(11-13-2014 01:54 PM)SVHerd Wrote:  

(11-13-2014 07:27 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Fear Fro may be done for the season, but it was so nice to be on campus with a great student turnout.

Attendance for a mid-week game 13,374

Going to post a picture from the Springfield paper,which ahs 4 articles and only going to post the article from the Boston papers, since every one says Boston is a pro town and will not cover UMass.



Boston Globe

Quote:AMHERST — Mark Whipple returned to the University of Massachusetts with the stated intention of delivering championships. That’s what he told an adoring assemblage during his coronation-like reintroduction on campus back in January.

An 0-6 start to the season made it evident, however, that Whipple would not be making the same splash he had back in 1998, when his initial stint on the UMass sideline began with a Division 1-AA national title.

That’s not to suggest that Whipple 2.0 has failed to deliver, though. He’s brought something palpable to those who followUMass football: entertainment.

The Minutemen put on a performance Wednesday night that, while flawed, had stretches of prime-time worthiness. Junior receiver Tajae Sharpe fueled the high-test offense with a record-tying night and the defense got into the act courtesy of a spotlight showing by linebacker Trey Seals, as UMass won for the third time in its last four games, 24-10, before 13,374 at McGuirk Alumni Stadium.

But victory came at a cost. Blake Frohnapfel, the showstopping quarterback who leads the Mid-American Conference in passing yards and touchdowns, injured his right leg on a scramble late in the first half, limped his way through the third quarter, and finally left the game with 10 minutes to go and was carted to the locker room. Whipple offered no injury update after the game, saying only, “I don’t think it’s good.”

Frohnapfel (28 of 44, 424 yards, 2 interceptions) was replaced on the next possession by redshirt freshman Austin Whipple, the coach’s son. The Minutemen led by a touchdown at the time, and Seals had just made the defensive play of the game — or at least one of his defensive plays of the game. After already having forced one fumble, recovering another, and producing a drive-halting sack, the redshirt junior picked off a pass by Jack Milas (23 of 37, 210 yards, 2 interceptions) at the Cardinals’ 42 with 8:42 left and returned it to the 36.

“Trey Seals was immense,” said Whipple.

From there, the UMass offense consisted of Shadrach Abrokwah running, Lorenzo Woodley running, and Whipple . . . handing off. The Minutemen went 36 yards on six plays — the final one a 7-yard scoring run out of the wildcat by reserve Elgin Long — to make it 24-10. Later they killed off the game’s final 4½ minutes with a 10-play drive consisting of all runs.

“It was on the offensive line,” said Whipple. “They knew the situation.”

Woodley finished with 87 yards — 34 on eight carries during the final drive — and a touchdown, Abrokwah had 54 and a score.

The big numbers on this night were Sharpe’s, though, and his show started early. It took UMass (3-7, 3-3 MAC) all of 62 seconds to raise the curtain, as Frohnapfel connected with Sharpe for 8 yards on the game’s first play, then 61 on a deep post to put the ball on the Ball State (3-7, 2-4) 3-yard line. From there, Abrokwah ran it in to put the Minutemen ahead barely a minute into the game.

By night’s end, Sharpe would have 13 catches to match a UMass record he already shared with three others. His 239 receiving yards were a career high, and he surpassed Victor Cruz for fifth place on the school’s career list with 2,015 yards.

“Tajae had a great game,” said Whipple.

Will he see the ball, though, when UMass faces Akron Tuesday night? With Whipple — he of the 0 for 0 stat line — expected to be under center, UMass will likely be more grind-it-out than air-it-out.

“I don’t think we’ll throw for 420,” said Whipple the coach. “Froh is a special guy. But our guys will rally behind whoever’s back there.”

Will quote the game day piece from the Boston Herald and a link to the article about the game.
UMass right at Home - Boston Herald

Minutemen in Prime Time - Boston Herald

Quote:The UMass football team and the Mid-American Conference will be on the national stage tonight when it hosts Ball State at McGuirk Stadium in Amherst.

The Minutemen (2-7, 2-3 MAC) face the Cardinals (3-6, 2-3) in a game televised on ESPNU (8 p.m.), the second of their three contests at McGuirk. UMass’ previous home games this season against Boston College, Colorado and Eastern Michigan were played at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro.

The Minutemen last played on Oct. 25 at Toledo, where they lost a 42-35 shootout. UMass coach Mark Whipple said the Minutemen are rested and ready for the first midweek night game in program history.

“They are excited to be home, actually back on campus in Amherst,” Whipple said yesterday. “If we can finish the season and have a big game Wednesday night, I think there will be some excitement from the campus.

“We had a good crowd for our homecoming against Bowling Green, and hopefully we can put that together on Wednesday night. . . . We got some guys healthier and there is a little more bounce in their step. Our guys have practiced hard, and we had little scrimmages, so were ready for a good Ball State team.”

The adventure of playing a midweek game in prime time had a particular appeal for inside linebacker Stanley Andre, a redshirt senior from the Grove Hall section of Dorchester.

“It’s going to be really cool to play on Wednesday night at McGuirk,” Andre said. “I think it is going to be awesome coming out and putting on show for them, and it’s going to be a great atmosphere.”

Andre has endured the many incarnations of the UMass program during his tenure. He’s played for three coaches and helped transition the program from the Colonial Athletic Association to the MAC and from the Division 1-AA level to 1-A.

“That’s the game of football, and you have to adapt,” Andre said. “You are going to have new coaches that expect new things, and you just have to be prepared and be motivated.

“But it’s been a journey being in my fifth year and going through multiple coaches, but you learn to adapt.”

Andre endured consecutive 1-11 seasons under Charley Molnar, so everything in 2014 with Whipple feels like an upgrade. Andre commands the huddle, calls the defensive plays in UMass’ 3-4 schemes and sets the tone with his punishing physical play.

Tonight, Andre will make his 34th consecutive start, the longest streak of any player on the roster, and he is enjoying his finest season. He started with 12 tackles against Boston College and made a career-high 19 against Bowling Green.

“He’s been a really solid player, and he’s a solid leader,” Whipple said. “He’s the only senior in our program that was part of what’s been happening here at UMass over time.

“I think he’s playing better than he ever has. He’s gotten quicker and solid in the middle. He calls the signals, and I think he’ll show up and play really well Wednesday.”

I hope Fro is OK. Great game he played last night. Great kid as well. I wish he was still with the Herd. Umass got a good one. Good luck the rest of the way to Blake and the Minutemen.

Definitely getting Fro has been really special for us, thanks.
Here is the update and not as bad as feared.

Quote:Austin Whipple took all the first string snaps at practice Friday, but UMass is holding out hope that junior Blake Frohnapfel will be healthy enough to play in Tuesday's game at Akron.

Frohnapfel suffered a bone bruise in Wednesday's win over Ball State.

Frohnapfel, who is a graduate student at UMass after transferring from Marshall, has completed 137 of 241 passes for 3,345 yards and led the Mid-American Conference with 334.5 yards per game. He threw 23 touchdowns and 10 interceptions.

Whipple, who began his career at Penn State before transferring to UMass to play for his dad. He’s appeared in two games, but has yet to attempt a pass

http://ht.ly/Ej1q9

(11-14-2014 11:24 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 04:41 PM)thanksjim Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 04:37 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 02:45 PM)emu steve Wrote:  /align]

I wish there was a way to make UMass in the MAC work.

There is.
Bring all sports.

+1000

Yup, but doubt it will happen. Our BB season opened tonight, attendance 8,187 in a 95-87 win over Siena.
[/quote]

Ohio had 11,000+ in an exhibition. You belong in the MAC

(11-15-2014 02:41 AM)thanksjim Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 11:24 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 04:41 PM)thanksjim Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 04:37 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 02:45 PM)emu steve Wrote:  /align]

I wish there was a way to make UMass in the MAC work.

There is.
Bring all sports.

+1000

Yup, but doubt it will happen. Our BB season opened tonight, attendance 8,187 in a 95-87 win over Siena.

Ohio had 11,000+ in an exhibition. You belong in the MAC
[/quote]
We like the MAC and Ohio. We'll enjoy our last year here and then probably miss you guys. Best wishes and we'll at least keep playing Ohio in football.

(11-15-2014 02:41 AM)thanksjim Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 11:24 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 04:41 PM)thanksjim Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 04:37 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  [quote='emu steve' pid='11377296' dateline='1415994345']
/align]

I wish there was a way to make UMass in the MAC work.

There is.
Bring all sports.

+1000

All Sports doesn't currently work for UMass. The failure of the MAC to understand this fact and refusal of the MAC to discuss alternatives in order to retain UMass in the conference for Football is a head shaker. Steinbrecher is clearly not a very smart businesman. Anybody w/a doctorate in phys ed who walks around referring to himself as "dr. Steinbrecher" clearly has some significant "issues". He's clearly not a big picture guy and doesn't seem to have much of a long range plan. should be replaced and this decision in particular should be re-assessed.

We're not going to continue to be an incubator for your football program while you go through growing pains as a program. You were brought on to bring balance to the Temple football-only arrangement, not for the state of your team, and there was no reason not to force your hand.

(11-15-2014 12:03 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  All Sports doesn't currently work for UMass. The failure of the MAC to understand this fact and refusal of the MAC to discuss alternatives in order to retain UMass in the conference for Football is a head shaker. Steinbrecher is clearly not a very smart businesman. Anybody w/a doctorate in phys ed who walks around referring to himself as "dr. Steinbrecher" clearly has some significant "issues". He's clearly not a big picture guy and doesn't seem to have much of a long range plan. should be replaced and this decision in particular should be re-assessed.

The MAC has two major revenue streams-
#1 is the revenue share that comes from the contract between ESPN and the 10 FBS conferences for the College Football Playoffs that is in place until 2026. Per the contract each conference will receive a payout amount determined by the number of schools in the conference, up to 12. If the conference has more than 12 schools then the payout will be diluted as the 12 schools will have to sacrifice part of their payout to cover the 13th member. UMass would be the 13th member of the MAC.
#2 is the contract for media rights between the MAC and ESPN that was recently renegotiated to be in place until 2027. It should be obvious to everyone that if ESPN had said that keeping UMass would have been financially beneficial to the MAC then the MAC would have acted accordingly. A major factor in the increase in annual revenue from ESPN came on the condition of each MAC program investing significantly in upgrading the production values of the MAC's basketball games. Why should UMass get to reap the benefit of a contract that values the bball teams without having a bball team participate in the conference?

The bottom line is Dr. Steinbrecher does have a long term plan, and UMass has made it clear they want no part in a long term relationship with the MAC, so the decision was an easy one to make. Any perceived value you may think UMass football brings to the MAC was not demonstrated in either of the two major revenue streams for the conference. Nothing personal, its just business.

Best of luck to UMass, I'm sure a P5 conference with much more effective leadership will be along to snatch you up real soon.

(11-15-2014 01:10 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 12:03 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  All Sports doesn't currently work for UMass. The failure of the MAC to understand this fact and refusal of the MAC to discuss alternatives in order to retain UMass in the conference for Football is a head shaker. Steinbrecher is clearly not a very smart businesman. Anybody w/a doctorate in phys ed who walks around referring to himself as "dr. Steinbrecher" clearly has some significant "issues". He's clearly not a big picture guy and doesn't seem to have much of a long range plan. should be replaced and this decision in particular should be re-assessed.

The MAC has two major revenue streams-
#1 is the revenue share that comes from the contract between ESPN and the 10 FBS conferences for the College Football Playoffs that is in place until 2026. Per the contract each conference will receive a payout amount determined by the number of schools in the conference, up to 12. If the conference has more than 12 schools then the payout will be diluted as the 12 schools will have to sacrifice part of their payout to cover the 13th member. UMass would be the 13th member of the MAC.
#2 is the contract for media rights between the MAC and ESPN that was recently renegotiated to be in place until 2027. It should be obvious to everyone that if ESPN had said that keeping UMass would have been financially beneficial to the MAC then the MAC would have acted accordingly. A major factor in the increase in annual revenue from ESPN came on the condition of each MAC program investing significantly in upgrading the production values of the MAC's basketball games. Why should UMass get to reap the benefit of a contract that values the bball teams without having a bball team participate in the conference?

The bottom line is Dr. Steinbrecher does have a long term plan, and UMass has made it clear they want no part in a long term relationship with the MAC, so the decision was an easy one to make. Any perceived value you may think UMass football brings to the MAC was not demonstrated in either of the two major revenue streams for the conference. Nothing personal, its just business.

Best of luck to UMass, I'm sure a P5 conference with much more effective leadership will be along to snatch you up real soon.

Please feel free to share Dr. Steinbrecher's brilliant long term plan w/us. And how issuing absurd ultimatums designed to damage the MAC is part of that plan. BTW if your point is we need to only have 12 teams - then why did Dr. Steinbrecher invite UMass for Full MAC Membership? Its an absurd argument and he clearly has no plan because this decision makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Best of luck this guy making your business decisions.

He invited you with the expectation that we'd add a 14th school if you said yes.

(11-15-2014 01:06 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  We're not going to continue to be an incubator for your football program while you go through growing pains as a program. You were brought on to bring balance to the Temple football-only arrangement, not for the state of your team, and there was no reason not to force your hand.

Yes there were numerous very good reasons not to issue a ridiculous ultimatum. It was a short sighted and foolish business decision which is bad for the MAC. BTW, after just 2 yrs of transitioning to FBS our football team is currently 3-1 versus the MAC over the past 4 weeks. So it looks as if the incubation period is pretty much over - which just means that the the commish's decision looks that much more foolish and short sighted. choosing to fail.

(11-15-2014 03:04 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 01:06 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  We're not going to continue to be an incubator for your football program while you go through growing pains as a program. You were brought on to bring balance to the Temple football-only arrangement, not for the state of your team, and there was no reason not to force your hand.

Yes there were numerous very good reasons not to issue a ridiculous ultimatum. It was a short sighted and foolish business decision which is bad for the MAC. BTW, after just 2 yrs of transitioning to FBS our football team is currently 3-1 versus the MAC over the past 4 weeks. So it looks as if the incubation period is pretty much over - which just means that the the commish's decision looks that much more foolish and short sighted. choosing to fail.

You want in the MAC, join with all sports.

(11-15-2014 02:43 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 01:10 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 12:03 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  All Sports doesn't currently work for UMass. The failure of the MAC to understand this fact and refusal of the MAC to discuss alternatives in order to retain UMass in the conference for Football is a head shaker. Steinbrecher is clearly not a very smart businesman. Anybody w/a doctorate in phys ed who walks around referring to himself as "dr. Steinbrecher" clearly has some significant "issues". He's clearly not a big picture guy and doesn't seem to have much of a long range plan. should be replaced and this decision in particular should be re-assessed.

The MAC has two major revenue streams-
#1 is the revenue share that comes from the contract between ESPN and the 10 FBS conferences for the College Football Playoffs that is in place until 2026. Per the contract each conference will receive a payout amount determined by the number of schools in the conference, up to 12. If the conference has more than 12 schools then the payout will be diluted as the 12 schools will have to sacrifice part of their payout to cover the 13th member. UMass would be the 13th member of the MAC.
#2 is the contract for media rights between the MAC and ESPN that was recently renegotiated to be in place until 2027. It should be obvious to everyone that if ESPN had said that keeping UMass would have been financially beneficial to the MAC then the MAC would have acted accordingly. A major factor in the increase in annual revenue from ESPN came on the condition of each MAC program investing significantly in upgrading the production values of the MAC's basketball games. Why should UMass get to reap the benefit of a contract that values the bball teams without having a bball team participate in the conference?

The bottom line is Dr. Steinbrecher does have a long term plan, and UMass has made it clear they want no part in a long term relationship with the MAC, so the decision was an easy one to make. Any perceived value you may think UMass football brings to the MAC was not demonstrated in either of the two major revenue streams for the conference. Nothing personal, its just business.

Best of luck to UMass, I'm sure a P5 conference with much more effective leadership will be along to snatch you up real soon.

Please feel free to share Dr. Steinbrecher's brilliant long term plan w/us. And how issuing absurd ultimatums designed to damage the MAC is part of that plan. BTW if your point is we need to only have 12 teams - then why did Dr. Steinbrecher invite UMass for Full MAC Membership? Its an absurd argument and he clearly has no plan because this decision makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Best of luck this guy making your business decisions.

the long term plan is stability. 9 MAC schools have been members for over 40 years, 6 have been in the MAC for over 60 years. Its a stable league. UMass was invited to provide balanced divisions when Temple was the 13 member. Having an odd number is not good long term as it makes scheduling difficult. The decision to go to 14 came before the 12 team max payout was announced as well.

And let's be real clear about something here Einstein, Steinbrecher didn't "issue an absurd ultimatum", he exercised an option that BOTH the conference and UMass agreed upon BEFORE UMass joined the MAC, which means there was a plan. And to be crystal clear, because I don't think you understand, Steinbrecher didn't force UMass to leave, in fact it was the opposite. He extended an offer of full membership and UMass CHOSE ON THEIR OWN to reject the offer. Per the terms of the agreement by both parties, UMass, after REJECTING THE OFFER, would then have 2 years to exit the MAC.

These provisions were put in place to protect the MAC from being used like a doormat by UMass and it worked to perfection . That's what happens when Leadership makes long term plans that are in the best interest of the league. Sorry champ.

(11-15-2014 12:03 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 02:41 AM)thanksjim Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 11:24 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 04:41 PM)thanksjim Wrote:  

(11-14-2014 04:37 PM)westernwilly Wrote:  [quote='emu steve' pid='11377296' dateline='1415994345']
/align]

I wish there was a way to make UMass in the MAC work.

There is.
Bring all sports.

+1000

All Sports doesn't currently work for UMass. The failure of the MAC to understand this fact and refusal of the MAC to discuss alternatives in order to retain UMass in the conference for Football is a head shaker. Steinbrecher is clearly not a very smart businesman. Anybody w/a doctorate in phys ed who walks around referring to himself as "dr. Steinbrecher" clearly has some significant "issues". He's clearly not a big picture guy and doesn't seem to have much of a long range plan. should be replaced and this decision in particular should be re-assessed.

It would seem that you're not much of a businessman, since UMass brings NOTHING to the MAC in football.

Long range plan of dissociating from UMass is the best strategy for that circumstance. NE football talent is so thin that if UMass had any long range strategic planning, they'd go back to FCS.

Do the same w/ ODU wrestling and the conference gets even stronger.

(11-15-2014 03:12 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 02:43 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 01:10 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 12:03 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  All Sports doesn't currently work for UMass. The failure of the MAC to understand this fact and refusal of the MAC to discuss alternatives in order to retain UMass in the conference for Football is a head shaker. Steinbrecher is clearly not a very smart businesman. Anybody w/a doctorate in phys ed who walks around referring to himself as "dr. Steinbrecher" clearly has some significant "issues". He's clearly not a big picture guy and doesn't seem to have much of a long range plan. should be replaced and this decision in particular should be re-assessed.

The MAC has two major revenue streams-
#1 is the revenue share that comes from the contract between ESPN and the 10 FBS conferences for the College Football Playoffs that is in place until 2026. Per the contract each conference will receive a payout amount determined by the number of schools in the conference, up to 12. If the conference has more than 12 schools then the payout will be diluted as the 12 schools will have to sacrifice part of their payout to cover the 13th member. UMass would be the 13th member of the MAC.
#2 is the contract for media rights between the MAC and ESPN that was recently renegotiated to be in place until 2027. It should be obvious to everyone that if ESPN had said that keeping UMass would have been financially beneficial to the MAC then the MAC would have acted accordingly. A major factor in the increase in annual revenue from ESPN came on the condition of each MAC program investing significantly in upgrading the production values of the MAC's basketball games. Why should UMass get to reap the benefit of a contract that values the bball teams without having a bball team participate in the conference?

The bottom line is Dr. Steinbrecher does have a long term plan, and UMass has made it clear they want no part in a long term relationship with the MAC, so the decision was an easy one to make. Any perceived value you may think UMass football brings to the MAC was not demonstrated in either of the two major revenue streams for the conference. Nothing personal, its just business.

Best of luck to UMass, I'm sure a P5 conference with much more effective leadership will be along to snatch you up real soon.

Please feel free to share Dr. Steinbrecher's brilliant long term plan w/us. And how issuing absurd ultimatums designed to damage the MAC is part of that plan. BTW if your point is we need to only have 12 teams - then why did Dr. Steinbrecher invite UMass for Full MAC Membership? Its an absurd argument and he clearly has no plan because this decision makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Best of luck this guy making your business decisions.

the long term plan is stability. 9 MAC schools have been members for over 40 years, 6 have been in the MAC for over 60 years. Its a stable league. UMass was invited to provide balanced divisions when Temple was the 13 member. Having an odd number is not good long term as it makes scheduling difficult. The decision to go to 14 came before the 12 team max payout was announced as well.

And let's be real clear about something here Einstein, Steinbrecher didn't "issue an absurd ultimatum", he exercised an option that BOTH the conference and UMass agreed upon BEFORE UMass joined the MAC, which means there was a plan. And to be crystal clear, because I don't think you understand, Steinbrecher didn't force UMass to leave, in fact it was the opposite. He extended an offer of full membership and UMass CHOSE ON THEIR OWN to reject the offer. Per the terms of the agreement by both parties, UMass, after REJECTING THE OFFER, would then have 2 years to exit the MAC.

These provisions were put in place to protect the MAC from being used like a doormat by UMass and it worked to perfection . That's what happens when Leadership makes long term plans that are in the best interest of the league. Sorry champ.

Well said. The MAC should have given us the ultimatum considering the dollars involved. However the UMass fan in me says, wish the MAC did not totally give up on us and consider a less than equal contract down the road.

Anyhow we have all types of posters here, but do appreciate the FBS opportunity you gave us. We'll see what happens to UAB after Thanksgiving and any ripple effect.

(11-15-2014 07:46 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 03:12 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 02:43 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 01:10 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 12:03 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  All Sports doesn't currently work for UMass. The failure of the MAC to understand this fact and refusal of the MAC to discuss alternatives in order to retain UMass in the conference for Football is a head shaker. Steinbrecher is clearly not a very smart businesman. Anybody w/a doctorate in phys ed who walks around referring to himself as "dr. Steinbrecher" clearly has some significant "issues". He's clearly not a big picture guy and doesn't seem to have much of a long range plan. should be replaced and this decision in particular should be re-assessed.

The MAC has two major revenue streams-
#1 is the revenue share that comes from the contract between ESPN and the 10 FBS conferences for the College Football Playoffs that is in place until 2026. Per the contract each conference will receive a payout amount determined by the number of schools in the conference, up to 12. If the conference has more than 12 schools then the payout will be diluted as the 12 schools will have to sacrifice part of their payout to cover the 13th member. UMass would be the 13th member of the MAC.
#2 is the contract for media rights between the MAC and ESPN that was recently renegotiated to be in place until 2027. It should be obvious to everyone that if ESPN had said that keeping UMass would have been financially beneficial to the MAC then the MAC would have acted accordingly. A major factor in the increase in annual revenue from ESPN came on the condition of each MAC program investing significantly in upgrading the production values of the MAC's basketball games. Why should UMass get to reap the benefit of a contract that values the bball teams without having a bball team participate in the conference?

The bottom line is Dr. Steinbrecher does have a long term plan, and UMass has made it clear they want no part in a long term relationship with the MAC, so the decision was an easy one to make. Any perceived value you may think UMass football brings to the MAC was not demonstrated in either of the two major revenue streams for the conference. Nothing personal, its just business.

Best of luck to UMass, I'm sure a P5 conference with much more effective leadership will be along to snatch you up real soon.

Please feel free to share Dr. Steinbrecher's brilliant long term plan w/us. And how issuing absurd ultimatums designed to damage the MAC is part of that plan. BTW if your point is we need to only have 12 teams - then why did Dr. Steinbrecher invite UMass for Full MAC Membership? Its an absurd argument and he clearly has no plan because this decision makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Best of luck this guy making your business decisions.

the long term plan is stability. 9 MAC schools have been members for over 40 years, 6 have been in the MAC for over 60 years. Its a stable league. UMass was invited to provide balanced divisions when Temple was the 13 member. Having an odd number is not good long term as it makes scheduling difficult. The decision to go to 14 came before the 12 team max payout was announced as well.

And let's be real clear about something here Einstein, Steinbrecher didn't "issue an absurd ultimatum", he exercised an option that BOTH the conference and UMass agreed upon BEFORE UMass joined the MAC, which means there was a plan. And to be crystal clear, because I don't think you understand, Steinbrecher didn't force UMass to leave, in fact it was the opposite. He extended an offer of full membership and UMass CHOSE ON THEIR OWN to reject the offer. Per the terms of the agreement by both parties, UMass, after REJECTING THE OFFER, would then have 2 years to exit the MAC.

These provisions were put in place to protect the MAC from being used like a doormat by UMass and it worked to perfection . That's what happens when Leadership makes long term plans that are in the best interest of the league. Sorry champ.

Well said. The MAC should have given us the ultimatum considering the dollars involved. However the UMass fan in me says, wish the MAC did not totally give up on us and consider a less than equal contract down the road.

Anyhow we have all types of posters here, but do appreciate the FBS opportunity you gave us. We'll see what happens to UAB after Thanksgiving and any ripple effect.

Steve, I've said it before but its worth repeating, it's unfortunate that there's not a mutually beneficial solution because I really like UMass.

(11-15-2014 03:04 PM)MassWhole Wrote:  

(11-15-2014 01:06 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  We're not going to continue to be an incubator for your football program while you go through growing pains as a program. You were brought on to bring balance to the Temple football-only arrangement, not for the state of your team, and there was no reason not to force your hand.

Yes there were numerous very good reasons not to issue a ridiculous ultimatum. It was a short sighted and foolish business decision which is bad for the MAC. BTW, after just 2 yrs of transitioning to FBS our football team is currently 3-1 versus the MAC over the past 4 weeks. So it looks as if the incubation period is pretty much over - which just means that the the commish's decision looks that much more foolish and short sighted. choosing to fail.

Have to disagree here. UMass balanced out Temple then Temple left. It is well known UMass has higher aspirations, whether that will happen is another debate entirely. Why would the MAC dilute it's revenue streams further by bringing up another FCS call up or Sunbelt team with the distinct possibility that with conferences continuing to evolve they could be left in the same boat with 13 teams in 2-8 years?

The MAC made a good effort to expand the footprint, balance the league, bring in a great rival for Temple, and maybe another bowl tie in (still waiting for the Patriot Bowl!). All that went out the door when Temple bolted. I do think that the conference made up for any losses incurred by adding UMass with the exit fee Temple had to pay.

For UMass it was a good opportunity but All in for the MAC just isn't something that makes sense right now. What I don't get is how so many fans on both sides are butt hurt over this. If the MAC wants to be pissed at anyone Temple seems like a better candidate than UMass. The UMass fans might be frustrated that the MAC is exercising the option of forcing UMass to pick should understand the MAC actually gave UMass an extra year or two and the MAC doesn't owe UMass anything, in fact UMass wouldn't even be able to be FBS independent if not for the MAC. It's like a breakup where neither party is at fault but because they are breaking up both parties start thinking of reasons not to like each other anymore or be friends.