UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

UMass football is a dog---and given their stadium situation---it will be a dog for a long time. There is zero support for UMass football in the AAC. UMass has a better chance at a non-football membership in the AAC than a football-only AAC membership. I think the Sunbelt is the only hope UMass has and that could disappear if JMU realizes the last available ticket to FBS is about to be sold to someone else. UMass is in a bad situation right now. They really should have had a solid plan "B" before declining the MAC full membership offer. I cant see them surviving as an FBS Indy for long. They have 2 choice. Go back to FCS or spend a ton of money upgrading their on-campus to make themselves attractive to an area G5 conference.

(04-12-2014 11:03 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

UMass football is a dog---and given their stadium situation---it will be a dog for a long time. There is zero support for UMass football in the AAC. UMass has a better chance at a non-football membership in the AAC than a football-only AAC membership. I think the Sunbelt is the only hope UMass has and that could disappear if JMU realizes the last available ticket to FBS is about to be sold to someone else. UMass is in a bad situation right now. They really should have had a solid plan "B" before declining the MAC full membership offer. I cant see them surviving as an FBS Indy for long. They have 2 choice. Go back to FCS or spend a ton of money upgrading their on-campus to make themselves attractive to an area G5 conference.

That is conventional thinking on UMass football but if the situation is that UConn is gone and the southwestern schools don't want to travel to Amherst for Olympic sports (believe me they don't) and the alternative is adding another CUSA program they might concede the idea of UMass joining the AAC football only.

I'm sure they would take Army football only if they were interested first which they might be if a couple of more schools left. Army's main concern is the AAC as presently constructed is too competitive.

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

I doubt seriously that the AAC would be interested in UMass at all, whether UConn is there or not. I have seen no rational argument for their inclusion to any FBS football conference and any conference taking them for football membership would likely insist that their other sports be included as well. Not that I know of any football-playing conference that is/should be interested in adding them.

(04-12-2014 11:45 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

I doubt seriously that the AAC would be interested in UMass at all, whether UConn is there or not. I have seen no rational argument for their inclusion to any FBS football conference and any conference taking them for football membership would likely insist that their other sports be included as well. Not that I know of any football-playing conference that is/should be interested in adding them.

The assumption that the far flung southern based footprints of the AAC, CUSA or SBC would actually WANT their Olympic sports is one I seriously question. They are far from the core of any of those footprints.

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

And why in the world would the AAC want UMass FB Only?

is UMass in too deep to back down from fbs?

(04-12-2014 11:45 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

I doubt seriously that the AAC would be interested in UMass at all, whether UConn is there or not. I have seen no rational argument for their inclusion to any FBS football conference and any conference taking them for football membership would likely insist that their other sports be included as well. Not that I know of any football-playing conference that is/should be interested in adding them.

Wait---we would fly to Temple and UConn---but UMass is too far....makes no sense. If UConn leaves, maybe UMass is a replacement as an all sports school, but there is no way in hell we add them as a football-only. Hell, if UConn and Cinci leave---the AAC might not want ANYONE up north. The AAC might be looking from the Mid-Atlantic region to the southwest for the replacement. Or maybe the whole conference implodes with the 4 western members fleeing to the MW. Maybe Temple and Navy go to the MAC. The rest get invited to a P5 or drift to different G5 conferences. Either way, I don't see any way for UMass to get a football only to the AAC. Hell, the MAC kicked them out---why would the AAC want them?

The only hope for UMass FBS football is a Sunbelt football only invite. If JMU says no, I could see UMass getting a renewable 4 year football-only membership in the Sunbelt (just like Idaho). That's 2 more years to develop than they currently are guaranteed. They need to jump all over that offer if they get it. The Sunbelt gets their championship game and they get 4 extra years for other better expansion choices to emerge. Plus, if the rules for moving up to FBS are modified by the P5 to make it more difficult to make a transition---the Sunbelt would already have 2 FBS members in place as a backup. But if JMU says yes to the Sunbelt---UMass football as an FBS entity might be a dead man walking.

(04-12-2014 12:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:57 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 09:53 AM)MJG Wrote:  UMASS has had a rough transition to FBS .
The stadium situation has made it worse.
You have to wonder if they had a winning year would they have gotten more time before an ultimatum.
I know the contract was written that way but a new contract could have been implemented with similar terms . Their stadium situation is improving with half the games being moved back to campus. Thirty million invested in improvements to McGuirk .The Gillette experiment has not paid off but does allow hosting BCS teams in the future.

Idaho won a bowl game in its second FBS season. I think if UMASS had done the same their situation would probably be a lot better. I hope they have a big year and find a home for their football team.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the issue that Umass had to move its other sports to the MAC and it did not want to do that? Thought I heard that somewhere.

Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

And why in the world would the AAC want UMass FB Only?

1) Aresco likes the fact that UMass is a quality NE presence. He's said as much in an article. Clearly they are a candidate.

2) The AAC has 11 in basketball now, if 2 schools leave they could add 1 all sport and 1 football only.

3) UConn might block their basketball program but be alright with having them in the conference for football over CUSA/MAC alternatives.

4) UMass FB-only because they can. It wouldn't work for schools in the MAC or CUSA to split up their sports.

(04-12-2014 01:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:45 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

I doubt seriously that the AAC would be interested in UMass at all, whether UConn is there or not. I have seen no rational argument for their inclusion to any FBS football conference and any conference taking them for football membership would likely insist that their other sports be included as well. Not that I know of any football-playing conference that is/should be interested in adding them.

Wait---we would fly to Temple and UConn---but UMass is too far....makes no sense. If UConn leaves, maybe UMass is a replacement as an all sports school, but there is no way in hell we add them as a football-only. Hell, if UConn and Cinci leave---the AAC might not want ANYONE up north. The AAC might be looking from the Mid-Atlantic region to the southwest for the replacement. Or maybe the whole conference implodes with the 4 western members fleeing to the MW. Maybe Temple and Navy go to the MAC. The rest get invited to a P5 or drift to different G5 conferences. Either way, I don't see any way for UMass to get a football only to the AAC. Hell, the MAC kicked them out---why would the AAC want them?

Their only hope for a football only invite is the Sunbelt. If JMU says no, I cold see UMass getting a renewable 4 year football only membership in the Sunbelt (just like Idaho). That's 2 more years to develop than they currently are guaranteed. They need to jump all over that offer if they get it. The Sunbelt gets their championship game and they get 4 extra years for other better expansion choices to emerge. Plus, if the rules for moving up to FBS become make it more difficult to make the transition---the Sunbelt would already have 2 FBS members in place.

If basketball turns out to be the cash cow for the AAC which its looking like it could be AND UConn moves to another conference they might decide just to hold the basketball conference at 10 members while picking up a FB only.

UMass in this regard is convenient. I'm not saying that UMass FB only would 100% happen but by not accepting the MAC all sports it at least leave the door open for it to happen with UMass.

(04-12-2014 01:10 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:01 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 11:45 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 10:11 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Yes. The MAC made a decision to go all-sports or nothing.

From the UMass perspective it might be a blessing because now as an Independent school they could accept a FB only with the AAC while keeping basketball in the A10. If they moved to the MAC all sports they lose out on the option to offer the AAC football only because they would have burned their bridges with the A10.

There is a lot of sentiment I can remember when the last AAC spot was up for grabs that whomever was selected be at a minimum located west of Temple. The southwest AAC schools do not want a member in New England if they can avoid it, however if UConn left they might be able to live with a FB only UMass situation.

I doubt seriously that the AAC would be interested in UMass at all, whether UConn is there or not. I have seen no rational argument for their inclusion to any FBS football conference and any conference taking them for football membership would likely insist that their other sports be included as well. Not that I know of any football-playing conference that is/should be interested in adding them.

Wait---we would fly to Temple and UConn---but UMass is too far....makes no sense. If UConn leaves, maybe UMass is a replacement as an all sports school, but there is no way in hell we add them as a football-only. Hell, if UConn and Cinci leave---the AAC might not want ANYONE up north. The AAC might be looking from the Mid-Atlantic region to the southwest for the replacement. Or maybe the whole conference implodes with the 4 western members fleeing to the MW. Maybe Temple and Navy go to the MAC. The rest get invited to a P5 or drift to different G5 conferences. Either way, I don't see any way for UMass to get a football only to the AAC. Hell, the MAC kicked them out---why would the AAC want them?

Their only hope for a football only invite is the Sunbelt. If JMU says no, I cold see UMass getting a renewable 4 year football only membership in the Sunbelt (just like Idaho). That's 2 more years to develop than they currently are guaranteed. They need to jump all over that offer if they get it. The Sunbelt gets their championship game and they get 4 extra years for other better expansion choices to emerge. Plus, if the rules for moving up to FBS become make it more difficult to make the transition---the Sunbelt would already have 2 FBS members in place.

If basketball turns out to be the cash cow for the AAC which its looking like it could be AND UConn moves to another conference they might decide just to hold the basketball conference at 10 members while picking up a FB only.

UMass in this regard is convenient. I'm not saying that UMass FB only would 100% happen but by not accepting the MAC all sports it at least leave the door open for it to happen with UMass.

Again, if basketball becomes the conference cash cow, then we would likely invite several A-10 members along with UMass (all sports). I could see that as a possibility. Aresco has NEVER mentioned UMass as a football-only addition (everyone knows their value is in their basketball). Additionally, he just said a week ago that the AAC was NOT interested in UMass football and that UMass is NOT an AAC expansion candidate.

I think UMass would accept an All-sports AAC invitation. The base pay in the AAC as an all-sports member would be 3 million (2 million per team plus 1 million CFP). That's more than they get in with an A-10 membership. UMass, UConn, Temple, Cinci, Memphis would likely be good enough for the UMass basketball purist. If UMass is invited it will be all-sports. My guess is they are not a candidate until they massively upgrade that FBS program. AAC football only is not an option for UMass. Their football isn't good enough. UTSA-football only, Old Dominion (all sports), Arky State (all sports), ULL (football only), would all be options better than UMass football only.

what UMass may llack in FB it makes up for, at least currently, in BB. There IMO isnt any viable candidate for the American that offers both quality FB and BB

(04-12-2014 01:18 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  what UMass may llack in FB it makes up for, at least currently, in BB. There IMO isnt any viable candidate for the American that offers both quality FB and BB

I agree. Kittonhead is suggesting that the AAC would take them as a football-only. Theres no way in hell that happens. As an all-sports addition---yeah, I could see that possibility. But football-only---nooooo way.

A couple of wrong assumptions about UMass:

1) UMass has good basketball. Incorrect. UMass basketball is OK but its nothing in of itself to warrant the AAC expanding. I'm sure Temple and UConn aren't interested in letting them in the club.

2) UMass would want to move its Olympic Sports from the A10 to the AAC. Incorrect. Umass doesn't even have a Volleyball program and has several other issues with its Olympic sport offerings. UMass in in a basketball conference of equal strength of the AAC as it is without the travel costs of the AAC. There is no possibility of them being interested in an Olympic sport move to the AAC w/o football. Absolutely none.

3) The AAC would unconditionally not consider UMass FB only. False. The AAC has 1 FB only school in the conference and has considered Army and BYU. If the AAC takes a hit in membership and Army is off the table is certainly possible they would add UMass FB only which UMass themselves would prefer.

UMass had a FB only membership in the MAC and is looking out there for another G5 FB only membership. That membership will probably come in the form of the SBC in the short term but if the AAC is raided that could be a possibility.

(04-12-2014 01:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:18 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  what UMass may llack in FB it makes up for, at least currently, in BB. There IMO isnt any viable candidate for the American that offers both quality FB and BB

I agree. Kittonhead is suggesting that the AAC would take them as a football-only. Theres no way in hell that happens. As an all-sports addition---yeah, I could see that possibility. But football-only---nooooo way.

The real chances for UMass to the AAC

1. Football Only (50-50)
2. All Sport (50-50)
3. Non-FB (0%)

There is no way in hell they would move their Olympic sports from the A10 to the AAC which you keep suggesting as an alternative.

Hopefully Temple can straighten out their stadium situation, but if Temple's football team doesn't have a place to play, UMass would be a convenient all-sports addition:

West - SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane, Cincinnati, Memphis
East - UConn, UMass, USF, UCF, ECU, Temple (non-football), Navy (football)

(04-12-2014 01:33 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2014 01:18 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  what UMass may llack in FB it makes up for, at least currently, in BB. There IMO isnt any viable candidate for the American that offers both quality FB and BB

I agree. Kittonhead is suggesting that the AAC would take them as a football-only. Theres no way in hell that happens. As an all-sports addition---yeah, I could see that possibility. But football-only---nooooo way.

The real chances for UMass to the AAC

1. Football Only (50-50)
2. All Sport (50-50)
3. Non-FB (0%)

There is no way in hell they would move their Olympic sports from the A10 to the AAC which you keep suggesting as an alternative.

Here is what I am telling you. There is no way UMass could ever get enough votes for a football-only AAC membership. It only takes 3 to block. Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, and likely both Florida schools want nothing to do with traveling to UMass for cold weather football games in front of 50 people. I imagine ECU and Memphis think similarly. If UMass brought their basketball--maybe they can win some of those votes---but as a football-only, there is no way for them to get in. It is what it is. UMass is not Army. UMass is not Navy. What the AAC schools are willing to do for Army or Navy, or even Boise---they are not willing to do for UMass. The only hope that UMass has for AAC membership is as a all-sports or non-football member. As Aresco said, we are just fine currently and are not considering expansion. The thing to keep in mind Kittonhead is WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER MEMBER. What UMass wants is irrelevant. If they are happy in the A-10---good for them. Its a good basketball conference. If they need a FBS conference. That's their problem, not the AAC's.

UMass would absolutely take an all sports invitation to the AAC if one were offered. Football should be better this year, out first FBS recruits are going to be juniors, and our FCS years under Morris sucked, he took an FCS finals runner up to the bottom of the CAA.