass would have to bring the MAC at-large bids and/or tourney runs to justify adding them.

MAC is a bus league. This proposal makes it a plane league. Nonstarter

np kreed5120

It would be interesting to see which conference (CUSA or MAC) could become a 2 bid conference. We are extremely young this year and our freshman back court is killing us , but they show so much promise. We could make the NIT if we get our **** together in February. Best win is against Temple and unfortunately currently winless in the A10. Again we are very young and sitting with a record of 10-6 with Dayton tomorrow and Rhode Island after that.

(01-07-2017 05:04 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 04:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-07-2017 03:58 PM)Shox Wrote:  JMU is a great fit culturally for the MAC, has an excellent fan base, good facilities, and a winning program having just won the FCS national championship for the second time. What is the hold up?

James Madison feels that they are too good for the MAC and SBC and will settle for nothing less than C-USA--that's the hold up.

If there weren't so many rules regarding teams moving up having conference invites and such we might have seen a group come up together comprised of UMass, Stony Brook, JMU, ODU, Liberty, Charlotte, App St, Georgia St, and Georgia Southern. Some of those received invites into conferences, others haven't.

I don't know know, but I've heard that JMU would take a MAC invitation. But with UMass leaving, they'd have to find a second team to come along for the ride, and that's presuming the MAC wants to expand at all.

They should offer the Delaware Blue Hens!

Quote:UMass doesn't want to be in the MAC. That's the holdup.

Well, they WANT to be in the MAC -- for football (and I'm sure would be just fine for several no-name sports). Their main thing is that they don't want to give up the A10 for basketball. They failed at making it in football as they promised, so not giving in to basketball to make up for it wasn't worthy of the MAC.

Adding in NDSU sounds great, but they're too far away for all that travel for it to be worth it... while being in North Dakota, unlike, say, Central Florida, they're not going to be blossoming in expansion in terms of driving in $$. Wouldn't be a good move for the MAC there.

Adding in Northern Iowa and another big-ten-country team would be good (Illinois State?). James Madison may be a good one, even though it's ACC-country. They're always pretty good at football in recent times.

All depends, IMO, how much they're willing to expand and bring into the conference. It's best to have another team on the level of Central Florida (but closer to home) -- and not another UMass.

(01-10-2017 12:53 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  np kreed5120

It would be interesting to see which conference (CUSA or MAC) could become a 2 bid conference.

I don't see either consistently producing 2 bids TBH. The MAC hasn't had an at-large team since 1999. What has changed that would make them start producing them besides on a rare occasion now? C-USA is no longer what it once was.

The talk of JMU considering itself "too good" for either the MAC, SBC or CUSA is ridiculous and just internet rumors.

The problem is that JMU will only move somewhere in all sports - we're not going football only - and the prospect of sending every Olympic sport halfway across the country is just too expensive given the current revenue landscape. I've seen a lot of articles from G5 papers talking about expenses taking a toll on the budget and a large majority is travel, and that's what JMU is seeking to avoid. Why create a problem? The only reason CUSA was marginally better was the rivalry with ODU and close schools in Charlotte and Marshall.

The time is coming soon when the G5s are going to have to decide to regionalize for expense purposes. I would expect that we'll be part of the discussion at that time. OR CUSA or SunBelt will need to develop divisions (16 teams??) for Olympic Sports that cut down on travel costs.

For now, our fan base is satisfied with the national championship. I would dare say we brought more folks to Frisco than a lot of G5s took to their bowl game and if you count the three ESPN2 games (quarters, semis, championship) we had more eyeballs on us that a lot of G5s - granted that's not an every year thing.

EDIT: I should say that I think we would accept an invite to the MAC because of schools being in close proximity - although the we'd be the outlier, there are plenty of travel partners to cut down on OS spending.

(01-10-2017 02:15 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:53 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  np kreed5120

It would be interesting to see which conference (CUSA or MAC) could become a 2 bid conference.

I don't see either consistently producing 2 bids TBH. The MAC hasn't had an at-large team since 1999. What has changed that would make them start producing them besides on a rare occasion now? C-USA is no longer what it once was.

The MAC was very close in 2015 and the new policies were starting to bear some fruit. However Buffalo success was short lived. A number of teams have been getting stronger and even NIU started to improve to the mid 200's. Notice JMU was top 100 and adding an addition top 100 team could help the overall comference RPI along with good OOC scheduling.

Quote:CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Mid-American Conference will try to jump-start the league's men's basketball by paying bonuses to programs that reach benchmarks that include scheduling tougher nonleague opponents and winning NCAA Tournament and National Invitation Tournament games.

...

Mid-American Conference to reward men's basketball teams for tougher scheduling, postseason wins


Kent's men's basketball team plays four teams in 2011-12 that finished in the top 43 last season (Utah State, West Virginia, UAB and Cleveland State); and three others inside the top 100 (Morehead State, James Madison and St. Peter's).


CLEVELAND, Ohio — The Mid-American Conference will try to jump-start the league's men's basketball by paying bonuses to programs that reach benchmarks that include scheduling tougher nonleague opponents and winning NCAA Tournament and National Invitation Tournament games.
The MAC has been struggling in recent seasons, and the Ratings Percentage Index -- a computer formula that measures wins, losses and strength of schedules for every team in the country -- reflects that.

The MAC's RPI as a league ranked 18th in the nation last season. Only one MAC team, Kent State, has been a consistent top-100 RPI team, something it has accomplished 12 of the past 13 years. That run includes six seasons in the top 50.

No other MAC team has been in the top 50 more than twice.

MAC Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher hopes the bonus money for tougher scheduling and for winning will raise the level of the entire league.

The plan has been approved, but league athletic directors have not decided how much money will be paid out each incentive reached. They will do so before the start of the 2011-12 season.

According to Steinbrecher, in the past the MAC has split its postseason money evenly. That will no longer be the case. According to the commissioner:

• A percentage of the money still will be shared equally.

• The rest will be handed out based on winning. Teams will be rewarded for their nonconference performance, conference performance, NCAA Tournament appearances, other postseason tournament performances and where they finish in the RPI.

The hope is more teams will schedule aggressively and win, ultimately getting more teams into the postseason and more money into the MAC coffers.

"As more teams have success, hopefully, the [money] pool will grow," Steinbrecher said.

Winning home games and playing quality nonconference teams are the keys to the plan.

Full article from 2011

(01-10-2017 03:31 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:15 PM)kreed5120 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:53 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  np kreed5120

It would be interesting to see which conference (CUSA or MAC) could become a 2 bid conference.

I don't see either consistently producing 2 bids TBH. The MAC hasn't had an at-large team since 1999. What has changed that would make them start producing them besides on a rare occasion now? C-USA is no longer what it once was.

The MAC was very close in 2015 and the new policies were starting to bear some fruit. However Buffalo success was short lived. A number of teams have been getting stronger and even NIU started to improve to the mid 200's. Notice JMU was top 100 and adding an addition top 100 team could help the overall comference RPI along with good OOC scheduling.

At-large bids are awarded to teams, not conferences. Akron last year was 26-8 in the 10th rated conference(by RPI). That translated to a 6th seed in the NIT with no mention of being a "bubble team". What was missing from their resume was quality wins (RPI/Kenpom Top 50). There might have been a year here or there a MAC school would have been in serious discussion for a spot had they not won the conference tournament, but those are few and far in between. The fact is the MAC doesn't have a Gonzaga or Wichita State or even a Saint Mary's to go out there and get them those quality OOC wins.

When it comes to getting at-large bids as a mid-major conference it is better to be top heavy like WCC and MVC than be balanced like the MAC is.

The thing to remember with both Nodak Schools is that they are basically in the Minnesota market, both being a true stones throw from the border and they pull half their students from MN. NDSU probably has less pull in the cities compared to UND (Hockey) but NDSU probably has way more casual non alumni fans throughout Western MN than UND does. Again just spit balling, I would guess there aren't a lot of non Sioux grads pulling and watching UND in Minnesota, they are a huge rival of the Gophers in Hockey. Either way, one would think that whomever could get their **** together first and go FBS, they will basically become Minnesota's defacto second FBS team. The MAC would be wise to create a western division consisting of NDSU, UNI, and ISUr. In addition to that, NIU and NDSU would instantly become one of the bigger rivalry's in the conference. Both are Football first schools, which the MAC is desperately missing.

(01-10-2017 04:46 PM)Shox Wrote:  The thing to remember with both Nodak Schools is that they are basically in the Minnesota market, both being a true stones throw from the border and they pull half their students from MN. NDSU probably has less pull in the cities compared to UND (Hockey) but NDSU probably has way more casual non alumni fans throughout Western MN than UND does. Again just spit balling, I would guess there aren't a lot of non Sioux grads pulling and watching UND in Minnesota, they are a huge rival of the Gophers in Hockey. Either way, one would think that whomever could get their **** together first and go FBS, they will basically become Minnesota's defacto second FBS team. The MAC would be wise to create a western division consisting of NDSU, UNI, and ISUr. In addition to that, NIU and NDSU would instantly become one of the bigger rivalry's in the conference. Both are Football first schools, which the MAC is desperately missing.

I do think a couple new schools would shake things up a bit, a good thing IMO. NDSU would immediately make the conference better in football. But that seems to be a minority viewpoint in the MAC due to the geography.

(01-10-2017 04:53 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 04:46 PM)Shox Wrote:  The thing to remember with both Nodak Schools is that they are basically in the Minnesota market, both being a true stones throw from the border and they pull half their students from MN. NDSU probably has less pull in the cities compared to UND (Hockey) but NDSU probably has way more casual non alumni fans throughout Western MN than UND does. Again just spit balling, I would guess there aren't a lot of non Sioux grads pulling and watching UND in Minnesota, they are a huge rival of the Gophers in Hockey. Either way, one would think that whomever could get their **** together first and go FBS, they will basically become Minnesota's defacto second FBS team. The MAC would be wise to create a western division consisting of NDSU, UNI, and ISUr. In addition to that, NIU and NDSU would instantly become one of the bigger rivalry's in the conference. Both are Football first schools, which the MAC is desperately missing.

I do think a couple new schools would shake things up a bit, a good thing IMO. NDSU would immediately make the conference better in football. But that seems to be a minority viewpoint in the MAC due to the geography.

I'd like to mix up the divisions in the MAC for that shakeup. Out of geography additions won't bring enough and mess up the balance in the conference.

I: NIU, Ball St, Miami, EMU, Ohio, Kent State
II: WMU, CMU, Toledo, BGSU, Akron, Buffalo

This would really shake up divisional FB play and the big games for the conference.

Also reduce the Michigan-Ohio conference perception by not placing all the schools in the same division. A mini-ACC format.

Perfect for the traditional competitive balance in the conference, IMO.

(01-10-2017 11:34 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I'd like to mix up the divisions in the MAC for that shakeup. Out of geography additions won't bring enough and mess up the balance in the conference.

I: NIU, Ball St, Miami, EMU, Ohio, Kent State
II: WMU, CMU, Toledo, BGSU, Akron, Buffalo

This would really shake up divisional FB play and the big games for the conference.

Ah, so Kittonhead proposes a divisional alignment in which the Battle of the Bricks is in-division, but the Wagon Wheel is broken up.

Fortunate I was already sitting down when I read it, I might have tripped over something while reeling in shock.

(01-10-2017 01:57 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  They should offer the Delaware Blue Hens!

Delaware is not interested in moving up the last time I checked