Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
UMass Football
Author Message
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #701
RE: UMass Football
I'm glad UMASS is FBS. I don't think they should abandon their goal of making this work. Just want to get that out of the way. I'm arguing with the notion that it's normal for universities to pay for athletics with the University general funds. Sure, those who disagree with that can give examples of a school who needed a couple million here and there to buy out a coaches contract/emergency facility repair etc. That's different than a school using non-athletic department money to fund its athletics. Thats not the norm. The norm is donations/ticket sales/merchandise sales/media contract money.
Cheers!
02-27-2017 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,351
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #702
RE: UMass Football
I think if you look closer and outside the power conferencesupply for sure, you will see some financial accounting sleight of hand occurIng more often than anyone will admit.
02-27-2017 04:38 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,737
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #703
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 04:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm glad UMASS is FBS. I don't think they should abandon their goal of making this work. Just want to get that out of the way. I'm arguing with the notion that it's normal for universities to pay for athletics with the University general funds. Sure, those who disagree with that can give examples of a school who needed a couple million here and there to buy out a coaches contract/emergency facility repair etc. That's different than a school using non-athletic department money to fund its athletics. Thats not the norm. The norm is donations/ticket sales/merchandise sales/media contract money.
Cheers!

Actually the schools able to support their athletics with the revenue streams you listed are the extreme minority. All the rest of us require a subsidy of some amount or another. For some that comes from student fees, for others it comes from transfers from the general fund.

And I agree with your UMASS sentiments.
02-27-2017 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #704
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 04:47 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 04:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm glad UMASS is FBS. I don't think they should abandon their goal of making this work. Just want to get that out of the way. I'm arguing with the notion that it's normal for universities to pay for athletics with the University general funds. Sure, those who disagree with that can give examples of a school who needed a couple million here and there to buy out a coaches contract/emergency facility repair etc. That's different than a school using non-athletic department money to fund its athletics. Thats not the norm. The norm is donations/ticket sales/merchandise sales/media contract money.
Cheers!

Actually the schools able to support their athletics with the revenue streams you listed are the extreme minority. All the rest of us require a subsidy of some amount or another. For some that comes from student fees, for others it comes from transfers from the general fund.

And I agree with your UMASS sentiments.

You are correct, most schools require a subsidy. New Mexico is the least subsidized G5 school at around 26%. The highest is (I think) Louisiana Monroe at 80%. Or maybe they have the lowest athletic budget? Is it Old Dominion that is the most subsidized FBS school?
But, getting a subsidy from your state is different that pulling money out of an schools endowment or general fund. That's my point. If someone wants to list specific facts on examples that I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected and admit I'm wrong.
Cheers!
(This post was last modified: 02-27-2017 05:03 PM by billybobby777.)
02-27-2017 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,351
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #705
RE: UMass Football
Take a look at how Houston is financing their facilities upgrades.
02-27-2017 05:05 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,737
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #706
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 05:01 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 04:47 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 04:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm glad UMASS is FBS. I don't think they should abandon their goal of making this work. Just want to get that out of the way. I'm arguing with the notion that it's normal for universities to pay for athletics with the University general funds. Sure, those who disagree with that can give examples of a school who needed a couple million here and there to buy out a coaches contract/emergency facility repair etc. That's different than a school using non-athletic department money to fund its athletics. Thats not the norm. The norm is donations/ticket sales/merchandise sales/media contract money.
Cheers!

Actually the schools able to support their athletics with the revenue streams you listed are the extreme minority. All the rest of us require a subsidy of some amount or another. For some that comes from student fees, for others it comes from transfers from the general fund.

And I agree with your UMASS sentiments.

You are correct, most schools require a subsidy. New Mexico is the least subsidized G5 school at around 26%. The highest is (I think) Louisiana Monroe at 80%. Or maybe they have the lowest athletic budget? Is it Old Dominion that is the most subsidized FBS school?
But, getting a subsidy from your state is different that pulling money out of an schools endowment or general fund. That's my point. If someone wants to list specific facts on examples that I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected and admit I'm wrong.
Cheers!

According to USA Today the largest FBS subsidy by percentage is FIU at 82% and the largest by dollar amount is Air Force at 34 million. ODU is 28 million and 65% at last count.

This isn't the most current so don't kill me with it Cajun fans but to illustrate my point here' ULL's "subsidy scorecard". It shows 40% subsidy with 100% coming from institutional support. None from fees and none from the govt. Like I said that's the only option available for LA public schools and it's capped I believe.

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...-lafayette

Here's ODU's showing 71% subsidy (like I said it's dated) and 100% coming from student fees. Again our state made legislation requiring it.

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...university

Here's ECU's, it's mixed but mostly from fee's

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...university
02-27-2017 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #707
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 05:33 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 05:01 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 04:47 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 04:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm glad UMASS is FBS. I don't think they should abandon their goal of making this work. Just want to get that out of the way. I'm arguing with the notion that it's normal for universities to pay for athletics with the University general funds. Sure, those who disagree with that can give examples of a school who needed a couple million here and there to buy out a coaches contract/emergency facility repair etc. That's different than a school using non-athletic department money to fund its athletics. Thats not the norm. The norm is donations/ticket sales/merchandise sales/media contract money.
Cheers!

Actually the schools able to support their athletics with the revenue streams you listed are the extreme minority. All the rest of us require a subsidy of some amount or another. For some that comes from student fees, for others it comes from transfers from the general fund.

And I agree with your UMASS sentiments.

You are correct, most schools require a subsidy. New Mexico is the least subsidized G5 school at around 26%. The highest is (I think) Louisiana Monroe at 80%. Or maybe they have the lowest athletic budget? Is it Old Dominion that is the most subsidized FBS school?
But, getting a subsidy from your state is different that pulling money out of an schools endowment or general fund. That's my point. If someone wants to list specific facts on examples that I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected and admit I'm wrong.
Cheers!

According to USA Today the largest FBS subsidy by percentage is FIU at 82% and the largest by dollar amount is Air Force at 34 million. ODU is 28 million and 65% at last count.

This isn't the most current so don't kill me with it Cajun fans but to illustrate my point here' ULL's "subsidy scorecard". It shows 40% subsidy with 100% coming from institutional support. None from fees and none from the govt. Like I said that's the only option available for LA public schools and it's capped I believe.

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...-lafayette

Here's ODU's showing 71% subsidy (like I said it's dated) and 100% coming from student fees. Again our state made legislation requiring it.

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...university

Here's ECU's, it's mixed but mostly from fee's

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...university

Thanks for the numbers and clarification.

Cheers!
02-27-2017 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #708
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 05:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Take a look at how Houston is financing their facilities upgrades.

I'm fully aware. The rational is that the money for facilities is worth it because it's the way--and only way--to get a P5 membership. There's many Coog fans on here who think Houston even has a shot at the PAC 12. I don't believe Houston will be invited to the PAC, but I do think the Big 12 is a good possibility. Houston took a gamble after a 20 year period of denial about the SWC breaking up, and sitting on its hands with regards to facilities. I think it was necessary. A lot of damage was done from Houston's lethargy in the 90's until around 2010. I think there's some hope that a certain big donor will pick up a lot of the tab...the debt is concerning to some. The posters on here are convinced is isn't an issue...I don't know. I can tell you attendence numbers aren't as high as hoped, but then again I've been seeing that with schools all over the country the past 5 years.

Cheers!
02-27-2017 10:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sultan of Euphonistan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,999
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 80
I Root For: Baritones
Location: The Euphonistan Tree
Post: #709
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 05:33 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 05:01 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 04:47 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 04:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm glad UMASS is FBS. I don't think they should abandon their goal of making this work. Just want to get that out of the way. I'm arguing with the notion that it's normal for universities to pay for athletics with the University general funds. Sure, those who disagree with that can give examples of a school who needed a couple million here and there to buy out a coaches contract/emergency facility repair etc. That's different than a school using non-athletic department money to fund its athletics. Thats not the norm. The norm is donations/ticket sales/merchandise sales/media contract money.
Cheers!

Actually the schools able to support their athletics with the revenue streams you listed are the extreme minority. All the rest of us require a subsidy of some amount or another. For some that comes from student fees, for others it comes from transfers from the general fund.

And I agree with your UMASS sentiments.

You are correct, most schools require a subsidy. New Mexico is the least subsidized G5 school at around 26%. The highest is (I think) Louisiana Monroe at 80%. Or maybe they have the lowest athletic budget? Is it Old Dominion that is the most subsidized FBS school?
But, getting a subsidy from your state is different that pulling money out of an schools endowment or general fund. That's my point. If someone wants to list specific facts on examples that I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected and admit I'm wrong.
Cheers!

According to USA Today the largest FBS subsidy by percentage is FIU at 82% and the largest by dollar amount is Air Force at 34 million. ODU is 28 million and 65% at last count.

This isn't the most current so don't kill me with it Cajun fans but to illustrate my point here' ULL's "subsidy scorecard". It shows 40% subsidy with 100% coming from institutional support. None from fees and none from the govt. Like I said that's the only option available for LA public schools and it's capped I believe.

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...-lafayette

Here's ODU's showing 71% subsidy (like I said it's dated) and 100% coming from student fees. Again our state made legislation requiring it.

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...university

Here's ECU's, it's mixed but mostly from fee's

http://projects.huffingtonpost.com/proje...university

The interesting part is if you look at their list of those who are at most % subsidy almost all the highest offenders are not FBS schools, not even G5 schools. In fact of the top 25 only Eastern Michigan at 17 and Georgia State at 14 are an FBS school.
02-27-2017 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
p23570
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #710
RE: UMass Football
Although only 8 million $ separated by Houston is in a completely different situation than UMass. Houston has much more to gain in the p-5 and they are a school who being good at football could influence more applicants and more attendance and more donations.

62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
71 Massachusetts A-10 $36,512,437 $36,897,375 $28,681,769 78.55
02-27-2017 11:29 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,371
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 258
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #711
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 11:29 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Although only 8 million $ separated by Houston is in a completely different situation than UMass. Houston has much more to gain in the p-5 and they are a school who being good at football could influence more applicants and more attendance and more donations.

62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
71 Massachusetts A-10 $36,512,437 $36,897,375 $28,681,769 78.55

You could also argue that since the state of Massachusetts only has the single FBS program with a population close to 7 Mill , the hit on the individual is about $3. We also have established UMass students pay significantly less than the average college student.

That said, winning in the three men's revenue sports will help revenue. We are also going to start charging every one for football parking. Season ticket holders do have a free option or purchasing parking on Stadium Drive.

Click here for 2017 UMass Football Ticket Information, Improvements and Changes
(This post was last modified: 02-28-2017 10:20 AM by Steve1981.)
02-27-2017 11:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,103
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #712
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 05:01 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  But, getting a subsidy from your state is different that pulling money out of an schools endowment or general fund. That's my point.
It is, of course, more complex than that, since not all of the formal budget cost of an athletic department is actually additional cost to the University. When the athletic department is charged the fees and tuition cost of an athletic scholarship, some of that may be "hard costs" ~ hiring additional instructors, buying textbooks, buying lab supplies, etc. ~ but much will be "soft costs", which include allocating fixed overheads to the students enrolled where at the margin an extra student does not actually increase the fixed cost, and also include allocating additional students to sections that are not at their enrollment cap.

And in the end, there is a bit of a semantic distinction without much difference when some subsidy comes from "the general fund" in one school and some subsidy comes from "student activity fees" in another school ... at Kent State, I would not be surprised that the activity fee system is de facto part of the process of encouraging students to go to the branch campuses at the network in their first two years. Whether you call the money tuition or a general fee or a dedicated activities fee does not change the impact on the student wallet.

Now, you can complain that, to the extent that there is a genuine, hard cost subsidy, the students are covering the marketing costs of the University. But, on the other hand, in a market economy, the customer always covering the marketing costs of a good or service. If I buy a Coke or a Pepsi instead of Generic Cola at the supermarket, part of what I am paying is the massive advertising and marketing budgets of CokeInc and PepsiCo.
(This post was last modified: 02-28-2017 12:11 AM by BruceMcF.)
02-28-2017 12:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,351
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #713
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 10:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(02-27-2017 05:05 PM)panama Wrote:  Take a look at how Houston is financing their facilities upgrades.

I'm fully aware. The rational is that the money for facilities is worth it because it's the way--and only way--to get a P5 membership. There's many Coog fans on here who think Houston even has a shot at the PAC 12. I don't believe Houston will be invited to the PAC, but I do think the Big 12 is a good possibility. Houston took a gamble after a 20 year period of denial about the SWC breaking up, and sitting on its hands with regards to facilities. I think it was necessary. A lot of damage was done from Houston's lethargy in the 90's until around 2010. I think there's some hope that a certain big donor will pick up a lot of the tab...the debt is concerning to some. The posters on here are convinced is isn't an issue...I don't know. I can tell you attendence numbers aren't as high as hoped, but then again I've been seeing that with schools all over the country the past 5 years.

Cheers!
Agree with most of what you said. But I suppose a group of folks sit in a room and decide go or no go. They have to decide if it's worth it for the long term future of the program and the University. I know in our past I have been told we were offered Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium after the Olympics. We were nowhere ready for something like that. If we had had the forethought to start football in the early or mid 90s that might have worked out. There is also the legend of Lefty talking to some Big East folks (pre BCS of course) and being told that they liked the school and location but that we needed football. Probably most mid majors have one or two or a half dozen doh moments. That's causing many to want to now strike while the iron is hot.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
02-28-2017 09:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,737
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #714
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 11:29 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Although only 8 million $ separated by Houston is in a completely different situation than UMass. Houston has much more to gain in the p-5 and they are a school who being good at football could influence more applicants and more attendance and more donations.

62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
71 Massachusetts A-10 $36,512,437 $36,897,375 $28,681,769 78.55

Wait. ONLY 8 million? That's pretty much the exact incremental amount that it's cost UMASS to go from FBS to FCS that you said was too much of a burden. And when Panama said it was only a small fraction of their budget you tried to run him down.

I agree that if Houston makes it to the Big 12 then all their infrastructure spending will have paid off. Even without a move up in conference status they've leveraged their success into more donor contributions. UMASS hasn't been as successful yet but I'd argue that if the are able to get an invite to the AAC then all their investments would have been worthwhile. If not, well it's only costing the school an additional 8 million a year and it's hard to deny that their profile hasn't already been raised somewhat from the move. I doubt we'd be talking about UMASS if they were still playing FB in the CAA. We're not talking about Maine or New Hampshire.
02-28-2017 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eldonabe Online
No More Wire Hangars!
*

Posts: 9,704
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 1263
I Root For: All but Uconn
Location: Van by the River
Post: #715
RE: UMass Football
(02-27-2017 11:29 PM)p23570 Wrote:  Although only 8 million $ separated by Houston is in a completely different situation than UMass. Houston has much more to gain in the p-5 and they are a school who being good at football could influence more applicants and more attendance and more donations.

62 Houston AAC $44,815,210 $45,437,942 $25,994,014 58.00
71 Massachusetts A-10 $36,512,437 $36,897,375 $28,681,769 78.55

WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT THIS? It's not your money being spent either way!!!!!!!!
02-28-2017 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,371
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 258
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #716
RE: UMass Football
Well it's the off season and on one of our boards, a poster ranked our opponents from weakest to strongest. You guys are very knowledgeable and sure you have your opinions on this subject. Personal think we are in the 4-6 win range and sure you have comments on that as well. Put in the quotes of two other poster's comments.

Quote:In order from weak to strong:

Maine
CC
Hawaii
ODU
Ohio
Georgia Southern
Temple
Appalachian State
USF
Mississippi State
BYU
Tenn

Mississippi state is a wild card and I thought of flipping ODU and Ohio as well as App State and USF, but App State was best in Troy's league and we saw what happened there. By the time we get past the GS and Temple levels we are in uncharted territory as being competitive. (Except for the wild card of Miss State). My hope is we are competitive with App state on down the line and that we can find a way to get those first five on the list in the W column, and hopefully get past either Temple
or GS to get to 6. The talent level jumps up from Temple to App State.
...
Not sure I agree with the App State/Temple ranking. Temple won the AAC this year and lost in the championship game the year before and the AAC is far stronger than the Sun Belt. New coach and new QB could change things but that's a program that is better than their name brand suggests.
....
Get a lot of APP ST coverage down here. They do play in a weaker conference but they were in better shape when they moved up from 1AA to 1 A than we were. One place where they excel is their kicking game. When we last played them their kicker sent all of the kickoffs into the end zone. When was the last time that we had kickers that could put at least half of the kickoffs into the end zone? Great defensive play.
03-08-2017 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Georgia_Power_Company Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,481
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: GA Southern
Location: Statesboro GA
Post: #717
RE: UMass Football
(03-08-2017 01:35 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Well it's the off season and on one of our boards, a poster ranked our opponents from weakest to strongest. You guys are very knowledgeable and sure you have your opinions on this subject. Personal think we are in the 4-6 win range and sure you have comments on that as well. Put in the quotes of two other poster's comments.

Quote:In order from weak to strong:

Maine
CC
Hawaii
ODU
Ohio
Georgia Southern
Temple
Appalachian State
USF
Mississippi State
BYU
Tenn

Mississippi state is a wild card and I thought of flipping ODU and Ohio as well as App State and USF, but App State was best in Troy's league and we saw what happened there. By the time we get past the GS and Temple levels we are in uncharted territory as being competitive. (Except for the wild card of Miss State). My hope is we are competitive with App state on down the line and that we can find a way to get those first five on the list in the W column, and hopefully get past either Temple
or GS to get to 6. The talent level jumps up from Temple to App State.
...
Not sure I agree with the App State/Temple ranking. Temple won the AAC this year and lost in the championship game the year before and the AAC is far stronger than the Sun Belt. New coach and new QB could change things but that's a program that is better than their name brand suggests.
....
Get a lot of APP ST coverage down here. They do play in a weaker conference but they were in better shape when they moved up from 1AA to 1 A than we were. One place where they excel is their kicking game. When we last played them their kicker sent all of the kickoffs into the end zone. When was the last time that we had kickers that could put at least half of the kickoffs into the end zone? Great defensive play.

I'm no expert but unless you guys have improved a lot that schedule looks like a 3 - 5 win season to me.
03-08-2017 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,371
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 258
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #718
RE: UMass Football
Most think we need 5 wins to show we are improving. Four is a realist goal, but no one will be impressed. So my win goals start with the realistic and then put on those maroon glasses. We should be improved and have finally added some depth. Still have some of the same weakness as the kicking game and concern about our CB and lack of depth at RB. Like the change over in defensive coaches. Would really love playing for the 6th win during the last home game, at Fenway Park vs Maine.
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2017 05:00 PM by Steve1981.)
03-08-2017 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Georgia_Power_Company Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,481
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: GA Southern
Location: Statesboro GA
Post: #719
RE: UMass Football
(03-08-2017 02:09 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Most think we need 5 wins to show we are improving. Four is a realist goal, but not one that will impress anyone. So my win goals start with the realistic and then put on those maroon glasses. We should be improved and have finally adding depth. Still have some of the same weakness as the kicking game and concern about our CB and lack of depth at RB. Like the change over in defensive coaches. Would really love playing for the 6th win during the last home game, at Fenway Park vs Maine.

Good luck you except when you guys play us of course.

04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 03-08-2017 02:21 PM by Georgia_Power_Company.)
03-08-2017 02:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,371
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 258
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #720
RE: UMass Football
Can't wait for Football season and apparently not alone.
Folks are expecting an exciting year with almost all games on campus.

It's March 31st, less than 5 months from opening day against Hawaii

Quote:Alan Pandiani‏ @AP_UMass 12m12 minutes ago
Alan Pandiani Retweeted Ryan Bamford
@UMassFootball fans are excited about the coming season to say the least. #LetsEat

Quote:Ryan Bamford‏Verified account
@UMassADBamford
A nice start to the wknd, @AP_UMass tells me that as of today we have already passed the total # of NEW FB season tix sold in all of 2016.
(This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 08:52 AM by Steve1981.)
03-31-2017 06:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.