The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

https://www.facebook.com/39606211535/pos...349066536/

The article ignores TV revenue (although it is mentioned relative to MAC game attendance). Like it or not, those contacts keep MAC football programs afloat.

As fun as 2016 was as a Bronco fan I doubt I'll see it happen again more than once in my lifetime, it's just so hard for a MAC school to achieve that level of play year in and year out. Sure we're technically FBS like Alabama, or Clemson, or Michigan, Or Notre Dame but we aren't even in the same zip code let alone ball park when it comes to our ability to compete in the escalating arms race with them.

I wouldn't mind if the G5 schools created their own level below the P5 schools but above FCS and held a tournament to crown a national champion. Winning the MAC should always be priority #1 for the team but I just cannot get excited about a trip to Boise, or Montgomery, or Boca Raton for a bowl game that means nothing. I'd rather have a post season tournament to look forward to at the end of the year with the possibility of winning a title.

Money is killing CFB from the bagmen who help top recruits end up at P5 schools, to the junk bowl games that schools lose money on, to the garbage TV deal the MAC signed that has us playing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights in front of empty stadiums. I used to love CFB more than just about anything else, Thursday night games, then all day Saturday. Now, outside of the G5 schools, the whole thing just feels greasy to me because I know that the all mighty dollar is the only winner.

/endrant

Sorry for the really long first post in the football forum, this topic just struck a chord with me!

(01-31-2019 06:37 PM)BroncoEngineer05 Wrote:  As fun as 2016 was as a Bronco fan I doubt I'll see it happen again more than once in my lifetime, it's just so hard for a MAC school to achieve that level of play year in and year out. Sure we're technically FBS like Alabama, or Clemson, or Michigan, Or Notre Dame but we aren't even in the same zip code let alone ball park when it comes to our ability to compete in the escalating arms race with them.

I wouldn't mind if the G5 schools created their own level below the P5 schools but above FCS and held a tournament to crown a national champion. Winning the MAC should always be priority #1 for the team but I just cannot get excited about a trip to Boise, or Montgomery, or Boca Raton for a bowl game that means nothing. I'd rather have a post season tournament to look forward to at the end of the year with the possibility of winning a title.

Money is killing CFB from the bagmen who help top recruits end up at P5 schools, to the junk bowl games that schools lose money on, to the garbage TV deal the MAC signed that has us playing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights in front of empty stadiums. I used to love CFB more than just about anything else, Thursday night games, then all day Saturday. Now, outside of the G5 schools, the whole thing just feels greasy to me because I know that the all mighty dollar is the only winner.

/endrant

Sorry for the really long first post in the football forum, this topic just struck a chord with me!

Well stated. While we seem to have landed at a point where we need to focus on Michigan MAC and the West Division more so than winning a National G5 playoff, I have long thought focusing more on our out of league G5 counterparts instead of Big Ten OOC games.

Moving to a separate D1 G5 format with its own playoff makes sense in lots of ways.

(01-31-2019 06:37 PM)BroncoEngineer05 Wrote:  Winning the MAC should always be priority #1 for the team but I just cannot get excited about a trip to Boise, or Montgomery, or Boca Raton for a bowl game that means nothing.

I think part of this stems from our last 3 "minor" bowls taking place in Boise, Bahamas, and Boise again. Probably the most inconvenient and priciest locations, not to mention the coldest outdoor location in Boise.

So no buzz on tailgates, meet-ups, hotel and restaurant recommendations, gameday anecdotes, no full band, etc. (Granted, a 7-5 MAC team finishing the season 1-4 gets what it gets)

But my overall point is that if we landed in Boca Raton or Mobile next year, or Myrtle Beach thereafter, I think some of that bowl game excitement would return with a much larger contingent of fans being able to make the trip. Even Detroit.

(02-01-2019 08:26 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 06:37 PM)BroncoEngineer05 Wrote:  Winning the MAC should always be priority #1 for the team but I just cannot get excited about a trip to Boise, or Montgomery, or Boca Raton for a bowl game that means nothing.

I think part of this stems from our last 3 "minor" bowls taking place in Boise, Bahamas, and Boise again. Probably the most inconvenient and priciest locations, not to mention the coldest outdoor location in Boise.

So no buzz on tailgates, meet-ups, hotel and restaurant recommendations, gameday anecdotes, no full band, etc. (Granted, a 7-5 MAC team finishing the season 1-4 gets what it gets)

But my overall point is that if we landed in Boca Raton or Mobile next year, or Myrtle Beach thereafter, I think some of that bowl game excitement would return with a much larger contingent of fans being able to make the trip. Even Detroit.

The last 3 destinations definitely did not help my overall enthusiasm about the bowl games, Boca Raton is definitely an upgrade over Boise in terms of weather!

That being said I'd still prefer to be playing meaningful games that time of year fighting for a national title rather than a glorified exhibition against another G5 school that WMU loses money on even if it meant dropping down a level below the P5 schools.

Not trying to stir the pot, as there is no way to truly know the answer, but after 2016, do any of you believe that WMU had a trajectory towards continued national relevance?

I look at NIU and their BCS game. They really did not get much of a bump in national relevance from that game. NIU is also a perennial ‘giant slayer’ as they regularly beat BCS opponents. My point being, are MAC teams ever going to be truly relevant on the national stage?

Perhaps it is time for reality, to change directions and create a football product that is good for our market and fans? No more mid week games, go back to traditional college football.

Perhaps we had our 15 minutes of fame. Our school is not willing, or perhaps able, to become the next Boise State.

I am ready for the next chapter.

(02-01-2019 10:09 AM)wmutkelaw Wrote:  Not trying to stir the pot, as there is no way to truly know the answer, but after 2016, do any of you believe that WMU had a trajectory towards continued national relevance?

I look at NIU and their BCS game. They really did not get much of a bump in national relevance from that game. NIU is also a perennial ‘giant slayer’ as they regularly beat BCS opponents. My point being, are MAC teams ever going to be truly relevant on the national stage?

Perhaps it is time for reality, to change directions and create a football product that is good for our market and fans? No more mid week games, go back to traditional college football.

Perhaps we had our 15 minutes of fame. Our school is not willing, or perhaps able, to become the next Boise State.

I am ready for the next chapter.

I believe if Fleck and the majority of the staff stayed, or if KB had hired a solid replacement, 2016 could have been a foundational springboard to a "potential" rise, not unlike other G5's have enjoyed. That is not to say anyone should have expected going undefeated in 2017, but a five year trajectory towards becoming a stable and consistently outstanding G5 program was expected, and should have occurred. Instead, we regressed into a very average program, even by MAC standards. Opportunity blown in the saddest of ways.

(02-01-2019 10:25 AM)brovol Wrote:  I believe if Fleck and the majority of the staff stayed, or if KB had hired a solid replacement, 2016 could have been a foundational springboard to a "potential" rise, not unlike other G5's have enjoyed. That is not to say anyone should have expected going undefeated in 2017, but a five year trajectory towards becoming a stable and consistently outstanding G5 program was expected, and should have occurred. Instead, we regressed into a very average program, even by MAC standards. Opportunity blown in the saddest of ways.

2017 would have been a disaster even if Fleck were here. We had major quarterback and receiver issues. Flacco was not an answer. Assuming the injury train had still hit the players we would have been just as bad as we were. Perhaps we win one more game. I know, maybe get a bowl bid and suck in the bowl. How is any of that relevant nationally? No accolades for mediocrity.
2018? Who knows who would have been recruited and/or transferred in or how that would have played out. Would we have been better off if Wassink was injured?

(02-01-2019 10:39 AM)Aimless1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:25 AM)brovol Wrote:  I believe if Fleck and the majority of the staff stayed, or if KB had hired a solid replacement, 2016 could have been a foundational springboard to a "potential" rise, not unlike other G5's have enjoyed. That is not to say anyone should have expected going undefeated in 2017, but a five year trajectory towards becoming a stable and consistently outstanding G5 program was expected, and should have occurred. Instead, we regressed into a very average program, even by MAC standards. Opportunity blown in the saddest of ways.

2017 would have been a disaster even if Fleck were here. We had major quarterback and receiver issues. Flacco was not an answer. Assuming the injury train had still hit the players we would have been just as bad as we were. Perhaps we win one more game. I know, maybe get a bowl bid and suck in the bowl. How is any of that relevant nationally? No accolades for mediocrity.
2018? Who knows who would have been recruited and/or transferred in or how that would have played out. Would we have been better off if Wassink was injured?

I couldn't disagree more. We had two capable QB's in Wassink and Flacco, neither had much game experience, but both had been in the program for multiple years and had a very good understanding of the offense. I dont know why folks think that a third year junior QB can not be successful in college football. Out QBs and receivers looked bad because they were not put in the position to look good. We relied on very predictable run calls on early down, because we were supposed to have had such great RBs. That left passes on third and long, which is always a recipe for disaster. Our defense in 2017 was loaded with talent. Look back at those players. And they played well under the prior defensive staff.

The previous staff would have continued the same methods (even while the Fleck naysayers continued to be critical and mock what he did and said), and would have continued to win; even with a new QB. I would have bet a lot that we would have won the MCCC again. We were predicted to be one of the strong contenders even with the new staff.

We had a great chance to be "relevant". We blew it.

(02-01-2019 10:39 AM)Aimless1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:25 AM)brovol Wrote:  I believe if Fleck and the majority of the staff stayed, or if KB had hired a solid replacement, 2016 could have been a foundational springboard to a "potential" rise, not unlike other G5's have enjoyed. That is not to say anyone should have expected going undefeated in 2017, but a five year trajectory towards becoming a stable and consistently outstanding G5 program was expected, and should have occurred. Instead, we regressed into a very average program, even by MAC standards. Opportunity blown in the saddest of ways.

2017 would have been a disaster even if Fleck were here. We had major quarterback and receiver issues. Flacco was not an answer. Assuming the injury train had still hit the players we would have been just as bad as we were. Perhaps we win one more game. I know, maybe get a bowl bid and suck in the bowl. How is any of that relevant nationally? No accolades for mediocrity.
2018? Who knows who would have been recruited and/or transferred in or how that would have played out. Would we have been better off if Wassink was injured?

Good post.

We may have beaten MSU and/or Akron, but once the injuries hit it did not matter if Moses himself was coach.

Hey, at least Lester's teams have been mediocre. Look at what happened to CMU once Dan Enos took over a program that had won three championships in four years and dominated MAC recruiting. A mass exodus of talented players (including Antonio Brown) who hated him, consecutive 3-9 seasons, and crap-azz recruiting.

While I wanted KB to keep continuity by hiring one of Fleck's former assistants, Lester will get the job done. I have faith in him and am proud of his program (unless it loses to CMU).

(02-01-2019 10:58 AM)GullLake Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:39 AM)Aimless1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:25 AM)brovol Wrote:  I believe if Fleck and the majority of the staff stayed, or if KB had hired a solid replacement, 2016 could have been a foundational springboard to a "potential" rise, not unlike other G5's have enjoyed. That is not to say anyone should have expected going undefeated in 2017, but a five year trajectory towards becoming a stable and consistently outstanding G5 program was expected, and should have occurred. Instead, we regressed into a very average program, even by MAC standards. Opportunity blown in the saddest of ways.

2017 would have been a disaster even if Fleck were here. We had major quarterback and receiver issues. Flacco was not an answer. Assuming the injury train had still hit the players we would have been just as bad as we were. Perhaps we win one more game. I know, maybe get a bowl bid and suck in the bowl. How is any of that relevant nationally? No accolades for mediocrity.
2018? Who knows who would have been recruited and/or transferred in or how that would have played out. Would we have been better off if Wassink was injured?

Good post.

We may have beaten MSU and/or Akron, but once the injuries hit it did not matter if Moses himself was coach.

Hey, at least Lester's teams have been mediocre. Look at what happened to CMU once Dan Enos took over a program that had won three championships in four years and dominated MAC recruiting. A mass exodus of talented players (including Antonio Brown) who hated him, consecutive 3-9 seasons, and crap-azz recruiting.

While I wanted KB to keep continuity by hiring one of Fleck's former assistants, Lester will get the job done. I have faith in him and am proud of his program (unless it loses to CMU).

You’re proud of 6-6 and 7-5? If Lester wins 8 next year and keeps improving then I’ll be proud. I honestly don’t see much more than 5 or 6 wins next year tho.

(02-01-2019 10:09 AM)wmutkelaw Wrote:  Not trying to stir the pot, as there is no way to truly know the answer, but after 2016, do any of you believe that WMU had a trajectory towards continued national relevance?

I look at NIU and their BCS game. They really did not get much of a bump in national relevance from that game. NIU is also a perennial ‘giant slayer’ as they regularly beat BCS opponents. My point being, are MAC teams ever going to be truly relevant on the national stage?

Perhaps it is time for reality, to change directions and create a football product that is good for our market and fans? No more mid week games, go back to traditional college football.

Perhaps we had our 15 minutes of fame. Our school is not willing, or perhaps able, to become the next Boise State.

I am ready for the next chapter.

NIU didn't become a Boise State. But when any casual fan is asked who the consistently strongest MAC teams are, they and Toledo are almost always mentioned. And I think, at minimum, that's a good place to be. Consistent winning seasons. Never be considered a "cupcake," always be a tough out.

It'll be very difficult for a true "Boise State" to emerge from the MAC, mainly due to geography and population migration. It's no coincidence that UCF grew so rapidly to an upper-crust G5 in such a short amount of time.

(02-01-2019 10:39 AM)Aimless1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:25 AM)brovol Wrote:  I believe if Fleck and the majority of the staff stayed, or if KB had hired a solid replacement, 2016 could have been a foundational springboard to a "potential" rise, not unlike other G5's have enjoyed. That is not to say anyone should have expected going undefeated in 2017, but a five year trajectory towards becoming a stable and consistently outstanding G5 program was expected, and should have occurred. Instead, we regressed into a very average program, even by MAC standards. Opportunity blown in the saddest of ways.

2017 would have been a disaster even if Fleck were here. We had major quarterback and receiver issues. Flacco was not an answer. Assuming the injury train had still hit the players we would have been just as bad as we were. Perhaps we win one more game. I know, maybe get a bowl bid and suck in the bowl. How is any of that relevant nationally? No accolades for mediocrity.
2018? Who knows who would have been recruited and/or transferred in or how that would have played out. Would we have been better off if Wassink was injured?

Very unlikely, imo. Not because of anything magical Fleck would've done. It's just in that alternate universe, every play call would've differed slightly. Therefore the odds of 20+ injuries still happening would practically be nil.

But I do agree that comparisons and hypotheticals seem moot, especially as years wear on, because the entire make-up of the recruiting classes would be very different.

(02-01-2019 01:56 PM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:58 AM)GullLake Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:39 AM)Aimless1 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:25 AM)brovol Wrote:  I believe if Fleck and the majority of the staff stayed, or if KB had hired a solid replacement, 2016 could have been a foundational springboard to a "potential" rise, not unlike other G5's have enjoyed. That is not to say anyone should have expected going undefeated in 2017, but a five year trajectory towards becoming a stable and consistently outstanding G5 program was expected, and should have occurred. Instead, we regressed into a very average program, even by MAC standards. Opportunity blown in the saddest of ways.

2017 would have been a disaster even if Fleck were here. We had major quarterback and receiver issues. Flacco was not an answer. Assuming the injury train had still hit the players we would have been just as bad as we were. Perhaps we win one more game. I know, maybe get a bowl bid and suck in the bowl. How is any of that relevant nationally? No accolades for mediocrity.
2018? Who knows who would have been recruited and/or transferred in or how that would have played out. Would we have been better off if Wassink was injured?

Good post.

We may have beaten MSU and/or Akron, but once the injuries hit it did not matter if Moses himself was coach.

Hey, at least Lester's teams have been mediocre. Look at what happened to CMU once Dan Enos took over a program that had won three championships in four years and dominated MAC recruiting. A mass exodus of talented players (including Antonio Brown) who hated him, consecutive 3-9 seasons, and crap-azz recruiting.

While I wanted KB to keep continuity by hiring one of Fleck's former assistants, Lester will get the job done. I have faith in him and am proud of his program (unless it loses to CMU).

You’re proud of 6-6 and 7-5? If Lester wins 8 next year and keeps improving then I’ll be proud. I honestly don’t see much more than 5 or 6 wins next year tho.

I am always proud to be a Bronco!

And based on how Lester has recruited I have faith the program will break through again in the next year or two. Deeply concerned about D-line next fall, however.

(02-01-2019 01:57 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:09 AM)wmutkelaw Wrote:  Not trying to stir the pot, as there is no way to truly know the answer, but after 2016, do any of you believe that WMU had a trajectory towards continued national relevance?

I look at NIU and their BCS game. They really did not get much of a bump in national relevance from that game. NIU is also a perennial ‘giant slayer’ as they regularly beat BCS opponents. My point being, are MAC teams ever going to be truly relevant on the national stage?

Perhaps it is time for reality, to change directions and create a football product that is good for our market and fans? No more mid week games, go back to traditional college football.

Perhaps we had our 15 minutes of fame. Our school is not willing, or perhaps able, to become the next Boise State.

I am ready for the next chapter.

NIU didn't become a Boise State. But when any casual fan is asked who the consistently strongest MAC teams are, they and Toledo are almost always mentioned. And I think, at minimum, that's a good place to be. Consistent winning seasons. Never be considered a "cupcake," always be a tough out.

It'll be very difficult for a true "Boise State" to emerge from the MAC, mainly due to geography and population migration. It's no coincidence that UCF grew so rapidly to an upper-crust G5 in such a short amount of time.

It's difficult for any program to do that, only a few have recently. I would include TCU as well, though they have a history. Boise had years in a lower division as the big dogs, much like CMU. That sort of greatness sticks with an institution.

We've never had sustained greatness, we've always had goodness, which is why we have trouble being better than good. But at least it gets us off the hook from getting axed from Division 1 by a sportswriter!

That's what bugs me about the sharp break of fans after Fleck left. Fleck's primary lesson was to just keep rowing, but some wanted out of the boat before kickoff at USC. Fleck is a unique human being and simply not repeatable.

Now, the big wins aren't there yet, but the outstanding recruiting legacy is still here, which is something Cubit wasn't able to do consistently, if you go by rankings. Will it be enough? Time will tell. If it does, at least we may have a coach willing to stick around at WMU as long as Petersen did at Boise.

"Coaching salaries are skyrocketing at an ahistorical rate."

Ahistorical? That = non-historical. That means it's skyrocketing, but not at a historical rate. I'm confused.

Quote:Attendance has declined all over.

As we know, with TV contracts -- attendance doesn't put a huge ding in places. Actually, notably, the MAC. The big places get hit worse, I would think, as the MAC makes more $ from TV -now- than they did VS yesteryear, than a P5 (even though they all make more $ from TV).

Quote:With the decline of cable TV, the rise of media fees should slow, especially outside the Power 5 conferences.

True, but you switch from cable to Internet TV like YouTube & others, which you subscribe to ESPN and the like thru that. If anything, it opens up ESPN3 and ESPNU more. But yes, I'm sure it does put a damper in ESPN in the short-run -- because you can't run on ripping people off so much for too long with cable packages which Had a monopoly, which is dwindling. But key channels do not rely on Cable, specifically, is my point.

Quote:Many teams aren’t going to win anything significant. They’re often the same ones in financial peril.

I agree. The real problem is many (smaller) places spending more than they should, to try and "break thru". However, much of it is thru alumni $ -- if they're smart. That said though, too much money is spent, with too little return for too many places.

In the end, $$ is the way to establish yourself long-term in the G5. East Carolina -- remember them? Not really, even though they were a G5 power not long ago. UCF sucked, then bounced right up. Even an Illinois wouldn't have been as bad as UCF (who does have one of the best G5 $).

IMO, following a European Soccer thing would be pretty sweet, for those who want the G5 vs P5 separate:

- The P5 & G5 become more like FBS vs FCS; each with their own playoff/nat-champ
- Pair a G5 Conf with a P5 Conf
- Every year, the bottom of the P5 goes to the G5; top of G5 goes to said P5 [maybe only if there's an x-level of discrepancy on the top G5 or low P5, in relation to their conferences]
- Require at least 1 non-conf game for each team to play another in associated conference [not tough for MAC vs B1G anyway]

Unfortunately, this isn't realistic. Conferences are pretty tightly bound. You'd almost have to have them mesh in a way for this to work. Even so, when people go "No Way!" about a mere 8-team Playoff not Always bringing in a P5 Champ, even if unranked while the 2nd best G5 Champ Is ranked & beat them in the year -- which I think can still pass -- this one would be WAY WAY harder to pull off. More fantasy. But hey, if 2 MAC teams can make it to the Tourney, one can dream, right? :)

Marshall was King of MAC Football around the turn of the century, had big names and won a lot of games.

They did not become the "next Boise State" or nationally relevant. They are not even best program in their own state or conference.

Miami went 31-1-1 from 1973-75, beat Georgia, Florida, Purdue, and South Carolina (twice) and did not become nationally relevant.

Toledo won 35 straight games from 1970-72 including three Tangerine (now Citrus) Bowls, did not become nationally relevant.

Quote:They did not become the "next Boise State" or nationally relevant. They are not even best program in their own state or conference.

True -- they ended up settling down just being one of the best MAC teams, then moved up to CUSA (which ended up taking a good step down after some years). Also Illinois went to the Rose Bowl in the 00s one year, surrounded by bad years. Many P5s can have their moment in the sun, then fade out to back to the shade where they usually are. It's easier, IMO, for a G5 to not slip into bottom-of-conference after getting their limelight, due to easier schedule -- to keep the ball rolling on some pretty good level (see NIU; Ohio; Toledo). But yeah, to be on the upper-P5 level? You need $$ for that.

Quote:Miami went 31-1-1 from 1973-75, beat Georgia, Florida, Purdue, and South Carolina (twice) and did not become nationally relevant.

Toledo won 35 straight games from 1970-72 including three Tangerine (now Citrus) Bowls, did not become nationally relevant.

True, but if you were to take them nowadays, they would be much more. Back in the day, the G5s didn't get squat. Hell, even not even that far back. Nowadays, it Is easier for a G5 to steal some of the sunshine. IF they're able to pull that stuff off. More national exposure.

The point is, no MAC school-program is going to become the "next Boise State" or "nationally relevant" for more than a year at a time.

Much less move up in conference to mid-level G5 and succeed consistently.

Heck MAC is a one-bid basketball league to the "Big Dance" whose champion gets knocked out in first round virtually every year.