(03-28-2014 01:09 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Longhorn,

My objection has nothing to do with "fcs" schools but m,ore due to the fact I don't consider a 16 team mid major conference a stable entity. Someday if the FBS goes to 14 games then maybe.

Fair enough, appreciate the feedback. 16 is a big number to manage, even if divided into a minimum of two 8 team divisions.

What factors in your opinion would make 16 more unstable than 12 or 14?

Given the ongoing potential for other conferences to raid one another (such as the oft repeated suggestions that Ohio might leave the MAC for the ACC), even a super-compact 12 team league may not be stable.

Seems to me that not just to survive, but to thrive in today's mashup of athletic conferences, a smart conference needs to "bulk up" so-to-speak by adding like schools to protect themselves from having sand kicked in their face.

For what it's worth, I admire the MAC, and certainly hope JMU's upper-administration can elicit a full-membership invitation from your conference.

That's just one DELUSIONAL oHIo Boobcats fan.

oHIo is 10 games under .500 all-time in football, haven't won a MAC football Championship since 1968, the longest drought of ANY CURRENT MAC team (including teams that joined as early as the 90's) and a FORMER member. oHIo is in their "Golden Era" of football and they're averaging a 7-6 season during that time.

Plus they are located in the boonies and bring no market.

oHIo isn't going anywhere and NO Conference is even considering them.

Most Recent MAC Football Championship
2013 - BGSU*
2012 - NIU*
2010 - Miami*
2009 - Central Michigan*
2008 - Buffalo
2005 - Akron
2004 - Toledo*
2002 - Marshall*
1996 - Ball State*
1988 - WMU
1987 - EMU
1972 - Kent State
1968 - oHIo

* Denotes MULTIPLE Championships since oHIo last won.

(03-28-2014 01:32 PM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:09 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Longhorn,

My objection has nothing to do with "fcs" schools but m,ore due to the fact I don't consider a 16 team mid major conference a stable entity. Someday if the FBS goes to 14 games then maybe.

Fair enough, appreciate the feedback. 16 is a big number to manage, even if divided into a minimum of two 8 team divisions.

What factors in your opinion would make 16 more unstable than 12 or 14?

Given the ongoing potential for other conferences to raid one another (such as the oft repeated suggestions that Ohio might leave the MAC for the ACC), even a super-compact 12 team league may not be stable.

Seems to me that not just to survive, but to thrive in today's mashup of athletic conferences, a smart conference needs to "bulk up" so-to-speak by adding like schools to protect themselves from having sand kicked in their face.

For what it's worth, I admire the MAC, and certainly hope JMU's upper-administration can elicit a full-membership invitation from your conference.

That's just one DELUSIONAL oHIo Boobcats fan.

oHIo is 10 games under .500 all-time in football, haven't won a MAC football Championship since 1968, the longest drought of ANY CURRENT MAC team (including teams that joined as early as the 90's) and a FORMER member. oHIo is in their "Golden Era" of football and they're averaging a 7-6 season during that time.

Plus they are located in the boonies and bring no market.

oHIo isn't going anywhere and NO Conference is even considering them.

Most Recent MAC Football Championship
2013 - BGSU*
2012 - NIU*
2010 - Miami*
2009 - Central Michigan*
2008 - Buffalo
2005 - Akron
2004 - Toledo*
2002 - Marshall*
1996 - Ball State*
1988 - WMU
1987 - EMU
1972 - Kent State
1968 - oHIo

* Denotes MULTIPLE Championships since oHIo last won.

Well, aren't you just a nice person. I think we all know the one Ohio person of which you speak, but I don't see why you have to respond with all of the &

I am NOT saying, REPEAT NOT SAYING, that Ohio is being considered for a move up, but there are plenty of upsides to this school in the "boonies" with over 35,000 total students! Why the hate?

Not hate, just fact.

Direct your frustration to the embarrassment that goes by the name of [insert one of many screen names here].

(03-28-2014 01:09 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  What factors in your opinion would make 16 more unstable than 12 or 14?

A Go5 conference will want to limit it to eight conference games ... with 16, that is either two divisions seeing cross division opponents one in eight years, hosting them one in sixteen years, or the WAC kind of pod arrangement which seems custom-made to breed a breakaway conference.

Quote: Given the ongoing potential for other conferences to raid one another (such as the oft repeated suggestions that Ohio might leave the MAC for the ACC), even a super-compact 12 team league may not be stable.

That does not imply that being at 14 despite 12 being a better financial deal for the members is preferable ... the schools that the MAC would prefer to have in the event of a raid would depend on which school was raided, so it could well be that the move made in reaction to the actual raid is a better strategic move than the move made because "maybe one day we'll be raided".

Everything else equal, being at 12 is the preferable alignment for a Go5 conference ~ including when per school CFP distributions level out, and that ability to play cross division two years in four on average on an eight game conference schedule so a more cohesive football conference. There are divisional alignment issues in the MAC which might be seen as leveling that a bit for 14, if the two are toward the east, but that's not even there for 16.

Plus there are upside possibilities that are not on the table at the moment which might be at whatever time the MAC might be raided in the future, and taking two schools on the off-chance that there might be a raid of some undetermined school at some undetermined number of years into the future could well foreclose those opportunities.

Better to play it straight ... look at the options available, get advice from our broadcast partners as to whether any move is a value-plus move per school, and move if there is an opportunity that represent both good fits to the MAC and a value-plus move in the eyes of our broadcast partners.

(03-28-2014 02:47 PM)TARDledo Wrote:  Not hate, just fact.

Direct your frustration to the embarrassment that goes by the name of [insert one of many screen names here].

What a terrible thing to say. Why, IMV, OhioU has every bit as much chance of being the target of a raid as Akron or Kent or MiamiU or Toledo or Bowling Green or WMU or CMU or Ball State. Indeed, I would argue a better chance than EMU.

(03-28-2014 03:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:09 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  What factors in your opinion would make 16 more unstable than 12 or 14?

A Go5 conference will want to limit it to eight conference games ... with 16, that is either two divisions seeing cross division opponents one in eight years, hosting them one in sixteen years, or the WAC kind of pod arrangement which seems custom-made to bread a breakaway conference.

I love breakaway bread!

(03-28-2014 03:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:09 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  What factors in your opinion would make 16 more unstable than 12 or 14?

A Go5 conference will want to limit it to eight conference games ... with 16, that is either two divisions seeing cross division opponents one in eight years, hosting them one in sixteen years, or the WAC kind of pod arrangement which seems custom-made to bread a breakaway conference.

Quote: Given the ongoing potential for other conferences to raid one another (such as the oft repeated suggestions that Ohio might leave the MAC for the ACC), even a super-compact 12 team league may not be stable.

That does not imply that being at 14 despite 12 being a better financial deal for the members is preferable ... the schools that the MAC would prefer to have in the event of a raid would depend on which school was raided, so it could well be that the move made in reaction to the actual raid is a better strategic move than the move made because "maybe one day we'll be raided".

Everything else equal, being at 12 is the preferable alignment for a Go5 conference ~ including when per school CFP distributions level out, and that ability to play cross division two years in four on average on an eight game conference schedule so a more cohesive football conference. There are divisional alignment issues in the MAC which might be seen as leveling that a bit for 14, if the two are toward the east, but that's not even there for 16.

Plus there are upside possibilities that are not on the table at the moment which might be at whatever time the MAC might be raided in the future, and taking two schools on the off-chance that there might be a raid of some undetermined school at some undetermined number of years into the future could well foreclose those opportunities.

Better to play it straight ... look at the options available, get advice from our broadcast partners as to whether any move is a value-plus move per school, and move if there is an opportunity that represent both good fits to the MAC and a value-plus move in the eyes of our broadcast partners.

That's assuming there will necessarily be candidates available. Who's really prepared for FBS right now? JMU. Liberty. And the MAC wouldn't take Liberty. If JMU's gone, the choices will probably be slim, and will probably still not align geographically with what the MAC wants after whichever MAC team leaves. Just a thought.

(03-28-2014 03:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='Longhorn' pid='10610617' dateline='1396030148']

Quote: Given the ongoing potential for other conferences to raid one another (such as the oft repeated suggestions that Ohio might leave the MAC for the ACC), even a super-compact 12 team league may not be stable.

That does not imply that being at 14 despite 12 being a better financial deal for the members is preferable ... the schools that the MAC would prefer to have in the event of a raid would depend on which school was raided, so it could well be that the move made in reaction to the actual raid is a better strategic move than the move made because "maybe one day we'll be raided".

Everything else equal, being at 12 is the preferable alignment for a Go5 conference ~ including when per school CFP distributions level out, and that ability to play cross division two years in four on average on an eight game conference schedule so a more cohesive football conference. There are divisional alignment issues in the MAC which might be seen as leveling that a bit for 14, if the two are toward the east, but that's not even there for 16.

I could go either way on it... When you're at 12 you can pick very carefully from a position of strength and be deliberate about it. If you find yourself at 11 suddenly your hand is weaker.

Still not weak enough to hurt too much I suppose.

Quote:Better to play it straight ... look at the options available, get advice from our broadcast partners as to whether any move is a value-plus move per school, and move if there is an opportunity that represent both good fits to the MAC and a value-plus move in the eyes of our broadcast partners.

And this is true wisdom..

(03-28-2014 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 03:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:09 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  What factors in your opinion would make 16 more unstable than 12 or 14?

A Go5 conference will want to limit it to eight conference games ... with 16, that is either two divisions seeing cross division opponents one in eight years, hosting them one in sixteen years, or the WAC kind of pod arrangement which seems custom-made to bread a breakaway conference.

Quote: Given the ongoing potential for other conferences to raid one another (such as the oft repeated suggestions that Ohio might leave the MAC for the ACC), even a super-compact 12 team league may not be stable.

That does not imply that being at 14 despite 12 being a better financial deal for the members is preferable ... the schools that the MAC would prefer to have in the event of a raid would depend on which school was raided, so it could well be that the move made in reaction to the actual raid is a better strategic move than the move made because "maybe one day we'll be raided".

Everything else equal, being at 12 is the preferable alignment for a Go5 conference ~ including when per school CFP distributions level out, and that ability to play cross division two years in four on average on an eight game conference schedule so a more cohesive football conference. There are divisional alignment issues in the MAC which might be seen as leveling that a bit for 14, if the two are toward the east, but that's not even there for 16.

Plus there are upside possibilities that are not on the table at the moment which might be at whatever time the MAC might be raided in the future, and taking two schools on the off-chance that there might be a raid of some undetermined school at some undetermined number of years into the future could well foreclose those opportunities.

Better to play it straight ... look at the options available, get advice from our broadcast partners as to whether any move is a value-plus move per school, and move if there is an opportunity that represent both good fits to the MAC and a value-plus move in the eyes of our broadcast partners.

That's assuming there will necessarily be candidates available. Who's really prepared for FBS right now? JMU. Liberty.

Missouri St. Towson. Delaware.

But most people here believe keeping the MAC together. I'm not sure that's in anyone's best interest except for Steinbrecher.

I'm still giggling over the phrase "Blue-blood MAC fans."

(03-28-2014 12:24 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  I realize the blue blood MAC fans might choke on the suggestion of adding 4 FCS schools at once, but I think the 4 schools represent the cream of the crop of available large public institutions along the mid-Atlantic and northern markets, and a bold move like this could generate great interest $$-wise from the TV media types when negotiating broadcast rights.

If JMU is serious about joining the MAC they need to partner with ODU and approach MAC leadership as a united front.

I re-posted on the "What the MAC should do" thread the coverage map of the MAC's regional TV partner and adding a University in Virginia could benefit the MAC. Adding a relatively travel friendly ready-made rivalry with competitive basketball and soccer programs (and with one of those already FBS and an affiliate wrestling member) from Virginia can be a real possibility.

Let your University President know.

(03-28-2014 08:57 AM)D.A. Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:20 PM)jjmc85 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:26 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  2-22 in conference play...they are a bad, bad, bad, bad football program. Those 2 wins were vs 0-12 and 1-11 teams. Good luck to them but the MAC is better Or wayyyy less crappy with them somewhere else.

Granted, UMass has been bad, but how has that hurt the MAC at all? In the two years in UMass has been in the MAC, the Conference had it's only BCS bowl berth and almost had a second. And UMass played NIU both those seasons too, so it's not like playing UMass ruined their strength of schedule in any significant way. While UMass definitely hasn't contributed on the field, it's not like the Minutemen have hurt the league either. Or am I wrong?

You're conference is no longer one that has been burnt by all football affiliate members. As a University, we lived up to the agreement we made.

And the same can be said for the four MAC BB games on UMASS hoops schedule. Aside from the NIU game (which was not the worst RPI game on your schedule this year), your program had three double digit RPI opponents in the MAC, so we were not a hindrance to you making the NCAA tourney.

And I said the MAC was a hinderance when???

(03-28-2014 08:50 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:49 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  after all we did for UMass, getting them to the big leagues while letting them protect their over rated bball team? Heck, they should pay us the $500k as a thank you.

Sorry for trolling but didn't everyone say this was going to happen three years ago when the announcement was made. Back then (before the ground moved) it was clear UMass was using the MAC as a stepping stone to the Big East. Why the shock and indignation now?

Not really sure what the MAC can do other than helping to lead the charge of G5 conferences to band together in order to not be steam-rolled by the P5's. Kinda like the old AFL/NFL days, we need our Al Davis' and Lamar Hunt's to get out there.

[/soapbox]

the MAC had zero intention of helping UMass get to another conference. UMass was added to provide a balance of 14 teams, not be a benevolent benefactor to an aspirational FCS program. Once Temple left it wasn't prudent to replace them until UMass fully committed, so UMass was asked to fully commit. They declined.

(03-28-2014 09:12 PM)jjmc85 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:57 AM)D.A. Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:20 PM)jjmc85 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:26 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  2-22 in conference play...they are a bad, bad, bad, bad football program. Those 2 wins were vs 0-12 and 1-11 teams. Good luck to them but the MAC is better Or wayyyy less crappy with them somewhere else.

Granted, UMass has been bad, but how has that hurt the MAC at all? In the two years in UMass has been in the MAC, the Conference had it's only BCS bowl berth and almost had a second. And UMass played NIU both those seasons too, so it's not like playing UMass ruined their strength of schedule in any significant way. While UMass definitely hasn't contributed on the field, it's not like the Minutemen have hurt the league either. Or am I wrong?

You're conference is no longer one that has been burnt by all football affiliate members. As a University, we lived up to the agreement we made.

And the same can be said for the four MAC BB games on UMASS hoops schedule. Aside from the NIU game (which was not the worst RPI game on your schedule this year), your program had three double digit RPI opponents in the MAC, so we were not a hindrance to you making the NCAA tourney.

And I said the MAC was a hinderance when???

You didn't, merely pointing out that the MAC hoops teams did not stand in the way of UMASS hoops success, much the same as you were trying to point out that UMASS FB did not stand in the way of the MACs FB success.

I don't know why some of the MAC fans are being hostile about this. UMASS would have been a great addition if they were full members but it just wasn't workable for the MAC and the Minutemen. Time to move on and wish them well.

(03-28-2014 09:59 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The MAC had zero intention of helping UMass get to another conference. UMass was added to provide a balance of 14 teams, not be a benevolent benefactor to an aspirational FCS program. Once Temple left it wasn't prudent to replace them until UMass fully committed, so UMass was asked to fully commit. They declined.

Pretty much ... the MAC would have known that UMass was likely to go, but once Temple decided to leave, over half the reason to want UMass as FB-only went with them. The main remaining reason to keep them FB-only would be if the contract partner had advised that UMass FB-only plus some other available eastern school was worth a bump to the per-school contract value. So it would seem that sometime last year they got the advice that, no, UMass-FB-only plus some other available schools wasn't going to deliver a bump.

If UMass works out a football only agreement with the Sunbelt it would only make sense for them and for the MAC to part ways. For UMass to become a winning football program they have to recruit talent outside of New England as that region cannot support 3 FBS football programs.

More FBS level football talent available in TX(TX ST) Georgia(Ga So) & Alabama(Troy) than in MI(5 programs) OH(8programs) and IN(4 programs) that have more FBS programs than what their talent levels can support.

(03-29-2014 08:41 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  I don't know why some of the MAC fans are being hostile about this.

Because its the internet, and haters gonna hate ... its what they do.

I've got nothing against UMass ... having UMass FB-only made sense when Temple was in the MAC FB-only, which is why the contract was set up the way it was.

(03-29-2014 12:34 PM)Policiious Wrote:  More FBS level football talent available in TX(TX ST) Georgia(Ga So) & Alabama(Troy) than in MI(5 programs) OH(8programs) and IN(4 programs) that have more FBS programs than what their talent levels can support.

Indeed, it seems likely there is more FBS level football talent in Texas OR Georgia than in MI+OH+IN combined. Of course, the Texas talent pool is heavily fished by the entirety of the Big12 and the Georgia talent pool heavily fished by the FBS schools in every neighboring state ... but it still makes a fine talking point if the Sunbelt is turned down by JMU and turns to UMass to get them to a CCG.

(03-29-2014 01:10 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 08:41 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  I don't know why some of the MAC fans are being hostile about this.

Because its the internet, and haters gonna hate ... its what they do.

I've got nothing against UMass ... having UMass FB-only made sense when Temple was in the MAC FB-only, which is why the contract was set up the way it was.

(03-29-2014 12:34 PM)Policiious Wrote:  More FBS level football talent available in TX(TX ST) Georgia(Ga So) & Alabama(Troy) than in MI(5 programs) OH(8programs) and IN(4 programs) that have more FBS programs than what their talent levels can support.

Indeed, it seems likely there is more FBS level football talent in Texas OR Georgia than in MI+OH+IN combined. Of course, the Texas talent pool is heavily fished by the entirety of the Big12 and the Georgia talent pool heavily fished by the FBS schools in every neighboring state ... but it still makes a fine talking point if the Sunbelt is tued down by JMU and turns to UMass to get them to a CCG.

I wasn't stating that the talent pool of any one of the individual states mentioned (TX, GA, AL) was greater than the entirety of the MI, OH & IN talent pool combined. However you add the talent pool of the 3 Sunbelt states mentioned vs that of the 3 states that contain 10 of the MAC's 12 programs and it's not close. MI(5), OH(8) & IN(4) have 17 FBS programs while GA has only 3, Alabama 4 and TX has 12 it's population is nearly equal to OH, MI & IN combined.

(03-29-2014 02:02 PM)Policiious Wrote:  I wasn't stating that the talent pool of any one of the individual states mentioned (TX, GA, AL) was greater than the entirety of the MI, OH & IN talent pool combined.

Correct, I'm the one who said that.

Not Alabama, which is in line with Ohio, Virginia, Louisiana, North Carolina, but California, Florida, Texas and Georgia seem like the big four ... from last year's Bleacher Report 4star (5 star) (they don't cite three star and then where Go5 starts kicking in at two star and one star, but since rankings don't line up exactly with the numbers they cite, I believe they are taken into account):

1. Florida: 38(3)
2. Texas: 39(4)
3. California: 36(4)
4. Georgia: 33(3)
5. Louisiana: 16(4)
6. Virginia: 15(3)
7. Alabama: 15(1)
8. Ohio 16(1)
9. North Carolina 13(1)
10. New Jersey: 12(1)

I reckon it would take two Ohio's to match one Georgia or Texas, and IN+MI don't add up to a second Ohio on the FB side (though IN would look better if it was BBall recruiting).

(03-29-2014 01:10 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 08:41 AM)RocketJeff Wrote:  I don't know why some of the MAC fans are being hostile about this.

Because its the internet, and haters gonna hate ... its what they do.

I've got nothing against UMass ... having UMass FB-only made sense when Temple was in the MAC FB-only, which is why the contract was set up the way it was.

(03-29-2014 12:34 PM)Policiious Wrote:  More FBS level football talent available in TX(TX ST) Georgia(Ga So) & Alabama(Troy) than in MI(5 programs) OH(8programs) and IN(4 programs) that have more FBS programs than what their talent levels can support.

Indeed, it seems likely there is more FBS level football talent in Texas OR Georgia than in MI+OH+IN combined. Of course, the Texas talent pool is heavily fished by the entirety of the Big12 and the Georgia talent pool heavily fished by the FBS schools in every neighboring state ... but it still makes a fine talking point if the Sunbelt is turned down by JMU and turns to UMass to get them to a CCG.

Add to the Texas fishing the SEC, CUSA, AAC, MWC, and Belt... All of home have at least one program in the State of Texas..