but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. It's like being short stacked in poker- you have to go all in on the next hand or you fold and walk away because if you don't the blinds will quickly bleed you dry. UMass cannot survive on temporary arrangements, they need a long term solution. Football-only in any conference, especially the Sun Belt, is not a long term solution. Going independent is not a long term solution. Waiting by the phone for that magical call from the AAC(not going to happen), the ACC(lol), or the B1G(LOL), is not a long term solution.
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. ...
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
This argument doesn't hold up. Let's say UMass is losing money on FBS. (Very likely, given that attendance at Gillete is below anyone's estimates going in.)
UMass is perfectly capable of treating FBS not as a poker game, but as a lottery. Throw in a nominal amount of money to stay in the game. Right now, FB-only in the Sun Belt. If that falls through and the SBC kicks out UMAss and Idaho 4 years down the line to make room for XYZ State and U of ABC, and nothing else turns up, go indy--Idaho and NMSU managed it
for a year or two.
Saying that UMass "has to" spend money like a big-boy FBS program or drop to FCS just isn't true. Failure is, in fact, an option.
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. ...
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
This argument doesn't hold up. Let's say UMass is losing money on FBS. (Very likely, given that attendance at Gillete is below anyone's estimates going in.)
UMass is perfectly capable of treating FBS not as a poker game, but as a lottery. Throw in a nominal amount of money to stay in the game. Right now, FB-only in the Sun Belt. If that falls through and the SBC kicks out UMAss and Idaho 4 years down the line to make room for XYZ State and U of ABC, and nothing else turns up, go indy--Idaho and NMSU managed it
for a year or two.
Saying that UMass "has to" spend money like a big-boy FBS program or drop to FCS just isn't true. Failure is, in fact, an option.
They also get 1 mill from the NCAA for joining the SBC(1 mill per school up to 12) that they won't get as an Indy along w/ whatever tv contract the SBC has. Also a big part of the reason they didn't take MAC full invite is that the A10 bball units(6 this year, mulit bid every year)>MAC full invite, $$$ wise.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2014 06:16 PM by Fresno St. Alum.)
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. It's like being short stacked in poker- you have to go all in on the next hand or you fold and walk away because if you don't the blinds will quickly bleed you dry. UMass cannot survive on temporary arrangements, they need a long term solution. Football-only in any conference, especially the Sun Belt, is not a long term solution. Going independent is not a long term solution. Waiting by the phone for that magical call from the AAC(not going to happen), the ACC(lol), or the B1G(LOL), is not a long term solution.
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
What is up with you and half ass FBS. We have just spent 36.5 million on a new Football facilities, new Sky and Press Box. Next year will spend around 2 million on a practice bubble, followed by new end zone seating.
This video take while under construction in April.
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. ...
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
This argument doesn't hold up. Let's say UMass is losing money on FBS. (Very likely, given that attendance at Gillete is below anyone's estimates going in.)
UMass is perfectly capable of treating FBS not as a poker game, but as a lottery. Throw in a nominal amount of money to stay in the game. Right now, FB-only in the Sun Belt. If that falls through and the SBC kicks out UMAss and Idaho 4 years down the line to make room for XYZ State and U of ABC, and nothing else turns up, go indy--Idaho and NMSU managed it
for a year or two.
Saying that UMass "has to" spend money like a big-boy FBS program or drop to FCS just isn't true. Failure is, in fact, an option.
Wrong. Its not even about spending money like a big FBS program, the cost of being the smallest FBS program is significantly greater than being an FCS program. First there's the additional travel costs, next there's additional facilities costs- renting out Gillette stadium, upgrading campus stadium to meet FBS conference requirements, not to mention all the little things needed to be competitive with even bottom FBS teams for recruiting in terms of locker rooms, training facilities, etc.
Then there's the additional costs in coaching salaries and recruiting budgets, and finally, there's a significant increase in the amount of full scholarships that must be provided- FBS has 22 additional scholarships to give out.
These are all significant cost increases just to get a seat at the FBS table, never mind keeping up with the Joneses.
Now comes the issue of revenue shares from your conference. No way does the new, football-only member get a full share of the revenue. Not going to happen. And as for going Independent? can't be done long term. No conference revenue, impossible to schedule 6 home games, only schools with national appeal- service academies and some religiously affiliated universities, can survive as an Indy.
the costs of running an FBS program in a crappy G5 conference are severe, the costs of 4-6 years of some combination of fb-only or indy will be untenable. Any advantages of receiving A10 revenue will be negated by the costs of subsidizing an instable FBS football program.
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. It's like being short stacked in poker- you have to go all in on the next hand or you fold and walk away because if you don't the blinds will quickly bleed you dry. UMass cannot survive on temporary arrangements, they need a long term solution. Football-only in any conference, especially the Sun Belt, is not a long term solution. Going independent is not a long term solution. Waiting by the phone for that magical call from the AAC(not going to happen), the ACC(lol), or the B1G(LOL), is not a long term solution.
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
What is up with you and half ass FBS. We have just spent 36.5 million on a new Football facilities, new Sky and Press Box. Next year will spend around 2 million on a practice bubble, followed by new end zone seating.
This video take while under construction in April.
my point exactly! you've spent a TON of money on the program and yet refuse to commit to a long term solution in terms of conference affiliation. What happens when the SBC thing ends and the phone still hasn't rang from your dream list of suitors? What do you then? Where do you go? It's utterly insane.
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. ...
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
This argument doesn't hold up. Let's say UMass is losing money on FBS. (Very likely, given that attendance at Gillete is below anyone's estimates going in.)
UMass is perfectly capable of treating FBS not as a poker game, but as a lottery. Throw in a nominal amount of money to stay in the game. Right now, FB-only in the Sun Belt. If that falls through and the SBC kicks out UMAss and Idaho 4 years down the line to make room for XYZ State and U of ABC, and nothing else turns up, go indy--Idaho and NMSU managed it
for a year or two.
Saying that UMass "has to" spend money like a big-boy FBS program or drop to FCS just isn't true. Failure is, in fact, an option.
Wrong. Its not even about spending money like a big FBS program, the cost of being the smallest FBS program is significantly greater than being an FCS program. First there's the additional travel costs, next there's additional facilities costs- renting out Gillette stadium, upgrading campus stadium to meet FBS conference requirements, not to mention all the little things needed to be competitive with even bottom FBS teams for recruiting in terms of locker rooms, training facilities, etc.
Then there's the additional costs in coaching salaries and recruiting budgets, and finally, there's a significant increase in the amount of full scholarships that must be provided- FBS has 22 additional scholarships to give out.
These are all significant cost increases just to get a seat at the FBS table, never mind keeping up with the Joneses.
Now comes the issue of revenue shares from your conference. No way does the new, football-only member get a full share of the revenue. Not going to happen. And as for going Independent? can't be done long term. No conference revenue, impossible to schedule 6 home games, only schools with national appeal- service academies and some religiously affiliated universities, can survive as an Indy.
the costs of running an FBS program in a crappy G5 conference are severe, the costs of 4-6 years of some combination of fb-only or indy will be untenable. Any advantages of receiving A10 revenue will be negated by the costs of subsidizing an instable FBS football program.
Do you just write what ever comes to your mind? We do not rent Gillette. We are guarantee 150K and then after cost split 50-50. Let's see how this works with Boston College, guessing 30's or higher. It's Labor Day week end, but should be solid filling the lower bowl, along with all Putnam Club seating; 3k each side.
We make roughly 1 million in A10 revenue and the goal of FBS was to be with peers, which all have FBS Football and not to loss more money than FCS Football. This point was estimated to be 5 years out, with initially losing more money.
It's not losing money, but subsidizing marketing.
Like the idea of the Sun Belt. Do you really think the casual fan thinks more of Kent State to Texas State? The UMass fan will recognize Georgia Southern and App State, who we played FCS champion games. Ark State, Troy and the Ragin Cagins are on par with the top of the MAC.
Oh we know the Ragin Cagins from way back.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2014 07:10 PM by Steve1981.)
yes I do write whatever comes to mind. Chicken nuggets. my elbow itches. lawnmower.
not paying for Gillette is not a game changer, the other costs are still significant, as you effectively pointed out. Look, I'm not dogging on UMass, I like UMass, I offer my observations as a point of concern, not condemnation. Do you really feel comfortable spending all of this money and not having a stable home? Do you honestly thing the AAC or a P5 school will come calling in the next 5 years? I would be worried, but maybe that's just me.
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. It's like being short stacked in poker- you have to go all in on the next hand or you fold and walk away because if you don't the blinds will quickly bleed you dry. UMass cannot survive on temporary arrangements, they need a long term solution. Football-only in any conference, especially the Sun Belt, is not a long term solution. Going independent is not a long term solution. Waiting by the phone for that magical call from the AAC(not going to happen), the ACC(lol), or the B1G(LOL), is not a long term solution.
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
What is up with you and half ass FBS. We have just spent 36.5 million on a new Football facilities, new Sky and Press Box. Next year will spend around 2 million on a practice bubble, followed by new end zone seating.
This video take while under construction in April.
my point exactly! you've spent a TON of money on the program and yet refuse to commit to a long term solution in terms of conference affiliation. What happens when the SBC thing ends and the phone still hasn't rang from your dream list of suitors? What do you then? Where do you go? It's utterly insane.
What would be insane is UMASS giving its basketball program the death penalty by joining a one-bid league. UMASS took the risk of not finding a home for its football, but they came out a big winner in the end. Great move by UMASS.
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. ...
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
This argument doesn't hold up. Let's say UMass is losing money on FBS. (Very likely, given that attendance at Gillete is below anyone's estimates going in.)
UMass is perfectly capable of treating FBS not as a poker game, but as a lottery. Throw in a nominal amount of money to stay in the game. Right now, FB-only in the Sun Belt. If that falls through and the SBC kicks out UMAss and Idaho 4 years down the line to make room for XYZ State and U of ABC, and nothing else turns up, go indy--Idaho and NMSU managed it
for a year or two.
Saying that UMass "has to" spend money like a big-boy FBS program or drop to FCS just isn't true. Failure is, in fact, an option.
Honestly, I think the key for UMass is getting McGuirk up to snuff as an on campus stadium. They need to expand and modernize the facility. Get it to a 25-30K capacity with proper bathroom facilities and concessions. With such a facility, there's no reason UMass cannot be a viable member of a G5 conference. The current stadium situation is the main thing that makes them horribly unattractive over the long term. Fix the stadium and I think UMass will eventually find a long term FBS conference home---be it Sun Belt or somewhere else.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2014 07:34 PM by Attackcoog.)
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry.
Except if there is no bleeding, there is no prospect of being bled dry.
Being FB-only in the Sunbelt over the next four years will likely put UMass FB on roughly the same terms as they would have been in the MAC, and would be better than going independent.
And joining the MAC would have meant walking away from the revenue from 3/4 of an NCAA BBall unit, plus their slice of the 1/4 of all A10 units that are distributed to all conference members ... and still more if they should get another bid in the coming four years ... their total AD budget should be in modestly better shape.
Whether or not stepping up to FBS makes sense in the first place, this arrangement would put UMass in no worse shape than the permanent solution actually on offer, to join the MAC all-sports.
If there was an all-sports spot open that would beat this, then it would be silly to not take it ... but that spot is not open at this point in time.
(05-14-2014 07:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Honestly, I think the key for UMass is getting McGuirk up to snuff as an on campus stadium. They need to expand and modernize the facility. Get it to a 25-30K capacity with proper bathroom facilities and concessions. With such a facility, there's no reason UMass cannot be a viable member of a G5 conference. The current stadium situation is the main thing that makes them horribly unattractive over the long term. Fix the stadium and I think UMass will eventually find a long term FBS conference home---be it Sun Belt or somewhere else.
The first step to that were the current upgrades, allowing the stadium to be used, and the second step is to start using it and selling it out.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2014 07:46 PM by BruceMcF.)
(05-14-2014 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote: Saying that UMass "has to" spend money like a big-boy FBS program or drop to FCS just isn't true. Failure is, in fact, an option.
Wrong. Its not even about spending money like a big FBS program, the cost of being the smallest FBS program is significantly greater than being an FCS program. First there's the additional travel costs,
4 road games a year. If travel costs meant a damn thing, the Sun Belt wouldn't have invited Idaho back.
Quote:next there's additional facilities costs- renting out Gillette stadium, upgrading campus stadium to meet FBS conference requirements,
They have Gillette practically rent free. And they've already spent the money to upgrade to MAC standards. We'll see if there's any agreement on upgrading the OCS for Sun Belt games.
Quote:not to mention all the little things needed to be competitive with even bottom FBS teams for recruiting in terms of locker rooms, training facilities, etc. Then there's the additional costs in coaching salaries and recruiting budgets,
Quote: and finally, there's a significant increase in the amount of full scholarships that must be provided- FBS has 22 additional scholarships to give out.
These are all significant cost increases just to get a seat at the FBS table, never mind keeping up with the Joneses.
They HAVE the seat. Much like EMU, once you have the seat, it is pretty easy to hang on to it.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2014 07:42 PM by johnbragg.)
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. It's like being short stacked in poker- you have to go all in on the next hand or you fold and walk away because if you don't the blinds will quickly bleed you dry. UMass cannot survive on temporary arrangements, they need a long term solution. Football-only in any conference, especially the Sun Belt, is not a long term solution. Going independent is not a long term solution. Waiting by the phone for that magical call from the AAC(not going to happen), the ACC(lol), or the B1G(LOL), is not a long term solution.
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
What is up with you and half ass FBS. We have just spent 36.5 million on a new Football facilities, new Sky and Press Box. Next year will spend around 2 million on a practice bubble, followed by new end zone seating.
This video take while under construction in April.
my point exactly! you've spent a TON of money on the program and yet refuse to commit to a long term solution in terms of conference affiliation. What happens when the SBC thing ends and the phone still hasn't rang from your dream list of suitors? What do you then? Where do you go? It's utterly insane.
What would be insane is UMASS giving its basketball program the death penalty by joining a one-bid league. UMASS took the risk of not finding a home for its football, but they came out a big winner in the end. Great move by UMASS.
fb only membership in the lowest paying conference, half way across the country? that's being a big winner? its not a long term solution. what happens when SBC says all in or all out? then what?
(05-14-2014 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote: Saying that UMass "has to" spend money like a big-boy FBS program or drop to FCS just isn't true. Failure is, in fact, an option.
Wrong. Its not even about spending money like a big FBS program, the cost of being the smallest FBS program is significantly greater than being an FCS program. First there's the additional travel costs,
4 road games a year. If travel costs meant a damn thing, the Sun Belt wouldn't have invited Idaho back.
Quote:next there's additional facilities costs- renting out Gillette stadium, upgrading campus stadium to meet FBS conference requirements,
They have Gillette practically rent free. And they've already spent the money to upgrade to MAC standards. We'll see if there's any agreement on upgrading the OCS for Sun Belt games.
Quote:not to mention all the little things needed to be competitive with even bottom FBS teams for recruiting in terms of locker rooms, training facilities, etc. Then there's the additional costs in coaching salaries and recruiting budgets,
Quote: and finally, there's a significant increase in the amount of full scholarships that must be provided- FBS has 22 additional scholarships to give out.
These are all significant cost increases just to get a seat at the FBS table, never mind keeping up with the Joneses.
They HAVE the seat. Much like EMU, once you have the seat, it is pretty easy to hang on to it.
EMU has full membership in a conference for 40 years. Its nowhere close to being the same as a temporary partial member in a far away conference. Nowhere close.
(05-14-2014 06:10 PM)johnbragg Wrote: Saying that UMass "has to" spend money like a big-boy FBS program or drop to FCS just isn't true. Failure is, in fact, an option.
Wrong. Its not even about spending money like a big FBS program, the cost of being the smallest FBS program is significantly greater than being an FCS program. First there's the additional travel costs,
4 road games a year. If travel costs meant a damn thing, the Sun Belt wouldn't have invited Idaho back.
And the alternative of going all-sports in the MAC would have involved higher travel costs for all Olympic sports. So on a relative comparison, if the travel cost subsidy they get out of the extra $1m to the Sunbelt even covers a substantial portion of their cost of FB travel, they would be clearly ahead in terms of net travel costs for all sports, after travel subsidy.
(05-14-2014 06:01 PM)perimeterpost Wrote: but what is the end game for UMass? This half way in/half way out approach to FBS is unsustainable and will bleed them dry. It's like being short stacked in poker- you have to go all in on the next hand or you fold and walk away because if you don't the blinds will quickly bleed you dry. UMass cannot survive on temporary arrangements, they need a long term solution. Football-only in any conference, especially the Sun Belt, is not a long term solution. Going independent is not a long term solution. Waiting by the phone for that magical call from the AAC(not going to happen), the ACC(lol), or the B1G(LOL), is not a long term solution.
UMass has to make a decision and make it soon- put your chips all in or get up from the table and walk away.
What is up with you and half ass FBS. We have just spent 36.5 million on a new Football facilities, new Sky and Press Box. Next year will spend around 2 million on a practice bubble, followed by new end zone seating.
This video take while under construction in April.
my point exactly! you've spent a TON of money on the program and yet refuse to commit to a long term solution in terms of conference affiliation. What happens when the SBC thing ends and the phone still hasn't rang from your dream list of suitors? What do you then? Where do you go? It's utterly insane.
What would be insane is UMASS giving its basketball program the death penalty by joining a one-bid league. UMASS took the risk of not finding a home for its football, but they came out a big winner in the end. Great move by UMASS.
fb only membership in the lowest paying conference, half way across the country? that's being a big winner? its not a long term solution. what happens when SBC says all in or all out? then what?
They've kicked the can down the road. They've had a chance to see if going back to the future in coaching can make the program more attractive, they've had time to try to build the fan base, they've had some time with a stable schedule.
If they can't get in the Sun Belt right now the choices are tough out independence or go FCS or say the hell with football all together.
If the get in the Sun Belt if the league tires of UMass before UMass finds a better fit they've created the chance to face independence stronger than they currently are.
Serious question, why would Sun Belt want UMass football only now that you don't need 12 to have a Conference Champ Game? They dont give App St the eastern travel partner Benson wanted. Seems odd, I dont see any benefit and more cons.
(05-14-2014 08:02 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: Serious question, why would Sun Belt want UMass football only now that you don't need 12 to have a Conference Champ Game?
That hasn't been passed, and we don't know when it will be, and they still need twelve to divide into geographic divisions, which is appealing to the Sunbelt on its own terms, independent of the CCG. Plus there's an extra $1m from the CFP money to the conference for each school up to 12.
Quote: They dont give App St the eastern travel partner Benson wanted.
But it keeps Liberty out, as App State wants, and paves the way for the Sunbelt to improve its BBall by promoting NMSU to all-sports.
(05-14-2014 08:05 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: If there was any upside at all to have a bottom feeder football only, the MAC wouldn't have gave UMass the boot.
The MAC doesn't get any of the upside, since it already has 12 all-sports ... it doesn't get any extra CFP money from having UMass, UMass did not allow splitting into divisions (that was NIU returning in '97 and Buffalo joining in '98), and UMass did not enable the CCG. All UMass w/out Temple did was make scheduling trickier and open the risk of two Eastern Division leaders who had not played each other to use the head to head tie breaker.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2014 08:17 PM by BruceMcF.)
(05-14-2014 08:02 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: Serious question, why would Sun Belt want UMass football only now that you don't need 12 to have a Conference Champ Game? They dont give App St the eastern travel partner Benson wanted. Seems odd, I dont see any benefit and more cons.
It makes sense because a 12 team with east west divisions makes more sense than some arbitrary single division championship derived from a formula. The idea for the pending legislation is to maximize bowl payouts and to prevent conferences from losing a championship game when raided.
Not to mention that existing FCS teams that are ready could be counted on one hand and it appears none of them could actually get enough votes to become members.
Its quite simple: UMASS gets us to a 12 team, two division format, is already FBS, and needs a home for football because the A-10 is the best place for their other sports. UMASS will give up some of their playoff money to defray travel expenses, making it expense neutral like IDAHO, and could very well likely throw in some BBALL games to sweeten the deal. Why wouldn't the SBC do that while waiting for some potential long term all-sports members to develop over the next couple years?
/
Sunbelt in discussion with U Mass
