Dr Torch hit the nail on the head in the ESPN thread... Some schools are actively trying to improve, some schools it is tough to tell, and then we have a couple schools who really don't look like they have any interest in attempting to fund their program to compete at the D-1 level in the money sports.
Quote:NIU, Buffalo, Ohio and Akron- Overtly active in trying to improve athletics, and institutions as a whole.
Toledo- pushing forward, but slower pace.
Kent, CMU, WMU, Ball St- Not fully idle, but squandered opportunities. Give appearance of accepting status quo. Perhaps improved status quo from 20 years ago, or perhaps not.
The remaining three- Fair to question their committment to improvement.
Spme of the schools who aren't actively trying to improve may just be in a rough spot in their trustee/president history with a leader who doesn't see the value in investing in this area.
However, one of those schools should have never even tried to compete at this level in the first place. The demographics and academic structure just isn't there. D-1 athletics isn't for community colleges.
...
As long as the system is structured so that conferences share revenue for individual teams national success (NIU's massive bowl payout, the lesser amount we receive from wins in the NCAA tournament, and the amount of money successful programs are able to attract from TV viewership agreements) I think it is completely fair to question your financial conference partners level of commitment.
There are a couple schools willing to invest big money in athletic programs to hopefully get big exposure that enhances the value of a degree from the University not to mention a financial return on that investment.
Then you have a couple schools who have no interest in putting up the funding necessary to win at the highest level of college athletics yet they get a cut of the pie when their conference mates who are trying have success.
There are programs out there who are willing to make the investments necessary to win at this level. A couple of these programs would fit with the demographics of this conference.
The MAC would be better off if it was made up entirely of programs committed to competing at this level.
Until that happens, the complaints of donors from committed programs is justified.
A silly argument from people defending mediocrity is "well then go join another conference." That is ridiculous. The MAC is completely capable of being a successful conference when the programs who have no interest in competing at this level admit they are just here for free money and leave. Or the conference gets a real leader who is willing to cut off the leaches.
The potential is here. Stop identifying with the leaches and dream bigger.