(10-26-2023 11:01 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the answer would be for the MAC to invite UMass as a full member along with 3 of the best non-FCS A-10 schools in order to boost the MAC’s basketball brand. Then UConn for football only with a scheduling agreement for x games in men’s basketball.

The result is 16 all-sports/13+1 for football.

St Louis and Dayton make. Lot of sense if they can get them to buy into the vision.

This post will make Kit Cat swoon. I'm just not sure St. Louis and Dayton are going to buy into something like this. And if the three other schools are (hypothetically) Rhode Island (which is FCS but might be nurturing big dreams or be willing to leave its football where it is), Duquesne, and St. Bonaventure, how much has the MAC accomplished, really?

Dayton I see locked with the east coast schools of the A10. They want to play east coast for exposure. They aren't really that far from the east coast, 8 hour drive.

I see two paths to make an A10 raid viable.

Midwest: WKU/MT all sport, Loyola/SLU basketball. Locks down the western Midwest for the MAC.

Mideast: UMass/UDel all sport, URI, Fordham basketball. Makes the MAC the top mid major conference in the northeast.

In absolute terms of performance doesn't make the MAC into a 3 bid conference but more nationally respected like the MVC with multiple NIT berths. The question is if the basketball schools would be willing to sacrifice a conference situation that isn't as strong for better TV potential.

(10-26-2023 10:11 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I love the MAC - it’s a fun tight-knit league that is a throwback to what college sports used to be.

However, anyone that thinks that the MAC and A-10 are in any way comparable in basketball (often pointing to the 1-bid that the A-10 received last year) is either being disingenuous or doesn’t understand the basketball landscape.

The A-10 is a consistent multi-bid major conference for basketball. That is not a small thing where the list of leagues that are consistently multi-bid leagues going forward are essentially the P4, Big East, A-10, MWC, AAC, and WCC (as long as Gonzaga is in the league). In contrast, the MAC is very firmly a quintessential one-bid midmajor conference.

So, what’s being asked of UMass is to trade major conference status in one revenue sport (basketball) in order to have G5 status in another sport (football) and clearly downgrading to midmajor status in basketball. This isn’t like if UMass went to say, the AAC where the A-10 is essentially a peer basketball conference with them. We’re talking about a clear downgrade in basketball *status* from major to midmajor (not merely just a weaker league). If we have learned anything about conference realignment, having top status means even more than money (as evidenced by the lower revenue shares all taken by Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, and SMU).

To those that say that UMass hasn’t been good in basketball, anyway… that’s exactly why they’re so reluctant to give up that major basketball status in the first place! That’s their best selling point for the program! It would be like the suggestions for Vandy to leave the SEC to win more football games or DePaul to leave the Big East - that’s the LAST thing that those programs want to do. If anything, conference status is the most important to the bottom of the league as opposed to the top of the league (where the brands would be successful anywhere).

In any event, it’s simply not a clear cut decision at all for UMass. To be sure, there will likely come a point where UMass ultimately has to do whatever it needs to do to sustain its FBS football program. I’m not saying that what UMass is doing is what’s best for them overall long-term. However, I don’t think this is anywhere close to a no-brainer decision. A clear straight up downgrade from major to midmajor status in basketball isn’t something to be taken likely and isn’t something any other school has really had to deal with in conference realignment over the past 25 years (where joining a football conference would be a straight up downgrade in basketball status beyond simply being a weaker basketball conference).

Time will tell if the A10 can reverse the trend line lower. To me, major is a conference that receives 8 NCAA Credits or more a year. In the last 4 years the A10 has earned 2 NCAA Credits. Hardly a major. Also the A10 has been raided since the new Big East and is vulnerable to future raids. After the recruiting classes cycled through, the bids and NCAA Credits took a major hit.

Frank the Tank, the trend is not our friend.
2014 6 bids
2015 4 bids
2016 3 bids
2017 3 bids
2018 3 bids
--- Not screaming major by any stretch ----
2019 2 bids
2020 Covid
2021 2 bid
2022 2 bid
2023 1 bid

Three wins in the NCAA in the last 5 years, including a play-in game win.
If the A10 is raided, it is a mid major and no more status of a major. The MAC was multi bid and that status is harder and harder to accomplish and maintain.

Credits are based on individual team performance. C-USA got a bunch of credits due to FAU’s Final Four run, but that doesn’t mean that C-USA is a better basketball league than the A-10.

Look - I have no dog in this fight. I have no connections to the A-10, whereas I have a ton of family and friend connections to the MAC. However, this also means that I’ve actually watched a fair amount of MAC basketball. It’s simply really really weak - I don’t think a lot of people are quite internalizing how weak it is (and mistakenly looping any non-P4/Big East league into the same midmajor bucket). The A-10 is consistently a top 10 NET ranking conference (with last year being a weak outlier), while the MAC is typically around #20 (behind leagues like the Big Sky and ASUN last year). It’s a BIG difference when it comes to depth.

So, that’s my view of what UMass is thinking. I obviously don’t have the UMass-specific knowledge that you do, but I do have a good sense of what athletic departments in general are weighing and what I’ve outlined is what I believe UMass is thinking (and I have an educated guess that I’m on the right track because UMass seems to be avoiding going all-sports to the MAC at all costs). Once again, I’m not saying that this is the right thing for UMass. UMass clearly needs to do something with their football program in a way that UConn doesn’t have to (as the Big East membership plus a greater number of P4 football opponents allows them to wait for nothing less than a P4 invite). However, I’m just reflecting that this isn’t the straight-forward clear path that a lot of people are making it out to be.

(10-26-2023 10:13 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I love the MAC - it’s a fun tight-knit league that is a throwback to what college sports used to be.

However, anyone that thinks that the MAC and A-10 are in any way comparable in basketball (often pointing to the 1-bid that the A-10 received last year) is either being disingenuous or doesn’t understand the basketball landscape.

The A-10 is a consistent multi-bid major conference for basketball. That is not a small thing where the list of leagues that are consistently multi-bid leagues going forward are essentially the P4, Big East, A-10, MWC, AAC, and WCC (as long as Gonzaga is in the league). In contrast, the MAC is very firmly a quintessential one-bid midmajor conference.

So, what’s being asked of UMass is to trade major conference status in one revenue sport (basketball) in order to have G5 status in another sport (football) and clearly downgrading to midmajor status in basketball. This isn’t like if UMass went to say, the AAC where the A-10 is essentially a peer basketball conference with them. We’re talking about a clear downgrade in basketball *status* from major to midmajor (not merely just a weaker league). If we have learned anything about conference realignment, having top status means even more than money (as evidenced by the lower revenue shares all taken by Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, and SMU).

To those that say that UMass hasn’t been good in basketball, anyway… that’s exactly why they’re so reluctant to give up that major basketball status in the first place! That’s their best selling point for the program! It would be like the suggestions for Vandy to leave the SEC to win more football games or DePaul to leave the Big East - that’s the LAST thing that those programs want to do. If anything, conference status is the most important to the bottom of the league as opposed to the top of the league (where the brands would be successful anywhere).

In any event, it’s simply not a clear cut decision at all for UMass. To be sure, there will likely come a point where UMass ultimately has to do whatever it needs to do to sustain its FBS football program. I’m not saying that what UMass is doing is what’s best for them overall long-term. However, I don’t think this is anywhere close to a no-brainer decision. A clear straight up downgrade from major to midmajor status in basketball isn’t something to be taken likely and isn’t something any other school has really had to deal with in conference realignment over the past 25 years (where joining a football conference would be a straight up downgrade in basketball status beyond simply being a weaker basketball conference).

I think you are over-valuing the current A-10.

I think most people here are undervaluing the A-10 (likely due to a football-centric bias). I think too many people conflate the 100% football focus of realignment for the power conferences (which is absolutely true) with it also needing to be the 100% focus of everyone else (which is where there’s a lot more grey area).

(10-26-2023 10:11 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I love the MAC - it’s a fun tight-knit league that is a throwback to what college sports used to be.

However, anyone that thinks that the MAC and A-10 are in any way comparable in basketball (often pointing to the 1-bid that the A-10 received last year) is either being disingenuous or doesn’t understand the basketball landscape.

The A-10 is a consistent multi-bid major conference for basketball. That is not a small thing where the list of leagues that are consistently multi-bid leagues going forward are essentially the P4, Big East, A-10, MWC, AAC, and WCC (as long as Gonzaga is in the league). In contrast, the MAC is very firmly a quintessential one-bid midmajor conference.

So, what’s being asked of UMass is to trade major conference status in one revenue sport (basketball) in order to have G5 status in another sport (football) and clearly downgrading to midmajor status in basketball. This isn’t like if UMass went to say, the AAC where the A-10 is essentially a peer basketball conference with them. We’re talking about a clear downgrade in basketball *status* from major to midmajor (not merely just a weaker league). If we have learned anything about conference realignment, having top status means even more than money (as evidenced by the lower revenue shares all taken by Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, and SMU).

To those that say that UMass hasn’t been good in basketball, anyway… that’s exactly why they’re so reluctant to give up that major basketball status in the first place! That’s their best selling point for the program! It would be like the suggestions for Vandy to leave the SEC to win more football games or DePaul to leave the Big East - that’s the LAST thing that those programs want to do. If anything, conference status is the most important to the bottom of the league as opposed to the top of the league (where the brands would be successful anywhere).

In any event, it’s simply not a clear cut decision at all for UMass. To be sure, there will likely come a point where UMass ultimately has to do whatever it needs to do to sustain its FBS football program. I’m not saying that what UMass is doing is what’s best for them overall long-term. However, I don’t think this is anywhere close to a no-brainer decision. A clear straight up downgrade from major to midmajor status in basketball isn’t something to be taken likely and isn’t something any other school has really had to deal with in conference realignment over the past 25 years (where joining a football conference would be a straight up downgrade in basketball status beyond simply being a weaker basketball conference).

Time will tell if the A10 can reverse the trend line lower. To me, major is a conference that receives 8 NCAA Credits or more a year. In the last 4 years the A10 has earned 2 NCAA Credits. Hardly a major. Also the A10 has been raided since the new Big East and is vulnerable to future raids. After the recruiting classes cycled through, the bids and NCAA Credits took a major hit.

Frank the Tank, the trend is not our friend.
2014 6 bids
2015 4 bids
2016 3 bids
2017 3 bids
2018 3 bids
--- Not screaming major by any stretch ----
2019 2 bids
2020 Covid
2021 2 bid
2022 2 bid
2023 1 bid

Three wins in the NCAA in the last 5 years, including a play-in game win.
If the A10 is raided, it is a mid major and no more status of a major. The MAC was multi bid and that status is harder and harder to accomplish and maintain.

The worst part about it is the funding formula in the A10.

In the A10 75% of the income goes to the team who earned the unit while 25% is distributed evenly. In a one bid conference that works out well if you are the school consistently earning it but not so much otherwise. That paltry 25% is then split 15 ways.

In the MAC the split is 1/3rd the team that earned it, 1/3rd based on conference finish and then 1/3 remaining split 12 ways. Its not quite so top heavy of distribution because that also includes conference finish. If UMass performs in the Top 4 or 5 of the MAC annually but doesn't dance they'll get credit for that.

(10-26-2023 10:27 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:01 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the answer would be for the MAC to invite UMass as a full member along with 3 of the best non-FCS A-10 schools in order to boost the MAC’s basketball brand. Then UConn for football only with a scheduling agreement for x games in men’s basketball.

The result is 16 all-sports/13+1 for football.

St Louis and Dayton make. Lot of sense if they can get them to buy into the vision.

This post will make Kit Cat swoon. I'm just not sure St. Louis and Dayton are going to buy into something like this. And if the three other schools are (hypothetically) Rhode Island (which is FCS but might be nurturing big dreams or be willing to leave its football where it is), Duquesne, and St. Bonaventure, how much has the MAC accomplished, really?

Dayton I see locked with the east coast schools of the A10. They want to play east coast for exposure. They aren't really that far from the east coast, 8 hour drive.

I see two paths to make an A10 raid viable.

Midwest: WKU/MT all sport, Loyola/SLU basketball. Locks down the western Midwest for the MAC.

Mideast: UMass/UDel all sport, URI, Fordham basketball. Makes the MAC the top mid major conference in the northeast.

In absolute terms of performance doesn't make the MAC into a 3 bid conference but more nationally respected like the MVC with multiple NIT berths. The question is if the basketball schools would be willing to sacrifice a conference situation that isn't as strong for better TV potential.

Loyola and SLU are even more East Coast-centric than Dayton. They’d want nothing to do with the MAC. Loyola would go back to the MVC before they’d touch the MAC (and they wanted to get out of the MVC).

To that point, I also don’t think many people here appreciate how all of academia has a heavy East Coast bias. SLU and Loyola specially wanted to get tied to schools *outside* of the Midwest. The Northeast nature of the A-10 is a feature as opposed to a bug here.

On the flip side, the MAC’s goals are to get into higher growth areas, which is why the WKU and MTSU *combo* (not just one or the other) was attractive to them. I just don’t think the MAC is nearly as interested in the Northeast as they are with going South.

(10-26-2023 10:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:13 PM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 09:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I love the MAC - it’s a fun tight-knit league that is a throwback to what college sports used to be.

However, anyone that thinks that the MAC and A-10 are in any way comparable in basketball (often pointing to the 1-bid that the A-10 received last year) is either being disingenuous or doesn’t understand the basketball landscape.

The A-10 is a consistent multi-bid major conference for basketball. That is not a small thing where the list of leagues that are consistently multi-bid leagues going forward are essentially the P4, Big East, A-10, MWC, AAC, and WCC (as long as Gonzaga is in the league). In contrast, the MAC is very firmly a quintessential one-bid midmajor conference.

So, what’s being asked of UMass is to trade major conference status in one revenue sport (basketball) in order to have G5 status in another sport (football) and clearly downgrading to midmajor status in basketball. This isn’t like if UMass went to say, the AAC where the A-10 is essentially a peer basketball conference with them. We’re talking about a clear downgrade in basketball *status* from major to midmajor (not merely just a weaker league). If we have learned anything about conference realignment, having top status means even more than money (as evidenced by the lower revenue shares all taken by Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, and SMU).

To those that say that UMass hasn’t been good in basketball, anyway… that’s exactly why they’re so reluctant to give up that major basketball status in the first place! That’s their best selling point for the program! It would be like the suggestions for Vandy to leave the SEC to win more football games or DePaul to leave the Big East - that’s the LAST thing that those programs want to do. If anything, conference status is the most important to the bottom of the league as opposed to the top of the league (where the brands would be successful anywhere).

In any event, it’s simply not a clear cut decision at all for UMass. To be sure, there will likely come a point where UMass ultimately has to do whatever it needs to do to sustain its FBS football program. I’m not saying that what UMass is doing is what’s best for them overall long-term. However, I don’t think this is anywhere close to a no-brainer decision. A clear straight up downgrade from major to midmajor status in basketball isn’t something to be taken likely and isn’t something any other school has really had to deal with in conference realignment over the past 25 years (where joining a football conference would be a straight up downgrade in basketball status beyond simply being a weaker basketball conference).

I think you are over-valuing the current A-10.

I think most people here are undervaluing the A-10 (likely due to a football-centric bias). I think too many people conflate the 100% football focus of realignment for the power conferences (which is absolutely true) with it also needing to be the 100% focus of everyone else (which is where there’s a lot more grey area).

Frank you are stuck in the 90's. Today there is the P5+BE then a steep drop after that.

Coaching salaries in the A10 are far behind the BE. Providence is paying 3.75 million and is one of the worst jobs in the BE.

Some of the MAC jobs pay A10 money these days. That 1 bid of the MAC was split 4 ways for the past 16 seasons as only Ohio, Akron, Kent and Buffalo have won the automatic bid. Its a top heavy conference and its like splitting 1 bid 4 ways since any of them are capable of winning it in a given year.

So yes the MAC is mid major but the top recruits and plays A10 level basketball. There isn't quite a VCU in the conference but Ohio, Akron, Kent, Buffalo are on the same level as the rank and file A10 programs.

(10-26-2023 10:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:27 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:01 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the answer would be for the MAC to invite UMass as a full member along with 3 of the best non-FCS A-10 schools in order to boost the MAC’s basketball brand. Then UConn for football only with a scheduling agreement for x games in men’s basketball.

The result is 16 all-sports/13+1 for football.

St Louis and Dayton make. Lot of sense if they can get them to buy into the vision.

This post will make Kit Cat swoon. I'm just not sure St. Louis and Dayton are going to buy into something like this. And if the three other schools are (hypothetically) Rhode Island (which is FCS but might be nurturing big dreams or be willing to leave its football where it is), Duquesne, and St. Bonaventure, how much has the MAC accomplished, really?

Dayton I see locked with the east coast schools of the A10. They want to play east coast for exposure. They aren't really that far from the east coast, 8 hour drive.

I see two paths to make an A10 raid viable.

Midwest: WKU/MT all sport, Loyola/SLU basketball. Locks down the western Midwest for the MAC.

Mideast: UMass/UDel all sport, URI, Fordham basketball. Makes the MAC the top mid major conference in the northeast.

In absolute terms of performance doesn't make the MAC into a 3 bid conference but more nationally respected like the MVC with multiple NIT berths. The question is if the basketball schools would be willing to sacrifice a conference situation that isn't as strong for better TV potential.

Loyola and SLU are even more East Coast-centric than Dayton. They’d want nothing to do with the MAC. Loyola would go back to the MVC before they’d touch the MAC (and they wanted to get out of the MVC).

To that point, I also don’t think many people here appreciate how all of academia has a heavy East Coast bias. SLU and Loyola specially wanted to get tied to schools *outside* of the Midwest. The Northeast nature of the A-10 is a feature as opposed to a bug here.

On the flip side, the MAC’s goals are to get into higher growth areas, which is why the WKU and MTSU *combo* (not just one or the other) was attractive to them. I just don’t think the MAC is nearly as interested in the Northeast as they are with going South.

I'm not saying SLU/Loyola would entertain the MAC. What I was saying is SLU/Loyola would help the MAC along with WKU/MT to create a MVC level conference with more respect in the NIT. Dayton is closer to the east coast and a longer time A10 member where distance is more of a factor for Loyola/SLU.

Beatwestern has said the MAC was in discussions with UConn/UMass recently as the WKU/MT ship has sailed. MAC is looking more for rivalries than direction. There are too many conferences based in the south to think southern schools are going to stay attached to the MAC long term. WKU might be the exception because they have alumni in the Covington/Cincinnati region that can can travel for MAC games.

I would like to see a link r.e. BestWestern's comment that the MAC is in talks with UConn & UMass for fb only.

I would like to see a link r.e. Garden KC's (KitKat) comment that the MAC wants more rivalries out that way.

IMO, a lot of this is about what we want or would like to see. Where is the perspective on how MAC presidents might see things?

Just askin'.

(10-27-2023 05:42 AM)pvk75 Wrote:  I would like to see a link r.e. BestWestern's comment that the MAC is in talks with UConn & UMass for fb only.

I would like to see a link r.e. Garden KC's (KitKat) comment that the MAC wants more rivalries out that way.

IMO, a lot of this is about what we want or would like to see. Where is the perspective on how MAC presidents might see things?

Just askin'.

Quote:I'm told the MAC preference is for all sports adds, so not sure where these talks could go if anywhere at all.

But, two football affiliates are easier to work with than one plus an all sports add. Also, keep in mind that UConn's football deal with CBSSN is set to expire following the 2023 season while UMass just signed a three year deal with ESPN prior to the 2022 season.

It's possible ESPN could give the MAC a nice bump in its media rights deal with the addition of UConn and UMass and of course, they are rivals on the gridiron.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-965835.html

From my perspective expansion is viewed increasingly along the lines as a rivalary fit at the MAC level. SBC added Marshall, JMU, ODU. They didn't say oh we already have a Virginia school so we have to do another state. I know NIU fans don't want Illinios St but that is exactly what happened with JMU and ODU.

(10-26-2023 10:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:27 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:01 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the answer would be for the MAC to invite UMass as a full member along with 3 of the best non-FCS A-10 schools in order to boost the MAC’s basketball brand. Then UConn for football only with a scheduling agreement for x games in men’s basketball.

The result is 16 all-sports/13+1 for football.

St Louis and Dayton make. Lot of sense if they can get them to buy into the vision.

This post will make Kit Cat swoon. I'm just not sure St. Louis and Dayton are going to buy into something like this. And if the three other schools are (hypothetically) Rhode Island (which is FCS but might be nurturing big dreams or be willing to leave its football where it is), Duquesne, and St. Bonaventure, how much has the MAC accomplished, really?

Dayton I see locked with the east coast schools of the A10. They want to play east coast for exposure. They aren't really that far from the east coast, 8 hour drive.

I see two paths to make an A10 raid viable.

Midwest: WKU/MT all sport, Loyola/SLU basketball. Locks down the western Midwest for the MAC.

Mideast: UMass/UDel all sport, URI, Fordham basketball. Makes the MAC the top mid major conference in the northeast.

In absolute terms of performance doesn't make the MAC into a 3 bid conference but more nationally respected like the MVC with multiple NIT berths. The question is if the basketball schools would be willing to sacrifice a conference situation that isn't as strong for better TV potential.

Loyola and SLU are even more East Coast-centric than Dayton. They’d want nothing to do with the MAC. Loyola would go back to the MVC before they’d touch the MAC (and they wanted to get out of the MVC).

To that point, I also don’t think many people here appreciate how all of academia has a heavy East Coast bias. SLU and Loyola specially wanted to get tied to schools *outside* of the Midwest. The Northeast nature of the A-10 is a feature as opposed to a bug here.

On the flip side, the MAC’s goals are to get into higher growth areas, which is why the WKU and MTSU *combo* (not just one or the other) was attractive to them. I just don’t think the MAC is nearly as interested in the Northeast as they are with going South.

I'm going to include responses to some of your other observations here as well.

The MAC might be interested in going South, but obviously MTSU is not interested in going North. No Southern G5 school in their right mind would go G5 North if they care about football recruiting. So let's just put that one to rest.

The MAC consistently has pretty good programs on par with the bulk of the current A10. What the A10 has that the MAC lacks is VCU, Dayton, and to a lesser extent SLU. UR and Davidson are also consistently pretty good and pour their resources into basketball. (Toledo smoked UR last season BTW).

My argument directly focuses on the fact UMass is an absolute outlier in the current A10 due to their FBS program. Take a look:

A10

FBS - UMass

Sch. FCS - URI, Fordham, UR

Non-Sch. FCS - Duquesne, Dayton, Davidson

Non-F'ball - VCU, GMU, GW, St. Joe's, LaSalle, St. Bona, Loyola, SLU


Sometimes maybe people need a refresher as to which schools are still in this league. This is a 1-3 bid (with a tourney upset) conference going forward, with my guess being closer to 1-2 max.

(10-26-2023 10:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 05:25 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 05:08 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Jax St got nice program, there #6 in Ala and people think there in Fla

They know the difference between “there” and “their”. And where is Temple supposed to be?

Both instances would be they're, actually.

Yes. I think my earlier post, #16, just went over their heads.

(10-26-2023 09:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The A-10 is a consistent multi-bid major conference for basketball.

Past performance does not guarantee future results. The conference seems to face some headwinds right now.

I would add that the historically multi-bid nature of the Atlantic 10 is more or less hypothetical for UMass, which hasn't gotten a bid in years. The question might come down to how the conference divides those NCAA tournament units and the degree to which UMass can mooch despite mediocre performance on the court.

(10-26-2023 10:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  On the flip side, the MAC’s goals are to get into higher growth areas, which is why the WKU and MTSU *combo* (not just one or the other) was attractive to them. I just don’t think the MAC is nearly as interested in the Northeast as they are with going South.

Given the MAC's previous football affiliations with UMass and Temple, this seems speculative.

(10-26-2023 10:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... I think most people here are undervaluing the A-10 (likely due to a football-centric bias)....

Also, there is a very strong "last data point" bias in online forums ... the weak result last year for the A10 is not a trend until and unless it repeats.

The MAC is not one, but two distinct steps below the A10 ... in a strong year, the MAC is typically on the wrong side of the bubble for an at-large NIT bid, while the A10 would normally only miss out on an at-large bid into the NIT if a school on the bubble between the Tourney and the NIT got into the Tourney instead.

So even if the A10 drops down to being an autobid-only school for the Tourney with their at-large bid coming from the NIT, they are still a tier above the MAC.

And note, regarding trends, the MAC has previously been stronger than it is now ... maybe not reliably top 10, but more likely to be in the top half of the 10-20 range than in the bottom half. The NIL / easy-transfer-portal era is not being kind to MAC basketball.

(10-27-2023 08:40 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... I think most people here are undervaluing the A-10 (likely due to a football-centric bias)....

Also, there is a very strong "last data point" bias in online forums ... the weak result last year for the A10 is not a trend until and unless it repeats.

The MAC is not one, but two distinct steps below the A10 ... in a strong year, the MAC is typically on the wrong side of the bubble for an at-large NIT bid, while the A10 would normally only miss out on an at-large bid into the NIT if a school on the bubble between the Tourney and the NIT got into the Tourney instead.

So even if the A10 drops down to being an autobid-only school for the Tourney with their at-large bid coming from the NIT, they are still a tier above the MAC.

And note, regarding trends, the MAC has previously been stronger than it is now ... maybe not reliably top 10, but more likely to be in the top half of the 10-20 range than in the bottom half. The NIL / easy-transfer-portal era is not being kind to MAC basketball.

But it's not the last data point:

2014 6 bids
2015 4 bids
2016 3 bids
2017 3 bids
2018 3 bids
--- Not screaming major by any stretch ----
2019 2 bids
2020 Covid
2021 2 bid
2022 2 bid
2023 1 bid

(Thanks to Steve81 for this data)

It's been going on for years.

(10-26-2023 10:32 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Part of UMass's issue is that the fans of each sport are not in alignment.

The football fans want to join the MAC in all sports.

The basketball fans (and, frankly, every other sport) want to stay in the A-10.

The hockey fans are all set, Hockey East isn't going away.

At this point, it's pretty clear that the football contingent doesn't have the upper hand and isn't driving the bus.

That's the problem. Every other FCS transitional school prioritized the main moneymaker: football!

Why UMass is holding onto the A10 doesn't make any sense from my perspective. Well, I mean I see what they're trying to do: tread water until they receive an all-sports invite from the AAC. It seems the administration is AAC or bust. Instead, they should be focused on climbing the Great Totem Poll of Realignment via joining an all-sports conference and working their way up. This is the proven model.

We have a new Chancellor now, as of this year. He has a history at schools that prioritize football (albeit at the P5 level) and might have different viewpoints on the matter: https://www.umass.edu/chancellor/about/m...chancellor

Received his doctorate from Texas A&M
Worked in leadership positions at WVU and the University of Arkansas.

Most likely our AD is influence by the status of the A10 and being one of his sports. So it's a battle.

What aides our ADs view is the lack of depth in MAC men's basketball, but of course that can be addressed with quasi scheduling for travel and improving NET ratings. The other sport the A10 is much stronger is women's lacrosse. However the women have been tops and lost the A10 tourney and missed the NCAA recently. Men's lacrosse and maybe soccer could go to a stronger Big East affiliation. BUT, it lacks a major, popular sport, FBS Football.

So, will continue to push the finances and here the A10 is falling short and that gap is widening.

Ryan Bamford https://umassathletics.com/staff-directo...amford/320

Quote:A 2000 graduate of Ithaca (N.Y.) College, Bamford was a standout basketball player for the Bombers. He left Ithaca as the school's single-season and career leader in 3-point field goals and third all-time in steals while finishing 13th on the career scoring list with more than 1,100 points.

There are scrimmages going on that is real progress. The AD cares about status of the A10 and it's depth. We have a new Chancellor but think it will take time to all play out. The new A10, MAC contracts and CFP money will play a role. The big wildcard is if the A10 is raided again and further weakening as raids took down CUSA.

(10-27-2023 07:47 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:55 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:27 PM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:01 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the answer would be for the MAC to invite UMass as a full member along with 3 of the best non-FCS A-10 schools in order to boost the MAC’s basketball brand. Then UConn for football only with a scheduling agreement for x games in men’s basketball.

The result is 16 all-sports/13+1 for football.

St Louis and Dayton make. Lot of sense if they can get them to buy into the vision.

This post will make Kit Cat swoon. I'm just not sure St. Louis and Dayton are going to buy into something like this. And if the three other schools are (hypothetically) Rhode Island (which is FCS but might be nurturing big dreams or be willing to leave its football where it is), Duquesne, and St. Bonaventure, how much has the MAC accomplished, really?

Dayton I see locked with the east coast schools of the A10. They want to play east coast for exposure. They aren't really that far from the east coast, 8 hour drive.

I see two paths to make an A10 raid viable.

Midwest: WKU/MT all sport, Loyola/SLU basketball. Locks down the western Midwest for the MAC.

Mideast: UMass/UDel all sport, URI, Fordham basketball. Makes the MAC the top mid major conference in the northeast.

In absolute terms of performance doesn't make the MAC into a 3 bid conference but more nationally respected like the MVC with multiple NIT berths. The question is if the basketball schools would be willing to sacrifice a conference situation that isn't as strong for better TV potential.

Loyola and SLU are even more East Coast-centric than Dayton. They’d want nothing to do with the MAC. Loyola would go back to the MVC before they’d touch the MAC (and they wanted to get out of the MVC).

To that point, I also don’t think many people here appreciate how all of academia has a heavy East Coast bias. SLU and Loyola specially wanted to get tied to schools *outside* of the Midwest. The Northeast nature of the A-10 is a feature as opposed to a bug here.

On the flip side, the MAC’s goals are to get into higher growth areas, which is why the WKU and MTSU *combo* (not just one or the other) was attractive to them. I just don’t think the MAC is nearly as interested in the Northeast as they are with going South.

I'm going to include responses to some of your other observations here as well.

The MAC might be interested in going South, but obviously MTSU is not interested in going North. No Southern G5 school in their right mind would go G5 North if they care about football recruiting. So let's just put that one to rest.

The MAC consistently has pretty good programs on par with the bulk of the current A10. What the A10 has that the MAC lacks is VCU, Dayton, and to a lesser extent SLU. UR and Davidson are also consistently pretty good and pour their resources into basketball. (Toledo smoked UR last season BTW).

My argument directly focuses on the fact UMass is an absolute outlier in the current A10 due to their FBS program. Take a look:

A10

FBS - UMass

Sch. FCS - URI, Fordham, UR

Non-Sch. FCS - Duquesne, Dayton, Davidson

Non-F'ball - VCU, GMU, GW, St. Joe's, LaSalle, St. Bona, Loyola, SLU


Sometimes maybe people need a refresher as to which schools are still in this league. This is a 1-3 bid (with a tourney upset) conference going forward, with my guess being closer to 1-2 max.

Excellent post, esayem!

While it is true that MTSU would much rather be in a southern conference, Western Kentucky, OTOH, is a school that can just as easily orient northward as southward.

(10-27-2023 09:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 08:40 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... I think most people here are undervaluing the A-10 (likely due to a football-centric bias)....

Also, there is a very strong "last data point" bias in online forums ... the weak result last year for the A10 is not a trend until and unless it repeats.

The MAC is not one, but two distinct steps below the A10 ... in a strong year, the MAC is typically on the wrong side of the bubble for an at-large NIT bid, while the A10 would normally only miss out on an at-large bid into the NIT if a school on the bubble between the Tourney and the NIT got into the Tourney instead.

So even if the A10 drops down to being an autobid-only school for the Tourney with their at-large bid coming from the NIT, they are still a tier above the MAC.

And note, regarding trends, the MAC has previously been stronger than it is now ... maybe not reliably top 10, but more likely to be in the top half of the 10-20 range than in the bottom half. The NIL / easy-transfer-portal era is not being kind to MAC basketball.

But it's not the last data point:

2014 6 bids
2015 4 bids
2016 3 bids
2017 3 bids
2018 3 bids
--- Not screaming major by any stretch ----
2019 2 bids
2020 Covid
2021 2 bid
2022 2 bid
2023 1 bid

(Thanks to Steve81 for this data)

It's been going on for years.

You’re an ACC guy and I’m a Big Ten guy, so we have way different standards on what NCAA Tournament bid success looks like.

My point is that the MAC straight up does not have the ability to be anything other than a 1-bid league. The conference hasn’t had an at-large bid since 1999 (the Wally Sczerbiak-led Miami team). In today’s world, the *only* way to get into the NCAA Tournament from the MAC is to win the conference tournament. That’s simply much different than the A-10 - the chasm between a guaranteed single bid league (where you legitimately have zero chance of getting an at-large bid - see Toledo 2 years ago getting sent to the NIT despite having a 16-2 conference record but failing to win the conference tourney) and even a 2-bid league where it’s not an absolute requirement to win your conference tournament to get into the NCAA Tournament is wide.

Once again, I’m not saying that the A-10 is on par with the Big East or that UMass ultimately shouldn’t do what’s best for their football team to get into a conference even if it means downgrading in basketball. My only point is that if UMass were to go to the MAC, it is a straight up downgrade in basketball *status* (not merely a weaker league) and pretending otherwise is being disingenuous. Whether that outweighs the football team being homeless is definitely a fair debate, but people in that debate should be honest with themselves that the distance between the A-10 and MAC basketball-wise is significantly large enough that it can’t just be passed over. The athletic department clearly cares about that as an issue or else they would have moved to the MAC for all-sports several years ago, so I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here that this is how UMass is thinking.

(10-27-2023 12:40 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 09:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 08:40 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... I think most people here are undervaluing the A-10 (likely due to a football-centric bias)....

Also, there is a very strong "last data point" bias in online forums ... the weak result last year for the A10 is not a trend until and unless it repeats.

The MAC is not one, but two distinct steps below the A10 ... in a strong year, the MAC is typically on the wrong side of the bubble for an at-large NIT bid, while the A10 would normally only miss out on an at-large bid into the NIT if a school on the bubble between the Tourney and the NIT got into the Tourney instead.

So even if the A10 drops down to being an autobid-only school for the Tourney with their at-large bid coming from the NIT, they are still a tier above the MAC.

And note, regarding trends, the MAC has previously been stronger than it is now ... maybe not reliably top 10, but more likely to be in the top half of the 10-20 range than in the bottom half. The NIL / easy-transfer-portal era is not being kind to MAC basketball.

But it's not the last data point:

2014 6 bids
2015 4 bids
2016 3 bids
2017 3 bids
2018 3 bids
--- Not screaming major by any stretch ----
2019 2 bids
2020 Covid
2021 2 bid
2022 2 bid
2023 1 bid

(Thanks to Steve81 for this data)

It's been going on for years.

You’re an ACC guy and I’m a Big Ten guy, so we have way different standards on what NCAA Tournament bid success looks like.

My point is that the MAC straight up does not have the ability to be anything other than a 1-bid league. The conference hasn’t had an at-large bid since 1999 (the Wally Sczerbiak-led Miami team). In today’s world, the *only* way to get into the NCAA Tournament from the MAC is to win the conference tournament. That’s simply much different than the A-10 - the chasm between a guaranteed single bid league (where you legitimately have zero chance of getting an at-large bid - see Toledo 2 years ago getting sent to the NIT despite having a 16-2 conference record but failing to win the conference tourney) and even a 2-bid league where it’s not an absolute requirement to win your conference tournament to get into the NCAA Tournament is wide.

Once again, I’m not saying that the A-10 is on par with the Big East or that UMass ultimately shouldn’t do what’s best for their football team to get into a conference even if it means downgrading in basketball. My only point is that if UMass were to go to the MAC, it is a straight up downgrade in basketball *status* (not merely a weaker league) and pretending otherwise is being disingenuous. Whether that outweighs the football team being homeless is definitely a fair debate, but people in that debate should be honest with themselves that the distance between the A-10 and MAC basketball-wise is significantly large enough that it can’t just be passed over. The athletic department clearly cares about that as an issue or else they would have moved to the MAC for all-sports several years ago, so I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here that this is how UMass is thinking.

Sure, I am not saying the MAC > A10 basketball.

But...

2018-2019 #15 Buffalo would have gained an at-large, so let's also not pretend it's impossible. They were ranked as early as Nov. 12th.

So my question is, could UMass improve the MAC's image?

what should happen is the big east add Umass, than umass and UConn package themselves as a football only pair to the Mac.

(10-27-2023 09:58 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 08:40 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  ... I think most people here are undervaluing the A-10 (likely due to a football-centric bias)....

Also, there is a very strong "last data point" bias in online forums ... the weak result last year for the A10 is not a trend until and unless it repeats.

The MAC is not one, but two distinct steps below the A10 ... in a strong year, the MAC is typically on the wrong side of the bubble for an at-large NIT bid, while the A10 would normally only miss out on an at-large bid into the NIT if a school on the bubble between the Tourney and the NIT got into the Tourney instead.

So even if the A10 drops down to being an autobid-only school for the Tourney with their at-large bid coming from the NIT, they are still a tier above the MAC.

And note, regarding trends, the MAC has previously been stronger than it is now ... maybe not reliably top 10, but more likely to be in the top half of the 10-20 range than in the bottom half. The NIL / easy-transfer-portal era is not being kind to MAC basketball.

But it's not the last data point:

2014 6 bids
2015 4 bids
2016 3 bids
2017 3 bids
2018 3 bids
--- Not screaming major by any stretch ----
2019 2 bids
2020 Covid
2021 2 bid
2022 2 bid
2023 1 bid

(Thanks to Steve81 for this data)

It's been going on for years.

The string of 2's and then the 1 is what I was referring to regarding not going by a single year ... being a conference that regularly gets an at-large bid puts the A10 not one, but two tiers above the MAC as far as basketball goes. A year that the MAC has a team into the bubble for an at-large NIT bid (and likely far enough down that a couple of NIT bubble busters in the low major championship tournaments locks them out) ... that is a good year for MAC basketball.

At the rate that the A10 has been sliding, they can slide another decade before the MAC becomes a more or less lateral move in basketball ... and that assumes that the MAC is not doing any more sliding of its own.