The stability this conference enjoys is a true blessing, as is having a fan base that understands that "the wheel turns". But it seems now that "expansion fever" has caused some swelled heads to emerge.
"Our team is too big for this conference now", "If only we kicked out X school"...
It's tiresome. As good as you or your team is now they were probably bad at some point in the past ten years and the wheel turns.
And what for?
The "New Big East"? It's CUSA2.0 and it will double or triple your travel costs and take you to parts of the nation where you're alumni base is thinner than Ally McBeal...
They offer the same playoff bowl access, a tv contract that will come nowhere near offsetting your travel cost, are destined to lose their two best northern programs, and are as unstable as heck..
But hey they have the word "Big" in their conference name...
BIG MAC sponsored by Mc Donalds!
:bcs:
(01-11-2013 01:19 PM)HuskieJohn Wrote: [ -> ]BIG MAC sponsored by Mc Donalds!
:bcs:
Maybe Get McDonalds to pick up a Bowl in Indy? The "Big MAC" bowl
The attitude is tiresome.
Heck, 30 responses out of 100 on the MAC Pick 'Em page chose "Hope to upgrade" in regards to the expansion question.
It wouldn't be a message board if there weren't big fans wanting more for their teams, realistic or otherwise.
But I have to admit I'm uncomfortable with the posts about kicking someone out. That could be most MAC teams depending on when you ask the question. And even though I mostly follow football, and maybe most realignment is due to football, colleges don't (or shouldn't) revolve around one sport.
(01-11-2013 01:16 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]The stability this conference enjoys is a true blessing, as is having a fan base that understands that "the wheel turns". But it seems now that "expansion fever" has caused some swelled heads to emerge.
"Our team is too big for this conference now", "If only we kicked out X school"...
It's tiresome. As good as you or your team is now they were probably bad at some point in the past ten years and the wheel turns.
And what for?
The "New Big East"? It's CUSA2.0 and it will double or triple your travel costs and take you to parts of the nation where you're alumni base is thinner than Ally McBeal...
They offer the same playoff bowl access, a tv contract that will come nowhere near offsetting your travel cost, are destined to lose their two best northern programs, and are as unstable as heck..
But hey they have the word "Big" in their conference name...
No program in the MAC has outgrown the MAC. Certainly not based on 2-3 good years. Many teams have had 2-3 good years, but they've come back toward the mean.
nBE is nuts. But I'd say it looks much more like CUSA 1.0. CUSA didn't work and neither will nBE.
However, I do think there's room and good sense behind a new East Coast Conference. That intrigues me b/c I like seeing sensible things get built, and I'd like to see if the ECC could get started and make it.
(01-11-2013 01:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]colleges don't (or shouldn't) revolve around one sport.
Amen. Football is third or fourth on my radar as a sport, second as an event when you include tailgating, etc.) I started donating $ to the athletic dept when they started building the minor sports and threw some facilities bones their way (tied, of course, to huge football related expenditures). My pitiful contributions barely pays for one month's payment on our second string wideout's car but he'd be walking every June if it wasn't for my love of track and field.
I'm partial to badminton myself. :-) I'm only half kidding.
(01-11-2013 01:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And even though I mostly follow football, and maybe most realignment is due to football, colleges don't (or shouldn't) revolve around one sport.
No but they necessarily revolve around the marketplace. And reality is that the marketplace for college sports is dominated by 2 sports. There are at most 5 sports that
may break even in a given year for a given university. And I'm probably being generous w/ that estimation.
(01-11-2013 01:16 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]The stability this conference enjoys is a true blessing, as is having a fan base that understands that "the wheel turns". But it seems now that "expansion fever" has caused some swelled heads to emerge.
"Our team is too big for this conference now", "If only we kicked out X school"...
It's tiresome. As good as you or your team is now they were probably bad at some point in the past ten years and the wheel turns.
And what for?
The "New Big East"? It's CUSA2.0 and it will double or triple your travel costs and take you to parts of the nation where you're alumni base is thinner than Ally McBeal...
They offer the same playoff bowl access, a tv contract that will come nowhere near offsetting your travel cost, are destined to lose their two best northern programs, and are as unstable as heck..
But hey they have the word "Big" in their conference name...
Though im not suggesting NIU is trying desperately to get out the back door, our alum base in Michigan and Ohio is no better than CUSA 2.0. Different case for the Ohio and Michigan schools though.
It's funny that after a couple good seasons, some fans think that their school is too good for the MAC
(01-11-2013 02:19 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2013 01:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And even though I mostly follow football, and maybe most realignment is due to football, colleges don't (or shouldn't) revolve around one sport.
No but they necessarily revolve around the marketplace. And reality is that the marketplace for college sports is dominated by 2 sports. There are at most 5 sports that may break even in a given year for a given university. And I'm probably being generous w/ that estimation.
But don't most football programs lose money too?
(01-11-2013 03:07 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2013 02:19 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2013 01:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And even though I mostly follow football, and maybe most realignment is due to football, colleges don't (or shouldn't) revolve around one sport.
No but they necessarily revolve around the marketplace. And reality is that the marketplace for college sports is dominated by 2 sports. There are at most 5 sports that may break even in a given year for a given university. And I'm probably being generous w/ that estimation.
But don't most football programs lose money too?
That's a good question. I thought the point of those money games were to help fund the entire athletic dept. Maybe schools should have more transparency w/ the bookkeeping.
NIU007 wrote: But don't most football programs lose money too?
Yes, they do. A few months back someone posted an article about how bad it was in terms of athletic departments of DIA schools losing money, even on football. I think maybe some MAC schools break even on football, but the schools have to take fees from students and throw it at athletics in order to manage the budgets. Even some of the big names that pull in big money lose money.
That's why I have already posted that these endless threads on adding new teams for the sake of revenue are pretty silly even if well intentioned. The MAC and schools willing to join the MAC (mostly FCS move ups) operate on a "shoestring" with lousy TV deals, low attendance and low revenues. That's why I relish in every win we get vs. BCS conference members, even if it's someone like Duke or the last place team in the B10. Even those schools have tremendous advantages over MAC schools and thus we should be proud of all these wins...even against Kansas!
The MAC imposes a spending limit on its members, so that no school will vastly outspend the rest. That means that the MAC is being dragged down by a few schools who are unwilling to spend.
UMass is going to be in the MAC for the foreseeable future.
News coming out of the Big Least meetings today is that adding UMass is off the table because our fans tend to not show up when we lose games.
(01-11-2013 04:04 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]The MAC imposes a spending limit on its members, so that no school will vastly outspend the rest. That means that the MAC is being dragged down by a few schools who are unwilling to spend.
link?
(01-11-2013 04:17 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: [ -> ] (01-11-2013 04:04 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]The MAC imposes a spending limit on its members, so that no school will vastly outspend the rest. That means that the MAC is being dragged down by a few schools who are unwilling to spend.
link?
There are no links for verbal agreements between university presidents.
I will chime in on this even though it seems some on this boards do not tend to like my somewhat controversial comments. I apologize up front if I offend anyone but reality is too many fans of this league are content with the status or wasting awaying mediocrity. Let's call a spade a spade, the worls that is college athletics is changing and some fans want and expect more from their respective schools while others are content staying the same course they have been for years. So while some may be disappointed in the attitude of some MAC fans on this board that want something better for this league, I am equally disappointed in those that do not see the bigger picture and want more from their programs and league.
Let's be real here, today's landscape is not the same as 20 years ago. Those of you that are still living in the 90s that think your programs will be just as competitive now as were then are totally out of touch. Everyone around us is investing, growing fan support, lining up TV contracts, picking up markets, adding bowls, etc. to improve their stature in the hierarchy. If anyone here doesn't think we should be doing the same then it is you that is out of touch.
Playing in front 4K fans may have been acceptable as the norm 20 years ago but guess what when you are playing in front of 4K on TV it looks awful to the casual fan. If you disagree then you are missing the point. Adding schools with small stadiums and no history or fan bases under 10K is not the answer either. Or adding teams already in our footprint that bring no new revenue. It make zero sense. Maybe the MAC should move toward a pay for performance model. If you win, you get the biggest cut. I think I remember there being something about that in basketball for playing tougher schedules. Then for those that want to just sit back in mediocrity and be content being part of the problem and not the solution, go for it while the rest of us get compensated for trying to build our fan bases and winning games. I stand by my comments that we could stand to lose a program or two and be better off in the long term. Thin out the footprint and replace with teams that are built for succes in todays landscape. The MAC is a great conference, but it will be even better once ALL of our programs talk a giant step forward. Every conference is only as strong as its weakest member and the MAC is no different. Just so happens our bottom is a lot weaker than some of our competitors.
And on a side note, I like the idea of the Big East or another conference for no reason other than a better geopgraphic footprint. Playing three Ohio and three Michigan teams every year is boring. It is what it is, but frankly it would nice to travel outside that area to games. And by traveling I don't mean two hours away to Illinois State as many on here have suggested.
(01-11-2013 04:53 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote: [ -> ]Every conference is only as strong as its weakest member and the MAC is no different.
I would disagree with a lot of what you say as having no basis in the evidence, but just for now, the above is patently wrong. It's
chains that are only as strong as the weakest link, not conferences. IN the modern college landscape, it is exactly the opposite: a conference is only as strong as its BEST programs, not the worst.
The Big 12 is Texas, and Oklahoma and this year Kansas St. It is not Iowa St. and Texas Tech or whoever. The SEC is Alabama and LSU etc., not UK and Clemson or whoever. The Big 10 is OSU and Mich and Wisc and PSU and Neb., not IU and Illinois and Northwestern. Same in every conference: all are defined by their excellence, not their bottom teams.