(11-30-2023 09:06 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(11-30-2023 08:04 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(11-30-2023 05:20 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  What I heard is our AD, Ryan Bamford is working his butt off trying to get into the MAC. It seems it's up to the MAC as this point. Realize this is a change from a few years ago, but that is the reality. We are trying hard to get into the MAC all sports.

It sure seems like the MAC slammed the door on UMass. A pod format with 13 schools makes no sense. UMass should have taken the deal to join years ago when it was on the table after Temple departed.

Good luck in CUSA.

It's not just then but especially when WKU was set to join and Bamford gave his loyal to the A10 and looking for a FB Only deal. Speculating the difference now is our new Chancellor that is a football fan.

15 FB teams with pods?

UMass, UConn, Buffalo, Kent, Akron
Toledo, BG, Miami, WKU, Ohio
EMU, WMU, CMU, BSU, NIU

It's not really pods because you don't get anything for winning it. Just protected rivalries for travel and history purposes.

(11-30-2023 07:47 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Detroit News article by Tony Paul on today's MAC news:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...757293007/

Possibly expansion coming, otherwise why not announce the "pods" now? Not hard to figure the pods out with the current 12 teams.

All for it. It should help balance out some of the competitive imbalances we've seen in recent years. The East was boosted this year by Akron and Kent being awful. Having BG, Ohio, Miami not see them every year will definitely make things more interesting.

It'll take some getting used to not seeing UT, BSU and NIU on the schedule every year, but I'm cool with the change.

Typically the West has leaned stronger in football. Although this season it feels like it worked out, we do have the best two MAC reps squaring off in the MACC.

(12-01-2023 08:54 AM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  

(11-30-2023 07:47 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Detroit News article by Tony Paul on today's MAC news:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...757293007/

Possibly expansion coming, otherwise why not announce the "pods" now? Not hard to figure the pods out with the current 12 teams.

Exactly, I brought this up in post #31 in this thread. If the MAC is considering adding UMass and UConn, it would make sense to scrap divisions anyway, for two reasons.

If the two New England schools were added and divisions were maintained, it would necessitate moving BGSU to the MAC West, further strengthening the West and weakening the new MAC East. It would also mean additional travel for schools in the East for games at UMass and UConn every year. Eliminating divisions allows the MAC to send its two best teams to the MAC Championship game while also maintaining some equity in travel to the schools in the Northeast.

With 14, the scheduling model could change from two to three protected rivals and rotating five other opponents (3+5+5) in an eight game conference slate.

From a financial standpoint, adding UMass and UConn would give the MAC (and ESPN) another rivalry game and likely a nice bump in a new/extended ESPN media deal with a GOR.

We'll see how this all shakes out in the next couple months.

(12-01-2023 09:49 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(12-01-2023 08:54 AM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  

(11-30-2023 07:47 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Detroit News article by Tony Paul on today's MAC news:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...757293007/

Possibly expansion coming, otherwise why not announce the "pods" now? Not hard to figure the pods out with the current 12 teams.

Exactly, I brought this up in post #31 in this thread. If the MAC is considering adding UMass and UConn, it would make sense to scrap divisions anyway, for two reasons.

If the two New England schools were added and divisions were maintained, it would necessitate moving BGSU to the MAC West, further strengthening the West and weakening the new MAC East. It would also mean additional travel for schools in the East for games at UMass and UConn every year. Eliminating divisions allows the MAC to send its two best teams to the MAC Championship game while also maintaining some equity in travel to the schools in the Northeast.

With 14, the scheduling model could change from two to three protected rivals and rotating five other opponents (3+5+5) in an eight game conference slate.

From a financial standpoint, adding UMass and UConn would give the MAC (and ESPN) another rivalry game and likely a nice bump in a new/extended ESPN media deal with a GOR.

We'll see how this all shakes out in the next couple months.

There is this next week.

Quote:Jay Burnham
@Burnham_Jay
·
14h
? it in... Sitting down with @UMassADBamford & @UMassChancellor next week to discuss @UMassAthletics & all things @UMassFootball

2 for the price of 1! Drop me a line on any themes or topics you'd like to hear about ??

Sorry guys, we've been independent too long, any G5 conference will do. A decade of independence will be unbarrable to think about and it's been 8 years!. I know, our own fault.

(12-01-2023 09:49 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(12-01-2023 08:54 AM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  

(11-30-2023 07:47 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Detroit News article by Tony Paul on today's MAC news:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...757293007/

Possibly expansion coming, otherwise why not announce the "pods" now? Not hard to figure the pods out with the current 12 teams.

Exactly, I brought this up in post #31 in this thread. If the MAC is considering adding UMass and UConn, it would make sense to scrap divisions anyway, for two reasons.

If the two New England schools were added and divisions were maintained, it would necessitate moving BGSU to the MAC West, further strengthening the West and weakening the new MAC East. It would also mean additional travel for schools in the East for games at UMass and UConn every year. Eliminating divisions allows the MAC to send its two best teams to the MAC Championship game while also maintaining some equity in travel to the schools in the Northeast.

With 14, the scheduling model could change from two to three protected rivals and rotating five other opponents (3+5+5) in an eight game conference slate.

From a financial standpoint, adding UMass and UConn would give the MAC (and ESPN) another rivalry game and likely a nice bump in a new/extended ESPN media deal with a GOR.

We'll see how this all shakes out in the next couple months.

Makes sense. I guess its up to ESPN to decide if there is value to having UMASS all sports and UCONN football in the MAC.

(12-01-2023 01:04 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  It's not really pods because you don't get anything for winning it. Just protected rivalries for travel and history purposes.

When pods were actually used (the WAC-16 days), you couldn't get anything for "winning" the pod. What they were was a way to organize divisions that change from year to year according to a regular cycle.

They were a way to meet the requirement that the CCG had to be between the winners of two divisions playing a conference round robin, without having something like seven years in between hosting visits from schools in the other division.

Which means that your main point actually stands ... these aren't really pods, they are just scheduling groups to organize non-divisional play.

Miami plays rivals Ohio and Ball State, CMU plays rivals WMU and EMU, Akron and Kent State play the Wagon Wheel, Toledo and Bowling Green play the Battle for I-75, and then for scheduling convenience have the two schools that each play the same rival school also play each other and add the two schools without strong rivalries in conference to the closest group that only has two schools.

But don't announce it, even if all the school Presidents have approved it, because membership may change before 2024 -- with 14 schools, it turns into 2 groups of 4 and two groups of 3 ... eg, put Buffalo with an eastern pair, add NIU to the Michigan group, and put the Wagon Wheel and Battle for I-75 together in one group.

(12-01-2023 11:44 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-01-2023 01:04 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  It's not really pods because you don't get anything for winning it. Just protected rivalries for travel and history purposes.

When pods were actually used (the WAC-16 days), you couldn't get anything for "winning" the pod. What they were was a way to organize divisions that change from year to year according to a regular cycle.

They were a way to meet the requirement that the CCG had to be between the winners of two divisions playing a conference round robin, without having something like seven years in between hosting visits from schools in the other division.

Which means that your main point actually stands ... these aren't really pods, they are just scheduling groups to organize non-divisional play.

Miami plays rivals Ohio and Ball State, CMU plays rivals WMU and EMU, Akron and Kent State play the Wagon Wheel, Toledo and Bowling Green play the Battle for I-75, and then for scheduling convenience have the two schools that each play the same rival school also play each other and add the two schools without strong rivalries in conference to the closest group that only has two schools.

But don't announce it, even if all the school Presidents have approved it, because membership may change before 2024 -- with 14 schools, it turns into 2 groups of 4 and two groups of 3 ... eg, put Buffalo with an eastern pair, add NIU to the Michigan group, and put the Wagon Wheel and Battle for I-75 together in one group.

There's no one to add... Delaware and UMass found their league. We are at 12 and staying hopefully. WKU and MTSU already denied us. Unless NDSU and SDSU come calling... this is the stable MAC.

(12-01-2023 12:08 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  ... There's no one to add... Delaware and UMass found their league.

Delaware found their league. UMass probably found their league, but it seems like no official announcement is coming until January at the earliest, which sometimes means probably has not yet been upgraded to certainly.

I struggle to see anything connecting this announcement to expansion.

I don't like this idea. I like Divisions, if the scheduling construct is done right + willing to shift teams from one to another.

We want to minimize the chances of a 2nd game -- and we don't want a clear favorite who won the (regular season) conference, due to the division being the conference, to have to play a game against a 2nd-place team far behind them who they already beat.

Ideally, two divisions for any conference:
- Of yearly rivals, don't have them play in opposite divisions. Make them fight for said division. So in our case, Toledo & BGSU would be in the same one. As would the 3 MI teams.
- Avoid having projected winners of each division Not play each other regular-season
- Shift teams in different conferences to heed one being consistently stronger than the other; or one having all the weakest ones while the other's doesn't

The only time two divisions isn't good -- is if the conference is Too big, where you'd hardly get the chance to play anyone in the other division.

(12-01-2023 04:15 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  I struggle to see anything connecting this announcement to expansion.

It's certainly not explicit, and I know some people here are convinced UMass is as good as gone to Conference USA.

But I suspect MAC expansion with UMass is a real possibility. As mpurdy22 points out: Why not just announce the pods now? Why wait until January? Well, it could be UMass is still trying to figure out what it wants to do, and the MAC is still in conversations with them and with ESPN.

We'll see. This exchange between BeatWestern and mpurdy22 is pretty much where I'm at as well:

(12-01-2023 09:49 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(12-01-2023 08:54 AM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  

(11-30-2023 07:47 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Detroit News article by Tony Paul on today's MAC news:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports...757293007/

Possibly expansion coming, otherwise why not announce the "pods" now? Not hard to figure the pods out with the current 12 teams.

Exactly, I brought this up in post #31 in this thread. If the MAC is considering adding UMass and UConn, it would make sense to scrap divisions anyway, for two reasons.

If the two New England schools were added and divisions were maintained, it would necessitate moving BGSU to the MAC West, further strengthening the West and weakening the new MAC East. It would also mean additional travel for schools in the East for games at UMass and UConn every year. Eliminating divisions allows the MAC to send its two best teams to the MAC Championship game while also maintaining some equity in travel to the schools in the Northeast.

With 14, the scheduling model could change from two to three protected rivals and rotating five other opponents (3+5+5) in an eight game conference slate.

From a financial standpoint, adding UMass and UConn would give the MAC (and ESPN) another rivalry game and likely a nice bump in a new/extended ESPN media deal with a GOR.

We'll see how this all shakes out in the next couple months.

(12-01-2023 01:04 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  It's not really pods because you don't get anything for winning it. Just protected rivalries for travel and history purposes.

They are pods. Nothing says you need to "get anything for winning" a pod. And these are not all "protected rivalries". Some are - UT/BG, EMU/CMU/WMU, Akron/Kent, etc. But Buffalo and Akron/Kent are not rivals; UT/NIU are not; Ball St/Ohio are not.

(12-01-2023 06:19 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(12-01-2023 01:04 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  It's not really pods because you don't get anything for winning it. Just protected rivalries for travel and history purposes.

They are pods. Nothing says you need to "get anything for winning" a pod.

As far as what "says what a pod is" ... they aren't an invention of discussion forums, they are something that the WAC used when they hit 16 schools, until the famous "airport meeting" when the breakaway MWC was formed.

As far as getting nothing saying you get anything from winning a pod ... that is kind of true.

There was no distinct prize for "winning a pod" when the WAC had pods. Pods were just a way of forming different divisions every year to let the schools play each other more often and still have divisions, so that division champions could play in a CCG.

However, you did have to win the combination of pods that formed a division for that particular year. So the games in your pod were the games that were always Division games, and the games against the schools in another pod were sometimes intra-division games and sometimes inter-division games.

There was no distinct prize for winning the pod, but no two teams from the same pod could ever meet each other in the CCG.

Quote: And these are not all "protected rivalries". Some are - UT/BG, EMU/CMU/WMU, Akron/Kent, etc. But Buffalo and Akron/Kent are not rivals; UT/NIU are not; Ball St/Ohio are not.

Yes, they are just scheduling groups. As far as going to the CCG, these games don't have any extra weight over any other game, and we could indeed see a Battle for Michigan or Battle for I-75 rematch in the CCG, which couldn't happen if they were pods.

(12-01-2023 04:15 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  I struggle to see anything connecting this announcement to expansion.

A thread about dropping divisions turns into yet another expansion thread. There's already enough of those. Let's just talk about the matter at hand.

(12-01-2023 08:54 AM)jp102586 Wrote:  All for it. It should help balance out some of the competitive imbalances we've seen in recent years. The East was boosted this year by Akron and Kent being awful. Having BG, Ohio, Miami not see them every year will definitely make things more interesting.

Yeah because BG is getting a pod with Toledo and NIU in it.

That would be my dream pod too.

(12-01-2023 04:15 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  I struggle to see anything connecting this announcement to expansion.

There is a connection ... and oddly enough, it's not been raised in this discussion ... but there are enough expansion threads to talk about that connection there, rather than here.

For this particular scheduling, I'm happy that double cross-over of Toledo/Bowling Green and Miami/Ball State which kept Toledo and Miami from playing with any regularity is going away. While today's game is a repeat game this year, it is also only the second time that Toledo and Miami have played over the past decade.

Pods by historical winning percentage (Post 1945)

https://college-football-results.com/ncaa_1a.htm

Toledo .578, BGSU .567, NIU .517 (average .554)
Miami .591, Ball St .512, Ohio .480 (average .523)
CMU .571, WMU .521, EMU .390 (average .494)
Akron .447, Buffalo .439, KSU .387 (average .424)

-UT/BG/NIU is the glamour pod, particularly with NIU one of the top in the MAC over the past decades.

-MU/BSU/OU is a clear second. Rising OU program and BSU can win more now its not buried in the MAC West.

-CMU/WMU/EMU is a solid pod considering the Michigan MAC trophy.

-UA/UB/KSU is by far the weakest pod but does make the most sense for those programs. Plus they will be competing against each other to ensure easier wins.

Looking at it this way I think the MAC nailed it IMO.