MAC Blogger Roundtable Compiled

Well, here we are again.  The MAC Blogger Roundtable is back in action.  It was my day to write the questions, and we had answers from Bull Run, Let's Go Rockets, Eagle Totem and Hustle Belt.  My own comments/answers are listened at the end of each question.  Thanks for participating everyone!

1. NIU beat Iowa on the road, and I don’t think any of us were surprised. I don’t think there have been too many times in our history when we expected a MAC team to beat a Big 10 team…is this a milestone in the development of the MAC?

(Eagle Totem):  Although there have been MAC wins over Big Ten teams before (those that come to mind include Central Michigan over Michigan State, Toledo over Michigan, Ball State over Indiana, Central Michigan over Iowa, and Ohio over Penn State), to a greater or lesser extent, those were all upsets. This is the first game I can recall in which so many fans actually expected a win by the MAC team. Even though it was a top MAC program beating a lower-level Big Ten school, it’s an important step.

Once upon a time, it was simply expected that even the worst Big Ten team would be better than even the best MAC team. It wasn’t necessarily the case, but it was the perception. Now the perception is that in any given year, there are five or six MAC teams capable of knocking off an AQ program, and at least one or two of them will do so. It may only be perception, but perception matters. Call it #MACtion 2.0.

(Bull Run) I don't think I would call this a mile stone, more like a return to where the conference was before they slumped in the middle of the last decade. A dozen years ago you expect the MAC #1 team to be able to handle a middle of the pack "AQ" team. I think the milestone happens when we see the middle of the pack MAC teams beating up on the lower rated P5 teams. Buffalo, for example, has had a terrible time with the then AQ school UConn. The last two games were very winnable but UB came up short. Those kind of losses, or Kansas playing NIU tough hurt the MAC.

EMU Struggling against Howard hurts the MAC just as much as Ohio getting torn apart by Louisville. The Eagles have to own that game whistle to whistle and the Bobcats have to keep it close for at least a half. I'm not picking on those two teams there are any number of squads we can look at last week that played poorly.

(Let's Go Rockets) The milestone was in 2003, when Toledo beat #9 Pitt (35-31), BGSU nearly defeated #5 Ohio State (24-17) and NIU defeated #21 Alabama (19-16), all on the same day. That was a historic day for the MAC as they took out teams from the Big East and SEC and almost catching the B1G. That same year, we saw NIU defeat #24 Maryland (20-13), and BGSU defeat #13 Purdue (27-26). The B1G is clearly down this year and has been for at least 2 years. The top 4 teams in the MAC can hang with most of the B1G week in and week out. The MAC has shown over the last decade that it can have success against the bigger conferences.

(Hustle Belt)  I'm sure it's a milestone, but only if the MAC doesn't regress.  Let us not forget that Toledo struggled against Florida, Ohio was non-existent against Louisville, Kent State needed a fourth quarter comeback to beat Liberty without Dri Archer, and 4 "lower-level" MAC schools got hammered last week.  As a whole, the MAC won 5 games with 3 of those coming against FCS foes.

Don't get me wrong.  WMU looked decent against Michigan State.  Buffalo held their own against Ohio State (thank you Khalil Mack).  Ball State showed their might against a decent FCS team in Illinois State.  But NIU beating iowa on the road, when Iowa is reeling is barely a milestone.  The Hawkeyes completely shut down Jordan Lynch once Tommylee Lewis went down, and if not for a horrible INT, could've won the game themselves.  If anything, the MAC looked to have taken a step back from last season's incredible upsets in my opinion given the whole dynamic of the weekend.

I think that if the teams can turn things around, and continue to perform upsets throughout the year, then we can call this a milestone.  Until then, NIU just beat a crummy Iowa team in a game some fans thought they'd win while the rest of the MAC struggled Saturday and Sunday.  Seriously, outside of Buffalo and NIU, did anyone really think a team played halfway decent those two days?

FalconBlog Response:  Well, I think Bowling Green played halfway decent, you don't seem to have that listed.  Obviously, it was my question...I don't remember too many times that I expected the MAC to win a road game against the Big 10.  Seven BCS teams lost outright to FCS opponents, so close wins are close wins.

2. Do you think power football is making a comeback in the MAC?

(Eagle Totem) Everything that was old is new again. It’s a sentiment that’s as true today as when it was first written more than two millenia ago.

One way to succeed in football is to go against the grain, to zig when everyone else is zagging. Even if there’s no real advantage to what you’re doing, given the limited practice time available in college football, there’s an inherent advantage in forcing opponents to prepare for something different.

The trick is whether you can successfully operate the “something different” that you’ve planned given the players and coaches available. This is part of the reason that Rich Rodriguez struggled at Michigan, and it’s part of the reason that Ron English has struggled at EMU.

Rather than look at what schools like EMU are trying to do, I think it’s more useful to consider what the schools at the top of the MAC are doing. Northern Illinois, coached by a former offensive coordinator, runs an up-tempo no-huddle spread offense. Toledo, coached by a former OC, runs an up-tempo spread offense. Pete Lembo, although never an OC, is an offense-oriented coach who’s installed…you got it: and up-tempo spread offense at Ball State. After getting blown out in the 2010 New Orleans Bowl, Frank Solich installed an up-tempo no-huddle spread offense, and Ohio won 19 games the next two seasons.

On the other hand, Dan Enos installed a pro-set power running offense and slammed the brakes on what was well on its way to becoming a dynasty. And, if you’ve blocked out the memory, here’s an unpleasant reminder that Ron English inherited a reasonably potent spread offense, switched to power running, and started his head coaching career with an 18-game losing streak.

(Bull Run) If by Power football you mean are we getting back to stout defense hard nosed running and away from the spread then I say maybe. I credit Temple and NIU for starting the trend of focusing on the defense and ground game which has spread through the conference as "the spread" starts to fall by the wayside.

(Let's Go Rockets)  Power football will always be a part of the MAC in some way. It was power football that helped win the big games in 2003. Over the last few years, we have seen the MAC go to high scoring, up tempo offenses. Even as this style of play carries over to all of the MAC teams, some element of power football, whether it be QB’s that run the option and take hits or a big running back not shy delivering their own hit, will always be an element of the winning MAC programs.

(Hustle Belt)  No.  Sure Lynch is a power-runner with an arm.  But most of the other play-makers in the conference (Archer, Bernard Reedy, Tommylee Lewis) all have the speed factor.  David Fluellen is a hybrid back if you want, and sure Trayion Durham is "thunder", but I don't see power football much in the MAC right now.

I should note that I didn't see any of the BG-Tulsa game, so I have no idea how the BG offense looked.  UMass, Akron, Ohio, and CMU also couldn't have shown much to help answer this question.   I still personally think the MAC is more about finesse than power, but having an occasional power player (like Durham) is nice to wear down defenses and set-up the pass and speed.

FalconBlog Response: I really liked Eagle Totem's response.  Yes, Hustle Belt, BG is running a lot more of a power offense now...my observation is that power football is making a comeback in the MAC...I didn't mean to differentiate it from speed as much as from the spread.

3. Everyone says the BCS schools are moving toward their own division. Do you think the MAC will end up either in FBS or in a new division with the other schools that are currently non-AQ and how much does it matter to you if they did?

(Eagle Totem)  There’s one factor that makes me dubious of any such changes, and it’s a big one — possibly the only one that can prevent such a development.

Money.

Since football money has been the driving force behind most of the realignment activity over the past several years, it seems to me that it has the potential to be the most powerful force against possible future changes, such as a new division.

The financial problem with the big schools moving to a separate division is the same fundamental problem that makes them wary of adding conference games. Since we’re so geographically close, let’s look at Michigan as an example.

As a rough estimate, I think it’s fair to suggest that Michigan grosses upward of $10 million per home game.1 I don’t know what the actual costs are, but again, let’s be conservative and say $5 million per game. So even with these conservative estimates, their profit before any payment to a visiting school is certainly more than $5 million per game.

Now consider two scenarios, we’ll call them Scenario NCAA and Scenario Semipro. Under Scenario NCAA, Michigan plays a eight-game B1G schedule (four home games), plus one non-conference home-and-home, and then three non-AQ teams at home (paying $500,000 each). Each year they have eight home games, making $40 million, and paying $1.5 million to the non-AQ teams, for a profit of $38.5 million.

Now consider Scenario Semipro. Under this scenario, the current AQ schools split off to form their own division or even their own league. They don’t play against the non-AQ schools any more. Now Michigan is going to have to do more home-and-home or neutral site games. They won’t have to pay guarantees to schools, but they’ll only have six home games a year, for a profit of $30 million. They’ve cost themselves more than $8 million by dropping those games against the MAC, the Sun Belt, Conference USA, and the like.

Now remember that the same thing would be happening at Penn State, at Ohio State, at Alabama, at Tennessee, at Texas, at Southern California… Tens of millions of dollars — perhaps more than $100 million altogether — would be lost. You can bet that the real decision-makers who would have to be on board for such a change — not just the coaches, and not even just the athletic directors, but the schools presidents and the boards of regents/trustees — fully understand this. They could probably even tell you exactly how much this would cost their school.

Never forget, if there’s one thing they know how to do (and do well), it’s turning a handsome profit on amateur sports.

(Bull Run) Buffalo worked harder than most people know to get back to division one athletics (now if they could just consistently play at that level). UB quite literally dragged the New York State University system kicking and screaming into division one athletics, and SUNY fought it the whole way. If UB was frozen out now it would be devastating.

That being said I am not worried, and I have went on at length as to why. For all the traction that the G5 versus P5 narrative has achieved the problem the big boys have is not the MAC, or the AAC, or even the Sun Belt. All of the "Group of 5" conferences tend to vote with the big boys on the important issues like full cost of attendance. I really believe that this entire dust up is about governance not just money.

The schools holding up pay for play come from the low money non football conferences. That's about half of division one. The schools who are board are the FBS teams along with the A10, Big East, and WCC. I expect if there is going to be a split it will be all 170 of those schools splitting from the MEAC, the MAAC, and anyone else who is not seeing eye to eye with the FBS schools things like compensation issues.

(Let's Go Rockets) It’s difficult to speculate about such a major change to college football but we would hate to see fewer meetings between BCS and non-AQ schools because these matchups drive competition and give us some truly great games. Any option which tries to keep the “haves” and “have-nots” together needs fully explored, in our opinion, because if this separation is allowed to happen it undermines one of the best aspects of the sport.

(HustleBelt) I have no strong opinion on this, so our manager Bryan and fellow contributor James Kelley are here to help me out.

Bryan

When (not if) the power conferences form their own league, there's no conceivable scenario where the MAC gets to join up with the BCS schools. The MAC and the rest of "the other 5" conferences have clearly been pushed to the side by the power conferences and everything else that goes along with them. The fact that no MAC teams (Temple, you don't count) were invited to have lunch with the cool kids during the most recent wave of conference realignment shows that the BCS schools have no desire to be in the same group as the MAC (and other mid-major conferences) long term.

As far as that goes though, will it be a bummer when the MAC is left standing on the outside with conferences such as the Mountain West and Sun Belt? No. Why? Because it's already that way. Okay so we might not get to see Louisville beat up on Ohio for the 'Cats lunch money, or Florida trounce the Rockets for having weird shoes anymore, but is that what we really want to see? I don't. It'll balance out the competition, and all us "nerds" will be better off for it.

Jimmy

I think there is value in looking at how the new division would operate. Obviously there would be a ton of money and exposure and all of that involved and it's hard to not look at that with wide-eyed enthusiasm. But on the other side you get the backroom politics and high-profile issues that come with being one of the big money schools. Part of the discussion would have to be "how much of the game are we willing to play?"

The MAC operates in sort of a minor-league baseball fashion in that there are loads of talented players, but many of the players who star for MAC teams would be supporting characters on one of the big outfits. Just like in the minor leagues, these teams have dedicated fan bases that love to see their players move on up to the big stage and succeed. In that way, I think staying down in whatever is left of FBS has a ton of value. Stick with what endears the fans, don't sell out for the sake of selling out.

Ultimately, I don't think it matters where the MAC lands because their fans aren't going anywhere and players will still be drawn to what makes #MACtion the phenomenon that it is.

FalconBlog response:  I think the top 64 teams are going to leave the NCAA and the schism will be caused by the issue of paying players. My only question is whether the non-AQ teams merge with the FCS or whether there remains a separation.  My guess is that the two would merge. I agree with "Jimmy" though.  It won't diminish my fan fervor.