2015 Conference Affiliation

[xu9697]

Ok, ok, ok. Beating dead horse BUT, BUT, BUT....I have been a ZN member since 2005, and I actually don't think I have ever seen a poll question addressing the topic. If there has been one, it has at least been a couple years. No need to have a bunch of discussion (again). But I really do want to know what everyone thinks.

[ZachTheZip]

In 2015 the Big East will lose their automatic BCS bid to the MWC, if things keep going like they are.In 2011, a tipping point will occur in the conference landscape. That's the year for change. I think that a new conference or two will appear.

[skip-zip]

As we all know, a lot of things need to happen over the next several years for us to be attractive to a big conference. It's certainly not impossible. I just don't think it's going to happen. And probably at the top of the list is sustained, high attendance. A good indication should be the number of people in attendance this year when we hit those cold November home games.

[g-mann17]

As we all know, a lot of things need to happen over the next several years for us to be attractive to a big conference. It's certainly not impossible. I just don't think it's going to happen. And probably at the top of the list is sustained, high attendance. A good indication should be the number of people in attendance this year when we hit those cold November home games.

I've seen this statement in one form or another countless times. All a conference looks for is three things.Willingness to fund the athletic programs.Consistant development of academic programs.Television Market.Do you really think that USF and Cincinatti had attendance going for them? No, they were schools that were planning on pumping big money into the University and Athletics programs to make themselves more notable.Other lateral moves Marshall to C-USA (UCF doesn't count, the MAC was a hold over for them), BC to the ACC, Miami to the ACC. Those were developments of attendance and value added from marketing. But those are lateral, those teams went from one conference to a slightly better rated conference, not from Non-BCS to BCS. Does increased attendance help? Yes, because it's more money to pump into the program.

[skip-zip]

As we all know, a lot of things need to happen over the next several years for us to be attractive to a big conference. It's certainly not impossible. I just don't think it's going to happen. And probably at the top of the list is sustained, high attendance. A good indication should be the number of people in attendance this year when we hit those cold November home games.

I've seen this statement in one form or another countless times. All a conference looks for is three things.Willingness to fund the athletic programs.Consistant development of academic programs.Television Market.Do you really think that USF and Cincinatti had attendance going for them? No, they were schools that were planning on pumping big money into the University and Athletics programs to make themselves more notable.Other lateral moves Marshall to C-USA (UCF doesn't count, the MAC was a hold over for them), BC to the ACC, Miami to the ACC. Those were developments of attendance and value added from marketing. But those are lateral, those teams went from one conference to a slightly better rated conference, not from Non-BCS to BCS. Does increased attendance help? Yes, because it's more money to pump into the program.

I'm sure Marshall believed it was an upgrade at the time they made the move.I'm sure some of the factors you mention above contributed to the attractiveness of these schools. And I don't believe that attendance is the only factor. But consistent high attendance is something the people can impact. And it could act as the catalyst to start us moving in a direction that would indeed make us attractive to a larger conference.

[scottditzen]

I'd go for MAC, Big East or some new conference. Conference USA, sorry, but no team there is of much interest to me at all. I wouldn't want to end up there barring anything cataclysmic, ie, the MAC dropping down. Even then, I'd rather we scrape together a new conference.Big East football would be intriguing...there's no reason we couldn't become the next Cincy, Rutgers or UConn. But I would hate to see what would happen to our basketball team in that conference. I just can't see us being very competitive there, way too brutal. Back to football...dream for a moment...imagine for a second if the MAC could somehow, someway became an excellent quarterback conference with high flying offenses. It would gain an identity for an exciting brand of anything goes football. It could catch fire with attention and attendance, get much better marketing and its own t.v. network and great exposure. While it would be miraculous, sadly, the idea of the MAC becoming something special looks really unlikely. I think a much more likely scenario is that the MAC stays the course for sub-mediocrity. But....if our Zips can become perennial winners in a sub par conference- just as Marshall was before, is that really such a bad thing? And what about attendance...do we draw better at the Info as 1) "the Pride of the MAC" getting Bowl games and having a fighting chance as conference champs every year, or 2) in an expanded Info vs. Big East schools where the competition at the top is much greater, and higher likelihood that we could struggle for years to make headway? What do you think??BIG EAST BASKETBALL Pct Overall Pct#$Louisville 16-2 .889 31-6 .838$Connecticut 15-3 .833 31-5 .861$Pittsburgh 15-3 .833 31-5 .861$Villanova 13-5 .722 30-8 .789^Marquette 12-6 .667 25-10 .714^Syracuse 11-7 .611 28-10 .737^West Virginia 10-8 .556 23-12 .657^Providence 10-8 .556 19-14 .576Notre Dame 8-10 .444 21-15 .583Cincinnati 8-10 .444 18-14 .562Seton Hall 7-11 .389 17-15 .531Georgetown 7-11 .389 16-15 .516St. John's 6-12 .333 16-18 .471USF 4-14 .222 9-22 .290Rutgers 2-16 .111 11-21 .344 BIG EAST FOOTBALL Pct Overall Pct#Cincinnati 6-1 .857 11-3 .786Pittsburgh 5-2 .714 9-4 .692West Virginia 5-2 .714 9-4 .692Rutgers 5-2 .714 8-5 .615Connecticut 3-4 .429 8-5 .615USF 2-5 .286 8-5 .615Louisville 1-6 .143 5-7 .417Syracuse 1-6 .143 3-9 .250

[Dead Horse]

I really don't need this kind of beating during my summer vacation.

[Captain Kangaroo]

[Zipmeister]

In 2015, which of the following conferences will have any interest in having Akron as a member?MAC Big EastConference USA I-AA/FCS Other newly created conference Other

[ZachTheZip]

2011 and 2012 will the the years when the conferences will be shuffled around. Half way through teh new BCS contract which was just signed. The Big East will be in danger of losing their auto-bid to the MWC and will make a move to try and hold on to that. I don't want to join a Big East that won't be a BCS league.I think the MAC will split again, soon.

[Zipmeister]

2011 and 2012 will the the years when the conferences will be shuffled around. Half way through teh new BCS contract which was just signed. The Big East will be in danger of losing their auto-bid to the MWC and will make a move to try and hold on to that. I don't want to join a Big East that won't be a BCS league.I think the MAC will split again, soon.

When was the the last time the MAC split?

[ZachTheZip]

2011 and 2012 will the the years when the conferences will be shuffled around. Half way through teh new BCS contract which was just signed. The Big East will be in danger of losing their auto-bid to the MWC and will make a move to try and hold on to that. I don't want to join a Big East that won't be a BCS league.I think the MAC will split again, soon.

When was the the last time the MAC split?

When Marshall and UCF left for Conference USA.

[Zipmeister]

2011 and 2012 will the the years when the conferences will be shuffled around. Half way through teh new BCS contract which was just signed. The Big East will be in danger of losing their auto-bid to the MWC and will make a move to try and hold on to that. I don't want to join a Big East that won't be a BCS league.I think the MAC will split again, soon.

When was the the last time the MAC split?

When Marshall and UCF left for Conference USA.

Oh, I should have realized you had a unique definition for the word "split" too .

[GP1]

I actually voted I-AA for many reasons.First, the MAC is basically a I-AA conference pretending to be a major conference.Second, the NCAA should just admit the high level BCS schools are involved in professional sports and do the following:1. Separate out the best 40 schools from the past 50 years and have them as the DI-A schools. They could have four 10 team conferences with a playoff at the end of the year. 2. Pay the players a percentage of the gross revenues in equal amounts per player. A lot of these players are getting paid under the table, they my as well make it above board. I knew a guy from college who played in the NFL and he told us the guys from the big schools (mostly SEC) had a section, row and seat number at the basketball arena they had to visit at a certain time each week. On the back of those chairs would be an envelop taped to it with cash.3. All schools that don't make the new BCS level will become I-AA schools. Maybe the NCAA should add another division to include these schools. 4. The schools at this new BCS level would not be allowed to play anyone outside of this level. 5. They could have 12 games per year with three OOC teams. The teams that finished first in their divisions the previous year would have to play each other the following season in order to create some level of parity.6. Create parity by reducing the number of spring practices you are allowed to have depending on how far you go into the playoffs.7. Never reduce scholarships for successful teams.

[Zipsrifle]

I actually voted I-AA for many reasons.First, the MAC is basically a I-AA conference pretending to be a major conference.Second, the NCAA should just admit the high level BCS schools are involved in professional sports and do the following:1. Separate out the best 40 schools from the past 50 years and have them as the DI-A schools. They could have four 10 team conferences with a playoff at the end of the year. 2. Pay the players a percentage of the gross revenues in equal amounts per player. A lot of these players are getting paid under the table, they my as well make it above board. I knew a guy from college who played in the NFL and he told us the guys from the big schools (mostly SEC) had a section, row and seat number at the basketball arena they had to visit at a certain time each week. On the back of those chairs would be an envelop taped to it with cash.3. All schools that don't make the new BCS level will become I-AA schools. Maybe the NCAA should add another division to include these schools. 4. The schools at this new BCS level would not be allowed to play anyone outside of this level. 5. They could have 12 games per year with three OOC teams. The teams that finished first in their divisions the previous year would have to play each other the following season in order to create some level of parity.6. Create parity by reducing the number of spring practices you are allowed to have depending on how far you go into the playoffs.7. Never reduce scholarships for successful teams.

Interesting thoughts...you've put some time into this. I don't agree with this, but I see your point. I think going to DI-AA will kill the program unless there is some defined way to step up to DI-A in your plan and it is actually possible to go DI-A. I don't have a solution to be honest. I just think we should consistently and convincingly win the MAC before even thinking about moving. Here's a thought off the top of my head to clear up the National Championship battle. Maybe some type of mandatory out of conferece games that match up the BCS schools with the school not in the BCS mid season. Like a Bracket Buster in BB. Each team would play away one year, and home the next year to eliminate the home field advantage phenomena of the bigger schools. This way when an undefeated MAC school has lets say, USC show up in town, if they win, we have a valid reference point.

[GP1]

I actually voted I-AA for many reasons.First, the MAC is basically a I-AA conference pretending to be a major conference.Second, the NCAA should just admit the high level BCS schools are involved in professional sports and do the following:1. Separate out the best 40 schools from the past 50 years and have them as the DI-A schools. They could have four 10 team conferences with a playoff at the end of the year. 2. Pay the players a percentage of the gross revenues in equal amounts per player. A lot of these players are getting paid under the table, they my as well make it above board. I knew a guy from college who played in the NFL and he told us the guys from the big schools (mostly SEC) had a section, row and seat number at the basketball arena they had to visit at a certain time each week. On the back of those chairs would be an envelop taped to it with cash.3. All schools that don't make the new BCS level will become I-AA schools. Maybe the NCAA should add another division to include these schools. 4. The schools at this new BCS level would not be allowed to play anyone outside of this level. 5. They could have 12 games per year with three OOC teams. The teams that finished first in their divisions the previous year would have to play each other the following season in order to create some level of parity.6. Create parity by reducing the number of spring practices you are allowed to have depending on how far you go into the playoffs.7. Never reduce scholarships for successful teams.

Interesting thoughts...you've put some time into this. I don't agree with this, but I see your point. I think going to DI-AA will kill the program unless there is some defined way to step up to DI-A in your plan and it is actually possible to go DI-A. I don't have a solution to be honest. I just think we should consistently and convincingly win the MAC before even thinking about moving. Here's a thought off the top of my head to clear up the National Championship battle. Maybe some type of mandatory out of conferece games that match up the BCS schools with the school not in the BCS mid season. Like a Bracket Buster in BB. Each team would play away one year, and home the next year to eliminate the home field advantage phenomena of the bigger schools. This way when an undefeated MAC school has lets say, USC show up in town, if they win, we have a valid reference point.

Actually, it didn't take much time at all. This is the second time I have posted something like this and it didn't take much time initially. To me, the direction college football is going lends itself to only a handful of team being able to compete at the highest level on a regular basis. There are lots of schools at the BCS level that never intend to compete at the highest football level. Duke comes to mind as well as Vandy as well as Northwestern as well as Baylor.This plan allows the NCAA to admit to what it is, a money making machine for large schools. The BCS schools would make even more money in this plan. Could tOSU make more money with an out of conference schedule consisting of the first place schools from the other divisions or by playing Can't, Akron, OU and some BCS school? I think so. They could charge out the ying yang for tickets to these games and make more money then pass that along to the players or to add another wing to their football factory. Heck, if you really want to make some money and you are already paying the players, have a 15 game season where you play your counterpart from the other divisions (first plays first, second plays second, etc.) home and home the following season. Then allow 16 teams in the playoffs consisting of the top four finishers in each division playing for a conference championship and then the final four play for the national championship over a two week period.The NCAA is always going to protect the BCS schools because that is where their bread is buttered. I'm not passing judgement, because I'd do the same thing if I was the NCAA. It only makes good business sense for them. The NCAA can't wait around for conferences like the MAC, that has been around since 1946, to figure anything out. When second and third tier teams start to threaten the dominance of BCS schools, the NCAA will change the rules again to protect the BCS schools.A lot of people will say this is just the rich getting richer and they would be right. The NCAA is there to make certain the rich get richer though. Why not just make the rich really rich and put them in a position where they don't play outside of their own conference and everyone else can play each other at their own level?

[zipboy]

If you create something like this, you have 40 teams much more closely aligned with each other. You become more like the NFL. Would tosu going 9-3 or 10-2 or 12-3 with a 15 game schedule be better or worse for them? Right now, you guarantee these top 40 schools 8+ win seasons because of the advantage they have and 5 schools pretty much a decent chance of going undefeated every year. In this new world, if those 40 play each other, around 20 of them are going to be under every year. I don't know if people are going to pay $75-$100 bucks a game to see a 5-7 team year in and year out. Then again, Browns fans pay a lot to see worse than mediocrity. Interesting concept I wonder if it helps or hurts the schools the NCAA wants to protect. I do agree that if the next tier gets close enough to challenge something will be done to include the few into the club and separate the big boys with a couple extra schools even more.

[Zipsrifle]

I actually voted I-AA for many reasons.First, the MAC is basically a I-AA conference pretending to be a major conference.Second, the NCAA should just admit the high level BCS schools are involved in professional sports and do the following:1. Separate out the best 40 schools from the past 50 years and have them as the DI-A schools. They could have four 10 team conferences with a playoff at the end of the year. 2. Pay the players a percentage of the gross revenues in equal amounts per player. A lot of these players are getting paid under the table, they my as well make it above board. I knew a guy from college who played in the NFL and he told us the guys from the big schools (mostly SEC) had a section, row and seat number at the basketball arena they had to visit at a certain time each week. On the back of those chairs would be an envelop taped to it with cash.3. All schools that don't make the new BCS level will become I-AA schools. Maybe the NCAA should add another division to include these schools. 4. The schools at this new BCS level would not be allowed to play anyone outside of this level. 5. They could have 12 games per year with three OOC teams. The teams that finished first in their divisions the previous year would have to play each other the following season in order to create some level of parity.6. Create parity by reducing the number of spring practices you are allowed to have depending on how far you go into the playoffs.7. Never reduce scholarships for successful teams.

Interesting thoughts...you've put some time into this. I don't agree with this, but I see your point. I think going to DI-AA will kill the program unless there is some defined way to step up to DI-A in your plan and it is actually possible to go DI-A. I don't have a solution to be honest. I just think we should consistently and convincingly win the MAC before even thinking about moving. Here's a thought off the top of my head to clear up the National Championship battle. Maybe some type of mandatory out of conferece games that match up the BCS schools with the school not in the BCS mid season. Like a Bracket Buster in BB. Each team would play away one year, and home the next year to eliminate the home field advantage phenomena of the bigger schools. This way when an undefeated MAC school has lets say, USC show up in town, if they win, we have a valid reference point.

Actually, it didn't take much time at all. This is the second time I have posted something like this and it didn't take much time initially. To me, the direction college football is going lends itself to only a handful of team being able to compete at the highest level on a regular basis. There are lots of schools at the BCS level that never intend to compete at the highest football level. Duke comes to mind as well as Vandy as well as Northwestern as well as Baylor.This plan allows the NCAA to admit to what it is, a money making machine for large schools. The BCS schools would make even more money in this plan. Could tOSU make more money with an out of conference schedule consisting of the first place schools from the other divisions or by playing Can't, Akron, OU and some BCS school? I think so. They could charge out the ying yang for tickets to these games and make more money then pass that along to the players or to add another wing to their football factory. Heck, if you really want to make some money and you are already paying the players, have a 15 game season where you play your counterpart from the other divisions (first plays first, second plays second, etc.) home and home the following season. Then allow 16 teams in the playoffs consisting of the top four finishers in each division playing for a conference championship and then the final four play for the national championship over a two week period.The NCAA is always going to protect the BCS schools because that is where their bread is buttered. I'm not passing judgement, because I'd do the same thing if I was the NCAA. It only makes good business sense for them. The NCAA can't wait around for conferences like the MAC, that has been around since 1946, to figure anything out. When second and third tier teams start to threaten the dominance of BCS schools, the NCAA will change the rules again to protect the BCS schools.A lot of people will say this is just the rich getting richer and they would be right. The NCAA is there to make certain the rich get richer though. Why not just make the rich really rich and put them in a position where they don't play outside of their own conference and everyone else can play each other at their own level?

I think a lot of the draw to college football is the fact that the National Championship IS up in the air for almost the whole season. OSU can pad their schedule with 7-8 home games a year and a couple cupcakes, make a ton of cash, and fans will be thinking they deserve the National Championship until they lose 2 games which is unlikey to happen until the last couple games. If you have to run the gauntlet every season, that anticipation could be gone early on. I agree, it would be too much like the NFL.

[GP1]

I actually voted I-AA for many reasons.First, the MAC is basically a I-AA conference pretending to be a major conference.Second, the NCAA should just admit the high level BCS schools are involved in professional sports and do the following:1. Separate out the best 40 schools from the past 50 years and have them as the DI-A schools. They could have four 10 team conferences with a playoff at the end of the year. 2. Pay the players a percentage of the gross revenues in equal amounts per player. A lot of these players are getting paid under the table, they my as well make it above board. I knew a guy from college who played in the NFL and he told us the guys from the big schools (mostly SEC) had a section, row and seat number at the basketball arena they had to visit at a certain time each week. On the back of those chairs would be an envelop taped to it with cash.3. All schools that don't make the new BCS level will become I-AA schools. Maybe the NCAA should add another division to include these schools. 4. The schools at this new BCS level would not be allowed to play anyone outside of this level. 5. They could have 12 games per year with three OOC teams. The teams that finished first in their divisions the previous year would have to play each other the following season in order to create some level of parity.6. Create parity by reducing the number of spring practices you are allowed to have depending on how far you go into the playoffs.7. Never reduce scholarships for successful teams.

Interesting thoughts...you've put some time into this. I don't agree with this, but I see your point. I think going to DI-AA will kill the program unless there is some defined way to step up to DI-A in your plan and it is actually possible to go DI-A. I don't have a solution to be honest. I just think we should consistently and convincingly win the MAC before even thinking about moving. Here's a thought off the top of my head to clear up the National Championship battle. Maybe some type of mandatory out of conferece games that match up the BCS schools with the school not in the BCS mid season. Like a Bracket Buster in BB. Each team would play away one year, and home the next year to eliminate the home field advantage phenomena of the bigger schools. This way when an undefeated MAC school has lets say, USC show up in town, if they win, we have a valid reference point.

Actually, it didn't take much time at all. This is the second time I have posted something like this and it didn't take much time initially. To me, the direction college football is going lends itself to only a handful of team being able to compete at the highest level on a regular basis. There are lots of schools at the BCS level that never intend to compete at the highest football level. Duke comes to mind as well as Vandy as well as Northwestern as well as Baylor.This plan allows the NCAA to admit to what it is, a money making machine for large schools. The BCS schools would make even more money in this plan. Could tOSU make more money with an out of conference schedule consisting of the first place schools from the other divisions or by playing Can't, Akron, OU and some BCS school? I think so. They could charge out the ying yang for tickets to these games and make more money then pass that along to the players or to add another wing to their football factory. Heck, if you really want to make some money and you are already paying the players, have a 15 game season where you play your counterpart from the other divisions (first plays first, second plays second, etc.) home and home the following season. Then allow 16 teams in the playoffs consisting of the top four finishers in each division playing for a conference championship and then the final four play for the national championship over a two week period.The NCAA is always going to protect the BCS schools because that is where their bread is buttered. I'm not passing judgement, because I'd do the same thing if I was the NCAA. It only makes good business sense for them. The NCAA can't wait around for conferences like the MAC, that has been around since 1946, to figure anything out. When second and third tier teams start to threaten the dominance of BCS schools, the NCAA will change the rules again to protect the BCS schools.A lot of people will say this is just the rich getting richer and they would be right. The NCAA is there to make certain the rich get richer though. Why not just make the rich really rich and put them in a position where they don't play outside of their own conference and everyone else can play each other at their own level?

I think a lot of the draw to college football is the fact that the National Championship IS up in the air for almost the whole season. OSU can pad their schedule with 7-8 home games a year and a couple cupcakes, make a ton of cash, and fans will be thinking they deserve the National Championship until they lose 2 games which is unlikey to happen until the last couple games. If you have to run the gauntlet every season, that anticipation could be gone early on. I agree, it would be too much like the NFL.

Actually, the anticipation and excitment would be increased. Think about the NFL. Every year, there are a certain number of teams that are only 6-6 after 12 games and have a real good shot at making the playoffs based upon their remaining schedule. Lots of teams have made the playoffs with 9-7 records. Teams have won divisions with 9-7 records. The same would happen in my scenario.

[GP1]

If you create something like this, you have 40 teams much more closely aligned with each other. You become more like the NFL. Would tosu going 9-3 or 10-2 or 12-3 with a 15 game schedule be better or worse for them? Right now, you guarantee these top 40 schools 8+ win seasons because of the advantage they have and 5 schools pretty much a decent chance of going undefeated every year. In this new world, if those 40 play each other, around 20 of them are going to be under every year. I don't know if people are going to pay $75-$100 bucks a game to see a 5-7 team year in and year out. Then again, Browns fans pay a lot to see worse than mediocrity. Interesting concept I wonder if it helps or hurts the schools the NCAA wants to protect.

As it stands right now, tOSU is a third place team at best in any of the top three conferences (PAC 10, Big 12 and SEC). They would be either forced to get better or be exposed for the fraud that they are at this point. tOSU would be luck to win 11 games in the scenario I propose. They could still make the playoffs though depending on their division.

[zipboy]

Just one last point which I found interesting. I looked up attendance figures from last season. The big dogs, are over 100K, Texas, Michigan (not a big dog anymore), tosu, etc. The 40th ranked attendance team was Arizona just over 50K. Schools similar to Arizona in attedance were South FL, Pitt, and Virginia. I then checked expense budgets for football. tosu had 33M in football expenses last year. Arizona spent 8M on football last year. Akron spent 4.7M on football. What surprised me is the gap from 1 to 40 is about as great or more as the gap from 40 to 100. An interesting discussion, I wish we had more out of the box thinking in the MAC office.