(12-05-2010 02:47 PM)HuskieTap22 Wrote:  

(12-05-2010 02:10 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Well not the best news for UMass, however it makes a lot of sense for the conference to push for a long term deal and a large buy-out clause.

Regarding our situation, the Kraft’s and Gillette are very open to hosting UMass Football games and heard Jonathan Kraft spoke of it during a broadcast on Boston’s Sports Hub radio 98.5 FM. It should also be noted that Myra Kraft was a former member of the UMass board of trustees.

The media has reported that Commissioner Dr. Steinbrecher will be at UMass mid December, next week.

I hope a deal and invite get worked out. I am a fan of UMass and would love to see them in the MAC. I also like Temple and would hate to see them leave.

Yep.

We aren't talking about simply UMass but UMass + Temple.

I don't want to go back to the 12-team MAC.

The MAC made its official visit to UMass yesterday. Story linked here. Not much other new info though.

This blows.

Football only?? Why is that phrase even in our lexicon? It's like when insurance companies got us all to say "pre-existing condition", eventually it became the norm and accepted and we forgot how messed up the concept really is. Like a slutty girl with low self esteem, the MAC settles for random one night stands because it thinks no guy would want to date her for real. pathetic. call Temple's bluff!

Secondly, 14 teams and 3 bowls?? That's 11 more teams than tie ins. No other conference has anywhere near that big of a gap, not even the Sunbelt. By comparison, not one AQ conference has a gap greater than 4. And now we have to split the meager revenue shares from bowls and TV 14 ways? Why aren't we looking at deciding who our best 9 are and cutting some dead weight instead?

UMass fans, this is nothing personal, i really like your school but I'm concerned about the delution of an already deluted conference.

Doesn't it still depend on what happens with Temple? They're not getting an invite to the Big East, so they have to stay or go Independent. Only way they'd leave is if we forced them to join the MAC for all sports. If that's the case, no sense in bringing in UMass, as then we'd have an uneven number still. Not sure we need to dilute our meager revenues further. Temple does get some hype in the East, though I think most of that was because of Golden so that's gone now.

Not really sure how "adding markets" really helps, even assuming UMass brings a market with them. The conference is really showcased on ESPN during the week. The Toledo/UT game, e.g., was seen by a lot of people in markets nowhere near the MAC footprint. Even NIU, being close to Chicago, doesn't really bring the Chicago market. Maybe a little to NIU, but not to the MAC as a whole.

Do not despair, as I believe that this is an intermediary step. As it is, it does not make good sense if it is thought of to be final and permanent. I do not believe that either side thinks of the Temple situation as forever. I believe the MAC would like to see if others become available. BTW, I would like to see Delaware just because of their helmets.

Does anyone really think the difference between 1/12, 1/13, and 1/14 of a share of MAC bowl and TV revenues is significant? If you do, sell a couple hundred more logo sweatshirts and make up the difference. Raise the price of your hot dogs by a dime. It won't take long.

Does anyone think the addition of UMass for football only will improve the national perception of the MAC or increase our revenues significantly?

(12-15-2010 06:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Does anyone think the addition of UMass for football only will improve the national perception of the MAC or increase our revenues significantly?

No, and neither will not adding them. This conference is so stale something, anything, needs to happen.

The MAC is not just jumping on this for no reason. They have done their due diligance. Temple has nowhere to go for the foreseeable future. Adding schools to this point has expanded the football footprint and revenues. Buffalo was just plain not a college football market, not BE, not B10. College football gets horrible ratings here. But bringing in UB has made Buffalo more a MAC football market than people realize. We get many expanded covarage feeds of MAC contests, and UB football and the MAC gets top coverage on tv and print by a wide margin over SU football. UB has issues drawing fans out but we get double-digit local ratings.

With the other none-AQ league shifts, things will shift for the MAC. We will see increased revenues, no doubt. We can't assume there will be 3 bids for 14 schools, when there will be at least 4 new FBS schools upcoming. More bowls WILL be added, and as the WAC is currently losing their bowl ties we will see more ties.

People can't assume everything will stay static for the MAC. College football has never been a static enterprise.

And who believes the MAC is stale? In the last decade we moved FB championship games from campus sites to an NFL stadium, moved BB tournament games to an NBA stadium, had multiple ranked teams (the SBC has NEVER had a team reach the top 25 in any week EVER), a new stadium, new arenas and one on the way, many IPF'S, a few football-specific buildings, $millions$ in other facility improvemements, increased bowl tie-in's, and maintained its reputation as the Cradle of Coaches.

(12-15-2010 03:52 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  No other conference has anywhere near that big of a gap, not even the Sunbelt.

The SBC has the benefit of being a southern conference, in good position to travel more fans to bowl games which also mainly happen to be in the South.

(12-15-2010 05:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Not really sure how "adding markets" really helps, even assuming UMass brings a market with them. The conference is really showcased on ESPN during the week. The Toledo/UT game, e.g., was seen by a lot of people in markets nowhere near the MAC footprint. Even NIU, being close to Chicago, doesn't really bring the Chicago market. Maybe a little to NIU, but not to the MAC as a whole.

Regarding the Boston market, we have a lot of alumni in the region and do much better attendance wise than in Amherst. Our average football attendance was 13k and we drew nearly 33k at Gillette Stadium. There is a lot of intrinsic value in playing at Gillette and could be playing all our games there while upgrading the stadium. The same with basketball, we had 4,300 for Seton Hall in Amherst and had 10.5k against Boston College at the TD Garden.

Jon Steinbrecher seems to be a quality Commissioner and understand the desire for long term commitment. This seems to be address by pushing for a long term contract and a large buyout clause.

Quote:Every other league in the nation seems to be looking at expansion. How about the MAC?
Quite frankly, at every athletic director’s meeting or president’s meeting I’ve had in the past year, we’ve talked about membership. ‘Where are we? Do we feel good about each other?’ And we do, which is good. But we also ask, ‘What about the environment around us? Are there other schools that would match us philosophically and raise the bar?’ That’s an ongoing discussion. You never say never, but again, a lot of things would have to match up before you [expand]. It’s not something you go into lightly, because membership should not be a short-term thing. This is not a five-year marriage. This is a lifetime agreement. You hope there is a very strong courtship, with both parties asking the hard questions and learning everything they can.

http://collegefootball.about.com/od/conf...cher_2.htm

Hope we get an invite. Temple staying would be nice since we have an immediate rival while others develop.

Regarding the Boston Market, I'm really hungry for some chicken right now.

There's a chance that UMass can bring a bowl with it. The owners of Gillette Stadium definitely want a bowl game. I don't think MAC officials were visiting Gillette Stadium because they weren't sure the facilities were up to MAC standards. They could have been talking about helping Gillette through the bowl approval process. Gillette in late December ain't exactly a trip to the beach, but it beats Boise.

As for UMass hogging a slice of the MAC's revenue pie if it's admitted as a football-only, let's talk about that. You're earning something like $150,000 each from ESPN after your last contract extension, right? I think I read that it was a little under $2 million for the entire conference per year, please correct me if my numbers are outdated. So to bring in UMass, you'd each have to sacrifice 1/13th of that. That's about $11,500 each. And that's if you get absolutely $0 from our next door neighbors ESPN (1 hour drive from UMass) for adding us. I don't think that's much of a gamble. When the Big Ten considers expansion, they're risking millions of dollars each. In the MAC, we're talking about the catering tab at a decent wedding. I can't guarantee that UMass can immediately replace the $11.50, but I think between ESPN's affection for us, the freedom from your 13 team scheduling headache, and the potential bowl game, you've got much better than 50/50 odds of getting your money's worth. The scheduling thing alone is probably worth at least that much in terms of negotiation leverage for your non-conference games.

Plus, UMass to the MAC for all sports simply cannot happen. Doesn't matter how much pride or self-respect the MAC has. If you punch the numbers, it would actually be cheaper for UMass to join the WAC for all sports than the MAC, simply because they have much fewer members and we could fill in the blanks with local non-conference games. And the thing is, the MAC members would spend a hell of a lot more than $11,500 flying all of their non-revenue sports out to Amherst, plus then they'd have the 13 member headache in all their other sports. Just how much is UMass men's basketball worth to you, especially in its current condition? The price tag for basketball is way out of proportion to the price tag for football-only, more so for UMass but also for the MAC members.

(12-15-2010 11:05 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Regarding the Boston Market, I'm really hungry for some chicken right now.

Scrod for me. Guy goes to Boston and gets in a cab. Asks the driver where he can get scrod. Driver says:"I've been asked that question a lot but never in the pluperfect subjunctive."

I'm not as much against adding UMass as I sound. If you're going to balance out the divisions with an FCS school, UMass would be a good one. But it's a flight to UMass for most of the MAC schools, so basically the only fans at the UMass games will be UMass fans, which doesn't help how the attendance looks on TV. A bowl game in the north probably wouldn't be that popular, though better than Boise, and again, not that many people would travel there. The local fans would need to support it for that to survive. If the MAC schools got forced into buying a bunch of tickets for the bowl game there it would be a big money loser for any MAC team in it, except UMass.

Adding revenue doesn't mean much, if you're spending more than your revenue. Don't know if that's the case here, but I keep hearing about adding revenue as if it's in and of itself a good thing.

(12-15-2010 11:13 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  As for UMass hogging a slice of the MAC's revenue pie if it's admitted as a football-only, let's talk about that. You're earning something like $150,000 each from ESPN after your last contract extension, right? I think I read that it was a little under $2 million for the entire conference per year, please correct me if my numbers are outdated. So to bring in UMass, you'd each have to sacrifice 1/13th of that. That's about $11,500 each. And that's if you get absolutely $0 from our next door neighbors ESPN (1 hour drive from UMass) for adding us. I don't think that's much of a gamble.

We're not just splitting the TV money. We're also splitting any money we get from the BCS (worth over $2 million for the MAC in 2009) and the bowls (not much since none of our bowls pay much). Considering the WAC has now become worse than the Sun Belt the MAC is now in line to move up to at least third best non-BCS conference (and could easily compete for 2nd with CUSA not much better) and we will bring in additional BCS revenue (probably another $1 million). Plus, if any MAC school made a BCS bowl UMass would just be another mouth to feed.

Let's say we make $3 million in BCS revenue in 2011 and $2 million ESPN revenue. With 13 teams, each team makes just under $385,000. With 14 teams, each team makes just over $357,000. I'm not sure adding a 1-AA team is worth the loss of $28k, plus the additional expense of traveling all the way to Massachusetts.

The MAC needs to add schools that bring immediate value, such as Army. It has been brought up that Army doesn't want to join a conference. Then that is fine. But just because we can't get them now doesn't mean we should settle. The MAC is not hurting like the WAC.

(12-15-2010 11:13 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  the freedom from your 13 team scheduling headache...The scheduling thing alone is probably worth at least that much in terms of negotiation leverage for your non-conference games.

This isn't a headache or a problem. There are already far too many teams in the conference for everyone to play each other anyway. Adding a team for the sake of making it even divisions makes no sense.

(12-15-2010 11:13 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  There's a chance that UMass can bring a bowl with it. The owners of Gillette Stadium definitely want a bowl game. I don't think MAC officials were visiting Gillette Stadium because they weren't sure the facilities were up to MAC standards.

Seriously, having a bowl game in Boston is interesting.

It certainly could work if UMass was eligible year after year like that school playing out on the blue turf...

That said, I don't think the MAC would turn down a chance to host another bowl game (ala Little Caesars).

Best bowls are ones the conference controls with an automatic bid.

(12-16-2010 11:33 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-15-2010 11:13 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  There's a chance that UMass can bring a bowl with it. The owners of Gillette Stadium definitely want a bowl game. I don't think MAC officials were visiting Gillette Stadium because they weren't sure the facilities were up to MAC standards.

Seriously, having a bowl game in Boston is interesting.

It certainly could work if UMass was eligible year after year like that school playing out on the blue turf...

That said, I don't think the MAC would turn down a chance to host another bowl game (ala Little Caesars).

Best bowls are ones the conference controls with an automatic bid.

The bowl game won't be in Boston, it will be in Foxboro which is 45 min to an hour outside of Boston depending on the day and that is where all of the touristy stuff is located in downtown Boston and the surrounding area. Heck your closer to Providence and Pawtucket than you are from Boston.

I'm hoping the MAC goes to 14, turns around and says "gee, we're too big - we need to get rid of two underperforming schools!"

The MAC can encourage schools to step up without fear of losing a championship game.

(12-16-2010 11:44 AM)utpotts Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 11:33 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(12-15-2010 11:13 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  There's a chance that UMass can bring a bowl with it. The owners of Gillette Stadium definitely want a bowl game. I don't think MAC officials were visiting Gillette Stadium because they weren't sure the facilities were up to MAC standards.

Seriously, having a bowl game in Boston is interesting.

It certainly could work if UMass was eligible year after year like that school playing out on the blue turf...

That said, I don't think the MAC would turn down a chance to host another bowl game (ala Little Caesars).

Best bowls are ones the conference controls with an automatic bid.

The bowl game won't be in Boston, it will be in Foxboro which is 45 min to an hour outside of Boston depending on the day and that is where all of the touristy stuff is located in downtown Boston and the surrounding area. Heck your closer to Providence and Pawtucket than you are from Boston.

What matters is people would come and sure the Krafts will help promoting the game.

Quote:FOXBOROUGH, Mass. - In addition to setting the CAA conference attendance record of 32,848 at Gillette Stadium, the Colonial Clash set a league record for TV audience. The CAA reports that the Colonial Clash drew a record 0.88 TV rating on Comcast SportsNet. That means that more than 1,000,000 households were tuned into the UMass-UNH football game from Gillette Stadium.

A full rating point represents 1,159,000 households, so with a mark of 0.88, approximately 1,019,000 homes were tuned at to the Colonial Clash.

http://www.umassathletics.com/sports/m-f...10aaf.html