The key will be how many non-conference games they play. If they play a big league schedule the numbers will drift downward simply because every conference game means one member wins and one member loses.

Pitt still says football to me, but my son is nearing college age and he gives me that "yeah right" look when I saw Pitt used to be awesome in football.

The MAC isn't going anywhere, period. The conference is full of history and tradition, which is something that can't be built overnight. The loss of a couple of schools that haven't even been playing Division 1-A football for a decade yet will have no affect on the conference. The MAC will move on and continue to have great athletics.

arkstfan Wrote:The key will be how many non-conference games they play. If they play a big league schedule the numbers will drift downward simply because every conference game means one member wins and one member loses.

Pitt still says football to me, but my son is nearing college age and he gives me that "yeah right" look when I saw Pitt used to be awesome in football.

That being said, Pitt will be playing in a BCS game this year. :rolleyes:

DrTorch Wrote:The BE won't maintain all its schools as bball powerhouses. It just cannot be done.

That's my line of thinking... and the question becomes whether or not the NCAA tournament revenue, split 16 ways, can remain as big as it was before this incredible shuffle of teams.

The only thing I think the MAC needs to worry about is the impending IA attendance regs........if they go through, I'm not expecting a big impact but it could affect a program or two, and of course that affects the MACC status. Personally (and I have no inside insights), I think the NCAA will soften the rule to avoid litigation and we'll be just fine.

Not to worry! When the shakeout of the BE to ACC teams takes effect, along with the CUSA teams to BE, several things will happen. The new Cusa will be seen as a very weak alignment. Cusa will see that their BB profile will be below the improving MAC. The same will be said of the FB profile. Departing Cinci, Louisville, TCU, and S. Fla., takes most of the heavy weights in the major sports. Cusa will not be in a position to offer any MAC school any LOGICAL reason to join. Within 5 yrs, after tv and bowl alignments are redone, Cusa will not be attractive especially when considering geography.
The BE is already acknowledged to be severely damaged. They will fight to retain BCS status. They may offer something for BB (they do), but successful conferences consider all sports, major and minor. This is really where the MAC shines. The MAC can be the strongest mid conference, all around, in the country. If you were a MAC program wanting to move in order to grow, where would you go? The B10 and ACC is off limits. All others would be revenue negative in the big picture. I do not believe that any current program in the MAC will have the Mashall mentality. We all want improved programs, but the stability of the MAC and the perspective that athletics is for the students in all sports, will keep most of us from having "Marshall vision". Again, Not to worry.

What I worry about is the attendance issue. Ten years is a long time to be on probation and if the NCAA makes it stick, we *will* lose teams. Look how the MAC ended the season. We had four teams (29% of the conference) in violation of the requirement and another four who passed by less than 1,000.

I know how difficult it is to attract people to MAC games and proximity doesn't help when you have teams close like Kent and Akron. I'm afraid the MAC is in real danger of losing at least two teams (Buffalo, Kent) in the near future if something isn't done.

-Dan

Photodan Wrote:What I worry about is the attendance issue. Ten years is a long time to be on probation and if the NCAA makes it stick, we *will* lose teams. Look how the MAC ended the season. We had four teams (29% of the conference) in violation of the requirement and another four who passed by less than 1,000.

I know how difficult it is to attract people to MAC games and proximity doesn't help when you have teams close like Kent and Akron. I'm afraid the MAC is in real danger of losing at least two teams (Buffalo, Kent) in the near future if something isn't done.

-Dan

photodan:

Up to this point, the NCAA has made it pretty clear that it's using the attendance clause as a way to raise the bar for I-AA schools trying to step up rather than using it as a broom to sweep I-A schools to I-AA.

But you're right. We have to be concerned that the NCAA could change its tune and start cracking down.

NCAA Tournament revenue isn't the issue. The issue is TV dollars for basketball because for the Big East the TV dollar is the bigger number.

arkstfan Wrote:NCAA Tournament revenue isn't the issue. The issue is TV dollars for basketball because for the Big East the TV dollar is the bigger number.

Good point... although my sense of Conference USA's current television contract is that a shockingly large percentage of the revenue is based on football, despite the accurate perception of it as a basketball league, first.

I would think the same principle might apply to the Big East.

We (non BCS schools) need to get $ome ca$h from the evil empire,I dont care about getting
a shot at the "national title",but would like to have a piece of the pie.As a Memphis Tiger fan
I watched our league (C-USA) fall apart just as we were becoming a "player" because we had
no leadership and allowed Cincy & L'ville go to the big east even though without Miami,V.T.'
and B.C. we were clearly a stronger league(except for that darned BC$ bid

P.S. the MAC is a great conference !

hbengal Wrote:We (non BCS schools) need to get $ome ca$h from the evil empire,I dont care about getting
a shot at the "national title",but would like to have a piece of the pie.As a Memphis Tiger fan
I watched our league (C-USA) fall apart just as we were becoming a "player" because we had
no leadership and allowed Cincy & L'ville go to the big east even though without Miami,V.T.'
and B.C. we were clearly a stronger league(except for that darned BC$ bid

P.S. the MAC is a great conference !

I definitely agree about the cash. Personally, I can't wait to see what we can do with the extra bowl revenue from our conference being in 5 bowls for once. I hope the conference uses the money wisely.

-Dan

Im worried we are banking on that way too much.

Alert....Unsubstantiated rumors and speculation coming!

It appears that Marshall cut their own deal for Ft WOrth and none of that money will go to the MAC. After expenses and buying up guarentees, I worry that NIUs trip to Cali will break even (or worse). Obviously Toledo and BGreen will bring in money...but money quite frankly that we as a conference are use to getting anyway. The only Bump may be Miami and it sure looks like there were price cuts and maybe guarentees written into that deal as well.

Five bowls is great exposure, but I am not sure we will be getting any new facilities in the near future off what we profit.

The Unsubstantiated-Rumor-and-Speculation-Warning has now been lifted.

houstonhuskie Wrote:Im worried we are banking on that way too much.

Oh, some of us are.

The net profit from all these bowls won't be much. And, yes, the part about Marshall cutting its own deal appears to be true -- but it doesn't matter. The bowl comes with an obligation to guarantee 10,000 tickets. If Marshall breaks even on it, they will be doing well.

The same may be true for the Silicon Valley Bowl, which comes with a 7,000-ticket guarantee. I doubt any team in our league could sell that many tickets out there. If that means a loss, revenue from the other bowls will have to cover it.

We are probably in a bit better shape with these other bowls, with the Motor City being the cash cow, relatively speaking. But I'm guessing.

The truth is that the MAC doesn't, and won't this year, make any money off the bowl games. Each school will have to pay its partof the deficit, whether it made a bowl game or not. This comes straight from a MAC AD's mouth.

You've got to get into big money bowl games before you make anything.

Quote:in five years, taking into account the cycles of winning and losing. i see Ball State and Buffalo in the MAC Championship. Marshall will have come back with the ultimate demise of the CUSA and NIU, Toledo, and BGSU will be fighting not to be bottom feeders

Pretty good point. That MACC matchup in 2009 would raise my eyebrows, but not shock me. Although some have followed the conference far longer than I have, I've seen the cycles since 1991 (when I began following the MAC). In that relatively short amount of time, I've seen current doormats CMU, WMU, and Ball State win the MAC/MAC West not too long ago, and have seen NIU and BGSU turn in crap seasons. It seems to me that once Team X reaches a point of relative success, a certain factions of its fans will begin the obligatory "let's bolt the MAC" mantra.

And to those dishing out grievances and perceived "slights" by the conference, be thankful it's 2004 and not 2000. Remember, four years ago there was no neutral MACC site (or even rotating venues) and no second bowl bid for the conference. A 9-2 team in 2000 would've killed for a chance to continue its season by receiving a trip to California. Instead, its season ended on the home field of a 6-5 team in the MACC. :rolleyes:

The MAC has come a long way, baby, a long way indeed.

I dont think the mac is at too much of a risk short term.. biggest prob is improving fb attendence.. as for cusa TV contract... negotions are going on now... at least 4 CUSA ADs have said new deal will be close to or possibily even larger than the current deal. Cusa football will be fine... basket ball goes backwards... but will still most likely be a 2 or 3 bid league.. and will be one of the best baseball conf...in the country. I think the BE has some probs long term... 16 teams in bb is pretty big.. not sure how well it will work out... football has had a huge drop off... question is can a coulple of teams step it up so they can hold on to bcs bid long term.