CSNbbs

Full Version: UMass Football
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(08-10-2017 07:28 PM)Policiious Wrote: [ -> ]If the INdependent teams were smart they would form an Independent Conference for Bowl and All conference team purposes. With BYU, NM ST, Liberty UMASS & Army all you need is one more team to have the 6 required to form a conference.
"6 required to form a conference"?

Wait ... what?

You need six teams to form a single sport conference. Two sports cannot form single-sport conferences: Basketball and FBS Football.

These are already members of conferences for Olympic Sports, so the "6 required to form a conference" can only refer to FBS Football, for which 8 is required and which has to be an all-sports conference.

And, of course, the primary "conference team purposes" is participation of the conference champion in either the guaranteed (P5) or best-of-the-group (G5) bowl place in the CFP contract/access bowls, which is off the table, because the participating parties to the CFP agreement are already in place.

Other than that would be (1) a scheduling agreement, where five would suffice to guarantee three home games in November (two home, two away, one bye for an FCS buy game), and (2) a pool for bowl tie-ins. But without an conference round robin, there is no assurance that there will be a minimum number of bowl eligible teams in the pool, so its not entirely clear what the benefit is to the participating bowls versus individual agreements.

On the pool for bowl tie-ins, Army already has one, and BYU is not likely to be left on the outside looking in if it is bowl eligible, so really that is a bowl tie-in pool of Liberty, UMass and NMSU, where it is entirely possible that a majority of the time over a six year contract period none of the three will be bowl eligible.
I could really only see an "independent bowl alliance" developing if more teams move to FBS in the same manner as Liberty. Of course if a number of teams in the same geographic area move to FBS, then they may ultimately wind up in the same conference, especially if they are located west of the Mississippi.
(08-11-2017 07:34 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-11-2017 05:53 PM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.umassathletics.com/news/2017/...twork.aspx

[Image: DG9mzerUAAARGX5.jpg]

UMass announces 2017 TV deal with Eleven Sports Network and NESN
The streaming free of charge could hurt a little in revenue and fans at the gate.

Quote:AMHERST, Mass. - University of Massachusetts Athletics, in conjunction with multimedia rights holder Learfield's UMass Sports Properties, announced on Friday a new television partnership with Eleven Sports Network to produce and distribute all six of the Minutemen's home football games for the 2017 season. To support the availability of all six contests regionally, each will be broadcast on the NESN family of networks as well.

In order to provide numerous platforms for fans to follow the team this season, all six games airing live via Eleven Sports and NESN family of networks will also be available to watch free of charge via live stream on UMassAthletics.com.

UMass football joins sports leagues such as the Big Sky Conference, the Ivy League, La Liga and the English Premier League as part of Eleven Sports' offerings. Eleven Sports is available on various cable, satellite, Telco, and OTT providers. Use the Eleven Sports Channel Finder to search availability in your area.

The Minutemen have six home games in 2017, including five on-campus at McGuirk Alumni Stadium and one at Fenway Park against Maine on Nov. 11 as part of the Fenway Gridiron Series. Start times for all six home games were announced on Thurs., July 27.

Kickoff for the season-opener on Sat., Aug. 26 against Hawai'i will be at 6 p.m. The remaining four McGuirk Alumni Stadium contests – Sept. 9 vs. Old Dominion, Sept. 30 vs. Ohio, Oct. 21 vs. Georgia Southern and Oct. 28 vs. Appalachian State – will all begin at 3:30 p.m. The Fenway Park meeting with Maine on Nov. 11 starts at 4 p.m.

Mark Traini take on umass.247sports

http://umass.247sports.com/Bolt/UMass-an...-106030364

Smart move to get on NESN. Best television partner possible for your market.

Thanks, looking forward to the season! TWO WEEKS!!!
Looking over the season ticket package:
[Image: DHHJMArW0AE311v.jpg]

Video of last nights season ticket holders scrimmage. Most of us are up on the patio.
http://www.umassathletics.com/news/2017/...mmage.aspx

Quote from last night via Frank's http://umass74.blogspot.com/
Quote:Whipple felt UMass has done well the last two years, but "needed one more recruiting class".
Below are the rules for a D-I FBS conference. The applicable one is 20.02.6. You need 8 members and it has to be a multi-sport conference. You cannot have a single sport football conference at this level


20.02.5 Multisport Conference. A Division I multisport conference shall satisfy the requirements of this section. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
20.02.5.2 Sports Sponsorship. A multisport conference shall satisfy the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
(a) Th conference shall sponsor a minimum of 12 Division I sports;
(b) Th conference shall sponsor a minimum of six men’s sports, one of which shall be men’s basketball. In addition to men’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor football or two other men’s team sports. A minimum of seven members shall sponsor men’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor five other sports, including football or two additional men’s team sports; and
( c) Th conference shall sponsor a minimum of six women’s sports, one of which shall be women’s basketball. In addition to women’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor two other women’s team sports. A minimum of seven members shall sponsor women’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor five other sports, including two additional women’s team sports (or a minimum of fie members for an emerging sport for women).
20.02.5.3 Regular-Season Conference Competition. Multisport conference members shall participate in
regular-season conference competition, subject to the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
(a) Basketball teams shall participate in a regular-season conference schedule of a double round robin, inseason competition, or a minimum of 14 regular-season conference contests;
(b) In football or in a minimum of two men’s team sports other than men’s basketball [as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2-(b)], teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of fie contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue; and
( c) In a minimum of two women’s team sports other than women’s basketball (as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2), teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of fie contests. A minimum of fie regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue.
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
20.02.5.5 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a multisport conference for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s noncompliance with the minimum multisport conference requirements. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)

20.02.6 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference. A conference classifid as a Football Bowl Subdivision conference shall be comprised of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdivision requirements. An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men’s and eight women’s conferencesponsored sports, including men’s basketball and football and three women’s team sports including women’s basketball. A conference-sponsored sport shall be a sport in which regular-season and/or championship opportunities are provided, consistent with the minimum standards identifid by the applicable NCAA sport committee for automatic qualifiation. (Adopted: 10/31/02 effctive 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
20.02.6.1 Exception. A Football Bowl Subdivision member institution shall be permitted to count as one of its required six men’s sports and one of its required eight women’s sports a sport in which its conference does not sponsor or conduct a championship, provided the sport is one in which it participates in another Division I multi- or single-sport conference. Different sports may be counted for men and women. (Adopted: 4/29/04
effctive 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
20.02.6.2 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements. (Adopted: 4/28/05 effctive 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
(08-12-2017 08:22 AM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ][Image: DHHJMArW0AE311v.jpg]

Southern Georgia?
(08-14-2017 01:36 AM)rokamortis Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-12-2017 08:22 AM)Steve1981 Wrote: [ -> ][Image: DHHJMArW0AE311v.jpg]

Southern Georgia?

Ya, it's only incorrect on the parking pass, the little schedules and key ring ones, tickets, etc are all correct.
(08-14-2017 12:19 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]Below are the rules for a D-I FBS conference. The applicable one is 20.02.6. You need 8 members and it has to be a multi-sport conference. You cannot have a single sport football conference at this level


20.02.5 Multisport Conference. A Division I multisport conference shall satisfy the requirements of this section. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
20.02.5.2 Sports Sponsorship. A multisport conference shall satisfy the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
(a) Th conference shall sponsor a minimum of 12 Division I sports;
(b) Th conference shall sponsor a minimum of six men’s sports, one of which shall be men’s basketball. In addition to men’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor football or two other men’s team sports. A minimum of seven members shall sponsor men’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor five other sports, including football or two additional men’s team sports; and
( c) Th conference shall sponsor a minimum of six women’s sports, one of which shall be women’s basketball. In addition to women’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor two other women’s team sports. A minimum of seven members shall sponsor women’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor five other sports, including two additional women’s team sports (or a minimum of fie members for an emerging sport for women).
20.02.5.3 Regular-Season Conference Competition. Multisport conference members shall participate in
regular-season conference competition, subject to the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
(a) Basketball teams shall participate in a regular-season conference schedule of a double round robin, inseason competition, or a minimum of 14 regular-season conference contests;
(b) In football or in a minimum of two men’s team sports other than men’s basketball [as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2-(b)], teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of fie contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue; and
( c) In a minimum of two women’s team sports other than women’s basketball (as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2), teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of fie contests. A minimum of fie regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue.
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)
20.02.5.5 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a multisport conference for two years following the date of withdrawal of the institution(s) that causes the conference’s noncompliance with the minimum multisport conference requirements. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effctive 8/1/11)

20.02.6 Football Bowl Subdivision Conference. A conference classifid as a Football Bowl Subdivision conference shall be comprised of at least eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members that satisfy all bowl subdivision requirements. An institution shall be included as one of the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision members only if the institution participates in the conference schedule in at least six men’s and eight women’s conferencesponsored sports, including men’s basketball and football and three women’s team sports including women’s basketball. A conference-sponsored sport shall be a sport in which regular-season and/or championship opportunities are provided, consistent with the minimum standards identifid by the applicable NCAA sport committee for automatic qualifiation. (Adopted: 10/31/02 effctive 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
20.02.6.1 Exception. A Football Bowl Subdivision member institution shall be permitted to count as one of its required six men’s sports and one of its required eight women’s sports a sport in which its conference does not sponsor or conduct a championship, provided the sport is one in which it participates in another Division I multi- or single-sport conference. Different sports may be counted for men and women. (Adopted: 4/29/04
effctive 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
20.02.6.2 Grace Period. A conference shall continue to be considered a Football Bowl Subdivision conference for two years following the date when it fails to satisfy the eight full Football Bowl Subdivision member requirement due to one or more of its member’s failure to comply with the bowl subdivision membership requirements. (Adopted: 4/28/05 effctive 8/1/05, Revised: 12/15/06)
Nothing in there precludes you having a contractual scheduling or bowl arrangement between schools.
(08-14-2017 10:52 AM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing in there precludes you having a contractual scheduling or bowl arrangement between schools.

This was answering the question about having an FBS Football conference of Independents. Simple answer, you can't.

Scheduling of independents rarely has much in the way of alliances because independents are all going in different directions.

Notre Dame is effectively a P5 conference member, with 8 built in games, 7 after September (5x ACC, Stanford, USC, Navy, and almost always a B1G school in September as a 9th).

Army has built it's schedule out almost a decade ahead, with a national brand that doesn't need an alliance - they mostly want geographic diversity among G5 (a California school, a Texas School a DMV are school, a Florida school, a Great lakes school, and so on), usually with 4 game deals; they have no difficulty finding partners among the schools in conferences.

BYU focuses on building a heavy P5 schedule, usually with 5 or 6 P5 schools (this year is unusually light with 4, tthe out years have 5 or more) along with Boise State and Utah State. They have plenty of G5 schools, especially in the west that will schedule them, even in a 2 for 1 (BYU needs home games). Their biggest issue is getting a heavy hitter to play in Provo in November as the home schedule gets really weak after early October -- that is get one P5 to visit late in the year. (Notre Dame owes them a visit to Provo, but the Irish want out of it)

None of these have any need nor would be interested in any alliance of Independents. That leaves UMass, Liberty and NMSU. As it is they do sort of work with each other. Liberty being the one with wads of cash coming out every orifice simply buys their schedule. While a 2 year 4 game series between Liberty and NMSU is set, it's clear Liberty is the driver as NMSU hosts the early October game and visits Lynchburg for the late November game. This series will likely end in 2020 or be scaled back, even a 2 for 1 (NMSU visiting Liberty twice for Liberty to visit Las Cuces once). Liberty will schedule NMSU and/or UMass as need to fill an October or November slot going forward. Their money allows them to book a Virginia, ODU or any other more attractive school. Their political connections to the President helped land a 4 game series with Army. Liberty's cash allowed them to buy out both sides of two other already scheduled games between G5 schools to add four games.

NMSU is pretty much on the ragged edge as far as staying in FBS. They have booked 2018 (they'll likely add some Big Sky FCS opponent for the November 3rd date, which will be their last home game) and are close to completing 2019 (features 3 body bag games and no home games after mid-October) but which will likely look the same, 4 G5 home games (one the alternating New Mexico/UTEP rivalry, one a front end of a Liberty pair) and an early November FCS game. It really looks like they need to find a conference by 2020 or else they will be in deep trouble.

UMass is set up to run for awhile and don't seem to need an alliance for schedule help. The question about them is when will the political will to continue to underwrite a program with pretty much zero faculty support, very little student or alumni support and a modest fan base? Looks like five years anyway. Scheduling is not a problem for them, especially with Foxborough sweetheart deal.

The alliance is thus an answer in search of a question.
Independence in football used to be a thing. It has died. Conferences rule the world.

Not a bad thing, either.
(08-14-2017 01:24 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-14-2017 10:52 AM)panama Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing in there precludes you having a contractual scheduling or bowl arrangement between schools.

This was answering the question about having an FBS Football conference of Independents. Simple answer, you can't.

Scheduling of independents rarely has much in the way of alliances because independents are all going in different directions.

Notre Dame is effectively a P5 conference member, with 8 built in games, 7 after September (5x ACC, Stanford, USC, Navy, and almost always a B1G school in September as a 9th).

Army has built it's schedule out almost a decade ahead, with a national brand that doesn't need an alliance - they mostly want geographic diversity among G5 (a California school, a Texas School a DMV are school, a Florida school, a Great lakes school, and so on), usually with 4 game deals; they have no difficulty finding partners among the schools in conferences.

BYU focuses on building a heavy P5 schedule, usually with 5 or 6 P5 schools (this year is unusually light with 4, tthe out years have 5 or more) along with Boise State and Utah State. They have plenty of G5 schools, especially in the west that will schedule them, even in a 2 for 1 (BYU needs home games). Their biggest issue is getting a heavy hitter to play in Provo in November as the home schedule gets really weak after early October -- that is get one P5 to visit late in the year. (Notre Dame owes them a visit to Provo, but the Irish want out of it)

None of these have any need nor would be interested in any alliance of Independents. That leaves UMass, Liberty and NMSU. As it is they do sort of work with each other. Liberty being the one with wads of cash coming out every orifice simply buys their schedule. While a 2 year 4 game series between Liberty and NMSU is set, it's clear Liberty is the driver as NMSU hosts the early October game and visits Lynchburg for the late November game. This series will likely end in 2020 or be scaled back, even a 2 for 1 (NMSU visiting Liberty twice for Liberty to visit Las Cuces once). Liberty will schedule NMSU and/or UMass as need to fill an October or November slot going forward. Their money allows them to book a Virginia, ODU or any other more attractive school. Their political connections to the President helped land a 4 game series with Army. Liberty's cash allowed them to buy out both sides of two other already scheduled games between G5 schools to add four games.

NMSU is pretty much on the ragged edge as far as staying in FBS. They have booked 2018 (they'll likely add some Big Sky FCS opponent for the November 3rd date, which will be their last home game) and are close to completing 2019 (features 3 body bag games and no home games after mid-October) but which will likely look the same, 4 G5 home games (one the alternating New Mexico/UTEP rivalry, one a front end of a Liberty pair) and an early November FCS game. It really looks like they need to find a conference by 2020 or else they will be in deep trouble.

UMass is set up to run for awhile and don't seem to need an alliance for schedule help. The question about them is when will the political will to continue to underwrite a program with pretty much zero faculty support, very little student or alumni support and a modest fan base? Looks like five years anyway. Scheduling is not a problem for them, especially with Foxborough sweetheart deal.

The alliance is thus an answer in search of a question.

The original question was about indpeendents getting together for scheduling and bowls. It got misconstrued into building a conference.
(08-14-2017 01:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Independence in football used to be a thing. It has died. Conferences rule the world.

Not a bad thing, either.

BYU is proving its not dead. UMass' scheduling is seconding their emotion. It is possible even if its not for everyone.
Just to reiterate my point about Liberty's ability to schedule without any alliance, another 2 for 1, this time with Duke. They have over 30 games scheduled with schools like Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Old Dominion, Syracuse, Army, BYU and Wake Forest, including a bakers dozen home games against that group through 2030.

http://www.liberty.edu/flames/index.cfm?...18&TeamID=
6 Days to Hawai'i

Last year was a 40-46 shoot out. The game is being carried by NESNPlus, Sat @6PM and Red Soxs being on NESN Saturday. Do not see another scheduling conflict with NESN and the Red Soxs. Free streaming is available from UMassAthletics.com

We all know the media generally bashes us and this is probably one of the more positive pre-season write-ups.

Quote:This can be the best UMass team since its FBS leap, but that doesn't mean it can get to six wins. The Minutemen had some passing success last year with quarterback Andrew Ford, who started nine games and threw for 2,665 yards, 26 TDs and 14 TDs, with the help of a solid receiving corps featuring Andy Isabella and tight end Adam Breneman. Breneman in particular is worth watching, as he's a former blue-chip recruit at Penn State who decided to return to football after knee injuries caused him to step away from the team in Happy Valley. A healthy Breneman caught 70 passes for 808 yards and eight TDs, living up to that recruiting potential with the Minutemen. With some hope on offense and much of the defense back, four or five wins could be on the table for UMass, although the margin for error is thin with a tough road schedule featuring Temple, Tennessee, South Florida, Mississippi State and BYU.

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/247...d=tw_share
The issue with UMass is that increasingly their budget is funded directed by tax payer money for higher education (School Funds), some $25.5M of a 42.3M budget. And Student Fees, $8.7M, were most of the rest.
PHP Code:
Year    Ticket Sales    Contributions    Rights Licensing    Student Fees    School Funds    Other    Total Revenues
2016    
$1,194,365       $1,728,591        $3,289,501        $8,723,286    $25,531,800     $1,883,368      $42,350,911
2015    
$1,643,397       $1,371,144        $2,566,830        $8,151,071    $20,530,698     $2,249,297      $36,512,437
2014    
$1,695,134       $1,579,380        $1,711,809        $8,081,072    $18,344,057     $2,464,466      $33,875,918 

The way athletic departments report, Football only seems to take up 20% of the budget. But in reality it's 40-50%, when you figure in their proportion of the overhead costs put under the vague category of expenses called "not for any specific team."

The ratio I like to compare to see how healthy a program is in G5 is the ratio of transfers to contributions.

A healthy G5 program like Boise State is 1:1. In 2016-17 the school transferred $9,316,804 but got back $10,311,076 in contributions. So the argument the money was needed to be spent to get contributions at least comes out something of a wash. And if you look at their last five years (to smooth out bumps) they actually have about 10% more donated than they transfer. Southern Mississippi is another program about 1:1 ratio with good budget discipline and a much lower budget (around $25M) as a result. Their revenue is slightly better than UMass.

A less healthy program like San Jose State the ratio has fluctuated but the five year average seems to be about 3:1 ($10M transferred for $3M donated). Fresno State has slipped from the 1:1 category as expenses have gone up rapidly, and are fluctuating in the 3:1 or 2:1 range -not settled- where the gap is widening (I think the same forces are at work for them as hit SJSU about a decade earlier ... it's the state of California athletics, much bigger issue than the school).

For UMass the ratio is an incredible 14:8 last year. A staggering $97,145,822 of school funds (tax payer dollars) has been transferred the last five years for a pathetic $6,695,755 in contributions, while realizing only $7,107,639 in ticket sales (that includes Basketball). Students have also contributed some $40,946,262 via fees (that comes out to over $1000 per student ... but if these were voluntary and approved by student vote, then this is legitimate funding; if not it is little more than school funds transfer).

The only school with a worse ration I am aware, or that transferred more money is Eastern Michigan. And they don't have an A-10 Basketball program, nor as large or as academically high achieving a student body.

The very low donation rate for athletics contrasts to the $379M raised by the school's Foundation from 2010-2016. Faculty even donated $10.7M (!). In the same period of time only $7.9M was raised for athletics (how much is Basketball?).
https://www.umass.edu/giving/sites/defau...0_2016.pdf

The bottom line is UMass has very weak support for Athletics, especially football. The revenue generated is very small compared to the transfers and fees required to play at FBS level, and those transfers are alarmingly high and increasing. Even if football accounted for 50% of all contributions and ticket sales for athletics, you would have a situation where $200M needs to be transferred (diverted from the primary purpose of the institution) to keep a mere $6-7M in donations to athletics flowing because of football.

Arguments about stature of the school requiring FBS are bunk. The school is at impact capacity and is very selective. And these students are not attending UMass sporting events by and large, especially not football.

Were this a business the CEO would have pulled the plug on that division a few years ago, or else the board would have removed him. The power of a few individuals to fleece the state out of so much money is truly breathtaking. Of course the diehard fans who contribute a few hundred "spit in the bucket" dollars scream how much the schools needs this. But deep in their heart they know it's a selfish welfare for sports wish.
Are you afraid of us, WTF, How much per population does Ohio citizens pay for all their combined FBS programs. As you pointed out it's outrageously high for Massachusetts at $4.

All three major revenue programs were a mess with McCutcheon hires. It took some time to give them a chance before all three, plus women's BB were all fired. There are several millions in contract terminations and got news for you. 2017 will look worse. Everyone in the key position acknowledge the problems and are willing to work through them in the next few years. If we are not in better shape by 2019, I'd start being concern, but fully expect Hockey, Football, and Basketball be in way better shape.

This is Massachusetts, not any other state in the union. How many health programs went into receivership and came out in the black. One and it was in Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. How many large companies employees will boycott work; not over wages, benefits or working condition, but to support their CEO. One, it was Market Basket in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts gave up Maine for the Missouri Compromise and it was their men that won the battle of Gettysburg. We're use to a good fight. Your posts and many more of them do not help the cause. But those post are shrinking.
I think all subsidies should be phased out or capped at say 1:1 or 2:1 with donations. And I think students should vote on their athletic fees, and their votes honored. And I think officials should be accountable for redirection of funds and a ratio report should be issued for every school. (This applies to public schools, privates can do as they please, since it's not tax payer money)

Ohio, Illinois, Michigan are all big offenders.

Among FBS schools UMass and EMU are by far the worst offenders. Several MAC schools are offenders as well, though not on the same level. $100M transferred in 5 years is very serious money, as is $40M in student fees. That could have paid for the expansion of the school by 1000 students to attend free, or as many as 4-5,000 without subsidies (probably a middle number of 2-3,000 additional students in the UMass system is the true cost). Effectively over 1/3rd of the foundation fund raising has to offset the drain athletics is on the school. Think what could have been built with $100M, what research (and student participation value in that) could have been done. That is called lost opportunity cost.

The fundamental truth is UMass football supporters are welfare recipients. They pay $1 for every $14 of tax payer money to support their habit.
My program was built on subsidies for decases before the TV era so please close the door before others catch up? Got it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
(08-20-2017 03:11 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]I think all subsidies should be phased out or capped at say 1:1 or 2:1 with donations. And I think students should vote on their athletic fees, and their votes honored. And I think officials should be accountable for redirection of funds and a ratio report should be issued for every school. (This applies to public schools, privates can do as they please, since it's not tax payer money)

Ohio, Illinois, Michigan are all big offenders.

Among FBS schools UMass and EMU are by far the worst offenders. Several MAC schools are offenders as well, though not on the same level. $100M transferred in 5 years is very serious money, as is $40M in student fees. That could have paid for the expansion of the school by 1000 students to attend free, or as many as 4-5,000 without subsidies (probably a middle number of 2-3,000 additional students in the UMass system is the true cost). Effectively over 1/3rd of the foundation fund raising has to offset the drain athletics is on the school. Think what could have been built with $100M, what research (and student participation value in that) could have been done. That is called lost opportunity cost.

The fundamental truth is UMass football supporters are welfare recipients. They pay $1 for every $14 of tax payer money to support their habit.

I take it you would like to see UMASS drop football?
On another note, I wonder why CBS-SN or even ESPN didn't pick up this game? There's only a few games this weekend and it features two state schools (Hawaii vs Massachusetts) I think people would tune in.
(08-20-2017 03:38 PM)billybobby777 Wrote: [ -> ]On another note, I wonder why CBS-SN or even ESPN didn't pick up this game? There's only a few games this weekend and it features two state schools (Hawaii vs Massachusetts) I think people would tune in.

Looking at the wikipedia page, UMass' TV rights belong to something called ELVN, Eleven Sports Network, and NESN.
TV and some game notes are up for Saturday.

Football Kicks Off 2017 Under The Lights at McGuirk on Saturday.
Minutemen host Hawai'i for a 6 p.m. game broadcast live on NESNplus

Link to Weekly Game info, write-up, and links for all coverage.
Reference URL's