By the Belt has posted this interview of Commissioner Steinbrecher:

https://www.bythebelt.com/mac-commission...alignment/

The expansion of the playoff and the possibility of conference expansion were discussed. I didn't see anything super surprising in the blog's summary of this interview. Does anyone else see anything here noteworthy?

"there were $pecial circum$tance$ $urrounding $acramento $tate'$ addition a$ a football-only member."

(10-23-2026 09:28 AM)ChippewaPride Wrote:  "there were $pecial circum$tance$ $urrounding $acramento $tate'$ addition a$ a football-only member."

The guy speaks but never has anything important to say. Sounds like a typical politician

I listened to his interview during the basketball media day that the Field of 68 hosted. I was hoping to hear something worthwhile, perhaps about TV negotiations. Nope, he spent the majority of the time glazing the NCAA. He's such a company man.

(10-23-2026 10:10 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  The guy speaks but never has anything important to say. Sounds like a typical politician

I think every commissioner of an FBS conference has good political skills. One thing good politicians understand is that just because someone asks you a question doesn't mean you have to answer it. They also understand how to put the best face on a set of facts.

As far as the interview, this is what catches my attention.

Playoffs. Steinbrecher doesn't like it, but he doesn't have the juice to stop it. If he were to go all-in calling it bad for the MAC, it would make him look weaker.

Expansion. I was struck by the fact that Steinbrecher said league leadership talks about expansion "at every meeting."

If Miami leaves for the American as we expect, the MAC will be ready.

The future of the MAC. I might be reading too much into this, but I do notice that Steinbrecher said the MAC has talked about -- and continues to talk about -- a vision for the future. "We're going to spend a lot of time talking about 'what are our competitive aspirations?'," Steinbrecher said. "What do we do, how do we work together so we can achieve those aspirations?"

To me that's interesting. The MAC has taken some gut punches with NIL and the rest. We might be heading into an era where it gets harder to go into a Big Ten stadium and win in the way most of us have been been able to in the past. Some Big Ten teams seem to be spending like NFL teams.

So, what do we do about that collectively? I imagine MAC presidents and athletic directors have been doing some soul-searching on this.

For some members of the MAC, there isn't a big action item here. We will do the best we can and hope this storm passes at some point. We've had other eras where the MAC had a tough time out of conference, and we toughed those eras out. (The early-to-mid-1980s come to mind for me. In 1982, Bowling Green won the MAC with a 7-4 record and proceeded to lose the second California Bowl. That was not a good year for the conference we love.)

Despite these challenges, I'm pretty sure Bowling Green isn't going anywhere. No conference would be a better fit for us. Not another G6 conference. Not the Missouri Valley. Not the GLIAC. We are where we belong.

I imagine some other members -- Central Michigan, for example -- look at the MAC in more or less the same way.

Others may have some feelers out. I'm sure Steinbrecher knows better than anyone the scenarios other schools are working and what it would take to pry them out of the MAC. He seemed well ahead of Northern Illinois' departure, and I suspect he'll be well ahead of anything else that happens here in the next year or two, at least until he retires.

In the end, I suspect the MAC will hang together more or less as it is now, except for Miami. If Miami goes, we'll add another school, maybe Delaware, and we'll keep moving forward.

(10-23-2026 04:08 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(10-23-2026 10:10 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  The guy speaks but never has anything important to say. Sounds like a typical politician

I think every commissioner of an FBS conference has good political skills. One thing good politicians understand is that just because someone asks you a question doesn't mean you have to answer it. They also understand how to put the best face on a set of facts.

As far as the interview, this is what catches my attention.

Playoffs. Steinbrecher doesn't like it, but he doesn't have the juice to stop it. If he were to go all-in calling it bad for the MAC, it would make him look weaker.

Expansion. I was struck by the fact that Steinbrecher said league leadership talks about expansion "at every meeting."

If Miami leaves for the American as we expect, the MAC will be ready.

The future of the MAC. I might be reading too much into this, but I do notice that Steinbrecher said the MAC has talked about -- and continues to talk about -- a vision for the future. "We're going to spend a lot of time talking about 'what are our competitive aspirations?'," Steinbrecher said. "What do we do, how do we work together so we can achieve those aspirations?"

To me that's interesting. The MAC has taken some gut punches with NIL and the rest. We might be heading into an era where it gets harder to go into a Big Ten stadium and win in the way most of us have been been able to in the past. Some Big Ten teams seem to be spending like NFL teams.

So, what do we do about that collectively? I imagine MAC presidents and athletic directors have been doing some soul-searching on this.

For some members of the MAC, there isn't a big action item here. We will do the best we can and hope this storm passes at some point. We've had other eras where the MAC had a tough time out of conference, and we toughed those eras out. (The early-to-mid-1980s come to mind for me. In 1982, Bowling Green won the MAC with a 7-4 record and proceeded to lose the second California Bowl. That was not a good year for the conference we love.)

Despite these challenges, I'm pretty sure Bowling Green isn't going anywhere. No conference would be a better fit for us. Not another G6 conference. Not the Missouri Valley. Not the GLIAC. We are where we belong.

I imagine some other members -- Central Michigan, for example -- look at the MAC in more or less the same way.

Others may have some feelers out. I'm sure Steinbrecher knows better than anyone the scenarios other schools are working and what it would take to pry them out of the MAC. He seemed well ahead of Northern Illinois' departure, and I suspect he'll be well ahead of anything else that happens here in the next year or two, at least until he retires.

In the end, I suspect the MAC will hang together more or less as it is now, except for Miami. If Miami goes, we'll add another school, maybe Delaware, and we'll keep moving forward.

I hope our leadership at CMU keeps us in the MAC and we do not drop down. We really do not have deep pockets like what we are seeing with WMU, Miami etc. And CMU has not been in the top tier for a while now so the MAC is the best conference for us.
I also hope steinbrecher and the presidents keep the MAC in FBS and pull out all stops to strengthen the conference. Going to be an interesting few years. I agree the days of knocking off mid, lower tier big 10 teams sadly appear gone. The gap is too wide with nil and the poaching of our better players.

(10-23-2026 10:10 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  The guy speaks but never has anything important to say. Sounds like a typical politician

It's very much a political job.

Let's game plan out how the MAC would look without Miami.

1) Miami would have to give up its NCAA credits which would be divved up between the 11 BB members of the MAC.

2) MAC with only 11 BB members could then move to a 20 game double round robin schedule. That would allow for programs like UMass to have more scheduling flexibility. In BB having 11 members is the ideal size for scheduling.

3) Miami is one of 6 MAC schools. The still have Toledo which is the biggest TV brand and still have a presence in southern Ohio with Ohio U. Miami has been in the Top 4 or 5 of MAC FB this decade and will hurt the MAC in depth but UMass is improving and could be in the regular bowl mix soon.

4) The MAC would have an even 12 in FB with Sac St. Sac St. does receive any CFP or TV deal money so whatever the MAC negotiates on the new TV contract its really going to be split 11 ways.

Now the MAC is in trouble if they were to lose all 3 of Toledo, Miami & Ohio. Then it would really be tough to rebuild. But if its just Miami the MAC should be able to roll on.

(10-24-2026 02:51 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  ... 3) Miami is one of 6 MAC {Ohio} schools. The still have Toledo which is the biggest TV brand and still have a presence in southern Ohio with Ohio U. Miami has been in the Top 4 or 5 of MAC FB this decade and will hurt the MAC in depth but UMass is improving and could be in the regular bowl mix soon. ...

Treating OhioU and MiamiU as both "Schools in southern Ohio" is so amazingly random. Southwest Ohio and Southeast Ohio are not "part of a single thing called Southern Ohio". That's just silly.

The MAC has two schools in NE Ohio, two schools in NW Ohio, one school in SE Ohio (the least populous of the five regions), one school in SW Ohio, and none in Central Ohio, but since Central Ohio was the fastest growing region of the state for an extended stretch of time, lots a alumni from all of it's schools in the region.

Losing MiamiU means losing a school in one of the five regions.

It's not a crisis ... Ohio no longer has a large enough share of the national population to justify a conference trying to have such blanket coverage ... but pretending that OhioU can just "cover" for the exposure in the greater Cincinnati/Dayton area because it's on a similar latitude doesn't really fly.