(06-03-2013 09:26 AM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  I just don't see the MAC going so "east" (e.g. Stony brook, etc.). As you've seen with UMASS, there is no interest for east coast fans to see MAC schools. So much talk about "expanding the footprint"...but the MAC is a very much a midwestern-based U.S. league, and when we think of expanding to me it makes more sense to push out the "footprint" to adjoining states (aka WKU although we missed the "boat" there, etc.), not in geographies where no one has ever heard of the MAC and have interest in watching their schools play our teams. I just don't see these "east coast" scenarios being of mutual benefit in the long run.....

Lts say UMASS decides they are not all in so they leave. Keep MAC at 12, stability is our greatest asset. Important to keep members in the MAC not looking for greener pastures, build off last season fb success. Continue to enhance athletic venues and keeping winning in OOC. This is what I would like to see

(06-03-2013 09:26 AM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  I just don't see the MAC going so "east" (e.g. Stony brook, etc.). As you've seen with UMASS, there is no interest for east coast fans to see MAC schools. So much talk about "expanding the footprint"...but the MAC is a very much a midwestern-based U.S. league, and when we think of expanding to me it makes more sense to push out the "footprint" to adjoining states (aka WKU although we missed the "boat" there, etc.), not in geographies where no one has ever heard of the MAC and have interest in watching their schools play our teams. I just don't see these "east coast" scenarios being of mutual benefit in the long run.....

I think a school like JMU wouldn't be pushing the footprint too far. UMass is too far though.

Finally we are having a good conversation.

Yes, when we propose adding an in-state rival, e.g., IL. State or Stony Brook, fans of the other MAC team in that state get upset. It becomes like UofM and MSU, state pride, and emotions get heated.

Personally, I think SUNY-UB vs. SUNY-SB would be GOOD for them and the MAC. Their annual FB game could be for the "SUNY Bowl".

I would like to see those two schools get into a spending war on athletics. Both schools have deep pockets. They are flag ship schools which can get $ from Albany or well healed donors.

As far as expansion contraction:

I ASSUME there is general agreement that one of these TWO SCENARIOS will be the ultimate fate of MAC expansion/contraction.

1). IF UMass signs on for all sports, we need #14. I propose Stony Brook as a very high ceiling, fast growing university/athletics not far from UMass. Other posters have different ideas for #14.

2). IF UMass does NOT sign-on for all sports, the MAC probably will ask them to terminate their FB membership and the MAC will remain at 12 schools probably for a very long time.

I further believe the following scenario very UNLIKELY to occur:

Drop UMass because they won't sign-on for all sports BUT add TWO different schools, e.g., JMU, Delaware.

I believe if UMass experiment fails, the MAC will have had enough of UCF, Temple and UMass and quit trying to expand.

(06-03-2013 10:19 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Finally we are having a good conversation.

Yes, when we propose adding an in-state rival, e.g., IL. State or Stony Brook, fans of the other MAC team in that state get upset. It becomes like UofM and MSU, state pride, and emotions get heated.

Personally, I think SUNY-UB vs. SUNY-SB would be GOOD for them and the MAC. Their annual FB game could be for the "SUNY Bowl".

I would like to see those two schools get into a spending war on athletics. Both schools have deep pockets. They are flag ship schools which can get $ from Albany or well healed donors.

As far as expansion contraction:

I ASSUME there is general agreement that one of these TWO SCENARIOS will be the ultimate fate of MAC expansion/contraction.

1). IF UMass signs on for all sports, we need #14. I propose Stony Brook as a very high ceiling, fast growing university/athletics not far from UMass. Other posters have different ideas for #14.

2). IF UMass does NOT sign-on for all sports, the MAC probably will ask them to terminate their FB membership and the MAC will remain at 12 schools probably for a very long time.

I further believe the following scenario very UNLIKELY to occur:

Drop UMass because they won't sign-on for all sports BUT add TWO different schools, e.g., JMU, Delaware.

I believe if UMass experiment fails, the MAC will have had enough of UCF, Temple and UMass and quit trying to expand.

I am not knocking stoney brook but I do not see them in the MAC as their stadium only holds 8,300k with no plans of expansion at least on their athletic site

(06-02-2013 07:43 PM)axeme Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 07:34 PM)Steve86 Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 06:27 PM)UMassD Wrote:  Source?

Go read in the link in the first post.

No substantial source. Guy probably has just been reading this board. nothing new, really.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was getting at.

Quote:2). SB has close to 25K students and is still growing. They will become the largest MAC school shortly (expected 30K within 10 years). I believe UB is the largest MAC school at 28K. Correct?

UB is expected to be in the mid 30 to high 30's within ten years. Buffalo has been ahead of the Curve in the SUNY system since it's inception.

Quote:Guys, please take a few minutes to ready SB's story.

Listen carefully. If you stick UB and Stony Brook in the same conference they will eat each others recruits alive and both will be lesser schools for it.

(06-03-2013 09:26 AM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  I just don't see the MAC going so "east" (e.g. Stony brook, etc.). As you've seen with UMASS, there is no interest for east coast fans to see MAC schools. So much talk about "expanding the footprint"...but the MAC is a very much a midwestern-based U.S. league, and when we think of expanding to me it makes more sense to push out the "footprint" to adjoining states (aka WKU although we missed the "boat" there, etc.), not in geographies where no one has ever heard of the MAC and have interest in watching their schools play our teams. I just don't see these "east coast" scenarios being of mutual benefit in the long run.....

From the Mr. SEC blog there are a lot of MAC fans in north Virginia and Delaware region. I think a couple on this board live there (EMU Steve for one)

"Delany pointed out yesterday that the Big Ten has 1.2 million alumni living between Northern Virginia and New York. Not bad for a conference that’s not even located in the area."

Average MAC enrollment is 23,000 students about 2/3rd of the 36,000 Big Ten enrollment, so there are perhaps 800,000 MAC alumni in that same area.

(06-03-2013 10:48 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:2). SB has close to 25K students and is still growing. They will become the largest MAC school shortly (expected 30K within 10 years). I believe UB is the largest MAC school at 28K. Correct?

UB is expected to be in the mid 30 to high 30's within ten years. Buffalo has been ahead of the Curve in the SUNY system since it's inception.

Quote:Guys, please take a few minutes to ready SB's story.

Listen carefully. If you stick UB and Stony Brook in the same conference they will eat each others recruits alive and both will be lesser schools for it.

Okay, UB and SB could be #1 and #2 in the MAC. Being #2 is no sin.

In the short run, there could be in-state fighting for recruits (if there isn't already) but in the long run it could cause EACH to raise their recruiting.

(06-02-2013 09:09 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 08:04 PM)ilovegymnast Wrote:  If it is true then the timing is lining up with JMU's feasibility study. I could see UMass asking for the "ultimatum" so they can use it to join all sports and putting the blame on the MAC.

This also lines up with the MAC Grant of rights and the new ESPN TV deal negotiation.

Mid-July:

- James Madison receives their awaited CAA conference money.
- James Madison has said their FBS study will be ready
- Old Dominion beat writer says JMU likely to MAC and Old Dominion is looking to schedule a long-term scheduling agreement as an OOC rival.
- CBS Sports says MAC Grant of Rights being discussed
- CBS Sports says ESPN and MAC renegotiating TV Deal.
- Kent State President has confirmed the MAC has talked to a "Virginia School"
- Delaware beat writer has been quoted that Delaware has studied joining the MAC since back in April
- James Madison beat writer has said JMU not interested in the Sun Belt but was interested in CUSA and also the MAC. CUSA may have been their first choice, but has since closed that door.
- UMass Coach Molnar recently quoted saying UMass will be playing mid-week MAC games on campus starting in 2014.
- Atlantic 10 has been quietly talking to Siena which sits right next to UMass


I'm sure there is more I have forgotten or have left out, but there is plenty of smoke indicating UMass and James Madison on their way soon.

I would also add this comment from Pete Lembo a couple weeks back to your timeline:

"Productive #MAC football meetings in AZ the last two days. Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher has a great vision for our conference."

Based on this I highly doubt the MAC is looking to drop down to 12 and sit tight for the long haul. The vision for the conference is not to go back to 12 and remain status. That won't achieve anything. There will be movement here at some point, hopefully soon.

(06-03-2013 10:26 AM)cmufanatic Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 10:19 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Finally we are having a good conversation.

Yes, when we propose adding an in-state rival, e.g., IL. State or Stony Brook, fans of the other MAC team in that state get upset. It becomes like UofM and MSU, state pride, and emotions get heated.

Personally, I think SUNY-UB vs. SUNY-SB would be GOOD for them and the MAC. Their annual FB game could be for the "SUNY Bowl".

I would like to see those two schools get into a spending war on athletics. Both schools have deep pockets. They are flag ship schools which can get $ from Albany or well healed donors.

As far as expansion contraction:

I ASSUME there is general agreement that one of these TWO SCENARIOS will be the ultimate fate of MAC expansion/contraction.

1). IF UMass signs on for all sports, we need #14. I propose Stony Brook as a very high ceiling, fast growing university/athletics not far from UMass. Other posters have different ideas for #14.

2). IF UMass does NOT sign-on for all sports, the MAC probably will ask them to terminate their FB membership and the MAC will remain at 12 schools probably for a very long time.

I further believe the following scenario very UNLIKELY to occur:

Drop UMass because they won't sign-on for all sports BUT add TWO different schools, e.g., JMU, Delaware.

I believe if UMass experiment fails, the MAC will have had enough of UCF, Temple and UMass and quit trying to expand.

I am not knocking stoney brook but I do not see them in the MAC as their stadium only holds 8,300k with no plans of expansion at least on their athletic site

Not far off normal MAC attendance figures.

(06-03-2013 10:48 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

Quote:2). SB has close to 25K students and is still growing. They will become the largest MAC school shortly (expected 30K within 10 years). I believe UB is the largest MAC school at 28K. Correct?

UB is expected to be in the mid 30 to high 30's within ten years. Buffalo has been ahead of the Curve in the SUNY system since it's inception.

Quote:Guys, please take a few minutes to ready SB's story.

Listen carefully. If you stick UB and Stony Brook in the same conference they will eat each others recruits alive and both will be lesser schools for it.

The solution to that problem is to not stick Stonybrook anywhere.

(06-03-2013 11:04 AM)emu steve Wrote:  In the short run, there could be in-state fighting for recruits (if there isn't already) but in the long run it could cause EACH to raise their recruiting.

No it won't.. Adding another school won't make the pool of recruits any bigger.

Also with Buffalo trying to establish the Brand "New York" because were the only FBS state school bringing Stony brook in would be a kick to the groin.

I'd never call for UB to leave the MAC for anything but a contract conference, not even the AAC but if the MAC knee capped us like this you could bet the fan base would go nuts.

For that reason alone UB would vote no to SB, and I assume via horse trading they could keep SB out of the conference..

Population of New York- 19.3 million.
NY FBS schools- 3
NY FBS schools in MAC- 1

Population of Ohio- 11.4 million.
Ohio FBS schools- 8
Ohio FBS schools in MAC- 6

Population of Michigan- 8.7 million
Michigan FBS schools- 5
Michigan FBS schools in MAC- 3

sorry Bull, you're not going to find much sympathy for in state competition from MAC fans.

(06-03-2013 08:19 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 02:44 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  this is the craziest thing I've read in a long time.

Stony Brook has potential? what a bogus word. it just means they haven't done anything yet and you HOPE they will. Every team has potential in the beginning. Buffalo had more potential when we added them than SB does today and UB has had 1 winning season in 14 years in the MAC. There's nothing to suggest SB would be any better than UB other than your fantasies of a different outcome.

Potential is a word that should never be used to justify the addition of an unproven program to a stable conference.

May I say I completely DISAGREE with you:

I've been following the MAC for over two decades.

UB and SB are both SUNY flagship schools but were facing very, very difference circumstances in 1996 (UB) and SB (currently).

UB was clearly not ready for FBS. They had not proved themselves at the next lower level. They were added because the MAC wanted a television market (Buffalo) as if MAC teams bring television markets.

Where is SB today:

1) Ranked #57 in the Sagarins for men's hoops (2012/2013) which is higher than ALL MAC teams for this past season.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sa...kc1213.htm

2). SB football handily beat Army in 2012 and had a led on Syracuse late in that game (both games 2012). SB (2012) was clearly a better team than UB (2012).

3). SB went to the College World Series in 2012. (Top 8 teams go to Omaha).

UB athletics in 1996 couldn't hold a candle to any of those.

In short, UB (1996) and SB (2013) - apples and oranges...

1. Hoops argument? The team that has ZERO NCAA tournament appearances, that's your idea of adding a good team?

2. SB beat Army? Newsflash: everyone beat Army. EMU beat Army. And we should have higher standards than "they are as good as EMU".

3. No one cares about baseball.

4. Being better than UB was 15 years ago is not good enough.

You're basing every thing on HOPES and DREAMS.

and for the millionth time-
THE MAC IS NOT IN SURVIVAL MODE
AND DOES NOT NEED TO ADD
MORE TEAMS TO THE BOTTOM.

there is no benefit to having more than 12 teams.

(06-03-2013 12:19 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 08:19 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 02:44 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  this is the craziest thing I've read in a long time.

Stony Brook has potential? what a bogus word. it just means they haven't done anything yet and you HOPE they will. Every team has potential in the beginning. Buffalo had more potential when we added them than SB does today and UB has had 1 winning season in 14 years in the MAC. There's nothing to suggest SB would be any better than UB other than your fantasies of a different outcome.

Potential is a word that should never be used to justify the addition of an unproven program to a stable conference.

May I say I completely DISAGREE with you:

I've been following the MAC for over two decades.

UB and SB are both SUNY flagship schools but were facing very, very difference circumstances in 1996 (UB) and SB (currently).

UB was clearly not ready for FBS. They had not proved themselves at the next lower level. They were added because the MAC wanted a television market (Buffalo) as if MAC teams bring television markets.

Where is SB today:

1) Ranked #57 in the Sagarins for men's hoops (2012/2013) which is higher than ALL MAC teams for this past season.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/sa...kc1213.htm

2). SB football handily beat Army in 2012 and had a led on Syracuse late in that game (both games 2012). SB (2012) was clearly a better team than UB (2012).

3). SB went to the College World Series in 2012. (Top 8 teams go to Omaha).

UB athletics in 1996 couldn't hold a candle to any of those.

In short, UB (1996) and SB (2013) - apples and oranges...

1. Hoops argument? The team that has ZERO NCAA tournament appearances, that's your idea of adding a good team?

2. SB beat Army? Newsflash: everyone beat Army. EMU beat Army. And we should have higher standards than "they are as good as EMU".

3. No one cares about baseball.

4. Being better than UB was 15 years ago is not good enough.

You're basing every thing on HOPES and DREAMS.

and for the millionth time-
THE MAC IS NOT IN SURVIVAL MODE
AND DOES NOT NEED TO ADD
MORE TEAMS TO THE BOTTOM.

there is no benefit to having more than 12 teams.

Actually I think SB is better than UB in the past 12 months in FB, Hoops and baseball.

Matter of fact, SB hoops was better than all of the MAC hoops this past season according to the Sagarins.

Where did this 15 years ago come from?????

(06-03-2013 10:48 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Listen carefully. If you stick UB and Stony Brook in the same conference they will eat each others recruits alive and both will be lesser schools for it.

But they won't need to. You point out that there are not enough FBS recruits in New York for another program, but don't forget there are other states which produce as many or fewer FBS recruits as NY but can support 1 or 2 FBS programs (WV, AR, ID, NM, NV, MA, NE, etc.). In any given season there are usually 50-75 NY players on FBS rosters. UB usually has the most. Syracuse grabs some top NY talent but most of their roster, as their general student population, are out-of-state. Army as a federal school recruits and retains very few NY-based players.

(06-03-2013 11:37 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 11:04 AM)emu steve Wrote:  In the short run, there could be in-state fighting for recruits (if there isn't already) but in the long run it could cause EACH to raise their recruiting.

No it won't.. Adding another school won't make the pool of recruits any bigger.

Also with Buffalo trying to establish the Brand "New York" because were the only FBS state school bringing Stony brook in would be a kick to the groin.

I'd never call for UB to leave the MAC for anything but a contract conference, not even the AAC but if the MAC knee capped us like this you could bet the fan base would go nuts.

For that reason alone UB would vote no to SB, and I assume via horse trading they could keep SB out of the conference..

At least he speaks the truth: Sibling rivalry.

(06-03-2013 12:19 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  You're basing every thing on HOPES and DREAMS.

And you are basing your arguments on a somewhat flawed point, that conferences cannot add FCS members because they weaken the overall league. How did having UMass around hurt NIU getting to the Orange Bowl or the league gaining 6 bowl bids? It didn't.

What you call hopes and dreams is potential in revenues, exposure, institutional fit, and potential bowl additions. That's what conferences run toward with their additions.

(06-03-2013 12:35 PM)emu steve Wrote:  Matter of fact, SB hoops was better than all of the MAC hoops this past season according to the Sagarins.

Sagarins are only a measure of odds based on schedule strength. In the official NCAA RPI rankings Ohio and Akron were ahead of SBU.

(06-03-2013 01:16 PM)emu steve Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 11:37 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 11:04 AM)emu steve Wrote:  In the short run, there could be in-state fighting for recruits (if there isn't already) but in the long run it could cause EACH to raise their recruiting.

No it won't.. Adding another school won't make the pool of recruits any bigger.

Also with Buffalo trying to establish the Brand "New York" because were the only FBS state school bringing Stony brook in would be a kick to the groin.

I'd never call for UB to leave the MAC for anything but a contract conference, not even the AAC but if the MAC knee capped us like this you could bet the fan base would go nuts.

For that reason alone UB would vote no to SB, and I assume via horse trading they could keep SB out of the conference..

At least he speaks the truth: Sibling rivalry.

See my post above. Adding additional FBS teams won't crush recruiting for UB or SBU. Most of UB's have been local (Buffalo/Rochester) while Stony Brook's are Downstate.

And from what I've heard in talking about Stony Brook to people in UB athletics they are not against them. Don't forget UB and SBU have the best relations between all the SUNY Centers, collaborating within research consortia, meeting to discuss advancing their places in the system as the only AAU's, openly dealing with hosting SBU for a pay-day (we don't schedule them for MBB as UB generally hasn't gone for any America East school). It would be Tripathi voting to add SBU, not White,

(06-03-2013 12:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Population of New York- 19.3 million.
NY FBS schools- 3
NY FBS schools in MAC- 1

Population of Ohio- 11.4 million.
Ohio FBS schools- 8
Ohio FBS schools in MAC- 6

Population of Michigan- 8.7 million
Michigan FBS schools- 5
Michigan FBS schools in MAC- 3

sorry Bull, you're not going to find much sympathy for in state competition from MAC fans.

Ummm yea about that..
State - D1 Rcts12 - Players - Ratio
Ohio 144 55,027 382
New York 29 38,354 1323

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1182411

29... There were 29 d1 recruits from NY, ohio had 7 times that many!

NY is not a big HS football state, Ohio and Michigan are..