CSNbbs

Full Version: Should the MAC mandate a 6-home/6-away schedule?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
You can still play a major payday game, have an alternating hoome-and-home with two teams, and play one FCS or SunBelt team in a one-off situation.

I realize this might not work as a straight-up 6-6 schedule, so maybe instead the MAC can mandate that each school has at least 6 home games at-least every other year. That leaves room for some flexibility.

The MAC needs to gain more legitimacy and respect in its own region, and playing more non-conference home games is a good way to do it.
Yes, and no more than one of those games should be a FCS school.
(07-08-2009 05:29 PM)NIUGAHuskie Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, and no more than one of those games should be a FCS school.

I thought that would be a given, but it's good you mentioned it because I think if schools are forced to play more home games than they want to they might just go the cheap route and play two FCS teams especially if they don't think they'll get into a bowl either way.
Keep the MAC away from Toledo's OOC schedule.If the Rockets can help another MAC school of their choosing that's one thing.Too much interference from a governing body is usually a bad thing.
Football is about entertainment. You can't entertain your fans when you hardly ever play interesting teams at home.
Short answer: Yes, with an of course. Long answer: Obviously, with a duh. Will it happen: No with a :(.
schools should learn how to schedule properly and this wouldn't be a problem. Use Toledo as an example.
(07-08-2009 09:41 PM)utpotts Wrote: [ -> ]schools should learn how to schedule properly and this wouldn't be a problem. Use Toledo as an example.
I don't think anybody should use Toledo as an example for anything..
Money the problem and MAC teams are battling the economy and trying to stay up to date with the facilities arms race. Va Tech and Northwestern for supposed to play in Athens, but Ohio traded those games for better deals with higher payouts. Hard to say no to $750,000. They made the right decision. Some MAC schools can afford 6 home games and others can't. These money games do pay for upgrades in facilities.
(07-08-2009 11:13 PM)7 Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-08-2009 09:41 PM)utpotts Wrote: [ -> ]schools should learn how to schedule properly and this wouldn't be a problem. Use Toledo as an example.
I don't think anybody should use Toledo as an example for anything..

Toledo gets BCS teams at home. Not 1-AA teams like NIU.
I know that Central had to back out a home and home with Mississippi State and go play Georgia on the road to make their budget last year. I'm sure the check cleared but it did nothing for their program or the conference. Instead of having a winnable home game against a name team from the SEC they were pasted by Georgia and all we ever got out of that game for the conference was multiple showings of Moreano jumping over a guy. Basically one of our premier programs was nothing more than a scheduling prop. Not good at all.

Western has given up on bringing in BCS teams for the forseable future as well after the 2-1 w/ Indiana hasn't proven nearly as lucrative as one and done trips to BCS heavy weights. So I guess as much as it would help football programs to get a few more winnable games on the schedule, there is no way to replace that revenue so it has to be up to every school to make their budget work. What I would like to see is planning and foresight like Ball State had last year to have their schedule line up with winnable games non conference when they have their best teams. It is way better for us as a conference to have Ball State at 11-1 or 12-0 going into a bowl game representing the MAC than it is to have a CMU (07) at 8-6 or Akron (05) 7-5 because they were beat up non conference.
If the MAC moved to this, non-conference road games would pay slightly more because they would be more scarce. About 9 less games available per year for the BCS teams to hide in their own stadiums.
Ideally the BCS teams wouldn't be coming to MAC stadiums (mostly because they would bring legions of bandwagon fans and thus negate the home field advantage) they would be going to other BCS stadiums and MAC teams would be playing more CUSA, WAC, and SunBelt teams in home and home series. That is the dream scenario.
(07-09-2009 12:17 PM)Liam9903 Wrote: [ -> ]Ideally the BCS teams wouldn't be coming to MAC stadiums (mostly because they would bring legions of bandwagon fans and thus negate the home field advantage) they would be going to other BCS stadiums and MAC teams would be playing more CUSA, WAC, and SunBelt teams in home and home series. That is the dream scenario.

That's what I would hope for, but I wouldn't mind playing a few home games against the BCS every once in a while.

I think the MAC should come to an agreement with the C-USA and the Sun Belt to all go the 6-6 route. Really put the squeeze on the BCS.
No, no and ... no.

Every time the MAC gets involved in football scheduling, it turns into a train wreck. Schools should be allowed to do what they deem is necessary and in the best interest of their program and their school.

I used to be really down on the I-AA games, but have done a 180. I just don't see it as all that bad. MAC schools should shoot for the 6/6 split, but sometimes that just won't work out.

My 2 cents on a standard MAC schedule ...

4 MAC home games
4 MAC road games
1 payday game on the road vs. Big BCS school (Michigan, Zero State, etc.)
1 home game vs. another mid-major (Wyoming, Boise State, etc.)
1 away game vs. another mid-major ... see above
1 home game vs. I-AA
That's I said in my original post that the MAC say that the teams have to have 6 home games at elast once every two years, to allow for some flexibility.
No, you can't possible mandate it anyway. What are you gonna do, fine the schools or kick them out if they don't? The only thing they could do is set it as a goal to strive to and nothing more.
(07-09-2009 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]No, you can't possible mandate it anyway. What are you gonna do, fine the schools or kick them out if they don't? The only thing they could do is set it as a goal to strive to and nothing more.

Why can't you mandate it? People have been arguing that the MAC needs to mandate a scheduling policy for basketball for years and nobody said that you can't do that.

You fine the schools if they don't comply. The fine has to be big enough that it isn't worth it to play a payday game to cover it.
(07-09-2009 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: [ -> ]No, you can't possible mandate it anyway. What are you gonna do, fine the schools or kick them out if they don't? The only thing they could do is set it as a goal to strive to and nothing more.

I think it would be great for the MAC to set it as a goal to strive for. Instead of punishing teams that can't get 6 home games, maybe the MAC could reward those teams that do get 6 home games with some money to help pay for the home games or something.
Future Ohio non-conference schedules:

2010
Sept. 4-WOFFORD
Sept. 11-LOUISIANA-LAFAYETTE
Sept. 18-at Ohio State
Sept. 25-at Marshall

2011
Sept. 3-at New Mexico State
Sept. 10-GARDNER-WEBB
Sept. 17-MARSHALL
Sept. 24-at Rutgers

2012
Sept. 1-at Penn State
Sept. 8-NEW MEXICO STATE
Sept. 15-at Marshall
Sept. 22-NORFOLK STATE

2013
Aug. 31-at Louisville
Sept. 7-NORTH TEXAS
Sept. 14-MARSHALL
Sept. 21-HOME VS. FCS (I-AA)

2014
Sept. 6-at Kentucky
Sept. 13-at Marshall
Sept. 20-IDAHO
Sept. 27-EASTERN ILLINOIS

2015
Sept. 5-SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA
Sept. 12-MARSHALL
Sept. 19-at Idaho
Sept. 26-at Minnesota
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's