Umass won big this weekend. Congrats to the Minutemen.

(10-07-2017 10:38 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-07-2017 08:58 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  You guys are at an interesting spot and perhaps a conference split in 3 years would change thing . Guessing that is what you are talking about. Forget the rules if it's 6 teams together for 5 or more years. Don't recall.

No, those rules are dead and buried. The new rules say a new conference waits I think 8 years for an autobid. (New Big East got a waiver. The facts that we qualified under the old rules and that the pre-nup was based on the expectations of the old rules, and the fact that our autobid doesn't reduce the supply of at-large bids because we're not a one-bid league were big factors, I'm sure.)

Quote:It's hard for me to calculate odds of ever getting into the AAC. Right now say 10% and the future has to much unproven to take a stab at it.

That's probably about right. Maybe high, because you need a lot of stars to align.
1. P5 movement means the AAC loses teams.
2. AAC needs to backfill (they can't just stay at 10)
3. AAC still has UConn (otherwise you and Temple are on an island)
4. Then, maybe you get the nod over Charlotte or ODU or UTSA or MIddle Tennessee or.......

They can stay at 10. ESPN is watching the bottom line here. Furthermore, there is institutional arrogance in the AAC.

Yall finally won! congrats

Temple and Rutgers when they were invited into BE football all of those years ago were kind of like what UMass is today a hapless program.

The problem for UMass is the AAC is not the BE. The AAC is more of a Midwest/South type conference like CUSA wanting as much recruiting value as possible, not an attempt at a major conference for the northeast ala the Big East.

I told Steve1981 (in person) that if the AAC loses 2 they'll probably go after Dayton, VCU to perpetuate themselves as a major basketball conference. That would put the A10 out of business as a regular multi-bid conference.

Finding a home is going to be a challenge.

(10-22-2017 06:18 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-07-2017 10:38 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-07-2017 08:58 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  You guys are at an interesting spot and perhaps a conference split in 3 years would change thing . Guessing that is what you are talking about. Forget the rules if it's 6 teams together for 5 or more years. Don't recall.

No, those rules are dead and buried. The new rules say a new conference waits I think 8 years for an autobid. (New Big East got a waiver. The facts that we qualified under the old rules and that the pre-nup was based on the expectations of the old rules, and the fact that our autobid doesn't reduce the supply of at-large bids because we're not a one-bid league were big factors, I'm sure.)

Quote:It's hard for me to calculate odds of ever getting into the AAC. Right now say 10% and the future has to much unproven to take a stab at it.

That's probably about right. Maybe high, because you need a lot of stars to align.
1. P5 movement means the AAC loses teams.
2. AAC needs to backfill (they can't just stay at 10)
3. AAC still has UConn (otherwise you and Temple are on an island)
4. Then, maybe you get the nod over Charlotte or ODU or UTSA or MIddle Tennessee or.......

They can stay at 10. ESPN is watching the bottom line here. Furthermore, there is institutional arrogance in the AAC.

I meant that realignment left the AAC with 11 teams, or maybe 9, so staying at 10 was not an option. Prerequisite for UMass to the AAC is that there is a spot in the AAC that needs filling.

They need to build (or upgrade) a reasonable stadium on campus, hire coaches, schedule well and win in basketball. Then be ready if the AAC loses a school or decides to expand. They have no chance now, but they need to get themselves in a position to be #14 or be a replacement. Academics gets them an interview, but they have to invest and be a help to the AAC in basketball, where they need help.

(10-22-2017 06:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Temple and Rutgers when they were invited into BE football all of those years ago were kind of like what UMass is today a hapless program.

The problem for UMass is the AAC is not the BE. The AAC is more of a Midwest/South type conference like CUSA wanting as much recruiting value as possible, not an attempt at a major conference for the northeast ala the Big East.

I told Steve1981 (in person) that if the AAC loses 2 they'll probably go after Dayton, VCU to perpetuate themselves as a major basketball conference. That would put the A10 out of business as a regular multi-bid conference.

Finding a home is going to be a challenge.

Uhh, no. Rutgers and Temple had been playing the other eastern independents for a good period of time before the Big East was formed. Rutgers played Syracuse every year from 1980 until 2012. They played West Virginia every year from 1980 until 2011. They played Pitt every year from 1985 until 2012, plus 1981 and 82. They played Boston College every year from 1981 until 2004. RU and Temple played every year from 1977 until 2004. If you were making a regional conference at the time, of course you were going to have RU and Temple in the mix.

(10-22-2017 08:36 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 06:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Temple and Rutgers when they were invited into BE football all of those years ago were kind of like what UMass is today a hapless program.

The problem for UMass is the AAC is not the BE. The AAC is more of a Midwest/South type conference like CUSA wanting as much recruiting value as possible, not an attempt at a major conference for the northeast ala the Big East.

I told Steve1981 (in person) that if the AAC loses 2 they'll probably go after Dayton, VCU to perpetuate themselves as a major basketball conference. That would put the A10 out of business as a regular multi-bid conference.

Finding a home is going to be a challenge.

Uhh, no. Rutgers and Temple had been playing the other eastern independents for a good period of time before the Big East was formed. Rutgers played Syracuse every year from 1980 until 2012. They played West Virginia every year from 1980 until 2011. They played Pitt every year from 1985 until 2012, plus 1981 and 82. They played Boston College every year from 1981 until 2004. RU and Temple played every year from 1977 until 2004. If you were making a regional conference at the time, of course you were going to have RU and Temple in the mix.

I think what Kittenhead is saying here is that while in the pre-Big East FB days Rutgers and Temple played big time east coast schools like Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Penn St, and WVU they usually lost and were not considered elite, just part of the club based m proximity and the need to fill dates on the schedule.

The UMass situation is a little different. They are in the same geographic area as several big programs but for the most part no one is rushing to be their friend and conference scheduling makes an ongoing long term series with the Minutemen unnecessary.

UMass screwed up when they turned down full membership in the MAC. What they should have done was counter offered a proposal where the MAC would also bring in some top basketball schools from the A-10 to make for a 16 member league that kept the best of both worlds. Dayton, VCU, and St Louis would have made for a solid group. Temple too if you could convince them that this was a better plan than the American.

(10-22-2017 09:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 08:36 PM)General Mike Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 06:49 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Temple and Rutgers when they were invited into BE football all of those years ago were kind of like what UMass is today a hapless program.

The problem for UMass is the AAC is not the BE. The AAC is more of a Midwest/South type conference like CUSA wanting as much recruiting value as possible, not an attempt at a major conference for the northeast ala the Big East.

I told Steve1981 (in person) that if the AAC loses 2 they'll probably go after Dayton, VCU to perpetuate themselves as a major basketball conference. That would put the A10 out of business as a regular multi-bid conference.

Finding a home is going to be a challenge.

Uhh, no. Rutgers and Temple had been playing the other eastern independents for a good period of time before the Big East was formed. Rutgers played Syracuse every year from 1980 until 2012. They played West Virginia every year from 1980 until 2011. They played Pitt every year from 1985 until 2012, plus 1981 and 82. They played Boston College every year from 1981 until 2004. RU and Temple played every year from 1977 until 2004. If you were making a regional conference at the time, of course you were going to have RU and Temple in the mix.

I think what Kittenhead is saying here is that while in the pre-Big East FB days Rutgers and Temple played big time east coast schools like Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Penn St, and WVU they usually lost and were not considered elite, just part of the club based m proximity and the need to fill dates on the schedule.

The UMass situation is a little different. They are in the same geographic area as several big programs but for the most part no one is rushing to be their friend and conference scheduling makes an ongoing long term series with the Minutemen unnecessary.

UMass screwed up when they turned down full membership in the MAC. What they should have done was counter offered a proposal where the MAC would also bring in some top basketball schools from the A-10 to make for a 16 member league that kept the best of both worlds. Dayton, VCU, and St Louis would have made for a solid group. Temple too if you could convince them that this was a better plan than the American.

That counter proposal is looking better every year.

There could be a big shakeup to the G5 system at some point that could help UMass out.

Definitely should tough it out in the near term IMO.

In the last round of realignment the MAC had a great opportunity to really shake things up but they missed the mark. Heck at one point they might have been able to enhance their football portfolio too with adds like Marshall and WKU.

Instead they stayed static and improved neither football or basketball.

(10-22-2017 09:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think what Kittenhead is saying here is that while in the pre-Big East FB days Rutgers and Temple played big time east coast schools like Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Penn St, and WVU they usually lost and were not considered elite, just part of the club based m proximity and the need to fill dates on the schedule.

The UMass situation is a little different. They are in the same geographic area as several big programs but for the most part no one is rushing to be their friend and conference scheduling makes an ongoing long term series with the Minutemen unnecessary.

UMass screwed up when they turned down full membership in the MAC. What they should have done was counter offered a proposal where the MAC would also bring in some top basketball schools from the A-10 to make for a 16 member league that kept the best of both worlds. Dayton, VCU, and St Louis would have made for a solid group. Temple too if you could convince them that this was a better plan than the American.

Temple and Rutgers put some good seasons together in the 15 years prior to Big East formation.

Temple was a legit Top 15-ish team in 1979. Had a few winning seasons in the 1980s, and were 7-4 in 1990, the year directly prior to the Big East forming.

Rutgers averaged 5-6 in the 6 years with Dick Anderson as coach in the late 1980s. 4 winning seasons for the 1980s as a whole - they lost more than they won but they had wins over PSU, Pitt, WVU and Syracuse in the decade.

Point being - Massachusetts has done nothing even close to what Temple & Rutgers did in the 1980s.

(10-22-2017 10:13 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 09:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think what Kittenhead is saying here is that while in the pre-Big East FB days Rutgers and Temple played big time east coast schools like Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Penn St, and WVU they usually lost and were not considered elite, just part of the club based m proximity and the need to fill dates on the schedule.

The UMass situation is a little different. They are in the same geographic area as several big programs but for the most part no one is rushing to be their friend and conference scheduling makes an ongoing long term series with the Minutemen unnecessary.

UMass screwed up when they turned down full membership in the MAC. What they should have done was counter offered a proposal where the MAC would also bring in some top basketball schools from the A-10 to make for a 16 member league that kept the best of both worlds. Dayton, VCU, and St Louis would have made for a solid group. Temple too if you could convince them that this was a better plan than the American.

Temple and Rutgers put some good seasons together in the 15 years prior to Big East formation.

Temple was a legit Top 15-ish team in 1979. Had a few winning seasons in the 1980s, and were 7-4 in 1990, the year directly prior to the Big East forming.

Rutgers averaged 5-6 in the 6 years with Dick Anderson as coach in the late 1980s. 4 winning seasons for the 1980s as a whole - they lost more than they won but they had wins over PSU, Pitt, WVU and Syracuse in the decade.

Point being - Massachusetts has done nothing even close to what Temple & Rutgers did in the 1980s.

Like I said, Rutgers and Temple were in the club but not elite and very much the little brothers the same way the private schools in the SWC were to Texas and A&M. UMass is not even in the club nor has the chance to ever be in one because their is no one single eastern football nucleus for which to aspire to.

If only JoePa had been able to get his eastern all-sports league or an invite to the Big East. There might still be an Eastern conference where both Rutgers and Temple were members. Original Big East football members + Penn St + Florida St would have been a pretty formidible league that could have eventually raided the ACC.

(10-22-2017 10:13 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 09:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I think what Kittenhead is saying here is that while in the pre-Big East FB days Rutgers and Temple played big time east coast schools like Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Penn St, and WVU they usually lost and were not considered elite, just part of the club based m proximity and the need to fill dates on the schedule.

The UMass situation is a little different. They are in the same geographic area as several big programs but for the most part no one is rushing to be their friend and conference scheduling makes an ongoing long term series with the Minutemen unnecessary.

UMass screwed up when they turned down full membership in the MAC. What they should have done was counter offered a proposal where the MAC would also bring in some top basketball schools from the A-10 to make for a 16 member league that kept the best of both worlds. Dayton, VCU, and St Louis would have made for a solid group. Temple too if you could convince them that this was a better plan than the American.

Temple and Rutgers put some good seasons together in the 15 years prior to Big East formation.

Temple was a legit Top 15-ish team in 1979. Had a few winning seasons in the 1980s, and were 7-4 in 1990, the year directly prior to the Big East forming.

Rutgers averaged 5-6 in the 6 years with Dick Anderson as coach in the late 1980s. 4 winning seasons for the 1980s as a whole - they lost more than they won but they had wins over PSU, Pitt, WVU and Syracuse in the decade.

Point being - Massachusetts has done nothing even close to what Temple & Rutgers did in the 1980s.

Facility and attendance challenges that UMass faces are comparable to what Temple and Rutgers were dealing with at the time.

That is more what I'm implying here, not that UMass showed the latent potential of Rutgers or Temple with a couple of strong seasons.

UMass doesn't have a bailout card YET. The FBS experiment for UMass has been long enough where they can't argue they'll explode by moving to the top level which is what they sold the MAC on. They've been dismal.

(10-22-2017 09:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  In the last round of realignment the MAC had a great opportunity to really shake things up but they missed the mark. Heck at one point they might have been able to enhance their football portfolio too with adds like Marshall and WKU.

Instead they stayed static and improved neither football or basketball.

It was a case of addition by subtraction.

Subtract the WAC from existence and the MAC automatically moved up 1 rung on the FB food chain.

Subtract UMass from MAC football and its stronger in the standings.

Marshall and WKU had no reason to be interested in joining the MAC anyways when they joined a CUSA with a better contract than the MAC.

(10-22-2017 06:14 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Umass won big this weekend. Congrats to the Minutemen.

The next day, we fire our HC. Thanks Guys!!!

(10-22-2017 09:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  UMass screwed up when they turned down full membership in the MAC.

Agreed. UMass screwed up.

Quote:What they should have done was counter offered

They weren't in a position to counter-offer. MAC was terminating their football-only status. By the UMAss-MAC contract, that gave UMass the right to full membership. UMass did not exercise that right, and the MAC said "Bye, Felicia."

Quote:a proposal where the MAC would also bring in some top basketball schools from the A-10 to make for a 16 member league that kept the best of both worlds. Dayton, VCU, and St Louis would have made for a solid group.

Why would strong basketball programs (not UMass, actually strong basketball programs who go to the NCAA tournament regularly) want to join the one-bid MAC? Sure, they *might* add enough strength to the MAC to make it a multi-bid league, but what do Dayton and VCU get out of it?

Just because it was a mistake for UMass, a fledgling FBS school, to turn down the MAC for the A-10 doesn't mean it would make any sense for Dayton or VCU to join the MAC.

[quote]Temple too if you could convince them that this was a better plan than the American.
[/quote

Temple's administration would have to be smoking crack to make that move. Move BACK to the MAC.

UMass is the state flag ship for the state at D1. They do belong there. They do have history of having good football and basketball teams. They do need to get moving in upgrading of their facilities. If they do get AAU status? They would be set to go to join the Big 10. They always have the history that they have the better overall sports than Rutgers.

Nice win to go with a lot of tough losses. Chance to win out now or maybe just drop one loss to Miss. St.

(10-22-2017 11:32 PM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 06:14 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Umass won big this weekend. Congrats to the Minutemen.

The next day, we fire our HC. Thanks Guys!!!

We've already gotten one AD fired this year so if you're trying to get rid of your AD too, schedule NIU.

(10-23-2017 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 11:32 PM)EagleNationRising Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 06:14 PM)No Bull Wrote:  Umass won big this weekend. Congrats to the Minutemen.

The next day, we fire our HC. Thanks Guys!!!

We've already gotten one AD fired this year so if you're trying to get rid of your AD too, schedule NIU.

Dang is it too late to get you guys on the schedule? Honestly, this season for us has become a wash, but it would be ironic if our interim coach immediately found success.