Posted this comment on the main boards. Thought it might be worth posting here in our Conference's board discussion:

Why is the MAC's stability considered a good thing?

The big problem with the stabilityis that none of our members can move up and none of our members have ever moved up with the exception of Cincinnati. It's pretty much been the same Conference it's been since it's early years.

I always hear 'the stability of the MAC is a good thing'. But is it really? It means no teams are moving on to bigger and better things. The only good thing about it being stable is no school moves down.

The playing field is complete equal. Every member school has pretty much the same budget and resources. This means any team can win any year. Which is good when you're trying to win Conference Championships because it means next year might mean it's your year. But it's bad too because next year you might completely suck and can't keep it going. Two of the MAC's more recent football champions - Western Michigan and Bowling Green St - completely sucked the next year. You don't even have to win the Conference. (2012's Kent St is one of the more recent examples)

The stability also means we're not adding known-powerhouses to improve the Conference's public image.

Being in a conference of peer institutions is really only good if those are state flagship institutions that are athletic powers (hint: the Big 10/SEC/P12).

Can someone please clarify this for me?
Do you think the MAC's stability is a good thing?

(04-05-2018 06:32 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Do you think the MAC's stability is a good thing?

I do.

(04-05-2018 06:32 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  The big problem with the stabilityis that none of our members can move up and none of our members have ever moved up with the exception of Cincinnati. It's pretty much been the same Conference it's been since it's early years. ...

I always hear 'the stability of the MAC is a good thing'. But is it really? It means no teams are moving on to bigger and better things. The only good thing about it being stable is no school moves down.

That's not a bug. That's a feature. We have tradition, which is a good thing. Some of our rivalries go back 70 years. This surely beats the Sun Belt having to drum up interest in, say, South Alabama versus Texas State.

We also don't have members stabbing each other in the back. Few things are more annoying than when one or two members of a conference think they are too good for everyone else. Look at what the West Coast Conference had to do to keep Gonzaga in the fold. They are cutting the conference schedule from 18 to 16 games. They are restructuring revenue sharing to give Gonzaga much more of the revenue from NCAA tournament appearances. All this -- and Gonzaga may still walk away in a couple of years.

Or look at how half the WAC cut and run for the Mountain West years ago or how Big East football imploded.

We don't have that kind of drama. And I'm glad for it.

Quote:The stability also means we're not adding known-powerhouses to improve the Conference's public image.

First: Is any known powerhouse joining a G5 conference?

You seem to be saying it would be better if the MAC was occasionally backfilling as our members leave for other conferences. I sure don't see it that way. Would the MAC really be better off if we added James Madison to replace a strong former member departed for another conference? I sure don't think so. That's how the Sun Belt ended up where they are.

Stability is good.

When you are not near the top stability is great. Generally you lose either the traditional powers in a conference or the current big name that is going well. Either way any schools that are left will be worse off than before. So for sure stability is great for the MAC.

As for individual schools things get slightly more complicated but many people may forget that while going to a P5 conference is a no brainer things are not so rosy going anywhere else especially since leaving here implies that another conference has taken a hit an probably a big one an so you are giving up all that you had for something that is not what it is now.

I should add that I mean no disrespect to James Madison. That's a credible football program they have out there. A case can be made for adding James Madison to the MAC. But I wouldn't want to be backfilling with them or anyone else.

(04-05-2018 07:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  We have tradition, which is a good thing. Some of our rivalries go back 70 years. This surely beats the Sun Belt having to drum up interest in, say, South Alabama versus Texas State.

Yes, the tradition is good. Both WMU and CMU would be hurt if one of them left. And like it or not, their rivalries with EMU are still traditional rivalries. Toledo and NIU always seem to be good and are known as Division powers you have to beat if you want to win the Conference. Can't really comment as much on the East's rivalries but considering most of the East is in Ohio - there you go.

I feel like schools could develop new rivalries though, or continue to play some of the Trophy rivalries out-of-conference.

(04-05-2018 07:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  We also don't have members stabbing each other in the back. Few things are more annoying than when one or two members of a conference think they are too good for everyone else. Look at what the West Coast Conference had to do to keep Gonzaga in the fold. They are cutting the conference schedule from 18 to 16 games. They are restructuring revenue sharing to give Gonzaga much more of the revenue from NCAA tournament appearances. All this -- and Gonzaga may still walk away in a couple of years.

Definitely a problem.

(04-05-2018 07:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  Or look at how half the WAC cut and run for the Mountain West years ago or how Big East football imploded.

We don't have that kind of drama. And I'm glad for it.

Aren't some programs able to improve their conference positioning when there's major realignment?

The only good thing about the stability is that no school is forced to go down though.

(04-05-2018 07:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  You seem to be saying it would be better if the MAC was occasionally backfilling as our members leave for other conferences. I sure don't see it that way. Would the MAC really be better off if we added James Madison to replace a strong former member departed for another conference? I sure don't think so. That's how the Sun Belt ended up where they are.

I'm saying there shouldn't be anything wrong with programs wanting to use the MAC as a stepping stone - including any of the MAC's full 12 members. Does Average Joe really care if Western Michigan, James Madison, or Marshall is in the MAC if their own school is positioning themselves to separate from the rest?

(04-05-2018 07:37 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  When you are not near the top stability is great. Generally you lose either the traditional powers in a conference or the current big name that is going well. Either way any schools that are left will be worse off than before. So for sure stability is great for the MAC.

As for individual schools things get slightly more complicated but many people may forget that while going to a P5 conference is a no brainer things are not so rosy going anywhere else especially since leaving here implies that another conference has taken a hit an probably a big one an so you are giving up all that you had for something that is not what it is now.

Yes: this is my big point: The stability is good for the Conference, but not necessarily the individual school because they're 'stuck'.

Also, definitely, unfortunately a P5 isn't likely to come knocking. (I know MAC fans dream of joining the Big 10 but I think the ACC would be more likely for a MAC school) So definitely leaving the MAC for a different conference isn't necessarily probably the best option. Look at Marshall. They left, but I don't consider CUSA an improvement.

(04-05-2018 08:36 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  We have tradition, which is a good thing. Some of our rivalries go back 70 years. This surely beats the Sun Belt having to drum up interest in, say, South Alabama versus Texas State.

Yes, the tradition is good. Both WMU and CMU would be hurt if one of them left. And like it or not, their rivalries with EMU are still traditional rivalries. Toledo and NIU always seem to be good and are known as Division powers you have to beat if you want to win the Conference. Can't really comment as much on the East's rivalries but considering most of the East is in Ohio - there you go.

I feel like schools could develop new rivalries though, or continue to play some of the Trophy rivalries out-of-conference.

(04-05-2018 07:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  We also don't have members stabbing each other in the back. Few things are more annoying than when one or two members of a conference think they are too good for everyone else. Look at what the West Coast Conference had to do to keep Gonzaga in the fold. They are cutting the conference schedule from 18 to 16 games. They are restructuring revenue sharing to give Gonzaga much more of the revenue from NCAA tournament appearances. All this -- and Gonzaga may still walk away in a couple of years.

Definitely a problem.

(04-05-2018 07:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  Or look at how half the WAC cut and run for the Mountain West years ago or how Big East football imploded.

We don't have that kind of drama. And I'm glad for it.

Aren't some programs able to improve their conference positioning when there's major realignment?

The only good thing about the stability is that no school is forced to go down though.

(04-05-2018 07:25 PM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  You seem to be saying it would be better if the MAC was occasionally backfilling as our members leave for other conferences. I sure don't see it that way. Would the MAC really be better off if we added James Madison to replace a strong former member departed for another conference? I sure don't think so. That's how the Sun Belt ended up where they are.

r most recent
I'm saying there shouldn't be anything wrong with programs wanting to use the MAC as a stepping stone - including any of the MAC's full 12 members. Does Average Joe really care if Western Michigan, James Madison, or Marshall is in the MAC if their own school is positioning themselves to separate from the rest?

We’ve had that drama in the past, with Marshall, NIU, Temple and CFU. I seem to recall Marshall trying to dictate terms of the MACC in their most recent MAC stay. Am I correct or fuzzy-brained on that?

(04-05-2018 08:39 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(04-05-2018 07:37 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  When you are not near the top stability is great. Generally you lose either the traditional powers in a conference or the current big name that is going well. Either way any schools that are left will be worse off than before. So for sure stability is great for the MAC.

As for individual schools things get slightly more complicated but many people may forget that while going to a P5 conference is a no brainer things are not so rosy going anywhere else especially since leaving here implies that another conference has taken a hit an probably a big one an so you are giving up all that you had for something that is not what it is now.

Yes: this is my big point: The stability is good for the Conference, but not necessarily the individual school because they're 'stuck'.

Also, definitely, unfortunately a P5 isn't likely to come knocking. (I know MAC fans dream of joining the Big 10 but I think the ACC would be more likely for a MAC school) So definitely leaving the MAC for a different conference isn't necessarily probably the best option. Look at Marshall. They left, but I don't consider CUSA an improvement.

IN this case I woul argue it is good for each school in the long run.

First get the P5 thought out of the way none are looking for a MAC school and that includes the ACC. If any P5 was asking for a MAC school it frankly is no longer a P5 conference.

As for the G5 conferences the only one even worth consideration would be the AAC (mostly for basketball honestly) however that is most likely a fool's errand. Rmember the only reason they would want to add somebody from the MAC would be if they lost schools and probably a lot of them. Once they have lost a bunch of their best programs the AAC stops being so desirable. The AAC schools are also not out to develop anything but their own schools so if you are stuck left behind in it you will have a conference your school an fans will not care about while at the same time increasing costs (not just in travel but in paying for everything because conferences like the AAC expect you to pay your coaches an the like more even if the coaches have not done anything to earn it or if it even makes sense).

Also do not think that long term what those schools are doing is sustainable. Those schools are throwing everything in the hope that they will make a P5 and if they don't they are going to have major debt that they are going to have trouble dealing with. On top of that while for now fans an administrators are willing to support these costs due to the hope of getting into a P5 conference if that does not happen or even worse is shown it cannot happen they will feel cheated and are therefor much more likely to stop supporting the schools which if they are far in debt will be a very bad time to be losing alumni support.

Those schools are playing a betting game and they have much better hands than any MAC school currently hold but they are still likely to lose.

Would instability be a better thing?

The 'biggest problem' for the MAC, seems crystal clear to me:

We don't have enough meaningful rewards for being a top 2 or 3 team in FB and MBB.

Taking MBB first, if there was reasonable certainty that the top 3 MBB teams would be in the NCAA or NIT it would boost MAC MBB. 2017/8 WBB is a case in point. The energy, publicity, interest, etc. were very high this year as two teams went to the NCAAs (and won!!!).

What makes the MAC MBB (and WBB) tourney so fascinating is the reward for winning it: The NCAA basketball tourney bid.

Maybe more importantly, if there was a guarantee that the MACC winner had a prime bowl game (instead of an outside chance of a New Year's bowl) then MAC FB would probably improve. This is where a bowl game in Indy vs. a B1G team would be great, if only the B1G would be agreeable.

Winning the MACC has to have a bigger prize than simply a trophy.

(04-05-2018 08:39 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  (I know MAC fans dream of joining the Big 10 but I think the ACC would be more likely for a MAC school)

Are you sure about this? I am not sure I have ever heard a serious comment as such.

How can you say their is stability when EMU just cut 4 sports?

There is instability. Its just the MAC ADs don't go to the media with it.

(04-06-2018 04:14 AM)emu steve Wrote:  The 'biggest problem' for the MAC, seems crystal clear to me:

We don't have enough meaningful rewards for being a top 2 or 3 team in FB and MBB.

Taking MBB first, if there was reasonable certainty that the top 3 MBB teams would be in the NCAA or NIT it would boost MAC MBB. 2017/8 WBB is a case in point. The energy, publicity, interest, etc. were very high this year as two teams went to the NCAAs (and won!!!).

What makes the MAC MBB (and WBB) tourney so fascinating is the reward for winning it: The NCAA basketball tourney bid.

Maybe more importantly, if there was a guarantee that the MACC winner had a prime bowl game (instead of an outside chance of a New Year's bowl) then MAC FB would probably improve. This is where a bowl game in Indy vs. a B1G team would be great, if only the B1G would be agreeable.

Winning the MACC has to have a bigger prize than simply a trophy.

In basketball having the MAC madness tournament in Cleveland provides for a high quality post season experience for fans equivalent to a first round site in energy.

I agree the MAC Champ needs to be in a "prime" bowl game every year. The easiest route with the current CFP contract is if the G5 can organize and bring back some of these bowls like the Holiday, Sun, Independence, Liberty to the fold. A new 6 year bowl cycle begins in 2020 and there is a chance something helpful can be done.

Long term the CFP I could see expanding to a P8, adding a second access bowl ect. That is like 10 years down the road.

(04-06-2018 10:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Long term the CFP I could see expanding to a P8, adding a second access bowl ect. That is like 10 years down the road.

My hunch: At some point, the powers of college football expand the playoff to eight teams. The G5 endorses it so long as one bid is guaranteed to the G5. In addition, this new system includes several high profile (New Year's Day) bowls with guaranteed access for a second G5 team.

This isn't inevitable, of course.

(04-07-2018 08:35 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(04-06-2018 10:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Long term the CFP I could see expanding to a P8, adding a second access bowl ect. That is like 10 years down the road.

My hunch: At some point, the powers of college football expand the playoff to eight teams. The G5 endorses it so long as one bid is guaranteed to the G5. In addition, this new system includes several high profile (New Year's Day) bowls with guaranteed access for a second G5 team.

This isn't inevitable, of course.

Yes.

An 8 team playoff would have to include at least 2 new NYD bowls. My guess is it will be the Citrus Bowl in Orlando and Las Vegas Bowl in the new NFL stadium.

The idea to give a G5 an autobid with a second bowl in the NYD is a good one. It would make following the @maction games more fun when a graphic pops up late in the third quarter talking about G5 possibilities for the CFP and NYD spots. That is the type of analysis I want to see watching the MAC.

If there was a G5 autobid to an 8 team playoff, for any team that was good enough to earn it would be a legitimate threat to win it.

Anyone in the Top 20 is good enough to take down a #1 or #2 team. This isn't like the NCAA tournament where they 16 seed programs which made the dance on sheer luck and lack the physicality to win more than 1 game or 2.

Some of those Boise State teams from 10 years ago were legitimately among the strongest in college football and a threat as much as anyone.

(04-07-2018 01:21 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If there was a G5 autobid to an 8 team playoff, for any team that was good enough to earn it would be a legitimate threat to win it.

No doubt.

I have a kind of 'out of the box' for G5 FB.

Maybe something like the TWO best G5 teams play the weekend of say Dec 15 (that Saturday) with the winner going to the New Year's Day game.

OR I'd like to see TWO G5 teams given a slot in an either 8-team CFP and New Year's bowl.

One can make the case over the last 20 years that enough G5 teams have acquitted themselves well in BCS/New Year's bowl games to justify this arrangement.

G5 teams are always gonna be at a disadvantage with the playoff. They aren't as big or deep as a top 5 type P5 team. So, maybe they pull a Boise or UCF with a good matchup and win a game but they won't get through a 3 round 8 team playoff. And the playoff system really hurts the college post season by directing most of the attention to 4 (or 8) teams and lowering the profile of all the other bowl games. Used to be a lot of interest in the mid level bowls. Now, they are becoming tv events that attract less and less local fans or travelling fans from the competing teams.

Best scenario for the G5 would be press for more guaranteed post season matchups with solid but not overpowering P5 teams, and insure that the other top G5 teams get an interesting G5 matchup. Instead of 25-30 G5 teams bowling, but only 3 or 4 at best playing a P5 opponent. I think you want to insure that the top 5 or 6 G5 teams are playing a decent P5 team in a bowl. The MWC and AAC have kept this place for their top team (and sometimes 2nd best squad) but we want to avoid the scenario where an 11-2 MAC champ or a 12-1 Sun Belt team is playing a 2nd or 3rd place G5 team in a mediocre bowl location. Like this

Top G5 team: New Year's 12 bowl game
Next top 5 G5 teams: P5 opponent or at least another top G5 team in a nice bowl location.
Next best 10-12 G5 teams matched up together by rivalry, location or interesting matchup.
Lose the games pitting 7-5 and 6-6 G5 opponents in an empty stadium for a made for ESPN affair.
Outside the box: for the G5 teams ranked like 7-15 create a mini separate playoff with the first 2 rounds at regional or home field locations and the championship played the day before the actual national title game and in the same stadium. Creates something to shoot for and generates fan interest and a reason to travel to the champ game to be part of national title game energy.

I agree stabilty is hurting to bring other schools in. [Army wasn't intrested, Marshall, UCF, Temple, UMass]
you guys circiled the wagons & fired missles at them.
there schools in MVFBC that could help MAC, you guys already have the wall built

the bigest promblem with your stabilty is 9 schools within 2 states, that not a good thing
I do agree bowl games could improve, send champ to Detriot when it's open
should have bought Poinstta & moved to Indy vs BYU, Army, AAC

hoagies, hienken & MAC fb