Most universities have preferred walk on, but they are usually from the schools home region and state, but not from 1820 miles away.
UMass picked up a preferred walk on from Texas.
Quote:“The coaches at UMass have given me an opportunity to play at the highest level,” Loane said. “When I visited the campus a few weeks ago I felt a sense of unity and family. It felt like they truly cared about me and wanted to better me as a player as well as a student. I didn't feel that from most Texas schools.”
[Zarchary] Loane’s unofficial visit on January 28th coincided with the Minutemen’s final official visit weekend of the 2017 cycle, but because he was offered as a preferred walk-on, that meant he and his family had to foot the bill for the trip from the Houston suburb to the 413. But despite the expense, Loane knew he had to see what UMass had to offer.
“[The visit to Amherst] was great,” Loane said. “It’s a nice town, different coming from where I live obviously, but very cool. They hold their school to extremely high standard, not only for academics but sports as well. They seem to challenge the students and that's what I loved most. That they want to challenge you and make you better.”
...
Loane didn’t have a great deal of interest from FBS schools, no scholarship offers and only a PWO offer from Louisiana Tech outside of UMass. He had an offer to walk on at Texas, but it was not a preferred spot. Despite that, he remained committed to playing at the highest level, and UMass’ interest in him as a PWO came in response to him sending his film out.
...
Walk ons are always players you want to root for, great stories of good kids working their tails off to earn a scholarship and a chance to prove themselves on the biggest stage. UMass put nine walk ons on scholarship over the past year, and they have had some success with non-scholarship players in the past as well, like Joe Colton.
http://umass.247sports.com/Article/Texas...s-51398023
(02-18-2017 07:05 PM)MJG Wrote: [ -> ]Does Libery and NMSU joining the independent ranks excite U Mass fans?
Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app
It definitely helps scheduling.
Michael Traini post on the UMass Football event at the UMass Club, One Beacon Street 33rd floor, Boston.
Quote:The student village area is an attempt from the athletic admin to get kids closer to the game so that they might be more likely to attend, according to Bamford. Will be interesting to see it in practice this season. Jury's out until then.
The Sox are going to assist in a few ways according to Bamford, namely in marketing and promotional aspects in order to try and drive ticket sales. There were not a lot of specifics in that regard in the speaking/question + answer portion of the evening. Sam Kennedy was engaging, though he was there mainly to talk about FSG's desire to have other events in the park, etc.
There were no other changes at McGuirk discussed with the crowd that I heard. I have seen that Pandiani mentioned the potential, nothing definite, for premium bathroom trailers at McG this season replacing the existing portable options currently in use.
Meehan was the first speaker of the evening, and in his remarks he praised the success of the system, the flagship, the UMass Club itself, etc, and also made it a point to say that to be a nationally prominent flagship you need FBS football. Obviously a move to try and assuage people's consistent concerns about a potential drop or cut of the program. He also mentioned how as a system president that's a big sports fan, he was a "pain in the ass" (his words) to Bamford after every game the school plays about everything from performance to concession revenues.
The first question asked of Bamford was regarding a conference, as it usually is, and he gave the same answer we've heard for a while: Currently we're at the mercy of realignment. All UMass can do is attempt to make their athletic department as attractive an option as possible, and keep working to position themselves to be in the best spot when openings arise. Meehan jumped in after Ryan spoke and said that he has had off the record discussions with a number of officials at other institutions in regard to realignment and UMass' current independent status, and that he will continue to do so as long as UMass remains indy in order to try and find the school the best possible conference situation.
UMAss will never be a nationally prominent flagship and to be honest the average person probably doesn't' realize UMass plays FBS football. Unless a spot opens up in the next year or two they probably need to go back to FCS. They dont' meet minimum FBS attendance requirements anyway.
Pretty sad that Iowa can strongly support 2 p-5 schools but Massachusetts with all it's population and wealth can't even support 1.
So stever 1981 got butthut about my true comments and calls them "fake news" and goes to the old fall back of research. Look at the neg rep.
neg rep is pretty much a butthurt o meter. When people get butthurt they participate.
Everything I said is true Stever. Iowa has 2 p-5 schools with great support and Massachusetts has 1 p-5 who has the worst support in p-5 and 1 more FBS sho isn't even in a conference and has terrible fan support. Massachusetts does not support college athletics beyond BC hockey.
Thanks for the entertainment Stever. I think you need to face the reality that UMass might no be able to sustain independence with no fan support or $ and if the MAC doesn't' come calling it's probably FCS in 2-3 years. I see no reason the AAC would be interested as UMass is not any sort of replacement for UConn.
I bet you whine to the mods.
(02-24-2017 10:03 AM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]UMAss will never be a nationally prominent flagship and to be honest the average person probably doesn't' realize UMass plays FBS football. Unless a spot opens up in the next year or two they probably need to go back to FCS. They dont' meet minimum FBS attendance requirements anyway.
Pretty sad that Iowa can strongly support 2 p-5 schools but Massachusetts with all it's population and wealth can't even support 1.
Comparing the state of Massachusetts to the state of Iowa is asinine. The northeast coast is built on private schools that are older than the state of Iowa. Also, you throw out opinions as though they are facts. Were you around when UMass beat UNC in the preseason NIT final in 1993? They sure were a national flagship then.
(02-24-2017 03:56 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2017 10:03 AM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ]UMAss will never be a nationally prominent flagship and to be honest the average person probably doesn't' realize UMass plays FBS football. Unless a spot opens up in the next year or two they probably need to go back to FCS. They dont' meet minimum FBS attendance requirements anyway.
Pretty sad that Iowa can strongly support 2 p-5 schools but Massachusetts with all it's population and wealth can't even support 1.
Comparing the state of Massachusetts to the state of Iowa is asinine. The northeast coast is built on private schools that are older than the state of Iowa. Also, you throw out opinions as though they are facts. Were you around when UMass beat UNC in the preseason NIT final in 1993? They sure were a national flagship then.
LOL. Now we are talking how old states are to make up for lack of college sports support??
Whatever the reason they don't support college sports in MAssachusetts. Probably better for UMass to focus on being a solid FCS program than a bottom of the barrel FBS program.
If you want to believe that in 1993 UMass was a national flagship so be it.
All states are different and to compare their education systems and fan support is ridiculous if you're not taking into account their actual history. The Iowa programs have been FBS (1-A) in major conferences for how long? Compared to UMass? Compare UMass to RIU and UConn and you may have a case.
UMass was definitely a perennial power in the 90's. They had a Wooden Award winner for crying out loud. That streak carries weight today to the laymen hoops fan and transcends into recognition in other sports.
I'm confused....is this a basketball, football, or all-sports argument?
Thread is about Umass FOOTBALL.
I can compare fan support in different states if I want to . I do not need your permission.
The Northeast simply doesn't support college football and I see no reason for a school like UMass who is marginal at best to start with to try and finance a FBS program where the sport is not popular and brings in little if any income to the AD.
71 Massachusetts A-10 $36,512,437 $36,897,375 $28,681,769 78.55
We are talking about an AD that requires nearly 80% subsidy to operate. That simply isn't sustainable but fits right in with the MAC. I see this as MAC or bust and I do not see UMass being a top 5 replacement team for the AAC.
In all reality they should lessen the burden to taxpayers and students and drop down in football to a level they have the resources to compete in.
Independence works for schools like BYU and service academies, not schools like Idaho, UMass, and NMSU.
You said UMass will never become a flagship: which school are people going to confuse UMass with? You also brought up hockey and that's all the state supports, which I disproved by recounting UMass' national prominence in basketball.
Flagship encompasses all sports, and I believe success in one sport brings awareness to other sports. Certainly UConn's Big East membership helped to elevate their football program.
Compare what ever you want, it's still ridiculous.
I actually think UMass should have joined the MAC full-time and prepared for the next conference shifts. It would be interesting to compare the revenue for MAC all-sports vs. A10. Sure they would have left some dough on the table, but I think long term it was the right move. If Gonzaga can recruit in their joke of a conference (and UNLV in the Big West before them), I don't see why UMass recruiting would be damaged. BTW, they have a top 25 recruiting class as freshmen right now.
p23570 you are free to post what ever you want and facts are fine. Going to stick with three facts for now.
1) Attendance will not likely average in the 40's range in the next decade, but 20's should happen with a few games in the 30's. The key is scheduling right so we can start winning. Our second string is getting stronger. We went out and hired the best available Defensive Coordinator at the G5 level, Ed Pinkham from Western Michigan. Before injuries, we competed well with our P5 loaded schedule.
2) Conferences do consider the athletic budget size and we are growing to be in the AAC ball park. You have noticed the dramatic increase.
3) Politics, as long as Marty Meehan is the UMass System president, FBS Football is a given. Take it to the bank.
PS. Our student athletic fees have not gone up in a long time and they did not go up one penny, when we went FBS. Your concern for the students and taxpayers is very nice.
(02-24-2017 04:35 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ]p23570 you are free to post what ever you want and facts are fine. Going to stick with three facts for now.
1) Attendance will not likely average in the 40's range in the next decade, but 20's should happen with a few games in the 30's. The key is scheduling right so we can start winning. Our second string is getting stronger. We went out and hired the best available Defensive Coordinator at the G5 level, Ed Pinkham from Western Michigan.
2) Conferences do consider the athletic budget size and we are growing to be in the AAC ball park. You have noticed the dramatic increase.
3) Politics, as long as Marty Meehan is the UMass System president, FBS Football is a given. Take it to the bank.
PS. We are not Virginia schools loading the students with huge athletic fees. Our student athletic fees have not gone up in a long time and they did not go up one penny, when we went FBS. Your concern for the students and taxpayers is very nice.
I would put those estimates as a bit optimistic looking at recent performance. Teens would be a nice improvement getting closer to FBS minimum of 15k for every game in the next decade
Another shocking thing was the EMU game in 2015. Having FBS football games with 2,700 people is exactly why we need to be more realistic and selective with who is brought up to FBS.
There should never, ever be an FBS game with 2,700 people.
Looking at UMass attendance the entire MAC needs to be in FCS. Way to many games with less than 5k people.
IF you look at UMAss AD budget the real increase is just subsidy. They went form 19 to 36 million in a decade but over 12 million of that was just subsidy. There was only a slim increase in ticket sales and donations in that period.
(02-24-2017 04:33 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]You said UMass will never become a flagship: which school are people going to confuse UMass with? You also brought up hockey and that's all the state supports, which I disproved by recounting UMass' national prominence in basketball.
Flagship encompasses all sports, and I believe success in one sport brings awareness to other sports. Certainly UConn's Big East membership helped to elevate their football program.
Compare what ever you want, it's still ridiculous.
I actually think UMass should have joined the MAC full-time and prepared for the next conference shifts. It would be interesting to compare the revenue for MAC all-sports vs. A10. Sure they would have left some dough on the table, but I think long term it was the right move. If Gonzaga can recruit in their joke of a conference (and UNLV in the Big West before them), I don't see why UMass recruiting would be damaged. BTW, they have a top 25 recruiting class as freshmen right now.
I said most people dont' realize UMAss plays FBS football.
The reason people dont' view UMass as a flagship is becasue little worthless BC is the most popular school in the state.
It's not ridiculous as all, the reason it bothers you is becasue you know it's true and are insecure about it.
How much more does the A-10 pay than the MAC?
(02-24-2017 04:54 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2017 04:33 PM)esayem Wrote: [ -> ]You said UMass will never become a flagship: which school are people going to confuse UMass with? You also brought up hockey and that's all the state supports, which I disproved by recounting UMass' national prominence in basketball.
Flagship encompasses all sports, and I believe success in one sport brings awareness to other sports. Certainly UConn's Big East membership helped to elevate their football program.
Compare what ever you want, it's still ridiculous.
I actually think UMass should have joined the MAC full-time and prepared for the next conference shifts. It would be interesting to compare the revenue for MAC all-sports vs. A10. Sure they would have left some dough on the table, but I think long term it was the right move. If Gonzaga can recruit in their joke of a conference (and UNLV in the Big West before them), I don't see why UMass recruiting would be damaged. BTW, they have a top 25 recruiting class as freshmen right now.
I said most people dont' realize UMAss plays FBS football.
The reason people dont' view UMass as a flagship is becasue little worthless BC is the most popular school in the state.
It's not ridiculous as all, the reason it bothers you is becasue you know it's true and are insecure about it.
How much more does the A-10 pay than the MAC?
I'm not sure the A10 makes more than the MAC (including football). I think UMass would leave some NCAA tournament money on the table if they left.
I'm not sure what I'm suppose to be insecure about. You can't seem to grasp that comparing the state of Iowa to the commonwealth of Massachusetts makes no sense considering their histories. If population was all that mattered then all those California schools wouldn't have folded their football programs in the 90's.
(02-24-2017 04:51 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2017 04:35 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ]p23570 you are free to post what ever you want and facts are fine. Going to stick with three facts for now.
1) Attendance will not likely average in the 40's range in the next decade, but 20's should happen with a few games in the 30's. The key is scheduling right so we can start winning. Our second string is getting stronger. We went out and hired the best available Defensive Coordinator at the G5 level, Ed Pinkham from Western Michigan.
2) Conferences do consider the athletic budget size and we are growing to be in the AAC ball park. You have noticed the dramatic increase.
3) Politics, as long as Marty Meehan is the UMass System president, FBS Football is a given. Take it to the bank.
PS. We are not Virginia schools loading the students with huge athletic fees. Our student athletic fees have not gone up in a long time and they did not go up one penny, when we went FBS. Your concern for the students and taxpayers is very nice.
I would put those estimates as a bit optimistic looking at recent performance. Teens would be a nice improvement getting closer to FBS minimum of 15k for every game in the next decade
Another shocking thing was the EMU game in 2015. Having FBS football games with 2,700 people is exactly why we need to be more realistic and selective with who is brought up to FBS.
There should never, ever be an FBS game with 2,700 people.
Looking at UMass attendance the entire MAC needs to be in FCS. Way to many games with less than 5k people.
IF you look at UMAss AD budget the real increase is just subsidy. They went form 19 to 36 million in a decade but over 12 million of that was just subsidy. There was only a slim increase in ticket sales and donations in that period.
Read this, saw who the poster was, laughed hysterically and carried on with my Saturday.
(02-25-2017 11:49 AM)panama Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2017 04:51 PM)p23570 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2017 04:35 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ]p23570 you are free to post what ever you want and facts are fine. Going to stick with three facts for now.
1) Attendance will not likely average in the 40's range in the next decade, but 20's should happen with a few games in the 30's. The key is scheduling right so we can start winning. Our second string is getting stronger. We went out and hired the best available Defensive Coordinator at the G5 level, Ed Pinkham from Western Michigan.
2) Conferences do consider the athletic budget size and we are growing to be in the AAC ball park. You have noticed the dramatic increase.
3) Politics, as long as Marty Meehan is the UMass System president, FBS Football is a given. Take it to the bank.
PS. We are not Virginia schools loading the students with huge athletic fees. Our student athletic fees have not gone up in a long time and they did not go up one penny, when we went FBS. Your concern for the students and taxpayers is very nice.
I would put those estimates as a bit optimistic looking at recent performance. Teens would be a nice improvement getting closer to FBS minimum of 15k for every game in the next decade
Another shocking thing was the EMU game in 2015. Having FBS football games with 2,700 people is exactly why we need to be more realistic and selective with who is brought up to FBS.
There should never, ever be an FBS game with 2,700 people.
Looking at UMass attendance the entire MAC needs to be in FCS. Way to many games with less than 5k people.
IF you look at UMAss AD budget the real increase is just subsidy. They went form 19 to 36 million in a decade but over 12 million of that was just subsidy. There was only a slim increase in ticket sales and donations in that period.
Read this, saw who the poster was, laughed hysterically and carried on with my Saturday.
UMass athletics are no laughing matter. LOL.
Your postings are though.
(02-25-2017 12:34 PM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]Your postings are though.
Everything in my post is a fact. If ou dispute any numbers I will give you a link.
The joke here is you trolling. Keep up the fine work.
