Don't flame me for bringing it up (since I know the conference has announced it is sticking at 14), and I only mention it because of discussion on the MAC Board of giving UMASS an ultimatum of either going all sports or out, and then speculation on where they go from there.

Wouldn't it be kind of cool if we could entice Army to join UMASS for football only in the new-look C-USA? The divisions would stack up like this, perhaps.

With Air Force and Navy being in conferences, might not Army reconsider being an independent? Yeah, it would probably mean a 9 game conference schedule with 7 in-division and 2 out leaving only 1 true OOC for Army with Air Force and Navy on the schedule, but I think our profile would be enhanced.

East:
UMASS, Army, Marshall, ODU, FIU, Charlotte, FAU, UAB

West:
USM, LT, WKU, MTSU, NT, UTSA, Rice, UTEP

Army could get into the AAC if it wanted to and has already tried CUSA 1.0. Not sure they yet have motivation to join any conference.

Without Army, UMass is on a very far island from the rest of the conference. Not sure there's another northeast team that makes any sense.

Yeah definitely not UMass. Do they even have a football team anymore?

When Tulsa was added, it was UMass that was reportly next in line for the AAC after them. Army has already been invited but declined. Would have helped in the northeast with UConn and Temple. You can have them if you can get them though, would rather stay where the AAC is right now.

No. What the hell does Army offer us? And really, what does UMass offer? UMass isn't even really geographically close to any team currently in the conference. Leave it at 14(should have left it at 12) and see what happens.

(06-03-2013 11:59 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  Don't flame me for bringing it up (since I know the conference has announced it is sticking at 14), and I only mention it because of discussion on the MAC Board of giving UMASS an ultimatum of either going all sports or out, and then speculation on where they go from there.

Wouldn't it be kind of cool if we could entice Army to join UMASS for football only in the new-look C-USA? The divisions would stack up like this, perhaps.

With Air Force and Navy being in conferences, might not Army reconsider being an independent? Yeah, it would probably mean a 9 game conference schedule with 7 in-division and 2 out leaving only 1 true OOC for Army with Air Force and Navy on the schedule, but I think our profile would be enhanced.

East:
UMASS, Army, Marshall, ODU, FIU, Charlotte, FAU, UAB

West:
USM, LT, WKU, MTSU, NT, UTSA, Rice, UTEP

I remember Army in the conference and it wasn't such a great deal. They do attract some fans, but the games were not interesting and the style of play that service academies usually adapt are so different from what you see that it calls for a special gameplan that you don't use again until you play them the next year. I really think having them back would not be that good of an idea overall in spite of the obvious benefits, the negatives brings it down to a neutral level.

(06-03-2013 12:23 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  No. What the hell does Army offer us? And really, what does UMass offer? UMass isn't even really geographically close to any team currently in the conference. Leave it at 14(should have left it at 12) and see what happens.

Army has a national following. They would be very helpful at putting TV money in your pocket and bringing some fans to your stadium.

Yeah, let AAC have both.

(06-03-2013 11:59 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  Don't flame me for bringing it up (since I know the conference has announced it is sticking at 14), and I only mention it because of discussion on the MAC Board of giving UMASS an ultimatum of either going all sports or out, and then speculation on where they go from there.

Wouldn't it be kind of cool if we could entice Army to join UMASS for football only in the new-look C-USA? The divisions would stack up like this, perhaps.

With Air Force and Navy being in conferences, might not Army reconsider being an independent? Yeah, it would probably mean a 9 game conference schedule with 7 in-division and 2 out leaving only 1 true OOC for Army with Air Force and Navy on the schedule, but I think our profile would be enhanced.

East:
UMASS, Army, Marshall, ODU, FIU, Charlotte, FAU, UAB

West:
USM, LT, WKU, MTSU, NT, UTSA, Rice, UTEP

I'll speak for WKU and say no thank you to that. Move us west without UAB. That would mean that except for MTSU, no other team closer than 7hrs. That would add 150 miles to our average distance between our other division schools over what we expect next year.

While if you added 2 western teams, thus moving UAB to the east... then it lowers our average distance between our other division schools by about 50 miles.

While I am on board with adding 2 more to get to 16. I like the structure. I'd like to go 9 conference games (7 div, 2 cross). I want UAB over with us, so no to Eastern Teams

If we were taking any MAC schools, give me Ohio and Kent State or Toledo. No to UMass.

I respect UMass as an athletic program after having been in the A10 with them for several years, but the reality is their football program is in shambles at the moment and their basketball team hasn't made the NCAA tournament in 15 years.

They are solid on the Olympic sports side of things, but CUSA already has a lot of quality olympic sports program. If we add at this point it better help out the revenue sports.

(06-03-2013 12:45 PM)Niner National Wrote:  If we were taking any MAC schools, give me Ohio and Kent State or Toledo. No to UMass.

I respect UMass as an athletic program after having been in the A10 with them for several years, but the reality is their football program is in shambles at the moment and their basketball team hasn't made the NCAA tournament in 15 years.

They are solid on the Olympic sports side of things, but CUSA already has a lot of quality olympic sports program. If we add at this point it better help out the revenue sports.

I visited Kent State when I was picking a college. No one should really want them, and I'll leave it at that. I don't disagree much with what you said about the state of UMass's programs, but one thing they do have going for them is being a 28k student flagship university of a pretty relevant and wealthy state, and have a 30 million dollar budget. They have potential and some uniqueness about them if for no other reason than that. At some point the state might decide they don't want to be one of the only small time state flagships and build them a stadium like the state did for UConn.

They have pretty good basketball still, top 50ish quality at least and have been a top FCS level school so there is something there to work with by comparison. If they built a quality on campus stadium I think they are next best candidate and I'd trade Tulane for them right now.

(06-03-2013 01:06 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 12:45 PM)Niner National Wrote:  If we were taking any MAC schools, give me Ohio and Kent State or Toledo. No to UMass.

I respect UMass as an athletic program after having been in the A10 with them for several years, but the reality is their football program is in shambles at the moment and their basketball team hasn't made the NCAA tournament in 15 years.

They are solid on the Olympic sports side of things, but CUSA already has a lot of quality olympic sports program. If we add at this point it better help out the revenue sports.

I visited Kent State when I was picking a college. No one should really want them, and I'll leave it at that. I don't disagree much with what you said about the state of UMass's programs, but one thing they do have going for them is being a 28k student flagship university of a pretty relevant state and have a 30 million dollar budget. They have potential and some uniqueness about them if for no other reason than that. They have pretty good basketball still, top 50ish quality at least and have been a top FCS level school so there is something there to work with by comparison. If they built a quality on campus stadium I think they are next best candidate. I'd trade Tulane for them right now.

Love your symbol and signature page......email me.......thanks:)

(06-03-2013 01:06 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 12:45 PM)Niner National Wrote:  If we were taking any MAC schools, give me Ohio and Kent State or Toledo. No to UMass.

I respect UMass as an athletic program after having been in the A10 with them for several years, but the reality is their football program is in shambles at the moment and their basketball team hasn't made the NCAA tournament in 15 years.

They are solid on the Olympic sports side of things, but CUSA already has a lot of quality olympic sports program. If we add at this point it better help out the revenue sports.

I visited Kent State when I was picking a college. No one should really want them, and I'll leave it at that. I don't disagree much with what you said about the state of UMass's programs, but one thing they do have going for them is being a 28k student flagship university of a pretty relevant and wealthy state, and have a 30 million dollar budget. They have potential and some uniqueness about them if for no other reason than that. At some point the state might decide they don't want to be one of the only small time state flagships and build them a stadium like the state did for UConn.

They have pretty good basketball still, top 50ish quality at least and have been a top FCS level school so there is something there to work with by comparison. If they built a quality on campus stadium I think they are next best candidate and I'd trade Tulane for them right now.

Well they're adding an expensive field house to their current stadium, so I think it is unlikely they'll be getting a new one any time soon. Their stadium looks like it could pretty easily be added on to though.

Something in the 30,000 range would be perfect for them. They're 90 miles from any major population centers so, I'm not sure they could ever really do much better than that with consistency.

(06-03-2013 01:23 PM)r2pirate Wrote:  Love your symbol and signature page......email me.......thanks:)

They should have just gave me the money. I whipped the AAC up on my Paint program It does look better than the A logo IMO and using the same idea's they had.

(06-03-2013 01:27 PM)Niner National Wrote:  Well they're adding an expensive field house to their current stadium, so I think it is unlikely they'll be getting a new one any time soon. Their stadium looks like it could pretty easily be added on to though.

Something in the 30,000 range would be perfect for them. They're 90 miles from any major population centers so, I'm not sure they could ever really do much better than that with consistency.

I wasn't aware of this. I thought they were playing in the Patriots stadium miles away.

(06-03-2013 12:29 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 12:23 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  No. What the hell does Army offer us? And really, what does UMass offer? UMass isn't even really geographically close to any team currently in the conference. Leave it at 14(should have left it at 12) and see what happens.

Army has a national following. They would be very helpful at putting TV money in your pocket and bringing some fans to your stadium.

No thanks. Don't think it helped a ton the first go around, rather not try it again.

Winning would also help bring some fans to our stadium. I'd rather wait and see what that would do.

I love West Point, but they haven't won much lately. Except against SMU.

(06-03-2013 01:39 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  No thanks. Don't think it helped a ton the first go around, rather not try it again.

Winning would also help bring some fans to our stadium. I'd rather wait and see what that would do.

Prior to our stadium expansion Army was some of the best attended games we ever played.

The only positive in adding Army is that we might get a good crowd from the big Army base here in El Paso. But that's it. Umass, definitely not, nothing special there. Let the ACK have them.

I say no to both of them.

Yes, you also have fans who like to watch ECU play. I have nothing against Army, I just don't think they'd be a good addition.