(02-22-2012 04:47 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  Our only competition in this state (the 14th most populous in the nation) is a small Catholic university that apparently no longer cares about sports other than hockey. So if the entire universe could just slow down a damn second with the realigning, that would be much appreciated.

LOL....and that "small Catholic University" still managed to kick the crap out of Umass this past FB season with its worst team in 33 years (a BC team that lost to Duke!). Umass can only dream about the success BC athletics has enjoyed the last several decades.

Sorry for being a bit snippy, Last Minuteman. You are a good poster and I often agree with you. Also, while I am a BC grad, FB season ticket holder, and fan; I still wish my State's university well. However, when I read a ridiculous comment like the one above; well, hence this response.

http://umasshoops.com/board/viewtopic.ph...cceab5822c

UMass fans already talking like Temple fans. At this point I think it would be a mistake to let them continue in the MAC as football only. They clearly already talk down to the MAC and view it as a 2-3 year stepping stone and then they are off and we are left with another mess. I understand they want to do whats best for their program, but if they don't want to be here, then let them go now instead of later.

(02-22-2012 05:44 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 04:47 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  Our only competition in this state (the 14th most populous in the nation) is a small Catholic university that apparently no longer cares about sports other than hockey. So if the entire universe could just slow down a damn second with the realigning, that would be much appreciated.

LOL....and that "small Catholic University" still managed to kick the crap out of Umass this past FB season with its worst team in 33 years (a BC team that lost to Duke!). Umass can only dream about the success BC athletics has enjoyed the last several decades.

Yes, that was a very bad loss. The difference is, UMass fired the people responsible for that loss, and the worst 3 year coaching stint in 50 years (1 game under .500). BC fired coaches who were winning and the replacements haven't looked good yet. I seriously do question what the hell BC is thinking with its football program. Probably too soon to judge basketball.

I want the MAC to keep UMass. I think it would be a mistake to let them go.

(02-22-2012 05:33 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:28 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  If Temple leaves, the exit fee for UMass drops to $500k. The MAC does not want 13 members, and any new addition from FCS ranks would take 2+ years to transition, so the MAC might even consider UMass leaving a mutually agreeable separation. The main thing for UMass is, we don't want to wake up one morning and find out we've involuntarily become an independent. So if the Alliance offered us that assurance and the MAC didn't, it's a very easy decision.

All-sports is obviously a much more complicated discussion.

I understand the basketball issues. How will UMass view the A-10 without Temple? If the Alliance continues it's goal of eventually having four 6 team divisions that are as regional as possible, would that be enticing enough to get UMass all sports? Obviously if the Alliance wants to put together an eastern division starting with ECU, Marshall, UMass then the other 3 eastern members become difficult to identify. ODU, Buffalo, Toledo? Just guesses on my part.

Great point.

Temple basketball was the flagship of the A-10 and for UMass their biggest rival. Taking Temple out of the conference is a huge blow and might be what causes the A10 unravel.

Beyond Temple's status there is also a movement by the CAA to try and steal a few of the A-10 teams like Charlotte, Richmond and George Washington.....could there be a lot horsetrading whereby those schools move to the CAA and schools like Xavier and Dayton move to the Missouri Valley?

The demise of the A-10 is an idea that was out there that wasn't out there before.

(02-22-2012 06:00 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 05:44 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 04:47 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  Our only competition in this state (the 14th most populous in the nation) is a small Catholic university that apparently no longer cares about sports other than hockey. So if the entire universe could just slow down a damn second with the realigning, that would be much appreciated.

LOL....and that "small Catholic University" still managed to kick the crap out of Umass this past FB season with its worst team in 33 years (a BC team that lost to Duke!). Umass can only dream about the success BC athletics has enjoyed the last several decades.

Yes, that was a very bad loss. The difference is, UMass fired the people responsible for that loss, and the worst 3 year coaching stint in 50 years (1 game under .500). BC fired coaches who were winning and the replacements haven't looked good yet. I seriously do question what the hell BC is thinking with its football program. Probably too soon to judge basketball.

Re: coaching accountability. Almost the entire coaching staff on offense from last year are now gone. Next year, unless Spaz produces, he will be gone too. He knows this. Most of us who follow the team believe this one to be much improved. All those true freshmen, RS, and sophomores who played last year are now veterans. If we avoid the injury bug (unlike last year)' we will compete for the Atlantic Division of the ACC. We shall see.

(02-22-2012 04:47 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  UMass fans at this point are excited to be playing Akron, nevermind better FBS teams. The opponents aren't the issue.
Thanks to the supreme idiocy and mutual backstabbing of northeast universities, we'll be on an island anywhere we go. Even the Big East only has 2 teams in close proximity to us. 3 if they add Temple.

One thing we have going for us is that, as an A10 member, having football-only membership anywhere is no problem for us. We could probably even get by in the WAC football-only if we had to. If MWC/CUSA wants a 2nd football-only to counterbalance Hawaii and keep the non-football sports at an even number, we'd be best positioned to oblige. Or we could sit tight in the MAC and wait for them to add a 14th member, provided they don't terminate our deal.

I understand the concern about inviting recent FCS call-ups, but do you think the Big East regrets inviting UConn straight from FCS? It's incredibly frustrating to sit here and watch FBS football blow itself up from the moment UMass announced its FBS move. At this point I expect the BCS to secede from FBS and the NCAA to cancel football entirely before we get a chance to play our first FBS game in 6 months. It'd be nice to get an opportunity to show what we can do first. Our only competition in this state (the 14th most populous in the nation) is a small Catholic university that apparently no longer cares about sports other than hockey. So if the entire universe could just slow down a damn second with the realigning, that would be much appreciated.

I'm starting to warm up to the idea of UMass joining the Big East. I'm not so much for UMass, but I think UConn & UMass together would leave BC as an afterthought.

A UConn-UMass 1-A FB game would generate more interest in New England than Syracuse-BC.

The question that I have about UMass is would that prompt a "retaliation" by the ACC? Take UConn and Rutgers and then take their chances with Big East having a UMass team for football on an island.

If conferences are going to raid the Big East, I think they need to do it before the conference lands a new television contract.

I know there are critics of a prosperous new contract, but if an FCS conference can double their member payouts through a bidding war between CBS and NBC last week, then so will the Big East, and I just cannot see member schools moving for a slight bump in television revenues considering expenses in switching conferences and a rise in travel costs.

The bigger the television contract the Big East lands, the more stable the conference becomes. If this realignment has proved anything, it's all about the money and revenue now!

(02-22-2012 07:42 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  If conferences are going to raid the Big East, I think they need to do it before the conference lands a new television contract.

I know there are critics of a prosperous new contract, but if an FCS conference can double their member payouts through a bidding war between CBS and NBC last week, then so will the Big East, and I just cannot see member schools moving for a slight bump in television revenues considering expenses in switching conferences and a rise in travel costs.

The bigger the television contract the Big East lands, the more stable the conference becomes. If this realignment has proved anything, it's all about the money and revenue now!

I think the ACC from an academic and stability point of view would be a cut above the Big East, even if the payouts are similar. Geography would also triumph for most of the schools the ACC would consider (Rutgers, UConn, UCF??)

What is the CAA making per school with its new contract? Does anybody know?

(02-22-2012 08:55 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 07:42 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  If conferences are going to raid the Big East, I think they need to do it before the conference lands a new television contract.

I know there are critics of a prosperous new contract, but if an FCS conference can double their member payouts through a bidding war between CBS and NBC last week, then so will the Big East, and I just cannot see member schools moving for a slight bump in television revenues considering expenses in switching conferences and a rise in travel costs.

The bigger the television contract the Big East lands, the more stable the conference becomes. If this realignment has proved anything, it's all about the money and revenue now!

I think the ACC from an academic and stability point of view would be a cut above the Big East, even if the payouts are similar. Geography would also triumph for most of the schools the ACC would consider (Rutgers, UConn, UCF??)

What is the CAA making per school with its new contract? Does anybody know?

No slight to the Knights, but anyone who knows anything about the ACC knows they would never consider UCF.

(02-22-2012 07:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The question that I have about UMass is would that prompt a "retaliation" by the ACC? Take UConn and Rutgers and then take their chances with Big East having a UMass team for football on an island.

I very much doubt that the ACC would ever take Uconn and Rutgers together unless they could make more $$ per school, which is not likely to happen. Whether Umass is in the BE or not isn't going to factor in any ACC decision, IMO.

(02-22-2012 07:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The question that I have about UMass is would that prompt a "retaliation" by the ACC? Take UConn and Rutgers and then take their chances with Big East having a UMass team for football on an island.

UConn is only going to the ACC if ND takes them in, or if the ACC loses some schools to the SEC.

I guess that's about a 10% chance. I'm ok with that; I prefer the new Big East.

Hmmm, I'm starting to wonder if Temple to the Big East is such a "done" deal after all. Rumor mill has sure cooled down. MAC commish confirmed Big East and Temple were discussing possibilities, but that is it.

No word that Villanova has changed their stance and maybe exit early and fees associated are bigger issue than previously thought with MAC and A-10.

Big East needs another team this year, but maybe they are discovering after talks that it is not as easy as hoped for and Villanova is still against. Is it possible than that Big East just decides after recent talks that it is just less of a headache to spend the WVU money in helping Memphis or Boise to come early (or a new team like BYU for western schools). If Villanova is still against this and paying for Boise is cheaper to them after finding out the MAC and A-10 won't quietly hand them Temple, than this could be the case. The western schools don't want another east school like Temple either. They want Air Force or UNLV.

As rumored on another thread that maybe Boise and SDSU are having second thoughts, maybe because they are not happy with yet another eastern division school when they want more western schools?

Hawaii is a football-only member on the West Side of the Alliance/Merger. It would make a lot of sense to snag UMass as a football-only member on the East Side of the Alliance/Merger.

This would let the MAC to get back to its 12 traditional members and allow the Alliance/Merger to deal with the Hawaii imbalance in a very tidy manner. Solid all-around solution if needed.

The MAC agreement with UMass is an open-ended term agreement as long as both are members of the MAC and allows the MAC a few options if Temple withdraws:

1. UMass stays in the MAC with the open-ended agreement, with the future exit fee of $2.5M;
2. Find another Football Member; or
3. MAC offers full membership to UMass with a two-year (minimum) term agreement (upon approval of the MAC presidents), where the exit fee would be $500K if UMass withdrew before beginning the term, or $250K thereafter.

UMass can ask for a waiver of exit fees if they feel there are extraordinary circumstances, but can also waive the exit fee entirely by dropping back down to FCS.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54481290/Final...Conference

(02-22-2012 09:35 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(02-22-2012 07:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The question that I have about UMass is would that prompt a "retaliation" by the ACC? Take UConn and Rutgers and then take their chances with Big East having a UMass team for football on an island.

I very much doubt that the ACC would ever take Uconn and Rutgers together unless they could make more $$ per school, which is not likely to happen. Whether Umass is in the BE or not isn't going to factor in any ACC decision, IMO.

The ACC expanded because it wanted to not be left behind and in the process had a chance to gain big markets and improve basketball. Contrary to what people on these message boards believe there is not a war plan on how to kill the Big East.

There is no other BCS conference the ACC could raid besides the Big East.

(03-01-2012 12:00 AM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  Hawaii is a football-only member on the West Side of the Alliance/Merger. It would make a lot of sense to snag UMass as a football-only member on the East Side of the Alliance/Merger.

This would let the MAC to get back to its 12 traditional members and allow the Alliance/Merger to deal with the Hawaii imbalance in a very tidy manner. Solid all-around solution if needed.

That is what I think should happen as well.

(03-01-2012 09:49 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  1. UMass stays in the MAC with the open-ended agreement, with the future exit fee of $2.5M;
2. Find another Football Member; or
3. MAC offers full membership to UMass with a two-year (minimum) term agreement (upon approval of the MAC presidents), where the exit fee would be $500K if UMass withdrew before beginning the term, or $250K thereafter.

Or $0 if UMass completes the term.