exit322

This also feels reasonably cost-effective.

Most places that get a bad rap aren't really as bad as they're made out to be.

And if somehow they end up in the NIT, they won't be on the road.

Straight up, I have zero source material. Totally a gut feeling.

This is honestly why I think the MAC is trying to not be done with 2026 additions.

It truly doesn't matter. You win the MAC tournament, you go dancing...you lose it, you're biting your nails as to whether or not you get a home game in the Not Invited Tournament.

Totally agree. It's just not necessary. Kinda surprised the officials can't T the crowd up for that

Agree. Akron will have to play better, because that game was really close for a home game where the opponent was 1/23 from deep.

That might be the bigger problem, though if they were already playing at Green Street it may not be a noticeable difference for the team

I mean, the average is probably closer to 500. Maybe a bigger field gets more people? Soccer is a different animal; if they have that sort of "type" of fans, even with a few hundred, they'll make it work.

Might actually eclipse 1000 a couple times. Looks like their record is 1700, hit last year against a team from Cleveland. Certainly it's not exactly going to fill the place up, but it's also going to bring a few people out that haven't been to the stadium before, at no real cost to the University, so it's still a win and I'm glad they're trying things.

Eh, it's slightly more real, especially when you have a fair number of players up and down the roster that will be here a couple years. But, as noted, it's only going to be a bit of a pain.

That's why it's only going to be a bit of a pain.

The only part that will be a bit of a pain is the Tuesday/Wednesday game out there, given it's midweek during classes. That's the only real issue. Otherwise, I appreciate the MAC taking a wild shot here. The MAC's traditional complacency and lack of progress has actually been replaced with taking a shot at something (even if that something came with virtually zero financial risk).

They'll have to reintroduce football, unfortunately.

The MAC has been maligned forever for refusing to think outside the box. For refusing to take any sort of risk. Now an opportunity landed in their lap that doesn't actually have much risk tied to it, and we're going to crap on them for taking a shot? OK, that seems consistent. An opportunity presented itself with a school that is being, admittedly, hyper aggressive and taking a shot in the dark. An opportunity that isn't going to cost the MAC much of anything. "There's no risk and this isn't going to lower the MAC's profile one bit" is a plenty good enough "just because" reason. It's 2026 in the world of college sports mercenaries. There are no rules. The best case scenario is that the MAC uses these funds and this methodology to find more schools in the footprint (see: past rumors of WKU/MTSU, etc). The worst case is that they added 6-8 games of TV inventory (Sac State home games) for however many years it lasts at no cost to the league. Do I think Sacramento State is nuts for doing this? 100% absolutely, ab-so-freaking-lutely I think they're nuts. Do I think the MAC is being stupid for taking them up on this offer in the days of "do what you can to survive" while having schools both leave and be courted? Not a bit. I'm not gonna crap on the MAC for taking a shot at something, even if it seems insane for Sac State to be doing this.

Yes, working to grow the league is pathetic thinking. 100%

Wouldn't even need to be THAT desperate. But yes, the MAC should be talking to anyone and everyone that might be interested right now.

Yeah, it's got to be something in that realm. The only thing for the MAC here...this can't be it. You got a little lifeline, see what we can get from it.

They very much must have had some benefactor that REALLY wanted in FBS. Still strange, though.

The big question here...is the MAC done? While it feels kinda ridiculous, this is the first remotely proactive thing the MAC has done in a long long time...are they trying to use some of this extra funding to pilfer CUSA? There are multiple teams there that would make sense, and adding schools that "matter" even a little bit could help the MAC stave off the Sun Belt. That next TV deal is probably going to be vitally important...is it just going to be the "same old same old" with the crappy midweek games, or is the MAC going to try and find other broadcasters that need content (and want college football)? Be a very very interesting couple years here.

From what I look around and see, Tarleton is 100% a possibility.

Feels absurd, but if the ACC can do it I guess.

Nah. 12 regular season and 16-32 whatever for the playoffs is going to be the end game. For G6 probably would be 16, but depends on how many teams are in the G6.

To the extent we're not way past this point, we are now at this point where there needs to be a G6 playoff. If worried about "number of postseason teams," make it 24 or 32 teams and do home games for the higher seed (since the bowls aren't gonna matter). Something tells me a playoff game at Waldo would have drawn better than the 9K in Myrtle Beach, even if it were cold. Obviously there's some moving parts with TV availability and such, but I would think this is a net positive financially for the G6 than the bowls are (even if you averaged out the loss of the ESPN Invitational spot/s)...at the very least you're losing half the travel since someone would be at home.