Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

I have been thinking about the role of mid-majors tonight after this year.

We have Utah going to a BCS bowl and also Boise State and Louisville knocking on the proverbial BCS door.

The MAC hand a gangbusters year last year in terms of rankings and non-conference wins and everyone was talking about how we were . This year, though, the highest a MAC team has been ranked is NIU at 22, and no MAC team has stayed ranked for more than a few weeks.

So, I am wondering what all of you around here think that this says about the MAC? I value the insight of the people around here, especially given the fact that this is the smartest fan-site in all of college sports. So, please let me know what you think about these questions:

Are our Ball States, directional Michigans and Buffalos really going to keep us from ever being an elite mid-major conference?

What is the future of the MAC? Are we going to continue to grow and develop contenders or are we going to see our major progams decline because of the marshmallows we have to play every year?

Do you think BG will ever join the conference jumping trend and get out of the MAC (I know this has been discussed before, but something that I think needs to be discussed again).

Do western conferences have a hand-up on us in terms of fan support because they don't have the more concentrated major eastern conferences to contend with?

Also, we like to make fun of C-USA around here quite a bit, but Louisville is representing them pretty well this year. I also realize that they are moving to the Big East next year, so does that mean that this is a total aberration for C-USA, or are our criticisms of the conference legitimate?

I'm sure I have more, but I'll leave it here for now.

Have fun!

My honest opinion is this...(be at mind, this is just for football)

In the next 3-10 years the MAC is going to do one of 3 things,
1. Be gone
2. Become a bigger known conference
3. Stay the same

I feel that most of the MAC schools will be moved out of the D-I division because of attendance issues. In 3 years, I see there only being about 4 MAC teams left that won't have switched conferences or got kicked out because of attendance. If we could get some better teams to switch to the MAC to take place of the bottom feeders, the MAC could become very competitive. However, I see most teams dispersing and the MAC falling apart. Turdledo could move into C-USA, BG the same or even the Big East. If NIU was to follow into C-USA, that conference could eventually be split into East/West with the amount of teams.

This is just what I see happening, disagree if you want. Sure the MAC has some good teams, but not enough to make up for the bad teams and lack of attendance. I just see too many inconsistent teams and it appears the conference is going in the wrong direction. Of course I'm probably wrong and the MAC will stay the MAC for awhile and if that's the case, BG will be back in the East soon.

I just realized that I should give my own answers to my questions. So, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, here goes:

1. Yes! But, I agree with McMetz, some of them will be gone very soon. With EMU only able to draw 4,500 against an NIU team that was vying for a conference championship two weeks ago, I don't see the Eagles sticking around for too long. I'm not sure about others in the conference who are having attendance issues, but I'm sure there are at least a couple more who will be shown the D-1AA door here soon.

2. I believe that the MAC will stick around for a while and that we will become more competative. With the low-drawers being kicked out, we will be able to focus on and showcase our better programs, and thus gain bowl prominance (which, lets face it, is the key to becoming a distinguished conference in football).

3. I think that we will be here for a while. It would be expensive to leave, and we frankly don't have the resources. We may draw well for bowl games (or may not; we'll find out this year), but we don't week in and week out. We would be a tough sell for any BCS conference looking at us simply for that fact. Also, we are a founding member of the MAC. No matter what the cause for our possibly leaving, the MAC is going to do everything that it can to keep us here because it would signal the demise of the conference if founding members started leaving.

4. Yes, western conferences do have an advantage over us. This was, admittedly, a pointed question because I truly do believe that it is the case. The MWC, WAC, etc. don't have huge BCS conferences like the Big 10 dominating their fan bases, and their own fan-bases are spread out simply because the population is out there (for instance, they don't have five teams in one state and three in another like the MAC does). I think that it is easier for mid-majors to make it out there than it is here, although I realize that the populations are much more spread out than they are here in the midwest. You have to bear in mind that they are also drawing their student populations from a much larger regional base than eastern schools are.

5. I was really just curious to hear what everyone's objective thoughts were on this one. Sure, Louisville is hitting the big-time this year, but they are also realizing that they are in a poor conference and are getting the heck out. I don't think the fact that they have three more bowl tie-ins than the MAC does makes them better than us, because those tie-ins won't be sticking around very long. After Lousiville leaves, bowls are going to quickly realize that there are not 5 teams in C-USA that should be going to bowls year-in and year-out. I wouldn't be suprised to see 2 of those tie-ins to leave in the next three years (and possibly wind up tied to the MAC (quite possibly)).

Bleeding Orange wrote: With EMU only able to draw 4,500 against an NIU team that was vying for a conference championship two weeks ago, I don't see the Eagles sticking around for too long.

Correction...there was 500 there at most. I have come to the conclusion they counted the players, media (press box and field), and also season ticket holders that fail to show up.

Bleeding Orange wrote:Are our Ball States, directional Michigans and Buffalos really going to keep us from ever being an elite mid-major conference?

Our league has always had a deep bottom, but the water is moving down there.

There was a time, five years ago, when people would have said "the Buffalos, Bowling Greens and Eastern Michigans of this conference."

Such a statement would have been ignorant because it would not have taken into account our strong football tradition. In that same vein, I don't think it's easy to group the bottom feeders you mention together.

Western Michigan was king of the west just four years ago. They are a founding member of the league and, academically, one of our stronger members. Also, their facilities are strong. It is tough for me to imagine them not being back in contention soon.

Central Michigan has enormous football tradition. From the time they joined the league in 1975 through the 1994 debacle at the Doyt, they probably they won more games than any other MAC program. They've been down, and the once-strong fan base is starting to erode. But I'm not ready to write them off.

I'm not as optimistic about the future of Ball State football. The facilities there aren't strong from what I understand. But we must remember that this was long a competitive program. They won the MAC just eight years ago -- the year before the MAC split into divisions -- and they have several titles to their credit since joining the league in 1975.

Buffalo has really struggled -- upstate New York is not a fertile recruiting ground -- but it is one of our strongest members academically. It is New York's equivalent of the University of California-Berkeley or the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. The addition of Buffalo has not turned out the way anyone expected, but I personally believe we must continue to give them time to figure football out, for reasons that will become clear below.

What is the future of the MAC? Are we going to continue to grow and develop contenders or are we going to see our major progams decline because of the marshmallows we have to play every year?

I look at 2004 as an aberration. We had some exceptionally tough nonconference matchups, and our teams weren't quite as strong as before. The long term trend is still good.

Do you think BG will ever join the conference jumping trend and get out of the MAC (I know this has been discussed before, but something that I think needs to be discussed again).

I hope not. Conference USA is unattractive, and the Big East would seem to have better opportunities. (If they add a ninth football team, I'm certain it will be Memphis).

Also, if we are honest with ourselves, we will recognize that we have quite a bit of growing to do before we will be the first program another league looks at as an expansion opportunity. As it stands, I see at least three in the MAC that would be looked at first by another league looking to poach.

The MAC is a perfect fit for us. We just need to keep winning. Everything else will take care of itself.

Do western conferences have a hand-up on us in terms of fan support because they don't have the more concentrated major eastern conferences to contend with?

Absolutely. We must never forget that the Mountain West and WAC have their problem children. Wyoming's crowds are about the size of ours. San Jose State's crowds are about the size of Eastern Michigan's. But the western leagues' strongest programs (Brigham Young, Utah, Boise State, Fresno State) are what they are in part because of where they are located.

Also, we like to make fun of C-USA around here quite a bit, but Louisville is representing them pretty well this year. I also realize that they are moving to the Big East next year, so does that mean that this is a total aberration for C-USA, or are our criticisms of the conference legitimate?

The chips fell right for Louisville this year. Last year, they fell for Miami. In 1999, they fell right for Marshall. In 1997, they fell right for Tulane.

These things will happen. Our league is a bit down this year, and Louisville rolled through its conference. It's one season. It isn't a trend. Louisville is a good program -- but as you point out, they are gone to the Big East.

A couple of final thoughts:

1. Some people whose opinions I respect do think the attendance regulations will be modified during the offseason, before they can be enforced. The chairwoman of one of the key committees that drew up those regulations is Kent State president Carol Cartwright. Also, keep in mind: The driving force behind the new regs was not to push I-A schools down to I-AA. It was to prevent I-AA schools from moving up so as to keep that level of football healthy.

2. I think the MAC is seriously considering adding Temple. There have been enough rumors about this and hints in the media that I think there is something to them. One possible scenario: Temple football is added by 2006, and Temple is given until 2010 to bring in basketball (or leave the MAC for another situation). In the meantime, the Owls would agree to schedule some home-and-home basketball games with us. One rumor something may be announced before Jan. 1. Since 13 is a terrible number for scheduling, this suggests we may have our eye on a 14th school. And since Temple is so far east, I think we'd be looking in that direction for a 14th... Massachusetts, Army, Navy... who knows? I think this would be the right direction for our league.

3. A "standards" committee is now at work within the MAC. Chryst has been very coy in explaining what its purpose is. But Krebs went a bit further a while back. It could lay the groundwork for expansion or contraction. Whether or not the MAC needs divisions for all sports is also an issue.

Quoting here:

The MAC held conference-wide discussions recently on this topic and others, including a membership-standards plan. That plan, BG athletic director Paul Krebs said, will address several questions that need to be answered to determine if divisions are necessary.

"We need to address the issues of expansion or contraction, to establish criteria to add teams, and to get a commitment from teams to stay in the league," Krebs said. "We also need to develop some standards. Are we all committed to being good, to being competitive?

"You can't look at any one of those questions without looking at the others."

MAC presidents will discuss the topic at a meeting on Nov. 1, with any answer to be announced after league meetings held in the first week in February.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:GX ... sion&hl=en

I also think this is the right direction for our league. Hypothetically, if two weak members were to widthraw in football and the MAC were to add two members in the east, our league would retain what makes it special while becoming stronger.

The NCAA will not remove Division I status from any of its member schools because of attendance. The attendance requirement was created to keep 1-AA schools from moving to 1-A. With that being said, the only way schools will move to 1-AA is by their own doing. The NCAA will not be doing that for them.

This conversation never goes well for BG. To start with, we are not our own league's most appealing team for moving up. UT and Miami--at least--are both more attractive targets. UT is in a metro area, and Miami is Miami. We'd come after them--at best.

The best thing for BG's long-term future is a strong MAC, whatever that entails. I am sure it entails keeping Toledo, Miami, OU, and other strong schools in the conference. I am not so sure if it includes expansion, but if it does, we need to make sure we're not adding to the bottom, and I don't know who is out there that does that.

orangeandbrown wrote:This conversation never goes well for BG. To start with, we are not our own league's most appealing team for moving up. UT and Miami--at least--are both more attractive targets. UT is in a metro area, and Miami is Miami. We'd come after them--at best.

Northern Illinois is starting to look pretty appealling, too.

The best thing for BG's long-term future is a strong MAC, whatever that entails.

Maybe I should have just posted that. My thought exactly.

I think the MAC standards document is a step towards facilitating a member dropping out in a given sport. At present we require certain sports to be retained. This would possibly be how they create a framework to get around the established rules, and give the conference more flexibility. That framework will be mostly of terminology and technicalities if I had to guess.

Using whatever they come up with, we might eliminate some programs in football as a "participating" member. Yet we could keep scheduling them as a full MAC member. Since they aren't likely to compete for a MAC title anyway, little harm is done. The affected programs have time to regroup, and have ample "spin" room to recruit and rebuild.

Basketball and other sports would not be effected.

This would most likely require a restructuring of the divisions, or eliminating them as a geographically based concept.

How to maintain the title game becomes a major question. That might require expansion or affiliate programs to step in.

Speaking of the question of Temple, if the MAC is to touch them at all, it should only be in the context of scheduling. I would want and expect restrictions on their being eligible for the title game or bowl bids. If we are going to be floating members due to attendance issues, we do need to line up some alternates.

If anything radical is going to happen, I see it occurring when blocks of MAC programs choose to "do their own thing" and leave the deadweight behind.

I would speculate the entire issue of standards came from loose talk from several years ago, when the MAC was considered at risk. There were hints and suggestions that several schools had basically made up their minds to stay in 1A and had basically checked with certain other schools to make sure they weren't alone if something major had to be done.

As there seems to be a core of MAC schools willing to push the standards issue, I think if any splintering of the MAC would take the form of a mass departure, and possibly linking up with a few other schools from another conference.

I don't sense any heated political desire to wreck the MAC at all. These Universities and Toledo, get along rather well.

Behind the friendly relations, several institutions aren't thought to be sufficiently serious about their programs. The process of setting up the context in which people can shake hands, smile, and tell a program to "get lost" appears underway.

I think in the end, the MAC will remain basically as it is. But if it is not, we will know how change will come by Feb.

NWLB wrote:IThese Universities and Toledo, get along rather well.

Well done!

Interesting post, NWLB.

This is probably one of the most thoughtful and thought-provoking threads I've read in a long, long time.

I agree that BG's best best is a healthy MAC. And I agree that our conference is not exactly in the dump. Our bottom is, in fact, deep, but I think we'll see improvement for many of the reasons Schade points out.

If BG, UT, Miami & Northern continue to build on their sound foundations and a handful of teams step up - maybe Akron showing that this year wasn't a fluke, Western moving back towards its aforementioned glory years (same with Central) and Eastern continuing to improve - you've got a nice nucleus for football. That would leave a handful - Ball State, Kent, Ohio, Buffalo in the Creampuff Division; let's face it, everyone has some weak sisters (Indiana in the Big Ten, Baylor in the Big 12, Vanderbilt in the SEC).

Hence, I don't think they "hold us back" from being an "elite" mid-major; frankly, I don't think there is such a thing. For all its bowl tie-ins, I think we're seeing C-USA self-destruct as a major factor in football. Mountain West has BYU, Air Force and Utah, but does that make them elite? Take away UB & the Utes and ... well, there you have it. As for the WAC, Fresno State has an established name, as does Boise State, I think; past that, you've got UTEP (destined to be a one-hit wonder, IMO) and La. Tech, a model of inconsistency.

If the above scenario plays out (i.e. top MAC teams stay strong, a few step it up), the MAC will be hard to ignore. I mean, we're already getting a fair amount of attention. More success will be bring more of the spotlight.

BTW, can't pass up the opportunity to speculate about league expansion. I love this topic.

As stated, I absolutely and categorically against Temple joining the MAC. That being said, if we make that tragic mistake, I'd love to see Army or Navy join to balance things out.

How abou this scenario - forget Temple and add Army AND Navy? That makes the Army-Navy game a MAC game. I think that's pretty cool.

1987alum wrote:How abou this scenario - forget Temple and add Army AND Navy? That makes the Army-Navy game a MAC game. I think that's pretty cool.

It's preferrable. I'd love that.

I'm just not sure it's realistic in the short term.