With all this chatter about deregulation and its potential ramifications on our conference, it's clear this conference needs a strategy (and it has been alluded to more than once that there is a strategy) in the instance there is more realignment.
That being said, I know this isn't going to be a popular idea but I like the idea of UMASS. IF, they transform their facilities and increase their fanbase.
I know that seems impossible right now (at least it does to me). That said, in a perfect world they would be thriving and part of our NE sector, with UConn and Temple.
But they aren't thriving, and John Calipari isn't walking through that door...
Nevertheless, I do think their basketball brand could take off if they were in a conference with UConn and Temple. IMO, it would give us a strong (and intriguing) presence (with a lot of potential to grow much bigger, basketball-wise) in the backyard of the WWL, in Bristol. A lot can be said for that.
That being said, I think extending UMASS a 5 year provisional invite, to be our #12 in basketball, is intriguing (while they stay indy in fb).
It gives us time to explore their real value to the conference.
I'd really like to plant a flag in the East. They'd make that region more robust.
And, as has been said here a number of times, UMASS brass seem to need someone to hold their hand.
Their membership would be provisional on the understanding that they build AAC caliber facilities in ALL SPORTS. To support their football team, we'd agree to a certain number of games a year (kinda like the ACC Notre Dame deal).
Temple's game with UMASS this year kind of opened my eyes to the glimmer of potential they may have in that sport.
Perhaps by igniting UMASS-UCONN-Temple basketball rivalries, their fanbase would rally around football (with the promise of a stadium on the horizon). Stadiums have a way of building excitement among a fanbase.

And, if they don't bring all of their facilities up to the level of a good fbs program, the AAC can cut their entire athletic department loose after that 5 year provisional period. It would be like their MAC deal in reverse.

It's a risk for them because they'd have to leave their spot in the A10 to commit to the experiment... but, it would be intriguing.

Now, I'm not saying its the right thing to do... but, it's a shame that their leadership isn't building their infrastructure, right now, to make them a no-brainer. Because, regardless of whether we lose 2 teams, this will be a good conference.
They fit the footprint the best of any team on the board (next to AF and CSU). The fact that they haven't distinguished themselves is probably the biggest lapse in leadership in D1 athletics.

UMass isn't going to join as a basketball only league-member with just the hope of becoming an all sports member.

They are already in a better basketball league than the American right now, and already showed they were committed to that league by refusing to join the MAC when pushed. Unless they are guaranteed an all sports membership - I don't see UMass leaving the A10 for some trial junior bush league membership here.

(01-12-2016 12:56 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  UMass isn't going to join as a basketball only league-member with just the hope of becoming an all sports member.

They are already in a better basketball league than the American right now, and already showed they were committed to that league by refusing to join the MAC when pushed. Unless they are guaranteed an all sports membership - I don't see UMass leaving the A10 for some trial junior bush league membership here.

As a Temple fan, I don't miss the A10 one iota. It comes down to whether you want to be in a conference that has a national vision in all sports.. or not.

I'm not losing sleep over not playing St Boneventure. We have our Big 5 games, and I'd rather play UCONN, UC, Memphis, SMU, etc, than VCU or St. Louis.

There is no comparison. I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of judging a conference by the fledgling teams that are acclimating to playing in a better conference.

I'm back off the bus on Umass.

ODU is further along on facilities, fanbase, etc and they still need to wait in the C-USA farm system until they continue years the D-1 process.

I would take Army football only in a second. They would enhance our TV package. Unless you have a good #14, there isn't any sense to add them either.

I think we just add our BB only member Wichita State and be done with things until 2019 and see what ESPN has to say.

(01-12-2016 01:02 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:56 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  UMass isn't going to join as a basketball only league-member with just the hope of becoming an all sports member.

They are already in a better basketball league than the American right now, and already showed they were committed to that league by refusing to join the MAC when pushed. Unless they are guaranteed an all sports membership - I don't see UMass leaving the A10 for some trial junior bush league membership here.

As a Temple fan, I don't miss the A10 one iota. It comes down to whether you want to be in a conference that has a national vision in all sports.. or not.

I'm not losing sleep over not playing St Boneventure. We have our Big 5 games, and I'd rather play UCONN, UC, Memphis, SMU, etc, than VCU or St. Louis.

There is no comparison. I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of judging a conference by the fledgling teams that are acclimating to playing in a better conference.

If you give UMass the choice of full AAC membership or A-10/Ind. combo they pick AAC 100/100 times. My point is a basketball only membership without some guarantee of future membership does nothing for UMass. I do not believe they would be interested in a trial/provisional membership without a guarantee of future membership.

(01-12-2016 01:04 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I'm back off the bus on Umass.

ODU is further along on facilities, fanbase, etc and they still need to wait in the C-USA farm system until they continue years the D-1 process.

I would take Army football only in a second. They would enhance our TV package. Unless you have a good #14, there isn't any sense to add them either.

I think we just add our BB only member Wichita State and be done with things until 2019 and see what ESPN has to say.

I agree competely. In a perfect world, UMASS would be getting the job done. They aren't.

If ODU and/or Charlotte ever show UCF-level growth (in which UCF beat Baylor in the Fiesta Bowl), they'll definitely pop up above the hard deck.

Until then, the only enticing teams are out West. If it were up to the East, I'd prefer to hold at 10 (at this time).

(01-12-2016 01:08 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:02 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:56 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  UMass isn't going to join as a basketball only league-member with just the hope of becoming an all sports member.

They are already in a better basketball league than the American right now, and already showed they were committed to that league by refusing to join the MAC when pushed. Unless they are guaranteed an all sports membership - I don't see UMass leaving the A10 for some trial junior bush league membership here.

As a Temple fan, I don't miss the A10 one iota. It comes down to whether you want to be in a conference that has a national vision in all sports.. or not.

I'm not losing sleep over not playing St Boneventure. We have our Big 5 games, and I'd rather play UCONN, UC, Memphis, SMU, etc, than VCU or St. Louis.

There is no comparison. I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of judging a conference by the fledgling teams that are acclimating to playing in a better conference.

If you give UMass the choice of full AAC membership or A-10/Ind. combo they pick AAC 100/100 times. My point is a basketball only membership without some guarantee of future membership does nothing for UMass. I do not believe they would be interested in a trial/provisional membership without a guarantee of future membership.

They'd fill up their gyms with UConn and Temple (and UC, Memphis, SMU) more than St Bonny, St Joes, etc.

Yes, the AAC has a bottom at this point. The only question is whether the brands at the bottom of the A10 are more appealing.

It's a wash.

Their only reluctance would be the possibility of being homeless (like their fb is right now) because they didn't live up to the good faith agreement. The AAC wouldn't kick them out if they built a stadium.

(01-12-2016 01:08 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:02 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:56 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  UMass isn't going to join as a basketball only league-member with just the hope of becoming an all sports member.

They are already in a better basketball league than the American right now, and already showed they were committed to that league by refusing to join the MAC when pushed. Unless they are guaranteed an all sports membership - I don't see UMass leaving the A10 for some trial junior bush league membership here.

As a Temple fan, I don't miss the A10 one iota. It comes down to whether you want to be in a conference that has a national vision in all sports.. or not.

I'm not losing sleep over not playing St Boneventure. We have our Big 5 games, and I'd rather play UCONN, UC, Memphis, SMU, etc, than VCU or St. Louis.

There is no comparison. I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of judging a conference by the fledgling teams that are acclimating to playing in a better conference.

If you give UMass the choice of full AAC membership or A-10/Ind. combo they pick AAC 100/100 times. My point is a basketball only membership without some guarantee of future membership does nothing for UMass. I do not believe they would be interested in a trial/provisional membership without a guarantee of future membership.

and they add zero for us on the football side. The TV content would be horrible for ESPN/CBS/FOX in a small stadium with small crowds. I doubt they could add $2 million in yearly value to even break us even from that addition.

Adding Wichita State strengthens the basketball side and gives us more TV inventory. They also will get NCAA credits at least every few years. Our hoops league would start looking impressive with Uconn, Cincy, SMU, Memphis, and Wichita State. At least that breaks up more of the bad games you guys complain about. Then if we had a few programs in the middle-bottom tier do better it would be a further plus.

(01-12-2016 01:13 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Their only reluctance would be the possibility of being homeless (like their fb is right now) because they didn't live up to the good faith agreement. The AAC wouldn't kick them out if they built a stadium.

Once you add a team that has D-1 football on the basketball side, it is only a matter of time before they just get the free pass to join on the football side. You know the presidents would be getting the sad Umass stories all the time. I'd be afraid of that to be honest. Relationships form and promises get made, but they still don't have the infrastructure to be real D-1.

(01-12-2016 01:14 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:08 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:02 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:56 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  UMass isn't going to join as a basketball only league-member with just the hope of becoming an all sports member.

They are already in a better basketball league than the American right now, and already showed they were committed to that league by refusing to join the MAC when pushed. Unless they are guaranteed an all sports membership - I don't see UMass leaving the A10 for some trial junior bush league membership here.

As a Temple fan, I don't miss the A10 one iota. It comes down to whether you want to be in a conference that has a national vision in all sports.. or not.

I'm not losing sleep over not playing St Boneventure. We have our Big 5 games, and I'd rather play UCONN, UC, Memphis, SMU, etc, than VCU or St. Louis.

There is no comparison. I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of judging a conference by the fledgling teams that are acclimating to playing in a better conference.

If you give UMass the choice of full AAC membership or A-10/Ind. combo they pick AAC 100/100 times. My point is a basketball only membership without some guarantee of future membership does nothing for UMass. I do not believe they would be interested in a trial/provisional membership without a guarantee of future membership.

and they don't zero for us on the football side. The TV content would be horrible for ESPN/CBS/FOX in a small stadium with small crowds. I doubt they could add $2 million in yearly value to even break us even from that addition.

Adding Wichita State strengthens the basketball side and gives us more TV inventory. They also will get NCAA credits at least every few years. Our hoops league would start looking impressive with Uconn, Cincy, SMU, Memphis, and Wichita State. At least that breaks up more of the bad games you guys complain about. Then if we had a few programs in the middle-bottom tier do better it would be a further plus.

Again. I agree.

If UMASS has Wichita State's commitment (not to mention Koch money), this wouldn't even be a discussion.

(01-12-2016 01:14 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:08 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:02 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:56 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  UMass isn't going to join as a basketball only league-member with just the hope of becoming an all sports member.

They are already in a better basketball league than the American right now, and already showed they were committed to that league by refusing to join the MAC when pushed. Unless they are guaranteed an all sports membership - I don't see UMass leaving the A10 for some trial junior bush league membership here.

As a Temple fan, I don't miss the A10 one iota. It comes down to whether you want to be in a conference that has a national vision in all sports.. or not.

I'm not losing sleep over not playing St Boneventure. We have our Big 5 games, and I'd rather play UCONN, UC, Memphis, SMU, etc, than VCU or St. Louis.

There is no comparison. I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of judging a conference by the fledgling teams that are acclimating to playing in a better conference.

If you give UMass the choice of full AAC membership or A-10/Ind. combo they pick AAC 100/100 times. My point is a basketball only membership without some guarantee of future membership does nothing for UMass. I do not believe they would be interested in a trial/provisional membership without a guarantee of future membership.

and they add zero for us on the football side. The TV content would be horrible for ESPN/CBS/FOX in a small stadium with small crowds. I doubt they could add $2 million in yearly value to even break us even from that addition.

Adding Wichita State strengthens the basketball side and gives us more TV inventory. They also will get NCAA credits at least every few years. Our hoops league would start looking impressive with Uconn, Cincy, SMU, Memphis, and Wichita State. At least that breaks up more of the bad games you guys complain about. Then if we had a few programs in the middle-bottom tier do better it would be a further plus.

I'm cool with UMass all sports. I'm less cool with partial memberships and basketball only memberships. In my opinion, it inevitably will create friction and instability due to payout disputes

(01-12-2016 12:47 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  With all this chatter about deregulation and its potential ramifications on our conference, it's clear this conference needs a strategy (and it has been alluded to more than once that there is a strategy) in the instance there is more realignment.
That being said, I know this isn't going to be a popular idea but I like the idea of UMASS. IF, they transform their facilities and increase their fanbase.
I know that seems impossible right now (at least it does to me). That said, in a perfect world they would be thriving and part of our NE sector, with UConn and Temple.
But they aren't thriving, and John Calipari isn't walking through that door...
Nevertheless, I do think their basketball brand could take off if they were in a conference with UConn and Temple. IMO, it would give us a strong (and intriguing) presence (with a lot of potential to grow much bigger, basketball-wise) in the backyard of the WWL, in Bristol. A lot can be said for that.
That being said, I think extending UMASS a 5 year provisional invite, to be our #12 in basketball, is intriguing (while they stay indy in fb).
It gives us time to explore their real value to the conference.
I'd really like to plant a flag in the East. They'd make that region more robust.
And, as has been said here a number of times, UMASS brass seem to need someone to hold their hand.
Their membership would be provisional on the understanding that they build AAC caliber facilities in ALL SPORTS. To support their football team, we'd agree to a certain number of games a year (kinda like the ACC Notre Dame deal).
Temple's game with UMASS this year kind of opened my eyes to the glimmer of potential they may have in that sport.
Perhaps by igniting UMASS-UCONN-Temple basketball rivalries, their fanbase would rally around football (with the promise of a stadium on the horizon). Stadiums have a way of building excitement among a fanbase.

And, if they don't bring all of their facilities up to the level of a good fbs program, the AAC can cut their entire athletic department loose after that 5 year provisional period. It would be like their MAC deal in reverse.

It's a risk for them because they'd have to leave their spot in the A10 to commit to the experiment... but, it would be intriguing.

Now, I'm not saying its the right thing to do... but, it's a shame that their leadership isn't building their infrastructure, right now, to make them a no-brainer. Because, regardless of whether we lose 2 teams, this will be a good conference.
They fit the footprint the best of any team on the board (next to AF and CSU). The fact that they haven't distinguished themselves is probably the biggest lapse in leadership in D1 athletics.

Love the idea of UMass in the AAC but the bolded is huge problem. If they cannot at least do what Tulane and FAU have done for a fb stadium...oy!

I misread the post title. I thought it said "Possibility is Growing of UMass as Provisional Member."

I open it, and all I find is mental masturbation, not news. My bad for misreading the title.

(01-12-2016 01:08 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 01:02 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 12:56 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  UMass isn't going to join as a basketball only league-member with just the hope of becoming an all sports member.

They are already in a better basketball league than the American right now, and already showed they were committed to that league by refusing to join the MAC when pushed. Unless they are guaranteed an all sports membership - I don't see UMass leaving the A10 for some trial junior bush league membership here.

As a Temple fan, I don't miss the A10 one iota. It comes down to whether you want to be in a conference that has a national vision in all sports.. or not.

I'm not losing sleep over not playing St Boneventure. We have our Big 5 games, and I'd rather play UCONN, UC, Memphis, SMU, etc, than VCU or St. Louis.

There is no comparison. I'm certainly not going to make the mistake of judging a conference by the fledgling teams that are acclimating to playing in a better conference.

If you give UMass the choice of full AAC membership or A-10/Ind. combo they pick AAC 100/100 times. My point is a basketball only membership without some guarantee of future membership does nothing for UMass. I do not believe they would be interested in a trial/provisional membership without a guarantee of future membership.

I'd be very interested in Wichita as a Olympic member. I'd also be willing to explore adding UMass and at least one other high performing current A10 member as well. If we added all 3, you'd be looking at a very high quality basketball conference that would be FAR better than the A10. SMU, UConn, Temple, Memphis, Wichita, Cinci, UMass, and VCU (for example) would be a powerful core of teams capable of contending for an NCAA tournament most every season. Several other AAC teams would be solid teams building toward that level of quality (Tulsa, Houston, perhaps a few others that would rise up less often). That's 9 solid teams out of 14. Not a bad league at all.

As for football additions, we do not need to add any school that is not capable of at least exceeding 30K in attendance over the short term and 40K+ over the longer term. So, a schools with a 30+ stadium with an attendance average in the mid-20's might be viable (as the bump from a better conference and more exposure might push them to 30+ fairly quickly). A school with a tiny stadium that's in need of massive improvement to just be "average", a school that often draws less than 10K to some home games---well, that's a school that will have to improve drastically to make any sense as a viable AAC football candidate. I can see potential in UMass, but its got to be more developed than it currently is to roll the dice on them.

tl; dr.

No.

I agree we need to be very seriously talking about our options once the B12 pulls the trigger. IMHO it's when, not if, they take a couple of schools. Luckily we're in a great position (in only 3 years) that with the right reload we can continue to thrive as best of G4. They can't take ALL our best programs, we have too many.

Before we talk schools we need to talk long term strategy:

A: Westward to a 'best of the rest' P5 challenger
B: Would any major western programs even consider this?
C: Eastern (UH/SMU eastward) footprint instead, and build up our Atlantic-Gulf house

Obviously if we're talking Umass, it's for the sake of option C only... If we're assuming C, then yes I agree Umass is one of the handful we'd really need to look at. The OP summed it up nicely, if Umass replaces McGuirk... YES. If they don't/won't, NO. That's about it.

Past that, Army, UTSA, ODU, etc. are perfectly acceptable projects to grow up. I like the Norfolk market, ODU really fits our large-market scheme nicely. Ditto San Antonio, although UH and SMU might not want another Texas program competing there...

Will be interesting to see what actually happens, because after this round we may be 'set' for a very, very long time. Then whomever is left in the AAC needs to really focus on growing it up as big as possible.

(01-12-2016 01:59 PM)Bull Wrote:  I agree we need to be very seriously talking about our options once the B12 pulls the trigger. IMHO it's when, not if, they take a couple of schools. Luckily we're in a great position (in only 3 years) that with the right reload we can continue to thrive as best of G4. They can't take ALL our best programs, we have too many.

Before we talk schools we need to talk long term strategy:

A: Westward to a 'best of the rest' P5 challenger
B: Would any major western programs even consider this?
C: Eastern (UH/SMU eastward) footprint instead, and build up our Atlantic-Gulf house

Obviously if we're talking Umass, it's for the sake of option C only... If we're assuming C, then yes I agree Umass is one of the handful we'd really need to look at. The OP summed it up nicely, if Umass replaces McGuirk... YES. If they don't/won't, NO. That's about it.

Past that, Army, UTSA, ODU, etc. are perfectly acceptable projects to grow up. I like the Norfolk market, ODU really fits our large-market scheme nicely. Ditto San Antonio, although UH and SMU might not want another Texas program competing there...

Will be interesting to see what actually happens, because after this round we may be 'set' for a very, very long time. Then whomever is left in the AAC needs to really focus on growing it up as big as possible.

Looking at the rumors of deregulation compromise, the next round of realignment may be years away. One thing I will say, bringing in teams earlier rather than later is better for a conference when viewed through the lens of surviving realignment poaching. The new schools get time to recruit, develop, and build their programs and fanbases under a superior conference banner.

I think I post the same thing in every realignment thread, and that is that IMO Army (football) and BYU (all sports) are the only schools that are worth divvying up our $12 million in playoff money 14 ways for. Otherwise, it's just slicing the pie into too many pieces.

If we do lose a couple members to the B12, we can worry about who to replace them with then.

Hard to see UMASS being considered without a new stadium. So Miss and Air Force are the only realistic adds to our league. Both bring tradition, a solid fan base and are in new states. No other schools are even close to these two. St Louis brings a large market and a solid BB program.

I doubt the American expands prior to contracting. It will loose schools before it expands based upon the CFP payout system. It makes it price prohibitive to have more then 12 teams in the conference. The only way this conference expands beyond the 12 team limit is if it figures out how to create a viable network.

With that being said, you need to look at the markets that could be available to you.

Atlanta, Boston and NY City are obtainable. Chicago is and always will be a B1G town.

The conference is already in NY City (UConn and Navy), Philadelphia (Temple), Washington DC and Baltimore (Navy), Cincinnati (UC), Memphis (UofMem), Tampa, (USF), Orlando (UCF), Houston (UH), Dallas and Ft. Worth (SMU), New Orleans (Tulane) and Tulsa (UofTulsa). It's also in the eastern half of North Carolina (ECU).

Add in the markets I've identified above and you've got a lot of growth potential for any Media Partner.

Now if this conference were to attempt to go coast to coast, I'd have them go after Atlanta in the east, Colorado, Utah, Nevada (Both Reno and Las Vegas), San Diego State and San Jose State (San Jose State gets you into the San Francisco/Oakland/Hayward and San Jose/Sunnyvale/Santa Clara Metropolitan areas which have about 8.6 million people. That's a 20 school conference with huge inventory and marketing potential.

That's just my unbiased and ill informed opinion.