As far as the MAC is concerned I can see why the divisional champs would go to a bowl, especially Buffalo if they win the MACCG. They would be undefeated and ranked in the AP/USAT polls. Otherwise, it's not really worth the time or expenditures. And even at this late date the odds of some of these bowl games getting cancelled are pretty good. Buffalo, BSU and WMU are probably the only three MAC teams that any bowl will look at anyhow.

Unfortunately, we'd get only an ESPN bowl and ESPN (or any other network, for that matter) isn't interested in televising an Ohio scrimmage game. Instead, if a team cancels, ESPN tries to move the other team to another bowl. When SMU dropped out of the Frisco Bowl, ESPN cancelled that bowl and moved the opposing team (UTSA) to the First Responders Bowl. This is all probably academic anyway. We're pretty far down on anybody's list for a bowl bid.

Handled poorly at almost all levels in this country, starting at the top.

Agreed. The MAC is merely an after-thought for about 99% of football fans. I think more people will be upset about the clusterf*ck that some teams and conferences made of their schedules this year (the Sun Belt had to cancel its championship game with Coastal at 11-0 and in the top ten of the CFP), that Cincy might go 9-0 and not even be close to making a playoff, and that teams with really poor records might go to bowl games (Palm has 2-7 Baylor and 2-8 South Carolina playing bowl games). How the MAC handled this season is important to us now because it's our conference. But the MAC is probably 9th best out of the ten 1A conferences, and maybe 10th. What the conference is giving right now is a very entertaining nationally televised championship game that looks like nationally ranked Buffalo may get its head handed to it. And if the pandemic is under control by next fall, most of us will be just glad that some semblance of normalcy is returning to even think about this season.

I agree, Jeff. And, that Ball State-Beefs game was really an interesting game to watch. I suspect that it gained the MAC few more fans. It was a better game to watch than the C-USA championship game that was on at the same time, though it was on a better network, IMHO.

My earlier post wasn't so much about football, but about the ineptness of the conference which is a reflection on the its member universities. This is why the ACC, through it's medical expertise (Duke's medical professionals) seemed to be the gold standard with regard to athletics and in person instruction. The virus spreads in college campuses through close contact at parties, primarily in off campus housing. There is hardly any medical examples of the virus spreading in classrooms. Even restaurants and bars have spread rates that are in the single digits.

For example, when Ohio State had to shut down their practices due to positive cases, I have been told this was due to third string players going to parites (thinking they were never going to play anyway) and then spreading it to starters when in close contact in training facilities. I assume this was probably the case in most programs.

The college landscape (enrollment, financials) is going through a seismic shift. It didn't start with the virus, as we have discussed in other posts. However, the virus was the lightning strike that ignited the dry tinder. We have to realize that everything the university does, be it athletics, marketing, demographic research etc is a reflection on the university. We don't have much room for error considering our enrollment decline, financials, and our seeming lack of leadership from top university officals.

Lack of leadership? How do we have lack of leadership when we are rewarding employees for staying with 6 figure longevity bonuses. 😎

I didn't mean that 99% don't care about MAC football, only that what the MAC does administratively isn't really a topic of anyone's conversations outside the MAC boards. The administrative stuff just doesn't get noticed unless there's a big controversy, such as cancelling the season then coming back with a six-game schedule.

As for the AAC, I think what's really galling for them is that they spend all that money in the hopes of making it a "Power 6" conference but it still doesn't get the respect from the pollsters and the committee. Cincy finishes 9-0 but can't crack the top five in any poll and winds up behind two or three one-loss "P" teams. From top to bottom, the AAC would stack up well with most of the "P" conferences. Maybe they need to schedule an AAC/"P" challenge where each team plays a team that finished in a similar position in two or three "P" conferences.

FTR, Cincy did play two OOC games -- Austin Peay and a very good Army team. On the other hand, O$U played zero OOC games and their B10 schedule featured Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU and MSU, all of which had lousy seasons and would probably have a difficult time vs any AAC team except maybe USF or Temple. O$U beat ONE team with a winning record during the regular season -- IU. Cincy played and beat five teams that had winning records, and beat them by at least two TDs, except for yesterday's Tulsa game. Cincy beat three teams that were ranked when they played (Army, SMU and Tulsa) while O$U beat only two (IU and NWern). Penn St was ranked the first week of play but quickly faded. Further, the CFP really isn't about the best teams getting in; it's about the four teams that the committee, in its extremely biased view, want in. That's why Bama gets in about every year, even when they don't play for the SEC championship.

Based on what objective data do you have that says UC is better than any of the 4 teams? I like how you quickly just go towards OSU. Sorry, the AAC is not that good of a conference. Just because you go undefeated in a bad conference does not give you a ticket as the top 4 schools.

They beat Army in week 2 when the Big10 and PAC10 were not even playing. They were ranked #22 Army played 3 FCS schools in their 9 wins!

Let's start with Strength of schedule by school.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/sch...

Power rankings, whatever metric you want to go by.

Do you really believe if a MAC team goes 12-0 they should be a top 4 play-off team?

The current system considers all G5 teams inferior to P teams because over the last 20 years:

The MAC is 34-193 against P5 teams.
The Mountain West is 98-239
The Sun Belt is 21-307.
The WAC is 61 - 223.

The current system assumes that because it's true.

(Edit to note that these numbers are from two years ago -- but doubt the winning percentages have moved in any major way.)

No. The current system perpetuates the stereotype that NO undefeated G5 team can be better than ANY "P" conference champion because of the biases of the people chosen to sit on the committee. They simply refuse to be open-minded about it.