|
|
Post by david75bsu on Feb 29, 2024 11:01:47 GMT -6
Sports Illustrated rates A10:as the 9th rated conference and the MAC as the 13th best conference!
|
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Mar 1, 2024 17:30:33 GMT -6
The article nails the problem about BB, and identifies the plus that they can be top dog in FB with bowl bids easier. At that price. So, if bowl games are not a huge benefit to a MAC athletic program, why would they make the move? |
|
|
|
Post by sdacardinal on Mar 1, 2024 18:05:19 GMT -6
U Mass has a big disrespect for the MAC. Maybe they are right as bad as the MAC is in BB.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 1, 2024 18:05:52 GMT -6
The article nails the problem about BB, and identifies the plus that they can be top dog in FB with bowl bids easier. At that price. So, if bowl games are not a huge benefit to a MAC athletic program, why would they make the move? Beats me.
They are bigger budget,have hopes they can afford FB at a higher level maybe. Think this is a step in that direction.
I'd guess they expect to dominate in the MAC, to always get one of the MAC bowls. Could be as an audition to move into a survivor after realignment, a current G5 conference with a bigger TV package, one they can't get into now.
After a realignment there is no telling what happens to G5 but a good bet it won't be what it is now. SEC and B10 and perhaps a third consolidated conference at the top level. Then it's possible there will be a G3 tier. I doubt the MAC is part of that.
No telling is there where this ends up. MAC seems aware they can't just be sit there, trying to be somewhat stronger short term.
|
|
|
|
Post by connecticutcard on Mar 1, 2024 19:25:15 GMT -6
What are the finances of new playoff? Any word on the potential 14team playoff? How do the finances compare to the basketball tournament? I’m asking because does Mac benefit substantially if one of its teams makes the G5 at large?
Think between basketball and football scholarships it’s 85/13 or ~6.5x. Since the MAC is a one-bid conference who doesn’t generally advance we get about ~350,000. So for football we should want 2.3M on average. But since no MAC is guaranteed a spot it should work out that if we get a spot once X years it works out.
Saw where Western and Texas would have had the same number of appearances had it started at end of BCS.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 1, 2024 20:29:24 GMT -6
What are the finances of new playoff? Any word on the potential 14team playoff? How do the finances compare to the basketball tournament? I’m asking because does Mac benefit substantially if one of its teams makes the G5 at large? Think between basketball and football scholarships it’s 85/13 or ~6.5x. Since the MAC is a one-bid conference who doesn’t generally advance we get about ~350,000. So for football we should want 2.3M on average. But since no MAC is guaranteed a spot it should work out that if we get a spot once X years it works out. Saw where Western and Texas would have had the same number of appearances had it started at end of BCS. In any year that MAC team got in it would be a windfall. Longer term, for any G5 conference, the issue is how many G5 programs can afford to play that game. And how large X is.
The cost of the two programs is not proportional to number of scholarships, as well. Operational costs, coaching salaries, other staff are a big cost for an FBS program. Plus, that X multiple you hypothesize, whatever it is, is going to have to match the changing cost of FB, which is growing faster than cost of BB.
Having a hit or miss playoff spot every X years is obviously a different multiple for each conference depending on the probability we can earn it relative to other (stronger) conferences I fear the MAC is likely to be lower probability than most of whatever the surviving G5 conferences will be.
The budget nightmare for the MAC is that the landscape is going to continue to change. That MAC team that has the resources to do well has no obligation to stay in the MAC, and large incentive to move up. Unfortunately, that also means the costs are going up to get those scarce G5 spots as higher resource conferences with more success essentially get richer...
So can the MAC field such a team often enough? Can they keep them in the MAC? Lots of other questions.
That $350K guaranteed for BB is a tricky comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 3, 2024 10:00:50 GMT -6
I've been thinking on what the MAC's angle may be with this move. MAC football has what may someday become an existential crisis. Namely that there is no conceivable market for its product that will ever come anywhere near covering the immense costs. So they add a school that ranked 131 out of 133 in attendance? On the face of it, it makes no sense.
But consider this: Let's say you have a large trash pile that, for some reason of your own, you want to keep around in perpetuity. But it's a mess and an eye sore, so other people would rather see it gone. So, you think to yourself: the larger this pile is, the more difficult it will be to clean up, and the less likely anyone is ever going to get motivated to do that, so the more likely it stays around.
A similar tactic has been used for years by football supporters: "If we get rid of 'D1' football, we would have to leave the MAC and then where would we go?" You see? They take advantage of the fact that it would be harder to clean up the whole MAC football trash pile than it would be to clean up a single football programs trash pile.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattg on Mar 3, 2024 16:16:47 GMT -6
I've been thinking on what the MAC's angle may be with this move. MAC football has what may someday become an existential crisis. Namely that there is no conceivable market for its product that will ever come anywhere near covering the immense costs. So they add a school that ranked 131 out of 133 in attendance? On the face of it, it makes no sense. But consider this: Let's say you have a large trash pile that, for some reason of your own, you want to keep around in perpetuity. But it's a mess and an eye sore, so other people would rather see it gone. So, you think to yourself: the larger this pile is, the more difficult it will be to clean up, and the less likely anyone is ever going to get motivated to do that, so the more likely it stays around. A similar tactic has been used for years by football supporters: "If we get rid of 'D1' football, we would have to leave the MAC and then where would we go?" You see? They take advantage of the fact that it would be harder to clean up the whole MAC football trash pile than it would be to clean up a single football programs trash pile. Fantastic analogy right here. How many teams does the MAC need before we show up on an episode of Hoarders? |
|
|
|
Post by CardsFB1 on Mar 4, 2024 8:20:31 GMT -6
I've been thinking on what the MAC's angle may be with this move. MAC football has what may someday become an existential crisis. Namely that there is no conceivable market for its product that will ever come anywhere near covering the immense costs. So they add a school that ranked 131 out of 133 in attendance? On the face of it, it makes no sense. But consider this: Let's say you have a large trash pile that, for some reason of your own, you want to keep around in perpetuity. But it's a mess and an eye sore, so other people would rather see it gone. So, you think to yourself: the larger this pile is, the more difficult it will be to clean up, and the less likely anyone is ever going to get motivated to do that, so the more likely it stays around. A similar tactic has been used for years by football supporters: "If we get rid of 'D1' football, we would have to leave the MAC and then where would we go?" You see? They take advantage of the fact that it would be harder to clean up the whole MAC football trash pile than it would be to clean up a single football programs trash pile. I think you might be correct - if you don't grow or adjust to the current FB world, the MAC might get left behind or die! If we can get WKU, I think it would be a good fit and raise the FB profile of the MAC. UMass add a bigger basketball profile. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 4, 2024 8:33:54 GMT -6
MAC football is already dead and left behind by the current football world. It's given the appearance of life, Weekend at Bernie's style, by a yearly infusion of $10 million + of student fee money at each school.
If the MAC could somehow add, say, Alabama or Florida St, it might change its basic situation. Otherwise MAC "D1" football is going to last just as long as the students keep paying for it, and not one minute longer.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 4, 2024 8:39:05 GMT -6
A change is needed. No doubt. More FB is not the change.
Expanding MAC FB is like an alcoholic drinking more to solve the problem. Perhaps in this case finding new friends to drink with at the bar will help?
|
|
|
|
Post by david75bsu on Mar 4, 2024 19:04:50 GMT -6
A change is needed. No doubt. More FB is not the change. Expanding MAC FB is like an alcoholic drinking more to solve the problem. Perhaps in this case finding new friends to drink with at the bar will help? That’s why Western Kentucky, with the addition of UMass raises our basketball profile.if we could add Indiana State and Illinois State we would continue to build our basketball profile - plus BALL U and NIU gain a natural rival! |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 9, 2024 22:14:43 GMT -6
What are the finances of new playoff? Any word on the potential 14team playoff? How do the finances compare to the basketball tournament? I’m asking because does Mac benefit substantially if one of its teams makes the G5 at large? ...Since the MAC is a one-bid conference who doesn’t generally advance we get about ~350,000. So for football we should want 2.3M on average. But since no MAC is guaranteed a spot it should work out that if we get a spot once X years it works out. Here are some proposed numbers on how revenue might be divided. It's not clear at all how G5 conferences share what they get, but there's a number there and it's no surprise they get the short end of the deal. If I'm reading it right it looks like 115 mil for the G5. (compared to the P2 with 760 mil, and 1.2 billion total for all P4) Have to assume the likely G5 conference(s?) with a qualifier earn a bigger share than the rest don't you think? That the likely qualifying school(s?) get more? What? About 60 schools in G5 total? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 9, 2024 22:47:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 10, 2024 9:25:00 GMT -6
A team that qualifies or advances apparently gets 3.5 mil which may come out of conference share.
According to this the G5 number has to include Notre Dame...doesn't say how much. I doubt it is an equal share with each G5 school, more likely equal to a G5 conference share. But, in any case the G5 conference share is significantly less when ND is in the top 13, I'd bet.
|
|
