(02-02-2013 01:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Rule should be enforced. If you can barely put 10k in the stands every week you don't deserve to be FBS. I played high school games in front of that many people.

The thing is, it's not strongly in anyone's interest that the rule be enforced. Powerful groups have an interest in enforcing entrance requirments, and in enforcing rules against more FBS conferences. But once a school has gotten a conference invite, no one really benefits from them being relegated.

Since voting (and now playoff money) is by conference, the power conferences don't care how many schools the MAC or SBC or C-USA has--8, 12, 20 makes no difference.

The vast majority of the lower-FBS schools don't want those rules enforced too tightly either, because the bell could toll for them someday with some bad decisions and some bad luck.

Think about it--if the MAC told UMass that between their attendance issues and Temple leaving, the MAC wasn't going to renew their agreement, who exactly would benefit? Were BC and UConn worried about competing with UMass? Doubtful.

Or let's say the NCAA grows a pair and issues UMass a notice that they've failed their transition period. Who does that help? Again, nobody. Who is now worried? The entire Sun Belt, because now their FCS callups might not make it if things go badly. Charlotte would be worried. ODU should be okay, they're well above the 15,000 in FCS, but I think they'd rather not have to worry.

And if that indicates that the NCAA is getting serious about enforcing the attendance requirement, the MAC, Sun Belt, most of C-USA and half of the Mountain West is now worried, and half of the Aresco League is at least concerned.

It's a crazy arrangement for the UMass fans to have to travel so many hours to get to and from games. Could see the occasional game in Boston, but most really need to be played on campus. If there is an iron clad four year agreement with Gillette they should try some new tactics to get butts in seats, but would be better to find a way to improve on campus stadium and end that deal, if possible.

(02-01-2013 08:48 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 05:17 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  As to the UMASS vote, while it may not be binding on the university, an administrator (i.e. President or Chancellor) can't keep disregarding their recommendation without attracting the attention of the people who fund the University....the Legislature.

It was a completely non-binding recommendation by 18 of the most liberal activist faculty at UMass, and it didn't even pass. There are 1,121 faculty members at UMass, not including all the part-timers, most of whom just want to do their jobs. If you'd been at this event, you'd have seen how mickey mouse it was. It was a clear example of starting with a conclusion ("we hate football culture") and groping for a justification. They have no clue about NCAA rules (someone thought we could move football to Division 3), no clue about the differences between FBS and FCS except a vague notion that FCS is less expensive, and no sense of perspective on what things cost. We're spending almost twice as much on a new basketball training facility as we are on the football training facility, yet they've locked on to the football facility as the problem. When they couldn't come up with a coherent financial argument, they moved the goal line and decided that concussions were the reason they hated football, and we needed to spend the football money on an institute to study concussions. UMass has been playing football for 130 years, quite a bit of it without helmets. Certain members of the faculty ought to try it.

(02-01-2013 05:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 05:41 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Playing off campus was a HORRIBLE idea.

It was a worthwhile experiment for UMass. If I have the story right, they can't use their stadium during the construction period.
Plus their alumni are all in the Boston metro area.
Plus, the theory that you can open the stadium doors, yell "football!" and fill 25,000 seats.

But it failed.

It fell short of expectations for a single, non-postseason-eligible, 1-11 transitional season. UMass played only 5 home games, two of which were in late November at the end of a depressing season, and 1 of which was on Black Friday, which was an attendance disaster across the MAC. The article which points out that average UMass attendance was higher the season prior to moving to Gillette fails to point out that it was only higher if you included the one game we played at Gillette that year that drew 25k. It also doesn't take into account ticket prices, which were pegged to Temple's rates and became the highest in the MAC when Temple left. They were more than double our old rates. So even if attendance remained exactly the same, we brought in twice as much ticket revenue. Why does the NCAA even care what its members' average attendance is if it doesn't care whether you charge $1 or $1000 per ticket? It's irrelevant.

I swear, UMass needs a full time internet PR firm. Can we at least fix the subject line to this thread? It's not even close to an accurate reflection of what happened. It describes what happened at Temple, when the trustees came within 1 vote of moving the team to FCS when Temple was an independent. THAT vote mattered. This was 1% of the UMass faculty failing at passing a non-binding recommendation to a chancellor who has already rejected it.

^
This.

(02-02-2013 08:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  It's a crazy arrangement for the UMass fans to have to travel so many hours to get to and from games. Could see the occasional game in Boston, but most really need to be played on campus. If there is an iron clad four year agreement with Gillette they should try some new tactics to get butts in seats, but would be better to find a way to improve on campus stadium and end that deal, if possible.

It's a 5 year contract with 1 or 2 games back on campus for 2014-2016. The issue being the training facilities and press box was unacceptable to the MAC. Hence the photos of the new training facilities and press box. The new training facilities are being done right and Coach Molnar had a lot of input.

Here is podcast from MAC Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher and covers the above topic along with conference realignment, which is the forum topic.
Podcast Conference Realignment

(02-02-2013 01:40 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I played high school games in front of that many people.

Wow you must be very proud

Something I have to say--I thought that the MAC had the option to dump UMass on the street with 2 years notice. That's not true--MAC has the option to end the football-only arrangement with 2 years notice, but UMass would have the opportunity to join the MAC as a full member. It wouldn't force UMass out of FBS. They're in FBS as long as they want to be.

(02-02-2013 08:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  It's a crazy arrangement for the UMass fans to have to travel so many hours to get to and from games. Could see the occasional game in Boston, but most really need to be played on campus. If there is an iron clad four year agreement with Gillette they should try some new tactics to get butts in seats, but would be better to find a way to improve on campus stadium and end that deal, if possible.

You know what's even worse? All that travel to an area in the boonies SW of Beantown for games that put everyone to sleep. At least UMass drew crowds with familiar opponents that could bring fans in from nearby. Rhode Island, Maine, et al. I just don't see this happening with the ever present EMU fanbase, but i could be wrong.

(02-02-2013 09:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I have to say--I thought that the MAC had the option to dump UMass on the street with 2 years notice. That's not true--MAC has the option to end the football-only arrangement with 2 years notice, but UMass would have the opportunity to join the MAC as a full member. It wouldn't force UMass out of FBS. They're in FBS as long as they want to be.

I dunno. Going by that, UMass would have to be pretty desperate to drop from the A10 in at least bouncyball to the MAC in all sports.

(02-02-2013 08:39 PM)AllPtsBulletin Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 08:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  It's a crazy arrangement for the UMass fans to have to travel so many hours to get to and from games. Could see the occasional game in Boston, but most really need to be played on campus. If there is an iron clad four year agreement with Gillette they should try some new tactics to get butts in seats, but would be better to find a way to improve on campus stadium and end that deal, if possible.

You know what's even worse? All that travel to an area in the boonies SW of Beantown for games that put everyone to sleep. At least UMass drew crowds with familiar opponents that could bring fans in from nearby. Rhode Island, Maine, et al. I just don't see this happening with the ever present EMU fanbase, but i could be wrong.

(02-02-2013 09:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I have to say--I thought that the MAC had the option to dump UMass on the street with 2 years notice. That's not true--MAC has the option to end the football-only arrangement with 2 years notice, but UMass would have the opportunity to join the MAC as a full member. It wouldn't force UMass out of FBS. They're in FBS as long as they want to be.

I dunno. Going by that, UMass would have to be pretty desperate to drop from the A10 in at least bouncyball to the MAC in all sports.

If the C7 strips all the schools that don't play in a HS gym out of the A10, they may be that desperate.

(02-01-2013 05:17 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 02:47 PM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(02-01-2013 02:05 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  The whole thing is being overblown, the vote was from the faculty, who can only give a recommendation. Even if it passed, they have no power to bring them down to FCS again.

Sorry folks, but you might get a 50-50 split on a faculty vote to drop football at half the Power 5, Big East, MWC, Conference USA, MAC, Sunbelt, etc. conferences . . . faculties are notorious for this kind of nonsense . . . UMass isn't going anywhere anytime soon . . . and for people who don't see UMass as the an program that the Big East very much needs to succeed, you simply do not understand the future of the conference your school is in, the future of college sports in general, college TV contracts/programming, etc. . . UMass may not be the right choice now, but if you think the Big East can thrive in the next decade with the likes of Tulsa, USM, Marshall, etc. then you are sadly mistaken . . .

Sorry Coug, but you are wrong about that estimate as it relates to the schools in the South. Hell, the Interim AD at Southern Miss got an overwhelming vote of confidence from the Faculty Senate for his changes in the Department and was identified as their choice for the permanent position.

As to the UMASS vote, while it may not be binding on the university, an administrator (i.e. President or Chancellor) can't keep disregarding their recommendation without attracting the attention of the people who fund the University....the Legislature.

. . . believe what you want, but I've been in and around universities for more than 30 years, and even Southern Miss is just another bad season or two, and a tenured Gender Studies professor trying to make a name for herself, away from full-fledged on-campus power struggle . . . it's not uncommon for a faculty to attaack an athletic department as the first step to challenge a university president they want to get rid of . . . I've seen it all over the country in the most unlikely of places . . . it's just rarely reported by the main-streamed press or even the campus paper . . .

(02-02-2013 08:39 PM)AllPtsBulletin Wrote:  

(02-02-2013 08:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  It's a crazy arrangement for the UMass fans to have to travel so many hours to get to and from games. Could see the occasional game in Boston, but most really need to be played on campus. If there is an iron clad four year agreement with Gillette they should try some new tactics to get butts in seats, but would be better to find a way to improve on campus stadium and end that deal, if possible.

You know what's even worse? All that travel to an area in the boonies SW of Beantown for games that put everyone to sleep. At least UMass drew crowds with familiar opponents that could bring fans in from nearby. Rhode Island, Maine, et al. I just don't see this happening with the ever present EMU fanbase, but i could be wrong.

(02-02-2013 09:54 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Something I have to say--I thought that the MAC had the option to dump UMass on the street with 2 years notice. That's not true--MAC has the option to end the football-only arrangement with 2 years notice, but UMass would have the opportunity to join the MAC as a full member. It wouldn't force UMass out of FBS. They're in FBS as long as they want to be.

I dunno. Going by that, UMass would have to be pretty desperate to drop from the A10 in at least bouncyball to the MAC in all sports.

you're over estimating the number of fans that travel from Maine Holy Cross or URI. UNH was the only fans you'd ever see and it wasn't that many. FCS football is like trying to get people to go to minor league hockey it's not the highest level. Hell, there were plenty of students that tailgates then went back to their apartments or dorms to watch the best games in the B1G or SEC.

And you wonder why some realignment has taken place--its because all these hangers on to FBS conference that aren't winning of filling their stadiums drag down conference RPI, SOS, and Image.

While other schools that can draw solid 35+ get stuck.

But, hey, if you are in a media market....

(02-03-2013 12:53 AM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  And you wonder why some realignment has taken place--its because all these hangers on to FBS conference that aren't winning of filling their stadiums drag down conference RPI, SOS, and Image.

While other schools that can draw solid 35+ get stuck.

But, hey, if you are in a media market....

Hey back to you. Hangers are old dead wood. This is our first transitional year. You're just bitter that until recently, your basketball team kept you out of the Big East along with TV market. Don't think you'll renew the basketball series with us, since you lost both games.

(02-01-2013 06:16 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Interestingly, the McGuirk Stadium improvements don't include increasing capacity. It will still only seat 17,000.

http://maroonmusket.com/2012/10/no-expan...i-stadium/

Still, that's more than Idaho's Kibbie Dome.

Surprised when I read this article. Thought the improvements included expanded seating to play more home games there and play big name games at Gillette when the improvements were completed. Thought the seating was to to go to at least 25k which would suffice for MAC games and a Div. 1 AA game every year. That would be a good start for UMass at the Division 1 level and keep UMass on the BE expansion radar for the future. Right now they could play all of their home games there with their current attendance figures and still not sell out. As the UMass program grows in the MAC hopefully their attendance will grow too with the improvements and success. As of now a 17k stadium would be a tough sell to the BE for football though I doubt USF, UCF, Memphis, SMU, Houston, Tulane, Cinn, and ECU would bring many fans to a UMass home game just because of the distance, so maybe a 17k stadium would in the short run. The schools that would have the potential for bringing fans would be UConn, Navy and maybe Temple with Navy being the major player. Temple doesn't travel well and UConn would be gone for the UMass to be considered to try and anchor the NE market for TV. Believe UMass will be in the MAC for many years to come and they should start working on ARMY for FB only to for a close neighbor and give the MAC a stronger Middle Atlantic / North East / New England presence.

(02-03-2013 10:24 AM)panite Wrote:  Surprised when I read this article. Thought the improvements included expanded seating to play more home games there and play big name games at Gillette when the improvements were completed. Thought the seating was to to go to at least 25k which would suffice for MAC games and a Div. 1 AA game every year.

UMass has the expansion to 26k designed, but Plan A is to make things work at Gillette. If Gillette doesn't sell, or the Krafts don't give UMass as favorable terms when it comes time to renew the lease, Plan B is to modestly expand McGuirk with 9000 more seats and improved concessions and bathrooms. In the meantime, no reason to rush to a decision when we have 5 more years on the Gillette lease. We're taking advantage of the opportunity to experiment.

I wish the MAC added James Madison instead of UMass with this stadium issue but JMU's administration wasn't prepared to jump to FBS a couple of years ago.

Had the MAC been looking at finding a 14th to match JMU they could have just added Appalachian State as a 14th and been done with it.

Now the MAC is stuck with this school in Massachusetts (a very poor football recruiting state) playing 93 miles off campus and doesn't pair that well with other FCS upgrades (Delaware is an OK pairing).

James Madison by contrast pairs well with Delaware as a Mid Atlantic school, pairs well with Appalachian State as a Southern school and pairs well with the MAC in general as a small market but statewide residential campus.

UMass would be OK in the MAC with a 26k seater on campus. The present UMass stadium situation can only be described as crappy.

(02-03-2013 11:40 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  I wish the MAC added James Madison instead of UMass with this stadium issue but JMU's administration wasn't prepared to jump to FBS a couple of years ago.

James Madison by contrast pairs well with Delaware as a Mid Atlantic school, pairs well with Appalachian State as a Southern school and pairs well with the MAC in general as a small market but statewide residential campus.

UMass would be OK in the MAC with a 26k seater on campus. The present UMass stadium situation can only be described as crappy.

Don't try to re-write history. We were paired with Temple. How can you forget? For the record, Indiana brought more fans than any MAC University.