UMass's future will be in the Big East it just will take time to get there.

(05-06-2012 12:15 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  UMass's future will be in the Big East it just will take time to get there.

I believe even MAC realizes this and thinks UMass is using them as a stop gap for greener pastures like Temple did. If MAC forces UMass's hand and wants them to commit for all sports they'll probably be better off as a football independent for a short period of time.

With the potential moves still out there I think UMass may be a good fit for the Big East.

I Louisville leaves, easy replacement. If FSU and Clemson move to the Big 12 and the ACC tries to pick off a couple current Big East schools, UMass could be one of their replacements.

Question for MAC posters: What has the MAC really gotten out of Marshall, UCF and Temple passing through? OK, $6M in exit fees for Temple, but is that really a good enough reason to expand out of the footprint?

(05-06-2012 12:39 PM)ollin Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 12:15 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  UMass's future will be in the Big East it just will take time to get there.

I believe even MAC realizes this and thinks UMass is using them as a stop gap for greener pastures like Temple did. If MAC forces UMass's hand and wants them to commit for all sports they'll probably be better off as a football independent for a short period of time.

Which means they'll be leaving the A-10 in any scenario. So why not cut the cord now either in the form of UMass leaving the A-10 until they get their call up or the MAC cuts the cord now and lets UMass try independence and the MAC can stay at even 12 or expand into the mid-Atlantic with James Madison and another to get to 14. No more one-sport non-committed members, we are not the Big East. We are doing UMass a huge favor and getting nothing in return but an FCS team that will likely win 1 game.

(05-06-2012 10:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It was never proven. But there were a lot of rumors floating about that the payments began long before that, esayem...

Ok, but my main point was UMass has won conference titles before and after Camby.

On a side note, I don't see how punishing UMass because Temple ditched the conference is fair.

Who said life was fair?

(05-06-2012 01:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Question for MAC posters: What has the MAC really gotten out of Marshall, UCF and Temple passing through? OK, $6M in exit fees for Temple, but is that really a good enough reason to expand out of the footprint?

With the exception of Marshall, the others were all football-only deals just like UMass. None of the MAC fans want UMass as a football only for the reasons you have stated, but the conference for whatever reason keeps doing this. Fans are fed up. UCF was an obvious outcast and nobody was surprised they left. Temple was about to drop their football program all together and the MAC took them under their wings and nursed them to health and then they flew off.

However, the MAC did successfully add Northern Illinois and Buffalo and both are great for the conference and are fully committed and contribute. The MAC has successfully expanded into the New York market. I think James Madison would be a great fit and add Virginia to the mix and would contribute in all sports. If the MAC added one more with JMU (Appalachian State / Delaware / WKU / Stony Brook) then we should just part ways with UMass and let them take their own path.

.

It's a two way street. A-10 is still a basketball league and UMass is starting to recover so as long as they are making money for other A-10 schools, they won't kick out UMass. MAC, I'm not sure. It will depend on what happens in 2 years. If UMass attendance is above 25K and they are at least competitive I don't see them getting kicked out.

(05-06-2012 01:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 10:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It was never proven. But there were a lot of rumors floating about that the payments began long before that, esayem...

Ok, but my main point was UMass has won conference titles before and after Camby.

On a side note, I don't see how punishing UMass because Temple ditched the conference is fair.

UMass mutually agreed to a clause for the MAC to be able to drop them or add them all sports if Temple left. Temple has left and the MAC can now part ways at any time with notice. Its UMass choice to come all-in or they must leave. This is what UMass agreed to, it's not punishing them.

UMass and MAC contract

Reference page 6

.

True, but nothing in the MAC's history says they will kick out an affiliate. It is a great conference that is run by great people and I don't see them doing that.

(05-06-2012 01:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  True, but nothing in the MAC's history says they will kick out an affiliate. It is a great conference that is run by great people and I don't see them doing that.

The MAC wouldn't kick them out. The MAC is being the nice guy as you referenced and giving UMass their own choice as stated in the contract link previously posted. It specifically states that UMass has the choice of joining as a full member or if THEY choose not to, then they choose to no longer be an affiliate member.

The Minutemen's future is completely in their own hands and they agreed. Why would the MAC keep a school around who is non-committal and is basically saying they want to use us for FBS but aren't good enough to play other sports in? Pull your weight or get out. They will be leaving the A-10 in less then 2 years regardless of if it is to the MAC, Big East or CUSA.

(05-06-2012 01:28 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 01:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 10:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It was never proven. But there were a lot of rumors floating about that the payments began long before that, esayem...

Ok, but my main point was UMass has won conference titles before and after Camby.

On a side note, I don't see how punishing UMass because Temple ditched the conference is fair.

UMass mutually agreed to a clause for the MAC to be able to drop them or add them all sports if Temple left. Temple has left and the MAC can now part ways at any time with notice. Its UMass choice to come all-in or they must leave. This is what UMass agreed to, it's not punishing them.

UMass and MAC contract

Reference page 6

.

That's not what the agreement says. The agreement says that as a result of Temple leaving, the MAC must either:

1. leave the agreement as-is (it's open-ended for football only) ;
2. add another football member; or
3. convert the agreement from an open-ended agreement to a minimum 2-year term agreement with an offer of full membership.

It's not been made clear which route the MAC has chosen of those three. If they have gone the 3rd route, then the choice truly is up to UMass. But until then, the ball in is the MAC's court.

(05-06-2012 01:42 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 01:28 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 01:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 10:50 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It was never proven. But there were a lot of rumors floating about that the payments began long before that, esayem...

Ok, but my main point was UMass has won conference titles before and after Camby.

On a side note, I don't see how punishing UMass because Temple ditched the conference is fair.

UMass mutually agreed to a clause for the MAC to be able to drop them or add them all sports if Temple left. Temple has left and the MAC can now part ways at any time with notice. Its UMass choice to come all-in or they must leave. This is what UMass agreed to, it's not punishing them.

UMass and MAC contract

Reference page 6

.

That's not what the agreement says. The agreement says that as a result of Temple leaving, the MAC must either:

1. leave the agreement as-is (it's open-ended for football only) ;
2. add another football member; or
3. convert the agreement from an open-ended agreement to a minimum 2-year term agreement with an offer of full membership.

It's not been made clear which route the MAC has chosen of those three. If they have gone the 3rd route, then the choice truly is up to UMass. But until then, the ball in is the MAC's court.

You are correct, the MAC can exercise #3 as you stated. UMass is offered full membership, if UMass declines, the MAC can immediately put them on a 2 year term agreement and in 2014 they will be out. The 2 years works out good because that 2 years is equal to the transition time to bring in James Madison etc.

So UMass is out at the exact same time JMU and (maybe App State for example) is in. Then the MAC is at an even 14 all-sports and UMass will have either left the A-10 for the Big East if they were successful or they will be dropping football down to FCS or trying to hang on for a while as an independent. Works out great.

.

(05-06-2012 01:25 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(05-06-2012 01:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Question for MAC posters: What has the MAC really gotten out of Marshall, UCF and Temple passing through? OK, $6M in exit fees for Temple, but is that really a good enough reason to expand out of the footprint?

With the exception of Marshall, the others were all football-only deals just like UMass. None of the MAC fans want UMass as a football only for the reasons you have stated, but the conference for whatever reason keeps doing this. Fans are fed up. UCF was an obvious outcast and nobody was surprised they left. Temple was about to drop their football program all together and the MAC took them under their wings and nursed them to health and then they flew off.

However, the MAC did successfully add Northern Illinois and Buffalo and both are great for the conference and are fully committed and contribute. The MAC has successfully expanded into the New York market. I think James Madison would be a great fit and add Virginia to the mix and would contribute in all sports. If the MAC added one more with JMU (Appalachian State / Delaware / WKU / Stony Brook) then we should just part ways with UMass and let them take their own path.

Part of the issue with MAC additions is that they've always fallen behind the count when the unanticipated happens.

When the ACC raided the Big East for 3 unexpectedly suddenly Marshall and UCF find those southern based homes.

The SEC pulls Texas A&M and Missouri out of the Big XII and then Temple receives an all sport membership in the Big East. Nobody in the MAC Office could have predicted that back in 2005 when the Temple agreement was struck. Temple at that time was losing to bowl eligible MAC schools by 50-60 points. They came so far much faster than anyone expected.

There is also things that DID NOT happen that the MAC was preparing for like Miami and Toledo leaving for Conference USA. That might have looked good a decade ago but no more.

The moratorium on FCS move ups hurt the MAC's ability to find a 14th to balance the football divisions with Temple for a long time.

(05-05-2012 05:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  UMass would move to CUSA, who would take them immediately for all sports before moving its other teams to the MAC.

I don't think C-USA would take them right now at all. If they wanted UMass they would've invited them.

(05-05-2012 06:15 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  

(05-02-2012 12:50 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  The A-10 is not fond of football playing members and they had 3. Now two (Temple and Charlotte) are gone and the other is on its way out. Steinbrecher has been a great Commish and made sound moves.

Seven of the 15 projected A-10 members play football, close to half.

Butler (Football in Pioneer League)
Dayton (Football in Pioneer League)

Duquesne (Football in NEC)
Rhode Island (Football in NEC in 2013)

Fordham (Football in Patriot League)
Richmond (Football in CAA)

Massachusetts (Football in MAC)

That number could rise to 8 of 16, depending on what happens next.

None of the remaining A-10 schools place a priority in football besides UMass.

(05-06-2012 01:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Question for MAC posters: What has the MAC really gotten out of Marshall, UCF and Temple passing through? OK, $6M in exit fees for Temple, but is that really a good enough reason to expand out of the footprint?

I have no clue what the presidents of the MAC institutions are thinking. These football-only arrangements make no sense.

All we are doing is splitting the $$, bowl games, tv exposure, etc. more ways and getting nothing in return.

If these schools committed for all-sports then it would be somewhat more understandable.

It puts MAC teams in different regions and gains exposure.

(05-06-2012 04:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  It puts MAC teams in different regions and gains exposure.

Then lobby for the ACC to add Idaho football-only so you can add exposure in the Northwest. Nevermind the ACC will have an odd number for scheduling purposes. See how that works? ACC fans would throw a fit just like MAC fans.

.