(02-23-2021 10:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 09:46 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  One of the better ideas I've heard is if ODU and Charlotte went independent, joined the A10.

Better idea for whom?

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote except why would the A10 add two flight risks that aren’t really lighting up the basketball world? I have to think Loyola (Chicago) would be higher on the list than those two.

I'm not sure Loyola would want to leave the MVC, that would be a pretty big increase in travel costs. They've also made the NCAA's once in the last 35 years, granted it was a F4 run and they've done pretty well the last few years. I would think their coach will get poached soon enough if the success keeps up.

If we're seriously looking at the A10 then I doubt we would leave for another FBS conference unless there's a reshuffle of the AAC, SB and CUSA that would fit perfectly. The AAC isn't inviting us unless they are raided and that's a road we've been down before.

(02-23-2021 11:43 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 10:46 AM)BKTopper Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 10:42 AM)utpotts Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 10:40 AM)BKTopper Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 11:18 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The assumption you're making is that it won't get better for the G5.

As a MAC fan I can remember the days of 1 bowl for the champion only. No hope ever of making a NYD game.

G5 TV deals are off the charts from 10 years ago. MAC got an 8 fold increase in TV money from its individual deal and 20 fold increase from the CFP. MAC made $32 million in money from ESPN the year WMU made the Cotton Bowl.

Yeah but C-USA's last media deal: a $20 Olive Garden gift card a free hat.

Mmmmmm... breadsticks.

Yeah the 14 schools shared 2 bowls of Italian wedding soup just for those bottomless breadsticks. UTEP got a glass of syrupy moscato.

Several C-USA programs aren’t old enough to drink yet.

(02-23-2021 09:23 AM)FMRocket Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 08:19 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 12:10 AM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 11:18 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 10:37 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Because they are chasing the status and prestige of being called an FBS school, and they like to pretend they are competing with the P5 for the same championship even though any participation is really a pipe dream. It's so easy for any decent school in the south to move to FBS that there isn't really a reason not to (other than added expenses and debt that exceed any gain in revenue) If I was in charge I would move my school up too.. But what I'm saying is that the G5 can be done better.

You imply that I am saying the FCS tournament is lucrative? I know it isn't. The FCS has its own challenges that have nothing to do with the merit of my proposal, since the issue at the FCS level is just that there are too many small schools with small budgets and small fan bases. That said, there is a reason that FCS fans are so excited to bring up the playoffs - it's just way more fun and they know it's a better format.

With larger fanbases and better exposure at the G5 level, the tournament would have 10x the potential. As a fan of a MAC/CUSA/SunBelt school, wouldn't you want to watch teams in your conference want to knock others out of the playoffs? BS this school vs that school arguments can actually get settled on the field. Compare that with a bowl game, where you may end up playing a school barely above 500 because you don't have the right bowl tie in or because schools refuse to play you. Wtf is that..

The assumption you're making is that it won't get better for the G5.

As a MAC fan I can remember the days of 1 bowl for the champion only. No hope ever of making a NYD game.

G5 TV deals are off the charts from 10 years ago. MAC got an 8 fold increase in TV money from its individual deal and 20 fold increase from the CFP. MAC made $32 million in money from ESPN the year WMU made the Cotton Bowl.

I hear you. I guess my question then is, what's the goal? This is a serious question that I have for lower G5 schools, because there is clearly a disconnect between what seems to be the consensus opinion and my thinking here.. Obviously more money is nice, but I wouldn't think the purpose of operating the athletic department is just to maximize revenue, is it? To what end?

First there is no such thing as a lower G5 school. Coastal Carolina as an example a recent move up for all we know could end up growing its program into the next Boise State. G5 is a wide range from a P5 level program to something that belongs in FCS. AAC is about 50/50 P5 level/G5 level.

Legally there is nothing preventing Coastal Carolina from appearing in the playoff. The question is how far can they go with recruiting in a second tier conference. There was a while competing a non-AQ conference made for a lower recruiting ceiling, creating a chicken or the egg factor.

Today G5's have a ladder to a NYD bowl and plenty of bowl games. G5 bowl games help build a program by providing additional practices and also a 1 million viewer appearance on ESPN. There is nothing of course limiting how much a school can spend on football either.

G5 programs then can go as far as their recruiting base and resources will take them. Recruiting base is why all those southern schools felt confident about moving up to FBS. Resources start to win and donors get on board. No doubt that some schools don't have fat cat donors out there to be had.

MAC I can tell you concentrates its money on facilities over backing up brinks trucks for a coaching staff. Some have P5 level weight rooms and locker rooms. The idea is that it might not be the current staff but the one they bring in after that to take the program to a NYD game.

AAC spends big to impress with the idea of P5 invite within the next 5 years. Spend like there is no tomorrow because there may not be one. If not they become part of the left behind AAC which will eventually be no better than the MWC, a lackluster G5 conference.

Its the short game vs. the long game. Long game says some AAC schools will go P5 and then it will be a more even playing field for access bowls for the MAC.

I agree with the presumption that some AAC schools will eventually leave. The Houston’s, Cincy/Memphis and the UCF’s of the world want to eventually be seated at the big boy table... Temple back to the MAC with Navy/Army, and probably SMU and Tulsa to the MW, then have Tulane/USF to the Sunbelt, with ECU back in CUSA...
It could possibly shake down that way...

Hmm.

Try this instead: Tulane, Army, Navy, SMU, Tulsa, Rice, AF, UConn (or Temple).

It's the remaining collection of FBS non-P5 institutions that have P5-level academic reputation.

Such a league would be accessible for anyone to win (even UConn once they learn how to play FB again).

One more thing - if 8 AAC schools survive, then they'll just play in a gimped AAC before they ever backfill or leave for another G5 league.

(02-23-2021 11:14 AM)BKTopper Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 09:46 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  One of the better ideas I've heard is if ODU and Charlotte went independent, joined the A10.

-Strengthened the G5 indy ranks w/6 on the East Coast (UConn, Army, UMass, ODU, Liberty, Charlotte). That would be good for that group for scheduling.

-Indy schools available to fill bowl games. Provides more options than just placing two schools from G5 conferences.

-CUSA down to 12, with UAB moving to the east division. Better geography for the conference.

-Independence making a case for more CFP access. At the moment Independents need to be rated in the Top 4 to have a guaranteed berth. With more indy schools it would support a second access bowl or at least a guarantee rule for anyone ranked in the Top 12 in an expanded CFP.

If that happens, could 5 more schools just join Charlotte, UMass and ODU as full members and therefore sponsor FBS? :

1.) UMASS
2.) ODU
3.) Charlotte
4.) Marshall
5.) UAB
6.) WKU

These are basketball schools. Nice name brands that I wouldn't mind playing opposite in a bowl game but too soft for regular football play.

What the board isn't getting the reason why you don't have a head a shoulder above everyone else MAC program is because the MAC is deeper with deeper recruiting base than the MWC. Not as good as what the SBC has to work with but pretty good.

This new league that you and others are mentioning up here isn't deeper than 2 or 3 bowl worthy teams in a given season. The only program it benefits is Marshall as its so weak they'd win it other year. MAC and SBC are tougher configurations.

(02-23-2021 08:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 11:14 AM)BKTopper Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 09:46 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  One of the better ideas I've heard is if ODU and Charlotte went independent, joined the A10.

-Strengthened the G5 indy ranks w/6 on the East Coast (UConn, Army, UMass, ODU, Liberty, Charlotte). That would be good for that group for scheduling.

-Indy schools available to fill bowl games. Provides more options than just placing two schools from G5 conferences.

-CUSA down to 12, with UAB moving to the east division. Better geography for the conference.

-Independence making a case for more CFP access. At the moment Independents need to be rated in the Top 4 to have a guaranteed berth. With more indy schools it would support a second access bowl or at least a guarantee rule for anyone ranked in the Top 12 in an expanded CFP.

If that happens, could 5 more schools just join Charlotte, UMass and ODU as full members and therefore sponsor FBS? :

1.) UMASS
2.) ODU
3.) Charlotte
4.) Marshall
5.) UAB
6.) WKU

These are basketball schools. Nice name brands that I wouldn't mind playing opposite in a bowl game but too soft for regular football play.

What the board isn't getting the reason why you don't have a head a shoulder above everyone else MAC program is because the MAC is deeper with deeper recruiting base than the MWC. Not as good as what the SBC has to work with but pretty good.

This new league that you and others are mentioning up here isn't deeper than 2 or 3 bowl worthy teams in a given season. The only program it benefits is Marshall as its so weak they'd win it other year. MAC and SBC are tougher configurations.

The first 3 are. The last 3 are double threats. Round it out with the other schools I already mentioned in that post that have great football but not great basketball.

Doesn’t a conference have to have at least 8 full FBS members to sponsor it anyway? Bring this configuration to 10 with:
7.) Appalachian State
8.) Coastal Carolina
9.) GA St
10.) Ga Southern

(02-23-2021 11:33 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 10:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 09:46 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  One of the better ideas I've heard is if ODU and Charlotte went independent, joined the A10.

Better idea for whom?

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote except why would the A10 add two flight risks that aren’t really lighting up the basketball world? I have to think Loyola (Chicago) would be higher on the list than those two.

Better geography for ODU/Charlotte all sports.

Better geography for remaining CUSA members.

Nope not for Marshall, the better geography for CUSA is if we kick out the Texas schools.

(02-21-2021 01:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is close to zero understanding on how the MAC works on here.

MAC west plays good football. Its produced 2 New Year's Bowl teams in the last 10 years in NIU, WMU and Toledo/CMU are consistent winners.

Thus the best shot Buffalo, Ohio and Miami have to play in a competitive FB conference is not to be aligning with Army and UMass or something like Marshall/WKU but to continue to play in the MAC.

Its kind of like wanting the MWC front range schools to split and play in a league with NMSU and UTEP. They are better off in a whole MWC with Boise, SDSU ect.

We know, Ohio, Little Miami, Toledo, Kent State, and Western Michigan have all been together for 69 years and aren't going anywhere. Lump in Ball State, E. Michigan and C Michigan who have been there sicne 71 and 73 along with N Illinois who joined in 1975 took a hiatus from the MAC from 1986-1997. You could look up in another 69 years and most likely 98% of these schools will be tied together.

The only programs I see ever accepting another conference that is in the MAC is Akron or Buffalo. Akron joined the MAC in 1992 and Buffalo in 1999. Buffalo after trading in bottom of IA for years seems like its got its crap together but Akron not so much.

Not sure what kind of mid east or mid atlantic conference would have to be put together but if strong enough I believe it could pull Buffalo.

(02-24-2021 03:58 PM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  There is close to zero understanding on how the MAC works on here.

MAC west plays good football. Its produced 2 New Year's Bowl teams in the last 10 years in NIU, WMU and Toledo/CMU are consistent winners.

Thus the best shot Buffalo, Ohio and Miami have to play in a competitive FB conference is not to be aligning with Army and UMass or something like Marshall/WKU but to continue to play in the MAC.

Its kind of like wanting the MWC front range schools to split and play in a league with NMSU and UTEP. They are better off in a whole MWC with Boise, SDSU ect.

We know, Ohio, Little Miami, Toledo, Kent State, and Western Michigan have all been together for 69 years and aren't going anywhere. Lump in Ball State, E. Michigan and C Michigan who have been there sicne 71 and 73 along with N Illinois who joined in 1975 took a hiatus from the MAC from 1986-1997. You could look up in another 69 years and most likely 98% of these schools will be tied together.

The only programs I see ever accepting another conference that is in the MAC is Akron or Buffalo. Akron joined the MAC in 1992 and Buffalo in 1999. Buffalo after trading in bottom of IA for years seems like its got its crap together but Akron not so much.

Not sure what kind of mid east or mid atlantic conference would have to be put together but if strong enough I believe it could pull Buffalo.

It has nothing to do with continuity in the MAC.

It has to do with 1) lowest travel costs of any FBS conference. 2) Good bowls and championships. 3) Good relationship with ESPN. 4) Long term position in G5.

Long term some AAC/MWC are going to end up in a power conference while more schools are plotting FBS (WAC/ASun). That is going to create a system in FBS football like D1 basketball where in D1 you have all of these weak southern basketball conferences because their is too many of them. On any given year the MAC finishes ahead of them.

Then it gets down to things like would you rather play Akron midweek on ESPN when expectations for fan participation is low or end up playing them in a bowl game. Marshall moved from the MAC to CUSA only to end up losing to Buffalo in a bowl game. Its a better draw for the MAC to get a high SBC/CUSA school in a bowl game than to join those conferences and play a MAC team in a bowl game.

Being the lowest attendance G5 league has its advantages because a 1 for 1 with good SBC/CUSA programs make for a nice draw.

(02-23-2021 08:49 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 11:18 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 10:37 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 07:45 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-22-2021 07:32 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  The solution is to stop looking outward and instead look inward. Build excitement around a true post season playoff format, similar to the FCS. With buy-in, a G5 playoff would be more exciting and draw more eyeballs and money to the G5 schools than what they are currently getting.

Somehow, that sounds exactly like what most of the schools in CUSA and the Sun Belt recently decided they didn't want. If a tournament like that was so lucrative, why did they all give it up to move to the FBS where they could play in a bowl game?

Because they are chasing the status and prestige of being called an FBS school, and they like to pretend they are competing with the P5 for the same championship even though any participation is really a pipe dream. It's so easy for any decent school in the south to move to FBS that there isn't really a reason not to (other than added expenses and debt that exceed any gain in revenue) If I was in charge I would move my school up too.. But what I'm saying is that the G5 can be done better.

You imply that I am saying the FCS tournament is lucrative? I know it isn't. The FCS has its own challenges that have nothing to do with the merit of my proposal, since the issue at the FCS level is just that there are too many small schools with small budgets and small fan bases. That said, there is a reason that FCS fans are so excited to bring up the playoffs - it's just way more fun and they know it's a better format.

With larger fanbases and better exposure at the G5 level, the tournament would have 10x the potential. As a fan of a MAC/CUSA/SunBelt school, wouldn't you want to watch teams in your conference want to knock others out of the playoffs? BS this school vs that school arguments can actually get settled on the field. Compare that with a bowl game, where you may end up playing a school barely above 500 because you don't have the right bowl tie in or because schools refuse to play you. Wtf is that..

The assumption you're making is that it won't get better for the G5.

As a MAC fan I can remember the days of 1 bowl for the champion only. No hope ever of making a NYD game.

G5 TV deals are off the charts from 10 years ago. MAC got an 8 fold increase in TV money from its individual deal and 20 fold increase from the CFP. MAC made $32 million in money from ESPN the year WMU made the Cotton Bowl.

I would say that an assumption that it won't get significantly better for the G5 is a pretty rational one. The MAC got a raise in TV money by sacrificing ticket revenue. Hard to say whether their total revenue increased much. And, financially, those additional bowl games don't exactly bring in the big bucks after you deduct the expenses of the participating teams.

If more net revenue from football is the goal there's going to be a lot of disappointment among G5 schools. But I don't think that's the goal. Probably more exposure is a goal, but I doubt a playoff would achieve that as well as pre-Christmas bowl games (which isn't saying much).

That is not at all what happened since the MAC moved to regular weeknight games back in 2008.

With MAC schools playing only 3-4 Saturday games that has created more demand for those tickets. Schools that were charging $15 dollars a ticket for all dates are now charging $45 for Saturday games. Some of the big non-con games on Saturday fetch $70+ for reserved seating. This has driven the price of season ticket packages up across the MAC.

MAC is picking up $23 million to $33 million from ESPN annually compared to $1.5 million prior to pre midweek/CFP era. Its not a monster payout to the schools as in the P5 but as a percentage of football budget for a MAC school its pretty good.

TV appearances on Midweek and in the bowl games have high marketing value for the university. FCS leagues get almost none of that while all the MAC teams are on national TV at least 4 times every year, with some scoring 8-10 exposures.

An individual MAC school doesn't have the budget to stay consistently nationally competitive. It's a league of parity. That, combined w/ its relatively small footprint, keeps the league what it is.

Also, if a MAC school is good in football, usually that means its basketball is poor. And vice versa. MAC schools have a difficult time being good in both, & that's what attracts "better" conferences.

(03-01-2021 05:11 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  An individual MAC school doesn't have the budget to stay consistently nationally competitive. It's a league of parity. That, combined w/ its relatively small footprint, keeps the league what it is.

Also, if a MAC school is good in football, usually that means its basketball is poor. And vice versa. MAC schools have a difficult time being good in both, & that's what attracts "better" conferences.

I love the MAC, it has great geographic and cultural cohesion.

The only problem with it is, given the level of support for its football programs, it should move down to FCS. It just can't afford FBS football even at its not-very-nationally-competitive level.

The more-consistent MAC schools do fine in attendance.

(03-01-2021 05:11 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  An individual MAC school doesn't have the budget to stay consistently nationally competitive. It's a league of parity. That, combined w/ its relatively small footprint, keeps the league what it is.

Its not parity its depth.

Every single program is gunning for a NYD bowl with coaching hires. MAC schools don't have recruiting competition in their region from other G5 conferences. There is Cincinnati but they compete with the P5 programs for players.

You just don't have a situation where its one school like Boise State or Gonzaga while everyone else is trash.

Ohio is good at both FB & BB. In 2012 was ranked in the Top 25 in both sports. Definitely would consider something else but it has to be AAC level in strength and with other MAC schools included. We wouldn't do something different just to do something different at this point at least with the MAC built up.

The A10 would be a good option because Dayton & SLU are in it, they spend more in basketball but not too much. The highest paid employee at Ohio is the men's basketball coach. Ohio's stance is it won't move unless other MAC schools are part of it. They don't want to be in a Marshall situation sticking out like a sore thumb.

(03-01-2021 05:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:11 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  An individual MAC school doesn't have the budget to stay consistently nationally competitive. It's a league of parity. That, combined w/ its relatively small footprint, keeps the league what it is.

Also, if a MAC school is good in football, usually that means its basketball is poor. And vice versa. MAC schools have a difficult time being good in both, & that's what attracts "better" conferences.

I love the MAC, it has great geographic and cultural cohesion.

The only problem with it is, given the level of support for its football programs, it should move down to FCS. It just can't afford FBS football even at its not-very-nationally-competitive level.

The MAC did move down temporarily in the 80's.

In the 90's it was close to moving down. New attendance legislation was in the works that could have forced about half the conference out. It got watered down.

The problem with MAC schools is not the affordability its the optics of playing in a mid major conference with the highest paid university employees being the head FB and BB coaches. There is a reluctance to open up the wallet unless that success is proven because they don't want to be stuck overpaying for a .500 MAC coach.

Cincinnati spends but look at their track record in FB/BB, local recruiting territory ect. AAC programs are in bigger markets and excellent recruiting territory.

MAC is more conservative with its spending and located in smaller markets has less potential for corporate sponsorship. Thought is the AAC spending model won't be sustainable and either programs like UC, UM, UH will move on shortly to a P5 or over the long term that spending will have to come down to a more normal G5 level (750k-1.25 mil for the HCs).

(03-01-2021 05:17 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  The more-consistent MAC schools do fine in attendance.

My observation its been more situational.

Best all time crowd for a MAC conference game came in 2016 during the MACC between WMU and Ohio which drew 45,616. WMU was having a great season and had the alums in metro Detroit to pull off that support.

MAC teams draw well for important campus dates like homecoming and parent's weekend. Nice weather will bring out more fans. They'll draw well for P5 games or cross town rivals.

Whenever a MAC team is undefeated they'll sell out when a big season is on the line. Even at a place like Ball State which is normally a weak draw they sold out in 2008 when in the Top 25 with an undefeated season.

G5 which are consistent 25,000+ tend to be in remote mid sized cities where its too far to travel and support another school or NFL team. AAC has bucked that trend by throwing a lot of money behind its programs resulting in high profile coaches, consistent Top 25 presence, appearance of a bigger football conference ect.

(03-02-2021 01:11 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:11 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  An individual MAC school doesn't have the budget to stay consistently nationally competitive. It's a league of parity. That, combined w/ its relatively small footprint, keeps the league what it is.

Also, if a MAC school is good in football, usually that means its basketball is poor. And vice versa. MAC schools have a difficult time being good in both, & that's what attracts "better" conferences.

I love the MAC, it has great geographic and cultural cohesion.

The only problem with it is, given the level of support for its football programs, it should move down to FCS. It just can't afford FBS football even at its not-very-nationally-competitive level.

The MAC did move down temporarily in the 80's.

In the 90's it was close to moving down. New attendance legislation was in the works that could have forced about half the conference out. It got watered down.

The problem with MAC schools is not the affordability its the optics of playing in a mid major conference with the highest paid university employees being the head FB and BB coaches. There is a reluctance to open up the wallet unless that success is proven because they don't want to be stuck overpaying for a .500 MAC coach.

Cincinnati spends but look at their track record in FB/BB, local recruiting territory ect. AAC programs are in bigger markets and excellent recruiting territory.

MAC is more conservative with its spending and located in smaller markets has less potential for corporate sponsorship. Thought is the AAC spending model won't be sustainable and either programs like UC, UM, UH will move on shortly to a P5 or over the long term that spending will have to come down to a more normal G5 level (750k-1.25 mil for the HCs).

That's the thing - these MAC schools are running 30m to 40m budgets with about 60% to 75% subsidized by student transfers. IMO, that is just not sustainable at FBS level. This is true of many G5 programs of course.

(03-02-2021 02:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:17 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  The more-consistent MAC schools do fine in attendance.

My observation its been more situational.

Best all time crowd for a MAC conference game came in 2016 during the MACC between WMU and Ohio which drew 45,616. WMU was having a great season and had the alums in metro Detroit to pull off that support.

MAC teams draw well for important campus dates like homecoming and parent's weekend. Nice weather will bring out more fans. They'll draw well for P5 games or cross town rivals.

Whenever a MAC team is undefeated they'll sell out when a big season is on the line. Even at a place like Ball State which is normally a weak draw they sold out in 2008 when in the Top 25 with an undefeated season.

G5 which are consistent 25,000+ tend to be in remote mid sized cities where its too far to travel and support another school or NFL team. AAC has bucked that trend by throwing a lot of money behind its programs resulting in high profile coaches, consistent Top 25 presence, appearance of a bigger football conference ect.

Most G5 simply do not have the fan base to support their football programs at FBS level. They are running on fumes, or $20 million annual transfers from students while drawing fewer than 20k fans in the stands and resorting to accounting gymnastics to meet NCAA requirements. MAC seems particularly prone to this.

(03-01-2021 05:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:11 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  An individual MAC school doesn't have the budget to stay consistently nationally competitive. It's a league of parity. That, combined w/ its relatively small footprint, keeps the league what it is.

Also, if a MAC school is good in football, usually that means its basketball is poor. And vice versa. MAC schools have a difficult time being good in both, & that's what attracts "better" conferences.

I love the MAC, it has great geographic and cultural cohesion.

The only problem with it is, given the level of support for its football programs, it should move down to FCS. It just can't afford FBS football even at its not-very-nationally-competitive level.

I think it's time to redefine what is D-I, FBS and FCS. None of those categories seem to make much sense in 2021. I'll probably start a separate thread to address this.

(03-02-2021 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:11 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  An individual MAC school doesn't have the budget to stay consistently nationally competitive. It's a league of parity. That, combined w/ its relatively small footprint, keeps the league what it is.

Also, if a MAC school is good in football, usually that means its basketball is poor. And vice versa. MAC schools have a difficult time being good in both, & that's what attracts "better" conferences.

I love the MAC, it has great geographic and cultural cohesion.

The only problem with it is, given the level of support for its football programs, it should move down to FCS. It just can't afford FBS football even at its not-very-nationally-competitive level.

I think it's time to redefine what is D-I, FBS and FCS. None of those categories seem to make much sense in 2021. I'll probably start a separate thread to address this.

Yes, new categories could be useful. Thing is though, those schools that stand to be recategorized into something perceived as less prestigious will scream.

(03-02-2021 10:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-02-2021 08:59 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-01-2021 05:11 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  An individual MAC school doesn't have the budget to stay consistently nationally competitive. It's a league of parity. That, combined w/ its relatively small footprint, keeps the league what it is.

Also, if a MAC school is good in football, usually that means its basketball is poor. And vice versa. MAC schools have a difficult time being good in both, & that's what attracts "better" conferences.

I love the MAC, it has great geographic and cultural cohesion.

The only problem with it is, given the level of support for its football programs, it should move down to FCS. It just can't afford FBS football even at its not-very-nationally-competitive level.

I think it's time to redefine what is D-I, FBS and FCS. None of those categories seem to make much sense in 2021. I'll probably start a separate thread to address this.

Yes, new categories could be useful. Thing is though, those schools that stand to be recategorized into something perceived as less prestigious will scream.

I can live with that. When the screaming is over, those schools will be able to properly assess what role athletics should play in meeting the academic mission of the university. How much is that "front porch" really worth to them?