(03-26-2014 02:38 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Add umass under 2 conditions....

1) bring hoops
2) build OCS

3) they have to bring Army football with them.

I could see it in that scenario...12 all sports schools, 14 FB (w/Army/Navy).

That to me makes the most sense because Army can add to the TV package. UMass fits in other ways including institution, basketball, market and flagship status. The MAC was smart to get rid of the FB only scenario...bringing nothing to the table for the MAC.

If it did happen, it would be a blow to the A-10....who might have the Big East breathing down their necks as we speak.

(03-26-2014 02:47 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:44 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:39 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  If SOS will be a component of upcoming playoff and Access Bowl formula, then how can anyone advocate adding UMass in football to the AAC? At best you can add them as the 12 member to offset Navy football, but what is a legit argument for adding UMass in football?

We don't even know how much SOS will be a component. It seems like a undefeated always gets the benefit of the doubt like last season when NIU and Fresno were in front of UCF until that last week.

UCF went 0-17 before winning the c-usa east divisions. Probably tougher because of location, but the number of TV sets are too hard to pass. If they get good, they have the market to really prop up the value of the AAC.

I have never been to UMass. So is that he Boston market?

No about 2.5-3 hours west. College town.

So for now they're gonna be indy? Good luck to them. I just don't see how the AAC NEEDS to pick them up. UCONN and Temple would like it for regional sake and hoops would be good but thats about it.

(03-26-2014 02:41 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:39 PM)AACtopER Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:32 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:29 PM)AACtopER Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:22 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Yeah right. Another flagship, great academic school, good hoops, a travel partner / natural rivalry for UConn and Temple.

LOL ok my bad, I just thought Umass-amherest is equvalent to UNC - Charlotte

I am all for adding flagships... I think tulane should be dropped lol :'( sorry bro... and have Umass and Navy

tulane is private,wealthy school with a dull fanbase I saw that game in the superdome past season.

Funny how, despite our terrible ticket sales, Tulane was added in all sports before ECU. Not to mention, your comment is very productive as I am sure Aresco will call up Tulane and cancel their invitation.

Haha ok I am sorry for offending you, but I am just trying to speak the truth. ECU has been snubbed for it's geographically unfavorable location, a horrible basketball program, and probably the notion that 4 ACC schools to the left have probably soaked up the market anyway....

however that is not true, many members believe ECU should have been added 5 years ago. We got snubbed and Big East poached, and Aresco failed...

but the fan base,football prowess, stadium, growing academics... all make a solid statement for the addition of ECU to the american...
Think ECU has highest football attendance of any team in the American if my facts are right

Why are you still talking? Don't bring ECU into a UMass argument.

ECU is a great addition, thus making your TU comments look foolish.

(03-26-2014 02:48 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:47 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:44 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:39 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  If SOS will be a component of upcoming playoff and Access Bowl formula, then how can anyone advocate adding UMass in football to the AAC? At best you can add them as the 12 member to offset Navy football, but what is a legit argument for adding UMass in football?

We don't even know how much SOS will be a component. It seems like a undefeated always gets the benefit of the doubt like last season when NIU and Fresno were in front of UCF until that last week.

UCF went 0-17 before winning the c-usa east divisions. Probably tougher because of location, but the number of TV sets are too hard to pass. If they get good, they have the market to really prop up the value of the AAC.

I have never been to UMass. So is that he Boston market?

No about 2.5-3 hours west. College town.

Its only an hour and a half, but still not really the Boston market.

(03-26-2014 02:49 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  So for now they're gonna be indy? Good luck to them. I just don't see how the AAC NEEDS to pick them up. UCONN and Temple would like it for regional sake and hoops would be good but thats about it.

I can't repeat this enough, they announce an OCS, you add them as they will be basically UConn with less Bball success. Otherwise, FBall at UMass will continue to be a disaster and you let them beg other conferences.

We can't add them for football. Too damaging on many fronts. But, as previously mentioned, we could add them for Olympic sports to balance Navy's football-only membership while also offering milestones for them to reach (facilities, attendance, competitiveness) for reconsideration of football membership. This could include certain football scheduling.

..."In a statement, UMass athletic director John McCutcheon said the school has been conducting a study of its conference alignment with Carr Sports Consulting, a Florida-based firm that has been used by other FBS programs to conduct coaching and athletic-department searches."

"While the report is not complete," McCutcheon said, "we believe full membership for all sports in the MAC is not a good fit for us. Because most of the MAC schools are in the Midwest, the additional travel would strain our athletic budget and pose considerable time management challenges for our student athletes. We are confident that, within the next two years, we will find a more suitable conference for our FBS football program."...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...l/6918677/

I could see the Sunbelt grabbing them as football only. I could see CUSA adding UMass and JMU.

For us, I like the idea of adding them as a non-football school and entering a scheduling agreement to help them handle being an indy. If they upgrade/build a 30K on-campus stadium, then we can revisit the issue of making them a full member. Right now their commitment to FBS football is pathetic.

(03-26-2014 02:51 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:48 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:47 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:44 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:39 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  If SOS will be a component of upcoming playoff and Access Bowl formula, then how can anyone advocate adding UMass in football to the AAC? At best you can add them as the 12 member to offset Navy football, but what is a legit argument for adding UMass in football?

We don't even know how much SOS will be a component. It seems like a undefeated always gets the benefit of the doubt like last season when NIU and Fresno were in front of UCF until that last week.

UCF went 0-17 before winning the c-usa east divisions. Probably tougher because of location, but the number of TV sets are too hard to pass. If they get good, they have the market to really prop up the value of the AAC.

I have never been to UMass. So is that he Boston market?

No about 2.5-3 hours west. College town.

Its only an hour and a half, but still not really the Boston market.

Yikes, I have lived in the south for too long, done lost my mind.

(03-26-2014 02:46 PM)AACtopER Wrote:  I knew they had a stellar hoops program. I dont watch too much basketball and them being known for bbal doesn't help my case... As i have assumed, Umass football is dead weight.

I would not use the term "stellar" to describe their basketball either.

It's not the Boston market but they get noticed in Boston when they do well in hoops. I've stated it ad naseum, I'm all for adding them. We need another northeastern school and we need another state flagship. Also, UConn needs a potential rival. Football is dead weight now, it would not take much for them to at least become a respectable bottom feeder in the AAC though. UMass could probably be a full member by next season if we wanted them. Could get a championship going immediately. Not sure if they will be decent again in hoops next year though. They are a solid, historic school though and not some no name regional school from somewhere in the middle of Mississippi or Kentucky or something.

(03-26-2014 02:52 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:49 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  So for now they're gonna be indy? Good luck to them. I just don't see how the AAC NEEDS to pick them up. UCONN and Temple would like it for regional sake and hoops would be good but thats about it.

I can't repeat this enough, they announce an OCS, you add them as they will be basically UConn with less Bball success. Otherwise, FBall at UMass will continue to be a disaster and you let them beg other conferences.

I'm fine with that. Require they break ground on a stadium before playing in the AAC. They have 2 years remaining in the Mac and the AAC could put another year transition period to make sure the stadium is ready.

(03-26-2014 02:55 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:46 PM)AACtopER Wrote:  I knew they had a stellar hoops program. I dont watch too much basketball and them being known for bbal doesn't help my case... As i have assumed, Umass football is dead weight.

I would not use the term "stellar" to describe their basketball either.

It a nice basketball program with some very strong periods of play. It would be a nice fit for the AAC. The football program would not be a fit.

I just don;t see the point of adding UMass for Olympic sports and not considering others (again I went to UMass undergrad). The Bball is really not that great. If we are going to add them then lets get other Bball schools as well. I'd prefer to wait and pressure UMass to get their act together in FBall. They are not going anywhere, there's no rush.

I think UMass is overplaying their hand. I can't see how they have any other options for an FBS conference.

(03-26-2014 02:16 PM)AACtopER Wrote:  Umass brings nothing to the table we need/want

We aren't talking about Wyoming or Idaho. They are a state flagship of an important state on the east coast. I think that counts for something more and it's a name brand people understand. They have quality basketball and their football has won at least one FCS national championship. No reason to believe that can't have at least decent football at some point.

If UMass is being kicked out of the MAC for poor football performance why on earth would the AAC want them?

FYI their avg attendance last year is listed as 15,830 (and like most schools, especially many MAC schools, I'm guessing # that is 'inflated').

(03-26-2014 02:58 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  I just don;t see the point of adding UMass for Olympic sports and not considering others (again I went to UMass undergrad). The Bball is really not that great. If we are going to add them then lets get other Bball schools as well. I'd prefer to wait and pressure UMass to get their act together in FBall. They are not going anywhere, there's no rush.

Dayton?

(03-26-2014 02:57 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  It's not the Boston market but they get noticed in Boston when they do well in hoops. I've stated it ad naseum, I'm all for adding them. We need another northeastern school and we need another state flagship. Also, UConn needs a potential rival. Football is dead weight now, it would not take much for them to at least become a respectable bottom feeder in the AAC though. UMass could probably be a full member by next season if we wanted them. Could get a championship going immediately. Not sure if they will be decent again in hoops next year though. They are a solid, historic school though and not some no name regional school from somewhere in the middle of Mississippi or Kentucky or something though.

or a regional no name school from somewhere in the middle of Florida or something though