I promise if you ask 100 unaffiliated CFB fans, survey says “bad at football” before this. And if they do imply “geographical coherence” they’d say “all the Ohio teams” which is a bad media strategy.
We’re never joining the ACC in its current form. If Clemson, Miami (FL), Florida State leave, we’re probably 15th on the list of potential replacements.
The MAC’s identity is the worst conference in FBS football that provides MACtion on weeknights. Pretending like there’s any national identify outside that is just wrong.
Admitting a team that requires a single flight road trip every 3-4 years, when we already have two member schools we fly to, doesn’t really change anything about the MAC. Between the buy-in and the prospect of adding an extra ESPN game or two a year by doing a MAC after dark double header, probably makes financial sense. No MAC school’s AD is in the position to be turning down dollars. We’ll all just trying to stay solvent.
And Sac St’s profile certainly is no worse than a Ball State or EMU as far a national reputation.
4 Likes
Not to quibble, but I wouldn’t throw Ball State in the same category as EMU. BSU isn’t a bad school, and in fact have some very good nationally known programs such as Architecture.
I’d argue CUSA is worse
3 Likes
https://x.com/rossdellenger/status/2023472876947710320?s=46&t=ZH1fFGwu8Q0191V3SgsUtQ
Cover travel costs
3 Likes
Plus take no distributions! This is a HOME RUN
5 Likes
5 Likes
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit!
2 Likes
I am very confused about all of this now…
For once in the history of deals, the MAC was the one holding all the cards, and we actually fleeced someone. This must be what it feels like to be a Big Ten/SEC school all the time.
6 Likes
I mean this is just absurd. We’re getting 1.5 million or so (including a third of it in year 1), we don’t have to pay for any travel there, they aren’t taking any of the conference tv money, and its just a 5 year agreement so we can just say smell you later in 5 years?
Damn, must be nice to have west coast money to burn.
2 Likes
Are they viewing this as the cost (probably well over 20 million after all the travel) to potentially get into whatever west coast league they can in 5 years?
I think adding Sac State is lame, but my goodness, that deal is impossible to turn down
They are already a better partner than some of our schools on day one.
First this is an excellent financial deal-1 1/2 buy games in FB for an expense paid trip to the WC. Second I have spent a great of time in Sacramento representing clients and it an interesting and delightful city if you spend any time at all getting to know the area- especially in the areas beyond the city. Third it has an excellent airport and the best landing location for Napa visits. Fourth as noted by others it may permit some late night national TV ESPN exposure. Fifth I would rather go to Sacramento anytime then at least half of the current MAC venues. For those that are complaining please write your checks tomorrow to the Miami NIL and related funds.
I totally agree. Absolutely beautiful part of the world. Gateway to Tahoe and gold country. A much nicer town than several MAC schools
Why was Sac Stae desperate for the MAC. I’d have to believe the PAC 3 would have been amenable to a similar deal
I interpret this deal as to benefit both parties. This will provide the MAC an opportunity to improve the TV package value, give Sacramento State the chance to be successful and possibly move the PAC in 5 years, no hard feeling and gives the MAC more exposure to keep the league flexible for what will be more conference membership movement no doubt and gives the league some much needed cash.
If they could have been invited to the P12 or MWC they would have. No such invitation was forthcoming so MAC was their safe haven. For now. They are paying a premium. They will not be in the MAC in 5 years, and likely the MAC won’t be the MAC in five years.
2 Likes