WAC 70.56
MWC 70.47
CUSA 64.43
MAC 62.32
SBC 54.70

-The MAC is pretty equal to strength in CUSA in ratings, top to bottom, and overall depth. Without EMU the MAC would be virtually tied with CUSA every year.

-SBC blows. Its rated below 6 FCS conferences making it mid level FCS. In no way shape or form is the SBC a better conference than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

(10-11-2010 12:56 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  WAC 70.56
MWC 70.47
CUSA 64.43
MAC 62.32
SBC 54.70

-The MAC is pretty equal to strength in CUSA in ratings, top to bottom, and overall depth. Without EMU the MAC would be virtually tied with CUSA every year.

-SBC blows. Its rated below 6 FCS conferences making it mid level FCS. In no way shape or form is the SBC a better conference than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

So long as there is even one FCS conference above us we should not be wagging our fingers at anyone else..

Perhaps there should be relegation, and the Big Sky and the Colonial could replace the MAC and SBC.

(10-11-2010 12:56 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  WAC 70.56
MWC 70.47
CUSA 64.43
MAC 62.32
SBC 54.70

-The MAC is pretty equal to strength in CUSA in ratings, top to bottom, and overall depth. Without EMU the MAC would be virtually tied with CUSA every year.

-SBC blows. Its rated below 6 FCS conferences making it mid level FCS. In no way shape or form is the SBC a better conference than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

I'm confused? Isn't towards another conference we aren't competing against generally a sign of great insecurity??? For instance, someone from the MWC bragging that their Saragins are higher.... Thanks for making us look like complete douches except for the part where you throw one of our own under the bus

(10-11-2010 01:16 PM)axeme Wrote:  Perhaps there should be relegation, and the Big Sky and the Colonial could replace the MAC and SBC.

The MAC and SBC have nothing in common besides lousy home football attendances.

Now CUSA and the SBC, much more in common there as the schools are in the same markets. Throw in the WAC too as La Tech is in that conference.

(10-11-2010 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 12:56 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  WAC 70.56
MWC 70.47
CUSA 64.43
MAC 62.32
SBC 54.70

-The MAC is pretty equal to strength in CUSA in ratings, top to bottom, and overall depth. Without EMU the MAC would be virtually tied with CUSA every year.

-SBC blows. Its rated below 6 FCS conferences making it mid level FCS. In no way shape or form is the SBC a better conference than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

So long as there is even one FCS conference above us we should not be wagging our fingers at anyone else..

I guess my point is while Toledo is looking around at CUSA a couple of slight moves would make the two leagues equal.

1. EMU out of the MAC would raise the Sagarin average to 63.34.

2. Temple in the MAC for basketball would give the leauge a flagship BB school like CUSA has with Memphis. CUSA and MAC RPI would be pretty much equal.

Why do you fantasize so much? Real life a bit too much?

EMU out of the MAC - won't happen.

Temple in for BB - won't happen.

Ohio football as a MAC power? Please. Play SOMEBODY first before puffing your chest out.

Nothing else to think/write about? All possible expansion/realignment ideas exhausted?

(10-11-2010 03:58 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  Why do you fantasize so much? Real life a bit too much?

EMU out of the MAC - won't happen.

Temple in for BB - won't happen.

Ohio football as a MAC power? Please. Play SOMEBODY first before puffing your chest out.

I would classify Ohio football as a MAC power.

-Led the MAC in total attendance in 2009 and on pace to break in 2010.

-2 MAC East titles in the last 4 years.

-6 year head man Frank Solich with a winning record at Ohio.

-A 3rd round NFL draft pick in 2009, a 2nd rounder in 2010

-#4 in football budget behind Temple, NIU and CMU.

I would Ohio football at least in the top 5 of the MAC overall as a football power. Temple, NIU, CMU, Toledo and Ohio round out the top 5.

SBC is pretty bad this year. No one at SunBeltbbs will tell you otherwise. Every single team is pretty young though, so the MAC might want to watch out the next year or two.

But I must say... the MAC has two losses to FCS teams.. so I wouldn't brag too much.

Rankings are what they are. Someone is on top and on down the line.

No use disparaging anyone, ESPECIALLY since the MAC is the next-to-last in the pecking order. Be THANKFUL we're not the lowest.

Lastly, there is nothing in the stats that would indicate most MAC-SBC matchups would be anything but competitive contests.

Those are bad numbers for the MAC. Throwout NIU and Temple and we are below the sunbelt.

Football power? in the MAC? There have been only -3- football powers in the MAC in the last -15- years...Marshall.Toledo,CMU. If you are looking for a 4th its Miami even with the disaster that has been going on there the last -5- years.

(10-11-2010 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 12:56 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  WAC 70.56
MWC 70.47
CUSA 64.43
MAC 62.32
SBC 54.70

-The MAC is pretty equal to strength in CUSA in ratings, top to bottom, and overall depth. Without EMU the MAC would be virtually tied with CUSA every year.

-SBC blows. Its rated below 6 FCS conferences making it mid level FCS. In no way shape or form is the SBC a better conference than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

So long as there is even one FCS conference above us we should not be wagging our fingers at anyone else..

Agree. Why are we trying to cast stones at any other conference?

(10-12-2010 07:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 12:56 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  WAC 70.56
MWC 70.47
CUSA 64.43
MAC 62.32
SBC 54.70

-The MAC is pretty equal to strength in CUSA in ratings, top to bottom, and overall depth. Without EMU the MAC would be virtually tied with CUSA every year.

-SBC blows. Its rated below 6 FCS conferences making it mid level FCS. In no way shape or form is the SBC a better conference than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

So long as there is even one FCS conference above us we should not be wagging our fingers at anyone else..

Agree. Why are we trying to cast stones at any other conference?

Because its fun.

(10-12-2010 07:51 AM)Airport KC Wrote:  

(10-12-2010 07:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 12:56 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  WAC 70.56
MWC 70.47
CUSA 64.43
MAC 62.32
SBC 54.70

-The MAC is pretty equal to strength in CUSA in ratings, top to bottom, and overall depth. Without EMU the MAC would be virtually tied with CUSA every year.

-SBC blows. Its rated below 6 FCS conferences making it mid level FCS. In no way shape or form is the SBC a better conference than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

So long as there is even one FCS conference above us we should not be wagging our fingers at anyone else..

Agree. Why are we trying to cast stones at any other conference?

Because its fun.

Great IN-Season stuff

I think what hurts the MAC the most is the dead weight it carries with having 13 teams. The MAC is the largest football conference in the nation. Teams like EMU shouldn't be in our league.

(10-12-2010 07:27 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 01:11 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-11-2010 12:56 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  WAC 70.56
MWC 70.47
CUSA 64.43
MAC 62.32
SBC 54.70

-The MAC is pretty equal to strength in CUSA in ratings, top to bottom, and overall depth. Without EMU the MAC would be virtually tied with CUSA every year.

-SBC blows. Its rated below 6 FCS conferences making it mid level FCS. In no way shape or form is the SBC a better conference than the MAC.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

So long as there is even one FCS conference above us we should not be wagging our fingers at anyone else..

Agree. Why are we trying to cast stones at any other conference?

Yea, we're all struggling against the BCS monolith. Just staying afloat is a victory of sorts.

(10-12-2010 10:40 AM)Big_Man Wrote:  I think what hurts the MAC the most is the dead weight it carries with having 13 teams. The MAC is the largest football conference in the nation. Teams like EMU shouldn't be in our league.

How long has EMU been in the MAC?

Agree, get rid of the dead-weight...

(10-11-2010 03:42 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  2. Temple in the MAC for basketball would give the leauge a flagship BB school like CUSA has with Memphis. CUSA and MAC RPI would be pretty much equal.

I'd like to see Temple in the MAC for all sports if the MAC could invite one more eastern school. I'm thinking JMU or UMass. With 14 teams there is no reason MAC basketball couldn't play a 13-to-18 game conference schedule (play everyone once + random conference games changing opponents year-to-year). This would allow all MAC teams to schedule high profile OOC games which, in turn, helps recruiting. I think this would be enough to entice Temple to move out of the A-10.

(10-13-2010 12:08 PM)Owls Head Wrote:  

(10-12-2010 10:40 AM)Big_Man Wrote:  I think what hurts the MAC the most is the dead weight it carries with having 13 teams. The MAC is the largest football conference in the nation. Teams like EMU shouldn't be in our league.

How long has EMU been in the MAC?

Agree, get rid of the dead-weight...

I have been hinting at that for years.. I don't understand why no one feels this would be a good move or that it would never happen. It is the old addition by subtraction way of thinking. With all the conference shuffling going on, why wouldn't the MAC at least explore either dropping EMU outright or replacing them with another program. The MAC has a nice opportunity to become a deeper league with the changes in the WAC and other conferences.