If the BE added a Villanova or UMass for football, they would be the laughingstock of college football. Don't even get me started on Temple.

For the millionth time, just because you have a team in your league located in Philadelphia does not necessarily guarantee you any sort of market share. I submit the following examples into evidence: 1)Houston - the Coogs do not generate ANY ratings in their market for either football or basketball, and they actually have some tradition; Depaul - they have tons of tradition and still generate very little ratings in the Chicago market when they play.

For those BE schools that are absolutely determined to have a NE conference, then your hope is either Penn St. or MOVE ON!

Yes the absurd comments that the BE should become the Big South by adding schools like Smiss,ECU are totally without basis.These schools are at best the third best in their own states.

<a href='http://umassathletics.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/121003aaa.html' target='_blank'>http://umassathletics.collegesports.com/sp.../121003aaa.html</a>

That link is for the people who acted like know it alls and said Umass doesnt have interest in moving up.

Incase people are too lazy, ill post it here as well.

UMass To Lay Groundwork For Division I-A Football
Minutemen will remain at Division I-AA level for the time being.


Dec. 10, 2003

Guided by the findings of a feasibility report, members of a special athletics study committee today said that UMass Amherst should remain at the I-AA level for the time being but continue to lay the groundwork for an eventual move to Division I-A football.

"As with any major initiative requiring a significant capital investment, we need to make preparations and to be ready to strike when we see an opportunity that will bring us a high degree of success," said James J. Karam, co-chairman of the University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics.

"There is a strong and eager constituency for Division I-A football, but we should not take this step until we have all the ingredients needed to make the move an unqualified and enduring success,'' added committee co-chair Robert Meers.

Meeting in Boston, members of the ad hoc athletics committee reviewed the findings of a study (available here) that examined the feasibility of creating a privately-funded Division I-A football program at the University's flagship campus in Amherst. Citing uncertainty in two critical areas - the economy and prospects for affiliation with a major conference - the authors of the study recommended that the University continue to build its athletics and football programs and revisit the Division I-A issue within three to five years.





The study, conducted by Chicago-based Grenzebach Glier & Associates, Inc., notes that, "The question of Division I-A football at UMass Amherst is generally regarded as a decades-long campus conversation."

During that period, the Amherst campus has fielded a Division I-AA football team that has enjoyed considerable success -- winning the Division I-AA national championship in 1998 and concluding a highly successful season in 2003.

The authors of the study cited an array of factors that would make a move to Division I-A football desirable, noting that a successful Division I-A program can boost student and faculty recruitment, energize alumni and generate additional private financial support.

The factors indicating the need for a more deliberate approach are the national and regional economic slump, which currently make it more difficult to generate the funds needed to make a Division I-A football program self-sufficient, and the recent athletic conference shifts, which raise questions about the availability of an appropriate conference affiliation.

Karam, a member of the University's Board of Trustees, said the study of the Division I-A football question, "is already paying significant dividends." Karam added: "As a result of this undertaking, we have developed a roadmap for success. We have been able to make powerful new friends for UMass Amherst football, and we see that UMass football is generating new levels of excitement and energy. This augurs well for the future."

Said Meers: "UMass Amherst football is heading in the right direction -- on and off the field."

Karam also said, "Under Chancellor John Lombardi's leadership, an athletics program that already enjoys considerable success is going to reach new heights.''

In an effort to position UMass football and athletics for greater success, the ad hoc committee recommended the following actions:

The Chancellor of UMass Amherst will develop a five-year plan for intercollegiate athletics that includes the continued development of the current football program at Division I-AA level (with scholarships). This plan will include the following elements:


Development of 501c3 athletic association to encompass the entire intercollegiate athletic department's revenue and expenses.
Development of a fundraising plan capable of sustaining the intercollegiate athletic program at competitive levels for football and the other sports the university sponsors.
Development of a capital plan to address facilities issues for football at the Division I-AA level and other sponsored sports at the Division I level.
Development of a budget plan that ensures fiscal solvency of the intercollegiate athletic program within three to five years.
Development of a promotional plan that will build the audiences for Minuteman intercollegiate sports in football, basketball (men's and women's), hockey and other programs as appropriate.
The Chancellor of UMass Amherst will work with the athletic director and others as needed to monitor the continuously changing environment of college football to identify opportunities for change in the level of football competition. When such opportunities arise, the campus will request another review of the support available for Division I-A football.

The Chancellor will report on the progress of these initiatives annually through the President to the Athletic Committee of the Board of Trustees.

The committee members said they believe that UMass Amherst has the potential to improve the operations, performance and revenue-generating capacity of its intercollegiate athletic programs, and that the campus must do so if it is to succeed in taking advantage of opportunities that may arise in the future.


UMass Athletics Football

I agree that the fanbase is something that needs work, but for division 1-AA an average attendance of 8k is not bad at all. Hell some D-1A schools average about that. If they moved up to 1-A i think with the new excitement around the area they could easily get 15,000 pergame. With time that number would grow, when i said they could re-establish the Boston market, i never meant they would be more popular then Pro teams or even Boston College. However Umass is a MUCH bigger school than BC and have alot more alum and students with family in the area, once again over time that would raise interest. UMass at first glance is not a great member but there is alot of potential there. I have friends who go their and i have been on campus a good amount of time and they really do want a d-1A football team, and i think they would at least within enough years be able to average as much as Cincy does.

Nightwish1094 Wrote:That link is for the people who acted like know it alls and said Umass doesnt have interest in moving up.

UMass is definitely one of the handful of I-AA teams looking to move up. But like I said before, fan support is a bit of an issue. Average attendance of 8,000 in I-AA really isn't bad, but there are about 30 I-AA teams with better attendance. Maybe UMass would see a huge increase in attendance like UConn did when they went I-A. Who knows.

Villanova and UMass have both looked into what it would take to move up to Division I-A. Both will be taking a look at it again in the near future. Especially Villanova. A team in Philadelphia (even if its Temple) is a little more useful to the future league than a team in Western Massachusetts, but anyone who plays football and has a decent basketball team in the Northeast is greatly preferrable to foolishly setting ourselves up for a Deep South Drive By from the SEC or ACC.

Those absurd C-USA teams may be 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in their state, but they would still be able to consistently beat 75% of the Big East as it stands now. :laugh:

UConn Football Attendance as DI-AA
Year – Total – Average – Record
1986 – 43,105 – 8,621 –– 8-3
1987 – 39,906 – 6,651 –– 7-4
1988 – 26,945 – 5,389 –– 7-4
1989 – 48,545 – 9,709 –– 8-3
1990 – 44,940 – 8,988 –– 6-5
1991 – 43,130 – 8,626 –– 3-8
1992 – 45,594 – 7,599 –– 5-6
1993 – 42,950 – 8,590 –– 6-5
1994 – 71,976 – 11,996 – 4-7
1995 – 64,776 – 10,796 – 8-3
1996 – 45,395 – 9,079 –– 5-6
1997 – 49,377 – 8,230 –– 7-4
1998 – 52,660 – 8,777 – 10-3
1999 – 57,770 – 9,628 – 4-7
Avg. – 48,362 – 8,763 – 6-5

Montana and Delaware average over 20k but typical DI-AA programs average 8-10k.
UMass and Villanova are your typical DI-AA programs but there are different between a state university and a private school. Your typical public schools draw their students’ body from mostly local resident and after they finish school they return home. These alumni are most likely candidate that made up your attendance. On the other hand private schools attract students from all over the country and when they finish their education most of them return to where they are from. So these private schools count on local resident for attendance support that has no emotional tie to the school. Doable but hard.

UConn may not be ideal model to pattern after but public school has a better chance of duplicate UConn success than private school.

In the end, fan support is very import. They show up even again weak opponents and still donate during the down years

In 1999, UConn has 56 scholarships on their rosters.
2000 – 65 scholarships but 80% make up of DI-AA talent and UConn is not as good as Delaware or Montana. During this time our coaches have only a big hole in the ground at East Hartford to show recruits.
2001 – 72 scholarships, more DI-A talent but none the level of Miami of the world. USF and Middle Tenn. St. beat us easily. Some structure in big hole in the ground for prospect to see.
2002 – 83 scholarships, more DI-A talent with under class players replacing upper class team mates in dept chart. Now prospects can see a structure resembling a stadium without any aid of drawing or pictorial illustration
2003 – New Stadium, $92 million, 40k seats
2004 – First bowl game
2006 – $42 million football practice facilities

UConn Football Attendance during transition years (2000 – 2001)
Year – Total – Average – Record
2000 – 70,830 – 14,166 – 3-8
2001 – 72,680 – 14,536 – 2-9

UConn Football Attendance as official DI-A (2002)
Year – Total – Average – Record
2002 – 94,842 – 15,807 – 6-6 (98% of stadium capacity)
2003 – 222,354 – 37,059 – 9-3 (40k stadium in East Hartford ~30 min from Storrs)
2004 – 275,128 – 39,304 – 8-4 (1st year in the BE & 1st bowl)