Ohio Football Topic
Topic: JMU to the MAC?
Page: 2 of 3
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 2/27/2014 11:43 PM
Pataskala wrote:expand_more
The one drawback for them would be that people might think they're another directional Michigan.  Can you imagine schools flying into Detroit only to find out they missed the mark by 500 miles.


catfan28 wrote:expand_more
... Was told last year that, from our athletic department's research, we generated more true ticket sales revenue than anyone in MAC history.

This is entirely believable. Ohio led the league in attendance, but also we've seen much higher ticket prices in recent years. Schaus doesn't seem to be afraid to try some things like $35 for Marshall, unlike prior years where we saw tickets going at deep discounts, even against BCS teams like U. Conn.

By contrast, the article that Wes linked us to is of no use at all. Revenue up 35%? Sounds nice, but means nothing without some absolute numbers along with it. Suppose EMU reported a 35% increase, their revenue would still be near zero because 135% of nothing is still nothing.

As another comparison point, here are 2008 ticket revenues for some other non-AQ teams:
U.Conn      $11.6m
Fresno State $9.1m
Memphis      $8.66m
Hawaii       $8.55m
USF          $6.72m
New Mexico   $6.57m
ECU          $5.88m
Cincinnati   $4.95m
Marshall     $4.40m


If Ohio could get ticket revenue in the $3-4m range, they might be attractive to some other conferences, should they ever decide to move.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 2/28/2014 12:01 AM
Isn't JMU geographically undesirable...Rather long to travel to for such as EMU, Toledo...and Ohio?.  And do they really have much allure?  maybe in hoops

Plus, as you all tell me in many threads per year, we're leaving the MAC.

 
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 2/28/2014 7:03 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Isn't JMU geographically undesirable...Rather long to travel to for such as EMU, Toledo...and Ohio?.  And do they really have much allure?  maybe in hoops

Plus, as you all tell me in many threads per year, we're leaving the MAC.

 


They have about as much in common with the MAC as they do with most of the CAA.  They would lose rivalries with Richmond and W&M, but the rest of the league is Towson ,Delaware, Villanova,Stony Brook, Albany, Rhode Island, NH & Maine.  So if they're in a division with UMass, Buffalo, Akron, Kent, Fiami & Ohio (until we leave), they're no worse off.  Probably CMU, WMU & NIU are the only MAC teams farther away than NH & Maine, but they would only travel to one of those schools every 2-3 years on average.  They go to either NH or Maine every other year anyway.  And for MAC teams, they're closer to most than UMass.

As for hoops, how worse can their allure be than BSU & NIU have been the past few years?  I doubt they'll be a full member anyway.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 2/28/2014 9:01 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Isn't JMU geographically undesirable...Rather long to travel to for such as EMU, Toledo...and Ohio?.  And do they really have much allure?  maybe in hoops

Plus, as you all tell me in many threads per year, we're leaving the MAC.

Obviously they are the replacement for Ohio, as Ohio considers all the various AQ offers from the B1G, Big 12, ACC, and SEC...
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 2/28/2014 5:43 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
The one drawback for them would be that people might think they're another directional Michigan.  Can you imagine schools flying into Detroit only to find out they missed the mark by 500 miles.


... Was told last year that, from our athletic department's research, we generated more true ticket sales revenue than anyone in MAC history.

This is entirely believable. Ohio led the league in attendance, but also we've seen much higher ticket prices in recent years. Schaus doesn't seem to be afraid to try some things like $35 for Marshall, unlike prior years where we saw tickets going at deep discounts, even against BCS teams like U. Conn.

By contrast, the article that Wes linked us to is of no use at all. Revenue up 35%? Sounds nice, but means nothing without some absolute numbers along with it. Suppose EMU reported a 35% increase, their revenue would still be near zero because 135% of nothing is still nothing.

As another comparison point, here are 2008 ticket revenues for some other non-AQ teams:
U.Conn      $11.6m
Fresno State $9.1m
Memphis      $8.66m
Hawaii       $8.55m
USF          $6.72m
New Mexico   $6.57m
ECU          $5.88m
Cincinnati   $4.95m
Marshall     $4.40m


If Ohio could get ticket revenue in the $3-4m range, they might be attractive to some other conferences, should they ever decide to move.

While I would love for this to be the case....our ticket revenue doesn't even sniff these schools....then you have to look at donations....

 
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 2/28/2014 6:14 PM
I think you have a multi-step process where contributions eventually follow ticket revenue:
1. Build a winning tradtition
2. Build a fanbase
3. Sell the stadium out every game
4. Raise ticket prices
5. Tell fans they have to contribute if they want to buy seats
(6. Expand stadium, go back to #3)

On this scale I think Ohio is somewhere between 2 and 3. There is steady progress, I think. They sell out a lot of games, now, but not all of them, and they have been able to dabble with higher ticket prices. Will they ever get to #5 and #6? Time will tell.

As it stands now, I do suspect that Ohio is legitimately in the $2 million ticket revenue range now, and it has been steadily growing. With any luck they will hit $3m before long.  I posted that list of other non-AQ schools not to say that Ohio is in that range, but to the contrary, to show how much further Ohio has to go, but also to show that it is possible to get there.
Last Edited: 2/28/2014 6:17:16 PM by L.C.
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 2/28/2014 8:20 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
I think you have a multi-step process where contributions eventually follow ticket revenue:
1. Build a winning tradtition
2. Build a fanbase
3. Sell the stadium out every game
4. Raise ticket prices
5. Tell fans they have to contribute if they want to buy seats
(6. Expand stadium, go back to #3)

On this scale I think Ohio is somewhere between 2 and 3. There is steady progress, I think. They sell out a lot of games, now, but not all of them, and they have been able to dabble with higher ticket prices. Will they ever get to #5 and #6? Time will tell.

As it stands now, I do suspect that Ohio is legitimately in the $2 million ticket revenue range now, and it has been steadily growing. With any luck they will hit $3m before long.  I posted that list of other non-AQ schools not to say that Ohio is in that range, but to the contrary, to show how much further Ohio has to go, but also to show that it is possible to get there.


I agree with the list, and even where ohio is on the list.  Ticket revenue is off.  Since we are a public University you can call up and request that information and they have to provide it.  My guess is you could also look it up online somewhere as some sort of budget.  My guess is we don't publicize it because it is so small in comparison to what our expenses are.
 
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 2/28/2014 8:47 PM
I do not believe that raising ticket prices is something this University or administration believes is necessary to continue advancing the program. A recent study by our own sports management program noted college sports fans displeasure with the increasingly expensive price to attend D-1 events. Continuing to provide affordable ticket options is a nice way to differentiate this program from other college football programs. I hope that we continue to offer things like the family pack. It has been hugely successful and nothing but a positive for this program. There are other ways to generate revenue for this program.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 2/28/2014 8:59 PM
Well, I'm guessing that football ticket sales averages about $200-250k a game, now. Games like Marshall may hit $300-350,000, but some of the mid-week games are a lot lower. Figure 6 home games, and football ticket revenue may be $1.3m or so. Add in Basketball and Volleyball tickets, and I'd think you're over $2m.

Let's say they get to the point where football sells out every game, all on a season ticket basis (meaning that all tickets are still being sold, even for mid-week games). After figuring in the student tickets, they might sell 16,000 a game. Let's say they get prices up to the point where they average $25 a tickets, the football ticket revenue would hit $2.4m on it's own. Then, with other sports, you should hit $3m in total tickets. At that point it might be time to expand Peden, but I'm not sure Ohio could ever get to that point in the MAC.

In the meantime, we do know that Ohio's attendance leads the MAC, and that Ohio has been moving to higher ticket prices, so it's clear that Ohio's overall ticket revenue has to be tops in the MAC.

The Optimist wrote:expand_more
I do not believe that raising ticket prices is something this University or administration believes is necessary to continue advancing the program....

I doubt they plan to ever take them as high as OSU, but I did notice the price for Marshall last year was more like $35. By contrast I seem to remember some $6 tickets for U.Conn a few years ago. Thus, even if face amounts don't go up a lot, the overall average should rise.
Last Edited: 2/28/2014 9:03:25 PM by L.C.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 3/1/2014 9:13 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Isn't JMU geographically undesirable...Rather long to travel to for such as EMU, Toledo...and Ohio?.  And do they really have much allure?  maybe in hoops

Plus, as you all tell me in many threads per year, we're leaving the MAC.

 

If Ohio was going to leave the MAC, how would the MAC react? Adding JMU seems like a plausible reaction for the MAC in such a situation. Not the only choice, but certainly one they would explore in such a scenario.
DallasCat
General User
DC
Member Since: 4/23/2013
Location: TX
Post Count: 81
person
mail
DallasCat
mail
Posted: 3/1/2014 11:53 AM
This guy is saying they're moving to C-USA.
cbarber357
General User
C357
Member Since: 9/10/2012
Location: Pickerington, OH
Post Count: 1,159
person
mail
cbarber357
mail
Posted: 3/1/2014 9:00 PM
DallasCat wrote:expand_more
This guy is saying they're moving to C-USA.

If that's the case the MAC must not have offered. Everything I'd read leading up to now has said they'd definitely accept a MAC invite of a C-USA one.
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 3/1/2014 10:06 PM
I think the C-USA rumor comes from a loud-mouthed QB recruit.  Whether he knows what he's talking about is anyone's guess. 
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 12:15 AM
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 10:03 AM
perimeterpost wrote:expand_more
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.

I still like that we added UMass. To me, being associated with a fine institution like UMass is a major plus for OHIO in the MAC. I wish we played more schools like UMass.

To me, the mistake was admitting them without all sports. Football-only is a waste of time. The MAC has leverage on FCS teams. They want the FBS status and we can offer it. Demand more from them.
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 2:53 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.


I still like that we added UMass. To me, being associated with a fine institution like UMass is a major plus for OHIO in the MAC. I wish we played more schools like UMass.

To me, the mistake was admitting them without all sports. Football-only is a waste of time. The MAC has leverage on FCS teams. They want the FBS status and we can offer it. Demand more from them.
UMass's reputation as a "fine institution" does not make up for their 2-22 record in FBS.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 3:57 PM
perimeterpost wrote:expand_more
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.


I still like that we added UMass. To me, being associated with a fine institution like UMass is a major plus for OHIO in the MAC. I wish we played more schools like UMass.

To me, the mistake was admitting them without all sports. Football-only is a waste of time. The MAC has leverage on FCS teams. They want the FBS status and we can offer it. Demand more from them.


UMass's reputation as a "fine institution" does not make up for their 2-22 record in FBS.

They are easily the strongest academic program in the MAC. They are only 3 years into their FBS football experiment, a bad record isn't enough for me to be disappointed Ohio is associated with them. There are other bad MAC football programs that aren't good academically. 3 seasons simply is not a long enough track record to assume that UMass cannot be successful at this level. You were kidding yourself if you thought they were going to step in and win immediately. It is a transition that reasonable people expect to take time.
Last Edited: 3/2/2014 3:58:49 PM by The Optimist
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 5:06 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.


I still like that we added UMass. To me, being associated with a fine institution like UMass is a major plus for OHIO in the MAC. I wish we played more schools like UMass.

To me, the mistake was admitting them without all sports. Football-only is a waste of time. The MAC has leverage on FCS teams. They want the FBS status and we can offer it. Demand more from them.


UMass's reputation as a "fine institution" does not make up for their 2-22 record in FBS.


They are easily the strongest academic program in the MAC. They are only 3 years into their FBS football experiment, a bad record isn't enough for me to be disappointed Ohio is associated with them. There are other bad MAC football programs that aren't good academically. 3 seasons simply is not a long enough track record to assume that UMass cannot be successful at this level. You were kidding yourself if you thought they were going to step in and win immediately. It is a transition that reasonable people expect to take time.
UMass is easily the strongest academic program in the MAC*

*not named Buffalo or Miami.
Mike Johnson
General User
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,756
mail
Mike Johnson
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 6:01 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.


I still like that we added UMass. To me, being associated with a fine institution like UMass is a major plus for OHIO in the MAC. I wish we played more schools like UMass.

To me, the mistake was admitting them without all sports. Football-only is a waste of time. The MAC has leverage on FCS teams. They want the FBS status and we can offer it. Demand more from them.


UMass's reputation as a "fine institution" does not make up for their 2-22 record in FBS.


They are easily the strongest academic program in the MAC. They are only 3 years into their FBS football experiment, a bad record isn't enough for me to be disappointed Ohio is associated with them. There are other bad MAC football programs that aren't good academically. 3 seasons simply is not a long enough track record to assume that UMass cannot be successful at this level. You were kidding yourself if you thought they were going to step in and win immediately. It is a transition that reasonable people expect to take time.
Each time I read a sweeping generalization about a university's purported excellence, I am reminded of one of my long-held beliefs. To wit, many if not most schools have programs that are genuinely superior. And those same schools have programs that are mediocre. I arrived at that belief after studying at SHS, Ohio, Marshall Law and Stanford's GSB. In that experience, what typically led to academic superiority or mediocrity was the individual faculty member or group of them within a particular program. Even at Stanford with its stratospheric endowment and budgets where I met some spectacular faculty, I also met a couple dud profs who clearly should have been somewhere else doing something else.
Speaker of Truth
General User
ST
Member Since: 1/26/2011
Post Count: 448
person
mail
Speaker of Truth
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 9:12 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Well, I'm guessing that football ticket sales averages about $200-250k a game, now. Games like Marshall may hit $300-350,000, but some of the mid-week games are a lot lower. Figure 6 home games, and football ticket revenue may be $1.3m or so. Add in Basketball and Volleyball tickets, and I'd think you're over $2m.

Let's say they get to the point where football sells out every game, all on a season ticket basis (meaning that all tickets are still being sold, even for mid-week games). After figuring in the student tickets, they might sell 16,000 a game. Let's say they get prices up to the point where they average $25 a tickets, the football ticket revenue would hit $2.4m on it's own. Then, with other sports, you should hit $3m in total tickets. At that point it might be time to expand Peden, but I'm not sure Ohio could ever get to that point in the MAC.

In the meantime, we do know that Ohio's attendance leads the MAC, and that Ohio has been moving to higher ticket prices, so it's clear that Ohio's overall ticket revenue has to be tops in the MAC.

I do not believe that raising ticket prices is something this University or administration believes is necessary to continue advancing the program....

I doubt they plan to ever take them as high as OSU, but I did notice the price for Marshall last year was more like $35. By contrast I seem to remember some $6 tickets for U.Conn a few years ago. Thus, even if face amounts don't go up a lot, the overall average should rise.

Overall Ticket revenue is a little over 1 million.

 
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,699
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 9:22 PM
the123kid wrote:expand_more
Overall Ticket revenue is a little over 1 million.


This gets tricky, because many of us pay for membership in the OBC in order to be eligible for certain seating areas for both football and basketball.  While this isn't counted as "ticket revenue," it really is part of the total ticket package that we buy.  Given the high number of season ticket sales the last couple of years, I would not be surprised if this netted a few million more.  
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 9:48 PM
the123kid wrote:expand_more
...Overall Ticket revenue is a little over 1 million.

Is that all sports combined, or just football? It's it's football, that's a little lower than my guess of $1.3m, but not drastically lower. If it is all sports, how do you reconcile that number with the Ohio press release that claims that "This mark is also the highest combined football and men's basketball ticket revenue on record in Mid-American Conference history" and NIU's reported $2.216m in ticket revenue in 2008?
Last Edited: 3/2/2014 9:49:29 PM by L.C.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 10:59 PM
perimeterpost wrote:expand_more
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.


I still like that we added UMass. To me, being associated with a fine institution like UMass is a major plus for OHIO in the MAC. I wish we played more schools like UMass.

To me, the mistake was admitting them without all sports. Football-only is a waste of time. The MAC has leverage on FCS teams. They want the FBS status and we can offer it. Demand more from them.


UMass's reputation as a "fine institution" does not make up for their 2-22 record in FBS.


They are easily the strongest academic program in the MAC. They are only 3 years into their FBS football experiment, a bad record isn't enough for me to be disappointed Ohio is associated with them. There are other bad MAC football programs that aren't good academically. 3 seasons simply is not a long enough track record to assume that UMass cannot be successful at this level. You were kidding yourself if you thought they were going to step in and win immediately. It is a transition that reasonable people expect to take time.


UMass is easily the strongest academic program in the MAC*

*not named Buffalo or Miami.
I would argue they are the strongest academic program including Buffalo and Miami.
Mike Johnson wrote:expand_more
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.
 

I still like that we added UMass. To me, being associated with a fine institution like UMass is a major plus for OHIO in the MAC. I wish we played more schools like UMass.

To me, the mistake was admitting them without all sports. Football-only is a waste of time. The MAC has leverage on FCS teams. They want the FBS status and we can offer it. Demand more from them.


UMass's reputation as a "fine institution" does not make up for their 2-22 record in FBS.
 

They are easily the strongest academic program in the MAC. They are only 3 years into their FBS football experiment, a bad record isn't enough for me to be disappointed Ohio is associated with them. There are other bad MAC football programs that aren't good academically. 3 seasons simply is not a long enough track record to assume that UMass cannot be successful at this level. You were kidding yourself if you thought they were going to step in and win immediately. It is a transition that reasonable people expect to take time.


Each time I read a sweeping generalization about a university's purported excellence, I am reminded of one of my long-held beliefs. To wit, many if not most schools have programs that are genuinely superior. And those same schools have programs that are mediocre. I arrived at that belief after studying at SHS, Ohio, Marshall Law and Stanford's GSB. In that experience, what typically led to academic superiority or mediocrity was the individual faculty member or group of them within a particular program. Even at Stanford with its stratospheric endowment and budgets where I met some spectacular faculty, I also met a couple dud profs who clearly should have been somewhere else doing something else.

We can certainly sit here and argue that every school in the MAC has one particular area of learning that they are particularly strong in. We could say the same for each football program. Kent has great HB's, Ohio has great lineman, Toledo has great receivers... etc... However, I would argue NIU has the strongest team. If we are discussing the overall program, rather than one particular area of study, I think UMass is the strongest.

 
Mike Johnson
General User
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,756
mail
Mike Johnson
mail
Posted: 3/2/2014 11:24 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.


I still like that we added UMass. To me, being associated with a fine institution like UMass is a major plus for OHIO in the MAC. I wish we played more schools like UMass.

To me, the mistake was admitting them without all sports. Football-only is a waste of time. The MAC has leverage on FCS teams. They want the FBS status and we can offer it. Demand more from them.


UMass's reputation as a "fine institution" does not make up for their 2-22 record in FBS.


They are easily the strongest academic program in the MAC. They are only 3 years into their FBS football experiment, a bad record isn't enough for me to be disappointed Ohio is associated with them. There are other bad MAC football programs that aren't good academically. 3 seasons simply is not a long enough track record to assume that UMass cannot be successful at this level. You were kidding yourself if you thought they were going to step in and win immediately. It is a transition that reasonable people expect to take time.


UMass is easily the strongest academic program in the MAC*

*not named Buffalo or Miami.

I would argue they are the strongest academic program including Buffalo and Miami.
Adding FCS teams is what G5 conferences do when they are trying to keep from collapsing, not when they are trying to increase their competitiveness. Adding UMass was a mistake, doubling down by adding their twin doesn't make the MAC a stronger conference today or tomorrow.


I still like that we added UMass. To me, being associated with a fine institution like UMass is a major plus for OHIO in the MAC. I wish we played more schools like UMass.

To me, the mistake was admitting them without all sports. Football-only is a waste of time. The MAC has leverage on FCS teams. They want the FBS status and we can offer it. Demand more from them.


UMass's reputation as a "fine institution" does not make up for their 2-22 record in FBS.


They are easily the strongest academic program in the MAC. They are only 3 years into their FBS football experiment, a bad record isn't enough for me to be disappointed Ohio is associated with them. There are other bad MAC football programs that aren't good academically. 3 seasons simply is not a long enough track record to assume that UMass cannot be successful at this level. You were kidding yourself if you thought they were going to step in and win immediately. It is a transition that reasonable people expect to take time.


Each time I read a sweeping generalization about a university's purported excellence, I am reminded of one of my long-held beliefs. To wit, many if not most schools have programs that are genuinely superior. And those same schools have programs that are mediocre. I arrived at that belief after studying at SHS, Ohio, Marshall Law and Stanford's GSB. In that experience, what typically led to academic superiority or mediocrity was the individual faculty member or group of them within a particular program. Even at Stanford with its stratospheric endowment and budgets where I met some spectacular faculty, I also met a couple dud profs who clearly should have been somewhere else doing something else.

We can certainly sit here and argue that every school in the MAC has one particular area of learning that they are particularly strong in. We could say the same for each football program. Kent has great HB's, Ohio has great lineman, Toledo has great receivers... etc... However, I would argue NIU has the strongest team. If we are discussing the overall program, rather than one particular area of study, I think UMass is the strongest.
And do you have empirical evidence to support your conclusion?
catfan28
General User
C28
Member Since: 6/11/2011
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 1,503
person
mail
catfan28
mail
Posted: 3/4/2014 8:47 AM
If you look at full university profile, it's hard to argue Buffalo not being the strongest. They're an AAU member and have an assortment of professional schools that gives O$U a run for it's money.
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 67
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)