(03-27-2014 10:56 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:48 PM)JMUDukeDawg Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:37 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:16 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:06 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  that makes no sense. part of the problem with UMass is the uneven 13, why end your partnership with them and then turn right around and create the same you just fixed?

Because maybe you have two schools interested, but neither cared for UMass. Schools farther west or south compared to the MAC footprint.

Because of the cfp cap on 12 programs, the only reasons to expand beyond 12 would be to even the numbers (13 to 14) or to leverage future media negotiations. This would be done with media markets or high visibility programs

Temple was that leverage with the Philly market. I would be surprised to learn that there are any currently available programs meeting the above criteria, much less one having a problem with UMass.

....unless you are talking Delaware(Philly) and/or Stony Brook(NYC).
Are either of those ready to move up yet?

The only other advantage I can see is if the MAC TV deal is getting a boost in exchange for some more weeknight offerings. A couple more teams would help to spread the weeknight games out and minimize the number of weeknight games each team has to do.

Is that worth diluting the CFP money? That's up to ESPN...

That is certainly a possibility, but if that were the case, then why would the commissioner imply that the MAC was satisfied to stay at 12?

I agree, just pointing out that there are certain situations where 14 would help. Another reason is to save travel costs, but that wouldn't apply to a JMU/UD addition to the MAC.

Also, ESPN is only saying that sources are reporting that the MAC's done. All the commissioner has said is that they are satisfied with the current membership. In realignment-speak that could mean anything.