Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
UMass emerging as probable #12
Author Message
Hank Schrader Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,933
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 59
I Root For: UConn
Location: Hartford
Post: #261
RE: UMass emerging as probable #12
(03-15-2013 01:12 AM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  
(03-14-2013 06:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Just because I've seen it mentioned throughout This thread: UMass cannot be added as an Olympic sports only member. If they did, they have to play football as an independent. Since the A12 sponsors football they have to either play football in the A12 or not in a conference at all.

It's not a rule. Consider the example you gave elsewhere of Boise State, which was going to join the Big East as a football-only, but put its olympic sports in the WAC. (This was before the WAC's football conference was destroyed.) They had to leave the MWC because the MWC wouldn't let them stay, not because the NCAA wouldn't let them stay.

Regardless, this couldn't work with UMass, because once Temple left, the MAC gained the right to expel UMass at whim per the contract the two teams signed with the conference. If UMass joins the former Big East in every sport but football, it's going to be obvious that as soon as UMass Football becomes a valuable commodity, the MAC is going to lose them. They'll probably just punt us then, especially if they're still at 13 members.

This is another reason why UMass isn't going to wow the former Big East with a big presentation to try to get invited. We're walking on eggshells with the MAC. If we publicly disrespect the MAC, they will rightfully can us, and if the fBE doesn't invite us we'll have absolutely nowhere else to go as a matter of geography. Safe bet the Big Ten isn't going to come to our rescue. Tulsa has no such gun to their head and has fallback options out the wazoo. Hard to win a beauty pageant if we can't put on makeup and have to pretend we wandered on stage by accident.

(03-14-2013 07:24 PM)Freshy Wrote:  The fact that some people in this thread seem to think UMass is located near Boston should tell you a thing or two about what people know about them (this should help them find it).

UMass is closer to Boston than UNC is to Charlotte, Illinois is to Chicago, Penn State is to Philly/Pitt, and Texas is to Houston/Dallas, and is about the same distance as Wisconsin is to Milwaukee, Georgia is to Atlanta, LSU is to New Orleans, Kentucky is to Louisville, Missouri is to St. Louis, Oregon is to Portland, and so on. 80% of UMass students are in-state, and the vast majority of Mass residents live in the eastern half of the state, and go back there after graduation. Does UMass currently draw the same interest in Boston as those other examples I gave? No, or we'd be discussing UMass's candidacy for an invitation to the Big Ten. The last remaining undisputed flagship of a major state including the #7 TV market wouldn't be available if numerous strategic mistakes hadn't been made leading up to this point. It's basically down to UMass, UConn, and maybe Buffalo depending on who you ask about the who's the flagship of the convoluted SUNY system. Any other flagship of a state with a population over 2 million is in the ACC or better, along with quite a few of the ones below 2 million.

(03-14-2013 08:04 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  UMass will always be a step behind UConn, the same way that Ole Miss will always be a step behind Alabama.

"Always" is a long time. The last time UMass and UConn shared a conference in either football or basketball, UMass had the stronger program. UMass had the misfortune of sharing a state with 2 colleges that hung crosses in their classrooms when the Big East was being formed. UConn shared a state with a fledgling ESPN and no Catholic colleges worth a damn. Dave Gavitt and his descendents have been blowing up everything we try to do ever since. Nothing short of going back in time and setting Providence College on fire would have prevented what came afterward. Not UConn's fault. You played the hand you were dealt as well as you could have up until this point, minus that litigation business. We'd be pretty happy if that was the only big mistake we made in 30 years.

I've got no issues with UMass since that scumbag Calipari left, but UMass is just not committed to athletics. Just a month ago the BOT had a discussion of canning the FBS program after one year of its existence. UMass currently draws flies, which is exaggerated by the fact they play in a stadium 2 hours away. FYI Uconn's stadium is closer to Umass than Gillette. My perspective on inviting UMass as a UConn fan, is a bit conflicted. I think that renewing an old rivalry would be nice, despite it being one sided for the foreseeable future. On the other hand I have no interest in helping UMass develop a successful program the same way Memphis and Tulane need to in this conference. I would much rather see UMass commit to FBS football in the MAC and be invited to the Big East when they are averaging ~ 30k fans and have some winning seasons under their belt.
03-15-2013 06:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,216
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 221
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #262
RE: UMass emerging as probable #12
Would UMass really be a good fit with out UConn. Temple would be their close neighbor for Olympic sports and Navy the next close neighbor would not be involved in the league for Olympic sports. They would virtually be on an island way up in Massachusetts with most of the conference in the south and south west. Don't know if UMass could with stand the costs of traveling their Olympic sport programs. They might make a better fit for FB only like Navy and it would be better for them to leave their Olympic sports in the A-10.

North - UConn, Cinn, Temple, ECU, and Navy and UMass FB only.

South - UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulane, SMU, and Houston.

Double round robin for BB and Olympic sports for the all sports members.
03-15-2013 07:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
oldtiger Away
Forgiven Through Jesus' Grace
*

Posts: 23,014
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 1181
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Germantown

DonatorsBlazerTalk AwardMemphis Hall of Fame
Post: #263
RE: UMass emerging as probable #12
(03-15-2013 07:19 AM)panite Wrote:  Would UMass really be a good fit with out UConn. Temple would be their close neighbor for Olympic sports and Navy the next close neighbor would not be involved in the league for Olympic sports. They would virtually be on an island way up in Massachusetts with most of the conference in the south and south west. Don't know if UMass could with stand the costs of traveling their Olympic sport programs. They might make a better fit for FB only like Navy and it would be better for them to leave their Olympic sports in the A-10.

North - UConn, Cinn, Temple, ECU, and Navy and UMass FB only.

South - UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulane, SMU, and Houston.

Double round robin for BB and Olympic sports for the all sports members.

UMass, football only......wow.
03-15-2013 07:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hank Schrader Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,933
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 59
I Root For: UConn
Location: Hartford
Post: #264
RE: UMass emerging as probable #12
(03-15-2013 07:19 AM)panite Wrote:  Would UMass really be a good fit with out UConn. Temple would be their close neighbor for Olympic sports and Navy the next close neighbor would not be involved in the league for Olympic sports. They would virtually be on an island way up in Massachusetts with most of the conference in the south and south west. Don't know if UMass could with stand the costs of traveling their Olympic sport programs. They might make a better fit for FB only like Navy and it would be better for them to leave their Olympic sports in the A-10.

North - UConn, Cinn, Temple, ECU, and Navy and UMass FB only.

South - UCF, USF, Memphis, Tulane, SMU, and Houston.

Double round robin for BB and Olympic sports for the all sports members.

Should Uconn be a football only if UMass does not join?
03-15-2013 08:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LastMinuteman Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,129
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 88
I Root For: UMass
Location:
Post: #265
RE: UMass emerging as probable #12
(03-15-2013 06:31 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  Just a month ago the BOT had a discussion of canning the FBS program after one year of its existence.

No truth to that whatsoever. A small committee of activist faculty who were upset that they weren't included in the upgrade discussions (because an art history professor has so much insight to contribute about the college sports entertainment industry) called a vote to make a non-binding recommendation to the chancellor to reconsider the football upgrade. The vote failed, and the chancellor expressed that he would have been committed to football regardless. Only 27 out of nearly 1200 faculty members voted.

Rutgers went through this same crap, only their faculty actually did pass a non-binding recommendation to decrease funding to football. It was ignored, and now they're in the Big Ten. It's just another idiosyncrasy of college sports in the northeast.

Quote:I would much rather see UMass commit to FBS football in the MAC and be invited to the Big East when they are averaging ~ 30k fans and have some winning seasons under their belt.

We would too. If you could all take a little time off from ruining college sports and blowing up the last remaining football conference in the northeast, that'd be great. We'll be the first ones to sign the "Everyone Just Stop Conference Hopping" petition. Back when we made this move, Texas A&M was still a happy member of the Big 12. If we'd known what was going to happen, we'd have done things differently. Right now we're geared towards quickly becoming competitive in the MAC with a MAC-appropriate level of expenditures. (We only got 1 month of FBS recruiting in before our first season. Don't judge us by that.)

On the other hand, that's a strange position for a UConn fan to take, since you're not planning on being in this conference in a few years, you never paid your dues in a lower conference, never had success in FCS, never had big attendance prior to moving, and moved directly into a much better conference than this one. And if UMass builds that shiny new on-campus stadium, UConn will go back to having the longest home stadium commute in college football. I'm not really refuting your point, I'd personally rather just win some games and not move the goalline another 50 yards away just as we're getting our feet under us, but UConn is the last place on earth that should espouse that attitude. You did exactly what you're saying shouldn't be done, and now you're the hottest commodity in this conference.
03-15-2013 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #266
RE: UMass emerging as probable #12
(03-14-2013 11:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(03-14-2013 11:22 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  
(03-14-2013 11:08 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(03-14-2013 06:30 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  
(03-14-2013 06:04 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Just because I've seen it mentioned throughout This thread: UMass cannot be added as an Olympic sports only member. If they did, they have to play football as an independent. Since the A12 sponsors football they have to either play football in the A12 or not in a conference at all.

That information is wrong. UMass can be added for Olympic Sports Only as their Olympic Sports are in the A10 and the football in the MAC, just like how Temple was.

Are you being serious with this? You do realize that they can do that because the A10 does not sponsor D1A football, right? That was why ECU, Boise, Hawaii, and San Diego state all had to find new conferences for their Olympic sports when they were or did do football only invites. Same with Navy, as they play their Olympic sports in a conference that does not sponsor football, so they can place it in another conference.

It was passed as common knowledge on this site for a long time that this is an NCAA rule, but in fact it's not. It's individual conference rules, most of which contain the same language (hence the reason everyone thinks its an NCAA rule).

It's actually an NCAA rule. It was the reason the WAC actually considered dropping football for a it so they could have the Olympic sports of some of the teams who moved for football (Boise, San Diego st, Hawaii, etc) To try and survive. Otherwise they would not have had to even entertain that idea to do so and could have just amended their own conference rules and called it a day.

Im sure you have access to the NCAA rules. Just post it along with the article and section number. You'll be looking for a long time. I promise you, it isnt there. There would have been no reason for the Mountain West to tell Boise they couldnt leave thier olympic sports in the MW if it was a violation of the rules. In fact, there would be no reason for Boise to even ask. Nor ould Boise petition to play basketball in the WAC in 2011 when it was a full FBS conference.

Here is an article from 12/07/2011 announcing Boise as a new olympic sports member of the WAC. At the time, the WAC was an FBS football conference and had every intention of staying a viable FBS conference.

http://www.wacsports.com/ViewArticle.dbm...=205343809
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2013 02:36 PM by Attackcoog.)
03-15-2013 02:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UHCougar Offline
Big East Special Forces
*

Posts: 1,872
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 161
I Root For: Houston
Location: 8th Circle of Hell
Post: #267
RE: UMass emerging as probable #12
Let me know the Section No. Thanks for your directing me to the section because I can't find it. 05-stirthepot
http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4284-2...aug-1.aspx
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2013 02:54 PM by UHCougar.)
03-15-2013 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Freshy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,033
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #268
RE: UMass emerging as probable #12
(03-14-2013 07:51 PM)AntiG Wrote:  
(03-14-2013 07:24 PM)Freshy Wrote:  The fact that some people in this thread seem to think UMass is located near Boston should tell you a thing or two about what people know about them (this should help them find it).

Again, this is the flagship university of the state of Massachusetts, one of the most densely populated, most influential states in the union. Amherst is not next to Boston, but you can bet your ass that a large, large, large population of UMass alumni are all over the state and in surrounding states, and naturally are located within the Boston metropolitan area due to the fact that it is the region's economic hub. If you really are going to state that UMass has no connection to Boston, then it is you that have no idea what you are talking about.

First things first, I never said UMass had no connection to Boston. You did. I did not even insinuate as much.

Second, if I were to draw a circle with a 90-mile radius around Hattiesburg, MS, I would encompass New Orleans, Mobile, Jackson, and the entire Mississippi Gulf Coast within that circle. Guess where Southern Miss draws the great majority of its students from? Guess where most of our alumni end up when they graduate?

Now, if I were to claim that we brought the New Orleans, Mobile, Jackson, and Gulf Coast media markets with us, I would be laughed out of this thread. That doesn't mean people aren't watching Southern Miss sports in those towns any more than it means people aren't watching UMass sports in Boston. People in those towns have other options, and so do the people of Boston.
03-16-2013 01:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Freshy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,033
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 42
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location:
Post: #269
RE: UMass emerging as probable #12
(03-14-2013 07:50 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  
(03-14-2013 07:24 PM)Freshy Wrote:  
(03-14-2013 06:49 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  
(03-14-2013 12:45 AM)Freshy Wrote:  
(03-13-2013 11:03 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  Lets put this into perspective. You guys are talking about two teams in the CUSA like they are going to save this conference. Like by adding them that suddenly our football profile is significantly increased. How does inviting them to this new conference make them any better than when they were in the CUSA? How does it make us any better than the CUSA? In reality, this conference can only get stronger if the teams we currently have improved and that while we are improving we need to be good at something, and that something is basketball as our top 4 or 5 basketball teams are MUCH better than our top 4 or 5 football schools.

Not going to bother with UCF-ENG's willful ignorance, but ScreamShatter seems to be missing the point a bit:

No, neither Southern Miss nor Tulsa would save your conference. But then, neither would UMass. It is ok, though, I get it. Your school is located in Philadelphia, and is now in an increasingly southern-oriented conference. That can't be comforting to know you are close to being on an island in conference realignment when that is such a dirty word.

The other thing I think Temple, UConn, and Cincinnati posters are more afraid of than 'Southern' is that 'Mississippi' in our name. It's okay, I get it: You guys use that word to scare your children so they will behave. You don't want anything to do with us, nor do you intend to make any trips down to our backwoods.

Those two things aside, there is still the fact that both schools would enhance your football profile. Tulsa is the winningest program in CUSA since 2005. Southern Miss is the winningest program in CUSA history. Basically, what your conference did when it raided CUSA was to push the cream over to the side, then select three schools from near the top, one that was in the middle, and two more from near the bottom. I'm not saying that they made a mistake in inviting who they did, but that doesn't change what I am about to say next.

Leaving both Southern Miss and Tulsa alone and in CUSA would be a huge mistake. You are essentially setting up that conference to market itself as underdogs and leftovers while leaving its best football schools in place. Or you could invite at least one of those two schools, and the next article ESPN writes about CUSA will be ten years down the road when one of their programs goes 11-1 with at least one guarantee game upset and ESPN feels compelled to explain away why that team has the auto-bid.

I can't make this any clearer: Tulsa and Southern Miss have been consistently the best teams in CUSA, and at times they have been outright dominant (for example, Southern Miss went 8-0 in conference in 2003 while beating six teams that you will share a conference with next year as well as TCU). Leave the two of them where they are, and CUSA will build itself back up around them.

You think Memphis has a great basketball history? That's how many Memphis posters on this board view Southern Miss football. It is one of the craziest rivalries out there: Normally, they can't beat us in football and we can't beat them in basketball.

Even beyond that, Southern Miss is sitting at #33 in RPI right now...both they and Tulsa seem to have made very good hires as head basketball coaches. CUSA just added Louisiana Tech, Middle Tennessee, and Charlotte...they have building blocks in place to make that conference relevant in basketball in the future.

In conclusion, you can simultaneously hurt CUSA and help yourselves athletically by inviting one or both of those schools...or you can take on a project in UMass and hope they turn out to be worth the effort in the end.


FYI....I'm from South Carolina so I'm not hating on Mississippi. All I'm saying is I think the argument that adding two decent CUSA teams that really aren't known nationally for football are going to elevate our football profile much. I told my mom (still living in SC and a big football and basketball fan) that we were talking about adding USM and Tulsa and she gasped and said, "Ewww. Why?" Then I asked some people up north and they said, "Who's that? Are they any good?" I'm willing to bet we could ask a lot of people that same question and people would have the same reaction as these schools are not nationally known. UMass, however, is nationally known. And they do have a basketball reputation. It doesn't matter what anyone's record is. All that matters is the way people perceive the schools that are in the conference. That's why some conferences have academic requirements because they know people will perceive their school with the other schools that are in the conference.

I'm not saying there aren't good things about having these schools in the conference. What I'm saying is that everyone's argument about them increasing our football profile is pretty debatable and a weak argument, at best.

UMass is not a national presence outside New England and the Atlantic states. Tulsa is also known historically as a basketball school, for all that history matters in realignment.

I get that perception is why a lot prefer UMass over Tulsa and Southern Miss. Perception may truly be all that matters in the end. If so, Southern Miss truly has reached its cap. My point is that perception isn't necessarily correct.

It isn't debatable at all...if you believe ECU or UCF or Houston or Cincinnati increase your football profile, then you have to believe at the very least that Tulsa and Southern Miss won't hurt it. UMass would, at least at first.

The fact that some people in this thread seem to think UMass is located near Boston should tell you a thing or two about what people know about them (this should help them find it).

Perception matters a lot when we are re-branding a conference without the Big East name anymore. And making this CUSA 2.0 isn't going to increase football nor basketball profiles.

You can debate all you want about if our current member schools increase our football profile, but they are already admitted. This is about schools that we are seeking at add that could help us build a new conference. My argument is adding more CUSA schools damages the fact that we are trying to build a new brand. Once ESPN starts saying "this is the old Big East schools and starts saying this is all CUSA schools," it kills the hope of this conference being anything more than average. Adding more average football schools that have lame hoops programs isn't going to our basketball creditably either, which is much stronger and has more potential than our football profile will ever have. UMass and VCU with Temple, Cinci, Memphis, and UConn make this a potentially great basketball conference with 6 members constantly on the potential of being Top 25. USM and Tulsa give us a league with maybe 2 teams that could crack the Top 25 every few years. The choice is pretty clear. We'd be better off adding UMass and VCU and having a very competitive basketball conference with football that builds itself and plays solid OOC schedule than any other option that exist.

We are at an impasse over football I suppose. At least I made some people think a little, which is all I was really trying to do. My point is still valid, which is that Southern Miss and Tulsa would help you competition-wise while putting some distance between yourselves and CUSA, while your point that UMass would help the league's presence and perception as an East Coast-oriented conference is also valid.

About the "lame hoops programs" thing:

Forget about the name on the front of the jersey, anything that happened in previous years, or what conference the teams play in, and just tell me which of the following two resumes you would put in the NCAA tournament:

Team One has an RPI of 29, SOS of 89, home record of 10-1, road record of 9-7, and neutral site record of 4-0. They are 0-4 versus RPI top 50, 5-2 versus RPI 51-100, and 18-2 versus RPI 100+.

Team Two has an RPI of 55, SOS of 76, home record of 9-4, road record of 8-4, and neutral site record of 4-2. They are 2-6 versus RPI top 50, 7-2 versus RPI 51-100, and 12-2 versus RPI 100+.

If I understand the mock selection exercise correctly, that is how the tournament selection committee will choose the last few teams: blind, with only their resumes before them.

Do either of those two teams seem 'lame' to you?
03-16-2013 02:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.