(05-21-2020 01:38 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:00 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I think one thing to consider is where else are the MAC schools gonna go? Any FCS conference would require more travel and get them far less press/media coverage.

Youngstown is on an island in the MVFC, there's no FCS schools in Michigan, and then a lot of the Midwest schools are in the non scholarship Pioneer League, which wouldn't make sense for the MAC schools either.

If schools wanted to drop, I guess NIU could fit pretty well in the MVFC, and Buffalo could maybe go to the CAA? Otherwise there aren't good FCS homes for the MAC programs.

Some Ohio fans have suggested the CAA as the FCS alternative.

But I think when you dig into the history, numbers and facilities involved the MAC does indeed belong in the G5. Unlike the others support is driven by rivalry games, campus weekends and conference tournaments vs. everyday fans.

Ohio could also possibly work in the CAA, as could Miami OH, but the CAA would be more travel and less fan interest than the MAC would be.

We would also be chopping 22 FB scholarships plus 2 more sports for the D1 minimum of 14 as part of the deal to negate travel costs.

With a 13,000 seat basketball arena recently renovated to a degree its possible to write our own ticket to the CAA or MVC in a way other MAC schools could not.

(05-21-2020 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm fine with the waiver as long as there's a hard expiration because there are still rules on the books to deal with such matters. If there's no hard expiration then I would vote 'no' as well.

Any waiver should not only have a short expiration, but should come with a condition: During the one or two years that the school is out of compliance, the teams at the school will have the same status as teams at schools that are newly transitioning into Division I and not yet in full compliance with D-I rules. They can compete against Division I teams, but they are not eligible for NCAA Division I tournaments and championships.

(05-21-2020 03:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:38 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:00 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I think one thing to consider is where else are the MAC schools gonna go? Any FCS conference would require more travel and get them far less press/media coverage.

Youngstown is on an island in the MVFC, there's no FCS schools in Michigan, and then a lot of the Midwest schools are in the non scholarship Pioneer League, which wouldn't make sense for the MAC schools either.

If schools wanted to drop, I guess NIU could fit pretty well in the MVFC, and Buffalo could maybe go to the CAA? Otherwise there aren't good FCS homes for the MAC programs.

Some Ohio fans have suggested the CAA as the FCS alternative.

But I think when you dig into the history, numbers and facilities involved the MAC does indeed belong in the G5. Unlike the others support is driven by rivalry games, campus weekends and conference tournaments vs. everyday fans.

Ohio could also possibly work in the CAA, as could Miami OH, but the CAA would be more travel and less fan interest than the MAC would be.

We would also be chopping 22 FB scholarships plus 2 more sports for the D1 minimum of 14 as part of the deal to negate travel costs.

With a 13,000 seat basketball arena recently renovated to a degree its possible to write our own ticket to the CAA or MVC in a way other MAC schools could not.

Any move to FCS would be by the Conference as a whole IMO.

Only chance I see that happening is if the doors to the schools for fall semester stay closed.

Another bad look for Eastern Michigan University:

Trump visiting a plant in Ypsi & they name-dropped EMU

(05-21-2020 03:49 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 03:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:38 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:00 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I think one thing to consider is where else are the MAC schools gonna go? Any FCS conference would require more travel and get them far less press/media coverage.

Youngstown is on an island in the MVFC, there's no FCS schools in Michigan, and then a lot of the Midwest schools are in the non scholarship Pioneer League, which wouldn't make sense for the MAC schools either.

If schools wanted to drop, I guess NIU could fit pretty well in the MVFC, and Buffalo could maybe go to the CAA? Otherwise there aren't good FCS homes for the MAC programs.

Some Ohio fans have suggested the CAA as the FCS alternative.

But I think when you dig into the history, numbers and facilities involved the MAC does indeed belong in the G5. Unlike the others support is driven by rivalry games, campus weekends and conference tournaments vs. everyday fans.

Ohio could also possibly work in the CAA, as could Miami OH, but the CAA would be more travel and less fan interest than the MAC would be.

We would also be chopping 22 FB scholarships plus 2 more sports for the D1 minimum of 14 as part of the deal to negate travel costs.

With a 13,000 seat basketball arena recently renovated to a degree its possible to write our own ticket to the CAA or MVC in a way other MAC schools could not.

Any move to FCS would be by the Conference as a whole IMO.

We will make our own deals.

(05-21-2020 04:03 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 03:49 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 03:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:38 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Some Ohio fans have suggested the CAA as the FCS alternative.

But I think when you dig into the history, numbers and facilities involved the MAC does indeed belong in the G5. Unlike the others support is driven by rivalry games, campus weekends and conference tournaments vs. everyday fans.

Ohio could also possibly work in the CAA, as could Miami OH, but the CAA would be more travel and less fan interest than the MAC would be.

We would also be chopping 22 FB scholarships plus 2 more sports for the D1 minimum of 14 as part of the deal to negate travel costs.

With a 13,000 seat basketball arena recently renovated to a degree its possible to write our own ticket to the CAA or MVC in a way other MAC schools could not.

Any move to FCS would be by the Conference as a whole IMO.

We will make our own deals.

I could see a group separating off & forming an FCS conference. That could force the hands of the other schools. Someone like Toledo would have to try to get in the AAC or keep a group FBS. Maybe that group could then invite some FCS schools wanting to make the jump to FBS.

(05-21-2020 04:47 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 04:03 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 03:49 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 03:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:38 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  Ohio could also possibly work in the CAA, as could Miami OH, but the CAA would be more travel and less fan interest than the MAC would be.

We would also be chopping 22 FB scholarships plus 2 more sports for the D1 minimum of 14 as part of the deal to negate travel costs.

With a 13,000 seat basketball arena recently renovated to a degree its possible to write our own ticket to the CAA or MVC in a way other MAC schools could not.

Any move to FCS would be by the Conference as a whole IMO.

We will make our own deals.

I could see a group separating off & forming an FCS conference. That could force the hands of the other schools. Someone like Toledo would have to try to get in the AAC or keep a group FBS. Maybe that group could then invite some FCS schools wanting to make the jump to FBS.

Or just keep the 8 or 9 who want to stay committed to FBS & add Marshall.

This I think its more likely for Ohio. But some Ohio fans think FCS is the way to go.

(05-21-2020 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It's a tough situation, but given the economic situation right now, I think the waiver should apply to everyone.

I have no issue with CMU doing this. Are they knowingly breaking the rules? Yes. Are the rules reasonable under the current economic climate resulting from a mixture of global politics and government mandated shutdowns? No.

If it was simply a matter of CMU making poor financial decisions that led them to this point then I would see it differently.

I would say it was a matter of CMU making poor financial decisions - mostly along the lines of continuing to run a football program that loses many millions each year. IIRC, they just spent $32 million on some football complex thing for a program that their own fans will not support.

Poor decisions in the long term? I don't disagree, but the current economic climate was unpredictable.

With regard to the point about CMU being a bad FBS program, I completely agree, but what's our threshold?

I think the threshold should be something like a *hard* average of 20,000 fans a game at football, independently audited, with no room for tricks like Akron buying their own tickets, giveaways, etc. There have to be actual sales of tickets at market price, and you have to maintain that. If you fall below for more than two years running, out of FBS.

As for the waivers, I say "no". The cuts can be made in other ways, say a % across the board, that do not involve closing sports.

I'd be fine with going higher than that. 30K in average attendance along with the other stipulations you're suggesting. With that said, until things like that are codified then it's an academic discussion.

You could make cuts across the board, but with a small athletic department that probably still means coaches and support staff getting fired. Is there any substantial difference between that and discontinuing a sport?

Point being, the notion of how many sports a school has to offer being the dividing line seems arbitrary. Does it really matter if one school offers 10 and another 30? More accurately, does it matter as far as what sort of football program such a school is capable of producing? There's a tangential relationship, sure, but should that be the barometer by which we determine what division you play football in? Especially in circumstances where the global economy is tanking? Seems like straining gnats.

I'm fine with the waiver as long as there's a hard expiration because there are still rules on the books to deal with such matters. If there's no hard expiration then I would vote 'no' as well. With that said, if I were king for a day, some of these rules wouldn't exist in the first place.

When it comes to FBS, most of the G5 schools are not in the same class with the P5. So when someone asks me should CMU be forced out then I have to ask why shouldn't most of them be forced out? If we're not drawing hard lines to ensure FBS is synonymous with the best of the best then I don't see anything productive being accomplished with singling out a school like CMU.

If their constituency wants to throw good money after bad then that's their decision. it appears, however, to be the same decision that most G5 constituencies are making.

They knew they weren't enforcing the attendance rules so they put in the sports sponsorship rules to make it harder to be FBS. Those are tangible and hard to fudge.

(05-21-2020 11:52 AM)The Colonel Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 03:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Face it - all of the Michigan directionals are joke FBS programs.

Says the fan of an underwhelming directional G5 school with delusions of P5 grandeur:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-899524-page-7.html

Really, the only justification I can see for G5 schools having football is if there is a plan to make it to the P5. That's why I support USF football. I know it loses over $10 million a year, but if we get in to a P5 conference, it will have been worth it.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-899524-page-9.html

These $20m a year subsidies are an investment towards making the P5. Because if we do get a P5 invite, then in raw dollars-sense terms it will soon become "worth it". We'll start cashing $30m media checks and the money we spent as a subsidizing G5 those several years could be recouped, with interest plus more.

I'm not saying we don't have our own serious financial issues, but you might want to put out the fire in your own house before attempting to blowtorch ours.

Getting lectured by a USF fan about fiscal irresponsibility is like getting scolded by JPP for playing with fireworks.

That's a Red Herring the size of a Blue Whale right there. I have never exempted USF from criticism for running a massively subsidized G5 program. What you fail to indicate in the quotes there is that I've also said that this justification - that we are building towards a P5 invite, must have a time-limit on it. It can't be a forever-out-of-reach mirage that allows us to keep running a subsidized program indefinitely.

For example, the sentence right after the first one you quote above is:

"But that can't go on forever, at a certain point you have to cut bait and move on, and the day we decide that existing at the G5 (money losing) level is our plan, then we should abandon football."

You barked up the wrong tree - I've always put USF in the same boat, and USF's situation does not in any way detract from the points I've made about Akron and CMU.

(05-21-2020 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 02:56 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  It's a tough situation, but given the economic situation right now, I think the waiver should apply to everyone.

I have no issue with CMU doing this. Are they knowingly breaking the rules? Yes. Are the rules reasonable under the current economic climate resulting from a mixture of global politics and government mandated shutdowns? No.

If it was simply a matter of CMU making poor financial decisions that led them to this point then I would see it differently.

I would say it was a matter of CMU making poor financial decisions - mostly along the lines of continuing to run a football program that loses many millions each year. IIRC, they just spent $32 million on some football complex thing for a program that their own fans will not support.

Poor decisions in the long term? I don't disagree, but the current economic climate was unpredictable.

With regard to the point about CMU being a bad FBS program, I completely agree, but what's our threshold?

I think the threshold should be something like a *hard* average of 20,000 fans a game at football, independently audited, with no room for tricks like Akron buying their own tickets, giveaways, etc. There have to be actual sales of tickets at market price, and you have to maintain that. If you fall below for more than two years running, out of FBS.

As for the waivers, I say "no". The cuts can be made in other ways, say a % across the board, that do not involve closing sports.

I'd be fine with going higher than that. 30K in average attendance along with the other stipulations you're suggesting. With that said, until things like that are codified then it's an academic discussion.

I think it will remain an academic discussion, because while many may complain about the farcical nature of many of these FBS programs, the truth is the P5 likes having the G5 around. If the MAC didn't exist, the B1G would have to invent it. They like having all those directionals around to rack up wins against. That's good job security for everyone in the hierarchy.

The G5 are a huge boon for the P5. These G5 schools willingly soak their students and academics for $25m a year in subsidies, constantly gasping for financial air, all for the privilege of being able to claim they are "big time" and in the "same league" as B1G and SEC schools. The B1G and SEC snicker at that but like the formality of it, as it allows them to tell their fans that a win over Central Michigan is an actual "big time" win that they should feel good about, etc. The G5 provide that, all at their own expense.

(05-21-2020 03:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'm fine with the waiver as long as there's a hard expiration because there are still rules on the books to deal with such matters. If there's no hard expiration then I would vote 'no' as well.

Any waiver should not only have a short expiration, but should come with a condition: During the one or two years that the school is out of compliance, the teams at the school will have the same status as teams at schools that are newly transitioning into Division I and not yet in full compliance with D-I rules. They can compete against Division I teams, but they are not eligible for NCAA Division I tournaments and championships.

That's a great idea.

(05-21-2020 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 10:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 03:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I would say it was a matter of CMU making poor financial decisions - mostly along the lines of continuing to run a football program that loses many millions each year. IIRC, they just spent $32 million on some football complex thing for a program that their own fans will not support.

Poor decisions in the long term? I don't disagree, but the current economic climate was unpredictable.

With regard to the point about CMU being a bad FBS program, I completely agree, but what's our threshold?

The financials at the vast majority of G5 schools are not impressive. It's true that the MAC as a whole is riding in the margins, but there's no order of magnitude between that league and the typical G5 school.

To me, the waiver is not a bad idea as long as it's given a hard expiration date and as long as it applies to everyone.

CMU has traditionally been one of the stronger football programs in the MAC. Kent, Akron, Eastern Michigan and Ohio have historically been the weak ones. Ball St. has been weak over the last decade or so.

Thing is, programs exist in real time not the past. E.g., Sears is a historically strong retailer - but presently an almost bankrupt one.

History matters. Otherwise, why would Notre Dame have continued to generate so much interest despite 20 years of mediocrity from the end of the Holtz era to a few years into the Kelly era.

Depends on how much history you have. History is like capital reserves in that sense. Notre Dame's brand name carried on despite the mediocrity because the brand was firmly established. They are like say a company that had so many good years they socked away $30 Billion in cash reserves, which they then could use to keep running full steam during 10 lean years.

Whatever history CMU has, it's nothing like Notre Dame's, so not nearly the same reserves to draw upon. The football is bleeding red ink.

(05-21-2020 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'd be fine with going higher than that. 30K in average attendance along with the other stipulations you're suggesting. With that said, until things like that are codified then it's an academic discussion.

So teams like Duke, Washington State, and Vanderbilt get demoted to FCS? Their average attendance didn’t meet this threshold, and that’s with a P5 schedule.

(05-21-2020 03:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  We would also be chopping 22 FB scholarships plus 2 more sports for the D1 minimum of 14 as part of the deal to negate travel costs.

With a 13,000 seat basketball arena recently renovated to a degree its possible to write our own ticket to the CAA or MVC in a way other MAC schools could not.

Question is whether the arena alone would be enough to get the MVC to pay the travel expenses to go to Athens.

If a supermajority of the MAC wanted to drop, then the desire to not lose the ticket to the Tourney ... which becomes even more critical to an FCS school ... would ensure they would take the existing conference with its existing autobid continuity with them.

If a handful wanted to drop, the Horizon seems more likely than the MVC, for Eastern Division schools in particular, so they'd want to have that invite to the CAA in hand before committing to the drop.

______________________________

(05-21-2020 09:02 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'd be fine with going higher than that. 30K in average attendance along with the other stipulations you're suggesting. With that said, until things like that are codified then it's an academic discussion.

So teams like Duke, Washington State, and Vanderbilt get demoted to FCS? Their average attendance didn’t meet this threshold, and that’s with a P5 schedule.

Definitely ... that's part of why it's an academic discussion. You can't do more than pick off a handful of Go5 schools without setting up hard standard that will bite some P5 schools at the bottom end of the range, in particular when they are suffering a dry patch.

(05-21-2020 09:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:02 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 12:50 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I'd be fine with going higher than that. 30K in average attendance along with the other stipulations you're suggesting. With that said, until things like that are codified then it's an academic discussion.

So teams like Duke, Washington State, and Vanderbilt get demoted to FCS? Their average attendance didn’t meet this threshold, and that’s with a P5 schedule.

Definitely ... that's part of why it's an academic discussion. You can't do more than pick off a handful of Go5 schools without setting up hard standard that will bite some P5 schools at the bottom end of the range, in particular when they are suffering a dry patch.

If we are going on actual attendance and not tickets sold, there will be more P5 vulnerable to this, especially with the declining attendance trend we’ve seen over the past few years. Otherwise they’ll just find some donors to snatch up some tickets.

(05-21-2020 08:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 12:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 10:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-20-2020 11:17 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Poor decisions in the long term? I don't disagree, but the current economic climate was unpredictable.

With regard to the point about CMU being a bad FBS program, I completely agree, but what's our threshold?

The financials at the vast majority of G5 schools are not impressive. It's true that the MAC as a whole is riding in the margins, but there's no order of magnitude between that league and the typical G5 school.

To me, the waiver is not a bad idea as long as it's given a hard expiration date and as long as it applies to everyone.

CMU has traditionally been one of the stronger football programs in the MAC. Kent, Akron, Eastern Michigan and Ohio have historically been the weak ones. Ball St. has been weak over the last decade or so.

Thing is, programs exist in real time not the past. E.g., Sears is a historically strong retailer - but presently an almost bankrupt one.

History matters. Otherwise, why would Notre Dame have continued to generate so much interest despite 20 years of mediocrity from the end of the Holtz era to a few years into the Kelly era.

Depends on how much history you have. History is like capital reserves in that sense. Notre Dame's brand name carried on despite the mediocrity because the brand was firmly established. They are like say a company that had so many good years they socked away $30 Billion in cash reserves, which they then could use to keep running full steam during 10 lean years.

Whatever history CMU has, it's nothing like Notre Dame's, so not nearly the same reserves to draw upon. The football is bleeding red ink.

But they have good reserves with the fans compared to the rest of the MAC. They haven't since 2010, but they were regularly drawing over 20k. Only Toledo, Ohio and NIU have been able to do that. CMU has more 20k+ seasons going back to 1996 than the other 8 MAC schools combined. They are among the top in the MAC in all time winning %.

They've just had a problem with Cincinnati stealing their coaches!

(05-21-2020 10:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  They've just had a problem with Cincinnati stealing their coaches!

So what they need is a brilliant head coach supported by a very good head coach serving in the OC or DC roles, so when Cincinnati steals the first, they are set for a good long time and the second stays at CMU.

{To be sure, this is snark on UC being the only destination ... in reality, some Big Ten school steals the "very good coach" as Asst. Coordinator, Coordinator or Head Coach (high position for lower finishing school).}

(05-21-2020 09:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Definitely ... that's part of why it's an academic discussion. You can't do more than pick off a handful of Go5 schools without setting up hard standard that will bite some P5 schools at the bottom end of the range, in particular when they are suffering a dry patch.

I wonder .... I bet a hard 20k attendance requirement, independent audit, no funny business with a rolling 3 year average - would pick off quite a few G5 without taking many P5.

Again, I have zero belief this would happen as I think the P5 like the G5 around, but purely as an academic exercise.

While attendance was a hot topic 20 years ago, the real screws were turned when FCS programs were required a conference invite to move up.

Had those rules always been in place Akron wouldn't have been able to move up and quite a few others that magically appeared on the scene like Troy.

In this era where P5's are struggling to get 20,000 actual fans at times the last thing they would want is to revisit an attendance requirement which was a stupid idea to begin with.

A better requirement would be for a 40,000 seat stadium. Those who are serious will have to step it up with others moving down.

It's already relegated - P5, G5, FCS

You need invite to move up (which includes things like attendance, winning, etc.)

Teams that struggle where they're at will either leave or get kicked out by their conference, or be left in to be a punching bag.

No more regulation than we have required.

What exactly would more regulation accomplish? Saving taxpayer/student money, I guess (which they'd find another area to waste it on), but I don't think you'd see teams cut football entirely if they had to go from P5 to G5 or G5 to FCS.