From posters read that the new TV contract goes from 8-10M a year and fully get there is no need to share that and CFP with a 13th team. But do not see a lot of negatives with the MAC forming a 5 game alliance with UMass, similar to Notre Dame and the ACC.

We are not ND so we put in 5 basketball games as well and thought ESPN mention some emphasis on basketball. Believe our 4 games help put the MAC above CUSA last year.

While there are no huge negatives I see no positives to such an alliance.

(08-31-2014 08:19 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  While there are no huge negatives I see no positives to such an alliance.

np, The MAC was #15 in RPI a few years ago. You are now #12. It will be interesting to see future ratings.

Honestly Buffalo has no scheduling issues?

Why did you schedule 2 FCS team this year, no less playing Duquesne.

Ascribing that MAC RPI improvement to playing 4 games with UMass basketball is quite a stretch. Taking those games out of the equation, and the MAC is still improved and still ahead of CUSA last season. Had the MAC teams won all those games, there would be more of an impact, but even so, you are way overvaluing the difference those games make.

(08-31-2014 09:35 AM)axeme Wrote:  Ascribing that MAC RPI improvement to playing 4 games with UMass basketball is quite a stretch. Taking those games out of the equation, and the MAC is still improved and still ahead of CUSA last season. Had the MAC teams won all those games, there would be more of an impact, but even so, you are way overvaluing the difference those games make.

Probably so and have no idea of the new contract language related to BB. Know we definitely bumped up each BB team RPI after the games.

This is primarily a scheduling convenience for both parties in both sports. Much preferred some of the MAC teams over some of the home BB games this year.

Don't see the reason for five in particular. A balanced 2H, 2A October scheduling agreement makes more sense.

Quote: This is primarily a scheduling convenience for both parties in both sports. Much preferred some of the MAC teams over some of the home BB games this year.

... and the two schools that play in MA would then each get a visit from UMass BBall ... so in FB, the MAC would have 2H, 2A, in BBall, 2H.

The MAC as a conference would only need to agree to October scheduling to allow it to happen if deals are arrived at ... the cross-sport 2-1 (1 FB H, 1 BB H, 1 FB A) agreements could be arrived at by individual negotiation between UMass and any interested MAC schools.

No way that UMass can get the 6 home game schedule that they need to be able to split between their on-campus stadium and Gillette by drawing up all FB 2-1's ... if you play all of your games on-campus, then:

3 2-1's (2 A, 1 H) + 1 FCS Buy game (1 H) + 2 P5 Buy games (2 A) + 6 1-1 (3H, 3A) = 7A 5H
... but getting many of those 5H games after the middle of October will be a challenge.

(08-31-2014 09:14 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(08-31-2014 08:19 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  While there are no huge negatives I see no positives to such an alliance.

np, The MAC was #15 in RPI a few years ago. You are now #12. It will be interesting to see future ratings.

Honestly Buffalo has no scheduling issues?

Why did you schedule 2 FCS team this year, no less playing Duquesne.

Three FCS opponents if you count UMass...

I'm sorry I'd rather let our AD schedule home games with Baylor and open our season up at Ohio state and then take the chance once every 15 years we get burned and have to find a last minute opponent.

The Dukes "cost" us 150K for an opening date. By the looks of our third quarter we needed the tune up . Finally there is the point that I'm sure MAC teams could schedule with UMass once they are an independent, no need to have a relationship with you as a conference.

As to the RPI... A fat lot of good it did us, we still placed just one team and its apparent until we get better top to bottom a couple of spots in the RPI is not going to elevate us to a two bid league.

Now since UMass decided all in for the MAC was not what they wanted can you please stop finding these hypothetical scenarios where the MAC acts like some kind of lifeboat for you until the AAC adds the minutemen..

UMass's RPI over the last 10 years - 23, 55, 77, 152, 181, 152, 41, 62, 132, 144. That's an average RPI of 101.9 for a team with 1 NCAA appearance in 15 years, how does this help the MAC in any measurable way?

I appreciate what you're doing as a fan, and I truly hope UMass finds success, but you've got to realize that UMass does not have the leverage to justify a personalized arrangement that only a school with a large national brand rooted in a military branch or major religion could possibly ask for.

No need.

MAC 2 years.

Sunbelt 4 years.

AAC when UConn leaves or when Army joins for FB only.

(08-31-2014 07:43 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  From posters read that the new TV contract goes from 8-10M a year and fully get there is no need to share that and CFP with a 13th team. But do not see a lot of negatives with the MAC forming a 5 game alliance with UMass, similar to Notre Dame and the ACC.

We are not ND so we put in 5 basketball games as well and thought ESPN mention some emphasis on basketball. Believe our 4 games help put the MAC above CUSA last year.

I'm a fan of alliance building across sports.

Say two MAC teams would play OOC FB games with UMass (one home and one away) and UMass would play say two men's basketball games with the MAC (one home and one...) each year.

E.g., I see no reason why say UB and UMass can't get together on a 2-year deal. Each year UB would get a HOME FB OR basketball game. Ditto for UMass. E.g., UB would host UMass in FB and visit UMass in hoops. Next year, the opposite.

Sure UMass could do the same with say Akron, Ohio, Toledo, etc.

(09-01-2014 01:10 AM)panite Wrote:  No need.

MAC 2 years.

Sunbelt 4 years.

AAC when UConn leaves or when Army joins for FB only.

Even if UConn leaves or Army joins or whatever, UMass is a few down the list of next team on deck. Charlotte will be the next team up for AAC. Houston, SMU, Tulsa, and Tulane don't want another NE team to travel to. UT-San Antonio and Old Dominion are also likely ahead of UMass. UMass fans are blinded by a few Temple fans that would probably pull for them to join but the entire western part of AAC would be against it and UConn will have moved on.

In a few years Charlotte will be fully up and running in football, have a solid basketball program, sit in a large city, and have history with many in the AAC as old CUSA buddies. ECU, Memphis, and Cincinnati would be all over pushing them to get in. They make more sense and fit better than UMass in every way.

Wish I had more options in this poll ~ I would have voted for a 4 game alliance. I feel confident that Kent would be glad of the chance for some home BBall games hosting UMass, but I'd rather an October-only scheduling agreement ... November #MACtion game scheduling is a headache enough, without having an additional complication thrown on top.

UMass could go ask the Sunbelt about a November scheduling agreement.

(09-01-2014 01:51 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Wish I had more options in this poll ~ I would have voted for a 4 game alliance. I feel confident that Kent would be glad of the chance for some home BBall games hosting UMass, but I'd rather an October-only scheduling agreement ... November #MACtion game scheduling is a headache enough, without having an additional complication thrown on top.

UMass could go ask the Sunbelt about a November scheduling agreement.

I hear you about November and did not give it a lot of thought. My thought process is that we are going to need to form some alliances and rather it be with the MAC. We have started some history and prefer it to new ones. MAC has a nice balance of BB teams. Some real tough ones, middle of the road and a few cupcakes.

The Sun Belt makes sense and know we've been talking. Louisiana and Arkansas State have a lot of say since they are well established and have other state teams that are non football. That could happen, but prefer the MAC over some one new.

Think we have a some value to ESPN, but no where close enough to justify keeping us. The MAC was trying to get some east coast exposure with Temple and UMass. An alliance can maintain the slightly larger footprint for both football and basketball.
---------------------------------------------------------
Why 5 games? Was thinking we already do one buy game and now will need two to make up for lost revenue stream. We'd need a FCS buy game to balance the scheduling. The other four games could be home and away series. Five games would be the biggest block and keep the MAC identity without sharing the CFP and TV money.

(09-01-2014 09:07 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(09-01-2014 01:51 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Wish I had more options in this poll ~ I would have voted for a 4 game alliance. I feel confident that Kent would be glad of the chance for some home BBall games hosting UMass, but I'd rather an October-only scheduling agreement ... November #MACtion game scheduling is a headache enough, without having an additional complication thrown on top.

UMass could go ask the Sunbelt about a November scheduling agreement.

I hear you about November and did not give it a lot of thought. My thought process is that we are going to need to form some alliances and rather it be with the MAC. We have started some history and prefer it to new ones. MAC has a nice balance of BB teams. Some real tough ones, middle of the road and a few cupcakes.

The Sun Belt makes sense and know we've been talking. Louisiana and Arkansas State have a lot of say since they are well established and have other state teams that are non football. That could happen, but prefer the MAC over some one new.

Think we have a some value to ESPN, but no where close enough to justify keeping us. The MAC was trying to get some east coast exposure with Temple and UMass. An alliance can maintain the slightly larger footprint for both football and basketball.
---------------------------------------------------------
Why 5 games? Was thinking we already do one buy game and now will need two to make up for lost revenue stream. We'd need a FCS buy game to balance the scheduling. The other four games could be home and away series. Five games would be the biggest block and keep the MAC identity without sharing the CFP and TV money.

1 - 3 - MAC games - Buffalo annually would make a nice regional game.

1 - 3 - AAC games - UConn and Temple annually would make nice regional games.

Army annually in November - regional independent

Regional FCS in November

BYU annually in November - Home and Home played at Gillette.

Keep BC on the schedule as often as possible - great regional match-up.

2 - P5 money games a year - try to get home and home played at Gillette if possible but no more than one P5 road game per year for the big money pay out. Regionally Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt would make good choices. So would Penn St for a one and done money game if they could get on their schedule again.

1-3 CUSA games a year. Marshall is a close opponent for annually match ups.

1-3 Sunbelt games a year.

Use up to 4 OOC BB games a year to entice MAC, AAC, CUSA, and Sunbelt games.

Scheduling as and independent should not be a major problem for a few years. TV money is a problem and a 3 to 4 game scheduling agreement maybe required along with 4 OOC games BB games to get access to G5 bowls. The AAC has the largest selection of bowls going forward.

Hopefully UMASS can nail that 12th spot with the Sunbelt though for a 4 year MAC type contract. It gives them TV revenue, bowl slots, and the one million dollar CFP payout to help with program expenses and continued on campus stadium improvements.

(09-01-2014 09:07 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Why 5 games? Was thinking we already do one buy game and now will need two to make up for lost revenue stream. We'd need a FCS buy game to balance the scheduling. The other four games could be home and away series. Five games would be the biggest block and keep the MAC identity without sharing the CFP and TV money.

I'm not sure it works getting to 6/6 with 2 buy games ... the best that UMass can expect with Go5 schools is 1-1, and something extra would be needed to assured 1-1 games in late October / November.

So if you are going to go to 2 buy games, you are going to 5 home, which means at most 1 at Gillette (there is a one-game alternate home game site exemption available to the "at least half of your home games" rule), and the other four at the on-campus stadium.

If you were going to 7A-5H, you could have 2 buy games and 3 games from 2-1 agreements with AAC / lower tier ACC teams. That would give 4A-1H which one buy FCS game would balance to 4A-2H and then six 1-1 agreements would have you covered. If Army is available, then a 3 game November package with the Sunbelt, 2A when hosting Army, 1A when visiting Army, and a 2 game scheduling agreement with the MAC in the second half of October would give UMass the late-October-on stability to be able to sort out the first half of the season when there are more opportunities.

If you are going 6A-6H, which allows either 5 on campus / 1 Gillette or 3 on-campus / 3 Gillette, it seems like UMass basically looking at 1 buy game and 1 buy-in FCS game and 10 1-1 games to fill, given that UMass is not likely to be able to afford the guarantee payments required to schedule a number of 2H-1A contracts with FBS schools. A 3-4 game November scheduling agreement with the Sunbelt (depending on whether Army is available annually or just periodically) and a 4 game October scheduling agreement with the MAC would let UMass be fairly opportunistic in hunting for the other two 1-1's.

The scheduling agreements don't have to be as strictly programmed as the ACC scheduling agreement with ND ... they can be the looser type of scheduling agreement that Army has with the MAC, where the MAC agrees to allow MAC schools to schedule Army up through a certain date in the season and then draw up the conference schedule around that.

And why the Sunbelt in November is because they have 11 FB schools, and so have to schedule November byes anyway ... so its not a major challenge for them to schedule those byes around agreements UMass reaches with individual Sunbelt schools.

I would rather Army not yearly play UMASS in football. I would be okay with every 3-5 years.

(09-05-2014 08:56 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I would rather Army not yearly play UMASS in football. I would be okay with every 3-5 years.

The lure is that UMass would be available in late November when getting home games is not an easy task, and even when away its only about 3hrs from West Point, but I could certainly understand a preference to having that be something less than annual.