(10-11-2021 01:28 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I went to UMass over the weekend to cover the UConn game. I talked to their AD a little about their conference affiliation situation. You might find it interesting:

https://www.extrapointsmb.com/umass-coll...ccess-fbs/

Great story.

In 2015, our first 10 win season under Matt Rhule, UMASS almost beat us in an early season game. A lucky 2 point defensive PAT conversion set up the win. Seems either their roster got weaker, or coaching got poorer, but the big factor may go back to conference affiliation. UMASS was in the MAC at that time (last year?) so they could recruit to win championships.

As it spells out in the story, the academic profile of the school has gone up considerably in the last 10 years regardless of football success. I think the MAC offers a better institutional fit. They should have taken the full invite. Would have little effect on their academics, and if MAC is a one bid BB league, they can just win it (though Buffalo might have a say in that).

(10-11-2021 01:28 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I went to UMass over the weekend to cover the UConn game. I talked to their AD a little about their conference affiliation situation. You might find it interesting:

https://www.extrapointsmb.com/umass-coll...ccess-fbs/

Nice well written article.

(10-11-2021 01:28 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  I went to UMass over the weekend to cover the UConn game. I talked to their AD a little about their conference affiliation situation. You might find it interesting:

https://www.extrapointsmb.com/umass-coll...ccess-fbs/

This is very well written, and sums up how most of us feel about the program. We know we'll never be a national power, but that's just fine by us...we can do that in Hockey and hopefully also get better in basketball, and then just enjoy that there's football to watch and tailgate at.

The answer to everything is money.

UMass could have joined the MAC in all-sports, but made the choice not to, because of the basketball money.

The MAC splits everything evenly. Join the MAC, and you get 1/14th (I assume they'd add a 14th with UMass) of the NCAA units earned by the conference (7%). The A-10 does NOT split everything evenly. (The simplest way to explain it is): 74% of what you earn, you keep; Your share of the rest of the A-10 is 2%.

Last 20 years NCAA performance, a 14-team MAC would give UMass an average of 0.1107 NCAA units per season.
Last 20 years NCAA performance, the A-10 with UMass earning only one NCAA unit -- UMass cut is an average of 0.1390 units per season.

UMass wins MAC only bid, wins first round game: 0.142 units to UMass
UMass gets A-10 at-large in 2-bid league, both A-10 loses first round game: 0.76 units to UMass.


In the 2014 NCAA Tournament, UMass earned one unit, the A-10 got nine other units. UMass' cut was 0.92 units from that year.

For the MAC to give UMass that amount of money, the MAC would need to earn 12.88 units. That's FOUR Sweet 16 teams and one Elite 8 team; OR 3 teams to the Elite 8 and one to the Final Four.

It's not that there's something deficient about colleges in the northeast. It's that there's a saturation of professional sports teams consuming the media oxygen. The NJ/NY has NINE pro teams, all of which could theoretically be playing in October, and 7 in November, competing for attention on TV news.

A school like Rutgers isn't going to as much attention, either from the media, or from the general population, as a region where the school is the primary sports option.

At least that's what they always said on the sports-talk shows.

The MAC gives a team with an NCAA win 30% of the first two units earned by the win.

And of course, the MAC share of the CFP money and the MAC ESPN contract money is substantially larger than 0.92 NCAA units.

(10-11-2021 11:21 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  To answer the thread's question, perhaps but probably not in the cards. There is a chance CUSA could look favorably towards UMass as a FB only. Looking at the ratings, 3 out of the very bottom are independent universities. Independency is a terrible head wind with no defined bowl or conference championships to excite recruits.
If the chairs stop in a few years, we'll have to see what happen with both BB and football performance and the A10.

At least the students stayed and stormed the field after a solid beat of UConn. Last part of the highlight reel.

LMAO....do you realize how desperate a conference would have to be in order to bring in UMASS and UCONN as football only?

If you want to join an FBS football conference then you better bring all sports, and honestly, has your basketball been good lately?

(10-11-2021 06:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The MAC gives a team with an NCAA win 30% of the first two units earned by the win.

And of course, the MAC share of the CFP money and the MAC ESPN contract money is substantially larger than 0.92 NCAA units.

Oooh, good to know on the MAC NCAA unit share. I did not know that.
If they lose in the first round, it's just straight split?

So if you win, you get 0.6 units and the rest of the conference divides 1.4 units, and if you lose, it's just "divide it evenly" ?

The CFP money is what? $1.29 million per school if they're in the MAC?

The MAC ESPN contract isn't more than the A-10's media deals. It's hard to put a finger on the exact value of the A-10 media rights because they have deals with ESPN, NBC, and CBS for TV games, and ESPN for streaming. I've heard reports of the ESPN or the NBC deal being worth around $400,000 to $650,000 per school. But they weren't all signed at the same time. That would put the A-10 at like a million or $1.5 million per school.

The A-10 Final is on CBS, on Selection Sunday, right before the Big Ten and Selection Show. The value of that time slot is massive for the league, even if the money isn't there.

On New England Football Show when Walt Bell asked about what his bosses can do to improve the football program said money and commitment to get into a league, need to be in a league and the reasons. Then talked about the MAC. Starts around the 34:45 minute mark and a comment at 42 minute mark.

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1vAxRkndlyzKl

(10-11-2021 06:16 PM)NJMark Wrote:  It's not that there's something deficient about colleges in the northeast. It's that there's a saturation of professional sports teams consuming the media oxygen. The NJ/NY has NINE pro teams, all of which could theoretically be playing in October, and 7 in November, competing for attention on TV news.

A school like Rutgers isn't going to as much attention, either from the media, or from the general population, as a region where the school is the primary sports option.

At least that's what they always said on the sports-talk shows.

That may be true to an extent. But especially at the G5 level, it's not really about media. Big difference needing to justify a $50M contract and a $800k one. Of course you want your games televised, but it's unlikely ESPN analysts will be talking about your upcoming game mid-week.

And it's not like college football is even played on the same day as NFL. Amherst, Storrs, hell New Brunswick are not Boston and NYC. Of course we want to attract alumni and fans from those cities and eyeballs from those markets. But it's really just about having a great game day atmosphere. You don't need to be a Top 10 team to do that. Just respectable in your losses and ideally at least a few wins at home for the season ticket holders.

(10-11-2021 07:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think location matters more than name. For instance, when St. John’s is good the city gets behind them.

Imagine if Fordham football didn’t fold in the 50’s, or NYU.

There are a lot of what if’s. Villanova’s AD tried to start an eastern all sports conference in 1953! It involved Fordham, BC, Syracuse, Temple, Penn State, Pitt, and a few others.

On the subject of Villanova, in 1997 there was a plan in place to play at Franklin Field for a few years while transitioning to the Big East. Imagine if they effectively swapped out Temple. Who do you think would have gotten the lease at the Linc in 2003?

Temple. This topic was beaten like a rented mule on this site a decade ago. LFF was funded by the state to be the joint home of the Eagles and Temple.

(10-12-2021 08:55 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 07:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think location matters more than name. For instance, when St. John’s is good the city gets behind them.

Imagine if Fordham football didn’t fold in the 50’s, or NYU.

There are a lot of what if’s. Villanova’s AD tried to start an eastern all sports conference in 1953! It involved Fordham, BC, Syracuse, Temple, Penn State, Pitt, and a few others.

On the subject of Villanova, in 1997 there was a plan in place to play at Franklin Field for a few years while transitioning to the Big East. Imagine if they effectively swapped out Temple. Who do you think would have gotten the lease at the Linc in 2003?

Temple. This topic was beaten like a rented mule on this site a decade ago. LFF was funded by the state to be the joint home of the Eagles and Temple.

Doesn’t Temple play rent?

Also, I’m quoting primary sources from within the Villanova athletic department in 1997. The Big East absolutely would have kicked Temple out and replaced them with Villanova.

As far as LFF, maybe Temple still gets the sole college lease, but they wouldn’t be in the Big East.

(10-12-2021 09:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:55 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 07:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think location matters more than name. For instance, when St. John’s is good the city gets behind them.

Imagine if Fordham football didn’t fold in the 50’s, or NYU.

There are a lot of what if’s. Villanova’s AD tried to start an eastern all sports conference in 1953! It involved Fordham, BC, Syracuse, Temple, Penn State, Pitt, and a few others.

On the subject of Villanova, in 1997 there was a plan in place to play at Franklin Field for a few years while transitioning to the Big East. Imagine if they effectively swapped out Temple. Who do you think would have gotten the lease at the Linc in 2003?

Temple. This topic was beaten like a rented mule on this site a decade ago. LFF was funded by the state to be the joint home of the Eagles and Temple.

Doesn’t Temple play rent?

Also, I’m quoting primary sources from within the Villanova athletic department in 1997. The Big East absolutely would have kicked Temple out and replaced them with Villanova.

As far as LFF, maybe Temple still gets the sole college lease, but they wouldn’t be in the Big East.

So does Pitt, albeit less rent. I’m familiar with the sources you are quoting. The state legislature rejected the initial request to provide money for the NFL stadiums. The Steelers seized on the idea that they would propose the stadium be the joint home of them and Pitt. The Eagles immediately followed suit but with no intent of being an actual partner. That persuaded the legislature to provide money.

The state sent a small portion of LFF construction funds as pass through from Temple to the the Eagles. When the Eagles were being intransigent over the lease, the head of the state senate threatened to enact a tax targeted exclusively at Eagles tickets to fund a stadium for Temple. The state’s intent was always that LFF would be Temple’s home stadium.

The only way Villanova was going to become a tenant at LFF is if Temple discontinued football which they ultimately didn’t despite David Adamany’s many efforts to do so. Otherwise the public university located in Philadelphia would be the tenant and the private university in the suburbs would not. Villanova could have joined the SEC or the NFC East and they still would have been visitors at LFF.

(10-12-2021 10:40 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:55 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 07:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think location matters more than name. For instance, when St. John’s is good the city gets behind them.

Imagine if Fordham football didn’t fold in the 50’s, or NYU.

There are a lot of what if’s. Villanova’s AD tried to start an eastern all sports conference in 1953! It involved Fordham, BC, Syracuse, Temple, Penn State, Pitt, and a few others.

On the subject of Villanova, in 1997 there was a plan in place to play at Franklin Field for a few years while transitioning to the Big East. Imagine if they effectively swapped out Temple. Who do you think would have gotten the lease at the Linc in 2003?

Temple. This topic was beaten like a rented mule on this site a decade ago. LFF was funded by the state to be the joint home of the Eagles and Temple.

Doesn’t Temple play rent?

Also, I’m quoting primary sources from within the Villanova athletic department in 1997. The Big East absolutely would have kicked Temple out and replaced them with Villanova.

As far as LFF, maybe Temple still gets the sole college lease, but they wouldn’t be in the Big East.

So does Pitt, albeit less rent. I’m familiar with the sources you are quoting. The state legislature rejected the initial request to provide money for the NFL stadiums. The Steelers seized on the idea that they would propose the stadium be the joint home of them and Pitt. The Eagles immediately followed suit but with no intent of being an actual partner. That persuaded the legislature to provide money.

The state sent a small portion of LFF construction funds as pass through from Temple to the the Eagles. When the Eagles were being intransigent over the lease, the head of the state senate threatened to enact a tax targeted exclusively at Eagles tickets to fund a stadium for Temple. The state’s intent was always that LFF would be Temple’s home stadium.

The only way Villanova was going to become a tenant at LFF is if Temple discontinued football which they ultimately didn’t despite David Adamany’s many efforts to do so. Otherwise the public university located in Philadelphia would be the tenant and the private university in the suburbs would not. Villanova could have joined the SEC or the NFC East and they still would have been visitors at LFF.

Gotcha. I also read the Nova people were looking at acquiring some nearby land that was a former hospital (?) with the intent of building an all purpose football/basketball facility. Ultimately, it seems their president at the time wanted nothing to do with big time football despite the committee reporting they’d not only save, but make money.

(10-11-2021 09:37 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 06:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The MAC gives a team with an NCAA win 30% of the first two units earned by the win.

And of course, the MAC share of the CFP money and the MAC ESPN contract money is substantially larger than 0.92 NCAA units.

Oooh, good to know on the MAC NCAA unit share. I did not know that.
If they lose in the first round, it's just straight split?

So if you win, you get 0.6 units and the rest of the conference divides 1.4 units, and if you lose, it's just "divide it evenly" ?

If you win, from your additional appearance units you get a total of 0.3 units + 1/12th of 0.7 units over the first two years, and 1/12th of 1 unit in years 3-6.

Also in 2018, with the change to NET coming up, they changed the OOC wins bonus from the previous system to bonuses for Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 wins, so the first unit has the money for Q1 and Q2 wins taken out of it before it is split 12 ways. So if the school with the win in the Tourney also went to the Tourney with some conference NET growing wins, they would collect some additional revenue the year that they went to the tourney.

Quote: The CFP money is what? $1.29 million per school if they're in the MAC?

Somewhere along there.

Quote: The MAC ESPN contract isn't more than the A-10's media deals. It's hard to put a finger on the exact value of the A-10 media rights because they have deals with ESPN, NBC, and CBS for TV games, and ESPN for streaming. I've heard reports of the ESPN or the NBC deal being worth around $400,000 to $650,000 per school. But they weren't all signed at the same time. That would put the A-10 at like a million or $1.5 million per school.

So all up, it's a push, or slightly to the advantage of being in the MAC, unless a school expects that in the A10 it will be in the Tourney quite a bit over a six year cycle.

IMV, following the money in this case is not about following the conference distribution. It's about following basketball ticket sales and booster contributions. That is where UMass will have a substantially higher revenues playing in the current A10 versus playing in the MAC.

Now, hypothetically that might be offset to some extent with improvement in the performance of the FB team ... but that is highly speculative, and University Presidents tend to prefer the more stable, predictable revenue to the more speculative play.

(10-12-2021 01:17 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 09:37 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 06:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  The MAC gives a team with an NCAA win 30% of the first two units earned by the win.

And of course, the MAC share of the CFP money and the MAC ESPN contract money is substantially larger than 0.92 NCAA units.

Oooh, good to know on the MAC NCAA unit share. I did not know that.
If they lose in the first round, it's just straight split?

So if you win, you get 0.6 units and the rest of the conference divides 1.4 units, and if you lose, it's just "divide it evenly" ?

If you win, from your additional appearance units you get a total of 0.3 units + 1/12th of 0.7 units over the first two years, and 1/12th of 1 unit in years 3-6.

Also in 2018, with the change to NET coming up, they changed the OOC wins bonus from the previous system to bonuses for Quartile 1 and Quartile 2 wins, so the first unit has the money for Q1 and Q2 wins taken out of it before it is split 12 ways. So if the school with the win in the Tourney also went to the Tourney with some conference NET growing wins, they would collect some additional revenue the year that they went to the tourney.

Quote: The CFP money is what? $1.29 million per school if they're in the MAC?

Somewhere along there.

Quote: The MAC ESPN contract isn't more than the A-10's media deals. It's hard to put a finger on the exact value of the A-10 media rights because they have deals with ESPN, NBC, and CBS for TV games, and ESPN for streaming. I've heard reports of the ESPN or the NBC deal being worth around $400,000 to $650,000 per school. But they weren't all signed at the same time. That would put the A-10 at like a million or $1.5 million per school.

So all up, it's a push, or slightly to the advantage of being in the MAC, unless a school expects that in the A10 it will be in the Tourney quite a bit over a six year cycle.

IMV, following the money in this case is not about following the conference distribution. It's about following basketball ticket sales and booster contributions. That is where UMass will have a substantially higher revenues playing in the current A10 versus playing in the MAC.

Now, hypothetically that might be offset to some extent with improvement in the performance of the FB team ... but that is highly speculative, and University Presidents tend to prefer the more stable, predictable revenue to the more speculative play.

The MAC media contract is 10M compared to the A10's 5M. A 1k drop in basketball attendance would roughly equal the difference in lost revenue. Donors would be affected. but would it be 1Million dollar difference as for CFP money, which UMass received 312k and the MAC 1.290 Million per team. Think it's a push, so comes down to pissing some donors and fans off over for the good of the football program. We are inching towards football program, but need to kick the can down the road or perhaps CUSA. Basketball needs to turn around or it will go more towards football. Wish we could get a FB only, but understand the MAC fans point of view.

Quote:To be fair. the teams as UCF and Temple always viewed the MAC as a temporary. If you have two teams that are committed and not using the MAC as a stepping stone, it could work out.

Temple - LOL. Not used as a stepping stone, just more $$. They wanted back to the very-different conference that kicked them out. Once back, they won their division in the AAC, and Toledo whipped 'em good in the bowl. Temple ain't ever going to the P5 -- it's for more $, but not at all by leaps & bounds like a P5 conference.

Marshall - Yeah, tried to make it a stepping stone. CUSA now turned out to be no better in Football & Basketball, thanks to the AAC having to adjust and take. But no reason Marshall should go back to the MAC unless the CUSA falls apart due to AAC having to take from CUSA & Sun Belt, and doesn't choose them. Then, the MAC would be better for them. However, if the AAC takes Marshall, which is very reasonable -- it's still not really a stepping stone. No different than Temple (thanks to their background in said prior conference) -- just more $$.

UCF - Yeah, they used MAC & CUSA as a stepping stone, and even though in recent times AAC has been stepping-stone material (everyone's going for P5) -- they've used it quite well and are going to the B12. But, to be fair, that's also thanks to their Huge Budget and having a big stadium, etc. They don't need to be NY/BCS Bowl contenders to have gone (just a couple under their belt doing well).

In a nutshell though, the MAC, no matter how good a particular season is -- doesn't have a fan-base being in the shadow of the B10. Unlike the others, it never really shifts around, just has an occasional team popping in and out once in a great while. In some sense traditional, to at least hold on to something worth recognizing.

UMASS - They should join for all sports. Look, UMass doesn't have the 90s basketball program they used to have. Their football team competes with UConn for the bottom of the barrel. They're not a "higher power" in sports, and have had Many years to demonstrate that. MAC said bye-bye if ya ain't going all in (notably basketball, of course). They ain't no Notre Dame in the mid-majors for basketball, that's for damn sure.

In the end, it's all about the $$ (viewership/fans), even if one conference really isn't better than the other.

The stepping stone is to make it to the P5 for prestige above all others -- and of course a lot more $$$$, much more than a bump in some $.

(10-12-2021 12:58 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 10:40 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 09:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-12-2021 08:55 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(10-11-2021 07:11 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think location matters more than name. For instance, when St. John’s is good the city gets behind them.

Imagine if Fordham football didn’t fold in the 50’s, or NYU.

There are a lot of what if’s. Villanova’s AD tried to start an eastern all sports conference in 1953! It involved Fordham, BC, Syracuse, Temple, Penn State, Pitt, and a few others.

On the subject of Villanova, in 1997 there was a plan in place to play at Franklin Field for a few years while transitioning to the Big East. Imagine if they effectively swapped out Temple. Who do you think would have gotten the lease at the Linc in 2003?

Temple. This topic was beaten like a rented mule on this site a decade ago. LFF was funded by the state to be the joint home of the Eagles and Temple.

Doesn’t Temple play rent?

Also, I’m quoting primary sources from within the Villanova athletic department in 1997. The Big East absolutely would have kicked Temple out and replaced them with Villanova.

As far as LFF, maybe Temple still gets the sole college lease, but they wouldn’t be in the Big East.

So does Pitt, albeit less rent. I’m familiar with the sources you are quoting. The state legislature rejected the initial request to provide money for the NFL stadiums. The Steelers seized on the idea that they would propose the stadium be the joint home of them and Pitt. The Eagles immediately followed suit but with no intent of being an actual partner. That persuaded the legislature to provide money.

The state sent a small portion of LFF construction funds as pass through from Temple to the the Eagles. When the Eagles were being intransigent over the lease, the head of the state senate threatened to enact a tax targeted exclusively at Eagles tickets to fund a stadium for Temple. The state’s intent was always that LFF would be Temple’s home stadium.

The only way Villanova was going to become a tenant at LFF is if Temple discontinued football which they ultimately didn’t despite David Adamany’s many efforts to do so. Otherwise the public university located in Philadelphia would be the tenant and the private university in the suburbs would not. Villanova could have joined the SEC or the NFC East and they still would have been visitors at LFF.

Gotcha. I also read the Nova people were looking at acquiring some nearby land that was a former hospital (?) with the intent of building an all purpose football/basketball facility. Ultimately, it seems their president at the time wanted nothing to do with big time football despite the committee reporting they’d not only save, but make money.

Villanova wanted to acquire the 200 or so acre site of a former state psychiatric hospital near their campus. Haverford Township where the land is located was adamantly opposed to Villanova acquiring that site for any purpose. The township made that clear as soon as it was announced that the hospital was closing. It’s a combination of housing, recreation facilities and woodlands now.

Villanova made the right decision. Starting FBS football in the early 2000s or in the following decade in the hope of landing a permanent spot in a P5 conference was a bet that Villanova would have lost. Mostly it was a pipe dream because there was never going to be a viable path to a suitable stadium for FBS football. The Pavilion has a 6.5k capacity because that’s the largest that Radnor Township would approve. It was intended to be a larger facility. Villanova’s stadium options were never going to be better than Franklin Field and eventually Subaru Park.

Posted this on the MAC board and realize the UConn fans say prefer to play 4-6 P5 teams, but when they realize the pool of available coaches shrink when you have no conference affiliation and post season as a Championship game and bowl bid.

FYI from yesterday's sports luncheon, only one poster commented and based on the AD comment pairing with UConn it sounds like hoping for a FB only move. Not what you guys like hearing.

Quote:I was at yesterday's luncheon and Bell took great pains (his boss was present!) to explain that his team is a "morning" team...after practice in the morning, the team immediately goes into meeting/film room to discuss the issues at that practice which requires full commitment of the team and staff until after the luncheon time slot.......still, one of his minions could appear at the luncheon, I think.
Bamford spoke after Bell. Immediately dodged anything substantive about conference affiliation.
Talked about pairing with UConn in any future move. He complained about scheduling the marquee sports with teams in New England and their (BC!) reluctance play UMass. He envisions a sort of New England region identity for most sports.....at least that's what I got out of it....

Going to make my prediction of a 60% chance the MAC will add a UConn-UMass combo if everything else remains static. It only slightly benefits the MAC so it really is a 50-50. Probably 75% considering CUSA or the MAC.

The negatives:

1. Not fully committed to the MAC
2. Slight travel and costs.
3. Both additions are bad after leaving the AAC or being FBS. Note: UMass was very good for 5 decades from the 60's through the 00's.
   

The positives.

1. Two teams as committed tot he MAC as full time members. No flight risk of using and moving on.
2. True built in rivalry. It was bogusly said that UMass and Temple were rivals. The truth is we NEVER, let me repeat this, NEVER played Temple in football before the MAC affiliation. UMass and UConn have played 75 times with UMass slightly leading the all time series 38-35-2.
3. Slight media bump with a true rivalry game and two populated adjunct states.
4. OOC help with BB scheduling, especially good home games with UConn and UMass.
5. Slight increase in MAC perception of a Great Lakes conference.
6. Both universities are flagships and highly rated public research universities, top 30.
   

(10-14-2021 01:57 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Posted this on the MAC board and realize the UConn fans say prefer to play 4-6 P5 teams, but when they realize the pool of available coaches shrink when you have no conference affiliation and post season as a Championship game and bowl bid.

FYI from yesterday's sports luncheon, only one poster commented and based on the AD comment pairing with UConn it sounds like hoping for a FB only move. Not what you guys like hearing.

Quote:I was at yesterday's luncheon and Bell took great pains (his boss was present!) to explain that his team is a "morning" team...after practice in the morning, the team immediately goes into meeting/film room to discuss the issues at that practice which requires full commitment of the team and staff until after the luncheon time slot.......still, one of his minions could appear at the luncheon, I think.
Bamford spoke after Bell. Immediately dodged anything substantive about conference affiliation.
Talked about pairing with UConn in any future move. He complained about scheduling the marquee sports with teams in New England and their (BC!) reluctance play UMass. He envisions a sort of New England region identity for most sports.....at least that's what I got out of it....

Going to make my prediction of a 60% chance the MAC will add a UConn-UMass combo if everything else remains static. It only slightly benefits the MAC so it really is a 50-50. Probably 75% considering CUSA or the MAC.

The negatives:

1. Not fully committed to the MAC
2. Slight travel and costs.
3. Both additions are bad after leaving the AAC or being FBS. Note: UMass was very good for 5 decades from the 60's through the 00's.
   

The positives.

1. Two teams as committed tot he MAC as full time members. No flight risk of using and moving on.
2. True built in rivalry. It was bogusly said that UMass and Temple were rivals. The truth is we NEVER, let me repeat this, NEVER played Temple in football before the MAC affiliation. UMass and UConn have played 75 times with UMass slightly leading the all time series 38-35-2.
3. Slight media bump with a true rivalry game and two populated adjunct states.
4. OOC help with BB scheduling, especially good home games with UConn and UMass.
5. Slight increase in MAC perception of a Great Lakes conference.
6. Both universities are flagships and highly rated public research universities, top 30.
   

UConn is not joining the MAC. We want to play 4-6 P5 schools a year + Army. We can't do that in any G5 conference.