(08-25-2011 09:42 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(08-25-2011 07:32 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(08-24-2011 09:51 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Facts:

-The lowest MAC budget is about 21 million.

-CUSA without Memphis, ECU, and UCF is the same strength as the SBC in football and basketball. The gap between CUSA and the SBC is narrowing every year.

You must have faulty sources for your facts. BGSU ($17M) and 5 other MAC programs have budgets below $21M. And if you think UAB, UH, USM, Tulsa, UTEP, are on par with SBC basketball..I just don't know what to say.

-I would check BGSU's latest athletic budget figures, I would suspect they will be up with the basketball endowment created.

-WKU, MTSU, South Alabama.....I think they stack up just fine against the schools you have listed in CUSA.

Totally disagree. If their recent recruits alone are an indicator of where the programs are heading, the gap will widen further.

CUSA schools may only be considered for AQ conference expansion, but that also is an indicator of outside perception.

(08-28-2011 10:33 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  There are highly successful business graduates from ASU evidenced by the 11 CEOs on ASU FBS feasibility committee. As well as myself ;-).

There are 12 MAC schools and ASU would fit right in the middle of them from an academic standpoint and near the top athletically. The real reason ASU isn't a candidate for the MAC and the MAC isn't a candidate for ASU in geography and natural rivalries.

If you have so many succesfull grads, why is your endowment only $56 Mil., ranking nationally between U. of Dubuque and Marietta College, two D-3 private schools? It would place you last in the MAC. There is a disconnect between winning 3 FCS titles and a lack of major giving, precisely due to a dearth of professional graduates.

The MAC has taken 'Southern schools' before. ASU would not fit academically as you are a mid-sized, weakly endowed Master's Regional U., and 13 of 14 MAC members are National Universities. WKU was denied entry partially because of that designation. At ASU, the ranking of importance is 1) Undergrad ed. 2) Athletics 3) Graduate ed. At schools like Buffalo or Temple it's 1) Graduate ed. 2) Research 3) Undergrad ed. (and even with that, we are still a 1st tier undergrad institutions). As we've been trying to point out, what t-shirt fans 'believe' about schools based on ignorance isn't important. It's about what presidents think in their analysis of prospective members.

Stony Brook took UTEP to OT. They might be farther along than we realize. They're definitely a team to keep an eye on.

I hear Texas has approached the MAC about full membership. Whorns really just want to be a very big fish in a little pond. Besides, it seems that the MAC is about the only conf that would not have a problem with the Longhorn Network.

(08-28-2011 06:01 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(08-28-2011 10:33 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  There are highly successful business graduates from ASU evidenced by the 11 CEOs on ASU FBS feasibility committee. As well as myself ;-).

There are 12 MAC schools and ASU would fit right in the middle of them from an academic standpoint and near the top athletically. The real reason ASU isn't a candidate for the MAC and the MAC isn't a candidate for ASU in geography and natural rivalries.

If you have so many succesfull grads, why is your endowment only $56 Mil., ranking nationally between U. of Dubuque and Marietta College, two D-3 private schools? It would place you last in the MAC. There is a disconnect between winning 3 FCS titles and a lack of major giving, precisely due to a dearth of professional graduates.

The MAC has taken 'Southern schools' before. ASU would not fit academically as you are a mid-sized, weakly endowed Master's Regional U., and 13 of 14 MAC members are National Universities. WKU was denied entry partially because of that designation. At ASU, the ranking of importance is 1) Undergrad ed. 2) Athletics 3) Graduate ed. At schools like Buffalo or Temple it's 1) Graduate ed. 2) Research 3) Undergrad ed. (and even with that, we are still a 1st tier undergrad institutions). As we've been trying to point out, what t-shirt fans 'believe' about schools based on ignorance isn't important. It's about what presidents think in their analysis of prospective members.

It's funny, I saw on another thread the ratings for conferences by academic standing. After reading all of these posts by Revovering and a couple of others I was expecting to see the MAC at the top. Gosh, it was shocking to see that that wasn't the case at all.

MAC

Akron-not ranked
BGSU-170
Buffalo-120
Kent State-183
Miami-79
Ohio-124
Temple-132
Ball State-179
CMU-not ranked
EMU-regional (midwest) 81
WMU-179
NIU-not ranked
Toledo-not ranked

Average- 145.8
not ranked-4/12
regional-1 (81)
AAU-1

Delusions of Grandeur?

(09-05-2011 09:29 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(08-28-2011 06:01 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(08-28-2011 10:33 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  There are highly successful business graduates from ASU evidenced by the 11 CEOs on ASU FBS feasibility committee. As well as myself ;-).

There are 12 MAC schools and ASU would fit right in the middle of them from an academic standpoint and near the top athletically. The real reason ASU isn't a candidate for the MAC and the MAC isn't a candidate for ASU in geography and natural rivalries.

If you have so many succesfull grads, why is your endowment only $56 Mil., ranking nationally between U. of Dubuque and Marietta College, two D-3 private schools? It would place you last in the MAC. There is a disconnect between winning 3 FCS titles and a lack of major giving, precisely due to a dearth of professional graduates.

The MAC has taken 'Southern schools' before. ASU would not fit academically as you are a mid-sized, weakly endowed Master's Regional U., and 13 of 14 MAC members are National Universities. WKU was denied entry partially because of that designation. At ASU, the ranking of importance is 1) Undergrad ed. 2) Athletics 3) Graduate ed. At schools like Buffalo or Temple it's 1) Graduate ed. 2) Research 3) Undergrad ed. (and even with that, we are still a 1st tier undergrad institutions). As we've been trying to point out, what t-shirt fans 'believe' about schools based on ignorance isn't important. It's about what presidents think in their analysis of prospective members.

It's funny, I saw on another thread the ratings for conferences by academic standing. After reading all of these posts by Revovering and a couple of others I was expecting to see the MAC at the top. Gosh, it was shocking to see that that wasn't the case at all.

Delusions of Grandeur?

Your sarcastic expectations show a continued lack of knowledge of institutional make-up. The MAC trails CUSA since they have 4 private schools, 2 AAU's in Tulane and Rice, with SMU and Tulsa also in the Top 100.