(06-22-2015 12:24 PM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  

(06-21-2015 11:37 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-20-2015 09:11 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  UMass leaving the MAC I thought is a good move.

Gives them the football only flexibility for joining the AAC. This would surprise a lot of people but I believe UMass has a better shot getting into the AAC football only over getting in all sports.

The Big East had a lot of its football schools come in initially as FB only schools like Virginia Tech that finally earned an all sport place at the table. Navy is also joining the AAC FB only.

Let's say UConn is fed up with the AAC, rejoins the BE and takes Memphis with them. Both schools then move on to play an independent FB schedule.

The southern schools of the AAC may band together against another all sport New England school. They might be okay with UMass though if its just FB Only. They can get ODU all sports and UMass FB only.

Much more likely the southern AAC schools would prefer to exit the New England/far northern markets if UConn left. Let Temple, Navy, and Cinci form the northern frontier of the AAC and begin to either move west or south with better--stronger--more established football programs located in better recruiting grounds with better fan support. No point in adding programs with little fan support with small recruting bases in cold environments. There are other programs with more potential and higher ceilings.

My feeling is UMass has about 2 years to find a conference or the program will begin a descent from which it won't be able to recover. They are looking at a weak recruiting ground, few home games, poor fan support a bad campus facility, little chance of getting bowl qualified, and zero chance of a major bowl. UMass might not even get a bowl if they manage to win 6 games as they have no bowl ties. That's a very tough environment in which to thrive. I think they made a mistake leaving the MAC. Yes, they make slightly more money in the A10---but they probabably are in the NCAA's 8 out of every 10 years competing in the MAC. That would lessen the sting of the money loss while giving thier young FBS program a real chance to develop and succeed.

And that would never happen to a team from the AAC LOL?

The Fact is UMass could go 8-4, 9-3, 10-2 in 2016 and probably will not get into a bowl. With the schedule on the books a 0 or 1 loss season might give them a chance of going bowling if leagues can't fill their quota. Even if they don't that would be one heck of problem to deal with.

lol....yes, that sucked for Temple---but that was of our own doing. We gave away a slot to allow us to replace CUSA with BYU in the Miami Bowl. We rolled the dice and lost on that one with Temple paying the price.

That said, the number of AAC bowl ties continues to rise. This year we have 7 bowls. We have 8 ties in 2016. Once the Austin Bowl comes on line we will have 8-9 ties each year (not counting the access bowl or any backup bowl slots). So---going forward a 6-win AAC team has very little chance of being left out.

My honest opinion is UMass should backtrack and accept a full invite to the MAC. UMass likely heads to the NCAA every year from that conference in basketball (would that be so bad?) and the MAC would provide a good incubator for UMass football to develop where they might enjoy some success within a reasonable time frame.