Conference changes

jmcozenlaw · May 15, 2025, 05:00:24 PM

Three potentially juicy MAC rumors that might or might not (especially #3) come to fruition by the end of the summer:

1. The MAC might very well end up, in time for the Fall of 2027, as a 20 team conference, with two, 10 team divisions. This would put an end to the "MAC should not have two automatic qualifiers" noise once and for all.

There are at least seven schools that have reached out to the MAC, anticipating more fallout with their current conference(s) from closures/mergers and the elimination of sports, in addition to a weak conference, made a bit weaker with the latest round of moves.

The interesting thing that I am hearing is that the MAC has a list of schools that they would bring aboard, a pecking order so to speak, BUT, the conference wants to know what is happening with at least two, and possibly even three existing members in terms of their future viability. One school in particular is getting close to life support and is in an all out begathon from alums.

2. Two MAC schools are very seriously looking at adding football, while one just very quietly shot down the idea as unnecessary from an enrollment perspective (hint: think Dorney Park).

3. This last one sounded way off to me, but I have heard that the mothership in State College is not the only school looking closely at the beautiful, bucolic Doylestown area, for a possible satellite. I have heard from extremely reliable sources that Rowan has been sniffing around as well. I know that Rowan has massive plans for growth over the next decade, but I can't quite figure out the how or why with this one. I know that DelVal's wheelhouse in the sciences and research might tuck in very nicely, but it sounds more like disparate parts vs. a seamless fit.

Things have changed across the landscape over the last few years.........and I think that we are only in the second inning when we look back 10 years from now.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · May 16, 2025, 08:16:46 AM

Quote from: jmcozenlaw on May 15, 2025, 05:00:24 PM1. The MAC might very well end up, in time for the Fall of 2027, as a 20 team conference, with two, 10 team divisions. This would put an end to the "MAC should not have two automatic qualifiers" noise once and for all.

The issue with the grandfathered two AQs is not about number of teams, but that the MAC participates as one conference for some sports and two conference for others. Nobody else gets that flexibility.

jmcozenlaw · May 16, 2025, 04:24:32 PM

Quote from: Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) on May 16, 2025, 08:16:46 AM
Quote from: jmcozenlaw on May 15, 2025, 05:00:24 PM1. The MAC might very well end up, in time for the Fall of 2027, as a 20 team conference, with two, 10 team divisions. This would put an end to the "MAC should not have two automatic qualifiers" noise once and for all.

The issue with the grandfathered two AQs is not about number of teams, but that the MAC participates as one conference for some sports and two conference for others. Nobody else gets that flexibility.

I agree Ryan. I remember way back in the day, the MAC was a massive conference, with several of today's conferences eminating from the <AC over many years.

KnightSlappy · May 16, 2025, 04:39:47 PM

The MAC should not have 2 automatic qualifiers.

Pat Coleman · May 20, 2025, 03:21:46 PM

The MAC should not have the ability to selectively align itself as one conference or two conferences to maximize its auto-qualifiers.

ziggy · May 20, 2025, 03:48:22 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on May 20, 2025, 03:21:46 PMThe MAC should not have the ability to selectively align itself as one conference or two conferences to maximize its auto-qualifiers.

Their website proudly claims they are THREE conferences! (but apparently only one or two at a time)

jmcozenlaw · May 21, 2025, 04:45:42 PM

Quote from: KnightSlappy on May 16, 2025, 04:39:47 PMThe MAC should not have 2 automatic qualifiers.

You say tomato, I say tomato......they have them and I believe it will never go away, especially with the expansion plans on tap.

When each of the MAC's two divisions are as large or larger than several conferences with AQ's, I have zero problem with two automatic qualifiers.

When the MAC expands to 20 schools with two, 10 team divisions, even more so, especially with the number of conferences that are shrinking for many reasons.

I look forward, a couple of years out, in comparing the size of one, 10 team MAC division (with an AQ) to the number of conferences with 10 or fewer teams......and an AQ.

That's the beauty of opinions (vs. facts), we all have ours, are entitled to them and nobody's carries any more or less weight.

Inkblot · May 21, 2025, 11:41:53 PM

I don't see the MAC setup as being a whole lot different from what the CCS/USA South have.

KnightSlappy · May 22, 2025, 02:40:27 PM

Quote from: Inkblot on May 21, 2025, 11:41:53 PMI don't see the MAC setup as being a whole lot different from what the CCS/USA South have.

CCS had to set up a new conference and go through the AQ waiting period and now each have to maintain their conference minimums.

Quote from: jmcozenlaw on May 21, 2025, 04:45:42 PMWhen each of the MAC's two divisions are as large or larger than several conferences with AQ's, I have zero problem with two automatic qualifiers.

I do tend to agree here. If they were trying to maintain AQs in two divisions with only 6 or 7 teams in each I'd have a much bigger problem with the MAC. With two larger divisions (in basketball at least), this is very low on my list of concerns.

Pat Coleman · May 23, 2025, 10:24:35 AM

Quote from: KnightSlappy on May 22, 2025, 02:40:27 PM
Quote from: Inkblot on May 21, 2025, 11:41:53 PMI don't see the MAC setup as being a whole lot different from what the CCS/USA South have.

CCS had to set up a new conference and go through the AQ waiting period and now each have to maintain their conference minimums.

Ding -- this is the difference.

Inkblot · May 23, 2025, 01:24:07 PM

Not having to go through the waiting period 26 years ago is a fair point, but I don't see any problems with the current setup.

jmcozenlaw · May 23, 2025, 03:25:16 PM

Quote from: Inkblot on May 23, 2025, 01:24:07 PMNot having to go through the waiting period 26 years ago is a fair point, but I don't see any problems with the current setup.

Agree with this 100%! The MAC is also looking to grow and there are several institutions lined up and waiting. A couple are obvious, natural fits. A couple, not so much. There is also a very slim chance that if this planned growth to a magic 20 teams occurs, if a couple of the schools that are deep in the evaluation process of adding football make the decision to do so, the MAC could also become a 12 team, 2 division football conference and could really insulate themselves (as is the plan) from losing a couple of schools due to closing/merger or even dropping athletics.

With what is going on with the Conference Carousel/Conference Roulette across the country, the MAC could set themselves up beautifully, to be able to afford some attrition. In football, a 12 team, 2 division conference could easily revert to becoming a 10 team (like now) conference. Look at how many conferences are a school or two away from losing the AQ and/or their conference evaporating. The MAC could set themselves up for years to come with nary a worry if they can get to 20 institutions.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · May 30, 2025, 08:26:54 AM

It's the ability to combine into one for sports sponsored by fewer schools that irks people. Nobody else gets that option, they have to align as affiliates or create single sport conferences, all of which cost more money. The MAC should be two conferences and, if they get to 20 teams, the NCAA should force them to split permanently. I doubt that happens, but it really isn't a level playing field.

Even if they want to remain two parts of one big conference and share administration like they do now, that's fine with me, so long as they operate as two separate conferences for all sport AQs. That's the real inequity to be addressed.