CSNbbs

(04-25-2013 09:15 AM)JoeJag Wrote: [ -> ]You are right. UMass is playing at Gillette Stadium one more year, while 17,000-seat McGurik Stadium is being expanded to 25,000 seats. Supposedly it will be completed by the 2014 season.

That's incorrect. The agreement is to play at least 4 games per season at Gillette through at least 2016. UMass is rumored to be trying to negotiate that down to 3 games in 2014. The renovations being made to the on-campus stadium for 2014 are just the press box/club level and a new training facility. UMass isn't going to decide how much to expand the stadium or whether to expand it at all until the Gillette lease is closer to expiring and we have a better idea what sort of affiliation we'll be in. There's a design in place to expand to 26,000 as cheaply and quickly as possible, but that's just an emergency plan in case we get caught off guard and need a bigger stadium on short notice. It's not that anybody thinks the current 17k facility is sufficient, it's that UMass wants to use the full Gillette term to find out exactly what sort of stadium it needs to build rather than building it now and regretting it later.

(04-25-2013 08:09 AM)slycat Wrote: [ -> ]Though they are a perfect fit to make cross divsion rival with Idaho.

True, a Sun Belt-based UMass probably wouldn't care about eating an Idaho trip every other year. It's not that big a travel difference to us, and they're a state flagship. UMass flies everywhere in the MAC, and most of the cost in air travel is taking off and landing, not distance. That works fine so long as it's football-only. It's only 4 flights per year that way, not 60+ as in an all-sports affiliation.

I have no idea whether UMass would actually consider football-only membership in the Sun Belt. Football-only in the MAC would definitely be its preference, but that's not entirely up to UMass. Irrevocable football-only membership in the SBC without punitive media rights restrictions might be preferable, depending on how well the A10 is doing. And maybe some of these people and entities who are so against more FCS teams moving up would chip in some financial incentives to UMass and the Sun Belt to make that deal happen, since that potentially blocks 2 FCS upgrades with 1 move.

I don't know, just spitballin'. I hadn't really considered this before. Would the SBC actually go that far? I figure it'd be the usual reaction: "They don't want to be all sports members?! Burn their campus to the ground!"

Would think that the Sun Belt presidents and Karl Benson would consider anything good that works. Wouldn't be a perfect fit of course due to geography, but for football only would be worth discussing, especially considering we could conceivably let NMSU be in as all sports.

Geographical footprint it so stupid. Who cares if the conference looks pretty on map? I'd love to see umass in this league.
And don't give me that cost of travel austerity b.s. either. It's cheap as hell to fly into Boston.

I honestly hope the powers that be aren't in the same mindset as some of you. Our conference is entering the obsurd zone with some of the teams that are now in and are talked about as adding. It's bad enough that we added NMSU and Idaho, but Indiana St, UMass, please, someone return sanity to this garbage. I bad mouthed the Big East when they went rediculous, I will bad mouth the SBC if we do it.

(04-25-2013 05:26 PM)Usajags Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly hope the powers that be aren't in the same mindset as some of you. Our conference is entering the obsurd zone with some of the teams that are now in and are talked about as adding. It's bad enough that we added NMSU and Idaho, but Indiana St, UMass, please, someone return sanity to this garbage. I bad mouthed the Big East when they went rediculous, I will bad mouth the SBC if we do it.

The words you were trying to use are spelled, "absurd" and "ridiculous". Way to go usa English department.

(04-25-2013 05:30 PM)Walter Sobchak Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-25-2013 05:26 PM)Usajags Wrote: [ -> ]I honestly hope the powers that be aren't in the same mindset as some of you. Our conference is entering the obsurd zone with some of the teams that are now in and are talked about as adding. It's bad enough that we added NMSU and Idaho, but Indiana St, UMass, please, someone return sanity to this garbage. I bad mouthed the Big East when they went rediculous, I will bad mouth the SBC if we do it.

The words you were trying to use are spelled, "absurd" and "ridiculous". Way to go usa English department.

Spelling was my worst subject, from kindergarten to graduation, never got better...

Umass sounds like a way better addition than anyone previously mentioned. Footprints are irrelevant.

East
App
GaSa
GaSo
South Alabama
Troy
UMASS(FB only)
UALR(OLY)



West
Arkansas State
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
New Mexico State
Texas State
Idaho(FB only)
Texas Arlington(OLY)

Would take the MAC from 13 to 12.
Would increase the Sun Belt from 11 to 12.
Would ensure the SB gets max BCS monies since at 12 members.
No additional FCS move ups at this time.
Additional time to put certain FCS schools into position to move to SB later.
Would give the Sun Belt the opportunity to hold a SB Championship game in 2014 as Presidents and Benson want.

If this were to happen, which it most likely won't, taking a third non-football member in the East is a better option than adding NMSU and moving a team from the West. The trick is to identify a school in the East that isn't ready for FBS now, but may be in 10 years, like ETSU or Chattanooga.

SBC EAST
Appalachian State \ ETSU or UTC (UMass)
Georgia State \ Georgia Southern
Troy \ South Alabama

SBC WEST
Arkansas State \ UALR (NMSU)
Louisiana-Monroe \ UT-Arlington (Idaho)
Louisiana-Lafayette \ Texas State

In 10 years, perhaps UMass could land in a more geographically appropriate league, with ETSU or Chattanooga or Whoever upgrading football to the SBC. This scenario could actually be a really beneficial temporary arrangement for the MAC, SBC, UMass, and ETSU or Chattanooga or Whoever.

So are you saying to not add NMSU all sports, but to add one of these
other schools for all sports except football, with them being designated to
add football at a certain predetermined date?

I like the idea of UMASS for football only giving the SBC media coverage in all four corners.

UMASS would eventually leave for the AAC if they can build the program and the AAC eventually loses a school.

The out of the footprint additions NMSU, Idaho and UMASS are all state flagship schools .

Football only membership is not all that costly for travel having a prestigious school Like UMASS is worth it.

James Madison says no then UMASS would be a good add considering all the candidates.

There you go.

(04-25-2013 08:46 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't the campus an hour drive from the stadium?

Actually its 96 miles from Amherst to Gillette Stadium in Foxborough.

(04-25-2013 08:09 AM)slycat Wrote: [ -> ]Another empty NFL stadium. Though they are a perfect fit to make cross divsion rival with Idaho.

MUCH more suited to be in Cusa?

(04-25-2013 07:27 PM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]So are you saying to not add NMSU all sports, but to add one of these other schools for all sports except football, with them being designated to add football at a certain predetermined date?

Exactly. The SBC adds ETSU or Chattanooga or Whoever as a travel partner and rival for an Eastern school in basketball and other sports with the intent that they will eventually upgrade their football team to FBS, most likely whenever UMass leaves, a move likely to happen 7 to 10 years later.

(04-25-2013 10:05 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-25-2013 07:27 PM)GoApps70 Wrote: [ -> ]So are you saying to not add NMSU all sports, but to add one of these other schools for all sports except football, with them being designated to add football at a certain predetermined date?

Exactly. The SBC adds ETSU or Chattanooga or Whoever as a travel partner and rival for an Eastern school in basketball and other sports with the intent that they will eventually upgrade their football team to FBS, most likely whenever UMass leaves, a move likely to happen 7 to 10 years later.

I like that idea. Would assure a good quality program is working on getting their football program up to snuff while their other sports play in the Sun Belt. Kind of like "redshirting schools".
Only major drawback for the FCS school would be that many FCS conferences want all sports, but they could put their football into one that doesn't require that for awhile if necessary.

Yeah, UMass is a great add if you don't care about attendance. They don't show for games now against teams they know. Do you think they're going to show up for a game against troy?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/1...story.html

(04-26-2013 12:40 AM)Brothers Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, UMass is a great add if you don't care about attendance. They don't show for games now against teams they know. Do you think they're going to show up for a game against troy?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/1...story.html

I don't care about attendance. I care about making this conference as competitive as possible, and as nationally visible as possible.

(04-26-2013 12:48 AM)Walter Sobchak Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-26-2013 12:40 AM)Brothers Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, UMass is a great add if you don't care about attendance. They don't show for games now against teams they know. Do you think they're going to show up for a game against troy?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2012/1...story.html

I don't care about attendance. I care about making this conference as competitive as possible, and as nationally visible as possible.

Being nationally visible and competitive overall is definitely a huge component, but you have to admit that when you bring the casual perception of fans outside of the conference into the picture, playing a game on tv etc. with an empty stadium in the background is a blow to that overall perception. I'm not saying you pursue visibility, competition etc. OR attendance, but there has to be somewhat of a balance. FWIW, I wouldn't have a problem with UMASS being in for football only, especially given the attitude of "no more FCS" for many folks. But I don't see it as a long term thing...I could be wrong, but it seems more like a temporary fix. As realignment slows down, the Sun Belt has to make any decision knowing that a short term fix right now may very well end up being a long term situation. Not saying its right or wrong, but that just seems to be the reality as I see it.