We're all noting that this deal is for 5 years. That's why I said if by Year 3 there's no real commitment by the MAC to expand out west again, then this deal with Sac State is just a cash grab with no long-term plan in place. We're just repeating the same mistake we made with UCF when they took a pit stop in the MAC.

If you're the MAC, adapt (with an actual plan) or die. If they have no plan, then we might as well fan the rumor flames of "Ohio to the Sun Belt" asap. I'm tired of having no plan in place and being stuck in a conference that's just trying to get by. That strategy just won't cut it 10 years down the road. We need to stop pretending it will cut it.

Maybe I am slow, but I think you're gonna need to spell out specifics of how our approach has been less successful than the Sun Belt or American or whatever. Am I missing something that shows they are crushing us, and they owe it all to geographic expansion? Few people actually care about these conferences in any widespread way, they are just the conference their team happens to be in. Some of our fans will tune in to Toledo & BG but will a North Texas fan tune in to UAB and Navy battling? I don't see it. None of us G6 conferences will have national relevance, the goal should be getting your members' fan bases interested in the conference at large. I think a small thumbprint achieves that best.

I'm fully aware of the 5 years, however, there is opportunity to build a MACtion West. Plus I like the ballsy move of our Commish to set the standard on what it would take to join the MAC if other schools who are desperate to move up would want to follow.

I could be wrong, but with the addition of two extra teams, it might allow us to have one or two more Saturday games in November. I hope the Commish would negotiate that in future contract language.

As much as I desire history and region like you, I also don't want us to get left behind. A potential October/November game in California sounds amazing too. The thought of winning on Cali soil and attracting West Coast recruits does something to my soul to say the least. A Cali market with decent exposure helps putting a dent in losing the Chicago market. That's why I hope we build and go after Colorado, Washington or Arizona markets next with 2 additional teams. That would put an end to the "cash grab" thoughts.

First time in a long time I've heard from Dr. Steinbrecher. I'd like to believe what he says in this interview.

Also, would've liked to hear anything from him concerning the MAC Tiebreaker Policy stupidity that occurred last year...

I heard that Ohio originally voted against the Sac State deal. We only agreed after Sac State kicked in the travel costs.

Makes sense. I would've voted no to an unconditional addition as well. I would be surprised if every team didn't.

There is no downside for us once they cover travel and receive no money. They took the worst part of the deal and are now paying us to go there and beat them. People act like we had a dozen offers on the table and we told Penn State to kick rocks. It's just another game on the schedule where we don't have to pay an FCS team to come here. Instead a former FCS team is gonna pay us to go to California. This isn't going to ruin our BCS chances. Our poll numbers aren't gonna take a hit.

For the MAC as a whole, we now have a little leverage in possible additions. Maybe for WKU, maybe a fee waiver doesn't look so bad. MTSU - you wanna revisit? If they want to bring in another FCS team - YSU, Montanas, etc - the $5M FBS fee... hey, we got you. We have an $18M piggy bank - what they do with it - and I hope they collectively decide to use it to grow the product and the conference - is the only question. It makes these decisions a little easier, and these discussions financially feasible. A little $18M ace we didn't have four weeks ago.

The only people who view any aspect of this negatively are worried about what time the nursing homes turn off the communal TV.

I was curious about our California 'Cats on the roster with a potential road game this year against Sacramento State. I hope we can talk with the commissioner to see if we can't make it happen this year for Rodarte and Poulos's sake in particular because of the potential to get family and relatives to come and watch them play. :)


1. Max Rodarte WR (Grad. Stud.) Sacramento, Calif.

2. Nick Poulos QB (Grad. Stud.) Granite Bay, Calif. (26 miles away)

3. Derek Reagans DT (Sen.) San Francisco, Calif. (94 miles away)

4. Tigana Cisse OL (Grad. Stud.) Oakland, Calif. (95 miles away)

5. Sandro Malicevic OL (Sen.) Saratoga, Calif. (128 miles away)

6. Rashad Perry WR (RS Fres.) Fresno, Calif. (184 miles away)

7. Joseph Marsh DE (RS Jun.) Simi Valley, Calif. (383 miles away)

8. Hype Grand QB (RS Fres.) La Puente, Calif. (404 miles away)

9. Delaney Crawford WR (RS Sen.) Fontana, Calif. (430 miles away)

I am not exactly sure of the exact context of the need for a home game but it seems to me that a prospective in conference game with them could be anything. We'll get 4 home games and 4 away games assigned by the MAC and we won't play 4 teams. We'll have 6 home games overall and 6 road games no matter what the MAC assigns.

With 13 teams and there being protected rivalries I assume we'd play Miami 100% of the time, and since there is no real way to do pods with 13 teams there is no real reason to protect a rivalry with Ball State as we kind of got handed in the pod system, I'd guess Miami is OUr only protected game. Which means if our chance to play the other teams is kept equal we'd play the other teams at home 7 out of 22 years and on the road 7 out of 22 years. But the reality is that even if we only have one rival that some teams, like the Michigan schools, probably have 2. This means we'd end up playing those teams with 2 slightly less than 14 times in 22 years and the others slightly more. Any actual repeating schedule cycle, if such and thing ever tried to exist in the MAC office's mind after UMass joined, would be much longer than 22 years and even the MAC can't be that stable so trying to actually plan one at this point is likely pointless.

Since, the general rule is that you play most teams something close to 2 out of 3 years there is going to be a sort of general home, road, DNP, home road, DNP, type of pattern for the MAC to try to keep to keep things fair that necessarily has to break every once in a while. To keep the existing patterns in the MAC going as best they could Sac. St. probably pretty much takes up where NIU was in the kind of sorta existing rotations.

Our recent history with NIU, and this is even more less of a predictor than it otherwise could be because of pandemic year, divisions changing to pods changing to the craziness of 13 teams that mean any long term planning has changed for several reasons, is three of our last 4 games vs. NIU, including last year were at home with DNPs in 2024 and 2021. So the best way to keep the best balanced cycles with other MAC schools is my best prediction is that we play at Sac. St. in 2026. That is just an inclination and far from a predication. As I said, with an odd number and different numbers of protected rivalries any cycle we think we see is required to break every so often.

Week zero...Sac State, home or away. Me likey. Gives us some rest with an extra bye week in the MAC season and gives us a warm up to the 'huskers. Also helps he MAC start the Sac State Era with a bang right out of the shoot.

I think that we can safely say that you are already right about this. I certainly hope, and still certainly believe, that during the several weeks of negotiating the terms with Sacramento State that SOMEONE somewhere in the MAC office or some Athletic Department considered the scheduling difficulty of 13 teams, with limited bye week options, on short notice and considered options were thrown out to discuss and prepare an plan. I realized it almost immediately and it isn't my job. If somehow they didn't then that would be an significant display of incompetence.