(02-27-2017 02:45 PM)panama Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:02 AM)p23570 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:50 AM)esayem Wrote:  UMass has proven if they have winning teams, the fanbase shows up. It's there, waiting for a reason. It could be a northeastern thing, I don't know, but it's not like there is a shortage of great sports to compete with in the area: the Patriots and Celtics for example. That's why comparisons to Iowa and Wyoming are ridiculous; those states have nothing else going on. UMass has a ton of alumni too, so when they are decent those attendance numbers will go up.

I don't believe they have a fanbase problem, just a winning problem. I commend UMass for taking the risk because unlike many other schools making the jump they absolutely have a high ceiling.

Wyoming has a similar AD budget, better fan support, better donations, better licensing, and requires much less subsidy to operate. It is a great comparison as it shows that population is meaningless. HAving less than a million people but twice as many football fans as UMAss speaks volumes about the support.

The reason you don't like me talking about it is because it highlights the shortcomings of UMAss, and presents a good case to drop to FCS.

What attendance data do you think suggests UMAss has large number of fans when they win?

That's the problem here. You guys keep making bogus claims about extra income from being in FBS and benefits to the schools budget and a great fanbase but there is nothing to back that up. Nothing. Fan support beyond hockey is terrible.

You do realize that this is a message board and your ramblings are non binding.

Never said they were. Did you want to discuss UMass football or me? Seems like the latter.

I Was just looking at Arkansas St football data. IF UMass could get up to the level of Arkansas St football I would say they could make a great case for FBS. Arkansas's little brother has a pretty impressive program. More so than BC's little brother.