So much of this is obviously tied into television, for better or for worse. We’re always monitoring what’s going on. With the conference situation, there was an awful lot of noise. The noise around this has been incredible, but at the end of the day, while there was some movement, there was a lot less movement than there was talk. Certainly, the situation occupied a lot of our time. We spent a lot of time on it. You continually ask, ‘What does this mean for us? And if certain things occur, are there opportunities for us to strengthen our conference?’
Bottom line—how important is television money to your conference, or any conference for that matter?
You know what? Revenue from whatever source it comes from is important. There’s no doubt about that. But it’s only one of the things that’s important. At the end of the day, we can’t lose sight of some other things. Through much of the conversation this summer, there was a lot that was lost sight of—including the student-athletes and the fans. Rivalries matter, tradition matters, geography matters, and we need to be respectful of all of those things. If the only thing that matters is the number of television households we have, then I think we’re moving away from the collegiate model. That’s not to say it’s not important to have some television households and rights fees. We’re all realistic. Those things are important, but other things are important, too.
Every other league in the nation seems to be looking at expansion. How about the MAC?
Quite frankly, at every athletic director’s meeting or president’s meeting I’ve had in the past year, we’ve talked about membership. ‘Where are we? Do we feel good about each other?’ And we do, which is good. But we also ask, ‘What about the environment around us? Are there other schools that would match us philosophically and raise the bar?’ That’s an ongoing discussion. You never say never, but again, a lot of things would have to match up before you [expand]. It’s not something you go into lightly, because membership should not be a short-term thing. This is not a five-year marriage. This is a lifetime agreement. You hope there is a very strong courtship, with both parties asking the hard questions and learning everything they can.
From what you’ve been able to glean from your fellow FBS commissioners, do you expect to see more expansion and conference shuffling going forward?
If I had a really good read on that, I’d be picking stocks right now. It will not surprise me if there is further movement. I think people are looking at lot of things right now. But I’m a big fan of stability. It’s a good thing for our industry.
You mentioned that you're reviewing the league's scheduling policies. What exactly do you mean by that?
We have some different scheduling philosophies throughout our league. And so one of the questions we’ll be answering is: ‘Is there some commonality that we should have?’ What you’ll find is that we play a lot of Big Ten people. Virtually all of our folks have one or two Big Ten people. Our folks are also working very hard to get games against BCS automatic-qualifier conference opponents and get them to come into our stadiums. Those are important games for us. Another issue is that some folks play FCS opponents and some don’t. The other thing that’s come up is the fact that the Pac-10 is going to nine conference games. The Big Ten is likely going to nine conference games. So the question is what that will mean in terms of our ability to schedule some of these games. I don’t think anyone knows for sure.
Last question: As we head into the 2010 season, what are your hopes for the MAC this year?
You know, what we want to continue is what the last two years have brought. I’ve love to see a repeat of that. I’d love to see us knock off some BCS automatic qualifier teams. I’d like to see us compare very favorably with the other five non-AQ conferences. Again, those things are about taking care of things on the field. And if we have success on the field, it will bring some rewards.
