CSNbbs

If we want to understand the MAC's decisions and plans, we need to look at the Div. 1A lanscape as a whole. I'm going to focus mainly on football with a few glances at basketball. I'm hoping all my facts are correct, bit it's difficult to keep up with all the changes.

Of the 11 Div. 1A football conferences, there are 5 who are solidly entrenched at the top--ACC, Big12, Big 10, SEC, and PAC10.

One conference is holding on for dear life to maintain its status--the Big East. Let's consider a couple of its problems. It lost its best teams to the ACC. It soon will have only 8 members for football. Its membership for basketball will be 16, and it's status there is top flight. How long will the Big East be able to balance this football-basketball schism? Lots of people expect a split within a few years.

There is a serious problem here, namely, the options of the Big East seem very limited. It needs to strengthen football by adding members but how can it do this without adding to its basketball membership, already cumbersome? If fb and bb split, a good deal of income will be lost in future years. A lot of media are already questioning whether Big East fb can maintain top flight status. Who among its members can regularly claim top 10-15 rankings? I think it needs more than one team to do well.


OK- now what about the other Div. 1A conferences, the so-called "non-BCS" conferences? Here we have the MAC, C-USA, the Sun-Belt, the Mountain West, and the WAC.

I'm going to rank them from bottom to top (in my view), looking at their FUTURE CHANCES OF IMPROVING their situation with respect to the Big East and the top 5.

5th Place--the Sun Belt. Unless there are some major changes, I don't see how the Sun Belt can improve its position. And what changes could it make? It might try to raid other conferences, but I feel this is unlikely to be successful enough for real progress.

4th Place--the WAC. I may really be wrong here but give me a chance to explain. The WAC is losing 3 members, Tulsa, Rice, and SMU and I believe is gaining 2, Utah St. and Idaho. It has had 1 very good team over the last few years-- Boise St., 2 other teams that have been good on occasion-- Fresno St. and Hawaii. I expect Boise St. and Fresno St. to be very good next year.

In bb, the WAC has not been very good lately. But the main problem I see for the WAC is its long term prospects. Unless there are some real changes, I don't see other teams besides Fresno St. and Boise St. achieving national prominence. Can the WAC ride 2 horses and maintain this prominence? I doubt it, and if either of these horses goes lame the WAC could fade fast. Fresno St. is in a good place to recruit, but Boise St. is not.

3rd place--C-USA. In bb C-USA will be only a shell of what it used to be. It's losing 8 of its members, including 3 of its best (Louisville, Cincinnati, and Marquette).

In football it's also losing 2 of its best teams over the last few years, Louisville and TCU.

It is replacing these lost teams with UCF, Marshall, Rice, SMU, UTEP, and Tulsa. I don't have the combined fb won-lost records of these teams for last year, but it's below .500.

C-USA fans are crowing about their potential, but I don't see it, at least not for the next 5 years.

Here are some other problems. Geographically the footprint of the new C-USA is terrible. And some posters have argued that establishing rivalries will be difficult.

In order to prosper, I think at least 4 teams, not necessarily the same 4, need to do well in football on a regular basis. The problem is, who will these 4 be. The chief candidates appear to be Southern Miss, UTEP, and maybe Marshall and Memphis or Houston. A couple of these teams, though slipped last year. I'm not sure I see a consistent group of prospects.

2nd place--Mountain West. Of course, Utah the last 2 years has done an outstanding job of promoting the Mountain West. A key reason, though, why I'm putting the Mountain West in 2nd place is stability. I see the Sun Belt, WAC, and C-USA as all having been victimized by instability and it may continue.

The Mountain West will have 9 all sports members, with at least 4 being the major universities in their state. I consider this a major plus for long term success.

The main problem for the MW I think is something mentioned before, namely, how many teams can perform regularly at a level of national prominence. Can Utah continue to do this? Colorado St. has faded recently along with BYU. Maybe TCU? But the number of near term legitimate prospects looks small. Also, this conference is not well located in order to achieve media/TV attention. I read somewhere that its TV ratings were the lowest of the conferences we're discussing here.

1st place--the MAC. Remember, I'm talking here about the future outlook. But looking first at the recent past, the MAC has had 4-5 teams in fb which have received national headlines and rankings--Miami, Toledo, Northern Illinois, Bowling Green, and Marshall (yes, they're leaving). The MAC has achieved something none of the other "non-BCS" conferences has done--ending the season with 2 teams ranked in the top 25, and the MAC has done this twice in the last few years.

But I'm looking chiefly at the future. Another reason I'm putting the MAC first is that next year, it should again have at least 4 very good teams-- Northern Illinois, Bowling Green, Toledo, and Miami.

And something very important, I see no reason why the MAC for the foreseeable future cannot continue to produce a handful of very good teams.

Finally, stability among a long time core of MAC members is a big plus for the MAC just like the Mountain West.

So, to return to a major point of this post, if I were to select a conference that has the best chance of moving up in terms of national perception, it would be the MAC. If this is true, I think any MAC team would think very carefully about moving to a conference whose future is clouded with uncertainty.

Is there a chance one of these conferences could take the place of the Big East and join the top 5? I doubt it. I think a much more likely scenario is that the Big East might slip from the top 5 and that one or two other conferences might edge closer to the the Big East and the top 5. The key point is that there is real opportunity here for advancement.

Very well thought out points but I have to place the MAC at the bottom just above Sun Belt. Why? Because what CUSA, MWC, and the WAC have that the MAC doesn't is the basic essential of marketing and that is "Brand Identity".

The MAC has done a terrible job of marketing itself, why I do not know, but facts are facts. More people in this country can name off all the teams form the MWC, WAC, or CUSA then they could teams from the MAC.

"Brand Identity" is what differentiates you when you are a member of a common market, in this case college football. If the MAC wants to get better, wants to improve, wants to get into the game they have to create a strong brand idenitity. Now with the changes in CUSA you could say there brand identity is gone, but I would dispute that. It will take many years of subpar performance by the CUSA to lose its identity.

I think the problem is much bigger than the landscape, except maybe for your well thought out points on the BIG EAST, the problem the MAC has is due to lack of leadership, creativity and innovation in the front office. Just my opinion.

GO NIU This year we beat Toledo!

Interesting analysis. I assume that when you say, "future chances of improving their situation" you are referring to public perception of those conferences?

It's important to realize where these conferences already lie in that respect. Sadly, I put the MAC #4 in national prominence. (Sun-Belt being #5 - suck on it, BuRP) It's a good thing we're in the best position to make gains since we have a long way to go.

-Dan

The problem is that most people view the non BCS conferences in this order

5) Sun Belt- new, rarely on TV, no big time schools or names

4) MAC-Hate to say it but this is where most would rank us nationally, The Mac is know for overachieving, solid teams at the top, good NFL players, but a bus league with no depth, no money, and lack of facilities.

3) WAC-probably worse than the MAC but has better facilities, and a few big time schools Fresno, and Boise.

2) C-USA- Depleted with the losses but still has a lot of bowls, and great basketball.

1) MWC-Big time facilities, big name schools UNLV, Utah, BYU, and Colorado State. These schools have been to final fours, and won national championships, and had number one draft picks.


The mac might have the best chance to move up, but has no commitment, or money compared to the other leagues

GlassBowl9 Wrote:The problem is that most people view the non BCS conferences in this order

5) Sun Belt- new, rarely on TV, no big time schools or names

4) MAC-Hate to say it but this is where most would rank us nationally, The Mac is know for overachieving, solid teams at the top, good NFL players, but a bus league with no depth, no money, and lack of facilities.

3) WAC-probably worse than the MAC but has better facilities, and a few big time schools Fresno, and Boise.

2) C-USA- Depleted with the losses but still has a lot of bowls, and great basketball.

1) MWC-Big time facilities, big name schools UNLV, Utah, BYU, and Colorado State. These schools have been to final fours, and won national championships, and had number one draft picks.


The mac might have the best chance to move up, but has no commitment, or money compared to the other leagues

I agree with you on most people's perception.

This coming fall BG plays Boise State and Toledo plays Fresno State. It will be awfully tough, but if BG and Toledo can beat both BSU and FSU, that will do a lot for the MAC in terms of its perception over the WAC. Every knows that the WAC is basically BSU and FSU, with Hawaii showing up to play every once in a while. The rest of the WAC is in serious trouble. San Jose State and Nevada? How about the new schools joining the WAC this fall. I can't even remember who they are, but I think one is Utah State or something like that.

Tell me what comes after the next BCS contract expires and I'll give you what I think.

The Big East isn't likely to split as long as the BCS lives. Why? Because the contract was signed with the Big East. When split talk came along the hoops schools were quite blunt that the football schools would leave the name behind. Creating a new entity is just the sort of loophole the other BCS leagues can use to terminate their full participation.

If as some suppose, a single game playoff post-bowls emerges, the four BCS bowls will not renew the deal. They will sign each conference they want and wheel and deal to fill the three at-large slots. No BCS cash? No need to keep the Big East together.

As to CUSA. They are a huge loser in realignment. They lost several serious basketball schools. They lost three schools willing to spend big bucks on football (by non-BCS standards). They have a western division where 4 of 6 are private schools that lack the interest in basketball of the other two and the interest of Memphis and UAB. They have gone from having 9 of 12 willing to invest well in basketball to four. In football they lost four schools willing to raid the treasury. They have added three of similar mind but lesser budget, and three that haven't shown the inclination to invest as heavily.

That is where the opportunities lie for the Sun Belt members. CUSA is less the force that it was and is now a more divergent group. The group can make inroads within the market now that they have shed their western members. If the eastern schools tire of those differences departing and taking Houston with them along with advancing Sun Belt schools opens those doors. While the western schools will have to turn to Sun Belt members to preserve a conference. If the Big East splits they will look at CUSA and the MAC and once again departing members of CUSA will be replaced from the Sun Belt.

The WAC had added three members (NMSU, USU, Idaho) and they are nearly in the place they need to be. La.Tech is outside the mix but they aren't going to join the Sun Belt. They are rapidly losing ground on facilities vs the Sun Belt so they are left with prestige factor as their sole edge. They won't give up that advantage when they hold none in support and facilities vs. the Belt. The only threat to the security of the WAC is predatory moves by the MWC.

The Mountain West is in a nice position and a bad position. The nice of it is that none are so attractive that the Pac-10 is a serious threat to raid and the Big 12 is unlikely to make any moves. That leaves them with a conference stronger than their other non-BCS peers that neighbor them. The downside is that they lack the raw population numbers in their market to ever get a full seat at the table. They are what they are and they aren't likely to expand simply because the market sizes make it hard for anyone to bring more dollars to the table than they will consume.

The MAC has to figure out what it is. If the MAC desires to continue to cultivate its market, it seems well poised to do so in an era of ever increasing tv exposures. If it wishes to grow larger the available markets all bring roughly equal pro/con issues. There is no brilliant move available that can leap the MAC forward but an expedition back into expansion won't change the perception of a tight-knit mid-western conference where the bus is used about as much as the plane. Expansion opens new markets (that's good) but if Temple football fails to improve or worse improves greatly as a football only member then the MAC is either just a retirement home for broken down horses or so weak even Temple can win it. If another expansion candidate (whether it be WKU or SIU or whoever) comes in and pays lip service to football just to affiliate with MAC hoops, it looks like a desperation measure to keep afloat the league. Problem is the MAC isn't having trouble staying afloat so that is a negative.

arkstfan Wrote:...if Temple football fails to improve or worse improves greatly as a football only member then the MAC is either just a retirement home for broken down horses or so weak even Temple can win it.....

The Lose/Lose scenario for the MAC.

Re the 5 confrences...... The WAC is done dead finished terrible logistics ,money etc....everything SCHMELLS...
Sunbelt with patience and a LONG LONG time frame they will be equivent to MAC based on population shifts and quality of football played down under....
Mountain West has it all.... a history , tremendous facilites, solid institutions and a donor base that can raise CAPITAL.....

There seems to be an underlying tone on MAC boards that C-USA is not that good and we are "better" then them. I don't see it that way, C-USA has bigger and better facilites than we do and can all significant advantage in raising funds. The -2- that left, UCF and mu both have excellet facilities and have superior ability to raise funds than the MAC. based on the quality of the UT and Miami O fb they both should have stadium capacities greater than 40k and selling them out. The C- USA schools have the potential to do that.

In regards to C-USA, I had a conversation the other day with two relatives who are both Big Ten grads and relatively close followers of college basketball. They were commenting on Cincinnati, Marquette, DePaul and Louisville joining the Big East next year.

They asked me an honest question: "So, I guess Conference USA is going out of business then, right?"

I told them no, Conference USA had found replacements for the departing schools, and was planning to move forward as a more southerly-based league.

"Oh, I didn't know that. Which schools are joining the leftovers?" one asked.

"Rice, Tulsa, Central Florida, Marshall, SMU and UTEP," I told them.

After a brief pause, my cousin shook his head and said:

"So, I guess Conference USA is going out of business then, right?"

The situation of each leagues presents unique challenges and benefits.

The MAC has been so stable in membership that for most members a shift has to be clearly better to inspire a move. The MAC is my blueprint of what a non-BCS league ought to look like. There aren't many rights fee dollars left over when the nets get done with the BCS leagues. There are exposure opportunities but few revenue opportunities. If you can't increase revenue, then you keep expenses low. The big money waster is travel. Just a quick out and back trip for Arkansas State to Utah State or Idaho could quickly eat up $50,000 or more and all we got out of it was a return trip from someone our fans had little interest in.

Closer trips cost less, following fans mean more revenue and more local interest. That helps keep expenses down while helping boost revenue.

The MWC is the western model of the MAC. If you've ever driven from the University of Wyoming to the University of New Mexico two things stand out. You've got to drive right past two more MWC members and it is only about an 8 hour drive. From Utah or BYU to UNLV is about five hours. Seven of the nine MWC members have at least 2 conference members within an 8 hour drive. San Diego State to UNLV is just under five hours. Every school except TCU has an opponent that a fan can drive to in a day and go back home the same day.

The overall distances are pretty big but there is still that hook of a regional opponent and the opportunity to bus to at least some games in football and basketball and certainly in non-revenue sports.

Well, I'm not as pessimistic about the future of C-USA as it PapaLou, but they are in some serious denial about the free fall they are in with regards to the overall calibre of their programs once most all the "big guns" leave next year. Although they'll obviously get much less ESPN coverage in the coming years, their commish pulled off a pretty sweet deal if this CSTV money ever comes in. And, as pointed out, about half the remaining schools do have much better fan support than most all MAC schools. So, I think that they'll be around in some fashion.

Now that it seems that the "pressure" is off the MAC on the ill-devised "15K butts in seats" rule, the conference could expand just to enhance basketball.....certainly Temple and either SIU or WKU would accomplish that mission to some degree. I'm not at all excited about adding Temple (football only), but as a football and hoops member they would probably be an asset, and I'm sure NIU would love to see SIU in the league.....again, good hoops but wouldn't bring much in football (although they have a VERY good IAA program) from the perspective of prestige and attendance. If they build a new stadium as proposed it would seem they could average upwards of 15K or more a game, though. All in all, I like SIU as an addition better than WKU because it better suits the overall geography of the league....in all honesty, I suspect that WKU may actually be closer to more MAC campuses than SIU, but again, I think the MAC would like to make NIU a tad happier, and having SIU would accomplish that to some degree I would think.

As a Miami fan, the thing I'm most excited about is BGSU coming over to the East.....that really helps shore up our home MAC schedule with Marshall exiting. BG is certainly one of our best MAC rivalries.

I disagree on your rankings.. though I agree on #5
5 sunbelt.. just not good at all other than maybe North tex.. no tv.. no money.. no nothing..
4 wac.. wac lost UTEP, Rice, Smu, and tulsa.. Utep and tulsa were their best BB schools.
3. Mac.. Still has 2 or 3 good football and bb schools.. not much tv or $$$$$$$
2. MWC.. they have slightly more tv $$$ than cusa and a little better football.. but it hard to sell the western schools.. play to late.
1. CUSA.. 2 tv deals.. about 10% less $$$ than MWC but more games on when people will see them.. and 4 or 5 bowl bids..

I think #1 and 2 could easily be reversed they both have positives and negetives.. I think the mac is clearly #3 ahead of the wac.. mainly because of natural rival games..

Gee, what a surprise. A Central Fredo fan ranks his new home as #1, despite all evidence to the contrary...

I can see the big east splitting, but they will raid the right football teams to keep them a BCS conference.

Maybe grab memphis if they'll go, NIU, Miami OH, Ect. They have options. Even army + Navy.

COHUSKIE Wrote:Very well thought out points but I have to place the MAC at the bottom just above Sun Belt. Why? Because what CUSA, MWC, and the WAC have that the MAC doesn't is the basic essential of marketing and that is "Brand Identity".

Even if we go with your point, it belies the dilemma that CUSA is in: they've lost their brand! With L'ville and Cincy gone, they are no longer a solid conference. They're bleeding worse in bball which WAS their brand.

I think the WAC has a similar problem, b/c it has radically changed identities in the past decade. It is simply the old Big West w/ the new Mountain West's old name.

But, there are teams w/ tradition there.

My ranking would be as follows:

5. SBC
4. CUSA
2(t) MAC, WAC
1. MWC

The MWC has a longer legacy than any other conference. National championship, Heisman trophy winners...and much greater attendance. CSU and BYU can return, and Wyoming and AF have had good years. They are deep on tradition.

The WAC can ride 2 horses especially w/ Hawaii pulling along too. Utah St has had tradition (and brings up bball too). With the resurgance of the Pac 10, it is the WAC that has suffered. However, demographics still has folks moving west, so they can (and will) push their way up.

If CUSA gets a bounce w/ Marshall and UCF, they'll be ok. Frankly, they're about at rock bottom, so they don't have any other direction to go. They do have some infrastructure in place w/ bowl games and NCAA money. UCF's bball is a pleasant surprise for them.

SBC has shaped itself into a nice, geographically sound fball conference, and has a good bball tradition. However, it still needs to bring in fans. Do that, and they'll be fine.

My rankings would be as follows:

5) SBC - relatively spread out & right now all of their members are
not Div 1, some are 1AA.

4) WAC - Again - large geographically & where are the rivalries.

3) MAC - I'm a big MAC fan, but we've forever been in the Big 10's
very large shadow. That's one big reason attendance is
not always that great. We could move to # 2 if we can
play the big boys well & have more schools get better in FB.

2) C-USA - For at least this year. After this year, it remains to be
seen if TV money can keep them at this level. They are
located in several large markets, but do the people in
those cities really care. Ex - does Houston care about
Rice or Dallas care about SMU. Often, the Pros rule.

1) MWC - The most tradition of good teams & large crowds. They
are often the most prestigous schools in their area.

Play this game with Memphis going from Cusa to BE. Those talks are beginning now and is lead by Louisville. UL wants Memphis in their conference. Of course, some of the BE are saying who are you to lead the way for your buddy. You are not even a member yet. Bank on it. UL will be a big force in the survival of the NBE. They want Memphis and within 3 years, Cusa will have lost its flagship FB and BB representative. How would this discussion go then.

PLAT Wrote:My rankings would be as follows:

5) SBC - relatively spread out & right now all of their members are
not Div 1, some are 1AA.

4) WAC - Again - large geographically & where are the rivalries.

3) MAC - I'm a big MAC fan, but we've forever been in the Big 10's
very large shadow. That's one big reason attendance is
not always that great. We could move to # 2 if we can
play the big boys well & have more schools get better in FB.

2) C-USA - For at least this year. After this year, it remains to be
seen if TV money can keep them at this level. They are
located in several large markets, but do the people in
those cities really care. Ex - does Houston care about
Rice or Dallas care about SMU. Often, the Pros rule.

1) MWC - The most tradition of good teams & large crowds. They
are often the most prestigous schools in their area.

This is about where I come down.

Gflash - If Memphis is gone from C-USA, the TV money may go with it.

I honestly believe that if the MAC & C-USA ( - Memphis) are given the
same TV dollars, the MAC will pass C-USA.

The MAC doesn't need as much TV money as CUSA because overhead is lower thanks to reasonable travel.