(02-25-2013 01:04 PM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 12:58 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 11:30 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 11:16 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 11:12 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  For the record, I agree with both of you on the points you are raising here.

Should we examine this deeper and see if there are any schools that are holding back the MAC in both football and basketball?

Sure. CMU, UB, and Miami are the three schools who are sub. 500 in both basketball and football. What would you do with them?

You really like making up "facts" for your posts, don't you?

According to my sources, CMU went .500 in the MAC in football and was above .500 overall in football. My sources also indicate that Buffalo is currently .500 in MAC play in men's basketball. Additionally, your sources missed another below .500 MAC team in men's hoops and football. Eastern Michigan. Perhaps you typed CMU instead of EMU incidentally?

Anyway, that would leave Miami and EMU. Bull_In_Exhile specified the MAC West, which (unfortunately) excludes Miami. That leaves EMU. Do you still want to examine what we should do with them? Or do you want to ignore the elephant in the room now that you are aware of the facts?

I corrected it before your post, btw, but good job ignoring that. I did miss that CMU was .500 in the MAC. They were sub .500 the year before and behind EMU in BOTH basketball and football last year.

Why don't we just look backwards from today and dump the teams that have proven the longest time they can't win championships in the major sports. That would be just as arbitrary as looking at attendance in a conference where the best football attendance is laughable in the big picture. Looking at performance is probably less so because it's about actual athletics.

You "corrected" your post and it was still factually inaccurate.

And you've been espousing a silly and unsupportable opinion since you came on here like a little one-trick troll pony. Now you want to claim you never make mistakes? I own up to mine. You?

(02-25-2013 12:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If EMU was in the East and played Akron, Buffalo and UMass in football every year would they have the worst record? I don't think so.

EMU's woes go on long before there was an East and West. Furthermore, the East competes against the West, the discrepency isn't so great.

That's not a satisfactory explanation.

EMU is in a tough spot. Period.

I am interested in what the BE midweek schedule will look like and how that translates for the 2012 CUSA teams attendance.

(02-25-2013 01:15 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:04 PM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 12:58 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 11:30 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 11:16 AM)axeme Wrote:  Sure. CMU, UB, and Miami are the three schools who are sub. 500 in both basketball and football. What would you do with them?

You really like making up "facts" for your posts, don't you?

According to my sources, CMU went .500 in the MAC in football and was above .500 overall in football. My sources also indicate that Buffalo is currently .500 in MAC play in men's basketball. Additionally, your sources missed another below .500 MAC team in men's hoops and football. Eastern Michigan. Perhaps you typed CMU instead of EMU incidentally?

Anyway, that would leave Miami and EMU. Bull_In_Exhile specified the MAC West, which (unfortunately) excludes Miami. That leaves EMU. Do you still want to examine what we should do with them? Or do you want to ignore the elephant in the room now that you are aware of the facts?

I corrected it before your post, btw, but good job ignoring that. I did miss that CMU was .500 in the MAC. They were sub .500 the year before and behind EMU in BOTH basketball and football last year.

Why don't we just look backwards from today and dump the teams that have proven the longest time they can't win championships in the major sports. That would be just as arbitrary as looking at attendance in a conference where the best football attendance is laughable in the big picture. Looking at performance is probably less so because it's about actual athletics.

You "corrected" your post and it was still factually inaccurate.

And you've been espousing a silly and unsupportable opinion since you came on here like a little one-trick troll pony. Now you want to claim you never make mistakes? I own up to mine. You?

Silly and unsupportable opinion? I post factual data and form logical opinions from that. The counter argument is always you posting "facts" that I prove to actually be completely untrue and then you resort to calling me a troll because you cannot debate on the basis of real facts.
Newsflash: my belief that EMU is not worth their weight in the MAC is not "trolling." It appears you don't know what trolling is. Shocking, axeme doesn't have any clue what he is talking about.
3 times in the last month you have made up facts when stating your arguments.
Its to the point where I read your post and instantly assume you made up everything you posted.

(02-25-2013 11:32 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 11:16 AM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 11:12 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  [quote='HuskieRak' pid='8989767' dateline='1361396214']

Let's not pretend kicking out EMU would suddenly make the MAC better... The Big East kicked out Temple for poor performance/attendance and it's not like their football stock soared.

Dropping EMU alone may not but who is to say that cutting EMU and replacing them with another program with more potential wouldn't make the MAC better in the long run. I wouldn't rule that out. I think we have seen a large enough sample over the last two decades of what they bring in hoops and football and maybe we should give someone else an at bat.

I would be all for the MAC enforcing some sort of standard for membership when it comes to the revenue sports. It would never happen but there are way too many candidates out there that could easily regularly draw better, spend more, and outperform a few current MAC programs in football and basketball.

(02-25-2013 01:18 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 12:01 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If EMU was in the East and played Akron, Buffalo and UMass in football every year would they have the worst record? I don't think so.

EMU's woes go on long before there was an East and West. Furthermore, the East competes against the West, the discrepency isn't so great.

That's not a satisfactory explanation.

EMU is in a tough spot. Period.

True, but last I checked Buffalo had a worse record than EMU in football. I don't think Akron is much different either. So if one is talking about a team that's dragging down the conference, there are others that are little different than EMU.

And there are of course, fewer games between divisions than within the division.

(02-25-2013 02:57 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  True, but last I checked Buffalo had a worse record than EMU in football. I don't think Akron is much different either. So if one is talking about a team that's dragging down the conference, there are others that are little different than EMU.

And there are of course, fewer games between divisions than within the division.

Since 2007

Buffalo 5-7, 8-6, 5-7, 2-10, 3-9, 4-8 = 27-47
EMU 4-8, 3-9, 0-12, 2-10, 6-6, 2-10 = 17-55

FWIW Buffalo's West games have typically been against the best teams in that division (the ones you're given EMU credit for)

2007 Toledo - Ball State
2008 CMU - WMU - Ball State
2009 CMU - WMU
2010 NIU - BSU - EMU
2011 NIU - EMU - BSU
2012 NIU - Toledo - WMU

(02-25-2013 02:02 PM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:15 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:04 PM)The Optimist Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 12:58 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 11:30 AM)The Optimist Wrote:  You really like making up "facts" for your posts, don't you?

According to my sources, CMU went .500 in the MAC in football and was above .500 overall in football. My sources also indicate that Buffalo is currently .500 in MAC play in men's basketball. Additionally, your sources missed another below .500 MAC team in men's hoops and football. Eastern Michigan. Perhaps you typed CMU instead of EMU incidentally?

Anyway, that would leave Miami and EMU. Bull_In_Exhile specified the MAC West, which (unfortunately) excludes Miami. That leaves EMU. Do you still want to examine what we should do with them? Or do you want to ignore the elephant in the room now that you are aware of the facts?

I corrected it before your post, btw, but good job ignoring that. I did miss that CMU was .500 in the MAC. They were sub .500 the year before and behind EMU in BOTH basketball and football last year.

Why don't we just look backwards from today and dump the teams that have proven the longest time they can't win championships in the major sports. That would be just as arbitrary as looking at attendance in a conference where the best football attendance is laughable in the big picture. Looking at performance is probably less so because it's about actual athletics.

You "corrected" your post and it was still factually inaccurate.

And you've been espousing a silly and unsupportable opinion since you came on here like a little one-trick troll pony. Now you want to claim you never make mistakes? I own up to mine. You?

Silly and unsupportable opinion? I post factual data and form logical opinions from that. The counter argument is always you posting "facts" that I prove to actually be completely untrue and then you resort to calling me a troll because you cannot debate on the basis of real facts.
Newsflash: my belief that EMU is not worth their weight in the MAC is not "trolling." It appears you don't know what trolling is. Shocking, axeme doesn't have any clue what he is talking about.
3 times in the last month you have made up facts when stating your arguments.
Its to the point where I read your post and instantly assume you made up everything you posted.

Trolling is bringing up the same crap about EMU in practically every thread you post in regardless if the thread is about EMU. Trolling is getting your jollies about posting the same thing over and over again and relishing all the negative attention. That's what trolls do. I think even people who question which schools they want in or out of the MAC in the endless (and mostly stupid) realignment threads that go nowhere see your contributions as childish. You are one of those "pay attention to me even it's negative" posters that populate these message boards with negativity, amusingly ironic given your screen name.

You want to keep harping on a couple of factual errors in my posts (that I quickly corrected, and have no problem doing so, btw) be my guest. Keep that tunnel vision. Stick to one or two ideas.

And you have never, not once, shown how eliminating a current MAC school clearly helps the conference overall. Those are the facts you need, not vague conjecture about image and perception. EMU has been competitive in both major sports: MAC title in football more recently than Ohio. MAC West basketball title last season. Strong in other sports on a national level. But you've heard all this before, and still you want to blah blah blah about attendance. One trick pony. Take attendance out of your argument and what is left? Air.

BACK ON SUBJECT... I wonder if anyone at the MAC offices has poked around to see if a few key-starter sponsors would be there for a MAC-Network launch. Being in production I can tell you that filling the air time would not be terribly expensive. Not sure about the full cost of covering our own games, but the talking head shows in between can be done well on a limited budget....

(02-25-2013 03:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 02:57 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  True, but last I checked Buffalo had a worse record than EMU in football. I don't think Akron is much different either. So if one is talking about a team that's dragging down the conference, there are others that are little different than EMU.

And there are of course, fewer games between divisions than within the division.

Since 2007

Buffalo 5-7, 8-6, 5-7, 2-10, 3-9, 4-8 = 27-47
EMU 4-8, 3-9, 0-12, 2-10, 6-6, 2-10 = 17-55

FWIW Buffalo's West games have typically been against the best teams in that division (the ones you're given EMU credit for)

2007 Toledo - Ball State
2008 CMU - WMU - Ball State
2009 CMU - WMU
2010 NIU - BSU - EMU
2011 NIU - EMU - BSU
2012 NIU - Toledo - WMU

I think I went back farther than 2007. I could be wrong.

(02-25-2013 05:56 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 03:26 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 02:57 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  True, but last I checked Buffalo had a worse record than EMU in football. I don't think Akron is much different either. So if one is talking about a team that's dragging down the conference, there are others that are little different than EMU.

And there are of course, fewer games between divisions than within the division.

Since 2007

Buffalo 5-7, 8-6, 5-7, 2-10, 3-9, 4-8 = 27-47
EMU 4-8, 3-9, 0-12, 2-10, 6-6, 2-10 = 17-55

FWIW Buffalo's West games have typically been against the best teams in that division (the ones you're given EMU credit for)

2007 Toledo - Ball State
2008 CMU - WMU - Ball State
2009 CMU - WMU
2010 NIU - BSU - EMU
2011 NIU - EMU - BSU
2012 NIU - Toledo - WMU

I think I went back farther than 2007. I could be wrong.

2006 is when Manuel was hired and UB got serious about improving in everything. Before then our budget was nothing (heck we jumped up in 1999 before we were ready).

(02-25-2013 03:46 PM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  BACK ON SUBJECT... I wonder if anyone at the MAC offices has poked around to see if a few key-starter sponsors would be there for a MAC-Network launch. Being in production I can tell you that filling the air time would not be terribly expensive. Not sure about the full cost of covering our own games, but the talking head shows in between can be done well on a limited budget....

No way that a MAC TV cable channel would work.

The MAC just needs to get an App for all of their streaming content so I can watch it on my smart TV and others on their smart devices.

I would pay $20 per year for that access...but really not much more.

They already have the content just need the app program to launch it.

(02-26-2013 10:02 AM)HuskieJohn Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 03:46 PM)NIUfilmmaker Wrote:  BACK ON SUBJECT... I wonder if anyone at the MAC offices has poked around to see if a few key-starter sponsors would be there for a MAC-Network launch. Being in production I can tell you that filling the air time would not be terribly expensive. Not sure about the full cost of covering our own games, but the talking head shows in between can be done well on a limited budget....

No way that a MAC TV cable channel would work.

The MAC just needs to get an App for all of their streaming content so I can watch it on my smart TV and others on their smart devices.

I would pay $20 per year for that access...but really not much more.

They already have the content just need the app program to launch it.

I think the MAC should think outside the Box and have the schools build a network not just for sports but also for educational programming.

There are some damn fine schools in the conference and having a camera in some classrooms so people can audit courses could fill content.

Huskie is right in that you can start with a 20$ year streaming service. Make sure it works on gaming platforms, tables/computers, and the roku. If you build enough interest there you can start to talk about selling content rights.