(12-14-2014 02:48 PM)jdgaucho Wrote: Now what about AD McCutcheon? He's been at UMass for a decade and facilities have been improved and built, not to mention the transition to FBS occurred under his watch. How would you and other Minutemen feel about him leaving? Apparently he is a finalist for the UCSB job.
Looking at his profile, he does have experience out west having previously served at Cal Poly (He was there when they joined the Big West in '96). But he'd be working at a school for the first time which doesn't have football. Do you see him trying to bring it back, if he is hired??
McCutcheon's greatest success at UMass was getting facilities improvements built for every UMass sport except baseball. Football, however, was the last of the 18 sports that got improvements. I do not consider him a crusader for football and would not expect him to press the issue if hired at UCSB. If was the former chancellor that pushed for UMass to upgrade to FBS, not McCutcheon. He is good at managing the athletic department within the limitations of what the administration sets for him. He has a spotty record at coaching hires, particularly when left to his own devices. He doesn't show much ambition, except when it comes to getting facilities built. He very much wants to go back to California. He interviewed for the San Diego State opening 3 or 4 years ago.
(12-13-2014 01:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.
The oft-cited 25k number (actually 26k) comes from a blurry diagram attached to the application for admission to the MAC. It's there to show the MAC what could be built quickly and very cheaply to increase capacity if the Gillette Stadium lease isn't renewed after it expires in 2017. It is not what UMass aspires to build nor is limited to building. It's a worst case scenario concept that wouldn't require much fundraising, consisting of bleachers in the south end zone plus a couple thousand seats on each sideline after lowering the field a little. UMass has taken no steps toward funding or building these additions yet because they're not really what UMass wants to build. Several other UMass stadium designs exist. I have one that's over 35k that still has the old cursive UMass logo on it in the picture. The problem up here has been figuring out what the right stadium at the right time in the right conference is.
(12-14-2014 10:50 AM)Bull Wrote: Regarding this, 'UMass is waiting for opportunities to arise before investing". This is a ridiculous cart-horse argument. Conferences are waiting to see some serious investment, particularly in a legit home, before considering any additions. Look what UCF, Houston and Tulane did. Conferences will NOT display interest in a Umass playing in an un-upgraded McGuirk.
It's a different situation in the Northeast vs. the South. There are 6 FBS conferences based primarily in the South. There are none primarily in the Northeast. UCF, Houston and Tulane knew they'd have somewhere to make use of their large investments even if their shiny new stadiums didn't immediately fulfill their dreams of ascending higher. UMass, UConn and Villanova couldn't afford to take that approach without risking getting stuck with a white elephant, so none of us built anything until UConn was assured of getting a spot in the Big East. It would have been a complete disaster for Villanova if they expanded that soccer stadium and THEN got rejected by the Big East. Like UMass, Villanova can't climb the football ladder from the bottom without hurting basketball, whereas in the South, SBC to CUSA to AAC to P5 is a steady climb that doesn't require sacrificing one sport for the other. UMass for its part has Gillette Stadium rent-free for 3 more years. 3 years is an eternity the way things are going right now. Look at how conferences were aligned 3 years ago. Texas A&M was still in the Big 12.
This is also a smart time to be delaying stadium construction in general. Attendance is down nationally, particularly student attendance, and everyone is still trying to figure out what's going to convince the next generation of fans to buy tickets to see sporting events live instead of watching on their HDTVs. Maybe a traditional 30k-50k capacity stadium that's mostly chairbacks and bleachers isn't the way to go. Maybe we should be building more clubs and fanzones instead of regular seating. Maybe we should stick the big screens out by the tailgating area and charge them to watch the game there, since they don't seem to want to leave. Maybe we should stick cameras and microphones in every player's helmet and charge subscribers gameday ticket prices to stream it at home. Maybe instead of student seating, we should just install a conveyer belt that allows students to take a quick narcissistic selfie in front of the field and upload it to their social media account of choice before the belt neatly deposits them outside the stadium, since they would have left after the first quarter anyway once they had adequate posting material for facebook. Or maybe there should be a one-way mirror installed in front of the student section that reflects back at them between plays, so they can look at themselves. I don't know, I'm just brainstorming. The point is, this would be an opportune time to sit back and let someone else spend the money to figure these things out. Nothing UMass builds right now is going to get it into the AAC when the AAC already has 12 members, unless there's an additional expansion candidate out there that the AAC is really excited about and thinks is worth expanding to 14.
/
UMass Chancellor asks Faculty Senate for unity; motion polling for FBS support denied
