(03-27-2014 09:37 AM)RowdyRoost Wrote:  I don't want 16 teams. Heck... I don't want 14 teams. I sure don't want UMASS unless it's all-sports... even then it's questionable. And Army was a complete disaster in a previous version of C-USA. They brought nothing... absolutely nothing... to the table.

Think of it differently. You'd have two separate conferences that only play one another in the CUSA championship game. In basketball, you play each of your division rivals twice and then crossover and play the other division's members once. I'd like it and I think the rivalries would be much more intense.

(03-27-2014 09:45 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:20 AM)jmu-fan-1981 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:16 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  [quote='MG61' pid='10604780' dateline='1395897172']
There's room for four more, but only the right four. Definitely not UMass. They play high school football. Arkansas State, Texas State, ULL, JMU, Appalachian State and couple others would be good candidates. I'd like 9 in each division so we don't have to play crossover games and we'd have better rivalries. But UMass can go anywhere but into CUSA.

If 4 more- app state, JMU, ark st, and ull. App state gets you back what was lost with ECu.

I'd take South Alabama over App or JMU.

South Alabama is cool. Whoever, as long as they fit the geography and bring some value.

(03-27-2014 09:43 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:38 AM)jmu-fan-1981 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:31 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:27 AM)jmu-fan-1981 Wrote:  Basketball has been better but not where it was in its heyday 80s with NCAA victories in the tourney a few times. Made the tourney last year but went through a rebuilding year with the youngest team in the country. Should be back on track next year though.

Y'all made the NCAA tournament last year?

won our first four game and lost in the next round to #1 Indiana

If you guys made the tournament, then you can't be that far off from being where you want to be.

JMU won the worst CAA in recent memory and received the auto-bid. Got a play-in 16 seed. They don't add anything in hoops.

JMU has strengths when looking at additions but men's basketball isn't one of them.

(03-27-2014 09:47 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  Think of it differently. You'd have two separate conferences that only play one another in the CUSA championship game. In basketball, you play each of your division rivals twice and then crossover and play the other division's members once. I'd like it and I think the rivalries would be much more intense.

..and I heard that was part of the problem with 16. ODU was lobbying for another east team if C-USA went to 16. UAB and a couple of others preferred that both adds be western. With no agreement they just dropped the idea.

(03-27-2014 08:33 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 07:24 AM)Tintin Wrote:  UMass just needs a football home. They are a perfect fit for the a-10 otherwise.
Where I feel they made a mistake is assuming that Dayton, the SLU's and VCU aren't going to run to the Big East when it comes to that.
I see them playing football in the Belt while keeping the rest if their sports in the a10.

Nobody wants a football only member. That would force a conference (Sun Belt) to share the BCS largess with little to no return. That's why they're no longer welcome in the MAC. Those that argue that the Belt needs another program for a Champ game are missing the bigger picture that UMass is gone at the slightest opening of another conference invite and then they'd be right back in the same spot.

The Sun Belt is looking for full membership from Missouri St., JMU and/or Liberty (I think they'd have to be turned down by the others to pick up Liberty).

Again, UMass is stuck between a rock and a hard place right now and will have to do some serious soul searching if they really want to keep their football program FBS.

The new G5 BCS/CFP agreement pays conferences 1 million per school with a cap of 12 million. If the Sunbelt added UMass, it would not dilute the other schools BCS/CFP earnings one cent. Thier media earnings amount to about 20K per school---so splitting the media contract by another school means virtually nothing. Adding UMass gets the Sunbelt a CCG and adds another team that's not just beggining the FBS transition process. UMass football is horrible---but it's likely to get at least a little better now that the transition is done--plus they rehired the coach that led them to an FCS national title. UMass makes sense for the SB to get to 12.

(03-27-2014 09:47 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:37 AM)RowdyRoost Wrote:  I don't want 16 teams. Heck... I don't want 14 teams. I sure don't want UMASS unless it's all-sports... even then it's questionable. And Army was a complete disaster in a previous version of C-USA. They brought nothing... absolutely nothing... to the table.

Think of it differently. You'd have two separate conferences that only play one another in the CUSA championship game. In basketball, you play each of your division rivals twice and then crossover and play the other division's members once. I'd like it and I think the rivalries would be much more intense.

This is about money.

The NCAA only requires 6 teams per for divisional play and a championship game.
Under the new ( 1st year of 12 years) cfp, each team per conference gets 1 million dollars per school up to 12 million dollars.
Beyond 12 schools that the payout is summarily diluted.

Obviously NCAAT revenue is diluted per school as well; the impact per school being a function of the conference's distribution scheme.

The above losses can be mitigated, and even overcome and relegated to irrelevancy by a good media contract.
However, it is questionable whether the current incarnation of CUSA will be able to leverage the media dollars to overcome losses from even the 14 schools.

In order to leverage a better contract, CUSA would need to add either high recognition programs, along the lines of say Notre Dame, or some top media markets, preferably top 25, but no worse than top 60 I would think.

UMass is in the 111 DMA, and JMU in 178. Those are not even top 100.
Neither has the name recognition needed to sway media executives.

It is all about money, and another poster (RowdyRoost) was likely correct in that CUSA doesn't even need 14.

(03-27-2014 09:37 AM)RowdyRoost Wrote:  I don't want 16 teams. Heck... I don't want 14 teams. I sure don't want UMASS unless it's all-sports... even then it's questionable. And Army was a complete disaster in a previous version of C-USA. They brought nothing... absolutely nothing... to the table.

Ain't that the truth.....

....and I don't care if UMASS was all sports....don't need 'em and don't want that snobbery in this conference....

(03-27-2014 10:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The new G5 BCS/CFP agreement pays conferences 1 million per school with a cap of 12 million. If the Sunbelt added UMass, it would not dilute the other schools BCS/CFP earnings one cent. Thier media earnings amount to about 20K per school---so splitting the media contract by another school means virtually nothing. Adding UMass gets the Sunbelt a CCG and adds another team that's not just beggining the FBS transition process. UMass football is horrible---but it's likely to get at least a little better now that the transition is done--plus they rehired the coach that led them to an FCS national title. UMass makes sense for the SB to get to 12.

I agee with everything you said, however, you ommited to comment on why the Sun Belt would want to invest the time and energy into a UMass when they are clearly little more than a seat warmer. You can't say, 'what about Idaho and NMSU?' because those programs have literally nowhere else to go.

I think the Sun Belt should focus its limited resources on developing a long-term relationship with a Missouri St. or JMU. As I said before, imo, UMass would definately need to sweeten the pot for the Sun Belt to give them any consideration as a football only member.

(03-27-2014 10:38 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The new G5 BCS/CFP agreement pays conferences 1 million per school with a cap of 12 million. If the Sunbelt added UMass, it would not dilute the other schools BCS/CFP earnings one cent. Thier media earnings amount to about 20K per school---so splitting the media contract by another school means virtually nothing. Adding UMass gets the Sunbelt a CCG and adds another team that's not just beggining the FBS transition process. UMass football is horrible---but it's likely to get at least a little better now that the transition is done--plus they rehired the coach that led them to an FCS national title. UMass makes sense for the SB to get to 12.

I agee with everything you said, however, you ommited to comment on why the Sun Belt would want to invest the time and energy into a UMass when they are clearly little more than a seat warmer. You can't say, 'what about Idaho and NMSU?' because those programs have literally nowhere else to go.

I think the Sun Belt should focus its limited resources on developing a long-term relationship with a Missouri St. or JMU. As I said before, imo, UMass would definately need to sweeten the pot for the Sun Belt to give them any consideration as a football only member.

Because the Sunbelt needs time. They need time for either JMU to decide the Sunbelt is acceptable or for their other alternatives (EKU or MS--maybe even Lamar or SHSU) to get FBS-ready. Otherwise, they are stuck with Liberty, which most of the conference doesn't want.

(03-27-2014 10:24 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:37 AM)RowdyRoost Wrote:  I don't want 16 teams. Heck... I don't want 14 teams. I sure don't want UMASS unless it's all-sports... even then it's questionable. And Army was a complete disaster in a previous version of C-USA. They brought nothing... absolutely nothing... to the table.

Ain't that the truth.....

....and I don't care if UMASS was all sports....don't need 'em and don't want that snobbery in this conference....

I disagree. They brought a known brand. They did not happen to have much success in any major sport while in CUSA, but that's not really relevant any more. If long strings of good seasons in revenue sports were really all that important, USM would be higher on the totem poll than we are.

(03-27-2014 11:11 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:24 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 09:37 AM)RowdyRoost Wrote:  I don't want 16 teams. Heck... I don't want 14 teams. I sure don't want UMASS unless it's all-sports... even then it's questionable. And Army was a complete disaster in a previous version of C-USA. They brought nothing... absolutely nothing... to the table.

Ain't that the truth.....

....and I don't care if UMASS was all sports....don't need 'em and don't want that snobbery in this conference....

I disagree. They brought a known brand. They did not happen to have much success in any major sport while in CUSA, but that's not really relevant any more. If long strings of good seasons in revenue sports were really all that important, USM would be higher on the totem poll than we are.

Yeah, I would think that Army would be high profile enough to influence media contract negotiations.

(03-27-2014 10:38 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:00 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The new G5 BCS/CFP agreement pays conferences 1 million per school with a cap of 12 million. If the Sunbelt added UMass, it would not dilute the other schools BCS/CFP earnings one cent. Thier media earnings amount to about 20K per school---so splitting the media contract by another school means virtually nothing. Adding UMass gets the Sunbelt a CCG and adds another team that's not just beggining the FBS transition process. UMass football is horrible---but it's likely to get at least a little better now that the transition is done--plus they rehired the coach that led them to an FCS national title. UMass makes sense for the SB to get to 12.

I agee with everything you said, however, you ommited to comment on why the Sun Belt would want to invest the time and energy into a UMass when they are clearly little more than a seat warmer. You can't say, 'what about Idaho and NMSU?' because those programs have literally nowhere else to go.

I think the Sun Belt should focus its limited resources on developing a long-term relationship with a Missouri St. or JMU. As I said before, imo, UMass would definately need to sweeten the pot for the Sun Belt to give them any consideration as a football only member.

And UMASS has a plethora of options? Unless the AAC is taking them Sun Belt is their only FBS option.

(03-27-2014 11:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Because the Sunbelt needs time. They need time for either JMU to decide the Sunbelt is acceptable or for their other alternatives (EKU or MS--maybe even Lamar or SHSU) to get FBS-ready. Otherwise, they are stuck with Liberty, which most of the conference doesn't want.

just trying to follow here; how does adding UMass as football only buy the Sun Belt time? They can stick with what they have (I think it's 11 for football right now). I know they want a Champ game but yeah, I guess if UMass helps them get there, then it might be worthwhile. Plus they can go to divisions to save on some travel I guees.

Yeah, I guees they can go into the same type of relationship that UMass had with the MAC. (answered my own question )

(03-26-2014 03:02 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:57 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  This spring they will finish renovations to their on-campus stadium but the capacity is still at 17k. They also have games at Gillette. But I don't think Gillette would really be necessary for anyone in the AAC other than UConn, Navy and Temple.

Don't they have plans to expand the stadium in phase II? 25,000 is plenty for UMass and could probably be done fairly cheap.

I think UMass has a bunch of issues to work out before they are AAC ready. Beyond the team being 2-22 over the last two years; the work to their on campus stadium gives them a new press box and an athletics office with training room space AND NOT MUCH ELSE!

A phase 2 that you speak of would need to be more than just expanding seating past 17K! Their stadium doesn't even have permanent bathrooms or concessions - they use porta johns and food trailers.

I cannot imagine the American taking them in the next couple years without UMass investing a lot and ESPN saying we'll give you more money per school in your media contract for adding MA/Boston to the conference footprint.

(03-27-2014 01:00 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:02 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:57 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  This spring they will finish renovations to their on-campus stadium but the capacity is still at 17k. They also have games at Gillette. But I don't think Gillette would really be necessary for anyone in the AAC other than UConn, Navy and Temple.

Don't they have plans to expand the stadium in phase II? 25,000 is plenty for UMass and could probably be done fairly cheap.

I think UMass has a bunch of issues to work out before they are AAC ready. Beyond the team being 2-22 over the last two years; the work to their on campus stadium gives them a new press box and an athletics office with training room space AND NOT MUCH ELSE!

A phase 2 that you speak of would need to be more than just expanding seating past 17K! Their stadium doesn't even have permanent bathrooms or concessions - they use porta johns and food trailers.

I cannot imagine the American taking them in the next couple years without UMass investing a lot and ESPN saying we'll give you more money per school in your media contract for adding MA/Boston to the conference footprint.

Umass is not located in boston.

(03-27-2014 01:04 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 01:00 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:02 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:57 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  This spring they will finish renovations to their on-campus stadium but the capacity is still at 17k. They also have games at Gillette. But I don't think Gillette would really be necessary for anyone in the AAC other than UConn, Navy and Temple.

Don't they have plans to expand the stadium in phase II? 25,000 is plenty for UMass and could probably be done fairly cheap.

I think UMass has a bunch of issues to work out before they are AAC ready. Beyond the team being 2-22 over the last two years; the work to their on campus stadium gives them a new press box and an athletics office with training room space AND NOT MUCH ELSE!

A phase 2 that you speak of would need to be more than just expanding seating past 17K! Their stadium doesn't even have permanent bathrooms or concessions - they use porta johns and food trailers.

I cannot imagine the American taking them in the next couple years without UMass investing a lot and ESPN saying we'll give you more money per school in your media contract for adding MA/Boston to the conference footprint.

Umass is not located in boston.

Indeed, Umass (Amherst) is part of the Springfield Ma. DMA - the 111 television market.

(03-27-2014 01:04 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

Quote:I cannot imagine the American taking them in the next couple years without UMass investing a lot and ESPN saying we'll give you more money per school in your media contract for adding MA/Boston to the conference footprint.

Umass is not located in boston.

No $hit... That's why I said MA first then slash Boston... I realize campus is 90 minutes West off I-90 to I-91... however, they play their games at Foxboro (which is the only stadium acceptable to AAC standards). So I included Boston in the post from an ESPN marketing perspective.

(03-27-2014 01:19 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 01:04 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

Quote:I cannot imagine the American taking them in the next couple years without UMass investing a lot and ESPN saying we'll give you more money per school in your media contract for adding MA/Boston to the conference footprint.

Umass is not located in boston.

No $hit... That's why I said MA first then slash Boston... I realize campus is 90 minutes West off I-90 to I-91... however, they play their games at Foxboro (which is the only stadium acceptable to AAC standards). So I included Boston in the post from an ESPN marketing perspective.

As improvements are being completed, UMass is in the process o9f moving back to Amherst. I think it will have three games there in 2014, and by 2015 or 2016, all home games will be there again.

I think UMass would be a great addition to CUSA. Our pitch could be "the AAC will make you expand your stadium, and generally emphasize athletics to an extent that will piss off your faculty."

(03-27-2014 01:25 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 01:19 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 01:04 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

Quote:I cannot imagine the American taking them in the next couple years without UMass investing a lot and ESPN saying we'll give you more money per school in your media contract for adding MA/Boston to the conference footprint.

Umass is not located in boston.

No $hit... That's why I said MA first then slash Boston... I realize campus is 90 minutes West off I-90 to I-91... however, they play their games at Foxboro (which is the only stadium acceptable to AAC standards). So I included Boston in the post from an ESPN marketing perspective.

As improvements are being completed, UMass is in the process o9f moving back to Amherst. I think it will have three games there in 2014, and by 2015 or 2016, all home games will be there again.

As I said before... say what you will, their improvements STILL won't give the stadium bathrooms or concessions -- as it doesn't address the porta johns and portable trailer / table concession stands.

UMass Stadium Specs from Design Team