(12-13-2014 03:17 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.


That's too bad about the Boston newspapers. Life is tough enough in FBS without backstabbing local
media.

It's just the Globe. The Herald is fair to UMass, but the Globe has hated UMass since the Calipari days. The Globe is a biased Boston College paper.

The notion that the Boston Globe is a "biased Boston College paper" is as laughable as it is wrong. The Globe has certainly written their share of critical stories about BC over the years.

Tell you what, just Google: "Boston Globe BC Bob Hohler" and you will see my point. Enough said.

To be honest, I have no issue with the Globe reporting as it relates to BC or Umass. They are legitimate news stories - as much as hard core fans would like to deny.

More recently, Umass has been the subject of Globe stories. Not surprising, really. When a school jumps to the top division, they will get more attention - both positive and negative. That has to be expected.

Also, in the case of Umass, they are a public institution. So, if revenue numbers fall short of projections, as has been reported, it is something that is of interest to the taxpayers. If attendance and wins are below projections, it impacts revenue and that is likewise of interest to the taxpayers.

BC by and large doesn't have these issues as it is a private university. Things like revenues and budgets are no one else's business but BC's - so not as much of a news story.

Also, there is another aspect that complicates this issue, IMO. The State of Massachusetts is, IMO, very tight with public monies being spent for athletic programs - and not just State schools. IMO, Fenway Park may be "America's most beloved ballpark", but there is a reason why the Red Sox play in a facility that is over 100 years old. There is a reason why Bob Kraft had to 100% finance the building of Gillette stadium - the only stadium in the NFL where this is so. (The State aid was limited to infrastructure development - something they do for malls, shopping centers, etc.). There is a reason why it took so long to replace the old Boston Garden (with the replacement aided by transportation monies for the new South Station railway center which sits underneath the new facility). IMO, monies spent for athletics are going to get scrutinized more heavily than they might in other states, and this relates to the increased media attention.

For Umass to ultimately succeed, IMO, they are going to need their alumni to step up and attend games/donate to the program in much greater numbers and $$'s. If this does not improve, their road becomes all the more difficult, IMO.

The Globe is absolutely anti-UMass, no idea if they are pro BC, I don't read those stories. Last year when UMass basketball was making a tourney run the globe owned website would just post an AP stories with headlines like BYU drops a close one against UMass, whe the Herald had a story from the UMass point of view.

There is not really a tax component either. The difference between expenses and revenue for athletics is mostly covered by student fees. It's an easy headline. Football was losing slightly less money at FCS but nobody cared, the FCS program having millions less in revenue doesn't make a sexy headline.

Faculty looks at the money that athletics brings in/spends, and thinks it should be going to their own field of study. What they always fail or refuse to realize is that if athletics goes away, that money disappears. It doesn't get re-directed. Alumni donations for athletics don't suddenly start going to the math department. Community interest and corporate sponsors don't get re-focused towards the college of political science.

(12-13-2014 05:49 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  The Globe is absolutely anti-UMass, no idea if they are pro BC, I don't read those stories. Last year when UMass basketball was making a tourney run the globe owned website would just post an AP stories with headlines like BYU drops a close one against UMass, whe the Herald had a story from the UMass point of view.

There is not really a tax component either. The difference between expenses and revenue for athletics is mostly covered by student fees. It's an easy headline. Football was losing slightly less money at FCS but nobody cared, the FCS program having millions less in revenue doesn't make a sexy headline.

Minuteman, with all due respect, I think you guys are just wrong on this point. The BG often does that with these kinds of stories. They time the publishing of them when the school or subject is in the news. Makes the story much more compelling. It's not just Umass. That's just the nature of journalism today. There is not some Globe anti Umass agenda at work here, IMO.

Just last year this happened to BC as well. The very same week that BC MBB was in the news for BC firing their coach and beginning the search for another, the Globe does a "look back" piece on the "Goodfellas" MBB point shaving scandal some 35 years earlier. Look at the dates on the stories below. You think that was just coincidence?

Happens all the time, my friend. You guys are just noticing it now.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/0...story.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/0...story.html

There's legitimate reasons to not be in support of UMass's transition to FBS and it's not because of WHAT they are doing but HOW they are doing it.

UMass's football program is being held hostage by its basketball program and its putting a tremendous amount of unnecessary risk onto an already risky transition. UMass Football currently has no conference affiliation past 2015 after rejecting an all or nothing offer from the MAC. Only 2 types of schools can survive as Independents in FBS- service academies and historic, Christian universities, UMass is neither. This is not a long term solution. So what is the long term solution?

It sound like many of their fans expect (demand?) that UMass hold out for a P5 conference because anything less is beneath them. The big debate is whether or not to "settle" for the AAC. This is not a recipe for success.

With that being said, I'm a fan of UMass and hope they succeed.. but I'm worried.

This is a letter that I sent Max Page, who replied and ask for my phone number but never called. Notice the bold text, the faculty senate did not support him. A unified administration may have influence the vote.

Quote:Why are you detracting from our university's fine image for your own beliefs? You are damaging the university's image via the media.

You look like someone on an agenda, which is not supported by most of your peers, referencing today's (12-11-14) vote, by our provost, vice-chancellor and chancellor.

This seems self defeating. Please be positive and protect our funding. Who wants to give to an organization which looks divided?

Please stop and focus on your students, your hobbies and interests.

Sincerely

This quote was from that night and very gratifying to see.

Quote:Mark Chiarelli ‏@Mark_Chiarelli now28 seconds ago

To recap: Chancellor Subbaswamy, Vice Chancellor John Kennedy and Provost Katherine Newman are all in support of football.

Did some recap of the tweets from the meeting and most were me quoting other UMass posters in this thread.

Tweets from the UMass Faculty Committee

One other note is those number were put in by Max page and are cooked. Don't believe everything you see, just because its on a Faculty Senate document. He had his personal motivation for cooking the numbers.

This is from njumass08 poster. Link

Quote:A buddy of mine from the Maroon Musket board did some great research regarding the faculty senate report and the team.

I figured I'd share it with you guys. Good to have this type of information when you talk to people about UMass Football.

1. University support by percentage has decreased from around 83% to about 65%. In FY 12 the percent of University support was 83% -- do the math here. In FY 13 the adjusted support was 65%. In FY 14 and projected FY 15 it is holding around 65-66%.

2. Yes, University support (real dollars) of FBS has increased but so have the revenue sources. By FBS Ad Hoc Numbers the revenue has increased from basically "0" to $7.355 million over the course of three years. This does not count donations, gifts, conference income or corporate support -- only tickets and guarantees.

3. Ad Hoc FBS reports that the football budget has increased by $2,133,734 over 4 years OR about $533,483 per year and this does not account for union and COL mandated increases for coaching and staff salaries that accounts for a portion of this increase. Not communicated. MP reported increase of 250% compared to FCS year.... does not tell you what the comparable costs would be if we remained at FCS level. Basically subsidy level and travel cost were continued to increase or remain high and travel to CAA teams mostly in the south would increase.

4. The original pro forma prepared by Athletics.......way back in 2010 -- note these include only guarantees and ticket revenues.

FY 13 Projected $2,100,000 -- Actual -- $1,995,633 (2012 season)
FY 14 Projected $2,350,000 -- Actual -- $2,450,006 (2013 season)
FY 15 Projected $2,600,000 -- Actual -- $2,909,365 (2014 season -- estimate)

5. Not address but problematic -- estimate to operate and maintain Football Support Building -- not explained. Estimate -- page 5 was $1,084,000. This is a somewhat inflated number and not a real number and is likely based on a 3% estimate of the building cost from A&F. Ask Dan Markowski how much is cost to run the building -- common sense. Furthermore, common sense -- this is a LEEDS Silver certified building plus we generate our own heat and electricity on campus. Seriously doubt that this will cost nearly $3k per day to maintain and operate. Typical maintenance and energy cost range from $.80 GSF to $3.80 GSF but this estimate by MP would bring our cost to nearly $19 per GSF. Another MP puff number.

6. Did Ad Hoc Committee vote on the report? Not mentioned. Correct -- there as NL said there is limited to no participation on this committee. These reports are to be issues by Roberts Rules of Order are to be voted on......17 members on committee. Number at last meeting from the committee -- eight (8)!! Two were committee chairs and two were JM and his assistant Callicoate and two representatives from Athletic Council Finance Committee. In previous years, MP wrote the report and indicated it reflected the sentiment of the committee but no one voted on it -- see FS notes in 2012 that he broke Robert Rules of Order on Committee reporting.

8. Hugus and MP on attendance -- their comments here -- no one goes and we give away tickets. They will not talk about this other than lip service to downgrade the real numbers and say they are inaccurate. Easy to say..... but here is the analysis.

NCAA National Average for all College Football - All Divisions -- 13,589 (2013 Year -- Most Recent Available -- GOOGLE NCAA Football Attendance -- readily available)
UMass ave 2014 Home - 16,088
Total # saw UMass Football 2014 -- 283,110
McGuirk Average -- 14,597
Gillette Average -- 17,579
Independent Game Ave -- 43,312
Regionals (BC and Buffalo) -- 21,948
Independents w/out PSU -- 24,697
MAC Ave Home Opponents -- 13,733
MAC Ave Away Opponents -- 13,511

MAC Conference Average 2013 -- 16,739 -- note MAC league ave largest ave change of any FBS league in 2013 -- average up 1,213 overall, of the top five teams with biggest increases in average attendance in 2013 -- two were in the MAC -- Buffalo and Akron.

We were about the average in 2014 of what the MAC typically draws. However, it does appear that we did helped the MAC average even though we were not the best team in the league on the field.

Comparable Years
2010 -- Last Year at FCS McGuirk Ave 10,543 -- note does not include Gillette game vs UNH
2010 -- Last Year at FCS Home Ave 13,005 -- inlcudes UNH Gillette Game

2006 -- Championship Year National Finalist
2006 -- Home Average -- 11,818
2006 -- Playoff Game Average -- 17,613 (When we played in the playoffs -- all games thru Finals)
2006 -- Regionals (Maine, URI, UNH, Northeastern) Ave 9,959

On other item -- when we were last terrible and playing at home on a Friday after Thanksgiving attendance was about 3,500 (back in 2002 or 2003) and this year were at 3-8 we sold and had an attendance of 13,417 -- maybe not all showed, but tickets were sold!!

Finally, no one actually talked to the "real attendance" for the BG game in the parking lots and the numbers we could have sold had we had the room -- yes it was hard to estimate and the estimates by organizers were likely be another 5-10K were in attendance in the parking lots and include lots 11, 22, 33 and people were tailgating as far away as the Mullins Center lot and lots 34. Shows some level of potential if we play on Saturdays and against viable opponents -- preferred regionals or competitive others (BC, Temple, UConn, etc.). Yes it was 17,000 but it did sellout and students were turned away in large numbers as well.

(12-13-2014 06:18 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:49 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  The Globe is absolutely anti-UMass, no idea if they are pro BC, I don't read those stories. Last year when UMass basketball was making a tourney run the globe owned website would just post an AP stories with headlines like BYU drops a close one against UMass, whe the Herald had a story from the UMass point of view.

There is not really a tax component either. The difference between expenses and revenue for athletics is mostly covered by student fees. It's an easy headline. Football was losing slightly less money at FCS but nobody cared, the FCS program having millions less in revenue doesn't make a sexy headline.

Minuteman, with all due respect, I think you guys are just wrong on this point. The BG often does that with these kinds of stories. They time the publishing of them when the school or subject is in the news. Makes the story much more compelling. It's not just Umass. That's just the nature of journalism today. There is not some Globe anti Umass agenda at work here, IMO.

Just last year this happened to BC as well. The very same week that BC MBB was in the news for BC firing their coach and beginning the search for another, the Globe does a "look back" piece on the "Goodfellas" MBB point shaving scandal some 35 years earlier. Look at the dates on the stories below. You think that was just coincidence?

Happens all the time, my friend. You guys are just noticing it now.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/0...story.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2014/0...story.html

I never said anything about how the Boston Globe covers BC, again I don't read those articles. To prove me wrong find a positive UMass story in the Globe.

(12-13-2014 05:01 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  The notion that the Boston Globe is a "biased Boston College paper" is as laughable as it is wrong. The Globe has certainly written their share of critical stories about BC over the years.

Tell you what, just Google: "Boston Globe BC Bob Hohler" and you will see my point. Enough said.

Bob Hohler from The Globe hates UMass. Trust me on that one. His wikipedia page even mentions how critical he has been of UMass and the football program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hohler

Was surprised to see this thread on the realignment board. Also a little annoyed at the subject. There are a few things that came out of this meeting which to me are much more important than one Prof with a clear agenda asking for a poll of the faculty. To be clear i wasn't there but from articles and tweets:

1) The other co-chair of the committee recommended disbanding the ad hoc committee on FBS football due to a lack of attendance and enthusiasm as well as a feeling that the Athletic Department is being transparent as to the cost of football. That was something some faculty seemed to be concerned with originally.

2) The Chancellor took a very firm and passionate stand in support of FBS football (a move he did not initiate but rather came into after it had begun). He had some public firm (perhaps sharp) words for Max (and whoever else has been against FBS) basically telling them he doesn't care what they think and to get over it and get behind the University.
a) I don't think he would do this if he felt there were a meaningful number of faculty that disagreed with him.
b) I really like the passion it sounds like he showed which can only be good for the University.

UMass is not in a perfect scenario, a lot of mistakes were made over the past few decades and UMass has a much steeper mountain to climb now, but they are fighting!

Many of you will look to the fact that UMass isn't "All In", throwing money at the problem as if they can print it. Unfortunately this is Massachusetts and fiscal responsibility can't be ignored. I expect UMass to continue investing at the appropriate levels as opportunities come while not putting themselves out on a limb if they don't have the support.

It is a real shame that UMass couldn't close out a few more games this year but there is a bright future for this team next year. With independent years coming up recruiting will be challenging however Coach Whip has a knack for winning so look out the team could be dangerous moving forward. Not going to be world beaters but I don't think they will be pushovers either.

Hey, I'm on UMass's side. I just found it interesting that one of the anti-FBS crowd would use UCSB as an example

(12-13-2014 10:18 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:01 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  The notion that the Boston Globe is a "biased Boston College paper" is as laughable as it is wrong. The Globe has certainly written their share of critical stories about BC over the years.

Tell you what, just Google: "Boston Globe BC Bob Hohler" and you will see my point. Enough said.

Bob Hohler from The Globe hates UMass. Trust me on that one. His wikipedia page even mentions how critical he has been of UMass and the football program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hohler

Come on. You are citing Wikipedia as your evidence of bias?? The comment you referenced was supported by citing the articles he has written which were critical of the UMASS program. The fact is that Hohler has written LOTS of critical articles...not just of Umass FB. He has written about BC as well. The fact is anybody can edit Wikipedia......including fans. You make it sound like Hohler himself put that reference in.

To Minuteman's point. I checked the Boston Globe articles for this year. There are LOTS of stories covering the season you guys just had that were hardly negative. Sure, there have been lots of critical stories as well - especially prior to the season; but come on, the development of the FBS level Umass FB program has hardly been smooth to date. The coverage reflects that. If Umass has a winning season next year and makes a bowl; trust me, the positive stories will come. If you want more positive stories, you have to provide positive news. It's not rocket science.

The Globe has written more positive stories about the BC program because there have been a lot more positives surrounding the BC program - especially with Steve Addazio's work in resurrecting the Program from the Spaz era. Despite this, many of my fellow Boston College fans have the same complaints about the Globe. Many Uconn fans blast the Hartford Courant every time there is a negative Uconn story. A lot of Rutgers fans believe the Star Ledger has it in for the Rutgers program simply because the paper has chronicled the litany of embarrassments their Athletic Department has had over the past several years.

ALL fans, IMO, need to remember that their local media are NOT public relations arms of their various schools' athletic departments.

(12-13-2014 11:35 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Hey, I'm on UMass's side. I just found it interesting that one of the anti-FBS crowd would use UCSB as an example

Didn't mean to jump on you Gaucho. I'm just used to people taking the word of the anti FBS crowd as gospel. It's annoying when one guy gets the ear of the media, the region, and other fan bases to make it seem as if everyone is against the football move.

(12-13-2014 01:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.

Have you seen some of the dinky stadium capacities across the AAC?

Football stadium size obviously is not a requirement.

Tulsa has a 30k stadium
SMU has a 32k football stadium
Tulane plays in a 60k stadium and is building a 30k stadium
Uconn has a 40k football stadium.

Those are some of the smallest stadiums in the AAC. Yet something else you have no clue about.

25k is pretty pathetic.

(12-14-2014 07:40 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.

Have you seen some of the dinky stadium capacities across the AAC?

Football stadium size obviously is not a requirement.

Tulsa has a 30k stadium
SMU has a 32k football stadium
Tulane plays in a 60k stadium and is building a 30k stadium
Uconn has a 40k football stadium.

Those are some of the smallest stadiums in the AAC. Yet something else you have no clue about.

25k is pretty pathetic.

Lol, I got no dog in this fight, but I think you may have just helped prove the point that the AAC has some dinky sized stadiums.

30k, 32k, future 30k. Thats dinky.

First, I've never been to UMass... but I've been watching their situation for a few years now as a potential AAC addition.

Regarding this, 'UMass is waiting for opportunities to arise before investing". This is a ridiculous cart-horse argument. Conferences are waiting to see some serious investment, particularly in a legit home, before considering any additions. Look what UCF, Houston and Tulane did. Conferences will NOT display interest in a Umass playing in an un-upgraded McGuirk.

On the stadium size issue, look we're not a power conference. Brand new stadiums that hold 30-40K will suffice for SOME of our schools. In particular, those like Cinci or Tulane that have an NFL stadium nearby in which to stage premiere games. In these cases it's about quality not quantity. When USF builds a stadium, I expect it to be mid-sized OCS for just this reason. We've got an NFL stadium within a very short drive, we don't NEED a giant OCS.

On Umass, I actually like UMass as a potential AAC school. We've had more threads on UMass in our forum than I can count... folks are interested. But, playing in an archaic, tiny stadium without bathrooms is not going to cut it. The new field house addition is a great start, but Umass needs to tear down one side of McGuirk and build up something decent. The other side can stick just to have a good looking capacity. IMHO.

On this faculty issue, there are always going to be these elitist tenured faculty types. If the school overall is excited and supportive about FBS football, they will be a small voice that is drowned out. If these guys actually get some traction, it's disappointing. If they have any power or authority is moot point. What would happen to some idiot at Cinci, UCF, or wherever if he tried to talk down football? That's my point.

Go big or go home.

(12-14-2014 08:02 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 07:40 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.

Have you seen some of the dinky stadium capacities across the AAC?

Football stadium size obviously is not a requirement.

Tulsa has a 30k stadium
SMU has a 32k football stadium
Tulane plays in a 60k stadium and is building a 30k stadium
Uconn has a 40k football stadium.

Those are some of the smallest stadiums in the AAC. Yet something else you have no clue about.

25k is pretty pathetic.

Lol, I got no dog in this fight, but I think you may have just helped prove the point that the AAC has some dinky sized stadiums.

30k, 32k, future 30k. Thats dinky.

And I can turn around and say compared to the SEC there are some pretty pathetic stadium sizes in the Big 10.

48k Northwestern
41k Rutgers
60k Illinois.

The point was he is insulting a conference for their stadiums while trying to insert a school he is tied to that would have one of the smallest stadiums in the country.

(12-14-2014 07:40 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.

Have you seen some of the dinky stadium capacities across the AAC?

Football stadium size obviously is not a requirement.

Tulsa has a 30k stadium
SMU has a 32k football stadium
Tulane plays in a 60k stadium and is building a 30k stadium
Uconn has a 40k football stadium.

Those are some of the smallest stadiums in the AAC. Yet something else you have no clue about.

25k is pretty pathetic.

Attendance is falling for spectator sports nationwide, and this trend is very apparent in collegiate sports.

This, coupled with the growing number of P5 schools who are refusing to enter arrangements that see them traveling to non-P5 schools, leads me to believe that at the G5 level, bigger is not necessarily better.

I'm in the boat that would like to see the larger east-coast public institutions to eventually end up together. If and when that happens, I'd rather see a conference of smaller stadiums filled to capacity than half-full larger stadiums. Most of these institutions are in urban areas with much more competition for the entertainment dollar. Schools like ECU and UCF have fantastic attendance in their relatively large stadia, and they have every reason to be proud of that... but it's unrealistic to expect that as a rule. 25,000 people in a 25,000 seat stadium is better than 25,000 in a 35,000 seat stadium.

(12-14-2014 12:49 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 08:02 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 07:40 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 01:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.

Have you seen some of the dinky stadium capacities across the AAC?

Football stadium size obviously is not a requirement.

Tulsa has a 30k stadium
SMU has a 32k football stadium
Tulane plays in a 60k stadium and is building a 30k stadium
Uconn has a 40k football stadium.

Those are some of the smallest stadiums in the AAC. Yet something else you have no clue about.

25k is pretty pathetic.

Lol, I got no dog in this fight, but I think you may have just helped prove the point that the AAC has some dinky sized stadiums.

30k, 32k, future 30k. Thats dinky.

And I can turn around and say compared to the SEC there are some pretty pathetic stadium sizes in the Big 10.

48k Northwestern
41k Rutgers
60k Illinois.

The point was he is insulting a conference for their stadiums while trying to insert a school he is tied to that would have one of the smallest stadiums in the country.

I see your point, but just to get facts straight, Rutgers is 54k+ with the record attendance 53,774

(12-14-2014 12:03 AM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 11:35 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  Hey, I'm on UMass's side. I just found it interesting that one of the anti-FBS crowd would use UCSB as an example

Didn't mean to jump on you Gaucho. I'm just used to people taking the word of the anti FBS crowd as gospel. It's annoying when one guy gets the ear of the media, the region, and other fan bases to make it seem as if everyone is against the football move.

Now what about AD McCutcheon? He's been at UMass for a decade and facilities have been improved and built, not to mention the transition to FBS occurred under his watch. How would you and other Minutemen feel about him leaving? Apparently he is a finalist for the UCSB job.

Looking at his profile, he does have experience out west having previously served at Cal Poly (He was there when they joined the Big West in '96). But he'd be working at a school for the first time which doesn't have football. Do you see him trying to bring it back, if he is hired??

It will be a very good move for him and think he is looking to get back to the West Coast. He was also under some heat regarding the Molnar hire. He should be fine there. Have no clue about bring back football.

Talked to him briefly at a pre-game in Springfield and wish him well.