Those cats really did well today against a #26 Temple.

I can't see why the MAC would cut them loose.

(09-19-2015 06:43 PM)BoKnows Wrote:  Those cats really did well today against a #26 Temple.

I can't see why the MAC would cut them loose.

MAC didn't cut them lose, UMass chose to leave.

They chose to leave themselves by not going all in.

Also they laid up a huge stinker against Colorado last weekend but hopefully they are improving.

Sure, but only if they bring in their other sports.

(09-19-2015 07:55 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Sure, but only if they bring in their other sports.

I believe that was the sticking point; they didn't want to.

Can't believe y'all thought they'd be good this year. .. .. . .. ..
(that being said they do halfway decent in MAC play beating the Akrons and Kent Sts)

Anyone have any idea what conference they'll join or when it'll be announced? I really doubt the American is going to take them like they think.

UMass knew that after some years, it'd come down to a fish-or-cut-bait to be all in or not. MAC could extend it if UMass proved themselves as strong in football alone, but they didn't -- no argument/disagreement on that. So UMass Chose to not go all in, and as expected by both parties, that means they walk.

UMass would be fine for all sports, but not for football-only. Only the Sun-Belt would do that the way UMass has demonstrated themselves.

The only argument to say "extend the football-only thing to keep 'em", is if you have a good argument to say UMass' football team is going to be Real Good next year and onward. Nothing indicates that. Only what would be a Slow but steady improvement that'd probably level-off at MAYBE an Ohio-level of football. Even that being speculation isn't enough to keep them going on football-only if they Refuse to go all in which they said they may.

Saturday's game was a reminder that UMass's value to the MAC came from being a natural rival to Temple. But once Temple left UMass's value as an odd numbered football-only FCS transition team evaporated.

It's interesting to imagine a 14 member MAC with UMass and Temple in the East because it would push Bowling Green to the West. You'd have some great natural rivalries in both divisions.

Its going to be tough for them as a FBS independent. They're probably going to end up playing a lot of payday road games to fund their football team. No bowl tie-ins, no football coverage on TV unless playing on the road.

If they truly cared about their football program they would have taken the all sports invite. Instead they showed they cared more about basketball.

What does next years UMass football schedule look like?

Quote:If they truly cared about their football program they would have taken the all sports invite. Instead they showed they cared more about basketball.

Yep. Or tried to negotiate a short-term contract. Because honestly -- they'd be getting out of the A10 anyway if they joined another G5 conference instead (like the AAC). So leaving the A10 in basketball is part of their agenda anyway.

If they were to be at the top of the MAC in basketball, in a lesser conference for bball (but not a sh!t conference; especially with them in it), and growing and proving themselves in the MAC in football -- they could end up being a viable contender to join AAC if/when 2 teams split for the B12.

Going Indy only preserves a better playing stage for basketball. And in terms of getting into the tournament, they've had to play us a lot non-conf, and I'm sure leaving A10 they'd be playing A10 teams a lot non-conf... and if they believe they the A10 is leaps & bounds better than the MAC -- well alright, they increase their chances to get in the tourney & NIT.

(09-20-2015 05:00 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:If they truly cared about their football program they would have taken the all sports invite. Instead they showed they cared more about basketball.

Yep. Or tried to negotiate a short-term contract. Because honestly -- they'd be getting out of the A10 anyway if they joined another G5 conference instead (like the AAC). So leaving the A10 in basketball is part of their agenda anyway.

If they were to be at the top of the MAC in basketball, in a lesser conference for bball (but not a sh!t conference; especially with them in it), and growing and proving themselves in the MAC in football -- they could end up being a viable contender to join AAC if/when 2 teams split for the B12.

Going Indy only preserves a better playing stage for basketball. And in terms of getting into the tournament, they've had to play us a lot non-conf, and I'm sure leaving A10 they'd be playing A10 teams a lot non-conf... and if they believe they the A10 is leaps & bounds better than the MAC -- well alright, they increase their chances to get in the tourney & NIT.

Personally was surprised that there was no new short term contract. Not sure if it was on our end, but most MAC teams thought it was better to keep the extra money. The Commissioner Steinbrecher said after the CFP money and ESPN contract extension were the driving reasons.

Bottom line the ultimatum clause in the contract was exercised. Our former AD McCutcheon declined the all sports offer. We have a new sheriff in town and seems to be a good choice. AD Ryan Bamford has changed personal in the Athletic Department. More new faces and most from FBS conferences. Get the impression, second hand, this AD believes that football should be driving the bus.

It's not too late for UMass to change their minds. I'm sure if they decided to join for all sports, the MAC would be listening. No bridges have been burnt.

(09-20-2015 11:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  It's not too late for UMass to change their minds. I'm sure if they decided to join for all sports, the MAC would be listening. No bridges have been burnt.

I disagree. I honestly don't think the MAC wants UMASS even for all sports.

When the MAC made the ultimatum, they didn't really want (or expect) UMASS to agree to full membership. The member institutions cut of the "pie" would have been smaller and whatever UMASS brings to the table would not offset the cost of shuttling olympic sports to and from Massachusetts. It is just easier and more profitable without them.

(09-20-2015 11:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  It's not too late for UMass to change their minds. I'm sure if they decided to join for all sports, the MAC would be listening. No bridges have been burnt.

Yea I would think the MAC would still like to have UMass all sports, they'd just need to find one more school to balance the divisions.

(09-20-2015 11:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  It's not too late for UMass to change their minds. I'm sure if they decided to join for all sports, the MAC would be listening. No bridges have been burnt.

It's too late for at least the next 2 years. There's no room on the schedule for 8 conference games, and not enough lead time to shift 8 games to later seasons. UMass couldn't even accept a football-only MAC invite or an AAC invite at this point. 2 seasons of playing as an independent are locked in.

(09-20-2015 11:22 AM)epasnoopy Wrote:  What does next years UMass football schedule look like?

@Florida
UConn
@Boston College
Miss State
Tulane
@Old Dominion
La Tech
@South Carolina
Wagner
@Troy
@BYU
@Hawaii

Great schedule other than the 5/7 home/away split, but we're graduating most of our best players and are probably going to get destroyed. A bowl tie-in next season would be about as useful as an ejector seat on a helicopter. Very unlikely we'll be bowl eligible.

(09-21-2015 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-20-2015 11:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  It's not too late for UMass to change their minds. I'm sure if they decided to join for all sports, the MAC would be listening. No bridges have been burnt.

Yea I would think the MAC would still like to have UMass all sports, they'd just need to find one more school to balance the divisions.

I have it on good authority that the following transpired:

-As soon at Temple went AAC, the clock was ticking on the MAC delivering UMASS the full membership option, as unbalanced scheduling for FB has never been something the conference would want in place long term.
-Parallel to that, the MAC had an agreement in principle, supported by the MAC senior member's Presidents, to add Delaware, Stony Brook and James Madison as full sports members in order to convince UMASS' Chancellor/AD to come in for all sports, which they were seriously considering.
-Before the expansion proposal could come to a formal vote, NIU, Ball State and the Michigan's blackballed the plan, citing increased travel costs for Olympic sports and not wanting to split the pending ESPN and Playoff money increases.
-So that killed MAC expansion, MAC offered UMASS full membership, which they knew would be rejected and the MAC will remain at 12 for the long term, restoring balanced scheduling in FB.

(09-22-2015 10:55 AM)D.A. Wrote:  

(09-21-2015 12:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-20-2015 11:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  It's not too late for UMass to change their minds. I'm sure if they decided to join for all sports, the MAC would be listening. No bridges have been burnt.

Yea I would think the MAC would still like to have UMass all sports, they'd just need to find one more school to balance the divisions.

I have it on good authority that the following transpired:

-As soon at Temple went AAC, the clock was ticking on the MAC delivering UMASS the full membership option, as unbalanced scheduling for FB has never been something the conference would want in place long term.
-Parallel to that, the MAC had an agreement in principle, supported by the MAC senior member's Presidents, to add Delaware, Stony Brook and James Madison as full sports members in order to convince UMASS' Chancellor/AD to come in for all sports, which they were seriously considering.
-Before the expansion proposal could come to a formal vote, NIU, Ball State and the Michigan's blackballed the plan, citing increased travel costs for Olympic sports and not wanting to split the pending ESPN and Playoff money increases.
-So that killed MAC expansion, MAC offered UMASS full membership, which they knew would be rejected and the MAC will remain at 12 for the long term, restoring balanced scheduling in FB.

D.A. That sounded like a solid expansion plan. Can understand the MAC West citing increased travel costs and loosing some additional revenue from CFP and ESPN. They have there preferences for expansion, which does not go east as that plan was formulated.

Seems like most G5 conferences have issues along division lines.

if that's true then let me say thank you to the western MAC teams for killing that deal.. A 16 team conference with a full 1/4 of them being marginal FCS call ups is a disaster.

A MAC East with UMass, James Madison, Delaware, Stony Brook, Buffalo, Akron, Kent and Ohio?

(09-22-2015 12:04 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  if that's true then let me say thank you to the western MAC teams for killing that deal.. A 16 team conference with a full 1/4 of them being marginal FCS call ups is a disaster.

A MAC East with UMass, James Madison, Delaware, Stony Brook, Buffalo, Akron, Kent and Ohio?

Realize that FB drives the bus, but that would have been a much better BB conference. Personally think it's still to early for Stony Brook to upgrade. Perhaps JMU called up going to to 14 would have been a solid plan, and think that was the fall back option if we accepted the all sports invite.

(09-22-2015 12:04 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  if that's true then let me say thank you to the western MAC teams for killing that deal.. A 16 team conference with a full 1/4 of them being marginal FCS call ups is a disaster.

A MAC East with UMass, James Madison, Delaware, Stony Brook, Buffalo, Akron, Kent and Ohio?

I believe a primary driver was making additions that fit the academic standards of the MAC, not necessarily the athletic standards, so that is why the schools were what they were. Plus it was at a time that it was en vogue for conferences to be looking at getting to 16 schools. I agree that the best long term situation for all involved was for it not to happen.