+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: UMass Football (/thread-739590.html)
RE: UMass Football - Steve1981 - 09-09-2017 06:59 AM
Fighting Muskie why do you think the MAC bridge is burnt. It does not make economic sense for the MAC to take in two university. The bridge still exists but is extremely costly to cross.
More important than anything is to start taking business on the field and improve the facilities. The conference and building facilities is the head wind with recruiting and the catch-22 for success on the field. UMass has land, so not sure if it can sell some or put it out to private development to help with the football facilities. To me, facility improvements, which includes an IPF, is my leading indicator how successful UMass Football will become.
Or as others have said, UMass stop doing FBS Football on the cheap. Start investing in football like everyone else. If you are not investing, you are moving backwards.
RE: UMass Football - johnbragg - 09-09-2017 10:00 AM
(09-09-2017 06:59 AM)Steve1981 Wrote: Fighting Muskie why do you think the MAC bridge is burnt.
Look at it from a non-UMass perspective. Put yourself in a MAC school's shoes.
They offered full membership and you said no, at potentially great cost to your fledgling football program. And you did it for the sake of your mighty basketball program--which has played one game anyone that anyone outside Amherst cared about in the last 20 years. (2014 NCAA game).
So why would they offer again? They're at a good number, their schools aren't anyone else's expansion candidates, they're regional. They don't need anyone or anything right now. And if they do need in the future, why you and not Missouri State or North Dakota State or Delaware or James MAdison or Eastern Kentucky or heck Northern Kentucky?
Quote: It does not make economic sense for the MAC to take in two university. The bridge still exists but is extremely costly to cross.
More important than anything is to start taking business on the field and improve the facilities. The conference and building facilities is the head wind with recruiting and the catch-22 for success on the field. UMass has land, so not sure if it can sell some or put it out to private development to help with the football facilities. To me, facility improvements, which includes an IPF, is my leading indicator how successful UMass Football will become.
Or as others have said, UMass stop doing FBS Football on the cheap. Start investing in football like everyone else. If you are not investing, you are moving backwards.
Except what is the plausible scenario for how those FBS investments start to pay off? What exactly does FBS UMass look like in 10 years that's not a total pipe dream? What sort of win-loss record, what sort of attendance?
How does a school with no FBS tradition, a precarious long-term FBS future, in a poor recruiting area, with a barely-FBS stadium with plenty of empty seats, overshadowed locally by a P5 school in the big metro area, and also by a next-door neighbor flagship with a clearly superior athletic department, get out of that hole?
Realistically, you look at that list and you expect 2-10 seasons to be about as common as 6 win seasons. So how does this get better?
RE: UMass Football - Huskypride - 09-09-2017 10:26 AM
Honest question not trying to troll or be a dick but is UMass actively trying to join another conference, Drop down to FCS or just stay independent? I'm Just wondering.
RE: UMass Football - Minutemen429 - 09-09-2017 11:03 AM
(09-09-2017 10:26 AM)Huskypride Wrote: Honest question not trying to troll or be a dick but is UMass actively trying to join another conference, Drop down to FCS or just stay independent? I'm Just wondering.
Right now, stay independent. We are scheduling future games as an independent.
It's kind of like asking is UConn trying to become a P5, stay in the American or drop to FCS and join the Big East?
RE: UMass Football - Huskypride - 09-09-2017 11:11 AM
(09-09-2017 11:03 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:(09-09-2017 10:26 AM)Huskypride Wrote: Honest question not trying to troll or be a dick but is UMass actively trying to join another conference, Drop down to FCS or just stay independent? I'm Just wondering.
Right now, stay independent. We are scheduling future games as an independent.
It's kind of like asking is UConn trying to become a P5, stay in the American or drop to FCS and join the Big East?
i see, i see. Trust me we want to be in a P5 conference but no one wants our ugly little little football program.
RE: UMass Football - Minutemen429 - 09-09-2017 11:12 AM
(09-09-2017 10:00 AM)johnbragg Wrote:(09-09-2017 06:59 AM)Steve1981 Wrote: Fighting Muskie why do you think the MAC bridge is burnt.
Look at it from a non-UMass perspective. Put yourself in a MAC school's shoes.
They offered full membership and you said no, at potentially great cost to your fledgling football program. And you did it for the sake of your mighty basketball program--which has played one game anyone that anyone outside Amherst cared about in the last 20 years. (2014 NCAA game).
So why would they offer again? They're at a good number, their schools aren't anyone else's expansion candidates, they're regional. They don't need anyone or anything right now. And if they do need in the future, why you and not Missouri State or North Dakota State or Delaware or James MAdison or Eastern Kentucky or heck Northern Kentucky?
Quote: It does not make economic sense for the MAC to take in two university. The bridge still exists but is extremely costly to cross.
More important than anything is to start taking business on the field and improve the facilities. The conference and building facilities is the head wind with recruiting and the catch-22 for success on the field. UMass has land, so not sure if it can sell some or put it out to private development to help with the football facilities. To me, facility improvements, which includes an IPF, is my leading indicator how successful UMass Football will become.
Or as others have said, UMass stop doing FBS Football on the cheap. Start investing in football like everyone else. If you are not investing, you are moving backwards.
Except what is the plausible scenario for how those FBS investments start to pay off? What exactly does FBS UMass look like in 10 years that's not a total pipe dream? What sort of win-loss record, what sort of attendance?
How does a school with no FBS tradition, a precarious long-term FBS future, in a poor recruiting area, with a barely-FBS stadium with plenty of empty seats, overshadowed locally by a P5 school in the big metro area, and also by a next-door neighbor flagship with a clearly superior athletic department, get out of that hole?
Realistically, you look at that list and you expect 2-10 seasons to be about as common as 6 win seasons. So how does this get better?
I know we have a game with Ohio coming up so at they don't seem to mind.
The other questions, we have to find a way to win? I don't know, need good coaching hire's, find the young up and coming John Calipari of football. Then try to be like Butler basketball and make a few good hire's in a row.
RE: UMass Football - Steve1981 - 09-10-2017 11:35 AM
This is not a UMass perspective but my personal opinion. UMass Football affiliation will not happen until the 2020’s and affiliation will be the result of various factors. First let’s take the most important scenario that the Big 12 expands and UMass is not invited to the AAC, leaving the MAC or Independence as the most viable options.
Let’s discuss the MAC or Independence option. Will UMass actively seek a MAC invite or stay independent. Going down or dropping football is not on the table for a top major research institution and state flagship university.
The decision not to accept the MAC all sports invite was made by past leaders as AD, Chancellor and President. So what are the conditions that would lead to UMass chose/ask for a MAC sports invite. The present UMass leadership need to be in place or at a minimum be pro FBS Football.
Our current AD is pro FBS and has not hesitated on firing non performing coaches after giving them an additional year or two. So far he has fired the men’s basketball and women’s basketball coaches along with the men’s hockey coach. He has the fortitude to go against the pro basketball camp and do what he considers is best for UMass. Meaning that staying independent has hurt recruiting and we need to be in a conference.
Then next condition that would help is the A10 does not strengthen and perhaps further weaken. I believe there is a good chance that the A10 becomes a two bid conference as the strength at the top has weaken. Looking at VCU schedules, they play at Dayton and have URI at home and are probably the two strongest A10 teams. Neither of these match-ups are on ESPN but on ESPN2. Perhaps the consolidation of the NCAA dance is influencing ESPN slot choices.
It will help that the MAC basketball strength stays steady or improves where they can have the second best team regularly earn an at-large NIT bid. It will also help if UMass football donations increase as a percentage relative to basketball.
Why would the MAC invite us is very debatable. We are talking in the future the 2020’s and the MAC is more than half way through its present media contract. UMass would need to show it's commitment to FBS as having an IPF, along with some improvements to McGuirk. There would need to be an attractive pairing team. The only way it would make financial sense and has been done with other conferences is that the new teams do not get an equal share of the pie. That UMass sports improve and makes us more attractive. Perhaps the next contract would be significantly less than 10 million and adding two attractive teams would offset it. It’s true splitting the CFP pie would still be a sore sport as well. Will add, we are playing Ohio and Akron will be on the schedule for 2019. Obviously we have to have some MAC teams strongly lobbying for our admission.
RE: UMass Football - johnbragg - 09-10-2017 11:57 AM
(09-10-2017 11:35 AM)Steve1981 Wrote: Will add, we are playing Ohio and Akron will be on the schedule for 2019. Obviously we have to have some MAC teams strongly lobbying for our admission.
"Scheduling us nonconference" and "lobbying for our conference invite is a big leap. That's like saying that your FWB might marry you someday. I mean, he might, but it's a big leap.
RE: UMass Football - Steve1981 - 09-10-2017 12:03 PM
Another idea is that UMass could have a parlay association with the MAC. That UMass football and basketball would play all MAC east teams once. If UMass has the best record of MAC East football, it parlays into an affiliation membership for the year and goes to the MAC Championship game representing the east. UMass will also be required to do some MAC branding and receive a parlay check that is significantly less than any MAC membership check. The parlay contract would be for a long time and prevent UMass from signing with any other conference, without a large buyout amount to the MAC.
RE: UMass Football - johnbragg - 09-10-2017 12:05 PM
(09-10-2017 12:03 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: Another idea is that UMass could have a parlay association with the MAC. That UMass football and an basketball would play all MAC east teams once. If UMass has the best record of MAC East football, it parlays into an association membership for the year and goes to the MAC Championship game representing the east. UMass will also be required to do some MAC branding and receive a parlay check that is significantly less than any MAC membership check. The parlay contract would be for a long time and prevent UMass from signing with any other conference, without a large buyout amount to the MAC.
See, I don't see how this is better for the MAC than....just not doing that.
RE: UMass Football - Steve1981 - 09-10-2017 12:34 PM
It's not huge, but some scheduling convenience with basketball and football that is not too far and expensive. The MAC branding and fan awareness could help in the long term, with almost no cost to the MAC. If we every was chosen by the AAC, the buyout would overwhelming benefit to all the universities. We would only receive a small portion of money if we ever won the east and those are nice odds tipping the MAC way. Some teams would have a new team to hate. We hate Buffalo and Buffalo probably hates us just as much. Think UMass and Ohio have mutual respect for one another and consider us true peer universities.
RE: UMass Football - panite - 09-10-2017 12:43 PM
(09-10-2017 12:34 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: It's not huge, but some scheduling convenience with basketball and football that is not too far and expensive. The MAC branding and fan awareness could help in the long term, with almost no cost to the MAC. If we every was chosen by the AAC, the buyout would overwhelming benefit to all the universities. We would only receive a small portion of money if we ever won the east and those are nice odds tipping the MAC way. Some teams would have a new team to hate. We hate Buffalo and Buffalo probably hates us just as much. Think UMass and Ohio have mutual respect for one another and consider us true peer universities.
If UMass hates Buffalo and Buffalo hates UMass then you should definitely play annually. Call it the GRUDGE MATCH and make up a trophy for the rivalry simulating 2 Rock'm - Sock'm Robots beating the crap out of each other. It would be a regional match cutting travel costs for both universities. Might even attract enough fans and interests to sell out your respective stadiums annually depending who was the host that year.
RE: UMass Football - panite - 09-10-2017 01:10 PM
(09-10-2017 12:03 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: Another idea is that UMass could have a parlay association with the MAC. That UMass football and basketball would play all MAC east teams once. If UMass has the best record of MAC East football, it parlays into an affiliation membership for the year and goes to the MAC Championship game representing the east. UMass will also be required to do some MAC branding and receive a parlay check that is significantly less than any MAC membership check. The parlay contract would be for a long time and prevent UMass from signing with any other conference, without a large buyout amount to the MAC.
Sorry Steve that's not going to happen. Your either in or your out. Right now UMass is out by their own decision. What UMass needs to do now is build a relationship scheduling the eastern MAC teams H&H for FB and Olympic Sports including BB to rebuild good rapport with them for future consideration should the MAC ever decide to expand again. In the mean time make up for attendance problems by scheduling regionally OOC, from their current perspective, with the ACC, AAC, B-10, the A-10, and BE. For FB pick at least two teams from those conferences and /or Army, play 1 FCS team at home, and 1 body bag game away every year. Fill in with other G4 conference schools H&H and continue to schedule other independents in November such as Liberty, BYU, and NMST H&H until the next potential realignment period.I'm an outside fan of UMass for conference acceptance somewhere, but UMass really blew it in my opinion when they shot down the all sports invitation from the MAC. Good luck going forward.
RE: UMass Football - Steve1981 - 09-10-2017 01:32 PM
Thanks and put the parlay association as the all sports would mean splitting a pie 14 ways instead of 12, which is very expensive to the 12 universities. The parlay was almost no cost to the MAC with some benefits of scheduling and low travel costs. Plus a buyout that would be a nice bonus if we ever got to the AAC. From the long post, gave thought of us deciding to go all MAC and don't see enough benefits for the MAC. So the parlay association is a benefit to the MAC and gets us financially commit to the MAC and probable full membership, base on the numbers of the next contract. Yes this is almost a decade in the future, but you have to start somewhere.
Scheduling is not an issue.
RE: UMass Football - Kittonhead - 09-10-2017 05:10 PM
(09-10-2017 11:35 AM)Steve1981 Wrote: This is not a UMass perspective but my personal opinion. UMass Football affiliation will not happen until the 2020’s and affiliation will be the result of various factors. First let’s take the most important scenario that the Big 12 expands and UMass is not invited to the AAC, leaving the MAC or Independence as the most viable options.
Let’s discuss the MAC or Independence option. Will UMass actively seek a MAC invite or stay independent. Going down or dropping football is not on the table for a top major research institution and state flagship university.
The decision not to accept the MAC all sports invite was made by past leaders as AD, Chancellor and President. So what are the conditions that would lead to UMass chose/ask for a MAC sports invite. The present UMass leadership need to be in place or at a minimum be pro FBS Football.
Our current AD is pro FBS and has not hesitated on firing non performing coaches after giving them an additional year or two. So far he has fired the men’s basketball and women’s basketball coaches along with the men’s hockey coach. He has the fortitude to go against the pro basketball camp and do what he considers is best for UMass. Meaning that staying independent has hurt recruiting and we need to be in a conference.
Then next condition that would help is the A10 does not strengthen and perhaps further weaken. I believe there is a good chance that the A10 becomes a two bid conference as the strength at the top has weaken. Looking at VCU schedules, they play at Dayton and have URI at home and are probably the two strongest A10 teams. Neither of these match-ups are on ESPN but on ESPN2. Perhaps the consolidation of the NCAA dance is influencing ESPN slot choices.
It will help that the MAC basketball strength stays steady or improves where they can have the second best team regularly earn an at-large NIT bid. It will also help if UMass football donations increase as a percentage relative to basketball.
Why would the MAC invite us is very debatable. We are talking in the future the 2020’s and the MAC is more than half way through its present media contract. UMass would need to show it's commitment to FBS as having an IPF, along with some improvements to McGuirk. There would need to be an attractive pairing team. The only way it would make financial sense and has been done with other conferences is that the new teams do not get an equal share of the pie. That UMass sports improve and makes us more attractive. Perhaps the next contract would be significantly less than 10 million and adding two attractive teams would offset it. It’s true splitting the CFP pie would still be a sore sport as well. Will add, we are playing Ohio and Akron will be on the schedule for 2019. Obviously we have to have some MAC teams strongly lobbying for our admission.
I am reading your post and I agree there is a chance here.
I will throw out a scenario for 2023.
B12 (Houston, Cincinnati)
AAC (St. Louis, Dayton)
The AAC sticks at 10 in FB but adds 2 more basketball additions which damage the A10 even more. What does UMass and VCU do in this situation?
What if they can put together a package to sell to the MAC?
UMass (FB, BB)
Rhode Island (BB)
ODU (FB, BB)
VCU (BB)
The MAC would go to 14 in FB but then 16 in basketball with URI and VCU as travel partners for UMass and ODU.
UMass, URI, VCU, ODU would be in MAC East with Buffalo, Ohio, Akron, Kent the best 4 basketball programs in the MAC so the SOS would be comparable to the A10.
It needs to be a travel partner plan to make it viable.
RE: UMass Football - Huskypride - 09-10-2017 05:30 PM
Who is UMass's biggest rival In basketball and Football.
RE: UMass Football - Steve1981 - 09-10-2017 07:59 PM
HuskyPride, who we like to be our biggest rivals and who are is subjective. So will say URI for basketball (use to be Temple) and football it's open but based on history and still playing a little, would be UConn.
Kittenhead, it's and interesting idea, but don't think the MAC would ever go with a hybrid. The A10 could be weaken with a raid from the Big East.
RE: UMass Football - lance99 - 09-10-2017 10:19 PM
(09-10-2017 05:10 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:(09-10-2017 11:35 AM)Steve1981 Wrote: This is not a UMass perspective but my personal opinion. UMass Football affiliation will not happen until the 2020’s and affiliation will be the result of various factors. First let’s take the most important scenario that the Big 12 expands and UMass is not invited to the AAC, leaving the MAC or Independence as the most viable options.
Let’s discuss the MAC or Independence option. Will UMass actively seek a MAC invite or stay independent. Going down or dropping football is not on the table for a top major research institution and state flagship university.
The decision not to accept the MAC all sports invite was made by past leaders as AD, Chancellor and President. So what are the conditions that would lead to UMass chose/ask for a MAC sports invite. The present UMass leadership need to be in place or at a minimum be pro FBS Football.
Our current AD is pro FBS and has not hesitated on firing non performing coaches after giving them an additional year or two. So far he has fired the men’s basketball and women’s basketball coaches along with the men’s hockey coach. He has the fortitude to go against the pro basketball camp and do what he considers is best for UMass. Meaning that staying independent has hurt recruiting and we need to be in a conference.
Then next condition that would help is the A10 does not strengthen and perhaps further weaken. I believe there is a good chance that the A10 becomes a two bid conference as the strength at the top has weaken. Looking at VCU schedules, they play at Dayton and have URI at home and are probably the two strongest A10 teams. Neither of these match-ups are on ESPN but on ESPN2. Perhaps the consolidation of the NCAA dance is influencing ESPN slot choices.
It will help that the MAC basketball strength stays steady or improves where they can have the second best team regularly earn an at-large NIT bid. It will also help if UMass football donations increase as a percentage relative to basketball.
Why would the MAC invite us is very debatable. We are talking in the future the 2020’s and the MAC is more than half way through its present media contract. UMass would need to show it's commitment to FBS as having an IPF, along with some improvements to McGuirk. There would need to be an attractive pairing team. The only way it would make financial sense and has been done with other conferences is that the new teams do not get an equal share of the pie. That UMass sports improve and makes us more attractive. Perhaps the next contract would be significantly less than 10 million and adding two attractive teams would offset it. It’s true splitting the CFP pie would still be a sore sport as well. Will add, we are playing Ohio and Akron will be on the schedule for 2019. Obviously we have to have some MAC teams strongly lobbying for our admission.
I am reading your post and I agree there is a chance here.
I will throw out a scenario for 2023.
B12 (Houston, Cincinnati)
AAC (St. Louis, Dayton)
The AAC sticks at 10 in FB but adds 2 more basketball additions which damage the A10 even more. What does UMass and VCU do in this situation?
What if they can put together a package to sell to the MAC?
UMass (FB, BB)
Rhode Island (BB)
ODU (FB, BB)
VCU (BB)
The MAC would go to 14 in FB but then 16 in basketball with URI and VCU as travel partners for UMass and ODU.
UMass, URI, VCU, ODU would be in MAC East with Buffalo, Ohio, Akron, Kent the best 4 basketball programs in the MAC so the SOS would be comparable to the A10.
It needs to be a travel partner plan to make it viable.
The MAC Brass would NEVER go for a Hybrid(for FB/BB).........
RE: UMass Football - Blitz - 09-10-2017 11:53 PM
Per the above posts, I think if the MAC ever decides to expand to 16, it will look more like this:
MAC:
North - NIU, CMU, WMU, EMU
South - Missouri St., Arkansas St., Ill. St., Ball St.
Central - Miami, Ohio, Toledo, Marshall
East - Buffalo, Kent, Akron, BG
More fertile (less crowded) markets, with better regional rivalries, and more of an emphasis on football. I think the window for UMass has closed, because without a Temple (the original intended MAC partner) or an Army pairing, there are better football grouping options.
RE: UMass Football - Eldonabe - 09-11-2017 08:54 AM
I don't want to over simplify this but nothing is going to happen if Umass keeps throwing up donuts in the win column. A 10-57 lifetime record in FBS is a recipe for downgrade.
Soooo late to the game, bad facilities, and in a very weak geographic for football anyways.... my optimism for this to succeed is dwindling by the day.
I still think it can be done (See Temple) but something has to start going right - anything!