We should invite every FBS school and tell them that we will only take the first 3 applications and invite the best one from that.

(03-02-2012 02:59 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  you miss the point on conf membership.
it's to build up your revenue, expand your footprint

Of course building up revenue and expanding the conference footprint is part of making the MAC a better, stronger conference. All-sports members help maintain that footprint in the long term by remaining in the MAC. Short-timers like Temple and UMass do not.

(03-01-2012 07:02 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Being from the A10, we constantly see teams leave and we bring in new ones. Leaving for a BCS conference is a compliment that you have a strong non BCS league. (In the A10 proper we lost Villanova, Rutgers, Pittsburg, West Virginia, Penn State, Virginia Tech, and soon Temple and including football add UConn.)

So there are three main choices, stay Mid America at 12 and accept being second rate not only BCS-AQ conferences but to others as the old CUSA. Do you expand the footprint into major markets with teams with big upside and useful for MAC brand recognitions and money down the road. Or do you consider teams in an expand footprint that have some upside, that are not attractive to the BCS-AQ conferences as JMU and UD.

Personally hope we stay for a long time, but we have some upside risk for a BCS conference. Think ODU would be here for a visit, so 15 seems to be the smartest number with JMU and UD.

It’s a healthy discussion and flame away.

Fully understand you want the MAC stronger and had UMass and Temple been all sports, the MAC would be a lot stronger, but if a BCS conference comes calling they are still gone.

Like the goal of being best non AQ Football conference. The Sagarin ratings between the MAC and CUSA where getting very close.

Thought ODU would sooner head to the Alliance. Hence suggesting JMU and UD would be good fits for all sports. Know you don't want football only, but the council of presidents and Jon Steinbrecher thought we would benefit the MAC.

Can you handle steps like being the best non AQ Football conference while improving basketball internally and good rounded all sports adds that will not be BCS targets.

The above statement is a reaction that teams have left the MAC for non AQ conferences. The first goal should be strengthen the MAC internally and with good fits that can help close the gap. But it has to be steps, Temple would never leave the A10 with all the NCAA credits. UMass is in the same boat. We would not leave for anything except a BCS AQ invite unless cornered. Temple did not have to sign the MAC contract and gone to CUSA free of charge. Instead gave us an opportunity to be in the MAC. Could we both had gone to CUSA as a package, maybe but we both like the A10/MAC combo over CUSA even thou the money is a bit higher and the bowls are a bit better.

FYi, UMass and Temple all sports making the MAC "a lot" stronger is a joke. Its appropriate, called for, nicer, but not much of an upgrade kids.

(03-02-2012 03:30 PM)Rocketime Wrote:  

(03-02-2012 02:59 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  you miss the point on conf membership.
it's to build up your revenue, expand your footprint

Of course building up revenue and expanding the conference footprint is part of making the MAC a better, stronger conference. All-sports members help maintain that footprint in the long term by remaining in the MAC. Short-timers like Temple and UMass do not.

Yep.

One would have to think that UMass to the Big East is inevitable once UConn moves to the ACC. UConn is playing the role of Villanova to UMass here by blocking the Minutemen from joining the same conference.

UMass has now replaced Temple in the alliance cat bird seat as the sensible option for a football only membership. I would think the chances of UMass heading to the alliance in the next 60 to 120 days is pretty good.

I would like to see the MAC return to 14 just because I think its better for football scheduling having a balanced home-away with the opposite division and a chance to add a couple more programs to strengthen things on the football side like ASU and JMU.

The alliance is looking more toward Old Dominion or Charlotte than James Madison or Appalachian State because they love those schools that play in big local markets while the MAC is mostly populated with schools that penetrate regional markets (e.g. Northern lll. with Chicago).

Inititally like App St for that reason and strong attendance, but the basketball is terrible. Getting an all sports member, who is top 120 (third) in basketball and with good football attendance and potential is a tuff ticket. You guys don't see it that way but change that to middle third (120-240) and that is where the MAC seats, UD and James Madison need to want the MAC long term, but they fit the slightly expanded foot print and basketball strength.

Not the general MAC fans, but the leaders of the MAC recognized this and where willing to take Temple and UMass for Football with gaurantee multi home BB games.

(03-03-2012 09:46 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Inititally like App St for that reason and strong attendance, but the basketball is terrible. Getting an all sports member, who is top 120 (third) in basketball and with good football attendance and potential is a tuff ticket.

If that were a requirement to be in the MAC, only Ohio U. would be in the conference.

Hence the problem with all the conjecture: why would a school who is better than the schools in the conference want to join? If the MAC were to look at its average institutions (academics, football, basketball, attendance) and seek to find someone that falls generally in that range, they would find that no one fits the bill. (aside: Someone want to figure who is the MAC school that falls mostly closely to the middle in all four of those categories? Off the top of my head, I would guess it would be BG. Just a guess.)

Schools want to find conferences that will lift them up.
Conferences want to find schools that will lift them up.

Finding a match for a bus-league Midwestern state school conference is really tough, which is why when we put expansion as a priority, we keep making moves that don't help the conference much.

(03-03-2012 09:46 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Not the general MAC fans, but the leaders of the MAC recognized this and where willing to take Temple and UMass for Football with gaurantee multi home BB games.

Good grief, don't try to bunch UMass bball with Temple bball. UMass hasn't been to the tournament for 14 years. In fact, UMass bball had one 5-year hot streak under one coach and besides that stretch have done nothing in bball in program history. Only 8 tournament appearances in program history of which 7 were under the same great coach.

UMass has no storied program, not impressed.

^ This is out of context of if you want an improved MAC that taking a team as App St, which is in the bottom third of BB teams is not a good idea, it's a tuff sell to get a top third team and JMU and UD fit the middle third. We are the top third and never said anything about being a story program.

You seem to miss the Doctor J era and Rick Pitino Al Skinner. Not to mention the last couple of Travis Ford years where we where the first runners up in the 2008 NIT to Ohio State.
NIT is very possible this year, perhaps will play a MAC team as in 2008.

When was the last time a MAC team beat UMass, now you have chances on your home court. There could be some fine match-ups and games.

getting in state that ranks 12th in population
plays in NFL stadium
with agreement to play BB vs school with rpi of 86 [which would rank 4th in MAC]
is not gonna help the MAC, you gotta think small time

(03-03-2012 01:43 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  ^ This is out of context of if you want an improved MAC that taking a team as App St, which is in the bottom third of BB teams is not a good idea, it's a tuff sell to get a top third team and JMU and UD fit the middle third. We are the top third and never said anything about being a story program.

You seem to miss the Doctor J era and Rick Pitino Al Skinner. Not to mention the last couple of Travis Ford years where we where the first runners up in the 2008 NIT to Ohio State.
NIT is very possible this year, perhaps will play a MAC team as in 2008.

When was the last time a MAC team beat UMass, now you have chances on your home court. There could be some fine match-ups and games.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008. Toledo 57 - UMass 56. Toledo's record that year was 7-25.

(03-03-2012 01:43 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  ^ This is out of context of if you want an improved MAC that taking a team as App St, which is in the bottom third of BB teams is not a good idea, it's a tuff sell to get a top third team and JMU and UD fit the middle third. We are the top third and never said anything about being a story program.

The only way the MAC is going to be able to improve its basketball by adding a good basketball program is if that program is regularly in the top 40 like Temple.

Since there isn't any candidates available for the MAC that have FBS football and are regular NCAA tournament schools it doesn't make sense to focus the expansion around basketball.

44 Middle Tennessee
57 South Dakota State
66 Northern Iowa
82 Massachusetts

This is the full list of schools that have football looking across the MVC, Summitt, Colonial, CAA, Southern Conference that could possibly join the MAC that have an RPI ranked in the top 100.

Its a very thin list and Middle Tennessee/South Dakota State are having unusually good years. There is nobody out there that can seriously help MAC hoops like a Memphis or a Temple type program.

The MAC could add a few football programs like JMU and ASU that have better fan support than anyone we have in the MAC East and would instantly be able to compete on the field. The MAC could get a little value added on the football side but that is about it as far as possibilities go.

(03-03-2012 02:27 PM)Rocketime Wrote:  Wednesday, December 3, 2008. Toledo 57 - UMass 56. Toledo's record that year was 7-25.

DK first three years as a head coach where disappointing, especially the first two. Year three we could see DK stressing defense and starting to define UMass Basketball. The biggest change was finally having Vance Walberg move on. He is the creating of dribble drive and was like a head coach on the bench. Many of us did not like Walberg. With him gone and having a good point guard, we are back on track. Hoping Cady Lananne heals, he is so smooth and gifted.

Walberg- Destroyer of Team Chemistry

(03-04-2012 10:03 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(03-03-2012 02:27 PM)Rocketime Wrote:  Wednesday, December 3, 2008. Toledo 57 - UMass 56. Toledo's record that year was 7-25.

DK first three years as a head coach where disappointing, especially the first two. Year three we could see DK stressing defense and starting to define UMass Basketball. The biggest change was finally having Vance Walberg move on. He is the creating of dribble drive and was like a head coach on the bench. Many of us did not like Walberg. With him gone and having a good point guard, we are back on track. Hoping Cady Lananne heals, he is so smooth and gifted.

Walberg- Destroyer of Team Chemistry

You asked when the last time was that a MAC school beat UMASS and he answered it. No sense in then making excuses for it.

(03-03-2012 03:08 AM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  FYi, UMass and Temple all sports making the MAC "a lot" stronger is a joke. Its appropriate, called for, nicer, but not much of an upgrade kids.

EXACTLY !!

Temple and UMass are in lala land.

Again we've become the Florence Nightingale to these dying programs building them back to good health while they plan their exit out.