(08-24-2014 09:49 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(08-23-2014 10:00 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  In my book, Northern Illinois, Missouri State, Stony Brook, and Fordham rank above Massachusetts.

What is the criteria for the Tallgrass university rankings? Are they better than us at everything or in certain areas?

Dear Tallgrass,

You are welcome to poach Fordham.

Sincerely,

The fans of GW, GMU, VCU, UR, UMass, St Josephs, Davidson, URI, St Bona., Duquesne, Dayton, LaSalle, and St Louis

Should of posted this here, which would not make Tom happy.

Never seen the idea of a UMass affiliation with the AAC thrown out there as the Notre Dame and ACC. Where the Olympic sports go to the conference and they play 5 games and can be consider for their bowls. Then to balance things have Army 5 games, but they leave their Olympic sports as is. Then alternate with UMass-Army home and away so each has 3 home games.

(08-24-2014 10:51 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Should of posted this here, which would not make Tom happy.

Never seen the idea of a UMass affiliation with the AAC thrown out there as the Notre Dame and ACC. Where the Olympic sports go to the conference and they play 5 games and can be consider for their bowls. Then to balance things have Army 5 games, but they leave their Olympic sports as is. Then alternate with UMass-Army home and away so each has 3 home games.

You've never seen this idea because it's not a terribly good idea for the AAC. Any AAC team that wants UMass for a body bag game can probably get UMass to play them 2-1, as long as UMass is an independent. And UMass basketball, with half as many Tournament appearances since Calipari left as UCF (2004, 2005) and fewer NCAA wins than USF (First Four to Round of 32 in 2012).

That arrangement would be pretty good for UMass football (almost as good as a conference membership) and outstanding for UMass basketball. The problem is, it doesn't offer the AAC anything they want. If the AAC wants a 12th for Olympic sports, they're more likely to scoop up an asset like VCU.

Our basketball has been solid the past 5 years and been to the NIT final four twice since 2008. Except for basketball, our womens sports are very good with rowing benefiting the most for Title IX scholarships.

(08-24-2014 11:12 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Our basketball has been solid the past 5 years and been to the NIT final four twice since 2008. Except for basketball, our womens sports are very good with rowing benefiting the most for Title IX scholarships.

The problem is "solid" (as in pretty good, but not good enough to bring in NCAA Tournament money) isn't good enough. Adding UMass would boost everyone's RPI, would give everyone two more quality games. But in most years, is "AAC + UMass" good for one more NCAA tournament bid than "AAC w/o UMass"? Not really. UMass would slot in at the middle of the pack in AAC basketball, behind UConn, Cincinnati, Memphis, Temple and maybe SMU in the future. That's not bad, except that it's your *strong* point.

If the AAC needed an FBS member, then UMass basketball would be a small plus (if they couldn't pull someone they wanted more for football). But they don't.

Maybe peddle this package to C-USA--I don't know if adding UMass nets them a second NCAA bid (I doubt it). But I don't see why the AAC would want or need what you're proposing.

No Problem Bragg.

UMass rpi 23
St. Johns 77

realtime rpi site

(08-24-2014 11:50 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  No Problem Bragg.

UMass rpi 23
St. Johns 77

realtime rpi site

That would be a problem, if we were shopping for a conference. If your google-fu is strong, you can find threads on the AAC board fantasizing about picking up Georgetown, or what-ifs where Villanova goes FBS and then and then. There aren't any about St Johns. That's not news to me.

UMass is looking to make a move, so UMass' situation is relevant.

(08-23-2014 12:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  UMass has decided that membership in the A-10's basketball league is worth more to them than MACtion in football. Its a valid decision. Uncc decided to downgrade their basketball program to join CUSA. Also valid.

Yeah, both Charlotte and Old Dominion, as Western Kentucky before them, hitched their wagons to football and went to see how they could do. They both saw invites to what was, before the AAC somewhat gutted it, a robust CUSA.

I don't fault UMass for not wanting to let football run its entire athletic department, because those that have them at the FBS level...they run the show. But what that does for UMass, while I feel is a decent ideological stance, pretty much puts them all by themselves at the D1A level.

You have to wonder if by fully committing to a conference like the MAC means UMass has to shutter some sports to make up for the losses in revenue through other programs, like basketball, and the increased travel budgets for other sports. I wouldn't fault UMass doing what it was doing if they saw what Temple just did as a non-starter, even if it means UMass puts football back down to FCS or goes Boston U-style and shutters it entirely.

(08-24-2014 10:51 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Should of posted this here, which would not make Tom happy.

Never seen the idea of a UMass affiliation with the AAC thrown out there as the Notre Dame and ACC. Where the Olympic sports go to the conference and they play 5 games and can be consider for their bowls. Then to balance things have Army 5 games, but they leave their Olympic sports as is. Then alternate with UMass-Army home and away so each has 3 home games.

It is well understood that if UMass gets a decent football team, that they'd be a likely target for the AAC.

But that might not happen for a while.

I get that UMass might be somewhat attractive to the AAC as a basketball member, but not so much as VCU might be. I don't see the AAC going that route, but I suppose it COULD happen. If you leave the A-10, we'll be sad to see you go.

From a purely A-10 perspective, the best thing that can happen to UMass' football program is for it to fall flat on its face. Providence would probably block a UMass bid to the Big East. From a Sun Belt perspective, the view is kind of 'meh - at least there's someone out there if we get raided again'. You are a flagship and have great academics. But you aren't a real fit. But the prevailing view is to dump Idaho, add NMSU as an all sports and be done with it.

I don't wish you guys ill. But I don't think the Belt is calling. And I don't think the AAC is calling.

You guys waited 3 years too late to move up.

CUSA might be an option...but they are full.

I don't think this is going to end well for UMass. They need to be scheduling games. Like now.

Tom, where is your faith. We're very optimistic that our football team will show signs this year and be decent next year. We have 5 seniors and just 3 of them are starters.

UMass couldn't have moved up 3 years earlier due to the moratorium.

(08-24-2014 12:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You guys waited 3 years too late to move up.

CUSA might be an option...but they are full.

The timing was fine. They just shouldn't have looked to Temple for stability.

I think CUSA's doors would swing wide open for UMass if there was another northeastern school (full or fb-only) who was willing hop in there. But, since Army's not coming back, Buffalo won't move over, and Delaware and Towson aren't seemingly budging from FCS, that leaves JMU...which isn't exactly "a bridge" to New England.

The difference between the A-10 and the MAC is money. The A-10 sets a floor on basketball budgets and has other requirements about staffing, coaching salaries etc. The minimum budget was $2.5 million (St. Bonaventure's budget) as of 2012 and most current A-10 members were spending more than $3 million at that time. Davidson had to commit to a large increase in its basketball budget as a condition of joining the A-10 because of the minimum budget requirement. Ohio is the only MAC member that spent above the A-10 minimum and most MAC members were under $2 million as of 2012. As long as MAC basketball budgets are on par with other one bid conferences, the MAC is going to be a one bid conference. It's that simple.

I'd like to see things turn out well for UMass, but they're in a tough spot. They have to hope that the AAC loses a team or needs a university to pair with a 13th member, or that the Sunbelt wants them as a football affiliate. None of those scenarios seem likely at the moment and other than returning to FCS I don't see any other viable long-term options. I don't think UMass can survive for long as an independent.

(08-24-2014 03:41 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The difference between the A-10 and the MAC is money. The A-10 sets a floor on basketball budgets and has other requirements about staffing, coaching salaries etc. The minimum budget was $2.5 million (St. Bonaventure's budget) as of 2012 and most current A-10 members were spending more than $3 million at that time. Davidson had to commit to a large increase in its basketball budget as a condition of joining the A-10 because of the minimum budget requirement. Ohio is the only MAC member that spent above the A-10 minimum and most MAC members were under $2 million as of 2012. As long as MAC basketball budgets are on par with other one bid conferences, the MAC is going to be a one bid conference. It's that simple.

I'd like to see things turn out well for UMass, but they're in a tough spot. They have to hope that the AAC loses a team or needs a university to pair with a 13th member, or that the Sunbelt wants them as a football affiliate. None of those scenarios seem likely at the moment and other than returning to FCS I don't see any other viable long-term options. I don't think UMass can survive for long as an independent.

I don't see where they'll be able to meet the FBS home game requirement.

I think the Sun Belt will add them if JMU says no again - having 11 creates a bye for a team during conference play. In theory, UMass could schedule 8-9 Sun Belt opponents around that, but the Sun Belt would get an extra $1 MM in CFP monies for adding UMass (and another $300K if UMass has a satisfactory APR). The only funds that would be split additional ways are the performance-based funds from the CFP.

(08-24-2014 03:41 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The difference between the A-10 and the MAC is money. The A-10 sets a floor on basketball budgets and has other requirements about staffing, coaching salaries etc. The minimum budget was $2.5 million (St. Bonaventure's budget) as of 2012 and most current A-10 members were spending more than $3 million at that time. Davidson had to commit to a large increase in its basketball budget as a condition of joining the A-10 because of the minimum budget requirement. Ohio is the only MAC member that spent above the A-10 minimum and most MAC members were under $2 million as of 2012. As long as MAC basketball budgets are on par with other one bid conferences, the MAC is going to be a one bid conference. It's that simple. ...

The MAC just improved its revenue intake by $111million over the next 13 years, some of that will be going to basketball. In fact, the deal mandates immediate investments in the bball programs. The MAC was a multi bid league before and it will be again.

(08-24-2014 06:09 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The MAC was a multi bid league before and it will be again.

This sounds awful, but when? I don't remember. (I am absolutely not saying it didn't happen--before realignment started I couldn't rattle off how many bids each conference would get in an average year.)

I'm just trying to get an idea of the timeframe you're talking about.

(08-24-2014 06:09 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The MAC just improved its revenue intake by $111million over the next 13 years, some of that will be going to basketball. In fact, the deal mandates immediate investments in the bball programs. The MAC was a multi bid league before and it will be again.

I think the most important thing is that the MAC is encouraging members to invest in basketball. The schools in the bottom third of basketball budgets in the MAC are operating on SoCon level budgets. It's a disincentive for the members who have the wherewithal to spend more to do so which in turn drags the whole conference down.

Spending part of the extra 900k MAC members are getting from the new TV contract will help, but it still leaves the conference well behind the higher spending non-P5 conferences. Also, multiple bids for the MAC is not the conference norm. I can count on one hand the number of times the current MAC has been a multi-bid conference since the start of the 64 team tournament.

(08-24-2014 07:02 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  This sounds awful, but when? I don't remember. (I am absolutely not saying it didn't happen--before realignment started I couldn't rattle off how many bids each conference would get in an average year.)

I'm just trying to get an idea of the timeframe you're talking about.

A few times in the late 90s and a couple of times in the 1980s. The MAC needs Miami to return to being a strong program, or some other program to emerge as a consistent winner, if the conference is going to get more multiple bids. Wally Szczerbiak who played for Miami the last time the MAC had multiple bids is from your neck of the woods. He played high school ball for Cold Spring Harbor HS.

In '04-'05 the MAC had an RPI of 10 and a SOS of 10. There were 7 MAC teams with an RPI under 100-

30 Buffalo
49 Ohio
52 Akron
58 Miami
61 Kent St
85 BGSU
89 Toledo

Ohio beat Buffalo in the conference tournament championship game in OT on a buzzer beating tip-in. Buffalo was 22-9 overall and 9-1 in non conference where they beat 2 NCAA tournament and a BracketBuster. Their only non conference loss was to #2 seed UConn. In spite of that record and an RPI of 30 Buffalo did not get a bid.

Just this past season Toledo started out 12-0, was getting votes in the AP top 25 and had an RPI in the 20s-low 30s. They lost the auto bid in the MAC tournament championship game and finished the season 27-6 with an RPI of 38. Toledo did not get a bid either.

I think there's a solid case for both Buffalo in '05 and Toledo in '13 to have earned an at large bid. the MAC has been a 1 bid league for the past decade but that doesn't necessarily mean it should have been, or that it is far off from being a multi bid league in the future.

(08-24-2014 11:20 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  In '04-'05 the MAC had an RPI of 10 and a SOS of 10. There were 7 MAC teams with an RPI under 100-

30 Buffalo
49 Ohio
52 Akron
58 Miami
61 Kent St
85 BGSU
89 Toledo

Ohio beat Buffalo in the conference tournament championship game in OT on a buzzer beating tip-in. Buffalo was 22-9 overall and 9-1 in non conference where they beat 2 NCAA tournament and a BracketBuster. Their only non conference loss was to #2 seed UConn. In spite of that record and an RPI of 30 Buffalo did not get a bid.

Just this past season Toledo started out 12-0, was getting votes in the AP top 25 and had an RPI in the 20s-low 30s. They lost the auto bid in the MAC tournament championship game and finished the season 27-6 with an RPI of 38. Toledo did not get a bid either.

I think there's a solid case for both Buffalo in '05 and Toledo in '13 to have earned an at large bid. the MAC has been a 1 bid league for the past decade but that doesn't necessarily mean it should have been, or that it is far off from being a multi bid league in the future.

Don't forget the times that teams like Kent State that had a great shot at an at large bid but did not have the good graces of losing in the conference tournament.