(03-28-2014 09:33 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:32 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 07:46 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 05:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I think should be mentioned:

It's a little unfair to dog UMass for their on-campus stadium. The UMass FBS plan was Gillette. They only needed McGuirk for Tuesday/WEsdnesay MACtion games. And really, if the Gillette Stadium games were drawing 20-30,000 people each, there wouldn't be nearly as many people ragging on the facilities in Springfield.

But there aren't 20,000 people going to UMass games at Gillette. THAT's the UMass FBS problem.

gillete is 2 hours from their campus this honestly can't be their long term solution

do they expect students to drive 2 hours to catch the games?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I Thought the idea was that you'd get 30,000 in the stands just from Boston-area folks who can't get PAtriots tickets. "Gillette is 2 hours from their campus, that's too far" is another way of saying "UMass is 2-3 hours from their Boston metro area fanbase, that's too far."

Wasn't the whole point to tap the Boston-area market? IF Gillette is too far from campus, then an OCS is also too far away from the alumni who with actual jobs.

they still represent Massachusetts, they could be 6 hours away as long as they are "the University of Massachusetts" they will have a strong following in Boston with some exposure and success. FSU is thousands of miles from the vast majority of the Florida population, they still average 80k a game.
which brings me to my next point its 5/6 games a year, adult fans can travel. a 100k A&M fans travel from houston to A&M for every game, fsu fans travel etc. you know who cant travel 2hours for every home game? the students, students are a huge part of the game atmosphere and will eventually become the alumni base, their incorporation is vital.

umass was averaging better attendance in the fcs in their OCS than the FBS with gillete

You just don't get the Northeast, and specifically Boston. Massachusetts is not going to rally around UMass because they "represent Massachusetts" - they have pro sports for that. At the collegiate level they root for the school they went to which is likely private. Harvard, BU, BC, Northeastern, MIT, Holy Cross, Springfield, Amherst alums (and on and on) are not going to switch. For many, they have families that have attended the same school for 4,5,6 generations.

If you notice, the only people advocating UMass are from the south and just see "state U" and think that is enough. Tulsa (which I think is a horrible add) got in over UMass - that is about all you need to knowm

tulsa was invited when they were top 25 in football and the most wins of any AAC team over the last 10 years. umass is horrific at the moment and at that time we needed football reputation.

the earliest we'd even consider adding them is maybe 3 years, if they can get their house in order by then, im fine with them

and they got kicked out of the MAC by choice something you're blatantly ignoring.
and do you think everyone in the south went to their state U? no ...its about representation. no one is asking them to give up ties to their alma mater. but your ignorant to the situation if you don't think a successful umass won't be headline news in boston. umass has the potential to create an extreme amount of t-shirt fans. if umass beat bama your blind if you don't think the entire state wont be celebrating

you're looking at umass that has played fcs throughout its history and has failed in its few years in the FBS. a good/decent umass at the top level with some tv exposure will be at whole new level

(03-28-2014 09:46 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:41 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:33 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:32 AM)pesik Wrote:  they still represent Massachusetts, they could be 6 hours away as long as they are "the University of Massachusetts" they will have a strong following in Boston with some exposure and success. FSU is thousands of miles from the vast majority of the Florida population, they still average 80k a game.
which brings me to my next point its 5/6 games a year, adult fans can travel. a 100k A&M fans travel from houston to A&M for every game, fsu fans travel etc. you know who cant travel 2hours for every home game? the students, students are a huge part of the game atmosphere and will eventually become the alumni base, their incorporation is vital.

umass was averaging better attendance in the fcs in their OCS than the FBS with gillete

You just don't get the Northeast, and specifically Boston. Massachusetts is not going to rally around UMass because they "represent Massachusetts" - they have pro sports for that. At the collegiate level they root for the school they went to which is likely private. Harvard, BU, BC, Northeastern, MIT, Holy Cross, Springfield, Amherst alums (and on and on) are not going to switch. For many, they have families that have attended the same school for 4,5,6 generations.

If you notice, the only people advocating UMass are from the south and just see "state U" and think that is enough. Tulsa (which I think is a horrible add) got in over UMass - that is about all you need to knowm

I fully understand those dynamics. I advocate adding UMass, provided they have a solid stadium plan in place. I know it will be hard to get Mass to rally around state u, it wasn't easy for UConn either. UConn gets many of its fans from the community at large though, many probably didn't even go to college. UMass could accomplish that with greater exposure and committment to success.

Literally the only question that should be asked is "will 'x' team bring more tv money"? For UMass the answer is a resounding no. The fact that they got kicked out of the MAC should be enough to value them. We just don't need any more projects.

This whole conference is a project. That's why I find this line of thinking so laughable.

While there is some truth there---there are projects and then, there are PROJECTS. Painting the bathroom cabinets is a project. Lifting the home off it's footings and rebuilding the foundation is a PROJECT. UMass is more the latter than the former.

(03-28-2014 09:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 05:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I think should be mentioned:

It's a little unfair to dog UMass for their on-campus stadium. The UMass FBS plan was Gillette. They only needed McGuirk for Tuesday/WEsdnesay MACtion games. And really, if the Gillette Stadium games were drawing 20-30,000 people each, there wouldn't be nearly as many people ragging on the facilities in Springfield.

But there aren't 20,000 people going to UMass games at Gillette. THAT's the UMass FBS problem.

The UMass problem is they dont have FBS level facilities. They don't have FBS attendance. They dont have a football team performing at an FBS level. The problem is they are currently a mid-level FCS school masquerading as an FBS school. It's not complicated. They are not attractive for a reason. If they get these issues fixed, they might be a lot more attractive--but right now, they are not really a viable FBS addition for the AAC.

Our attendance is going to be way up this year. Everyone knows we need to do more upgrades at McGuirk stadium. This round of renovations were because we moved to the MAC, the next round of renovations could start because the AAC tells us to. Renovations at UMass just need something or someone to push them to make them happen.

Also, regarding performance, I'll say this again, this is only SEASON #3 of our transition. The last two years all of the upperclassmen were guys recruited to play FCS football. You need at least 5 seasons to get a good flow of FBS talent coming in. Ask Western Kentucky.

(03-28-2014 09:41 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  Literally the only question that should be asked is "will 'x' team bring more tv money"? For UMass the answer is a resounding no. The fact that they got kicked out of the MAC should be enough to value them. We just don't need any more projects.

Kicked out of the MAC? We said no thank you to the MAC's offer. They wanted us for all sports, we said no.

I think we should extend a 2 year invite for everything BUT football. If they fix Football they get a full invite. If they don't we can kick them or keep them for olympic sports or whatever.

(03-28-2014 10:07 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:41 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  Literally the only question that should be asked is "will 'x' team bring more tv money"? For UMass the answer is a resounding no. The fact that they got kicked out of the MAC should be enough to value them. We just don't need any more projects.

Kicked out of the MAC? We said no thank you to the MAC's offer. They wanted us for all sports, we said no.

I'd have to agree on this point. The institution wasn't kicked out of the MAC. The MAC actually invited them and UMass rejected the offer which ended in the MAC terminating their associate membership.

(03-28-2014 10:09 AM)DowdyPirate Wrote:  I think we should extend a 2 year invite for everything BUT football. If they fix Football they get a full invite. If they don't we can kick them or keep them for olympic sports or whatever.

Not a bad idea.

(03-28-2014 10:06 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 05:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I think should be mentioned:

It's a little unfair to dog UMass for their on-campus stadium. The UMass FBS plan was Gillette. They only needed McGuirk for Tuesday/WEsdnesay MACtion games. And really, if the Gillette Stadium games were drawing 20-30,000 people each, there wouldn't be nearly as many people ragging on the facilities in Springfield.

But there aren't 20,000 people going to UMass games at Gillette. THAT's the UMass FBS problem.

The UMass problem is they dont have FBS level facilities. They don't have FBS attendance. They dont have a football team performing at an FBS level. The problem is they are currently a mid-level FCS school masquerading as an FBS school. It's not complicated. They are not attractive for a reason. If they get these issues fixed, they might be a lot more attractive--but right now, they are not really a viable FBS addition for the AAC.

Our attendance is going to be way up this year. Everyone knows we need to do more upgrades at McGuirk stadium. This round of renovations were because we moved to the MAC, the next round of renovations could start because the AAC tells us to. Renovations at UMass just need something or someone to push them to make them happen.

Also, regarding performance, I'll say this again, this is only SEASON #3 of our transition. The last two years all of the upperclassmen were guys recruited to play FCS football. You need at least 5 seasons to get a good flow of FBS talent coming in. Ask Western Kentucky.

I agree. The reality is a school needs to build facilities that fit. The UMass facilities are not in line with typical FBS facilities. Performance will likely improve. That said, facilities are a significant factor in recruiting--so efforts to improve are going to require facilities upgrades. This is why the argument of "we must have an invite to "x" conference before upgrading don't make sense to me. You should have FBS facilities to be FBS. UMass skipped this step, much like Villanova wanted to do.

(03-28-2014 10:03 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:33 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:32 AM)pesik Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:16 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 07:46 AM)pesik Wrote:  gillete is 2 hours from their campus this honestly can't be their long term solution

do they expect students to drive 2 hours to catch the games?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I Thought the idea was that you'd get 30,000 in the stands just from Boston-area folks who can't get PAtriots tickets. "Gillette is 2 hours from their campus, that's too far" is another way of saying "UMass is 2-3 hours from their Boston metro area fanbase, that's too far."

Wasn't the whole point to tap the Boston-area market? IF Gillette is too far from campus, then an OCS is also too far away from the alumni who with actual jobs.

they still represent Massachusetts, they could be 6 hours away as long as they are "the University of Massachusetts" they will have a strong following in Boston with some exposure and success. FSU is thousands of miles from the vast majority of the Florida population, they still average 80k a game.
which brings me to my next point its 5/6 games a year, adult fans can travel. a 100k A&M fans travel from houston to A&M for every game, fsu fans travel etc. you know who cant travel 2hours for every home game? the students, students are a huge part of the game atmosphere and will eventually become the alumni base, their incorporation is vital.

umass was averaging better attendance in the fcs in their OCS than the FBS with gillete

You just don't get the Northeast, and specifically Boston. Massachusetts is not going to rally around UMass because they "represent Massachusetts" - they have pro sports for that. At the collegiate level they root for the school they went to which is likely private. Harvard, BU, BC, Northeastern, MIT, Holy Cross, Springfield, Amherst alums (and on and on) are not going to switch. For many, they have families that have attended the same school for 4,5,6 generations.

If you notice, the only people advocating UMass are from the south and just see "state U" and think that is enough. Tulsa (which I think is a horrible add) got in over UMass - that is about all you need to knowm

tulsa was invited when they were top 25 in football and the most wins of any AAC team over the last 10 years. umass is horrific at the moment and at that time we needed football reputation.

the earliest we'd even consider adding them is maybe 3 years, if they can get their house in order by then, im fine with them

and they go kicked out of the MAC by choice something your blatantly ignoring.
and do you think everyone in the south went to their state U? no ...its about representation. no one is asking them to give up ties to their alma matter. but your ignorant to the situation if you don't think a successful umass won't be headline news in boston. umass has the potential to create an extreme amount of t-shirt fans. if umass beat bama your blind if you don't think the entire state wont be celebrating

you're looking at umass that has played fcs throughout its history and has failed in its few years in the FBS. a good/decent umass at the top level with some tv exposure will be at whole new level

They got kicked out by CHOICE?! What? They wanted to keep their football team in the MAC, the MAC didn't want it alone - "the MAC Presidents Council elected to exercise a clause in the membership agreement that forced UMass to either leave the league after two seasons or become a full member in all sports. " That wasn't a choice, that was a failure on the administration to foresee this and they are spinning it.

And this is giving a lot of steam to the people at UMass trying to kill that football program. The school's budget has been repeatedly bludgened by the legislature, and the football team is sucking money out of the general fund, and now has nowhere to play. If you think this is a good investment for the AAC then I pray you don't handle other people's money.

And, for those who keep forgetting - WE HAVE 12 FOOTBALL TEAMS ALREADY - what the hell do we need UMass for?

(03-28-2014 10:12 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:07 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:41 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  Literally the only question that should be asked is "will 'x' team bring more tv money"? For UMass the answer is a resounding no. The fact that they got kicked out of the MAC should be enough to value them. We just don't need any more projects.

Kicked out of the MAC? We said no thank you to the MAC's offer. They wanted us for all sports, we said no.

I'd have to agree on this point. The institution wasn't kicked out of the MAC. The MAC actually invited them and UMass rejected the offer which ended in the MAC terminating their associate membership.

I agree... The funniest thing, I think, is also on the flip-side: Nobody here is commenting on how the MAC has decided to REJECT the idea of even a partial hybrid conference. The MAC offered to take UMass in total or not at all.

Navy will always be a special case. You might not like it, but all the Service Academies are different than "ordinary" schools. But outside of the Service Academies, here is yet another conference saying "NO" to a hybrid arrangement.

Kudos to the MAC. It's the right choice. Let's NOT repeat their mistake.

(03-28-2014 10:13 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:06 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 05:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I think should be mentioned:

It's a little unfair to dog UMass for their on-campus stadium. The UMass FBS plan was Gillette. They only needed McGuirk for Tuesday/WEsdnesay MACtion games. And really, if the Gillette Stadium games were drawing 20-30,000 people each, there wouldn't be nearly as many people ragging on the facilities in Springfield.

But there aren't 20,000 people going to UMass games at Gillette. THAT's the UMass FBS problem.

The UMass problem is they dont have FBS level facilities. They don't have FBS attendance. They dont have a football team performing at an FBS level. The problem is they are currently a mid-level FCS school masquerading as an FBS school. It's not complicated. They are not attractive for a reason. If they get these issues fixed, they might be a lot more attractive--but right now, they are not really a viable FBS addition for the AAC.

Our attendance is going to be way up this year. Everyone knows we need to do more upgrades at McGuirk stadium. This round of renovations were because we moved to the MAC, the next round of renovations could start because the AAC tells us to. Renovations at UMass just need something or someone to push them to make them happen.

Also, regarding performance, I'll say this again, this is only SEASON #3 of our transition. The last two years all of the upperclassmen were guys recruited to play FCS football. You need at least 5 seasons to get a good flow of FBS talent coming in. Ask Western Kentucky.

I agree. The reality is a school needs to build facilities that fit. The UMass facilities are not in line with typical FBS facilities. Performance will likely improve. That said, facilities are a significant factor in recruiting--so efforts to improve are going to require facilities upgrades. This is why the argument of "we must have an invite to "x" conference before upgrading don't make sense to me. You should have FBS facilities to be FBS. UMass skipped this step, much like Villanova wanted to do.

Stadium facilities UMass has absolutely skipped this step, but UMass is building I forget the exact number but something like a $35 - $40 million football for weights, training, video and office.

(03-28-2014 09:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 05:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I think should be mentioned:

It's a little unfair to dog UMass for their on-campus stadium. The UMass FBS plan was Gillette. They only needed McGuirk for Tuesday/WEsdnesay MACtion games. And really, if the Gillette Stadium games were drawing 20-30,000 people each, there wouldn't be nearly as many people ragging on the facilities in Springfield.

But there aren't 20,000 people going to UMass games at Gillette. THAT's the UMass FBS problem.

The UMass problem is they dont have FBS level facilities. They don't have FBS attendance. They dont have a football team performing at an FBS level. The problem is they are currently a mid-level FCS school masquerading as an FBS school. It's not complicated. They are not attractive for a reason. If they get these issues fixed, they might be a lot more attractive--but right now, they are not really a viable FBS addition for the AAC.

It doesn't seem like a bad idea to take their Olympic sports and give them a conditionàl invite based on the following items....

1) viable #14 team is available as a football only or lose a member
2). Expand and upgrade OCS to at least 25k(prefer 30k b/c we already have Tulsa with a tiny stadium)
3). Bring hoops /Olympic sports asap

It would be a good idea for umass to get its foot in the door in hoops and we could probably agree to a football scheduling agreement in the interim.

(03-28-2014 09:54 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:50 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:33 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 08:32 AM)pesik Wrote:  they still represent Massachusetts, they could be 6 hours away as long as they are "the University of Massachusetts" they will have a strong following in Boston with some exposure and success. FSU is thousands of miles from the vast majority of the Florida population, they still average 80k a game.
which brings me to my next point its 5/6 games a year, adult fans can travel. a 100k A&M fans travel from houston to A&M for every game, fsu fans travel etc. you know who cant travel 2hours for every home game? the students, students are a huge part of the game atmosphere and will eventually become the alumni base, their incorporation is vital.

umass was averaging better attendance in the fcs in their OCS than the FBS with gillete

You just don't get the Northeast, and specifically Boston. Massachusetts is not going to rally around UMass because they "represent Massachusetts" - they have pro sports for that. At the collegiate level they root for the school they went to which is likely private. Harvard, BU, BC, Northeastern, MIT, Holy Cross, Springfield, Amherst alums (and on and on) are not going to switch. For many, they have families that have attended the same school for 4,5,6 generations.

If you notice, the only people advocating UMass are from the south and just see "state U" and think that is enough. Tulsa (which I think is a horrible add) got in over UMass - that is about all you need to knowm

I fully understand those dynamics. I advocate adding UMass, provided they have a solid stadium plan in place. I know it will be hard to get Mass to rally around state u, it wasn't easy for UConn either. UConn gets many of its fans from the community at large though, many probably didn't even go to college. UMass could accomplish that with greater exposure and committment to success.

I think you discount the potential of UMass, they are still graduating 6k students a year and those kids largely stay in state. There are plenty of fans to win over. This is why a firm investment in athletics could be a game changer for the state. Just as it has done wonders for UConn's academic quality because kids want to go there and root for the home state instead of going to a private. Not to mention, a legit D1 UMass could even bring in some fans from other parts of New England,

When Calipari was winning, people watched, I was one of them. The issue is that no one supports FCS level FBall, in the FBS they have been brutal and their last tourney appearance (before this year) was 15 years ago.

The Conn market is not all that different, just that UConn wins games and has the assets in place.

And for most of the CT, the nearest pro-teams cannot actually be considered local. Maybe NY pro-teams for Fairfield county, other than that you're still just rooting for out of towners who could care less about our state.

Oh come on, most CT folks feel a strong connection to either Boston or NY pro teams, at least all the one's I've met.

(03-28-2014 10:12 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:07 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:41 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  Literally the only question that should be asked is "will 'x' team bring more tv money"? For UMass the answer is a resounding no. The fact that they got kicked out of the MAC should be enough to value them. We just don't need any more projects.

Kicked out of the MAC? We said no thank you to the MAC's offer. They wanted us for all sports, we said no.

I'd have to agree on this point. The institution wasn't kicked out of the MAC. The MAC actually invited them and UMass rejected the offer which ended in the MAC terminating their associate membership.

Spin all you want but they got thrown out. If the football program was anything but a hot mess, one vote away from dissolution, the MAC would have kept them - but they didn't.

(03-28-2014 10:17 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 05:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I think should be mentioned:

It's a little unfair to dog UMass for their on-campus stadium. The UMass FBS plan was Gillette. They only needed McGuirk for Tuesday/WEsdnesay MACtion games. And really, if the Gillette Stadium games were drawing 20-30,000 people each, there wouldn't be nearly as many people ragging on the facilities in Springfield.

But there aren't 20,000 people going to UMass games at Gillette. THAT's the UMass FBS problem.

The UMass problem is they dont have FBS level facilities. They don't have FBS attendance. They dont have a football team performing at an FBS level. The problem is they are currently a mid-level FCS school masquerading as an FBS school. It's not complicated. They are not attractive for a reason. If they get these issues fixed, they might be a lot more attractive--but right now, they are not really a viable FBS addition for the AAC.

It doesn't seem like a bad idea to take their Olympic sports and give them a conditionàl invite based on the following items....

1) viable #14 team is available as a football only or lose a member
2). Expand and upgrade OCS to at least 25k(prefer 30k b/c we already have Tulsa with a tiny stadium)
3). Bring hoops /Olympic sports asap

It would be a good idea for umass to get its foot in the door in hoops and we could probably agree to a football scheduling agreement in the interim.

For the last 18 months, people on these boards have been screaming about "stability." You all have blamed the crummy media contract on "instability." We have been repeatedly told "Stability will only increase our media deal..."

So... Now you WANT to go and INTENTIONALLY introduce INSTABILITY??? You crack me up.

(03-28-2014 10:18 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:54 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:50 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:33 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  You just don't get the Northeast, and specifically Boston. Massachusetts is not going to rally around UMass because they "represent Massachusetts" - they have pro sports for that. At the collegiate level they root for the school they went to which is likely private. Harvard, BU, BC, Northeastern, MIT, Holy Cross, Springfield, Amherst alums (and on and on) are not going to switch. For many, they have families that have attended the same school for 4,5,6 generations.

If you notice, the only people advocating UMass are from the south and just see "state U" and think that is enough. Tulsa (which I think is a horrible add) got in over UMass - that is about all you need to knowm

I fully understand those dynamics. I advocate adding UMass, provided they have a solid stadium plan in place. I know it will be hard to get Mass to rally around state u, it wasn't easy for UConn either. UConn gets many of its fans from the community at large though, many probably didn't even go to college. UMass could accomplish that with greater exposure and committment to success.

I think you discount the potential of UMass, they are still graduating 6k students a year and those kids largely stay in state. There are plenty of fans to win over. This is why a firm investment in athletics could be a game changer for the state. Just as it has done wonders for UConn's academic quality because kids want to go there and root for the home state instead of going to a private. Not to mention, a legit D1 UMass could even bring in some fans from other parts of New England,

When Calipari was winning, people watched, I was one of them. The issue is that no one supports FCS level FBall, in the FBS they have been brutal and their last tourney appearance (before this year) was 15 years ago.

The Conn market is not all that different, just that UConn wins games and has the assets in place.

And for most of the CT, the nearest pro-teams cannot actually be considered local. Maybe NY pro-teams for Fairfield county, other than that you're still just rooting for out of towners who could care less about our state.

Oh come on, most CT folks feel a strong connection to either Boston or NY pro teams, at least all the one's I've met.

You are conflating "connection" with a team to having a "home" team. I have a lot of friends in Greenville, SC - they have a strong "connection" to the Atlanta team, but they only have one "home" team - Clemson.

This all seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me...

The only reason adding UMASS is such a hot topic on this board is because they made some headlines by deciding to leave the MAC only to place their football in uncertainty. Suddenly because they don't have a "home" they become a great addition for the AAC? It's not like we couldn't have poached them from the MAC/A-10 at any time...

IMO we need to see how we perform with the 12 football/11 all sports model. If we need to make further adjustments, we can, but let's not rush into anything...

(03-28-2014 10:18 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:54 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:50 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:33 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  You just don't get the Northeast, and specifically Boston. Massachusetts is not going to rally around UMass because they "represent Massachusetts" - they have pro sports for that. At the collegiate level they root for the school they went to which is likely private. Harvard, BU, BC, Northeastern, MIT, Holy Cross, Springfield, Amherst alums (and on and on) are not going to switch. For many, they have families that have attended the same school for 4,5,6 generations.

If you notice, the only people advocating UMass are from the south and just see "state U" and think that is enough. Tulsa (which I think is a horrible add) got in over UMass - that is about all you need to knowm

I fully understand those dynamics. I advocate adding UMass, provided they have a solid stadium plan in place. I know it will be hard to get Mass to rally around state u, it wasn't easy for UConn either. UConn gets many of its fans from the community at large though, many probably didn't even go to college. UMass could accomplish that with greater exposure and committment to success.

I think you discount the potential of UMass, they are still graduating 6k students a year and those kids largely stay in state. There are plenty of fans to win over. This is why a firm investment in athletics could be a game changer for the state. Just as it has done wonders for UConn's academic quality because kids want to go there and root for the home state instead of going to a private. Not to mention, a legit D1 UMass could even bring in some fans from other parts of New England,

When Calipari was winning, people watched, I was one of them. The issue is that no one supports FCS level FBall, in the FBS they have been brutal and their last tourney appearance (before this year) was 15 years ago.

The Conn market is not all that different, just that UConn wins games and has the assets in place.

And for most of the CT, the nearest pro-teams cannot actually be considered local. Maybe NY pro-teams for Fairfield county, other than that you're still just rooting for out of towners who could care less about our state.

Oh come on, most CT folks feel a strong connection to either Boston or NY pro teams, at least all the one's I've met.

Some do, some don't. Basefall fans tend to have a preference. I don't follow baseball much. Football teams also have a strong tendancy to like one or the other, I'm a Giants fan myself, not a die hard by any means though. NBA and certainly NHL, there's not much of a connection. The Celtics got popular here when Ray was there. Either way, doesn't change the fact that those teams don't represent CT and our state really shouldn't take any pride in anything they accomplish.

(03-28-2014 10:25 AM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:18 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:54 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:50 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:37 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I fully understand those dynamics. I advocate adding UMass, provided they have a solid stadium plan in place. I know it will be hard to get Mass to rally around state u, it wasn't easy for UConn either. UConn gets many of its fans from the community at large though, many probably didn't even go to college. UMass could accomplish that with greater exposure and committment to success.

I think you discount the potential of UMass, they are still graduating 6k students a year and those kids largely stay in state. There are plenty of fans to win over. This is why a firm investment in athletics could be a game changer for the state. Just as it has done wonders for UConn's academic quality because kids want to go there and root for the home state instead of going to a private. Not to mention, a legit D1 UMass could even bring in some fans from other parts of New England,

When Calipari was winning, people watched, I was one of them. The issue is that no one supports FCS level FBall, in the FBS they have been brutal and their last tourney appearance (before this year) was 15 years ago.

The Conn market is not all that different, just that UConn wins games and has the assets in place.

And for most of the CT, the nearest pro-teams cannot actually be considered local. Maybe NY pro-teams for Fairfield county, other than that you're still just rooting for out of towners who could care less about our state.

Oh come on, most CT folks feel a strong connection to either Boston or NY pro teams, at least all the one's I've met.

You are conflating "connection" with a team to having a "home" team. I have a lot of friends in Greenville, SC - they have a strong "connection" to the Atlanta team, but they only have one "home" team - Clemson.

You are over simplifying the issue and acting as if fandom is so limited. LSU sells out their 100k stadium, one day later the Saints do the same, that is in little old LA. Not being #1 in a fans mind doesn't mean they won't show up to support their #4 favorite. MA sports fans will support a winner and everyone loves to feel good about the official state school.

In the end, you think a winning UMass athletics program could not be sold to Joe Masshole, I think it could and I think it could be a game changer for the entire university. ULowell has been investing like maniacs, I think the leadership at Amherst has failed the alumni.

(03-28-2014 10:20 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:17 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 09:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 05:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I think should be mentioned:

It's a little unfair to dog UMass for their on-campus stadium. The UMass FBS plan was Gillette. They only needed McGuirk for Tuesday/WEsdnesay MACtion games. And really, if the Gillette Stadium games were drawing 20-30,000 people each, there wouldn't be nearly as many people ragging on the facilities in Springfield.

But there aren't 20,000 people going to UMass games at Gillette. THAT's the UMass FBS problem.

The UMass problem is they dont have FBS level facilities. They don't have FBS attendance. They dont have a football team performing at an FBS level. The problem is they are currently a mid-level FCS school masquerading as an FBS school. It's not complicated. They are not attractive for a reason. If they get these issues fixed, they might be a lot more attractive--but right now, they are not really a viable FBS addition for the AAC.

It doesn't seem like a bad idea to take their Olympic sports and give them a conditionàl invite based on the following items....

1) viable #14 team is available as a football only or lose a member
2). Expand and upgrade OCS to at least 25k(prefer 30k b/c we already have Tulsa with a tiny stadium)
3). Bring hoops /Olympic sports asap

It would be a good idea for umass to get its foot in the door in hoops and we could probably agree to a football scheduling agreement in the interim.

For the last 18 months, people on these boards have been screaming about "stability." You all have blamed the crummy media contract on "instability." We have been repeatedly told "Stability will only increase our media deal..."

So... Now you WANT to go and INTENTIONALLY introduce INSTABILITY??? You crack me up.

No..... Your AD is the one that "INTENTIONALLY" introduced "INSTABILITY" without having a clue where the school could go....

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-basketb...conference


...which isn't the first time for Cincy:

http://www.bcinterruption.com/2012/12/14...m-big-east