(02-22-2014 08:45 PM)MRD92 Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:11 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  No way should the MAC even consider adding any of the FCS schools. FBS conferences add FCS schools when they are desperate to keep the conference from collapsing. The MAC is the most stable G5 conference with 9 schools being members for 40+ years and 6 of those for 60+. Stable conference should be looking to add schools that immediately enhance the conference and make it more competitive.

I would prefer the MAC find a way to get to 12 schools instead of 14, but if another school is to be added it should be one that is not a project and can come in and compete right away. "TV Markets" are fool's gold wen you're dealing with G5 conferences, what every G5 conference needs is more schools that can win NOW and fit the conference profile geographically, academically, and demographically.

Based on this criteria I only see 4 schools that would be a sensible add for the MAC-

- UC
- UConn
- Temple
- Marshall

And I am fully aware that none of those schools, or their fans, would have any interest in joining the MAC. That's not the point, the point is the MAC should only be adding to the top, not to the bottom. If you can't add to the top then don't add at all.

If you truly believe the portion of your post I marked in bold, what would be your criteria for a university that wanted to move from FCS to FBS? Or perhaps that would just never happen...

FCS schools don't get to pick when they move up, it depends on the needs of the FBS conferences. Best thing an ambitious FCS schools could do would be to make themselves as attractive as possible by building up facilities, fans and wins.

(02-22-2014 09:35 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:11 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  No way should the MAC even consider adding any of the FCS schools. FBS conferences add FCS schools when they are desperate to keep the conference from collapsing.

Its a red herring that some FBS conferences have sometimes added FCS schools when they are desperate to stave off collapse, ...

... since it is obviously false that the only occasion for adding FCS schools. The MAC did not add either Buffalo or UMass to keep the MAC from collapsing.

Indeed, under current rules, neither Akron nor UCF would not have been able to transition to the top football subdivision without an FBS conference sponsoring them, so under the new rules, neither of those two adds could have proceeded by the school first transitioning as an independent and then joining the MAC.

Quote: The MAC is the most stable G5 conference with 9 schools being members for 40+ years and 6 of those for 60+. Stable conference should be looking to add schools that immediately enhance the conference and make it more competitive.

...

- UC
- UConn
- Temple
- Marshall

UConn is the only school on your list that hasn't left the MAC ~ and in Marshall's case, twice. It seems that your underlying criteria for picking a school to join "the most stable Go5 conference" is that they promise to bring instability into the conference.

they wouldn't be joining the MAC to use as a stepping stone and they have a proven track record so I see no indication of instability.

I earned my undergraduate degree from OU (lived in Lincoln Hall on East Green freshman and sophomore years) and I loved my time there. However, holy hell those Russell Athletic jerseys are among the ugliest in college football.

(02-22-2014 07:46 PM)The Real LHS81 Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 05:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  .. JMU would likely be one of the top MAC basketball schools from the get go.

you're wrong about football but this statement about JMU and MAC basketball is so completely ridiculous I had to highlight it so others could get a good laugh too.

Hmmmmm. You have a much higher opinion of MAC basketball than most.

It's true, JMU is struggling this season and they have been up and down performance wise, but they have been 21 game winners in 3 of the previous 5 seasons. That would make them one of the better MAC basketball teams---which is all I said. I never said they would be a major basketball power---but that level of performance would have made them one of the MACs top teams.

Attackcoog doesn't want people to sleep on JMU's basketball team

lol. Exactly!!!

Truth be told, I'd prefer that the G5 not promote any other FBS teams and that that the G5, as a group, handle realignment in a way that doesn't require the elevation of any further FCS schools. In my opinion there are plenty of FBS schools and we really don't need to add anymore--but we might need to occasionally rearrange the ones already in FBS. Unfortunately, while everyone knows that would be actually yield the best results for the G5 as a whole---the reality of conference mechanics is unlikely to ever allow the level of cooperation required to accomplish that end.

(02-22-2014 10:04 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 08:45 PM)MRD92 Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:11 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  No way should the MAC even consider adding any of the FCS schools. FBS conferences add FCS schools when they are desperate to keep the conference from collapsing. [/B]The MAC is the most stable G5 conference with 9 schools being members for 40+ years and 6 of those for 60+. Stable conference should be looking to add schools that immediately enhance the conference and make it more competitive.

I would prefer the MAC find a way to get to 12 schools instead of 14, but if another school is to be added it should be one that is not a project and can come in and compete right away. "TV Markets" are fool's gold wen you're dealing with G5 conferences, what every G5 conference needs is more schools that can win NOW and fit the conference profile geographically, academically, and demographically.

Based on this criteria I only see 4 schools that would be a sensible add for the MAC-

- UC
- UConn
- Temple
- Marshall

And I am fully aware that none of those schools, or their fans, would have any interest in joining the MAC. That's not the point, the point is the MAC should only be adding to the top, not to the bottom. If you can't add to the top then don't add at all.

If you truly believe the portion of your post I marked in bold, what would be your criteria for a university that wanted to move from FCS to FBS? Or perhaps that would just never happen...

FCS schools don't get to pick when they move up, it depends on the needs of the FBS conferences. Best thing an ambitious FCS schools could do would be to make themselves as attractive as possible by building up facilities, fans and wins.

You mean like putting $62 million into a football stadium upgrade and adding numerous new other facilities, being in the top of FCS in attendance (and near the top of their potential future conference) and not having a losing season for 10 years or so? Would it help if they won a National Championship and beat a ranked FBS team too?

I'm not pretending JMU is going to come in like gangbusters and torch the MAC in any sport, but I fail to see how we're a terrible add.

(02-22-2014 07:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 05:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  .. JMU would likely be one of the top MAC basketball schools from the get go.

you're wrong about football but this statement about JMU and MAC basketball is so completely ridiculous I had to highlight it so others could get a good laugh too.

Hmmmmm. You have a much higher opinion of MAC basketball than most.

It's true, JMU is struggling this season and they have been up and down performance wise, but they have been 21 game winners in 3 of the previous 5 seasons. That would make them one of the better MAC basketball teams---which is all I said. I never said they would be a major basketball power---but that level of performance would have made them one of the MACs top teams.

Wins would be harder to come by in a tougher conference. Here's JMU's RPI for the last 10 years and where that ranked in the MAC that year.

216- 11th
182- 5th
261- 11th
88- 2nd
241- 11th
138- 5th
218- 9th
304- 13th
299- 11th
302-14th

So in your world (one devoid of facts) JMU would have been "one of the MAC's top teams" by having, on average, the 9th best RPI in the conference?

(02-22-2014 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  From what I have seen, there is no reason to believe JMU could not be competitive from the start in the MAC. Unlike UMass, JMU is located in a decent recruiting area and would likely be quite solid fairly quickly.

It's got nothing to do with that. UMass has only had one full FBS recruiting class since the FBS announcement, and they were freshmen last year. During our stub year, we flipped several JMU recruits as part of a last second salvage job. Needless to say, it didn't help us much. JMU for its part just fired its coach of the last 14 years and will now be playing an offensive scheme it's never recruited for, just like UMass tried to do the past two seasons. Ask us how that experience went.

JMU's recent history is nothing special, other than the big VT upset. Their last CAA championship was in 2008, which is one year more recent than UMass's last championship in the same conference. They finished 9th out of 11 teams last season in a watered down CAA, and the only two teams behind them were reclassifying from the NEC, a partial scholarship conference. In fact, JMU's last season was very similar to UMass's final season in the CAA, in that both teams went 2-5 against full scholarship, full FCS teams. ODU was playing better than both UMass and JMU at the time they moved up, gave themselves an extra offseason to recruit, and still ended up squeaking by Liberty, Norfolk State and the Citadel last season. The FBS transition isn't as simple and easy as those of us who've been fans of FCS teams think it is.

The best thing about JMU is that their attendance hasn't really flagged much despite only having 1 playoff appearance in the last 5 years, and not having advanced past the 2nd round since their national championship in 2004. Fan support has been reliable for JMU in the post-championship era. However, next season will be their first ever in their post-championship era under a new coach, who intends to actually try passing the ball. It's probably worth watching to see how that goes for at least one season. I'm not sure if UMass would have gotten its invitation to the MAC if they'd seen what a complete disaster our switch to the spread offense was going to be. I'm no football coach, but if you're dead last in the entire nation in passing efficiency, you probably shouldn't be running a no-huddle spread. That sort of thing gets coaches fired two years into a five year contract.

(02-22-2014 10:29 PM)JMUDukeDawg Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 10:04 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 08:45 PM)MRD92 Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:11 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  No way should the MAC even consider adding any of the FCS schools. FBS conferences add FCS schools when they are desperate to keep the conference from collapsing. [/B]The MAC is the most stable G5 conference with 9 schools being members for 40+ years and 6 of those for 60+. Stable conference should be looking to add schools that immediately enhance the conference and make it more competitive.

I would prefer the MAC find a way to get to 12 schools instead of 14, but if another school is to be added it should be one that is not a project and can come in and compete right away. "TV Markets" are fool's gold wen you're dealing with G5 conferences, what every G5 conference needs is more schools that can win NOW and fit the conference profile geographically, academically, and demographically.

Based on this criteria I only see 4 schools that would be a sensible add for the MAC-

- UC
- UConn
- Temple
- Marshall

And I am fully aware that none of those schools, or their fans, would have any interest in joining the MAC. That's not the point, the point is the MAC should only be adding to the top, not to the bottom. If you can't add to the top then don't add at all.

If you truly believe the portion of your post I marked in bold, what would be your criteria for a university that wanted to move from FCS to FBS? Or perhaps that would just never happen...

FCS schools don't get to pick when they move up, it depends on the needs of the FBS conferences. Best thing an ambitious FCS schools could do would be to make themselves as attractive as possible by building up facilities, fans and wins.

You mean like putting $62 million into a football stadium upgrade and adding numerous new other facilities, being in the top of FCS in attendance (and near the top of their potential future conference) and not having a losing season for 10 years or so? Would it help if they won a National Championship and beat a ranked FBS team too?

I'm not pretending JMU is going to come in like gangbusters and torch the MAC in any sport, but I fail to see how we're a terrible add.

JMU is a bad add for the MAC because the MAC doesn't need to add another school. Playoff revenue is paid out to conferences per team, up to 12 teams. Its just another mouth to feed with no real added value. Sun Belt needs a 12th member, maybe they'd be interested.

JMU is a bad add for the FBS overall because college football is all about exclusion, not inclusion.

I hate everything about the P5 because they're total pricks to the G5 and looks for ways to widen the gap, not open the door. So this is me rolling that elitist nonsense down hill to the FCS teams. If an FCS team joins a G5 conference and sucks it muddies the waters and makes the perception of the gap between P5 and G5 even wider than it is. That sucks for my team. And if you come into FBS and do really well then that sucks for my team too. I don't want the competition. That's as about as black and white as I can spell it out for you. Nothing personal. Best of luck to you.

(02-22-2014 10:45 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  From what I have seen, there is no reason to believe JMU could not be competitive from the start in the MAC. Unlike UMass, JMU is located in a decent recruiting area and would likely be quite solid fairly quickly.

It's got nothing to do with that. UMass has only had one full FBS recruiting class since the FBS announcement, and they were freshmen last year. During our stub year, we flipped several JMU recruits as part of a last second salvage job. Needless to say, it didn't help us much. JMU for its part just fired its coach of the last 14 years and will now be playing an offensive scheme it's never recruited for, just like UMass tried to do the past two seasons. Ask us how that experience went.

JMU's recent history is nothing special, other than the big VT upset. Their last CAA championship was in 2008, which is one year more recent than UMass's last championship in the same conference. They finished 9th out of 11 teams last season in a watered down CAA, and the only two teams behind them were reclassifying from the NEC, a partial scholarship conference. In fact, JMU's last season was very similar to UMass's final season in the CAA, in that both teams went 2-5 against full scholarship, full FCS teams. ODU was playing better than both UMass and JMU at the time they moved up, gave themselves an extra offseason to recruit, and still ended up squeaking by Liberty, Norfolk State and the Citadel last season. The FBS transition isn't as simple and easy as those of us who've been fans of FCS teams think it is.

The best thing about JMU is that their attendance hasn't really flagged much despite only having 1 playoff appearance in the last 5 years, and not having advanced past the 2nd round since their national championship in 2004. Fan support has been reliable for JMU in the post-championship era. However, next season will be their first ever in their post-championship era under a new coach, who intends to actually try passing the ball. It's probably worth watching to see how that goes for at least one season. I'm not sure if UMass would have gotten its invitation to the MAC if they'd seen what a complete disaster our switch to the spread offense was going to be. I'm no football coach, but if you're dead last in the entire nation in passing efficiency, you probably shouldn't be running a no-huddle spread. That sort of thing gets coaches fired two years into a five year contract.

Would UMass go all sports MAC if they tell you all or nothing? W/ St.Louis and 1 of Richmond, Dayton, VCU going to the BE sooner or later, does it make it easier to go all in on the MAC?

(02-22-2014 10:54 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 10:29 PM)JMUDukeDawg Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 10:04 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 08:45 PM)MRD92 Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:11 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  No way should the MAC even consider adding any of the FCS schools. FBS conferences add FCS schools when they are desperate to keep the conference from collapsing. [/B]The MAC is the most stable G5 conference with 9 schools being members for 40+ years and 6 of those for 60+. Stable conference should be looking to add schools that immediately enhance the conference and make it more competitive.

I would prefer the MAC find a way to get to 12 schools instead of 14, but if another school is to be added it should be one that is not a project and can come in and compete right away. "TV Markets" are fool's gold wen you're dealing with G5 conferences, what every G5 conference needs is more schools that can win NOW and fit the conference profile geographically, academically, and demographically.

Based on this criteria I only see 4 schools that would be a sensible add for the MAC-

- UC
- UConn
- Temple
- Marshall

And I am fully aware that none of those schools, or their fans, would have any interest in joining the MAC. That's not the point, the point is the MAC should only be adding to the top, not to the bottom. If you can't add to the top then don't add at all.

If you truly believe the portion of your post I marked in bold, what would be your criteria for a university that wanted to move from FCS to FBS? Or perhaps that would just never happen...

FCS schools don't get to pick when they move up, it depends on the needs of the FBS conferences. Best thing an ambitious FCS schools could do would be to make themselves as attractive as possible by building up facilities, fans and wins.

You mean like putting $62 million into a football stadium upgrade and adding numerous new other facilities, being in the top of FCS in attendance (and near the top of their potential future conference) and not having a losing season for 10 years or so? Would it help if they won a National Championship and beat a ranked FBS team too?

I'm not pretending JMU is going to come in like gangbusters and torch the MAC in any sport, but I fail to see how we're a terrible add.

JMU is a bad add for the MAC because the MAC doesn't need to add another school. Playoff revenue is paid out to conferences per team, up to 12 teams. Its just another mouth to feed with no real added value. Sun Belt needs a 12th member, maybe they'd be interested.

JMU is a bad add for the FBS overall because college football is all about exclusion, not inclusion.

I hate everything about the P5 because they're total pricks to the G5 and looks for ways to widen the gap, not open the door. So this is me rolling that elitist nonsense down hill to the FCS teams. If an FCS team joins a G5 conference and sucks it muddies the waters and makes the perception of the gap between P5 and G5 even wider than it is. That sucks for my team. And if you come into FBS and do really well then that sucks for my team too. I don't want the competition. That's as about as black and white as I can spell it out for you. Nothing personal. Best of luck to you.

No offense, but this screams defeatism. So basically you are saying you hate competition and do not want to get beat, if that were to happen?

(02-22-2014 11:01 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Would UMass go all sports MAC if they tell you all or nothing? W/ St.Louis and 1 of Richmond, Dayton, VCU going to the BE sooner or later, does it make it easier to go all in on the MAC?

I'd expect UMass to take the full 2+ year notice period to look at alternatives. As we've seen, a ton can happen in conference realignment over a 2 year period. I think there is a combination of events that could make MAC all-sports the most attractive option, but losing SLU + 1 from the A10 probably isn't enough, especially if +1 is Dayton. SLU has been a steady contributor and not a member I'd want to replace, but it's also a travel headache. Maybe some of the A10 newbies or old guard step up after SLU leaves, like they have this year. Nobody wanted to lose Temple, Xavier, Butler and Charlotte, but reality is only 1 of those 4 teams is even on the bubble this year, while the A10 is still looking like a 5 bid conference. A lot can change in 1 year, let alone 2.

(02-22-2014 11:37 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:01 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Would UMass go all sports MAC if they tell you all or nothing? W/ St.Louis and 1 of Richmond, Dayton, VCU going to the BE sooner or later, does it make it easier to go all in on the MAC?

I'd expect UMass to take the full 2+ year notice period to look at alternatives. As we've seen, a ton can happen in conference realignment over a 2 year period. I think there is a combination of events that could make MAC all-sports the most attractive option, but losing SLU + 1 from the A10 probably isn't enough, especially if +1 is Dayton. SLU has been a steady contributor and not a member I'd want to replace, but it's also a travel headache. Maybe some of the A10 newbies or old guard step up after SLU leaves, like they have this year. Nobody wanted to lose Temple, Xavier, Butler and Charlotte, but reality is only 1 of those 4 teams is even on the bubble this year, while the A10 is still looking like a 5 bid conference. A lot can change in 1 year, let alone 2.

VCU, George Mason (this year an exception), Davidson, whoever's left between Dayton/Richmond/Saint Louis... you can find at least 2 or 3 bids with that group.

(02-22-2014 10:39 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 07:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 05:35 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  .. JMU would likely be one of the top MAC basketball schools from the get go.

you're wrong about football but this statement about JMU and MAC basketball is so completely ridiculous I had to highlight it so others could get a good laugh too.

Hmmmmm. You have a much higher opinion of MAC basketball than most.

It's true, JMU is struggling this season and they have been up and down performance wise, but they have been 21 game winners in 3 of the previous 5 seasons. That would make them one of the better MAC basketball teams---which is all I said. I never said they would be a major basketball power---but that level of performance would have made them one of the MACs top teams.

Wins would be harder to come by in a tougher conference. Here's JMU's RPI for the last 10 years and where that ranked in the MAC that year.

216- 11th
182- 5th
261- 11th
88- 2nd
241- 11th
138- 5th
218- 9th
304- 13th
299- 11th
302-14th

So in your world (one devoid of facts) JMU would have been "one of the MAC's top teams" by having, on average, the 9th best RPI in the conference?

FWIW, James Madison's basketball attendance would put it in the upper half of the conference. The same of course with its football numbers.

They have the FB/BB support the MAC is looking for, willing to accept an all sport and a reasonable extension of the conference footprint. Its going to be a while before they contend for conference titles in MAC football and basketball but that isn't really what the MAC sees as a must when looking for a 14th. They just want a school that looks like a MAC school and not an Ohio Valley Conference school in a 4,000 seat gym.

(02-22-2014 11:37 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:01 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Would UMass go all sports MAC if they tell you all or nothing? W/ St.Louis and 1 of Richmond, Dayton, VCU going to the BE sooner or later, does it make it easier to go all in on the MAC?

I'd expect UMass to take the full 2+ year notice period to look at alternatives. As we've seen, a ton can happen in conference realignment over a 2 year period. I think there is a combination of events that could make MAC all-sports the most attractive option, but losing SLU + 1 from the A10 probably isn't enough, especially if +1 is Dayton. SLU has been a steady contributor and not a member I'd want to replace, but it's also a travel headache. Maybe some of the A10 newbies or old guard step up after SLU leaves, like they have this year. Nobody wanted to lose Temple, Xavier, Butler and Charlotte, but reality is only 1 of those 4 teams is even on the bubble this year, while the A10 is still looking like a 5 bid conference. A lot can change in 1 year, let alone 2.

There is a notice in place already? You're being unfair to Temple & Butler, they've had solid programs for a while, they're having a down year.

But yes the adds have made the losses easier to swallow.

(02-22-2014 11:37 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:01 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Would UMass go all sports MAC if they tell you all or nothing? W/ St.Louis and 1 of Richmond, Dayton, VCU going to the BE sooner or later, does it make it easier to go all in on the MAC?

I'd expect UMass to take the full 2+ year notice period to look at alternatives. As we've seen, a ton can happen in conference realignment over a 2 year period. I think there is a combination of events that could make MAC all-sports the most attractive option, but losing SLU + 1 from the A10 probably isn't enough, especially if +1 is Dayton. SLU has been a steady contributor and not a member I'd want to replace, but it's also a travel headache. Maybe some of the A10 newbies or old guard step up after SLU leaves, like they have this year. Nobody wanted to lose Temple, Xavier, Butler and Charlotte, but reality is only 1 of those 4 teams is even on the bubble this year, while the A10 is still looking like a 5 bid conference. A lot can change in 1 year, let alone 2.

The contract stipulations the MAC put together for UMass and Temple leaving were almost exclusively designed to punish Temple for leaving the conference. Either UMass or Temple could be punished under them but all reasonable guesses were that it was going to be for Temple to endure if they made a move.

I'm not entirely sure the MAC really cares that UMass is hanging around football only. Strategically, it might be better to keep them FB only where between the TV deals of the MAC & A10 they would be making more TV money than the AAC. I don't think its reasonable to force UMass to accept a revenue cut by moving all sports into the MAC.

Its worth noting that JMU would be declared ineligible for CAA Championships the minute they announced their departure, so I highly doubt the school does anything until after basketball season ends.

If JMU was to go to the MAC, I believe Missouri State would follow to the Sun Belt soon after (SBC Badly needs a strong basketball program, so football attendance is not a worry). If JMU sits and doesn't take an invite, then I think Missouri State will do the same thing.

(02-23-2014 01:09 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:37 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:01 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Would UMass go all sports MAC if they tell you all or nothing? W/ St.Louis and 1 of Richmond, Dayton, VCU going to the BE sooner or later, does it make it easier to go all in on the MAC?

I'd expect UMass to take the full 2+ year notice period to look at alternatives. As we've seen, a ton can happen in conference realignment over a 2 year period. I think there is a combination of events that could make MAC all-sports the most attractive option, but losing SLU + 1 from the A10 probably isn't enough, especially if +1 is Dayton. SLU has been a steady contributor and not a member I'd want to replace, but it's also a travel headache. Maybe some of the A10 newbies or old guard step up after SLU leaves, like they have this year. Nobody wanted to lose Temple, Xavier, Butler and Charlotte, but reality is only 1 of those 4 teams is even on the bubble this year, while the A10 is still looking like a 5 bid conference. A lot can change in 1 year, let alone 2.

The contract stipulations the MAC put together for UMass and Temple leaving were almost exclusively designed to punish Temple for leaving the conference. Either UMass or Temple could be punished under them but all reasonable guesses were that it was going to be for Temple to endure if they made a move.

I'm not entirely sure the MAC really cares that UMass is hanging around football only. Strategically, it might be better to keep them FB only where between the TV deals of the MAC & A10 they would be making more TV money than the AAC. I don't think its reasonable to force UMass to accept a revenue cut by moving all sports into the MAC.

Unless more revenue coming to the MAC is part of the equation. Weird series of rumblings the last few months; rumored new ESPN deal, Hartwick leaving in soccer, JMU potentially coming in, plus the unknown of whether the MAC has moved on giving UMass the all sports ultimatum. Could all be coincidence or could end up being part of something bigger for the league. Keep in mind the A-10 and CAA currently have deals with networks not called ESPN. Might be some added value to ESPN to have the MAC go all sports with both programs.

(02-23-2014 01:22 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Its worth noting that JMU would be declared ineligible for CAA Championships the minute they announced their departure, so I highly doubt the school does anything until after basketball season ends.

If JMU was to go to the MAC, I believe Missouri State would follow to the Sun Belt soon after (SBC Badly needs a strong basketball program, so football attendance is not a worry). If JMU sits and doesn't take an invite, then I think Missouri State will do the same thing.

While I think the day is getting closer for Missouri State to leave the MVC, I hardly think JMU getting the 14th spot is going to give it the definitive push.

Missouri State I feel like is in the position where it could wait 5 years for a spot to open in CUSA. CUSA has shown before that its willing to take an FCS upgrade and they do need teams to fill out the western division.

Arkansas State I'm sure is ahead of Missouri State in the pecking order for CUSA but Missouri St may not be too far after that.

JMU to CUSA is talked about but they don't add a new state to CUSA and are behind ULL considerably in football. If CUSA wanted to double down with a school in an existing non-Texas/Florida state ULL would be the selection.

(02-23-2014 01:40 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 01:22 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Its worth noting that JMU would be declared ineligible for CAA Championships the minute they announced their departure, so I highly doubt the school does anything until after basketball season ends.

If JMU was to go to the MAC, I believe Missouri State would follow to the Sun Belt soon after (SBC Badly needs a strong basketball program, so football attendance is not a worry). If JMU sits and doesn't take an invite, then I think Missouri State will do the same thing.

While I think the day is getting closer for Missouri State to leave the MVC, I hardly think JMU getting the 14th spot is going to give it the definitive push.

Missouri State I feel like is in the position where it could wait 5 years for a spot to open in CUSA. CUSA has shown before that its willing to take an FCS upgrade and they do need teams to fill out the western division.

Arkansas State I'm sure is ahead of Missouri State in the pecking order for CUSA but Missouri St may not be too far after that.

JMU to CUSA is talked about but they don't add a new state to CUSA and are behind ULL considerably in football. If CUSA wanted to double down with a school in an existing non-Texas/Florida state ULL would be the selection.

Missouri State is far more likely to increase its curb appeal as a member of an FBS conference than it is in FCS. Especially with the Valley in serious danger of dying on the Vine.

They'll take an invite, use it as an opportunity to build their football program while having a regular rivalry with the Arkansas and Texas schools in football and basketball, and be ready for that call from CUSA some time down the road should it come. Bears would probably be top two in the Sun Belt in basketball immediately, which would open up a few NCAA Tourney avenue's currently blocked by a certain Kansas School.

I guess its possible Karl Benson will try and force the SBC Presidents to take Liberty...but that aint happening.

(02-23-2014 01:35 AM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 01:09 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:37 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 11:01 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  Would UMass go all sports MAC if they tell you all or nothing? W/ St.Louis and 1 of Richmond, Dayton, VCU going to the BE sooner or later, does it make it easier to go all in on the MAC?

I'd expect UMass to take the full 2+ year notice period to look at alternatives. As we've seen, a ton can happen in conference realignment over a 2 year period. I think there is a combination of events that could make MAC all-sports the most attractive option, but losing SLU + 1 from the A10 probably isn't enough, especially if +1 is Dayton. SLU has been a steady contributor and not a member I'd want to replace, but it's also a travel headache. Maybe some of the A10 newbies or old guard step up after SLU leaves, like they have this year. Nobody wanted to lose Temple, Xavier, Butler and Charlotte, but reality is only 1 of those 4 teams is even on the bubble this year, while the A10 is still looking like a 5 bid conference. A lot can change in 1 year, let alone 2.

The contract stipulations the MAC put together for UMass and Temple leaving were almost exclusively designed to punish Temple for leaving the conference. Either UMass or Temple could be punished under them but all reasonable guesses were that it was going to be for Temple to endure if they made a move.

I'm not entirely sure the MAC really cares that UMass is hanging around football only. Strategically, it might be better to keep them FB only where between the TV deals of the MAC & A10 they would be making more TV money than the AAC. I don't think its reasonable to force UMass to accept a revenue cut by moving all sports into the MAC.

Unless more revenue coming to the MAC is part of the equation. Weird series of rumblings the last few months; rumored new ESPN deal, Hartwick leaving in soccer, JMU potentially coming in, plus the unknown of whether the MAC has moved on giving UMass the all sports ultimatum. Could all be coincidence or could end up being part of something bigger for the league. Keep in mind the A-10 and CAA currently have deals with networks not called ESPN. Might be some added value to ESPN to have the MAC go all sports with both programs.

The basketball fund revenue for the A10 is also significant so its not just a comparison of TV deals. Also travel costs have to be factored in. I doubt the MAC TV deal is going to be significant enough to offset the A10 basketball money and travel costs savings.

The A10 is with ESPN, CBS Sports and NBC Sports so I'm not sure what you are talking about from above.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...w-tv-deals