(04-28-2016 08:38 AM)flushtheherd Wrote: I think the MAC is a much stronger conference than you give it credit for... I believe its probably one of the more well managed conferences from a compliance and money management stand point than some of the other non-P5 conferences. There is NO way the MAC is going to start shedding teams to remain relevant in the near future. So I think we can watch this all go down with a sense of comfort for now...
Amen.
Folks here may not appreciate it but the MAC is very well balanced with three Michigan schools and of course six schools in the west and six in the east.
Even though EMU has gone through hard times in FB (as Kent did) they (EMU) are an integral part of the MAC.
The MAC is not the the MAFC (Mid-American Football Conference).
During the 90s, EMU was the premier MBB program in the conference. EMU is a dominant team in Olympic sports.
Would anyone want to see Kent drop out of the MAC (and take their MBB team) because of their struggles in FB?
As we've learned with UCF, Temple, UMass, etc. trying to produce a stable conference is not easy. Adding or losing teams is not good. For many mid-major type conferences, I have to go to ESPN.COM to find out which conference a given school is in. (I struggle with the SBC, C-USA, AAC, etc.).
A new thread: "Who should be #12 after EMU leaves" is a good topic for forum gadflies but losing a MAC school and trying to get a replacement to stay 20, 30, 40 or 50 years isn't easy. Anyone think James Madison or Delaware or Stony Brook, etc. would be in the 2050 MAC?
As far as faculty or student government reports, are we the first? Are there similar in other schools? Didn't Akron drop baseball. Haven't other MAC schools dropped Olympic sports for financial reasons, but stayed and kept FB.
As most know and many noted, most FBS schools lose money.
Many at EMU think it was a 'hit job' probably by an insider or two who caught the ear of the HBO folks. The faculty member, Bunsis, has a reputation as a 'gadfly' at EMU.