MAC Membership

[Schadenfreude]

A few words on Stony Brook, for those not familiar.

Stony Brook, located on Long Island, is one of the four "university center" campuses of the SUNY system. Some argue Buffalo is the true flagship of the SUNY system, and there is a case to be made for that. But, in another sense, the SUNY system has four flagship campuses: Buffalo, Stony Brook, Albany and Binghamton.

It would be very easy to sneer at the idea of bringing Stony Brook into the MAC. As someone has observed, they are drawing 4,000 per football game in an 8,100-seat stadium. (And the biggest crowd they've ever had in that stadium was for a lacrosse match).

Moreover the Seawolves are a I-AA independent in football and play other sports in the not-so-intimidating America East Conference.

Despite all that, I think Stony Brook could be a brilliant addition to the conference.

I've dropped the name "Stony Brook" in expansion threads, only to get the Internet equivalent of blank stares and nervous, is-he-crazy laughter. So, to hear someone like Christopher drop that name thrills me. It really shows the MAC is thinking deeply and rationally about membership.

Anyway, here is the case for Stony Brook:

Again, they are, like Buffalo, one of New York's four flagship SUNY campuses. Buffalo is the cloeest thing the MAC has to a Big Ten-type school. Adding Stony Brook would add a second school like that to the MAC -- and that's the kind of company Bowling Green should want to keep.

Academic character matters when it it comes to athletic conferences. It is, in part, an expression of who you see as your peers.

One example: Look at what Case Western Reserve is doing when it comes to sports. They don't mess with the OAC or the NCAC, which geographically would make a lot more sense.

Instead, Case Western plays in the University Athletic Association, with Brandeis, Carnegie Mellon, Emory, New York Univesity, Chicago, Rochester and Washington University of St. Louis.

(Talk about company worth keeping!)

So adding Stony Brook would be huge on this level. It would improve the company we keep.

Let me put it this way: Do we aspire to be a peer of Eastern Michigan, Western Kentucky or Marshall, or are Miami, Buffalo and Stony Brook more along the lines of how we see ourselvesand where we want to go?

(It's rhetorical. The question answers itself).

Stony Brook also makes sense, athletically, on these levels:

-- Stony Brook is a natural rival for Buffalo -- and, if they stay in the fold, Temple.
-- Stony Brook would push our footprint further east, where the TV sets are. This helps us get and keep our games on television.
-- Stony Brook is located in the nation's largest possible media market, which, except for Rutgers, is a college football vacuum. (And, Rutgers is in Jersey, for cryin' out loud!)

To be sure, Stony Brook is even further behind than Buffalo was when it moved up to I-A and joined the MAC (and Buffalo was definitely way behind ).

But I think one could argue that Stony Brook could make up ground more quickly than Buffalo has. New Jersey has high school football talent, more so than western and upstate New York.

Would Stony Brook be a "project"? No question. But I do think there is a chance that such a project could work out more along the lines of what Connecticut has done in football than our Buffalo experience.

(And, despite Buffalo's struggles, I've always been absolutely convinced that adding them was a smart move. And it does seem to finally be paying some dividends).

I think I've gone on long enough about this.

The MAC is in the middle of a Philadelphia Experiment. In my mind, the best outcome would be to find a way to bring in Temple as a full member along with Massachusetts.

But Stony Brook would be very good. Very good.

In fact, with a well thought out transition plan in place, I'd take Stony Brook in a heartbeat over just about any school you can think of that isn't out east, including Western Kentucky, Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Youngstown State -- you name it.

In a heartbeat.

[Rightupinthere]

Sea Wolves is an awesome nickname.

I would like either school added to the MAC. UMASS is a little sexier in my view because - well, they're a hockey school as well. They also have one of the best marching bands in the world. They would easily be the best in the MAC.

[Schadenfreude]

Sea Wolves is an awesome nickname.

Meh. I like "Great Danes" (Albany) a lot better.

[FalconTurf]

I'm convinced by your notes and opinions on Stony Brook that they would be a good addition but I have a couple of concerns:

1. Expansion east sends us back to the west, again?

2. Since we once consistently tracked the football scores for Slippery Rock at home football games will some fans mistakenly confuse Stony Brook with Slippery Rock?

[NWLB]

. . . and that's the kind of company Bowling Green should want to keep. . .

. . . (Talk about company worth keeping!) . . .

Ever work for New York Life? The Company You Keep.

Lets cut to the chase, Stony Brook would be an attempt to make a play for the NYC market. A poor man's Rutgers. Actually, more like a homeless man in a shelter's Rutgers.

The school's location, assumed rivalry with UB, and TV market seem to keep with the theme the MAC wants to pursue. UB finally turned the corner after many years of struggle. BGSU recruits well in parts of New York anyway. I can't see the Falcons being in the east division after such an expansion, but still...

To my mind, I think if you are going to expand to 14, then go all the way, and expand to 16. Cut the conference fully in half with 8 teams per division, end cross-divisional play, and be done with it. Maybe let cross divisional games for rivalries and as a means to allow the MAC to smooth out schedules. It would not likely last more than a few years anyway, with the odds of conference poaching being a constant.

[redskins4ever]

I don't know how many times I have to argue this, but divisions need not be divided by geographic location, or if you are at least be smart about it.

I'd prefer to see a north/south setup.

North - All the Michigans, Akron, Kent, and Buffalo

South - Northern, Ball State, Miami, BG, UT, OU

Left Out - Temple

Be that as it may, you could divide the conference however you want, and keep people relatively more happy than this east west nonsense.

As for who to add, Stony Brook is a nice idea, but I'd want a look at their alumni base, financial commitment to athletics, and whether this fits with the idea of the Mid American Conference or does Chryst want this to be the Mid Atlantic Conference?

I think passing on WKU was a mistake, it will haunt us, as they have been both dominant powers in I-AA football, but also have a rabid basketball fan base that will travel. The MAC has been screaming for multiple bids into the NCAA tournament and yet we deny a school who coiuld help us in this arena.

UMass is too far and there are more of a candidate for the Big East then they will ever be for the MAC.

If the MAC was smart, but they really haven't been in the expansion, they have done it to do it and really haven't put much thought behind their choices. They would be better off dropping an Akron and at least a Michigan school, if not two, and picking up other programs that broaden the reach of the conference.

WKU, Middle Tenn State, ISU, Northern Iowa, Temple, Umass, and Stony Brooke all provide things that could raise the profile of the conference.

Having Akron and Kent join the MAC diluted the potential talented players that could have gone to BG or Miami back in the 90's. We eat our own in this state and its time to clean house and straighten things up to project this conference in the right direction for the long haul.

[Schadenfreude]

1. Expansion east sends us back to the west, again?

Yeah, that would be a down side for Bowling Green.