(09-13-2021 12:50 AM)pvk75 Wrote: I am hoping that after Temple, Marshall (twice), UCF and UMass, the MAC will have shut the revolving door. There is no reason for the MAC to bail out UMass and UConn football just because/if they want to stay FBS and need a conference. The situations they are in are of their own making.
It's not like they did any of those moves for charity ... they were pursuing the interests of the MAC Universities. Of course, that's the interests as perceived by the Presidents, not the interests as perceived by the Athletics Director, given the direction that the money flows.
Quote:And with all this talk about home-and-home bball ... how many o-o-c bball games are UConn and UMass going to willingly give up every year to schedule games with 12 different MAC schools? My guess is as few as possible because there's a ton of other schools they want to play to maintain their status. Basketball is their "thing."
UMass was willing to play four annually under their past affiliation agreement, and it seems like they would have been willing to see that agreement continue indefinitely.
UConn, might possibly insist on fewer less, but if they don't bring enough to the table to make it worthwhile, there's no deal. If UConn fans think 2 OOC games, 1H/1A, would be sufficient sweetener, they'd be dreaming. Temple had to give 2H/2A annually, UConn would have to do the same.
Given the wreckage that is UConn FB, MAC AD's might suggest UConn sweetens the deal further, but like I said, the general fund covers the Athletic Department deficits, so it's the Presidents who will decide.
Quote:So such a home-and-home "deal" is b***hockey, despite all the mathematical gymnastics to make it sound good.
That is how the FB-only deals worked with Temple and UMass ran before. It's not meant to "sound good" to UConn ... for UConn, it'd be a price they pay, so
of course if they could pay a lower price, they'd prefer to. If it's too high a price to pay, they can continue in the shambles they are in.