CSNbbs

Full Version: 14th team-probably a dumb question
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I'm sure it's been asked a thousand times and been discussed ad nauseum, but why hasn't the MAC actively pursued a 14th member? Are they? If so, who are the realistic candidates?
My noseyness stems from my own school trying to finally get its' act together, but also I've found the MAC to be fun to watch football wise.
Just off my head I've wondered about Liberty, JMU, Eastern Kentucky and Eastern Illinois as potential transition teams, but I'm sure there's probably more.
I'm guessing too on a side note that atleast one response will have a 03-puke to Liberty, but they are investing alot into their programs.
(12-13-2012 11:27 AM)Buccaneerlover Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure it's been asked a thousand times and been discussed ad nauseum, but why hasn't the MAC actively pursued a 14th member? Are they? If so, who are the realistic candidates?
My noseyness stems from my own school trying to finally get its' act together, but also I've found the MAC to be fun to watch football wise.
Just off my head I've wondered about Liberty, JMU, Eastern Kentucky and Eastern Illinois as potential transition teams, but I'm sure there's probably more.
I'm guessing too on a side note that atleast one response will have a 03-puke to Liberty, but they are investing alot into their programs.

UMass would have been #14 this year, but Temple jumped ship dropping us back to 13.
I'm not sure anyone here as ever given it any thought. 03-lmfao (not laughing at you Buc)
with the BE imploding,CUSA in shambles, and the MAC being the best remaining non-AQ conf, there is absolutely no way in hell we should be considering an FCS team. if anything we jettison UMass and go back to 12.
If they have solid facilities/attendance and are close geographicaly but could extend your footprint just a little bit, I don't know why you wouldn't.
(12-13-2012 01:04 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote: [ -> ]If they have solid facilities/attendance and are close geographicaly but could extend your footprint just a little bit, I don't know why you wouldn't.

Right now with all of the realignment scenarios out there, the MAC is stable. We're in a position where we could realistically take in orphaned BE teams (Temple, UC, or UConn, unlikely though), Sun Belt teams (Arkansas State or WKU), the independents (Army or Navy, I don't think the BE will survive by the time they'll join in 2015), or upper-level FCS schools (JMU, UD, etc). Judging by the MAC's actions in the past and the realignment events of the present, we're going to hold out for the most ideal outcome and move down our wish list from there. Taking in FCS teams would probably help the MAC develop in the long run, but someone like UConn or UC would be best for the conference if we could pull it off because of the strength of their academics, athletic programs, and the markets they would bring.
(12-13-2012 01:04 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote: [ -> ]If they have solid facilities/attendance and are close geographicaly but could extend your footprint just a little bit, I don't know why you wouldn't.

Close geographically...but extending footprint?

Aside from the somewhat contradictory nature of this, it's been shown for a couple of decades that this doesn't really benefit a conference. A consistent membership of relatively close, like-purposed institutions, garners the most interest and support.

The MAC is there. If teams leave, then the remaining members could look to replenish as necessary. Otherwise, the MAC is stable and doing alright. If it wants to improve it should do it organically (improve attendances, spend more, etc) not get bigger and more diffuse.
Let me be the first to 03-puke on Liberty. No way would they fit the MAC model and I wouldn't set foot on that exclusionary and discrimenatory campus for anything.
(12-13-2012 01:31 PM)chipfan Wrote: [ -> ]Let me be the first to 03-puke on Liberty. No way would they fit the MAC model and I wouldn't set foot on that exclusionary and discrimenatory campus for anything.

The most ironically named college out there.
(12-13-2012 02:12 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 01:31 PM)chipfan Wrote: [ -> ]Let me be the first to 03-puke on Liberty. No way would they fit the MAC model and I wouldn't set foot on that exclusionary and discrimenatory campus for anything.

The most ironically named college out there.

Your bigotry is showing.
Yours isn't?
(12-13-2012 02:17 PM)axeme Wrote: [ -> ]Yours isn't?

Feel free to demonstrate...
Stay at 12. Let the UMASS situation play itself out.

It's in our best interest to split our revenues by 12...rather than 14.
(12-13-2012 01:31 PM)chipfan Wrote: [ -> ]Let me be the first to 03-puke on Liberty. No way would they fit the MAC model and I wouldn't set foot on that exclusionary and discrimenatory campus for anything.

Eh, they're a private school. It's up to them to do as they see fit.
Seriously though, the MAC's blueprint as a mid major conference is what the others need to follow but won't. The La./Texas/Alabama schools are all too high and mighty in their ivory towers to realize there's not much separation between them. The Texas mid majors together would be one heck of a conference.
(12-13-2012 02:16 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 02:12 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 01:31 PM)chipfan Wrote: [ -> ]Let me be the first to 03-puke on Liberty. No way would they fit the MAC model and I wouldn't set foot on that exclusionary and discrimenatory campus for anything.

The most ironically named college out there.

Your bigotry is showing.

01-wingedeagle

How so? I know they have a history prejudice there, they rightfully get a bad rep because of what they've done. It's ironic that they're called Liberty because that college is anything but. If you're kidding or something else, whatever, my sarcasm detector on the Internet sucks.
(12-13-2012 02:47 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 02:16 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 02:12 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 01:31 PM)chipfan Wrote: [ -> ]Let me be the first to 03-puke on Liberty. No way would they fit the MAC model and I wouldn't set foot on that exclusionary and discrimenatory campus for anything.

The most ironically named college out there.

Your bigotry is showing.

01-wingedeagle

How so? I know they have a history prejudice there, they rightfully get a bad rep because of what they've done. It's ironic that they're called Liberty because that college is anything but. If you're kidding or something else, whatever, my sarcasm detector on the Internet sucks.

I'm not kidding. Liberty means just that...liberty. Freedom to associate, freedom to practice religion, freedom of speech... all of that.

I don't know all the prejudice you refer to, some of it may be that, some of it may be exaggerated. Regardless, liberty means liberty, not obeying the mores that you happen to prefer.
(12-13-2012 02:31 PM)EA3 Wrote: [ -> ]Stay at 12. Let the UMASS situation play itself out.

It's in our best interest to split our revenues by 12...rather than 14.

03-yes

Quote:The Texas mid majors together would be one heck of a conference.

Despite TX's size, that might be too provincal. You need to have some rivalries that go beyond the immediate area.

MAC's footprint is a nice size, but it's too concentrated in OH, and to some extent MI.

Big 8, Pac 8, 1990 SEC, and Big 10 had pretty good set ups. If Big 8 had been the one to expand first and initiate the SWC breakup, they'd be better for it.
(12-13-2012 02:56 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 02:47 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 02:16 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 02:12 PM)Love and Honor Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 01:31 PM)chipfan Wrote: [ -> ]Let me be the first to 03-puke on Liberty. No way would they fit the MAC model and I wouldn't set foot on that exclusionary and discrimenatory campus for anything.

The most ironically named college out there.

Your bigotry is showing.

01-wingedeagle

How so? I know they have a history prejudice there, they rightfully get a bad rep because of what they've done. It's ironic that they're called Liberty because that college is anything but. If you're kidding or something else, whatever, my sarcasm detector on the Internet sucks.

I'm not kidding. Liberty means just that...liberty. Freedom to associate, freedom to practice religion, freedom of speech... all of that.

I don't know all the prejudice you refer to, some of it may be that, some of it may be exaggerated. Regardless, liberty means liberty, not obeying the mores that you happen to prefer.

They're a private school, so yes, they do have the freedom to pursue their mission as a religious institution to follow through however they feel. I personally disagree with some past actions, but this is not a political thread, so I'm leaving it at this.
(12-13-2012 03:02 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-13-2012 02:31 PM)EA3 Wrote: [ -> ]Stay at 12. Let the UMASS situation play itself out.

It's in our best interest to split our revenues by 12...rather than 14.

03-yes

Quote:The Texas mid majors together would be one heck of a conference.

Despite TX's size, that might be too provincal. You need to have some rivalries that go beyond the immediate area.

MAC's footprint is a nice size, but it's too concentrated in OH, and to some extent MI.

Texas is plenty big enough. The distance from UH to UTEP is greater than the distance between Athens, OH and Jacksonville, FL.


Big 8, Pac 8, 1990 SEC, and Big 10 had pretty good set ups. If Big 8 had been the one to expand first and initiate the SWC breakup, they'd be better for it.
(12-13-2012 03:21 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: [ -> ]Texas is plenty big enough. The distance from UH to UTEP is greater than the distance between Athens, OH and Jacksonville, FL.

But are you going to pique the interest of a large audience?

Perception matters, and to many people, Houston v UTEP isn't interesting.

Hmm, well UTEP may be the problem there.

Just my opinion from watching the apathy generated by 6 MAC teams from Ohio, regardless of how good they might be.
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's