(08-07-2023 12:11 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:05 PM)george14 Wrote:  Are you all finally starting to see why this is going to be bad for the MAC/G5?

Not really, no.

I agree. It's just the top reshuffling. Another poster already commented payouts per game will increase. The top getting more power? Who cares. They already had infinite power

(08-07-2023 10:02 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 09:42 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 09:20 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Yeah, pretty much expected, and TBH makes sense. In fact, I hope 10 is max.

I think for E/C/WMU, we'll still get our usual money games with UM and MSU. But things will start getting squeezed and MAC teams will need to widen their net with other conferences.

MSU's got 3 OOC games in 2025 with WMU included. UM's got 3 OOC games in 2025 (CMU included) and 2026 (WMU included). Now I can imagine the New Mexico and UTEP games are more at risk than the in-state MAC schools, but who knows?

At some point I wonder if the MAC goes to 9 conference games.

i could see less MAC vs B1G matchups honestly
For the B1G i could see 1 FCS and maybe 1 MAC then 10 conference. I think this really eliminates a BIG playing at a MAC venue now as well. They will no way want to risk a loss with a more difficult conference slate.

Totally guessing here, but I think their two OOCs will only be G5s, and the FCS vs. B1G matchups will be history. Especially if there becomes an increased semi-official separation between P5 and G5. They'll go "down" to G5, but probably not double-down to FCS. SEC might continue doing so, though.

Agree - FCS games will go away (not G5 games) and realistically, FCS games for P5 (and G5) teams should go away. It is ridiculous that BIG/SEC teams are playing FCS teams.

IMO, if you want to receive more than your share of playoff berths then in a sane world the burden falls on you to go out and prove that you deserve them. I'm sure the B1G will want to argue their playoff and bowl record from recent years when that time comes. But in sports everyone resets their roster and resume each year. What you did last year should not count for anything. If every team in the conference is only playing 2 non-conference games and nearly all of them are playing at least 1, and many of them 2, games against FCS and bottom 40 FBS teams then how much are they going to be able to prove in that regard?

I assume with a lineup of programs like they will have that it will be a great football conference most seasons. Every conference plays .500 ball against itself. If they argue that they deserve 4 or 5 playoff spots based mostly on in conference wins that those teams have then it is not OUR job to make the assumption that wins within said conference are good wins. IMO, It is THEIR job as a conference as a whole to SHOW that it is a great conference as whole with a lot of tough opponents.

So that may mean less G5 vs P5 games as there needs to be some out of the few OOC games that the P5s have that will need to be against other P5 conferences. Games like Miami vs. Cincinnati might fall by the wayside now that UC has made it into an oversized B12.

[/quote]

we care because games against the big 10, sec etc fund our entire athletic budget! Less OOC games the big plays, less payday games for the MAC.
Its not like we can charge 45$ a ticket and sell out to recapture lost money from these games
[/quote]

MAC athletic budgets are funded by student fees. the payday game at Big10 U provides about 2 or 3% of your budget. for a school like Kent that plays a crazy schedule of 3 superpower P5 teams it might come to 8-10% of the budget. The ESPN tv deal also provides a very small % of the revenue needed to fund the program. athletic programs are sustained by student enrollment and alumni/donor support. You want to maintain D1 athletics? support your school having a robust and creative student enrollment and retention strategy. Have networks that value alumni and wealthy fans so they feel connected to the program and make donations, buy premium seating, etc..

(08-07-2023 09:20 AM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  I give it only a few years before they increase the number of regular season games

In 2024, they increase the post season allowance from two to five.

Noting that it is only a rumor, but if it goes through it will moderate buy game payouts, by reducing the total demand for Go5 buy games.

It would have less impact for the MAC if they also restored the ban on FCS exception games, since the argument for rolling that back "halfway" was the financial impact on smaller stadium schools in years when they only have four Big Ten home games, and this would eliminate that issue. Over half of the Big Ten schools who are allowed to have an FCS game schedule it, so reversing to the "No FCS games" position would mean 5-6 of the reduction in buy games would come out of the FCS market rather than the Go5 market.

(08-10-2023 05:56 AM)JHVMU19 Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 10:02 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 09:42 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 09:20 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  Yeah, pretty much expected, and TBH makes sense. In fact, I hope 10 is max.

I think for E/C/WMU, we'll still get our usual money games with UM and MSU. But things will start getting squeezed and MAC teams will need to widen their net with other conferences.

MSU's got 3 OOC games in 2025 with WMU included. UM's got 3 OOC games in 2025 (CMU included) and 2026 (WMU included). Now I can imagine the New Mexico and UTEP games are more at risk than the in-state MAC schools, but who knows?

At some point I wonder if the MAC goes to 9 conference games.

i could see less MAC vs B1G matchups honestly
For the B1G i could see 1 FCS and maybe 1 MAC then 10 conference. I think this really eliminates a BIG playing at a MAC venue now as well. They will no way want to risk a loss with a more difficult conference slate.

Totally guessing here, but I think their two OOCs will only be G5s, and the FCS vs. B1G matchups will be history. Especially if there becomes an increased semi-official separation between P5 and G5. They'll go "down" to G5, but probably not double-down to FCS. SEC might continue doing so, though.

Agree - FCS games will go away (not G5 games) and realistically, FCS games for P5 (and G5) teams should go away. It is ridiculous that BIG/SEC teams are playing FCS teams.

I don't know about that. Wasn't it Jacksonville State that beat Mississippi State when they were still FCS? And let's not forget Appalachian State over Michigan, maybe the biggest upset in college football history. I realize these upsets don't happen often with Big 10 and SEC teams, but I'd hate to see the opportunities for them to happen go away completely.

Quote:I don't know about that. Wasn't it Jacksonville State that beat Mississippi State when they were still FCS? And let's not forget Appalachian State over Michigan

From what I could tell, it was Jax State beating Ole Miss in 2x OT, in 2010. And the UM loss to App State was historic, and App State moved to FBS soon after.

From my POV, a P5 with 3 or less non-conf games wanting to play an FCS team, should have to restrict themselves to not scheduling very far ahead + said FCS team having been ranked in the last three years in a row + one in the Top 10. They'd rather schedule a projected bottom-of-conference G5 team in almost all cases. Defininately not want to play SD State or ND State, that both Iowa & Minnesota recently barely squeaked by from. But Iowa and Minnesota with only 2 non-conf games wouldn't want to do that again, with only 2 non-conf games -- which will half the time be against at least a lower-end P5, so they'll want to make the most of easier games outside of conference given 9 game conf-season.

(08-20-2023 02:49 AM)pono Wrote:  ... MAC athletic budgets are funded by student fees. the payday game at Big10 U provides about 2 or 3% of your budget. for a school like Kent that plays a crazy schedule of 3 superpower P5 teams it might come to 8-10% of the budget. The ESPN tv deal also provides a very small % of the revenue needed to fund the program. athletic programs are sustained by student enrollment and alumni/donor support. ...

I think your numbers are off:

Quote: Kent State will be paid $5.2 million by January 2023 for playing – and losing to – three football teams from the Power 5 conferences: No. 1-ranked Georgia, then-No. 7 Oklahoma and the Pac-12’s Washington.

That total is nearly 21% of the athletic department’s $25 million budget

-- Athletic department, football program earn big bucks from tough non-conference matchups

Now, that percentage might be off, since I think the Knight-Newhouse numbers for the Kent State budget are closer to $30m, but from Knight-Newhouse, the five biggest sources of revenue for the MAC overall are:

(1) Institutional Support, 44%
(2) Student Fees, 20%
(3) NCAA / Conference distributions, 11%
(4) Competition Guarantees, 8%
(5) Donor contributions, 8%

Ticket sales, Corporate Sponsorships and "Other Revenue" are each about 3%.

While it is true that Student Fees pays the largest share of the Kent State budget at 40%, guarantees are an equal second with Institutional Support at 19%. Donors are 2% and ticket sales are 1%

(08-07-2023 12:11 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:05 PM)george14 Wrote:  Are you all finally starting to see why this is going to be bad for the MAC/G5?

Not really, no.

How about now?

https://sports.yahoo.com/is-college-athl...23061.html

(11-21-2023 12:17 PM)george14 Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:11 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:05 PM)george14 Wrote:  Are you all finally starting to see why this is going to be bad for the MAC/G5?

Not really, no.

How about now?

https://sports.yahoo.com/is-college-athl...23061.html

Wasn't your original point about Big Ten expansion and a 10-game Big Ten schedule? I still don't see that as an existential question for the MAC. Obviously, I like our games with the Big Ten, to a point, but Bowling Green has had eras in Division I where we had very few of those games, and we did okay. If the Big Ten doesn't want to play us, I assume the ACC or the Big 12 will.

This article seems to get into some very different dynamics, about a legal effort to make college athletics paid professionals or something. I've always been against playing players. It would be catastrophic for the MAC and most of Division I. But that's quite a different question.

At the end of the day, I don't think very many people expected the MAC to stay on the high side of Division I when it split into subdivisions back in the 1970s. If I wet the bed every time someone cooked up a scenario in which the power schools break off and form a mini-NFL or something, I would have died of dehydration many years ago.

Your ongoing theme seems to be: Hurry up and *panic.* Not my style. I have other things to worry about.

I'd shut it all down to the very last penny. Society would probably be better off not investing the time and money if the truth be told.

(11-21-2023 12:17 PM)george14 Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:11 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:05 PM)george14 Wrote:  Are you all finally starting to see why this is going to be bad for the MAC/G5?

Not really, no.

How about now?

https://sports.yahoo.com/is-college-athl...23061.html

I've had the same concerns. Personally, I'd rather NIU play another $ game with a P5 rather than having to sell ourselves to E$PN and have to play 4 games on Tuesday and Wednesday on freaking E$PNU. But that will be less of an option and I'm not sure NIU can afford it long run, we don't have much money as it is. Of course, if NIU doesn't make it then I will no longer watch college football at all.

(11-21-2023 01:06 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(11-21-2023 12:17 PM)george14 Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:11 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(08-07-2023 12:05 PM)george14 Wrote:  Are you all finally starting to see why this is going to be bad for the MAC/G5?

Not really, no.

How about now?

https://sports.yahoo.com/is-college-athl...23061.html

Wasn't your original point about Big Ten expansion and a 10-game Big Ten schedule? I still don't see that as an existential question for the MAC. Obviously, I like our games with the Big Ten, to a point, but Bowling Green has had eras in Division I where we had very few of those games, and we did okay. If the Big Ten doesn't want to play us, I assume the ACC or the Big 12 will.

This article seems to get into some very different dynamics, about a legal effort to make college athletics paid professionals or something. I've always been against playing players. It would be catastrophic for the MAC and most of Division I. But that's quite a different question.

At the end of the day, I don't think very many people expected the MAC to stay on the high side of Division I when it split into subdivisions back in the 1970s. If I wet the bed every time someone cooked up a scenario in which the power schools break off and form a mini-NFL or something, I would have died of dehydration many years ago.

Your ongoing theme seems to be: Hurry up and *panic.* Not my style. I have other things to worry about.

I have never panicked, my point for the last 10+ years has always been the same: the P5 and G5 should (and eventually will) split off. We are playing this ridiculous game of pretending that we are all in the same boat of "FBS football" with our cute slot for a NY6 Bowl. Even the sole G5 slot for the future playoff is now being revisited.

All of these changes are pointing to the same thing, and that is the eventual demise of not only the NCAA, but probably most of FBS football. Many of these programs rely on P5 games to stay afloat, which are now dwindling. The portal has and will continue to crush G5 teams because the players can get paid more elsewhere, even if they have less playing time.

The G5 should have it's own brand of football and championship. Eventually these P5 teams will move to an all conference schedule or they will keep 1-2 big money games with other P5 teams. There goes the money the G5 teams need to survive. It has been happening for a while with minor changes going from an 8 game conference schedule, to a 9 game, to a 10 game, etc. It's no different than the landscape in many countries; the poor will continue to get poorer.

(11-21-2023 02:03 PM)george14 Wrote:  The G5 should have it's own brand of football and championship.

Agreed, I'd like to see MAC stay in FBS. P4 can create their semi-pro league with tons of money, player payouts, expensive coaches, and fancy facilities.

MAC, SBC, CUSA, MWC, and American have their own playoff system in FBS.

No change in FCS.

(11-21-2023 02:14 PM)epasnoopy Wrote:  

(11-21-2023 02:03 PM)george14 Wrote:  The G5 should have it's own brand of football and championship.

Agreed, I'd like to see MAC stay in FBS. P4 can create their semi-pro league with tons of money, player payouts, expensive coaches, and fancy facilities.

MAC, SBC, CUSA, MWC, and American have their own playoff system in FBS.

No change in FCS.

I am convinced the main reason some would not want this, is solely to please their ego in the event you beat a P5 team. I had to come to grips with that a while ago. CMU (and plenty of MAC teams) have a rich history of beating P5 teams, which always feels great. But other than that, what is the purpose? We will never play for a natty and in the event a MAC team goes undefeated, they will get blasted in the playoff by a P5 juggernaut. With NIL and the portal, the gap will continue to grow. Not to mention, coaches leave the MAC for greener pastures. The G5 in general is not designed for sustained success.

(11-21-2023 02:03 PM)george14 Wrote:  I have never panicked, my point for the last 10+ years has always been the same: the P5 and G5 should ... split off. We are playing this ridiculous game...

I stopped reading here. Should? No way. We don't agree on this. A G5/P5 split would be a tragedy. The MAC's entire identity as a conference is playing football on the big stage and waving the Jolly Roger once in a while. There's really nothing Bowling Green could achieve in ten years of FCS football that we didn't surpass this year when we beat Georgia Tech.

If you find this level of football unsatisfying, lobby your athletic director to get Central Michigan into the Missouri Valley or something. There's no shame in that. That's a really good league for what it is. The Chips could probably compete in that league.

I concede that a day could come where FBS is unsustainable for the Mid-American. That's been a possibility ever since FBS was created. If that day ever comes, I imagine most of the conference will set a new course together. But I certainly will never ever hope for that day to come. That would be like an Oakland resident looking forward to Pacific Coast League baseball.

We seem to have different visions for MAC football. I don't see much point in going back and forth about it anymore.

Quote:We will never play for a natty

But I will add this: Who cares? Playing for a "natty" isn't even the point of college football. The concept was entirely mythical until just a few years ago. There are 130+ schools at this level, and most are never going to get close to one in our lifetimes. If you can't live with that, then Central Michigan really is in the wrong conference.

(11-21-2023 03:38 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  I stopped reading here. Should? No way. We don't agree on this. A G5/P5 split would be a tragedy. The MAC's entire identity as a conference is playing football on the big stage and waving the Jolly Roger once in a while. There's really nothing Bowling Green could achieve in ten years of FCS football that we didn't surpass this year when we beat Georgia Tech.

If you find this level of football unsatisfying, lobby your athletic director to get Central Michigan into the Missouri Valley or something. There's no shame in that. That's a really good league for what it is. The Chips could probably compete in that league.

I concede that a day could come where FBS is unsustainable for the Mid-American. That's been a possibility ever since FBS was created. If that day ever comes, I imagine most of the conference will set a new course together. But I certainly will never ever hope for that day to come. That would be like an Oakland resident looking forward to Pacific Coast League baseball.

We seem to have different visions for MAC football. I don't see much point in going back and forth about it anymore.

Quote:We will never play for a natty

There are 130+ schools at this level, and most are never going to get close to one in our lifetimes. If you can't live with that, then Central Michigan really is in the wrong conference.

LOL. That's the MAC's identity, really? What planet are you living on dude? The MAC's current identity is playing in front of 7,000 on a Tuesday night, labeling it #MACtion, and reporting the attendance as 15,000. BG's 14-44 record against the P5 is good for the MAC, but isn't exactly something to celebrate. In fact, it only reaffirms my point we aren't on the same level as the P5.

Listen, I understand what you are trying to do here by taking these passive aggressive shots at CMU to help bolster your weak points. Whatever makes you feel comfortable, go for it. I hate to break it to you, but aside from BG and GT students, and maybe some MAC fans, no one will remember BG beating GT. CMU beat WSU in a pretty big bowl game just 2 years ago, and most people have forgotten about that. Finally, I speak for myself, not for all CMU alumni.

Now go ahead and "stop reading" yet respond to things after you "stopped reading." Have a good day and beat WMU.

Quote:I give it only a few years before they increase the number of regular season games

If we didn't have a 12-team playoff coming right in, I'd totally agree with you. NCAA got a green-light on that since the NFL added a regular season game, as the NFL does not want anything outside the national championship to interfere with their playoff season. However, playing only 2 non-conf games isn't good. So I could see them adding a 3rd one at some point. That said though, the argument against that, outside of the NFL not wanting that, would be "So don't have a gimmie-game. Beating a lower-end G5 ain't going to have an effect." The counter to that one would be a lesser amt of 6-6 teams, thus averaging a couple bowls less per year. From their conference, anyway. The NCAA would say we have enough bowls as it is. And as far as the G5's concerned, if the PAC12 survives to go back to P10 and strips MW along with taking a couple AAC teams, and there's a G4 -- well, there ya go. The mid-majors can't complain, as the then P10 could have 4 OOC games on their end.

Quote:A G5/P5 split would be a tragedy. The MAC's entire identity as a conference is playing football on the big stage and waving the Jolly Roger once in a while. There's really nothing Bowling Green could achieve in ten years of FCS football that we didn't surpass this year when we beat Georgia Tech.

I agree that a G5/P5 split would be a bad thing. However, my thoughts would be that they could create a middle-division; same amt of scholarships. G5, possibly then G4 if P12 is re-created, could take in MVC along with another conference or two, and the MAC could be the B1G of that division. They'd have their own 8 or 12 team playoff + have some bowls. Granted, we do have too many bowls as it is right now. But you'd be stripping half away, so I could see a middle-division filling that in some aside from their playoff.

And I could see the rules in the P5 conferences ending up saying for OOC games that they could take as many middle-division teams, but just a restriction on said record within the last few years or something.

Quote:But I will add this: Who cares? Playing for a "natty" isn't even the point of college football.

Actually, with the new 12-team playoff, the top G5 will enter in. And especially if the the P12 survives stripping many of the better G5s -- the MAC Champ has a chance to enter in. That said tho, even the other P5 teams entering into said playoff at or usually a bit above the top G5, aren't going to win the national championship. BUT, at least with those P5 teams getting at-larges sometimes, they could realistically have years vying for them. OR, better put, going to the Final 4. I think that is the "bar" to get to. Could you ever have a realistic chance to get to the Final 4 in college football?

Of course the counter to that would be: Would any of our teams have a realistic chance to get to the Final 4 in NCAA basketball? Kent St got to the Elite 8 one year, so there was that chance that year. Other than that, pretty much no. However, I will agree that we don't need realistic chances for the Final 4. So it'd be getting INTO a playoff, like getting into the tourney and winning a game.

That said tho -- what would be our chances getting INTO a playoff, with only 1 G5 champ going into it? I would say with the ideal G5->G4 setup, a couple times a decade. Maybe enough.

But with the right "middle division" setup, keeping same # of scholarships, playing P5s the same, and having some bowls to play in... it would be better on that end as far as accomplishments are concerned.

However, the downside to that is that you want mid-majors mixed in with power conferences. Losing that is the biggest hit. I think a middle-division that isn't so separated, having a couple FBS vs middle-division bowls to show that, could end up making it feel like it's not so separated.

(11-21-2023 03:57 PM)george14 Wrote:  

(11-21-2023 03:38 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  I stopped reading here. Should? No way. We don't agree on this. A G5/P5 split would be a tragedy. The MAC's entire identity as a conference is playing football on the big stage and waving the Jolly Roger once in a while. There's really nothing Bowling Green could achieve in ten years of FCS football that we didn't surpass this year when we beat Georgia Tech.

If you find this level of football unsatisfying, lobby your athletic director to get Central Michigan into the Missouri Valley or something. There's no shame in that. That's a really good league for what it is. The Chips could probably compete in that league.

I concede that a day could come where FBS is unsustainable for the Mid-American. That's been a possibility ever since FBS was created. If that day ever comes, I imagine most of the conference will set a new course together. But I certainly will never ever hope for that day to come. That would be like an Oakland resident looking forward to Pacific Coast League baseball.

We seem to have different visions for MAC football. I don't see much point in going back and forth about it anymore.

Quote:We will never play for a natty

There are 130+ schools at this level, and most are never going to get close to one in our lifetimes. If you can't live with that, then Central Michigan really is in the wrong conference.

LOL. That's the MAC's identity, really? What planet are you living on dude? The MAC's current identity is playing in front of 7,000 on a Tuesday night, labeling it #MACtion, and reporting the attendance as 15,000. BG's 14-44 record against the P5 is good for the MAC, but isn't exactly something to celebrate. In fact, it only reaffirms my point we aren't on the same level as the P5.

Listen, I understand what you are trying to do here by taking these passive aggressive shots at CMU to help bolster your weak points. Whatever makes you feel comfortable, go for it. I hate to break it to you, but aside from BG and GT students, and maybe some MAC fans, no one will remember BG beating GT. CMU beat WSU in a pretty big bowl game just 2 years ago, and most people have forgotten about that. Finally, I speak for myself, not for all CMU alumni.

Now go ahead and "stop reading" yet respond to things after you "stopped reading." Have a good day and beat WMU.

I'd rather force the P5 to separate themselves completely from the G5, rather than the G5 do it willingly. Most fans don't remember that this P5 team beat that P5 team either, unless it's one of the Top 10 teams.

(11-21-2023 03:57 PM)george14 Wrote:  

(11-21-2023 03:38 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  I stopped reading here. Should? No way. We don't agree on this. A G5/P5 split would be a tragedy. The MAC's entire identity as a conference is playing football on the big stage and waving the Jolly Roger once in a while. There's really nothing Bowling Green could achieve in ten years of FCS football that we didn't surpass this year when we beat Georgia Tech.

If you find this level of football unsatisfying, lobby your athletic director to get Central Michigan into the Missouri Valley or something. There's no shame in that. That's a really good league for what it is. The Chips could probably compete in that league.

I concede that a day could come where FBS is unsustainable for the Mid-American. That's been a possibility ever since FBS was created. If that day ever comes, I imagine most of the conference will set a new course together. But I certainly will never ever hope for that day to come. That would be like an Oakland resident looking forward to Pacific Coast League baseball.

We seem to have different visions for MAC football. I don't see much point in going back and forth about it anymore.

Quote:We will never play for a natty

There are 130+ schools at this level, and most are never going to get close to one in our lifetimes. If you can't live with that, then Central Michigan really is in the wrong conference.

LOL. That's the MAC's identity, really? What planet are you living on dude?

This one.

Quote:Listen, I understand what you are trying to do here by taking these passive aggressive shots at CMU to help bolster your weak points.

I think that's more in your head than on the page in front of you.

You are the one arguing that the MAC should stop paying FBS football, not me. If that's your sincere view, you have a right to it, but I think you should leave the rest of the conference out of that. I think most of us want to be here. This is the MAC's brand: Big time football on a budget.

And, following your logic, if you sincerely believe FBS is no longer right for Central Michigan, there are actions you can take right now to try to make that happen. If my stating that fact to you comes off as passive aggressive, then maybe FBS football has more cachet than you have been acknowledging.

I would never suggest that Central Michigan can't compete in the MAC. I'm merely following your logic here, which is that you no longer seem to want Central Michigan to compete in FBS.

As far as me saying that, "the Chips could probably compete in" the Missouri Valley: the fact is the Missouri Valley stacked. That league just earned the No. 1 and No. 3 seeds in the FCS playoffs, and it put four other teams in the playoffs to boot. It's the SEC of FCS. I doubt Central Michigan would roll though that league. I'm not sure Bowling Green would either. I'm not proud of this, but I suspect it is true.

Quote:Now go ahead and "stop reading" yet respond to things after you "stopped reading."

Okay, I really am going to stop reading your stuff now.