(10-26-2023 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Part of UMass's issue is that the fans of each sport are not in alignment.

The football fans want to join the MAC in all sports.

The basketball fans (and, frankly, every other sport) want to stay in the A-10.

The hockey fans are all set, Hockey East isn't going away.

At this point, it's pretty clear that the football contingent doesn't have the upper hand and isn't driving the bus.

That's the problem. Every other FCS transitional school prioritized the main moneymaker: football!

Why UMass is holding onto the A10 doesn't make any sense from my perspective. Well, I mean I see what they're trying to do: tread water until they receive an all-sports invite from the AAC. It seems the administration is AAC or bust. Instead, they should be focused on climbing the Great Totem Poll of Realignment via joining an all-sports conference and working their way up. This is the proven model.

We have a new Chancellor now, as of this year. He has a history at schools that prioritize football (albeit at the P5 level) and might have different viewpoints on the matter: https://www.umass.edu/chancellor/about/m...chancellor

Received his doctorate from Texas A&M
Worked in leadership positions at WVU and the University of Arkansas.

(10-26-2023 09:32 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:41 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Part of UMass's issue is that the fans of each sport are not in alignment.

The football fans want to join the MAC in all sports.

The basketball fans (and, frankly, every other sport) want to stay in the A-10.

The hockey fans are all set, Hockey East isn't going away.

At this point, it's pretty clear that the football contingent doesn't have the upper hand and isn't driving the bus.

You don't know UMass and basketball fans are starting to realize the A10 has issues. There is only 1 women's sport that is significantly lower in the MAC. Moving men's lacrosse and possible soccer to the Big East would be an upgrade,

That's not what I hear from UMass basketball fans I know, who generally say things like "I don't give two [expletives] about Ball State" and "I will never donate to the university again if we join that [expletive] conference"

Which is wild considering they play what, 8 home games vs conference foes? That's easily replaceable with other programs of local interest. Which teams do they care so much about?

Rhode Island - granted

Dayton? Ah, an Ohio school

St. Louis? Ah, a very far away school

VCU? Oh, a Southern school?

St. Joe's, LaSalle? Duquesne? Hmm, Mid-Atlantic Catholic schools?

Do these fans still think it's 1994-1996? lol

(10-26-2023 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Part of UMass's issue is that the fans of each sport are not in alignment.

The football fans want to join the MAC in all sports.

The basketball fans (and, frankly, every other sport) want to stay in the A-10.

The hockey fans are all set, Hockey East isn't going away.

At this point, it's pretty clear that the football contingent doesn't have the upper hand and isn't driving the bus.

That's the problem. Every other FCS transitional school prioritized the main moneymaker: football!

Why UMass is holding onto the A10 doesn't make any sense from my perspective. Well, I mean I see what they're trying to do: tread water until they receive an all-sports invite from the AAC. It seems the administration is AAC or bust. Instead, they should be focused on climbing the Great Totem Poll of Realignment via joining an all-sports conference and working their way up. This is the proven model.

Has to be the AD, the old chancellor is gone and don't know why Marty Meehan would not want to be playing Delaware. The AD did play basketball at a smallish private school. Probably still looks up to the A10, but he is the Athletic Directory and should be looking at the big picture and not basketball. Did check some finances and in 2019, Football received 3X the donations as basketball.

We went to the NIT Final 4 in 2012, the NCAA in 2014 and then he became the AD. The best finish for UMass men's basketball has been 5th place, 2020-2021, now in the bottom third year in and year out. Hoping for the best as we are now paying Frank Martin 1.7M

* correct the year and added last sentence

(10-26-2023 10:37 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Part of UMass's issue is that the fans of each sport are not in alignment.

The football fans want to join the MAC in all sports.

The basketball fans (and, frankly, every other sport) want to stay in the A-10.

The hockey fans are all set, Hockey East isn't going away.

At this point, it's pretty clear that the football contingent doesn't have the upper hand and isn't driving the bus.

That's the problem. Every other FCS transitional school prioritized the main moneymaker: football!

Why UMass is holding onto the A10 doesn't make any sense from my perspective. Well, I mean I see what they're trying to do: tread water until they receive an all-sports invite from the AAC. It seems the administration is AAC or bust. Instead, they should be focused on climbing the Great Totem Poll of Realignment via joining an all-sports conference and working their way up. This is the proven model.

Has to be the AD, the old chancellor is gone and don't know why Marty Meehan would not want to be playing Delaware. The AD did play basketball at a smallish private school. Probably still looks up to the A10, but he is the Athletic Directory and should be looking at the big picture and not basketball. Did check some finances and in 2019, Football received 3X the donations as basketball.

We went to the NIT Final 4 in 2012, the NCAA in 2014 and then he became the AD. The best finish for UMass men's basketball has been 5th place, his first year, now in the bottom third year in and year out.

Was that former PG Derek Kellogg?

(10-26-2023 10:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:37 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Part of UMass's issue is that the fans of each sport are not in alignment.

The football fans want to join the MAC in all sports.

The basketball fans (and, frankly, every other sport) want to stay in the A-10.

The hockey fans are all set, Hockey East isn't going away.

At this point, it's pretty clear that the football contingent doesn't have the upper hand and isn't driving the bus.

That's the problem. Every other FCS transitional school prioritized the main moneymaker: football!

Why UMass is holding onto the A10 doesn't make any sense from my perspective. Well, I mean I see what they're trying to do: tread water until they receive an all-sports invite from the AAC. It seems the administration is AAC or bust. Instead, they should be focused on climbing the Great Totem Poll of Realignment via joining an all-sports conference and working their way up. This is the proven model.

Has to be the AD, the old chancellor is gone and don't know why Marty Meehan would not want to be playing Delaware. The AD did play basketball at a smallish private school. Probably still looks up to the A10, but he is the Athletic Directory and should be looking at the big picture and not basketball. Did check some finances and in 2019, Football received 3X the donations as basketball.

We went to the NIT Final 4 in 2012, the NCAA in 2014 and then he became the AD. The best finish for UMass men's basketball has been 5th place, his first year, now in the bottom third year in and year out.

Was that former PG Derek Kellogg?

Kellogg was the coach in Bamford's first year as AD, however we finished 6th in the conference that year. Our best finish was actually in the COVID season (2020-2021) where we finished in a tie for 4th place due to a bunch of cancellations. That was with Matt McCall.

(10-26-2023 10:48 AM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:39 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:37 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 10:28 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 08:27 AM)ccd494 Wrote:  Part of UMass's issue is that the fans of each sport are not in alignment.

The football fans want to join the MAC in all sports.

The basketball fans (and, frankly, every other sport) want to stay in the A-10.

The hockey fans are all set, Hockey East isn't going away.

At this point, it's pretty clear that the football contingent doesn't have the upper hand and isn't driving the bus.

That's the problem. Every other FCS transitional school prioritized the main moneymaker: football!

Why UMass is holding onto the A10 doesn't make any sense from my perspective. Well, I mean I see what they're trying to do: tread water until they receive an all-sports invite from the AAC. It seems the administration is AAC or bust. Instead, they should be focused on climbing the Great Totem Poll of Realignment via joining an all-sports conference and working their way up. This is the proven model.

Has to be the AD, the old chancellor is gone and don't know why Marty Meehan would not want to be playing Delaware. The AD did play basketball at a smallish private school. Probably still looks up to the A10, but he is the Athletic Directory and should be looking at the big picture and not basketball. Did check some finances and in 2019, Football received 3X the donations as basketball.

We went to the NIT Final 4 in 2012, the NCAA in 2014 and then he became the AD. The best finish for UMass men's basketball has been 5th place, his first year, now in the bottom third year in and year out.

Was that former PG Derek Kellogg?

Kellogg was the coach in Bamford's first year as AD, however we finished 6th in the conference that year. Our best finish was actually in the COVID season (2020-2021) where we finished in a tie for 4th place due to a bunch of cancellations. That was with Matt McCall.

IDK, from Bamford's profile page and yes , wrong about the year.

Quote:In 2020-21 the men's basketball program recorded its best finish in the Atlantic 10 (fifth place) since the 2007-08 team finished third.

https://umassathletics.com/staff-directo...amford/320

(10-25-2023 05:25 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 05:08 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Jax St got nice program, there #6 in Ala and people think there in Fla

They know the difference between “there” and “their”. And where is Temple supposed to be?

Both instances would be they're, actually.

(10-26-2023 10:18 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  To me, the answer would be for the MAC to invite UMass as a full member along with 3 of the best non-FCS A-10 schools in order to boost the MAC’s basketball brand. Then UConn for football only with a scheduling agreement for x games in men’s basketball.

The result is 16 all-sports/13+1 for football.

St Louis and Dayton make. Lot of sense if they can get them to buy into the vision.

This post will make Kit Cat swoon. I'm just not sure St. Louis and Dayton are going to buy into something like this. And if the three other schools are (hypothetically) Rhode Island (which is FCS but might be nurturing big dreams or be willing to leave its football where it is), Duquesne, and St. Bonaventure, how much has the MAC accomplished, really?

(10-25-2023 03:59 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  2) Join CUSA as FB only.

Why would you think this would be an option? Why would CUSA be interested in that?

(10-25-2023 07:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 05:33 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 05:08 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  with 7 schools, how on God's green earth did C-USA decline UMass
SHST located in 1 horse town
Jax St got nice program, there #6 in Ala and people think there in Fla
KSU sounds div1AA

C-USA had shot at ArkLR & Tex Arl
that's 8 FB, 9 BB, now you start chasing MVC schools

Wait, what?!?!?!

You think CUSA should have pursued UMass? Like, after we hit the bare minimum of 8 schools? The OP said this thread wasn't intended to dump on UMass, so I will leave it to you to make a case - but I don't see one. To me the question is "surely CUSA didn't really consider UMass, right?" much more than "how did they decline them," which I'm not sure is the right way to put it.

Football only doesn't help a conference that small. They needed full members in order to become somewhat stable.

Well, yeah - this for one thing. UTA/UALR/UMass - none of those would have been that helpful when we were down to 5.

Everything I am going to say below is a moot point, because Kennesaw was clearly a better add for CUSA than UMass, so it wasn't a line-ball call.

But while I might not put it as strongly as you, I would say that if it had been a line-ball call, you'd have to give the nod to Kennesaw anyway.

First, while I would say that when they were at 9 and had just signed a midweek in October media deal, 10 all-sports schools was not as urgent a need as "any 10th FB school" ... still, in a basketball environment where a Go5 program can struggle to fill out their OOC schedule, having a basketball round robin of 18 is indeed preferable to having a basketball round robin of 16.

And with 8 FB schools needed for FBS status, and 9 FB schools needed to have an eight game conference schedule, then taking the possibility of being hit by further conference realignment into account says that 10 all-sports schools is more prudent than a 10FB/9Olympic structure.

So to get the nod, UMass FB-only couldn't just be an equally good FB add ... it would have had to be a clearly superior one.

We got stuck with 10 teams, I'm still not convinced we really needed 10. But if we just had to have 10 () it would have been much more for other sports than for football.

(10-25-2023 04:55 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Why the MAC & C-USA don't take UMASS as FB only is beyond me

I'm still so baffled at this.

I had already replied to the thread and then saw this farther down than the post I had replied to and I just can't see why someone would think this? Not just "oh, they invited/didn't invite UMass" but actually like surprised we haven't? For FOOTBALL?

It's beyond me why this is beyond you.

UMass is fine as an independent. Leave them alone.

(10-26-2023 11:15 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 04:55 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Why the MAC & C-USA don't take UMASS as FB only is beyond me

I'm still so baffled at this.

I had already replied to the thread and then saw this farther down than the post I had replied to and I just can't see why someone would think this? Not just "oh, they invited/didn't invite UMass" but actually like surprised we haven't? For FOOTBALL?

It's beyond me why this is beyond you.

UMass is fine as an independent. Leave them alone.

I might not go as far as to say they are fine as an independent but if they want to go to the MAC and the MAC reciprocates interest then I believe it would be a better fit than C-USA. Can't have UMass taking Tarleton State's spot now can we?

(10-26-2023 11:17 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:15 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 04:55 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Why the MAC & C-USA don't take UMASS as FB only is beyond me

I'm still so baffled at this.

I had already replied to the thread and then saw this farther down than the post I had replied to and I just can't see why someone would think this? Not just "oh, they invited/didn't invite UMass" but actually like surprised we haven't? For FOOTBALL?

It's beyond me why this is beyond you.

UMass is fine as an independent. Leave them alone.

I might not go as far as to say they are fine as an independent but if they want to go to the MAC and the MAC reciprocates interest then I believe it would be a better fit than C-USA. Can't have UMass taking Tarleton State's spot now can we?

I don't get why the MAC would go for that for football only either, but in that case it's none of my business. MAC can do what they want, too.

I won't weigh in on whether UMass vs Tarrleton State would be my preference (because I guess I'd need to think about it first).

(10-26-2023 11:32 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:17 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:15 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 04:55 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Why the MAC & C-USA don't take UMASS as FB only is beyond me

I'm still so baffled at this.

I had already replied to the thread and then saw this farther down than the post I had replied to and I just can't see why someone would think this? Not just "oh, they invited/didn't invite UMass" but actually like surprised we haven't? For FOOTBALL?

It's beyond me why this is beyond you.

UMass is fine as an independent. Leave them alone.

I might not go as far as to say they are fine as an independent but if they want to go to the MAC and the MAC reciprocates interest then I believe it would be a better fit than C-USA. Can't have UMass taking Tarleton State's spot now can we?

I don't get why the MAC would go for that for football only either, but in that case it's none of my business. MAC can do what they want, too.

I won't weigh in on whether UMass vs Tarrleton State would be my preference (because I guess I'd need to think about it first).

If ESPN tells the MAC that UMass and UDel football only would add enough to the football media money, then the MAC will make the call.

I don't think they'll be told that. They might be told that adding them both all sports could move the needle though (it would be more along the lines of "if they're all in they're less likely to leave soon than if they're in football only" as opposed to the actual additional value of the non-football sports).

(10-26-2023 12:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:32 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:17 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:15 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 04:55 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Why the MAC & C-USA don't take UMASS as FB only is beyond me

I'm still so baffled at this.

I had already replied to the thread and then saw this farther down than the post I had replied to and I just can't see why someone would think this? Not just "oh, they invited/didn't invite UMass" but actually like surprised we haven't? For FOOTBALL?

It's beyond me why this is beyond you.

UMass is fine as an independent. Leave them alone.

I might not go as far as to say they are fine as an independent but if they want to go to the MAC and the MAC reciprocates interest then I believe it would be a better fit than C-USA. Can't have UMass taking Tarleton State's spot now can we?

I don't get why the MAC would go for that for football only either, but in that case it's none of my business. MAC can do what they want, too.

I won't weigh in on whether UMass vs Tarrleton State would be my preference (because I guess I'd need to think about it first).

If ESPN tells the MAC that UMass and UDel football only would add enough to the football media money, then the MAC will make the call.

I don't think they'll be told that. They might be told that adding them both all sports could move the needle though (it would be more along the lines of "if they're all in they're less likely to leave soon than if they're in football only" as opposed to the actual additional value of the non-football sports).

Football-only is a non-starter with UMass and Delaware. If the MAC decides to add both it will be for all sports.

Not sure who's the author of the commentary linked below or how recently it was published, but it's well written and on target.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/collegespor...=0.1#ampf=

(10-26-2023 08:15 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 12:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:32 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:17 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:15 AM)inutech Wrote:  I'm still so baffled at this.

I had already replied to the thread and then saw this farther down than the post I had replied to and I just can't see why someone would think this? Not just "oh, they invited/didn't invite UMass" but actually like surprised we haven't? For FOOTBALL?

It's beyond me why this is beyond you.

UMass is fine as an independent. Leave them alone.

I might not go as far as to say they are fine as an independent but if they want to go to the MAC and the MAC reciprocates interest then I believe it would be a better fit than C-USA. Can't have UMass taking Tarleton State's spot now can we?

I don't get why the MAC would go for that for football only either, but in that case it's none of my business. MAC can do what they want, too.

I won't weigh in on whether UMass vs Tarrleton State would be my preference (because I guess I'd need to think about it first).

If ESPN tells the MAC that UMass and UDel football only would add enough to the football media money, then the MAC will make the call.

I don't think they'll be told that. They might be told that adding them both all sports could move the needle though (it would be more along the lines of "if they're all in they're less likely to leave soon than if they're in football only" as opposed to the actual additional value of the non-football sports).

Football-only is a non-starter with UMass and Delaware. If the MAC decides to add both it will be for all sports.

Not sure who's the author of the commentary linked below or how recently it was published, but it's well written and on target.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/collegespor...=0.1#ampf=

Matt Peloquin lives in South America now and is a UMass guy and his UMassHoops screen name is Quinn and stated the separate "UMass to the MAC: Dedicated thread on UMassHoops.com football forum.
https://www.umasshoops.com/newboard/view...=2&t=17016

Sometimes when trying to convince the AD to go all sports MAC, feel like I'm just

Guessing he is a basketball guy looking out for his favorite sport and not what is best for UMass Athletics. From is bio page:

Quote:A 2000 graduate of Ithaca (N.Y.) College, Bamford was a standout basketball player for the Bombers. He left Ithaca as the school's single-season and career leader in 3-point field goals and third all-time in steals while finishing 13th on the career scoring list with more than 1,100 points.

(10-26-2023 12:35 PM)e-parade Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:32 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:17 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(10-26-2023 11:15 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(10-25-2023 04:55 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Why the MAC & C-USA don't take UMASS as FB only is beyond me

I'm still so baffled at this.

I had already replied to the thread and then saw this farther down than the post I had replied to and I just can't see why someone would think this? Not just "oh, they invited/didn't invite UMass" but actually like surprised we haven't? For FOOTBALL?

It's beyond me why this is beyond you.

UMass is fine as an independent. Leave them alone.

I might not go as far as to say they are fine as an independent but if they want to go to the MAC and the MAC reciprocates interest then I believe it would be a better fit than C-USA. Can't have UMass taking Tarleton State's spot now can we?

I don't get why the MAC would go for that for football only either, but in that case it's none of my business. MAC can do what they want, too.

I won't weigh in on whether UMass vs Tarrleton State would be my preference (because I guess I'd need to think about it first).

If ESPN tells the MAC that UMass and UDel football only would add enough to the football media money, then the MAC will make the call.

I don't think they'll be told that. They might be told that adding them both all sports could move the needle though (it would be more along the lines of "if they're all in they're less likely to leave soon than if they're in football only" as opposed to the actual additional value of the non-football sports).

Until the last part of your explanation, you threw me. I'm reasonably certain that I've never seen a MAC athletic event televised in my area that wasn't: (1) football; (2) a NCAA men's basketball tournament appearance involving a MAC school; or (3) the conference final of the MAC men's basketball tournament. And I live less than a 1 1/2 hour drive from a MAC school (Buffalo).

I love the MAC - it’s a fun tight-knit league that is a throwback to what college sports used to be.

However, anyone that thinks that the MAC and A-10 are in any way comparable in basketball (often pointing to the 1-bid that the A-10 received last year) is either being disingenuous or doesn’t understand the basketball landscape.

The A-10 is a consistent multi-bid major conference for basketball. That is not a small thing where the list of leagues that are consistently multi-bid leagues going forward are essentially the P4, Big East, A-10, MWC, AAC, and WCC (as long as Gonzaga is in the league). In contrast, the MAC is very firmly a quintessential one-bid midmajor conference.

So, what’s being asked of UMass is to trade major conference status in one revenue sport (basketball) in order to have G5 status in another sport (football) and clearly downgrading to midmajor status in basketball. This isn’t like if UMass went to say, the AAC where the A-10 is essentially a peer basketball conference with them. We’re talking about a clear downgrade in basketball *status* from major to midmajor (not merely just a weaker league). If we have learned anything about conference realignment, having top status means even more than money (as evidenced by the lower revenue shares all taken by Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, and SMU).

To those that say that UMass hasn’t been good in basketball, anyway… that’s exactly why they’re so reluctant to give up that major basketball status in the first place! That’s their best selling point for the program! It would be like the suggestions for Vandy to leave the SEC to win more football games or DePaul to leave the Big East - that’s the LAST thing that those programs want to do. If anything, conference status is the most important to the bottom of the league as opposed to the top of the league (where the brands would be successful anywhere).

In any event, it’s simply not a clear cut decision at all for UMass. To be sure, there will likely come a point where UMass ultimately has to do whatever it needs to do to sustain its FBS football program. I’m not saying that what UMass is doing is what’s best for them overall long-term. However, I don’t think this is anywhere close to a no-brainer decision. A clear straight up downgrade from major to midmajor status in basketball isn’t something to be taken likely and isn’t something any other school has really had to deal with in conference realignment over the past 25 years (where joining a football conference would be a straight up downgrade in basketball status beyond simply being a weaker basketball conference).

(10-26-2023 09:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I love the MAC - it’s a fun tight-knit league that is a throwback to what college sports used to be.

However, anyone that thinks that the MAC and A-10 are in any way comparable in basketball (often pointing to the 1-bid that the A-10 received last year) is either being disingenuous or doesn’t understand the basketball landscape.

The A-10 is a consistent multi-bid major conference for basketball. That is not a small thing where the list of leagues that are consistently multi-bid leagues going forward are essentially the P4, Big East, A-10, MWC, AAC, and WCC (as long as Gonzaga is in the league). In contrast, the MAC is very firmly a quintessential one-bid midmajor conference.

So, what’s being asked of UMass is to trade major conference status in one revenue sport (basketball) in order to have G5 status in another sport (football) and clearly downgrading to midmajor status in basketball. This isn’t like if UMass went to say, the AAC where the A-10 is essentially a peer basketball conference with them. We’re talking about a clear downgrade in basketball *status* from major to midmajor (not merely just a weaker league). If we have learned anything about conference realignment, having top status means even more than money (as evidenced by the lower revenue shares all taken by Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, and SMU).

To those that say that UMass hasn’t been good in basketball, anyway… that’s exactly why they’re so reluctant to give up that major basketball status in the first place! That’s their best selling point for the program! It would be like the suggestions for Vandy to leave the SEC to win more football games or DePaul to leave the Big East - that’s the LAST thing that those programs want to do. If anything, conference status is the most important to the bottom of the league as opposed to the top of the league (where the brands would be successful anywhere).

In any event, it’s simply not a clear cut decision at all for UMass. To be sure, there will likely come a point where UMass ultimately has to do whatever it needs to do to sustain its FBS football program. I’m not saying that what UMass is doing is what’s best for them overall long-term. However, I don’t think this is anywhere close to a no-brainer decision. A clear straight up downgrade from major to midmajor status in basketball isn’t something to be taken likely and isn’t something any other school has really had to deal with in conference realignment over the past 25 years (where joining a football conference would be a straight up downgrade in basketball status beyond simply being a weaker basketball conference).

Time will tell if the A10 can reverse the trend line lower. To me, major is a conference that receives 8 NCAA Credits or more a year. In the last 4 years the A10 has earned 2 NCAA Credits. Hardly a major. Also the A10 has been raided since the new Big East and is vulnerable to future raids. After the recruiting classes cycled through, the bids and NCAA Credits took a major hit.

Frank the Tank, the trend is not our friend.
2014 6 bids
2015 4 bids
2016 3 bids
2017 3 bids
2018 3 bids
--- Not screaming major by any stretch ----
2019 2 bids
2020 Covid
2021 2 bid
2022 2 bid
2023 1 bid

Three wins in the NCAA in the last 5 years, including a play-in game win.
If the A10 is raided, it is a mid major and no more status of a major. The MAC was multi bid and that status is harder and harder to accomplish and maintain.

(10-26-2023 09:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I love the MAC - it’s a fun tight-knit league that is a throwback to what college sports used to be.

However, anyone that thinks that the MAC and A-10 are in any way comparable in basketball (often pointing to the 1-bid that the A-10 received last year) is either being disingenuous or doesn’t understand the basketball landscape.

The A-10 is a consistent multi-bid major conference for basketball. That is not a small thing where the list of leagues that are consistently multi-bid leagues going forward are essentially the P4, Big East, A-10, MWC, AAC, and WCC (as long as Gonzaga is in the league). In contrast, the MAC is very firmly a quintessential one-bid midmajor conference.

So, what’s being asked of UMass is to trade major conference status in one revenue sport (basketball) in order to have G5 status in another sport (football) and clearly downgrading to midmajor status in basketball. This isn’t like if UMass went to say, the AAC where the A-10 is essentially a peer basketball conference with them. We’re talking about a clear downgrade in basketball *status* from major to midmajor (not merely just a weaker league). If we have learned anything about conference realignment, having top status means even more than money (as evidenced by the lower revenue shares all taken by Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, and SMU).

To those that say that UMass hasn’t been good in basketball, anyway… that’s exactly why they’re so reluctant to give up that major basketball status in the first place! That’s their best selling point for the program! It would be like the suggestions for Vandy to leave the SEC to win more football games or DePaul to leave the Big East - that’s the LAST thing that those programs want to do. If anything, conference status is the most important to the bottom of the league as opposed to the top of the league (where the brands would be successful anywhere).

In any event, it’s simply not a clear cut decision at all for UMass. To be sure, there will likely come a point where UMass ultimately has to do whatever it needs to do to sustain its FBS football program. I’m not saying that what UMass is doing is what’s best for them overall long-term. However, I don’t think this is anywhere close to a no-brainer decision. A clear straight up downgrade from major to midmajor status in basketball isn’t something to be taken likely and isn’t something any other school has really had to deal with in conference realignment over the past 25 years (where joining a football conference would be a straight up downgrade in basketball status beyond simply being a weaker basketball conference).

I think you are over-valuing the current A-10.