Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

Don't know that anyone has seen...or posted on this, but I stumbled on a tweet that basically said that UMASS, when given the alternative of joining the MAC for ALL sports or leaving, has chosen the latter and will play as an independent beginning in 2016....... WOW! WHAT A SHAME!

Frankly, it's about time the MAC stopped being a "testing ground" for these schools who have nowhere else to go...We'll see what mighty Mass. does as an independant.... they should really think about going back to FCS..... While the MAC could've benefitted from some of their other programs, especially basketball, they've never fit in.

UMass is a much better basketball school then they are football. And the A10 is a much better basketball conference than the MAC, so it's really no surprise that when given the choice they would choose the bigger money grab.

I wouldn't be stunned if the AAC takes them in, especially if their football team improves. They are 0-3 right now after playing BC, Colorado, and Vandy, but they could easily be 2-1 with tight wins over (terrible) Pac 12 and SEC teams, which would make them perhaps the hottest MAC team. I do believe they are the most improved conference team from last year. As much as I don't like the whole 13 team unbalanced football only mess, I might actually miss UMass, especially if they get close to 6 wins this year. If I had to choose between a 12 school all sports conference or a 14 school all sports conference including UMass and a current good FCS school joining the MAC West, I would be torn. I like conference stability, we're the only conference that has stayed basically the same through all this realignment mess, but UMass could actually bring some good to the conference if they were all in.

I have zero problem with football only memberships if they take us to 14 teams. Beyond football...this conference had nothing to offer Umass. They would have been stupid to allow us to bully them.

Flipper wrote:I have zero problem with football only memberships if they take us to 14 teams. Beyond football...this conference had nothing to offer Umass. They would have been stupid to allow us to bully them.

Flipper,
The MAC " bullying " them? I just didn't want to see another Temple type fiasco where we get used until "semi-repectability", then told "thanks, we're going somewhere else" with the MAC scheduling, teams being moved from W to E to W again ( sounds familiar?) . I dont see that they brought much of anything to the league, other than " expanding" our footprint..and even that's debatable.

They brought us another week of not seeing a game against EMU....

Class of 61 wrote: Flipper,
The MAC " bullying " them? I just didn't want to see another Temple type fiasco where we get used until "semi-repectability", then told "thanks, we're going somewhere else" with the MAC scheduling, teams being moved from W to E to W again ( sounds familiar?) . I dont see that they brought much of anything to the league, other than " expanding" our footprint..and even that's debatable.

BG agreed to move from the East to the West and back to the East. We did not have to do that. I would have held out and required the conference to give us something - financial incentive, guaranteed home basketball games against UMass while they were here, an extra share of the revenue (oh, I already mentioned financial incentive)....

And there was no reason if they were football only teams that Temple couldn't have been a West school and UMass an East.

I think UMass was a worthy experiment and a good prospective peer for us. But we couldn't keep Temple in the fold and UMass didn't want to make this a full partnership. So here we are, about to be at 12 again.

I'd be open to expansion again. Not for the sake of doing it -- but if we can broaden our footprint with good schools that enhance our image? Sure.

People howled for years about the addition of Buffalo, but they are a strong member now. That was a good move.

One thing the MAC can't lose is its core regional identity as a Middle American conference and the unique ethos that comes with such an affiliation: hardworking, tough, competitive, stable, a Big 10 with nearly all of its positive qualities minus the money-driven negatives that drive people away from college sports. You can work with that and sell that. We even have an imitator with the Sun Belt using the MAC as a blueprint to carve out a similarly recognizable niche in their own part of the country.

It's not a disparate mash up of vagabonds (AAC, CUSA) that all think they can be doing better and are perpetually waiting for a P5 conference invitation that will never come. None of our little forays into the footprint expansion business (UCF, Temple, etc.) have ever turned out to be what we thought they would and mainly serve to dilute a brand that took decades to successfully build long before the current administrators came onto the scene. Buffalo is different because as a Rust Belt city they neatly fit most of the criteria described, but if you read the comments of their athletic director we're just phase one in their grand ambition to join their Association of American Universities brethren in the Big 13.5 or whatever P5 conference will have them.

We must be careful to not misunderstand what the MAC fundamentally is and what it stands for. It's not flashy marketing campaigns or Twitter hashtags. It's a stable group of schools (all the more remarkable in an instable climate) that care about the academic welfare of their student-athletes and play highly competitive athletics in the process. That's the way it has been and the way it will continue to be long after the fads of the moment pass. Tinkering that doesn't acknowledge that is bound to fail, as it should.

You could swap out every MAC school save UT, MIami, OU, Kent, CMU, NIU and Kent with virtually any decent FCS or FBS program and I wouldn't care. WMU, EMU, Akron, BSU, Buffalo do nothing for me....I don't care about the regional proximity...

If we ever did go to 14 teams, Eastern Illinois and Indiana St. seem like ideal candidates. With in our blue-print, and not terrible schools at sports as well.

I would even argue to consider Youngstown State for regional considerations. And if we want to think regional, why not try to get Butler and/or Dayton as a full member? Their basketball teams would be huge to gain. But, I have a feeling they would be another UMASS or Temple.

daspollak wrote:If we ever did go to 14 teams, Eastern Illinois and Indiana St. seem like ideal candidates. With in our blue-print, and not terrible schools at sports as well.

I'd rather look outside our footprint in a geographically rational manner. In that sense, I always thought Temple and Massachusetts were geographically reasonable choices. Both are in adjoining states. Both are good universities. Unfortunately, they didn't work out.

For me, Stony Brook or Albany would be really intriguing choices if either school ever decided to get serious about FBS. These are good universities.

James Madison strikes me as another interesting possibility. They aren't that far -- probably closer to Athens, Ohio than Buffalo is to Kent.

The FCS Dakota schools are also really intriguing, although maybe that's just too far.

Any of these choices are more intriguing to me than Eastern Illinois, Indiana State, or Youngstown State.

Schadenfreude wrote:

daspollak wrote:If we ever did go to 14 teams, Eastern Illinois and Indiana St. seem like ideal candidates. With in our blue-print, and not terrible schools at sports as well.

I'd rather look outside our footprint in a geographically rational manner. In that sense, I always thought Temple and Massachusetts were geographically reasonable choices. Both are in adjoining states. Both are good universities. Unfortunately, they didn't work out.

For me, Stony Brook or Albany would be really intriguing choices if either school ever decided to get serious about FBS. These are good universities.

James Madison strikes me as another interesting possibility. They aren't that far -- probably closer to Athens, Ohio than Buffalo is to Kent.

The FCS Dakota schools are also really intriguing, although maybe that's just too far.

Any of these choices are more intriguing to me than Eastern Illinois, Indiana State, or Youngstown State.

Agreed on Youngstown, the conference doesn't need another Ohio school, six is enough. I'm also with you on James Madison, they would be my first pick on any expansion talk, in or out of the footprint. North Dakota State would be very intriguing with their recent football success, but I would agree that they are likely too far to be considered. I think the reason stay within the footprint when talking potential new league members is the fact that we would be sending all sports, revenue and non-revenue, to these new members

BGFalconfromCincy wrote:North Dakota State would be very intriguing with their recent football success, but I would agree that they are likely too far to be considered.

The President of North Dakota State is Dean Brescani, who is a former Assistant Hall Director in Conklin Hall and a CSP grad of BGSU.