MAC General Realignment Thread

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3756

tute79 wrote:

Not sure this is entirely a MAC vs. CUSA thing....

There have been other factors going on here.

The administration at Temple was running their football program into the ground with a lack of financial commitment. I believe a new administration came in (after Temple football was not retained by the Big East) and was determined to rebuild the program with the goal of eventually vieing for a BCS conference membership. Indeed, the MAC has been the perfect fit for this interim period. It was the right level of competition, and travel hasn't been horrible. But the coach (now departing for "the U" - Miami) had a lot to do with the recent progress.

UMass has seemingly decided to make the push to FBS VERY SUDDENLY ! This issue has languished a long time, and it's as though the UMass administration suddenly was presented with an opportunity.
Maybe they recently got a strong sense that Villanova will decline BE football membership, and the BE will add UCF or Houston as #10 FB school this year. And then UMass (along with Temple) need to be positioned for a second FB expansion (#11 and #12) a few years from now.

So UMass is suddenly "ready to roll". This FCS -> FBS moratorium is still in place. UMass must be expecting that to be lifted soon (it has been scheduled for review in 2011), or they are stuck, since they hadn't announced any intention to move to FBS prior to the moratorium, to get themselves"grandfathered in".

Why did Marshall jump to CUSA in 2003 ? CUSA clearly has SOME higher profile schools and is not perceived as a collection of Ohio and Michigan "State Schools". Their TV contract earns more money. CUSA has a LOT of bowl tie-ins. The down-side has to be TRAVEL, which has to be a pain in the butt for Marshall's other (non-revenue) sports. They will claim that this was a great decision, and the CUSA money is SO MUCH BETTER (to save face), but the reality is that overall the MAC is a much better fit.

From a competitive stand-point would the MAC be so much better for Marshall ? Not sure...
They had a really nice run where they benefitted from having superb players like Moss, Pennington, and Leftwich there. Is Marshall's ability to attract such recruits affected by whether Marshall is in CUSA or the MAC ? I honestly don't know.

A school like BC gets enough $$$ and is located near a major airport, such that travel to other ACC schools isn't a killer. For other "isolated" ischools like Marshall (CUSA), LaTech (WAC), and Hawaii (WAC), the travel is a much more significant factor. It is HUGE in the case of Hawaii, to the extent that they would not have been invited to the Big West / MWC football without agreeing to cough up significant travel subsidies for visiting teams. LaTech has let it be known that they would jump to CUSA in a heartbeat. If there is a conference re-shuffling that presents an opportunity to Marshall, rest assured that they will be willling to sit down and listen.

Great stuff.

As for Marshall, I've always felt that they would eventually be in a conference more like the old Southern versus say, ever being able to get in the Big East. The issue has been that not enough of the SoCon members (some CAA) have made the upgrade.

As the next best option, I think Marshall would much rather be in a strong regional conference than the current CUSA, comprised of Texas secondary schools, and schools outside their past region.

If in 2025, Marshall were in a conference with UMass, Temple, Delaware, Marshall, JMU, ECU, ODU, App St., Charlotte, GA St., GA Southern...they'd be happy. That of course is contingent on these schools making the jump, being successful and enticing schools like Marshall and eCU. And there are just so many factors preventing all those instances.

JPSchmack · **Joined:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm **Posts:** 851

UMass formed a committee to explore an FBS upgrade back in 2007.

Faux King of Bish · **Joined:** Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:39 am **Posts:** 35

Yeah, UMass has been mulling this matter over for some time now. UConn's relatively quick ascent only helped to escalate the debate. The other issue that I think poses more realism into UMass's upgrade initiative is its current surroundings in the CAA. Folks, the CAA is going to look A LOT different in the next ten years, and even if some of the conference's more competitive programs resist the flirtations of FBS paydays, the New England portion will probably be forced to upgrade or move down into a less competitive conference because of the southern member influx and travel burdens. Fine for URI. Not for UMass. Plus, there are those rumors about others in the CAA looking into upgrading. So, it's not just Temple, UConn, and 'Nova forcing UMass's hand here.

The other part of the MAC expansion is what their reps were saying about UMass not being the only candidate they were looking at. I wonder who else that is. WKU? YSU? SIU? Missou State? WIU? UNI? App State?

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7054

Boston Globe article with update on MAC/UMass/Temple situation.Looks like we're on "invitation watch",but it "might" extend into next month.Link at http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/f ... ove_to_fbs

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7054

As we get closer to the end of the year,here is article out of Minuteman country discussing possible UMass to MAC move at http://www.masslive.com/sports/index.ss ... sta_b.html

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1491

Freaked -

Per a few articles, it sounded as though Temple had a 12/31/10 deadline to re-commit to MAC football for X years (beyond the 2011 season). The invitation to UMass (as team #14) sounded as though it was contingent on Temple re-enlisting as team #13.
Have you seen anything that mentions Temple's decision ?
I should think Temple would want to keep their commitment relatively short, to allow them to jump to the Big East in short order, should an invitation come their way in the future.

Thanks,
Tute79

The article about UConn's difficulty in selling their allocation of Fiesta Bowl tickets is interesting, and reflects the widely held view that CERTAIN Big East teams don't tavel well.
However, this pales in comparison to the lack of enthusiasm exhibited when the MAC was sending teams to the Humanitarian Bowl in Boise. I mean REALLY !!! I have nothing against Boise, but who thought for a minute that would be a popular tourist destination in the dead of winter ?

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3756

tute79 wrote:

Freaked -

Per a few articles, it sounded as though Temple had a 12/31/10 deadline to re-commit to MAC football for X years (beyond the 2011 season). The invitation to UMass (as team #14) sounded as though it was contingent on Temple re-enlisting as team #13.
Have you seen anything that mentions Temple's decision ?
I should think Temple would want to keep their commitment relatively short, to allow them to jump to the Big East in short order, should an invitation come their way in the future.

Thanks,
Tute79

The article about UConn's difficulty in selling their allocation of Fiesta Bowl tickets is interesting, and reflects the widely held view that CERTAIN Big East teams don't tavel well.
However, this pales in comparison to the lack of enthusiasm exhibited when the MAC was sending teams to the Humanitarian Bowl in Boise. I mean REALLY !!! I have nothing against Boise, but who thought for a minute that would be a popular tourist destination in the dead of winter ?

I think it's all moot in regards to Temple. Face it, if the Big East did extend an invite to them, it's not like they'd say "woe is me, but we're already in the MAC and wouldn't want to break their hearts by leaving". If the Big East extended and invite to Temple, the MAC buyout would be taken care of before Temple was even off the phone with the big East

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1491

Oh yeah, Quinn, I agree with you 100%. It should be obvious to everyone (including Temple adminatration) that any Big East invitation for them is AT BEST several years away. So it makes all the sense in the world for them to re-enlist with MAC Football and keep fortifying their program.

I was just waiting to see a press release or some official word, since I think that is a precursor for the official invitation to UMass...

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7054

Tute79,thanks for the post.
As previously indicated,I believe that we are currently on "MAC invitation watch"which "may" extend into next month.Stay tuned.
BTW,I believe that Quinn will continue to be on top of this story since he is a UMASS alum.

Thanks
Freaked

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3756

freaked4collegefb wrote:

Tute79,thanks for the post.
As previously indicated,I believe that we are currently on "MAC invitation watch"which "may" extend into next month.Stay tuned.
BTW,I believe that Quinn will continue to be on top of this story since he is a UMASS alum.

Thanks
Freaked

Indeed. Anyone interested can follow us on the umasshoops thread on the topic . Everyone is pretty excited. It's been great to see over the past few months that many people who opposed my view of the MAC being the logical first move, are now onboard. It's made sense for some time to go their first and hope for the best in the future (Big East, new FCS upgrade conference, etc)

seanbo · **Posted:** Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:42 am

How much better could the MAC be with expansion to 16 teams?

Let's say UMass is in? Is it possible Army or Navy could join? Navy no, Army maybe. Army played 3 MAC teams this past year, Easterm Michigan, Kent State and Temple. How about a MAC that looks something like this.

Eastern Division- Akron, Buffalo, Kent State, Ohio, Temple, UMASS, ARMY, NAVY
WesternDivision- Ball State, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, Dayton, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Western Michigan

Who knows if Navy did not join, maybe Marshall comes back if Conference USA is raided?

Army and Navy are longshots to join but this new MAC would already be better than the Sun Belt and whatever the WAC comes up with. I think it could be pretty close or equal to C-USA.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3756

seanbo wrote:

How much better could the MAC be with expansion to 16 teams?

Let's say UMass is in? Is it possible Army or Navy could join? Navy no, Army maybe. Army played 3 MAC teams this past year, Easterm Michigan, Kent State and Temple. How about a MAC that looks something like this.

Eastern Division- Akron, Buffalo, Kent State, Ohio, Temple, UMASS, ARMY, NAVY
WesternDivision- Ball State, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, Dayton, Eastern Michigan, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Western Michigan

Who knows if Navy did not join, maybe Marshall comes back if Conference USA is raided?

Army and Navy are longshots to join but this new MAC would already be better than the Sun Belt and whatever the WAC comes up with. I think it could be pretty close or equal to C-USA.

I know it's fun to talk about Army and Navy since they are in the northeast region. But to answer your question, No. There is likely less than zero percent chance of that. Navy rejected a CUSA that included Louisville, USF, Cincy and TCU. Army left that same conference. Army and Navy rejected the Big East, including a joint membership (4 games each). So they turned down a conference on the cusp of the BCS (CUSA) and turned down one in the BCS (Big East). So logic tells us they would surely never consider a conference that is at the complete bottom of the FBS pecking order...a conference that is lower ranked than many FCS conferences in the region, like the CAA.

CUSA could lose half it's schools and guess what...CUSA would pick and chose MAC schools it wanted. The CUSA tv deal, while small compared to Big East, it still better than the MAC.

As for Dayton...they are a private catholic school without scholarship football and no intentions of adding that level of sport. Again, the A10 even without Temple and Umass (to CUSA) would still be lightyears ahead of the MAC with schools like Xavier, Charlotte, Richmond, etc.

seanbo · **Posted:** Sun Jan 02, 2011 2:17 am

If conferences expand in the future and let's say 9 game conference schedules start. Army and Navy may need opponents similar to how Notre Dame may feel forced to join a conference. I believe Army and Navy will stay independents, but who knows if the Big 12 can deliver on their promises to Texas, Oklahoma, A & M, and OK State. If they can't does the PAC make another attempt. Does the snowball start? Just sayin'.

PS-You are 100% correct on Dayton. I should have paid better attention rather than hurrying.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3756

seanbo wrote:

If conferences expand in the future and let's say 9 game conference schedules start. Army and Navy may need opponents similar to how Notre Dame may feel forced to join a conference. I believe Army and Navy will stay independents, but who knows if the Big 12 can deliver on their promises to Texas, Oklahoma, A & M, and OK State. If they can't does the PAC make another attempt. Does the snowball start? Just sayin'.

PS-You are 100% correct on Dayton. I should have paid better attention rather than hurrying.

Your'e dead on about the Big 12. Who knows how the financials will play out. We almost had Texas A&M leave for the SEC and the other 4 to the Pac-10. TAMU also made it clear that if they don't get their $20 million, they might still elave, regardless of what the other schools do.

I think for the future though, things will be much different.

This past spring, the Pac-10 and Big 12 had talked about a joint TV contract. Then the Pac-10 realized they could cut out the middle man (B12 bottom feeders) and just bring in the best of the Big 12. Everyone else was caught off guard.

Next time, that won't be the case. You can bet your ass that the SEC is putting together all the financials so that they can make a counter offer if the Pac-10 came calling again. And i mean hard numbers that would be tough for texas to turn down based on the "academic" excuse they've used before.

You might also see the Big Ten have a plan in place...especially now that Nebraska is in the fold. No love lost between Neb and the Big 12 schools, but if all of a sudden you're talking Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, OSU, Texas, Texas A&M together (Big Ten putting markets/money ahead of academics with the Oklahoma schools)..you'e got another ballgame.

My money is still on the SEC though. They have time to forge a plan. All 4 schools make sense in the SEC and would generate even more money for the conference. It's also a powerful conference, more so than the Pac-10. And rather than the idea of Texas and Oklahoma schools having to fly to Seattle, Spokane, and Portland for secondary sports, you're talking about divisions like: Oklahoma, OSU, Texas, Texas A&M, Arkansas, LSU, MSU & Ole Miss.

For now though, all is stable...

freaked4collegefb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm **Posts:** 7054

Daily Hampshire Gazette blurb (scroll down)regarding UMass/MAC situation reporting that Temple says that there was no year end deadline to commit to the MAC.Link at http://gazettenet.com/2011/01/04/former ... -positions

MAC General Realignment Thread

Who is online