(11-19-2009 07:17 PM)CE-SELLS-GOATS Wrote:  

(11-19-2009 07:00 PM)Redbird Ray Wrote:  Hey MAC nation,

I can understand all of the commotion over what seems to be a very strange deal here, but as someone mentioned earlier, most ISU fans are hopeful that this is an early indication of an even "bigger" announcement yet to come for ISU.

As for the games, don't look down on playing a Valley opponent too much (home or away). Just ask your Chippewa fans here how good Valley football can be.

Anyway, looking forward to 2013/2014.

Yeah, we remember all too well. Wish dementia were here with regard to that game. I also remember the Redbirds, Indiana State, Western Illinois, Eastern Illinois, and CMU all being in the same conference - Interstate Intercollegiate Athletic Conference? In fact, I really wanted both ISU's in the MAC when we joined.

Other members of the IIAC included Northern Illinois (1920-1967), and Eastern Michigan (1950-1961).

In my opinion, a large majority of MAC fans would be in favor of Illinois State joining the MAC in all sports.

(11-18-2009 05:49 PM)CMichFan Wrote:  

(11-18-2009 05:45 PM)notauser Wrote:  I never understand all the talk about any school in the MAC voluntarily dropping to I-AA in football. Yes it would be cheaper, but not substantially cheaper. Less scholarships and lower coaching salaries, but not much more in savings. Most of the MAC games are traveled by bus, and the contract with the Big10 also helps reduce travel costs even more so. The only reason to drop to 1-AA would be cost savings in my opinion, and I don't see much in that area. If we were talking about Conference USA where many games require air travel, there could be substantial savings. But not when most games are already on the bus. In fact, when Central played Western this year, they came by bus on game day, avoiding the expense of a hotel. My guess is, they traveled back to Mount Pleasant same day. Most games require a hotel stay and meals, which does add up, but I imagine any Division III school even has those identical expenses.

Also, there's virtually no TV in 1-AA, everyone wants to see there school play on TV.

There's a reason the MAC has stuck around for 60 years, its the close proximity of all the schools. The MAC is a great conference for what it is, plenty of NFL alumni and BCS college coaches will attest to that.

+1. In fact, I recall someone posting a thread on this board not that long ago (last season or two?) showing that running a I-AA (FCS if you must) program is actually more expensive, in a lot of respects. If any MAC program were going to move down, it would need to be because of competition issues, not financial ones, IMHO.

Those were the assumptions in a different economic era when the economy was growing nationally and budgets of public universties were increasing.

If as an FCS school you can make that BCS payday every year while cutting scholarship/coaching costs it starts to make sense.

TV is possible now in FCS with all the regional outlets. SWAC games are now on ESPNU. Its only a matter of time before the Colonial, MVC, Big Sky ect have TV coverage.

Then look at what is happening with the bowls, the MAC is being forced to play the SBC if it wants a game. The SBC is no better than a top level FCS conference. The MAC may as well be in FCS.

(11-19-2009 07:15 PM)rocketfootball Wrote:  I don't think anyone has a problem with ISU, it's the playing at ISU thing. And I wouldn't look at it as a hope of moving up for ISU, so their fans shouldn't look at it that way. Ball State's AD said that FBS schools play at FCS schools all the time.....yeah, he's delusional. Ball State also has two FCS teams on the schedule in 2010. That has nothing to do with the possibility of ISU moving up in the future.

Could have been Ball State's AD's only way he could think of answering the question without letting the cat out of the bag that the MAC & Ill. State are discussing the option of the Redbirds as MAC members.

If Illinois State is entertaining the idea of joining the MAC, why would Ball State schedule a 2 game series with them? If they were in the MAC wouldn't the league schedule accomplish this.

(11-20-2009 12:08 PM)ncchip Wrote:  If Illinois State is entertaining the idea of joining the MAC, why would Ball State schedule a 2 game series with them? If they were in the MAC wouldn't the league schedule accomplish this.

Not necessarily. Because of the moratorium on new FBS members, the soonest Illinois State could join would be 2015 or so, possibly even later since they'd have to go through a provisional process like Western Kentucky did.

(11-20-2009 11:48 AM)mpurdy22 Wrote:  

(11-19-2009 07:15 PM)rocketfootball Wrote:  I don't think anyone has a problem with ISU, it's the playing at ISU thing. And I wouldn't look at it as a hope of moving up for ISU, so their fans shouldn't look at it that way. Ball State's AD said that FBS schools play at FCS schools all the time.....yeah, he's delusional. Ball State also has two FCS teams on the schedule in 2010. That has nothing to do with the possibility of ISU moving up in the future.

Could have been Ball State's AD's only way he could think of answering the question without letting the cat out of the bag that the MAC & Ill. State are discussing the option of the Redbirds as MAC members.

Could be, but I doubt it. The MAC needs to add a 14th member very soon, not for somewhere in the 2014 or 2015 season, which is the earliest allowed by the NCAA at this point.

Also, I tend to think the people running the show at Ball State are very delusional and, well quite frankly stupid. Head Football coach Stan Parrish said that no one can say that Ball State is not playing the best teams in OOC to get to a BCS bowl game. This with two FCS schools on the schedule next year. These people at Ball State don't have a clue, and BSU fans should be irate and wanting the house cleaned so to speak.

If it takes that long to get FBS approval, I can't imagine the MAC going the FCS route to alleviate the odd number of teams and the scheduling problems. Is the ncaa going to give them additional waivers to hold their championship game for the next 5-6 years?

Why in the world would ISU want to leave the Valley?

(11-20-2009 12:43 PM)OZoner Wrote:  Why in the world would ISU want to leave the Valley?

For Basketball they wouldn't. If they want to play FBS football, they have to. FBS football as an independent wouldn't fly very well. It appears they are upgrading their football stadium to 30K. That indicates a move to FBS and they'll need an FBS league to affiliate with. Big Ten or Big 12 probably isn't in the cards. What other FBS conference is within their geographical reach?

(11-20-2009 12:43 PM)OZoner Wrote:  Why in the world would ISU want to leave the Valley?

Many, but certainly not all, ISU fans believe that their future state football team, and not their Valley basketball team, will take the lead in determining ISU Athletics' place in the NCAA.

OR

Many, but certainly not all, ISU fans believe that their current basketball program in the Valley, and not their future state football team, will take the lead in determining ISU Athletics' place in the NCAA.

As someone who follows ISU from 30,000ft, my gut says the football team will take the lead and make future NCAA and conference decisions for their Athletic program.

Playing 2 Big Ten teams plus 2 FCS schools.....Very likely 1 game toward being bowl eligible non-conferene. Why would a player even consider coming to Ball State when other teams offer a much better chance at becoming bowl elgible. Perhaps since Parrish can't beat FBS schools he asked for FCS games to improve his impressive record as a head coach.

(11-19-2009 07:00 PM)Redbird Ray Wrote:  Hey MAC nation,

I can understand all of the commotion over what seems to be a very strange deal here, but as someone mentioned earlier, most ISU fans are hopeful that this is an early indication of an even "bigger" announcement yet to come for ISU.

As for the games, don't look down on playing a Valley opponent too much (home or away). Just ask your Chippewa fans here how good Valley football can be.

Anyway, looking forward to 2013/2014.

Let me summarize this thread as I see it:

ISU will play BSU in '13 and '14 probably as a I-A school, with a chance of being a MAC FB ONLY member.

Temple will remain FB only as well.

This all could change depending if Temple wants to join for all sports (I doubt it) or Temple gets invited to X conference and accepts.

IF (big if) Temple joins for all sports the pressure would be on ISU to join for all sports.

(11-18-2009 05:45 PM)notauser Wrote:  In fact, when Central played Western this year, they came by bus on game day, avoiding the expense of a hotel. My guess is, they traveled back to Mount Pleasant same day. Most games require a hotel stay and meals, which does add up, but I imagine any Division III school even has those identical expenses.

Actually, CMU players jogged down to Kazoo, put a whoopin' on the Browncows, and were rewarded with a bus ride back to Mt. P for their good efforts.

(11-20-2009 04:33 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(11-19-2009 07:00 PM)Redbird Ray Wrote:  Hey MAC nation,

I can understand all of the commotion over what seems to be a very strange deal here, but as someone mentioned earlier, most ISU fans are hopeful that this is an early indication of an even "bigger" announcement yet to come for ISU.

As for the games, don't look down on playing a Valley opponent too much (home or away). Just ask your Chippewa fans here how good Valley football can be.

Anyway, looking forward to 2013/2014.

Let me summarize this thread as I see it:

ISU will play BSU in '13 and '14 probably as a I-A school, with a chance of being a MAC FB ONLY member.

Temple will remain FB only as well.

This all could change depending if Temple wants to join for all sports (I doubt it) or Temple gets invited to X conference and accepts.

IF (big if) Temple joins for all sports the pressure would be on ISU to join for all sports.

If the MAC waits until 2014, and actually longer I believe because of the provisional status they would have to have first, to get a 14th member to balance out the divisions, then the MAC will be screwed beyond recognition. There is no way the NCAA is going to keep giving us waivers for that long to play our MAC Championship game, and the schedules suck when some East Division teams don't play other East Division teams. I'm already sick of the bush league antics in the MAC, and if the MAC waits that long to balance out the divisions I will be officially off the bandwagon and hoping Toledo goes somewhere else, even C-USA or Sun Belt!

This conference needs to wake up and fix things now, not in 5 years!

Because the games with Ball State are scheduled so early in 2013/2014 (Aug. for both dates), it leads me to believe one of two scenarios:

1) These really are just a peculiar set of non-conference games with a home and home between two different subdivision programs.

OR

2) ISU will be in transition during this time, and these games will not officially be conference games. I would think ISU would like to join the MAC, but who knows, maybe we would go for the Sun Belt or some other new conference for some reason. In any case, these strike me as just games that are part of the transition process, and not necessarilly MAC conference games.

(11-21-2009 10:01 AM)Redbird Ray Wrote:  Because the games with Ball State are scheduled so early in 2013/2014 (Aug. for both dates), it leads me to believe one of two scenarios:

1) These really are just a peculiar set of non-conference games with a home and home between two different subdivision programs.

OR

2) ISU will be in transition during this time, and these games will not officially be conference games. I would think ISU would like to join the MAC, but who knows, maybe we would go for the Sun Belt or some other new conference for some reason. In any case, these strike me as just games that are part of the transition process, and not necessarilly MAC conference games.

RE: Last sentence.

If ISU is I-A provisional then the games count as I-A and that works for both ISU and BSU.

Hence smart for ISU and not at all dumb for BSU.

(11-20-2009 04:52 PM)rocketfootball Wrote:  If the MAC waits until 2014, and actually longer I believe because of the provisional status they would have to have first, to get a 14th member to balance out the divisions, then the MAC will be screwed beyond recognition. There is no way the NCAA is going to keep giving us waivers for that long to play our MAC Championship game, and the schedules suck when some East Division teams don't play other East Division teams.

The NCAA only requires 12 teams for an MAC Championship game.

There's no need for waivers with 13: it just creates unbalanced scheduling.

(11-21-2009 12:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(11-20-2009 04:52 PM)rocketfootball Wrote:  If the MAC waits until 2014, and actually longer I believe because of the provisional status they would have to have first, to get a 14th member to balance out the divisions, then the MAC will be screwed beyond recognition. There is no way the NCAA is going to keep giving us waivers for that long to play our MAC Championship game, and the schedules suck when some East Division teams don't play other East Division teams.

The NCAA only requires 12 teams for an MAC Championship game.

There's no need for waivers with 13: it just creates unbalanced scheduling.

You are wrong there. The MAC needs waivers because the NCAA requires that every team plays every other team in its own division in order to be eligible for a championship game. The MAC can't do that without balanced divisions.

(11-21-2009 12:51 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(11-20-2009 04:52 PM)rocketfootball Wrote:  If the MAC waits until 2014, and actually longer I believe because of the provisional status they would have to have first, to get a 14th member to balance out the divisions, then the MAC will be screwed beyond recognition. There is no way the NCAA is going to keep giving us waivers for that long to play our MAC Championship game, and the schedules suck when some East Division teams don't play other East Division teams.

The NCAA only requires 12 teams for an MAC Championship game.

There's no need for waivers with 13: it just creates unbalanced scheduling.

I you have uneven division, the NCAA requires a waiver.