(03-27-2014 11:32 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 08:14 AM)Niner National Wrote:  Am I the only one that thinks UMass might just be screwed?

Their football program is struggling and has pretty awful support. With the AAC standing a fair shot at getting the increased payout for being the best G5 conference many seasons, why would they jeopardize that by bringing in UMass?

Would UCONN even allow it?

Presumably, UConn wants UMass in the AAC about as much as BC wants UConn in the ACC. IOW, "over my dead body."

The SBC might happen for them because UMass, as a 12th FB team, would allow the SBC to collect an additional $1 million/year from the CFP and to hold a football title game that should get them $1 million/year from ESPN.

But for UMass, what's their end goal of having FBS football? It's not playing a Sun Belt "conference game" against Idaho in Foxborough. They've already decided it's not full membership in the MAC. They're not getting into the American unless UConn leaves it.

Speaking of Idaho, you could ask the same question about them. Maybe both are just hanging around FBS for 5 years or so to see if there will be some kind of earthquake that shatters existing G5 conferences and leaves places for them.

My guess for what little that is worth, is Idaho's investment is less likely to pay off than a UMass investment simply because the Pac-12 and Big XII aren't likely to raid MWC and MWC at 12 members has no significant pressure to fracture.

There are a lot of combinations that could "potentially" blow up east of the MWC. AAC has one midwestern school that functions as a semi-bridge if B12 were for some reason to choose to take them, the AAC enterprise might become unstable. CUSA might fracture and create something more appealing to UMass.

Doesn't mean any of that happens, it's just there are more moving parts on UMass's side of the world that could work their way.

(03-27-2014 10:48 AM)LouPower Wrote:  UMass just needs to get rid of football. It's not working.

There were also some AAC fball programs that weren't working this past season:

USF was 2-10 in football (blown out at home by McNeese State)

Temple was 2-10 in football (lost at home to Fordham)

UCONN was 3-9 in football (blown out by Buffalo)

Memphis was 3-9 in football (blown out at home by Temple)

UMASS was 1-11 in football (lost to Maine)

My point=> UMASS fball isn’t as far behind some AAC schools as some have stated here. Moreover, the AAC wouldn’t need UMASS to be good in fball; it would need UMASS to maintain its level of bball (which is ahead of many AAC schools) if it were invited. Furthermore, the AAC will have a very difficult time having a school go undefeated in fball conference play—UCF could have easily lost to Memphis, Louisville, Houston, Temple, and UCF (three of the schools are listed above). Consequently, unless we’re adding BYU, there are no other fball programs that will improve our chances to further distance ourselves from the other mid-majors in fball. However, when it comes to further distancing ourselves from the other mid-majors in bball, I'm open to the idea of inviting UMASS if it continues to maintain/improve its level of bball....

The AAC probably does nothing right now; and UMass has two years.

In this time of the cfp, there is no incentive to expand above 12 unless:
a) it is a preemptive move because know a program will be leaving
b) a high visibility program is available (ex Notre Dame) for media negotiations
c) a top 50 television market is available

As the above relate to the AAC:
a) Not this year but maybe 2015 or later; if the Big XII concludes that it is getting screwed in the new playoff scenario because it doesn't have a ccg, it might add to get to twelve. WVU needs a travel partner. This scenario could impact certainly Cincy, and possibly UConn.

b) Not Notre Dame, but Army for example, brings enough of a National brand that it would likely enhance any media negotiations, especially with Navy already on board.
USM has enough of a storied history that it might be considered as well.

c) Down the road, if the AAC finds it wants a travel partner for ECU, then ODU or Charlotte could be a consideration because of top 50 television markets.


Any of above scenarios could open the door for UMass as a balancing number; especially if UConn leaves. It has the right geography and good enough basketball. Look, every conference has a crap football program. If UMass makes a commitment in that area, it could be a valuable addition.

As for JMU, I don't see the AAC adding an FCS move up, but any of the above could open the door for them. Madison and NDSU are certainly the cream of the FCS crop.

Many are saying that UMass has 2 years to figure their fbs situation out. I think its more like one year. They will need 8 new games for 2016 and they won't have them if they wait for 2 years. If going indy then they have to start making those schedules now and contract enough games to fill out their lineup because it will take a while. If joining another conference they will need to have that settled by mid 2015.

(03-28-2014 09:31 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Many are saying that UMass has 2 years to figure their fbs situation out. I think its more like one year. They will need 8 new games for 2016 and they won't have them if they wait for 2 years. If going indy then they have to start making those schedules now and contract enough games to fill out their lineup because it will take a while. If joining another conference they will need to have that settled by mid 2015.

I think they have to assume 2 years of being independent at minimum, but that planning has to start now. They'll have trouble making schedules, especially in October/November when conference schedules kick in.

Perhaps they could work out an arrangement with the American as a trial, but they already have Temple on the schedule. They could try to get UConn if the huskies have openings. Most likely the MAC schools won't schedule them.

(03-28-2014 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  Perhaps they could work out an arrangement with the American as a trial, but they already have Temple on the schedule. They could try to get UConn if the huskies have openings. Most likely the MAC schools won't schedule them.

(03-28-2014 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  I think they have to assume 2 years of being independent at minimum, but that planning has to start now. They'll have trouble making schedules, especially in October/November when conference schedules kick in.

The MAC schools might schedule them under a scheduling agreement which is another reason why UMass ought to try to work out a scheduling agreement with the MAC, since it would both address the challenge of getting later home games as well as possibly the biggest increase in available schools.

If the Sunbelt is going to add them as a FB-only to get to a CCG, it won't be four years from now. The sticking points would be how many OOC BBall games they have to give to such a bad BBall conference and how how the exit fee is set. The SB would want to get a financial windfall in the event of UMass getting an all-sports invite from a conference that their BBall fans would accept.

We'll see how the Navy thing works out; I think Massachusetts is a better option in the long run because they add their Olympic sports and provide a travel partner with Connecticut. Navy isn't like Air Force who actually plays Olympic sports in the Mountain West.

The way Connecticut is openly campaigning to join other conferences, how can anyone in the American listen to them about anything? Cincinnati too. The way those schools act, it makes sense to have Massachusetts already in the league.

If the ACC or Big XII called Connecticut and/or Cincinnati they wouldn't bat an eye as they sprinted out the door.*

*Which trust me, I personally don't want either.

(03-28-2014 10:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  Perhaps they could work out an arrangement with the American as a trial, but they already have Temple on the schedule. They could try to get UConn if the huskies have openings. Most likely the MAC schools won't schedule them.

(03-28-2014 10:17 AM)megadrone Wrote:  I think they have to assume 2 years of being independent at minimum, but that planning has to start now. They'll have trouble making schedules, especially in October/November when conference schedules kick in.

The MAC schools might schedule them under a scheduling agreement which is another reason why UMass ought to try to work out a scheduling agreement with the MAC, since it would both address the challenge of getting later home games as well as possibly the biggest increase in available schools.

If the Sunbelt is going to add them as a FB-only to get to a CCG, it won't be four years from now. The sticking points would be how many OOC BBall games they have to give to such a bad BBall conference and how how the exit fee is set. The SB would want to get a financial windfall in the event of UMass getting an all-sports invite from a conference that their BBall fans would accept.

I think they go to the Sunbelt as a football only and I think they join for 2015 at the latest.

(03-27-2014 01:06 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:48 AM)LouPower Wrote:  UMass just needs to get rid of football. It's not working.

There were also some AAC fball programs that weren't working this past season:

USF was 2-10 in football (blown out at home by McNeese State)

Temple was 2-10 in football (lost at home to Fordham)

UCONN was 3-9 in football (blown out by Buffalo)

Memphis was 3-9 in football (blown out at home by Temple)

UMASS was 1-11 in football (lost to Maine)

My point=> UMASS fball isn’t as far behind some AAC schools as some have stated here. Moreover, the AAC wouldn’t need UMASS to be good in fball; it would need UMASS to maintain its level of bball (which is ahead of many AAC schools) if it were invited. Furthermore, the AAC will have a very difficult time having a school go undefeated in fball conference play—UCF could have easily lost to Memphis, Louisville, Houston, Temple, and UCF (three of the schools are listed above). Consequently, unless we’re adding BYU, there are no other fball programs that will improve our chances to further distance ourselves from the other mid-majors in fball. However, when it comes to further distancing ourselves from the other mid-majors in bball, I'm open to the idea of inviting UMASS if it continues to maintain/improve its level of bball....

Good points on where the football bar actually is in the AAC.

The potential of UMass joining the AAC might hinge on becoming a regular tourney team out of the A10. The type of program that can walk into the AAC and deliver a bid.

The football future of UMass is interesting. Programs are going to be very eager to get them on the schedule for homecoming. The question is more will the movement to a 9 game schedule box out UMass from getting games in October and November. That remains to be seen. If I were Buffalo I'd probably start a 1-1 series with them for the non-conference.

Army's leadership rotates and could very well make a yes vote for the AAC. If Army says yes to the AAC then its time to look at UMass as a 14th, and 12th in basketball to add content. Revise upward the AAC TV deal.

[Benson is the wild card the WAC 16 did not work .

So a SBC with 15 schools in a 12 football 12 all sports could.

Spreading the conference exposure and adding three state flagship schools for football only.

Basically remaining a Southeastern conference for Olympic sports while painting the corners of the country with football only adds. Also raising the academic profile of the conference .

Benson is a gambler and the Sun Belt could actually fast track it's accession. A Olympic sports member like EKU who wants FBS would be perfect to hedge the bet.[/u]

(03-28-2014 08:58 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The potential of UMass joining the AAC might hinge on becoming a regular tourney team out of the A10. The type of program that can walk into the AAC and deliver a bid.

Which is not something that happens in the blink of an eye, so UMass would still need to play their FB somewhere.

I guess the Sunbelt may take them with reasonable entry terms but a steep exit fee, similar to Temple in the MAC, and hope that by the time that UMass pays the money to go, there is a good FCS call-up available.

(03-28-2014 10:09 PM)MJG Wrote:  So a SBC with 15 schools in a 12 football 12 all sports could.

Spreading the conference exposure and adding three state flagship schools for football only.

... A Olympic sports member like EKU who wants FBS would be perfect to hedge the bet.

EKU would fit the new Sunbelt East, if the Sunbelt wanted to have divisional-oriented scheduling in its full-up Olympic sports to ease travel costs.

I have no idea how appealing EKU would be as an Olympic Sports add, nor what Olympic sports adds in the Southeast in general would be both available and attractive to the Sunbelt.

(03-28-2014 10:18 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 10:09 PM)MJG Wrote:  So a SBC with 15 schools in a 12 football 12 all sports could.

Spreading the conference exposure and adding three state flagship schools for football only.

... A Olympic sports member like EKU who wants FBS would be perfect to hedge the bet.

EKU would fit the new Sunbelt East, if the Sunbelt wanted to have divisional-oriented scheduling in its full-up Olympic sports to ease travel costs.

I have no idea how appealing EKU would be as an Olympic Sports add, nor what Olympic sports adds in the Southeast in general would be both available and attractive to the Sunbelt.

Eastern Kentucky while a funky addition at first glance for the SBC has more value when you look at the adjacent carriage states. Kentucky is adjacent to West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois a region where the SBC has no presence.

If the objective is to get a national network to sign the SBC a school like EKU might be the way to go. Throw in UMass and Missouri State and 80% of the country is within the regional footprint.

The only states an SBC state wouldn't be touching:

California
North Dakota
South Dakota
Alaska
Hawaii
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Delaware
New Jersey
Maine

The SBC would have a team in or adjacent to 38 states.

Just to clarify, Benson was commissioner of the MAC when the WAC voted to go to 16 and arrived as the new schools did.

From a geography standpoint, EKU makes better sense for the Sun Belt than JMU, basically same distance from App as JMU but closer to everyone else. But they would seem to be at least a year from having everything ready.

ESPN has in its Sun Belt deal (as it used to do with C-USA and WAC, and I presume does with MAC) prohibited the league from distributing its games on TV except on higher tier deals (ie sports package) outside of states with a Sun Belt team or bordering such a state.

With the current line-up the SBC cannot distribute football tier II in:
Pacific and further west: California, Alaska, Hawaii
Central: North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Kentucky
Eastern: Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine.

If the league could get a deal with a CBSS, or NBCSN, or even an FS2 it would be possible to expand football and/or all sports in such a way to essentially render the territorial limitation moot.

Missouri State picks up: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky.
EKU picks up: Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia
JMU/Liberty picks up: Kentucky, West Virginia, DC, Maryland.
UMass picks up: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont.

Now it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the Sun Belt would hand out say full invites to Mo State, EKU, and JMU/Liberty with a football only to UMass and one more (maybe a UNI or someone like Portland State) just fight the territorial restriction but it is an interesting exercise to consider.

(03-29-2014 10:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If the league could get a deal with a CBSS, or NBCSN, or even an FS2 it would be possible to expand football and/or all sports in such a way to essentially render the territorial limitation moot.

Missouri State picks up: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky.
EKU picks up: Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia
JMU/Liberty picks up: Kentucky, West Virginia, DC, Maryland.
UMass picks up: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont.

Now it is EXTREMELY unlikely that the Sun Belt would hand out say full invites to Mo State, EKU, and JMU/Liberty with a football only to UMass and one more (maybe a UNI or someone like Portland State) just fight the territorial restriction but it is an interesting exercise to consider.

I say why not, especially if the SBC wants to brand itself a player and not an afterthought in the FBS marketplace

They would have that regional footprint similar to what CUSA was pitching with the Mount-USA configuration. That could be an option for the SBC. It at the minimum makes the conference more interesting.

(03-29-2014 10:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Missouri State picks up: Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky.
EKU picks up: Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia
JMU/Liberty picks up: Kentucky, West Virginia, DC, Maryland.
UMass picks up: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont.

Which of those states has the most Sunbelt alumni? After all, being "allowed" to have games picked up means nothing unless there's some reason for some broadcast partner to pick the games up.