Page 1 of 1
How bad are the lower teams in the MAC
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:49 am
by Anonymous
According to College Football News.Com
Bowling Green is ranked #36, Northern I think was 70 something, but here are the worst 20 teams in college football.
98. Western Michigan 1-2
99. UCF 0-3
100. Temple 1-2
101. Kent State 1-2
102. Baylor 1-1
103. Tulsa 0-3
104. UTEP 1-2
105. Utah State 1-2
106. Central Michigan 1-2
107. Eastern Michigan 1-2
108. Army 0-2
109. SMU 0-3
110. Arkansas State 0-3
111. San Jose State 1-1
112. UL Monroe 0-2
113. UL Lafayette 1-2
114. Akron 0-3
115. Ball State 0-3
116. Buffalo 0-3
117. Idaho 0-3
Pretty bad when 8 of the 20 worst teams in Div 1-A are from the MAC. Plus Toledo had the 5th worst defense in Div-1.
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:07 pm
by hammb
I think that every year the bottom 7 or 8 teams in the MAC are among the 20 worst in all of college football. That is one reason why we struggle to gain respect. The top tier of the league can compete with anyone (last year especially), but the rest of the league is pathetic.
I don't really think this is a major difference from recent history, I guess. Now the play at the top of the conference. That is a disappointing change from year's past. It seems we've had at least one major upset every year for awhile now. Doesn't look like it will happen this year.
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:46 pm
by BGSUfanatUT
not unless temple decides to run the table.....hahahahahahahahahaha...
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:48 pm
by NWLB
The lower half of the MAC is ranked so low, its about 500 feet below the Titanic and is should pass Hitler in hell in four weeks.
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:12 pm
by Bleeding Orange
Now, I love the MAC, but the fact of the matter is that it is going to be impossible for us to become BCS elligible so long as Buffalo, Directional-Michigan, Akron, Kent, etc. are among our ranks. As much as we may not want to admit it, in this day in age being a BCS conference is huge in terms of growth even though we may not be contending for a national championship anytime soon.
I think we are a couple of years away, if not sooner, from some serious decisions being made about the future of this conference. We can't go on forever having a 14-team conference with only two bowls at our disposal (and only one guaranteed at that). There are four or five programs on a roll right now who are being dragged down by the afformentioned dead weight.
I don't know if there has been any discussion about this on this board, but I think that it is an important one to have. I am of the opinion that the departure of UCF and Marshal is merely a symptom of a larger hemorage lying below the surface. Sure, they are going to a weaker conference in C-USA, but there is a heck of a lot more money floating around those seven bowl games of theirs. And lets face it, its all about the money in this day in age.
Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:19 pm
by BGSU_via_UDel
well one thing you have to remember about changing conferences is that it would change EVERY sport and so the question is, is BG good enough to compete in BBall, softball, baseball, et cetera et cetera in like the Big 10 or Big East or a conference like that? In my opinion, not even close, yeah in football you betcha, we chould compete in any BCS conference. But thats the problem, theres no way to move conferences in one sport. I think we would fit in well in C-USA overall and possibly, very possibly in the big east.....
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:10 am
by Schadenfreude
Bleeding Orange wrote: Sure, they are going to a weaker conference in C-USA, but there is a heck of a lot more money floating around those seven bowl games of theirs. And lets face it, its all about the money in this day in age.
Conference USA doesn't have seven bowl games. I believe they have four right now.*
The reality is, bowl games are not profit centers for non BCS leagues. The minimum guarantee, $750,000, frequently only covers the cost of the participating schools to bring their teams, bands, etc. (And sometimes school claim that's not enough).
Also, those guarantees are typically backed with promises. Teams or leagues must guarantee the purchase of a huge number of tickets. The tickets that aren't sold from that allotment must be eaten.
Both the MAC and Conference USA have in the past used conference revenue to help prop up these bowls. I'm not sure that's still the case with the MAC. I believe Conference USA still has to prop up the Hawaii bowl, for which is it nearly impossible to sell tickets. To cover the ticket guarantee, I would imagine the league office steps in.
The MAC's biggest revenue stream is its share from the NCAA tournament. Conference USA has a bigger stream here. It also has a more lucrative television contract, which (it is assumed) is being renegotiated right now.
Marshall left for Confernece USA because it liked the league better. They were projecting only a marginal increase in revenue after figuring for increased travel costs... .and the value of the league television contract still doesn't seem to be settled yet.
The Big East would be a big revenue boost... all that NCAA tournament money, all that BCS money. But it is hard to know what the future holds. Will the powers that be persist in giving the Big East a guaranteed berth in the BCS? I'm not convinced of that. That's a weak league. The Mountain West may be better already... and one could easily argue Utah or Fresno State (WAC) are more deserving of a BCS bid than West Virginia.
---
* Maybe five. I'm not sure. Anyway, Everything is likely to change after (I think) this season, when all bowl games come up for renegotiation. (That's why it is unfortunate the MAC is having the kind of season its having right now).
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:18 am
by Lord_Byron
Schadenfreude wrote:
The Big East would be a big revenue boost... all that NCAA tournament money, all that BCS money. But it is hard to know what the future holds. Will the powers that be persist in giving the Big East a guaranteed berth in the BCS? I'm not convinced of that. That's a weak league. The Mountain West may be better already... and one could easily argue Utah or Fresno State (WAC) are more deserving of a BCS bid than West Virginia.
Nothing truer has ever been spoken. The mainstream media is already picking up on this. All three announcers on the ESPN college football wrap-up (Sep 11) agreed that even if WVa ran the table, they would be suspect in deserving a BCS bowl bid. I believe the comment was that the Big East was no longer a major conference.
The only thing that surprises me about the bottom 20 is that Syracuse isn't included -- they suck.