(04-12-2014 02:20 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  UMass would absolutely take an all sports invitation to the AAC if one were offered. Football should be better this year, out first FBS recruits are going to be juniors, and our FCS years under Morris sucked, he took an FCS finals runner up to the bottom of the CAA.

Let's imagine if its an AAC without UConn and Cincinnati.

Would UMass still be interested in those circumstance in all sports? Or would you be more interested in a FB Only?

(04-12-2014 02:24 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 02:20 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  UMass would absolutely take an all sports invitation to the AAC if one were offered. Football should be better this year, out first FBS recruits are going to be juniors, and our FCS years under Morris sucked, he took an FCS finals runner up to the bottom of the CAA.

Let's imagine if its an AAC without UConn and Cincinnati.

Would UMass still be interested in those circumstance in all sports? Or would you be more interested in a FB Only?

I addressed this already. I doubt we would even be looking at northeastern schools if UConn and Cinci were gone. Why would we take a weak out of footprint football-only candidate if northern schools like UConn or Cinci are no longer in the conference? The conference would begin in the mid Atlantic and sweep along the south to Texas. UMass as a football-only would be among the least attractive alternatives possible at that point. ODU, UTSA, Arky State, Texas State, ULL, etc all would hold greater promise than UMass as a football-only addition. I'm not even sure UMass as an all-sports addition would be all that attractive at that point. We would probably be better off building a conference more attractive to bowls by consolidating the footprint with larger high potential public schools in the mid-Atlantic or south. We are clearly just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

(04-12-2014 01:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 12:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

And why in the world would the AAC want UMass FB Only?

1) Aresco likes the fact that UMass is a quality NE presence. He's said as much in an article. Clearly they are a candidate.

2) The AAC has 11 in basketball now, if 2 schools leave they could add 1 all sport and 1 football only.

3) UConn might block their basketball program but be alright with having them in the conference for football over CUSA/MAC alternatives.

4) UMass FB-only because they can. It wouldn't work for schools in the MAC or CUSA to split up their sports.

The MAC did not even want UMass FB Only... The best part about UMass is hoops there is zero value add to UMass FB when compared to hoops....

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.

Possibly, but probably not. The MAC signed UMass in an effort to create an eastern partner for Temple, and when the desperate old Big East made the offer to Temple to come back, with Temple actually leaving on the same date that UMass joined, the balance shifted dramatically away from UMass being able to retain its preferred position of a FB-only spot in the MAC until a better offer came along, while its BBall team continued to compete in the multi-bid A10.

Basically, UMass was a FB-only #14 which saw the FB-only #13 go away just as it arrived.

What could have tilted the balance back would have been a second eastern school that wanted to join the MAC FB-only, which was appealing enough for the MAC to take Temple's place in the deal. But the only obvious school that would hold that position for the MAC, Army, doesn't want to go into a conference, and if it did, probably wouldn't want to join a conference as compact as the MAC.

As far as an all-sports add at #13 and an Olympic sports add to balance UMass FB-only ~ the "balanced hybrid" model that the Sunbelt has adopted, in contrast to the "unbalanced hybrid" model that the old Big East collapsed with ~ the core problem was the "I don't want to join any club that would have someone like me as a member" ~ any Olympic sports add that would make that add compelling for the MAC could find a better BBall oriented non-FBS conference to play in.

(Also remembering that the Sunbelt adopted that model in an effort to get to 12 schools for a CCG without adding more than two FCS schools at a time, when the MAC is already at 12 all-sports with a very stable core group, unlikely to be raided.)

So it is likely that the clock was ticking on the option being exercised as soon as Temple got the invite from the old Big East.

What could have gone differently with UMass experiencing more FB success is UMass's decision to not exercise its option to join the MAC all-sports. Obviously if there was any uncertainty going in, the woeful performance of the FB team compared to the strong performance of the BBall team for much of its season would have settled it.

And, of course, apologies for addressing the original post rather than engaging in an extended rehash of a long running argument about the future direction of the American conference.

(04-12-2014 01:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:18 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  what UMass may llack in FB it makes up for, at least currently, in BB. There IMO isnt any viable candidate for the American that offers both quality FB and BB

I agree. Kittonhead is suggesting that the AAC would take them as a football-only. Theres no way in hell that happens. As an all-sports addition---yeah, I could see that possibility. But football-only---nooooo way.

The real chances for UMass to the AAC

1. Football Only (50-50)
2. All Sport (50-50)
3. Non-FB (0%)

There is no way in hell they would move their Olympic sports from the A10 to the AAC which you keep suggesting as an alternative.

What? Where do these numbers even come from? If you're gonna throw out figures, there should at least be some basis in reality for them. Sure, UMass could join football only in the AAC, but there's no evidence that the chances are that high except for some people speculating on a message board.

(04-12-2014 11:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

UMass football is a dog---and given their stadium situation---it will be a dog for a long time. There is zero support for UMass football in the AAC. UMass has a better chance at a non-football membership in the AAC than a football-only AAC membership. I think the Sunbelt is the only hope UMass has and that could disappear if JMU realizes the last available ticket to FBS is about to be sold to someone else. UMass is in a bad situation right now. They really should have had a solid plan "B" before declining the MAC full membership offer. I cant see them surviving as an FBS Indy for long. They have 2 choice. Go back to FCS or spend a ton of money upgrading their on-campus to make themselves attractive to an area G5 conference.

They should have had a Plan B before they ever joined the MAC since they must have had no intention of joining the MAC for all sports. So they had to know it would come to this.

(04-12-2014 01:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:45 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

I doubt seriously that the AAC would be interested in UMass at all, whether UConn is there or not. I have seen no rational argument for their inclusion to any FBS football conference and any conference taking them for football membership would likely insist that their other sports be included as well. Not that I know of any football-playing conference that is/should be interested in adding them.

Wait---we would fly to Temple and UConn---but UMass is too far....makes no sense. If UConn leaves, maybe UMass is a replacement as an all sports school, but there is no way in hell we add them as a football-only. Hell, if UConn and Cinci leave---the AAC might not want ANYONE up north. The AAC might be looking from the Mid-Atlantic region to the southwest for the replacement. Or maybe the whole conference implodes with the 4 western members fleeing to the MW. Maybe Temple and Navy go to the MAC. The rest get invited to a P5 or drift to different G5 conferences. Either way, I don't see any way for UMass to get a football only to the AAC. Hell, the MAC kicked them out---why would the AAC want them?

The only hope for UMass FBS football is a Sunbelt football only invite. If JMU says no, I could see UMass getting a renewable 4 year football-only membership in the Sunbelt (just like Idaho). That's 2 more years to develop than they currently are guaranteed. They need to jump all over that offer if they get it. The Sunbelt gets their championship game and they get 4 extra years for other better expansion choices to emerge. Plus, if the rules for moving up to FBS are modified by the P5 to make it more difficult to make a transition---the Sunbelt would already have 2 FBS members in place as a backup. But if JMU says yes to the Sunbelt---UMass football as an FBS entity might be a dead man walking.

Why does the SBC want a championship game? In fact, do we know that they do?

There is a good chance that such a game could lose money after deducting travel costs by the participants. And it gives a chance that an undefeated team that might otherwise be in contention for an access bowl slot could get upset (see NIU and Houston), costing the league big time.

(04-12-2014 05:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

UMass football is a dog---and given their stadium situation---it will be a dog for a long time. There is zero support for UMass football in the AAC. UMass has a better chance at a non-football membership in the AAC than a football-only AAC membership. I think the Sunbelt is the only hope UMass has and that could disappear if JMU realizes the last available ticket to FBS is about to be sold to someone else. UMass is in a bad situation right now. They really should have had a solid plan "B" before declining the MAC full membership offer. I cant see them surviving as an FBS Indy for long. They have 2 choice. Go back to FCS or spend a ton of money upgrading their on-campus to make themselves attractive to an area G5 conference.

They should have had a Plan B before they ever joined the MAC since they must have had no intention of joining the MAC for all sports. So they had to know it would come to this.

I don't think the administration at UMass thought Temple would be out the door before UMass played its first MAC game. Maybe we do have a back up plan who nobody knows what's going on behind the scenes.

(04-12-2014 05:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:45 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

I doubt seriously that the AAC would be interested in UMass at all, whether UConn is there or not. I have seen no rational argument for their inclusion to any FBS football conference and any conference taking them for football membership would likely insist that their other sports be included as well. Not that I know of any football-playing conference that is/should be interested in adding them.

Wait---we would fly to Temple and UConn---but UMass is too far....makes no sense. If UConn leaves, maybe UMass is a replacement as an all sports school, but there is no way in hell we add them as a football-only. Hell, if UConn and Cinci leave---the AAC might not want ANYONE up north. The AAC might be looking from the Mid-Atlantic region to the southwest for the replacement. Or maybe the whole conference implodes with the 4 western members fleeing to the MW. Maybe Temple and Navy go to the MAC. The rest get invited to a P5 or drift to different G5 conferences. Either way, I don't see any way for UMass to get a football only to the AAC. Hell, the MAC kicked them out---why would the AAC want them?

The only hope for UMass FBS football is a Sunbelt football only invite. If JMU says no, I could see UMass getting a renewable 4 year football-only membership in the Sunbelt (just like Idaho). That's 2 more years to develop than they currently are guaranteed. They need to jump all over that offer if they get it. The Sunbelt gets their championship game and they get 4 extra years for other better expansion choices to emerge. Plus, if the rules for moving up to FBS are modified by the P5 to make it more difficult to make a transition---the Sunbelt would already have 2 FBS members in place as a backup. But if JMU says yes to the Sunbelt---UMass football as an FBS entity might be a dead man walking.

Why does the SBC want a championship game? In fact, do we know that they do?

There is a good chance that such a game could lose money after deducting travel costs by the participants. And it gives a chance that an undefeated team that might otherwise be in contention for an access bowl slot could get upset (see NIU and Houston), costing the league big time.

Yes they want a championship game. Benson has been quoted multiple times saying that and several sources have indicated they ideally would like to add a 12th team by this June.

(04-12-2014 12:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

And why in the world would the AAC want UMass FB Only?

Exactly, what value does UMass bring as a football only? The only way UMass brings value to any conference is including their strong basketball program. There obviously needs to be an exchange of value - AAC would want to add another strong basketball program in exchange for taking on their fledgling football program. The big difference in incentive is unlike the MAC, the AAC is one of the best basketball conferences in the nation, so there's actually incentive for UMass to leave the A10.

Obviously plan B is to expand McGuirk, give it 6 months and let things play out. The last AAC add, Tulsa averages in the 19k range in Football and 4k range in Basketball.

A good coach can move the needle, and remember we went from 10k to 15k with very bad records. We'll move in the Tulsa range this year. Our BB is doing well, 5 sell-outs including Springfield and averaged 6.6k.

If we can have patients, you all can as well. We have two years and know what needs to be done.

Southern schools don't want UMASS

UMass has played exactly one season as a full FBS member. The first full class of FBS recruits were freshmen this year. The previous year's recruits during the final transitional year were almost all recruited and signed in a 2 week period prior to signing day, following an en masse campus visit. Many were heading to FCS teams prior to being recruited by UMass.

What the MAC wanted from UMass was 14 teams as fast as possible to balance their scheduling. If they were concerned about how quickly UMass would be good, they would have given UMass one or two more years to recruit under the FBS label and get the new facilities completed. Instead, UMass moved at the maximum speed possible once the moratorium on FCS upgrades lifted. Most UMass fans were expecting 3 win seasons for the first couple years, so getting 1 win each season was disappointing but not completely unexpected. Temple leaving without playing a single down of football under the new deal was unexpected. The MAC killed the deal before UMass even had the ribbon-cutting ceremony to open the new facilities the MAC wanted built.

(04-12-2014 11:09 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  UMass has played exactly one season as a full FBS member. The first full class of FBS recruits were freshmen this year. The previous year's recruits during the final transitional year were almost all recruited and signed in a 2 week period prior to signing day, following an en masse campus visit. Many were heading to FCS teams prior to being recruited by UMass.

What the MAC wanted from UMass was 14 teams as fast as possible to balance their scheduling. If they were concerned about how quickly UMass would be good, they would have given UMass one or two more years to recruit under the FBS label and get the new facilities completed. Instead, UMass moved at the maximum speed possible once the moratorium on FCS upgrades lifted. Most UMass fans were expecting 3 win seasons for the first couple years, so getting 1 win each season was disappointing but not completely unexpected. Temple leaving without playing a single down of football under the new deal was unexpected. The MAC killed the deal before UMass even had the ribbon-cutting ceremony to open the new facilities the MAC wanted built.

The MAC did not kill the deal.. The MAC excersized the contracts term in which they could offer UMass full membership. They did and *UMASS* decided to leave the confernece.

(04-12-2014 11:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The MAC did not kill the deal.. The MAC excersized the contracts term in which they could offer UMass full membership. They did and *UMASS* decided to leave the conference.

Precisely ... those were the terms under which UMass got the invitation to move up to the FBS, so if they didn't like them, they didn't have to move up. If one of the FB-only pair of Temple and UMass were to leave, then two year later the MAC had the option of putting a two-year expiration date on the deal. The FB-only school that had been left behind then had the option to join the MAC all-sports if they wished, or go their separate ways if they wished.

It was Temple leaving that started the clock ticking on UMass, the MAC preferred to not have UMass as a single, unbalanced FB-only school, and UMass preferred not joining the MAC all-sports.

UMass likes the idea of having an FBS football program, but they don't want to do what it takes to earn one. The MAC would absolutely be patient with UMass, if UMass was committed to the MAC. But they're not, so why should they? Look at Buffalo, they've averaged less than 3 wins/season since joining the MAC since 1998 and the MAC has been very patient with them because they are committed to the MAC. Doesn't mean Buffalo, or any other MAC team, wouldn't move on if the situation was right, but until that day comes they are committed to being members of the MAC. UMass doesn't want to commit, they just want to exploit the MAC for their own personal gain with nothing to offer in return. It doesn't work that way.

(04-12-2014 02:12 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Hopefully Temple can straighten out their stadium situation, but if Temple's football team doesn't have a place to play, UMass would be a convenient all-sports addition:

West - SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane, Cincinnati, Memphis
East - UConn, UMass, USF, UCF, ECU, Temple (non-football), Navy (football)

The AAC is not dropping Temple FB.

(04-13-2014 12:14 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  The MAC did not kill the deal.. The MAC excersized the contracts term in which they could offer UMass full membership. They did and *UMASS* decided to leave the conference.

Precisely ... those were the terms under which UMass got the invitation to move up to the FBS, so if they didn't like them, they didn't have to move up. If one of the FB-only pair of Temple and UMass were to leave, then two year later the MAC had the option of putting a two-year expiration date on the deal. The FB-only school that had been left behind then had the option to join the MAC all-sports if they wished, or go their separate ways if they wished.

It was Temple leaving that started the clock ticking on UMass, the MAC preferred to not have UMass as a single, unbalanced FB-only school, and UMass preferred not joining the MAC all-sports.

The ideal situation for the MAC would have Army joining for FB only along with keeping UMASS FB only. Keeps the East Coast TV market exposure, keeps the Olympic Sports balanced, Army finds a conference where it might be competitive, UMASS keeps it's MAC home, and the MAC still gets a the 4 BB games from UMASS a year when they leave their Olympic Sports in the A-10 for cost effective travel reasons.

(04-12-2014 02:24 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 02:20 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  UMass would absolutely take an all sports invitation to the AAC if one were offered. Football should be better this year, out first FBS recruits are going to be juniors, and our FCS years under Morris sucked, he took an FCS finals runner up to the bottom of the CAA.

Let's imagine if its an AAC without UConn and Cincinnati.

Would UMass still be interested in those circumstance in all sports? Or would you be more interested in a FB Only?

Even if they were FB only it would work. IF Cinn and UConn both left the American could pick up UMASS FB only and another Mid Atlantic team, Southern team, or SW team all sports. The 12 FB team conference would still have the Championship Game and a nice balanced home and home 18 game BB schedule with balanced E/W or N/S divisions. The 12/10 format would work out well for the American.

IF Cinn is the only school that leaves for the B-12 North with BYU then a FB only invite for UMASS still works for the American under the 12/10 format too.

(04-12-2014 05:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

UMass football is a dog---and given their stadium situation---it will be a dog for a long time. There is zero support for UMass football in the AAC. UMass has a better chance at a non-football membership in the AAC than a football-only AAC membership. I think the Sunbelt is the only hope UMass has and that could disappear if JMU realizes the last available ticket to FBS is about to be sold to someone else. UMass is in a bad situation right now. They really should have had a solid plan "B" before declining the MAC full membership offer. I cant see them surviving as an FBS Indy for long. They have 2 choice. Go back to FCS or spend a ton of money upgrading their on-campus to make themselves attractive to an area G5 conference.

They should have had a Plan B before they ever joined the MAC since they must have had no intention of joining the MAC for all sports. So they had to know it would come to this.

UMASS probably has plan B along with C,D, and E. Its just a matter of how the chips fall with the SB, CUSA, and the American before they try to make it go as an independent for a while or drop back to D1-AA.