Spring game today. I love watching this, but it is hard to really tell much when you are playing against yourself so to speak.

The defense made great strides last year while the offense kinda didn't. They scored plenty of points to win most games, it took a while for the defense to settle in and catch up (which they did).

It is way too soon to make predictions, but I hope they at least get bowl eligible - that does not mean a bowl game necessarily since we are an indy, but it would be nice to just be in the conversation finally.

LOL Marshall would like to align itself with the SEC, doesn't mean it will happen, sheesh

(04-17-2018 10:11 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  LOL Marshall would like to align itself with the SEC, doesn't mean it will happen, sheesh

The administration at Marshall has made it apparent that joining the SEC is a goal of theirs and they are working on and executing plans to move up to that caliber?

What reasons (beyond the obvious financial boon) would Marshall have to move to the SEC? What historic, geographic, or institutional rivals would they be joining in the SEC?

The AAC makes the most sense for UMass. I don't see what's wrong with attempting to make UMass make sense for the AAC.

Do you realize how far UMass falls short of the AAC, much less CUSA, even the belt?? Marshall falling short of the SEC is not different. We have one of the better IAF in the nation, weight training facilities, upper 1/3 of G5 in football stadiums and basketball arenas..........while being in CUSA. Saying Marshall has ambitions to be in the SEC was said in jest, because really at this point UMass to the AAC is in jest as well. UMass has enormous work to do and needs enormous amounts of money to throw at projects just to reach any sort of athletic standard already set by members of CUSA, AAC. At this point, all you can offer a conference is basketball, which loses value every year, no one wants your football right now. There is nothing wrong with having ambitions, BUT there is a long row to hoe to get it to become a reality. This board provides plenty of amusement, so talk away guys.

It probably will take a lot of money to get to a point where we're even remotely attractive to the AAC. We need to build an IPF for sure and at this rate it could take us another 5 years to get to a point where we're consistently in contention for bowl eligibility.

I think the amount of money that needs to be thrown at the project is up for debate. If it's just the IPF then we're talking $15-20M for a really nice permanent facility or like $5M(?) for a bubble. That's quite a bit of $$$ but it's not out of the realm of reality.

If AAC isn't okay with us using an NFL stadium (like Temple and South Florida) then things get really sticky. Our stadium is "expandable" up to the low to mid 20k's using semi-permanent freestanding bleachers, and that'd be relatively inexpensive. However if we needed an expandable 30k+ stadium, a brand new stadium could be $100M+. Which is definitely out of the foreseeable budget. If the administration had $100M to invest, they'd put it into academic/research facilities over a football stadium (and rightfully so). Although we could could construct a stadium over several phases, which might make the expense a bit more palatable.

I will say, just the talk of improving on-field performance and building infrastructure is better than the alternative we've seen at UMass. We spent over hundred years (with arguably the exception of maybe a few years in the '60s and '90s) doing the absolute minimum effort. No effort to keep successful coaches, no effort to remove unsuccessful ADs and coaches, no effort to build and improve infrastructure, no effort to look at what other schools were doing, no effort to keep an eye on our conference and division affiliation.

(04-17-2018 12:37 PM)McKinney Wrote:  It probably will take a lot of money to get to a point where we're even remotely attractive to the AAC. We need to build an IPF for sure and at this rate it could take us another 5 years to get to a point where we're consistently in contention for bowl eligibility.

I think the amount of money that needs to be thrown at the project is up for debate. If it's just the IPF then we're talking $15-20M for a really nice permanent facility or like $5M(?) for a bubble. That's quite a bit of $$$ but it's not out of the realm of reality.

If AAC isn't okay with us using an NFL stadium (like Temple and South Florida) then things get really sticky. Our stadium is "expandable" up to the low to mid 20k's using semi-permanent freestanding bleachers, and that'd be relatively inexpensive. However if we needed an expandable 30k+ stadium, a brand new stadium could be $100M+. Which is definitely out of the foreseeable budget. If the administration had $100M to invest, they'd put it into academic/research facilities over a football stadium (and rightfully so). Although we could could construct a stadium over several phases, which might make the expense a bit more palatable.

I will say, just the talk of improving on-field performance and building infrastructure is better than the alternative we've seen at UMass. We spent over hundred years (with arguably the exception of maybe a few years in the '60s and '90s) doing the absolute minimum effort. No effort to keep successful coaches, no effort to remove unsuccessful ADs and coaches, no effort to build and improve infrastructure, no effort to look at what other schools were doing, no effort to keep an eye on our conference and division affiliation.

Several programs that got in to the AAC (Tulane, SMU, Tulsa) over maybe more deserving programs have several things in common: Investment in university owned infrastructure (Tulane built a stadium to get in), investment in big name coaches in both football and basketball (Frank Heath, Larry Brown, Dunleavy, Willie Fritz, Chad Morris, Phillip Montgomery) and bring average to moderate markets to the fold (Tulsa, NOLA, Dallas).

UMass needs to do several things to be considered for the AAC:

1. Convince UConn you are valuable as a regional partner
2. Bring Army with you
3. Level McGuirk, and build anew on your own campus
4. Upgrade football and basketball facilities across the board
5. Upgrade football and basketball staff across the board.
6. Win.

But then, these strategies aren't unique to UMass... all told they could be applied to USM, ODU, Charlotte, and a handful of others... and I'd say those programs are closer to those goals than UMass, albeit nowhere near complete.

(04-17-2018 12:37 PM)McKinney Wrote:  It probably will take a lot of money to get to a point where we're even remotely attractive to the AAC. We need to build an IPF for sure and at this rate it could take us another 5 years to get to a point where we're consistently in contention for bowl eligibility.

I think the amount of money that needs to be thrown at the project is up for debate. If it's just the IPF then we're talking $15-20M for a really nice permanent facility or like $5M(?) for a bubble. That's quite a bit of $$$ but it's not out of the realm of reality.

If AAC isn't okay with us using an NFL stadium (like Temple and South Florida) then things get really sticky. Our stadium is "expandable" up to the low to mid 20k's using semi-permanent freestanding bleachers, and that'd be relatively inexpensive. However if we needed an expandable 30k+ stadium, a brand new stadium could be $100M+. Which is definitely out of the foreseeable budget. If the administration had $100M to invest, they'd put it into academic/research facilities over a football stadium (and rightfully so). Although we could could construct a stadium over several phases, which might make the expense a bit more palatable.

I will say, just the talk of improving on-field performance and building infrastructure is better than the alternative we've seen at UMass. We spent over hundred years (with arguably the exception of maybe a few years in the '60s and '90s) doing the absolute minimum effort. No effort to keep successful coaches, no effort to remove unsuccessful ADs and coaches, no effort to build and improve infrastructure, no effort to look at what other schools were doing, no effort to keep an eye on our conference and division affiliation.

Something sensible. All out indoor facility is what is needed to prosper, recruits buy with their eyes. Football Stadium needs massive renovations, another huge chunk of change. How much, who knows, but it will be a lot. Field performance helps, helps get donors involved, fans paying money at the stadium etc etc, but its just a start. Marshall's budget is almost double what it was during the MAC days, that's just upkeep, it took big donors and a lot of success to build what we have currently.

UMass wasn't good enough for the MAC; I highly doubt the AAC will come knocking. If it does it'll be because powerhouse AAC teams like Houston and Central Florida have moved elsewhere, meaning the AAC name will be weaker. The AAC with UMass and Toledo (for example) isn't quite the same as the AAC with Houston and Central Florida (for example).

I think one big thing is, as has been posted, UMass will have to be willing to spend AND HAVE the funds to spend. For example, all great coaches are lured to bigger programs. Let's say UMass is able to put together an 11-1 or so season, a truly great season. The lure will come. When he says 'UMass is taking steps to join the AAC' that's him talking, not the institution. UMass would either have to scramble for funds to keep him or hope they hire another great coach after he leaves to keep the momentum going. Facts of being in NCAA football no matter the level.

I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?

I enjoyed you guys in the MAC (even though you guys sucked every year you were here), and I understand the parting was mutual, but bottom line is, right now no one wants you guys.

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 12:37 PM)McKinney Wrote:  It probably will take a lot of money to get to a point where we're even remotely attractive to the AAC. We need to build an IPF for sure and at this rate it could take us another 5 years to get to a point where we're consistently in contention for bowl eligibility.

I think the amount of money that needs to be thrown at the project is up for debate. If it's just the IPF then we're talking $15-20M for a really nice permanent facility or like $5M(?) for a bubble. That's quite a bit of $$$ but it's not out of the realm of reality.

If AAC isn't okay with us using an NFL stadium (like Temple and South Florida) then things get really sticky. Our stadium is "expandable" up to the low to mid 20k's using semi-permanent freestanding bleachers, and that'd be relatively inexpensive. However if we needed an expandable 30k+ stadium, a brand new stadium could be $100M+. Which is definitely out of the foreseeable budget. If the administration had $100M to invest, they'd put it into academic/research facilities over a football stadium (and rightfully so). Although we could could construct a stadium over several phases, which might make the expense a bit more palatable.

I will say, just the talk of improving on-field performance and building infrastructure is better than the alternative we've seen at UMass. We spent over hundred years (with arguably the exception of maybe a few years in the '60s and '90s) doing the absolute minimum effort. No effort to keep successful coaches, no effort to remove unsuccessful ADs and coaches, no effort to build and improve infrastructure, no effort to look at what other schools were doing, no effort to keep an eye on our conference and division affiliation.

Several programs that got in to the AAC (Tulane, SMU, Tulsa) over maybe more deserving programs have several things in common: Investment in university owned infrastructure (Tulane built a stadium to get in), investment in big name coaches in both football and basketball (Frank Heath, Larry Brown, Dunleavy, Willie Fritz, Chad Morris, Phillip Montgomery) and bring average to moderate markets to the fold (Tulsa, NOLA, Dallas).

UMass needs to do several things to be considered for the AAC:

1. Convince UConn you are valuable as a regional partner
2. Bring Army with you
3. Level McGuirk, and build anew on your own campus
4. Upgrade football and basketball facilities across the board
5. Upgrade football and basketball staff across the board.
6. Win.

But then, these strategies aren't unique to UMass... all told they could be applied to USM, ODU, Charlotte, and a handful of others... and I'd say those programs are closer to those goals than UMass, albeit nowhere near complete.

Generally in agreement--though not quite as harsh. Just upgrade football/ baseketball--and get McGirk updated with a seating capacity of around 30K. I could live with a UMass that was enjoying some success in football and basketball with a completely renovated 30K McGirk. They still wouldnt be my first choice---but I'd be alright with them (especially if they accomplish your #2 bullet point above).

(04-17-2018 10:54 AM)McKinney Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 10:11 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  LOL Marshall would like to align itself with the SEC, doesn't mean it will happen, sheesh

The administration at Marshall has made it apparent that joining the SEC is a goal of theirs and they are working on and executing plans to move up to that caliber?

What reasons (beyond the obvious financial boon) would Marshall have to move to the SEC? What historic, geographic, or institutional rivals would they be joining in the SEC?

The AAC makes the most sense for UMass. I don't see what's wrong with attempting to make UMass make sense for the AAC.

In a nutshell...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(04-17-2018 11:46 AM)beefcake0520 Wrote:  Do you realize how far UMass falls short of the AAC, much less CUSA, even the belt?? Marshall falling short of the SEC is not different. We have one of the better IAF in the nation, weight training facilities, upper 1/3 of G5 in football stadiums and basketball arenas..........while being in CUSA. Saying Marshall has ambitions to be in the SEC was said in jest, because really at this point UMass to the AAC is in jest as well. UMass has enormous work to do and needs enormous amounts of money to throw at projects just to reach any sort of athletic standard already set by members of CUSA, AAC. At this point, all you can offer a conference is basketball, which loses value every year, no one wants your football right now. There is nothing wrong with having ambitions, BUT there is a long row to hoe to get it to become a reality. This board provides plenty of amusement, so talk away guys.

UMass is one stadiun renovation phase from being on a short list..

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 12:37 PM)McKinney Wrote:  It probably will take a lot of money to get to a point where we're even remotely attractive to the AAC. We need to build an IPF for sure and at this rate it could take us another 5 years to get to a point where we're consistently in contention for bowl eligibility.

I think the amount of money that needs to be thrown at the project is up for debate. If it's just the IPF then we're talking $15-20M for a really nice permanent facility or like $5M(?) for a bubble. That's quite a bit of $$$ but it's not out of the realm of reality.

If AAC isn't okay with us using an NFL stadium (like Temple and South Florida) then things get really sticky. Our stadium is "expandable" up to the low to mid 20k's using semi-permanent freestanding bleachers, and that'd be relatively inexpensive. However if we needed an expandable 30k+ stadium, a brand new stadium could be $100M+. Which is definitely out of the foreseeable budget. If the administration had $100M to invest, they'd put it into academic/research facilities over a football stadium (and rightfully so). Although we could could construct a stadium over several phases, which might make the expense a bit more palatable.

I will say, just the talk of improving on-field performance and building infrastructure is better than the alternative we've seen at UMass. We spent over hundred years (with arguably the exception of maybe a few years in the '60s and '90s) doing the absolute minimum effort. No effort to keep successful coaches, no effort to remove unsuccessful ADs and coaches, no effort to build and improve infrastructure, no effort to look at what other schools were doing, no effort to keep an eye on our conference and division affiliation.

Several programs that got in to the AAC (Tulane, SMU, Tulsa) over maybe more deserving programs have several things in common: Investment in university owned infrastructure (Tulane built a stadium to get in), investment in big name coaches in both football and basketball (Frank Heath, Larry Brown, Dunleavy, Willie Fritz, Chad Morris, Phillip Montgomery) and bring average to moderate markets to the fold (Tulsa, NOLA, Dallas).

UMass needs to do several things to be considered for the AAC:

1. Convince UConn you are valuable as a regional partner
2. Bring Army with you
3. Level McGuirk, and build anew on your own campus
4. Upgrade football and basketball facilities across the board
5. Upgrade football and basketball staff across the board.
6. Win.

But then, these strategies aren't unique to UMass... all told they could be applied to USM, ODU, Charlotte, and a handful of others... and I'd say those programs are closer to those goals than UMass, albeit nowhere near complete.

1, 3 and 6 should suffice

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(04-17-2018 04:38 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  UMass wasn't good enough for the MAC; I highly doubt the AAC will come knocking. If it does it'll be because powerhouse AAC teams like Houston and Central Florida have moved elsewhere, meaning the AAC name will be weaker. The AAC with UMass and Toledo (for example) isn't quite the same as the AAC with Houston and Central Florida (for example).

I think one big thing is, as has been posted, UMass will have to be willing to spend AND HAVE the funds to spend. For example, all great coaches are lured to bigger programs. Let's say UMass is able to put together an 11-1 or so season, a truly great season. The lure will come. When he says 'UMass is taking steps to join the AAC' that's him talking, not the institution. UMass would either have to scramble for funds to keep him or hope they hire another great coach after he leaves to keep the momentum going. Facts of being in NCAA football no matter the level.

I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?

I enjoyed you guys in the MAC (even though you guys sucked every year you were here), and I understand the parting was mutual, but bottom line is, right now no one wants you guys.

"I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?"

FSU and Miami

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(04-17-2018 07:05 PM)panama Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 04:38 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  UMass wasn't good enough for the MAC; I highly doubt the AAC will come knocking. If it does it'll be because powerhouse AAC teams like Houston and Central Florida have moved elsewhere, meaning the AAC name will be weaker. The AAC with UMass and Toledo (for example) isn't quite the same as the AAC with Houston and Central Florida (for example).

I think one big thing is, as has been posted, UMass will have to be willing to spend AND HAVE the funds to spend. For example, all great coaches are lured to bigger programs. Let's say UMass is able to put together an 11-1 or so season, a truly great season. The lure will come. When he says 'UMass is taking steps to join the AAC' that's him talking, not the institution. UMass would either have to scramble for funds to keep him or hope they hire another great coach after he leaves to keep the momentum going. Facts of being in NCAA football no matter the level.

I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?

I enjoyed you guys in the MAC (even though you guys sucked every year you were here), and I understand the parting was mutual, but bottom line is, right now no one wants you guys.

"I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?"

FSU and Miami

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

FSU and Miami are located and recruited in Florida when the college football landscape did not have as many teams. Their recruiting was on the level with the bigger schools. A bit different with a team from Massachusetts and with the number of schools that they have to recruit against.

(04-17-2018 07:05 PM)panama Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 04:38 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  UMass wasn't good enough for the MAC; I highly doubt the AAC will come knocking. If it does it'll be because powerhouse AAC teams like Houston and Central Florida have moved elsewhere, meaning the AAC name will be weaker. The AAC with UMass and Toledo (for example) isn't quite the same as the AAC with Houston and Central Florida (for example).

I think one big thing is, as has been posted, UMass will have to be willing to spend AND HAVE the funds to spend. For example, all great coaches are lured to bigger programs. Let's say UMass is able to put together an 11-1 or so season, a truly great season. The lure will come. When he says 'UMass is taking steps to join the AAC' that's him talking, not the institution. UMass would either have to scramble for funds to keep him or hope they hire another great coach after he leaves to keep the momentum going. Facts of being in NCAA football no matter the level.

I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?

I enjoyed you guys in the MAC (even though you guys sucked every year you were here), and I understand the parting was mutual, but bottom line is, right now no one wants you guys.

"I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?"

FSU and Miami

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I dont think thats so much a "strategy" as it is the only way to pay the bills and get decent TV exposure.

(04-17-2018 07:24 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 07:05 PM)panama Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 04:38 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  UMass wasn't good enough for the MAC; I highly doubt the AAC will come knocking. If it does it'll be because powerhouse AAC teams like Houston and Central Florida have moved elsewhere, meaning the AAC name will be weaker. The AAC with UMass and Toledo (for example) isn't quite the same as the AAC with Houston and Central Florida (for example).

I think one big thing is, as has been posted, UMass will have to be willing to spend AND HAVE the funds to spend. For example, all great coaches are lured to bigger programs. Let's say UMass is able to put together an 11-1 or so season, a truly great season. The lure will come. When he says 'UMass is taking steps to join the AAC' that's him talking, not the institution. UMass would either have to scramble for funds to keep him or hope they hire another great coach after he leaves to keep the momentum going. Facts of being in NCAA football no matter the level.

I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?

I enjoyed you guys in the MAC (even though you guys sucked every year you were here), and I understand the parting was mutual, but bottom line is, right now no one wants you guys.

"I'm also not convinced UMass's strategy of 'let's play as many death row payday games as we can' will eventually pay out. For those that know, has this strategy ever worked?"

FSU and Miami

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

FSU and Miami are located and recruited in Florida when the college football landscape did not have as many teams. Their recruiting was on the level with the bigger schools. A bit different with a team from Massachusetts and with the number of schools that they have to recruit against.

"Their recruiting was on the level with the bigger schools."

Naw, not when Bowden and Schnellenberger were hired.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  1. Convince UConn you are valuable as a regional partner

It hasn't been the most consistent rivalry (especially since UCONN went to FBS) but seeing how the U-Game goes back to 1897... if they don't see us a valuable regional partner, I don't even know what to say. And honestly the 31 years Temple spent in the A10 should probably mean something too, even if (maybe) that heat between Chaney and Calipari still means more to us than them.

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  2. Bring Army with you

It's like you're reading my mind.

(02-25-2018 12:35 AM)McKinney Wrote:  As a member of both a UMass and West Point family of course I'm biased, but I'd like to see Army (football-only), Dayton or VCU (basketball and olympics), and UMass (all sports) to join. That would solidify AAC's hold in the Northeast and The American would have (or have the possibility to develop) some great inter-conference rivalries: Army-Navy, War on I-4, U Game (or Temple, either would be good), and either Houston-Memphis (I understand this is always a close and emotional game) or Houston-SMU (geographic, but not a lot of history yet) come to mind.

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  3. Level McGuirk, and build anew on your own campus

We don't even have to level McGuirk to build anew. Land is not an issue on this campus, the issue is money. :(

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  4. Upgrade football and basketball facilities across the board

Basketball just got a new facility a couple years ago, it's still one of the best in the A10 and probably one of the best in the AAC as well. https://www.umass.edu/cp/champions-center
https://twitter.com/UKCoachCalipari/stat...8478667776

But yes football needs an IPF very badly, supposedly things are in the works for that.

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  5. Upgrade football and basketball staff across the board.

This goes back to the money issue, but I think basketball is in a good place under McCall. I don't know what to do about Whipple. Getting rid of him would mean getting rid of the third coach in six years (second in FBS)... every single one for performance. That could unravel a lot of instability, something we don't need more of while we're in independence. I'd love to see some coordinator and staff changes. IMO we need an offensive coordinator or co-OC and a new OLine guy. I think you could knock out both of those with one hire. Thankfully special teams coordinator was addressed at the end of the season, although they replaced him with an internal hire of the former linebackers coach. That's certainly not the craziest hire, but I think it does show a lack of money to "throw at the problem" so to speak. I do have confidence (despite lack of specific experience) he'll get the job done though. He appeared to be a good position coach and obviously a good bit of that will carry over. We'll just have see how he is in the coordinator role.

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  6. Win.

I think they're getting there. That's certainly the biggest part of the problem from a cultural as well as conference affiliation standpoint.

(04-17-2018 01:48 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  But then, these strategies aren't unique to UMass... all told they could be applied to USM, ODU, Charlotte, and a handful of others... and I'd say those programs are closer to those goals than UMass, albeit nowhere near complete.

UMass does have the advantage of being the institution that it is. While the AAC is probably the most competitive G5 (tweener) conference, it is also probably the most academically competitive G5 conference. The AAC has more nationally competitive institutions in its membership than any other G5 except for maybe MWC(?). Adding Massachusetts and Army West Point would only help to secure that.

UMass also taps into more TV sets than USM, ODU, and Charlotte with 185,526 system alumni in the #9 TV market, with a little more than a third of those being from the flagship. Of course there's still a lot of work to be done before anyone (even intrasystem alumni, let alone just regular folks from the Bay State) recognizes it as their team. But if we're still at a point where TV markets matter... the potential is huge. Compare that to ODU: 37,628 Norfolk (#42) and USM: 10,720 Hattiesburg (#168). Charlotte comes close with 62,481 in the Charlotte (#22) area, but potential system alumni seem less likely, although they they do have the leg up on being an urban campus (and the city pride that goes along with that). And of course all three have more established college football cultures (although I'd think that Charlotte probably suffers from similar pro-market competition).

While ODU and Charlotte may have more "public" plans available I'd think that their stadiums are just as bad as McGuirk, no? I will say that ODU is probably much closer in terms of being able to fund their stadium upgrade. They have crazy support. Southern Miss definitely is ready in terms of stadium and competition. ODU has proven itself on the field too (although we did rank higher than the Monarchs this year in FEI, S&P+, and Sagarin, despite losing to the Monarchs 17-7). Charlotte? I don't think so. They're either at our level (at least in terms of lack of wins) or below (they've never finished ranked higher than Massachusetts in FEI, S&P+, or Sagarin).

Source: LinkedIn

UMass is going to be good this year...a surprise team

Anyone know what happened to the rest of the pages on this thread? There were like 111 pages the other day I think. The last I bookmarked it there were 105. Now there are 56?