Something I notice when looking at message boards of schools that talk about moving up to the MAC is that they look at things are and not how they would be.

They post the rankings of conferences as they stand now, but don't realize that those rankings would be different if they looked at where the conferences would stand with themselves in it. They don't realize that they have some weight and impact. A school that acts and thinks big would understand their own impact and adjust their research accordingly.

(02-25-2012 11:02 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  Something I notice when looking at message boards of schools that talk about moving up to the MAC is that they look at things are and not how they would be.

They post the rankings of conferences as they stand now, but don't realize that those rankings would be different if they looked at where the conferences would stand with themselves in it. They don't realize that they have some weight and impact. A school that acts and thinks big would understand their own impact and adjust their research accordingly.

This is especially the case of my MAC-18 plan where UMass, Stony Brook, Delaware, JMU, Old Dominion and Charlotte are added to the MAC all-sports for a new 3rd MAC division "MAC Atlantic"

The MAC would not just be adding a regular NCAA tourney qualifier like Old Dominion but it would be taking ODU, JMU, Del out of the CAA and UMass, Charlotte out of the A10.

The resulting MAC-18 basketball conference would probably be 3 bids and at that point more powerful then either the Atlantic 10 or CAA in hoops plus having a full 18 member FBS conference.

(02-25-2012 11:10 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 11:02 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  Something I notice when looking at message boards of schools that talk about moving up to the MAC is that they look at things are and not how they would be.

They post the rankings of conferences as they stand now, but don't realize that those rankings would be different if they looked at where the conferences would stand with themselves in it. They don't realize that they have some weight and impact. A school that acts and thinks big would understand their own impact and adjust their research accordingly.

This is especially the case of my MAC-18 plan where UMass, Stony Brook, Delaware, JMU, Old Dominion and Charlotte are added to the MAC all-sports for a new 3rd MAC division "MAC Atlantic"

The MAC would not just be adding a regular NCAA tourney qualifier like Old Dominion but it would be taking ODU, JMU, Del out of the CAA and UMass, Charlotte out of the A10.

The resulting MAC-18 basketball conference would probably be 3 bids and at that point more powerful then either the Atlantic 10 or CAA in hoops plus having a full 18 member FBS conference.

For the love of god stop!!!!!!

(02-25-2012 11:10 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 11:02 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  Something I notice when looking at message boards of schools that talk about moving up to the MAC is that they look at things are and not how they would be.

They post the rankings of conferences as they stand now, but don't realize that those rankings would be different if they looked at where the conferences would stand with themselves in it. They don't realize that they have some weight and impact. A school that acts and thinks big would understand their own impact and adjust their research accordingly.

This is especially the case of my MAC-18 plan where UMass, Stony Brook, Delaware, JMU, Old Dominion and Charlotte are added to the MAC all-sports for a new 3rd MAC division "MAC Atlantic"

The MAC would not just be adding a regular NCAA tourney qualifier like Old Dominion but it would be taking ODU, JMU, Del out of the CAA and UMass, Charlotte out of the A10.

The resulting MAC-18 basketball conference would probably be 3 bids and at that point more powerful then either the Atlantic 10 or CAA in hoops plus having a full 18 member FBS conference.

18 teams is too many. End O' subject.

(02-25-2012 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 11:10 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 11:02 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  Something I notice when looking at message boards of schools that talk about moving up to the MAC is that they look at things are and not how they would be.

They post the rankings of conferences as they stand now, but don't realize that those rankings would be different if they looked at where the conferences would stand with themselves in it. They don't realize that they have some weight and impact. A school that acts and thinks big would understand their own impact and adjust their research accordingly.

This is especially the case of my MAC-18 plan where UMass, Stony Brook, Delaware, JMU, Old Dominion and Charlotte are added to the MAC all-sports for a new 3rd MAC division "MAC Atlantic"

The MAC would not just be adding a regular NCAA tourney qualifier like Old Dominion but it would be taking ODU, JMU, Del out of the CAA and UMass, Charlotte out of the A10.

The resulting MAC-18 basketball conference would probably be 3 bids and at that point more powerful then either the Atlantic 10 or CAA in hoops plus having a full 18 member FBS conference.

18 teams is too many. End O' subject.

What then do you think the size limit should be?

(02-25-2012 12:35 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 11:10 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 11:02 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  Something I notice when looking at message boards of schools that talk about moving up to the MAC is that they look at things are and not how they would be.

They post the rankings of conferences as they stand now, but don't realize that those rankings would be different if they looked at where the conferences would stand with themselves in it. They don't realize that they have some weight and impact. A school that acts and thinks big would understand their own impact and adjust their research accordingly.

This is especially the case of my MAC-18 plan where UMass, Stony Brook, Delaware, JMU, Old Dominion and Charlotte are added to the MAC all-sports for a new 3rd MAC division "MAC Atlantic"

The MAC would not just be adding a regular NCAA tourney qualifier like Old Dominion but it would be taking ODU, JMU, Del out of the CAA and UMass, Charlotte out of the A10.

The resulting MAC-18 basketball conference would probably be 3 bids and at that point more powerful then either the Atlantic 10 or CAA in hoops plus having a full 18 member FBS conference.

18 teams is too many. End O' subject.

What then do you think the size limit should be?

No more than 16, and 14 is plenty.

(02-25-2012 12:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:35 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 11:10 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 11:02 AM)uakronkid Wrote:  Something I notice when looking at message boards of schools that talk about moving up to the MAC is that they look at things are and not how they would be.

They post the rankings of conferences as they stand now, but don't realize that those rankings would be different if they looked at where the conferences would stand with themselves in it. They don't realize that they have some weight and impact. A school that acts and thinks big would understand their own impact and adjust their research accordingly.

This is especially the case of my MAC-18 plan where UMass, Stony Brook, Delaware, JMU, Old Dominion and Charlotte are added to the MAC all-sports for a new 3rd MAC division "MAC Atlantic"

The MAC would not just be adding a regular NCAA tourney qualifier like Old Dominion but it would be taking ODU, JMU, Del out of the CAA and UMass, Charlotte out of the A10.

The resulting MAC-18 basketball conference would probably be 3 bids and at that point more powerful then either the Atlantic 10 or CAA in hoops plus having a full 18 member FBS conference.

18 teams is too many. End O' subject.

What then do you think the size limit should be?

No more than 16, and 14 is plenty.

If you are going to 16.....why not just build out a third division and go to 18 to cut down on travel?

If the MAC for example wanted to get into the Dakotas it could build a division that included the following..

MAC North: North Dakota, North Dakota St, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Minnesota State

Travel issue for the Dakota schools solved.

(02-25-2012 01:08 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:35 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 11:10 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  This is especially the case of my MAC-18 plan where UMass, Stony Brook, Delaware, JMU, Old Dominion and Charlotte are added to the MAC all-sports for a new 3rd MAC division "MAC Atlantic"

The MAC would not just be adding a regular NCAA tourney qualifier like Old Dominion but it would be taking ODU, JMU, Del out of the CAA and UMass, Charlotte out of the A10.

The resulting MAC-18 basketball conference would probably be 3 bids and at that point more powerful then either the Atlantic 10 or CAA in hoops plus having a full 18 member FBS conference.

18 teams is too many. End O' subject.

What then do you think the size limit should be?

No more than 16, and 14 is plenty.

If you are going to 16.....why not just build out a third division and go to 18 to cut down on travel?

If the MAC for example wanted to get into the Dakotas it could build a division that included the following..

MAC North: North Dakota, North Dakota St, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Minnesota State

Travel issue for the Dakota schools solved.

You aren't going to cut down on travel for anybody by adding Dakota schools. And I want to continue having 1, yes 1, championship game, between the winners of 2 divisions. This isn't the NFL. What's the point of being in the same conference with teams that you only play once every 5 years? And the more divisions you have (and the more widely spread the conference is), the better chance of those divisions breaking apart into separate conferences. It just means more instability.

(02-25-2012 01:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 01:08 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:35 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:31 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  18 teams is too many. End O' subject.

What then do you think the size limit should be?

No more than 16, and 14 is plenty.

If you are going to 16.....why not just build out a third division and go to 18 to cut down on travel?

If the MAC for example wanted to get into the Dakotas it could build a division that included the following..

MAC North: North Dakota, North Dakota St, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Minnesota State

Travel issue for the Dakota schools solved.

You aren't going to cut down on travel for anybody by adding Dakota schools. And I want to continue having 1, yes 1, championship game, between the winners of 2 divisions. This isn't the NFL. What's the point of being in the same conference with teams that you only play once every 5 years? And the more divisions you have (and the more widely spread the conference is), the better chance of those divisions breaking apart into separate conferences. It just means more instability.

In a MAC-18 format for football I envision that the MAC would play a 9 game conference schedule (5 divisional, 2 opposite division, 2 opposite division) so actually you would get to see everyone play once every 3 seasons as opposed to 5.

One big reason why someone should put all those FCS snobs that balk at all sports to the MAC in their place is that if they can't find a FBS conference to take their program, they cannot move up. The MAC should leverage this if new programs are added to the league. The FCS names being mentioned will not get an invite from a Big 6 Conference and many of the non-AQs make no sense from a geography standpoint. If you are in or near the MAC footprint and you want to play ball at the FBS level, then it should be all sports or you stay FCS. That's the cost of doing business.

(02-25-2012 01:37 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 01:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 01:08 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:35 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  What then do you think the size limit should be?

No more than 16, and 14 is plenty.

If you are going to 16.....why not just build out a third division and go to 18 to cut down on travel?

If the MAC for example wanted to get into the Dakotas it could build a division that included the following..

MAC North: North Dakota, North Dakota St, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Minnesota State

Travel issue for the Dakota schools solved.

You aren't going to cut down on travel for anybody by adding Dakota schools. And I want to continue having 1, yes 1, championship game, between the winners of 2 divisions. This isn't the NFL. What's the point of being in the same conference with teams that you only play once every 5 years? And the more divisions you have (and the more widely spread the conference is), the better chance of those divisions breaking apart into separate conferences. It just means more instability.

In a MAC-18 format for football I envision that the MAC would play a 9 game conference schedule (5 divisional, 2 opposite division, 2 opposite division) so actually you would get to see everyone play once every 3 seasons as opposed to 5.

NO! Most of our programs couldn't afford losing an OOC game.

(02-25-2012 01:46 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  One big reason why someone should put all those FCS snobs that balk at all sports to the MAC in their place is that if they can't find a FBS conference to take their program, they cannot move up. The MAC should leverage this if new programs are added to the league. The FCS names being mentioned will not get an invite from a Big 6 Conference and many of the non-AQs make no sense from a geography standpoint. If you are in or near the MAC footprint and you want to play ball at the FBS level, then it should be all sports or you stay FCS. That's the cost of doing business.

...other than Army for FB?...If they somehow did accept us?

I agree for all other teams. I would like to see us pickup a school that would make UMASS want to join us for all sports. Is there such a candidate school?

(02-25-2012 01:37 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 01:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 01:08 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:35 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  What then do you think the size limit should be?

No more than 16, and 14 is plenty.

If you are going to 16.....why not just build out a third division and go to 18 to cut down on travel?

If the MAC for example wanted to get into the Dakotas it could build a division that included the following..

MAC North: North Dakota, North Dakota St, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Minnesota State

Travel issue for the Dakota schools solved.

You aren't going to cut down on travel for anybody by adding Dakota schools. And I want to continue having 1, yes 1, championship game, between the winners of 2 divisions. This isn't the NFL. What's the point of being in the same conference with teams that you only play once every 5 years? And the more divisions you have (and the more widely spread the conference is), the better chance of those divisions breaking apart into separate conferences. It just means more instability.

In a MAC-18 format for football I envision that the MAC would play a 9 game conference schedule (5 divisional, 2 opposite division, 2 opposite division) so actually you would get to see everyone play once every 3 seasons as opposed to 5.

And when you end up with 3 division champs that are all 7-2 (8-1, whatever) who goes to the championship game? Tie-breakers? points scored? coin-flip? No thanks.

(02-25-2012 01:46 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  One big reason why someone should put all those FCS snobs that balk at all sports to the MAC in their place is that if they can't find a FBS conference to take their program, they cannot move up. The MAC should leverage this if new programs are added to the league. The FCS names being mentioned will not get an invite from a Big 6 Conference and many of the non-AQs make no sense from a geography standpoint. If you are in or near the MAC footprint and you want to play ball at the FBS level, then it should be all sports or you stay FCS. That's the cost of doing business.

+1!

(02-25-2012 02:23 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 01:37 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 01:19 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 01:08 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 12:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No more than 16, and 14 is plenty.

If you are going to 16.....why not just build out a third division and go to 18 to cut down on travel?

If the MAC for example wanted to get into the Dakotas it could build a division that included the following..

MAC North: North Dakota, North Dakota St, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Minnesota State

Travel issue for the Dakota schools solved.

You aren't going to cut down on travel for anybody by adding Dakota schools. And I want to continue having 1, yes 1, championship game, between the winners of 2 divisions. This isn't the NFL. What's the point of being in the same conference with teams that you only play once every 5 years? And the more divisions you have (and the more widely spread the conference is), the better chance of those divisions breaking apart into separate conferences. It just means more instability.

In a MAC-18 format for football I envision that the MAC would play a 9 game conference schedule (5 divisional, 2 opposite division, 2 opposite division) so actually you would get to see everyone play once every 3 seasons as opposed to 5.

And when you end up with 3 division champs that are all 7-2 (8-1, whatever) who goes to the championship game? Tie-breakers? points scored? coin-flip? No thanks.

Divisional record. Head-to-Head.

MAC basketball is full of tie-breakers.

The bigger point of 18 is that we have different schools that we'd like to see join the MAC from the East so why not just get all of them in?

If its just Stony or just Delaware or just JMU its not going to have that much of a positive impact for the MAC.

The ACC has practically gone after a Northeast division with Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Boston College and I don't see why the MAC couldn't strike back en masse with new schools from ACC territory.