(01-25-2014 10:50 AM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 09:39 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

Typical delusional UMASS fan.

Here is an article from the Boston Globe in 2010 that LastMinuteman must not be familiar with:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/hig...ding_more/

A Few Quotes:

- "UConn has flourished thanks to the $1.1 billion the state of Connecticut has poured into new classrooms, labs, dorms, and other facilities at its flagship campus in Storrs in the past 15 years, with another billion in the pipeline. In the same period, UMass Amherst received only $145.3 million from the state for buildings, university officials said."

Have you got anything besides the usual Boston Globe hatchet pieces?

UMass has it's own $1.1 billion plan, reported with far less glee.

UConn has its $30 million basketball training facility going up.
UMass has its $30 million basketball training facility going up.

UConn shared a football conference with UMass and the Rhode Islands, New Hampshires and Maines you look down your nose at for 70 years, and every single one of them made the tournament before UConn.

The point of divergence was the invitations to the Atlantic 10 vs. the Big East in the late 70s, and ESPN setting up in UConn's backyard at the exact same time. You are out of your mind if you think things don't work out differently if we swap your Sacred Heart and Fairfield for our Boston College and Holy Cross (no Big East invite for you), and ESPN sets up shop 25 miles north. Let's see you hold your coaches with A10 money. Let's see your ne'er-do-well football program get a FBS invite without a Big East affiliation, even if Bob Kraft still hands you a stadium by pulling out of the Hartford deal. The amount of good fortune involved is beyond frustrating. You didn't even have the decency to get your Final Four vacated with us, since you couldn't be bothered to make the Final Four that year even as a #1 seed, and now nobody even remembers it. You made one good move hiring Calhoun. You made one bad move ticking off the ACC. The rest seems to be happenstance.

I'm glad to see you're finally trying to follow the UCONN model.

"Have you got anything besides the usual Boston Globe hatchet pieces?"

That right there proves one of my points. The Boston Globe is Massachusetts' top newspaper. It's not like I pulled something from the Hartford Courant. This just goes to show lack of state support for its flagship university. UMASS was complacent with the status quo and never did anything to elevate itself as a university or athletic program. When they had all their basketball success in the 90s, they should've applied that success to the rest of UMASS.

The faculty issue was never an issue. There's one guy beating the drum. He'll continue to beat the drum, and the Boston Globe will give him two articles per year. That's it. We hire edgy professors at UMass, but they've still never passed a vote to make even a non-binding suggestion to the chancellor. What happened down at Rutgers was worse, and that still never got anywhere. It's just a reality of college sports in the north, where football isn't king, it's the devil. We've got $35 million invested now in new football facilities, with more on the way. There's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

HuskyU, Boston Globe has always been a mouthpiece against UMass. Because of you guys, I have at least seen three articles on UMass in the last couple weeks from Globe.

UMass doesn't necessarily need a on campus stadium. They have Gillette. But they have to win.

(01-25-2014 11:15 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  That right there proves one of my points. The Boston Globe is Massachusetts' top newspaper. It's not like I pulled something from the Hartford Courant. This just goes to show lack of state support for its flagship university.

UMass doesn't have the support of Boston's largest newspaper, that's certainly undeniable.
Hopefully this newfangled print media concept doesn't catch on.

(01-24-2014 04:17 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  
Do we really need to add a basketball only?

Hell no, and I don't want to.

(01-25-2014 11:24 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  HuskyU, Boston Globe has always been a mouthpiece against UMass. Because of you guys, I have at least seen three articles on UMass in the last couple weeks from Globe.

UMass doesn't necessarily need a on campus stadium. They have Gillette. But they have to win.

I know the Boston Globe does not care for UMASS, but Massachusetts in general does not give the university the support it needs. It's almost treated like the stepchild they never wanted. This isn't the fault of UMASS, but it's played a large role in their development (academically and athletically).

The problem with Gillette is that it's too far from the UMASS campus. Honestly, I'd like to see UMASS be successful as it would help with the view on college sports in New England. For UMASS to build themselves back up, they need more than a good basketball coach and conference affiliation. They need the state to step up its support. Everything is so concentrated on Boston (both colleges and pro teams), and unfortunately, UMASS is too far to get the same kind of attention (whether it be good media or financial support).

(01-25-2014 11:24 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  HuskyU, Boston Globe has always been a mouthpiece against UMass. Because of you guys, I have at least seen three articles on UMass in the last couple weeks from Globe.

UMass doesn't necessarily need a on campus stadium. They have Gillette. But they have to win.

You realize that Gillette is a nearly two hour drive from campus right?

Would you say that USF doesn't need a place on campus because they have the Citrus Bowl in Orlando? Because that is 30 minutes closer to USF's campus in Tampa than Gillette is to UMass-Amherst.

(01-25-2014 09:42 AM)RedRocker Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 08:47 AM)Downtown Shocker Brown Wrote:  In Kansas, its K-State football. Even the "diehard" KU basketball fans are K-state FB fans because KU has sucked so bad for so long (save one Orange Bowl).

Wichita State still has a lot of fans who remember watching them play football when they were a kid. The plane crash in '70 really put our program on a spiral downhill we never recovered from. We dropped it in 1986. They want teams to root for that are not KSU or KU.

Any talk of reviving WSU football? I remember UC and WSU playing when I was a kid. WSU would be a good add and if FB came along at some point, that would be good.

Lots of talk, but at this point the focus is raising the bar on the programs we have and expanding the student body. I believe once we hit 20k students, then it will become more feasible to help subsidize the program with student fees. We have a $23m dollar athletic budget. If we were to try to start FB now, there is no way we could pay Coach Marshall and Coach Butler and stay in the black.

(01-25-2014 11:37 AM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 11:24 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  HuskyU, Boston Globe has always been a mouthpiece against UMass. Because of you guys, I have at least seen three articles on UMass in the last couple weeks from Globe.

UMass doesn't necessarily need a on campus stadium. They have Gillette. But they have to win.

You realize that Gillette is a nearly two hour drive from campus right?

Would you say that USF doesn't need a place on campus because they have the Citrus Bowl in Orlando? Because that is 30 minutes closer to USF's campus in Tampa than Gillette is to UMass-Amherst.

Then they probably won't feel like a step child again in the heart of Boston. Citrus bowl is in Orlando. USF plays in Raymond James Stadium. If Tampa is two hours away from USF, I'd be willing to drive to a metro city just my opinion. It is always fun in the city!! Exposure!! Exposure!! UMass can definitely arrange some buses. Penn State took thousands student to MSG for NIT Final Four. Lots of ways around things, people!!

(01-25-2014 11:50 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 11:37 AM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 11:24 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  HuskyU, Boston Globe has always been a mouthpiece against UMass. Because of you guys, I have at least seen three articles on UMass in the last couple weeks from Globe.

UMass doesn't necessarily need a on campus stadium. They have Gillette. But they have to win.

You realize that Gillette is a nearly two hour drive from campus right?

Would you say that USF doesn't need a place on campus because they have the Citrus Bowl in Orlando? Because that is 30 minutes closer to USF's campus in Tampa than Gillette is to UMass-Amherst.

Then they probably won't feel like a step child again in the heart of Boston. Citrus bowl is in Orlando. USF plays in Raymond James Stadium. If Tampa is two hours away from USF, I'd be willing to drive to a metro city just my opinion. It is always fun in the city!! Exposure!! Exposure!! UMass can definitely arrange some buses. Penn State took thousands student to MSG for NIT Final Four. Lots of ways around things, people!!

1. Are you under the impression that Gillette is in the heart of Boston? It is 40 minutes outside of Boston. It's closer to Providence.

2. I'm well aware of where USF plays. Point is, if RJ Stadium didn't exist, and USF fans had to drive to Orlando to play in the Citrus Bowl, would you consider that an acceptable situation? Now add 30 minutes. Deltona or Sanford would be a better comparison for Foxborough.

3. Penn State traveled well to a post season title game in New York City once. How do you think they'd like to play their home games there?

You're way out on a limb here, its about to break. Even most UMass fans who want to grow the program have to know that Gillette is unacceptable.

We won't know what the real deal is until UMass puts a winning team in Gillette and sees the result. It's the weirdest arrangement in the NCAA, but consider that the demographics of UMass are that 80% of students are from in-state, and that the center of population in Massachusetts is about 15 miles north of Gillette Stadium. This is exactly where most UMass students and alums come from, safely inside the Boston DMA. The problem is, we took a lower subdivision product, moved it to the other side of the state, and played poorly, particularly on offense. That's a hard sell when you're trying to replace western Mass fans who resented the team moving with new eastern Mass fans. You've got to attract fans who previously weren't going to college football games on Saturday, in an era when fewer people are going out to see sporting events live. And then what they see is a whole lot of hanging on for dear life on defense, because the offense just went 3 & out again.

But all we know for now, is that a 1-11 team without a FBS history won't draw big crowds 100 miles off campus. And while that sounds like one of those needless "Scientists Discover That Men Like Big Boobs" studies, it's a process UMass has to go through. We would like a greater presence in Boston. Our conference mates would no doubt like us to have a greater presence in Boston. Playing football in Boston is one way to be in Boston. But we don't know if a modest 6-6 or 7-5 bowl team will bring in the Bostonians. Now is the time to find out. We've got the Gillette lease until 2017. It costs us nothing. If we're still drawing 15k for a 6-6 team, then we go back to campus and build the stadium we need without worrying whether we've wasted an opportunity. That also gives us a chance to wait and watch the conference realignment map a bit longer, so we know whether we're building a stadium for long term MAC membership or otherwise. It's much easier to make investments based on certainty rather than uncertainty. The same goes for conference expansion, which is why UMass wasn't invited to join the AAC over Tulsa.

(01-25-2014 12:44 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  We won't know what the real deal is until UMass puts a winning team in Gillette and sees the result. It's the weirdest arrangement in the NCAA, but consider that the demographics of UMass are that 80% of students are from in-state, and that the center of population in Massachusetts is about 15 miles north of Gillette Stadium. This is exactly where most UMass students and alums come from, safely inside the Boston DMA. The problem is, we took a lower subdivision product, moved it to the other side of the state, and played poorly, particularly on offense. That's a hard sell when you're trying to replace western Mass fans who resented the team moving with new eastern Mass fans. You've got to attract fans who previously weren't going to college football games on Saturday, in an era when fewer people are going out to see sporting events live. And then what they see is a whole lot of hanging on for dear life on defense, because the offense just went 3 & out again.

But all we know for now, is that a 1-11 team without a FBS history won't draw big crowds 100 miles off campus. And while that sounds like one of those needless "Scientists Discover That Men Like Big Boobs" studies, it's a process UMass has to go through. We would like a greater presence in Boston. Our conference mates would no doubt like us to have a greater presence in Boston. Playing football in Boston is one way to be in Boston. But we don't know if a modest 6-6 or 7-5 bowl team will bring in the Bostonians. Now is the time to find out. We've got the Gillette lease until 2017. It costs us nothing. If we're still drawing 15k for a 6-6 team, then we go back to campus and build the stadium we need without worrying whether we've wasted an opportunity. That also gives us a chance to wait and watch the conference realignment map a bit longer, so we know whether we're building a stadium for long term MAC membership or otherwise. It's much easier to make investments based on certainty rather than uncertainty. The same goes for conference expansion, which is why UMass wasn't invited to join the AAC over Tulsa.

You guys need to build a 25-30K on campus facility that is expandable. That works for the MAC of any other conference you guys might move to. If you want to play a game or two a year in Gillette that's fine---but nobody is going to take UMass seriously until they have a viable on-campus stadium. Your home stadium can't be 100 miles from campus. It just can't.

(01-25-2014 12:44 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  We won't know what the real deal is until UMass puts a winning team in Gillette and sees the result. It's the weirdest arrangement in the NCAA, but consider that the demographics of UMass are that 80% of students are from in-state, and that the center of population in Massachusetts is about 15 miles north of Gillette Stadium. This is exactly where most UMass students and alums come from, safely inside the Boston DMA. The problem is, we took a lower subdivision product, moved it to the other side of the state, and played poorly, particularly on offense. That's a hard sell when you're trying to replace western Mass fans who resented the team moving with new eastern Mass fans. You've got to attract fans who previously weren't going to college football games on Saturday, in an era when fewer people are going out to see sporting events live. And then what they see is a whole lot of hanging on for dear life on defense, because the offense just went 3 & out again.

But all we know for now, is that a 1-11 team without a FBS history won't draw big crowds 100 miles off campus. And while that sounds like one of those needless "Scientists Discover That Men Like Big Boobs" studies, it's a process UMass has to go through. We would like a greater presence in Boston. Our conference mates would no doubt like us to have a greater presence in Boston. Playing football in Boston is one way to be in Boston. But we don't know if a modest 6-6 or 7-5 bowl team will bring in the Bostonians. Now is the time to find out. We've got the Gillette lease until 2017. It costs us nothing. If we're still drawing 15k for a 6-6 team, then we go back to campus and build the stadium we need without worrying whether we've wasted an opportunity. That also gives us a chance to wait and watch the conference realignment map a bit longer, so we know whether we're building a stadium for long term MAC membership or otherwise. It's much easier to make investments based on certainty rather than uncertainty. The same goes for conference expansion, which is why UMass wasn't invited to join the AAC over Tulsa.

So UMass's stategy from many is to wait and see while others are trying to be really proactive.

Tulane is building a stadium. ECU hired a basketball coach. Tulsa has a stadium that was renovated 2007. ECU is trying to expand their stadium too.

Instead of closing the gap, UMass figured out they have to wait on their main reason of being left out----football!

(01-24-2014 05:28 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(01-24-2014 04:59 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The American is better off with NAVY than without. The midshipmen will be the most valuable property of the American once they're fully integrated into the media deal, which will benefit everyone.

I think Navy will be far, far from the most valuable property in the AAC.

Well obviously you haven't noticed that Navy's 4-game CBS football media deal is worth more to them each year than the American will be paying its members through the ESPN deal for all-sports. That doesn't include their small Patriot league payout, or their tier 3 IMG contract either. Navy has the most valuable media contract in the American. Luckily for the American, they will benefit from Navy's conference road games 2015-17 without having to pay Navy a media cent... in 2018 the American media deal will receive a bump for Navy inclusion - excluding the Army-Navy game - which will likely be retained separately unless the media deals increases to over 3.5 million a year per member... as the Big East promised Navy revenue neutrality - they wouldn't lose money on joining.

(01-24-2014 06:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If Im looking at adding a non-football school---its UMass or VCU. You really cant go too wrong adding a state flagship.

The problem with these UMASS olympic sport member suggestions is... the American CANNOT add UMass olympic sports without adding UMass football.

1) A school can be an olympic sports member of a conference sponsoring FBS football and play football in an FCS football conference;
2) A school can be an olympic sports member of a conference not sponsoring FBS football and have their football in a conference sponsoring FBS football;
3) A school CANNOT have their olympic sports in a conference sponsoring FBS football and have their football in another conference also sponsoring FBS football.

Said with examples...
1) olympics in American, football in CAA <Allowed>
2) olympics in A-10, football in MAC (UMass current situation) <Allowed>
3) olympics in American, football in MAC <Not Allowed>

(01-25-2014 02:19 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(01-24-2014 05:28 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(01-24-2014 04:59 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  The American is better off with NAVY than without. The midshipmen will be the most valuable property of the American once they're fully integrated into the media deal, which will benefit everyone.

I think Navy will be far, far from the most valuable property in the AAC.

Well obviously you haven't noticed that Navy's 4-game CBS football media deal is worth more to them each year than the American will be paying its members through the ESPN deal for all-sports. That doesn't include their small Patriot league payout, or their tier 3 IMG contract either. Navy has the most valuable media contract in the American. Luckily for the American, they will benefit from Navy's conference road games 2015-17 without having to pay Navy a media cent... in 2018 the American media deal will receive a bump for Navy inclusion - excluding the Army-Navy game - which will likely be retained separately unless the media deals increases to over 3.5 million a year per member... as the Big East promised Navy revenue neutrality - they wouldn't lose money on joining.

(01-24-2014 06:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If Im looking at adding a non-football school---its UMass or VCU. You really cant go too wrong adding a state flagship.

The problem with these UMASS olympic sport member suggestions is... the American CANNOT add UMass olympic sports without adding UMass football.

1) A school can be an olympic sports member of a conference sponsoring FBS football and play football in an FCS football conference;
2) A school can be an olympic sports member of a conference not sponsoring FBS football and have their football in a conference sponsoring FBS football;
3) A school CANNOT have their olympic sports in a conference sponsoring FBS football and have their football in another conference also sponsoring FBS football.

Said with examples...
1) olympics in American, football in CAA <Allowed>
2) olympics in A-10, football in MAC (UMass current situation) <Allowed>
3) olympics in American, football in MAC <Not Allowed>

This is false. There is no such NCAA rule. Some FBS conferences forbid it (the MW for instance), but there is no NCAA rule against it. In 2011, after joining the Big East as a football only member, Boise and the WAC announced an agreement for Boise to join the WAC (a FBS conference at that time) as a NON-football member. The link to the official WAC announcement is below.

http://www.wacsports.com/ViewArticle.dbm...=205343809

(01-25-2014 12:44 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  We won't know what the real deal is until UMass puts a winning team in Gillette and sees the result. It's the weirdest arrangement in the NCAA, but consider that the demographics of UMass are that 80% of students are from in-state, and that the center of population in Massachusetts is about 15 miles north of Gillette Stadium. This is exactly where most UMass students and alums come from, safely inside the Boston DMA. The problem is, we took a lower subdivision product, moved it to the other side of the state, and played poorly, particularly on offense. That's a hard sell when you're trying to replace western Mass fans who resented the team moving with new eastern Mass fans. You've got to attract fans who previously weren't going to college football games on Saturday, in an era when fewer people are going out to see sporting events live. And then what they see is a whole lot of hanging on for dear life on defense, because the offense just went 3 & out again.

But all we know for now, is that a 1-11 team without a FBS history won't draw big crowds 100 miles off campus. And while that sounds like one of those needless "Scientists Discover That Men Like Big Boobs" studies, it's a process UMass has to go through. We would like a greater presence in Boston. Our conference mates would no doubt like us to have a greater presence in Boston. Playing football in Boston is one way to be in Boston. But we don't know if a modest 6-6 or 7-5 bowl team will bring in the Bostonians. Now is the time to find out. We've got the Gillette lease until 2017. It costs us nothing. If we're still drawing 15k for a 6-6 team, then we go back to campus and build the stadium we need without worrying whether we've wasted an opportunity. That also gives us a chance to wait and watch the conference realignment map a bit longer, so we know whether we're building a stadium for long term MAC membership or otherwise. It's much easier to make investments based on certainty rather than uncertainty. The same goes for conference expansion, which is why UMass wasn't invited to join the AAC over Tulsa.

You're moving too slowly, which is the point. You're going to wait until you have a winning season at Gillette before you start fundraising and investing in a 30-35k seat stadium on campus?

I just don't think that is what the AAC needs. Here's what works: Build the facility. Show the commitment. Then you get rewarded with results.

(01-25-2014 04:42 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 12:44 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  We won't know what the real deal is until UMass puts a winning team in Gillette and sees the result. It's the weirdest arrangement in the NCAA, but consider that the demographics of UMass are that 80% of students are from in-state, and that the center of population in Massachusetts is about 15 miles north of Gillette Stadium. This is exactly where most UMass students and alums come from, safely inside the Boston DMA. The problem is, we took a lower subdivision product, moved it to the other side of the state, and played poorly, particularly on offense. That's a hard sell when you're trying to replace western Mass fans who resented the team moving with new eastern Mass fans. You've got to attract fans who previously weren't going to college football games on Saturday, in an era when fewer people are going out to see sporting events live. And then what they see is a whole lot of hanging on for dear life on defense, because the offense just went 3 & out again.

But all we know for now, is that a 1-11 team without a FBS history won't draw big crowds 100 miles off campus. And while that sounds like one of those needless "Scientists Discover That Men Like Big Boobs" studies, it's a process UMass has to go through. We would like a greater presence in Boston. Our conference mates would no doubt like us to have a greater presence in Boston. Playing football in Boston is one way to be in Boston. But we don't know if a modest 6-6 or 7-5 bowl team will bring in the Bostonians. Now is the time to find out. We've got the Gillette lease until 2017. It costs us nothing. If we're still drawing 15k for a 6-6 team, then we go back to campus and build the stadium we need without worrying whether we've wasted an opportunity. That also gives us a chance to wait and watch the conference realignment map a bit longer, so we know whether we're building a stadium for long term MAC membership or otherwise. It's much easier to make investments based on certainty rather than uncertainty. The same goes for conference expansion, which is why UMass wasn't invited to join the AAC over Tulsa.

You're moving too slowly, which is the point. You're going to wait until you have a winning season at Gillette before you start fundraising and investing in a 30-35k seat stadium on campus?

I just don't think that is what the AAC needs. Here's what works: Build the facility. Show the commitment. Then you get rewarded with results.

Exactly. You will need at least a 25-30K expandable stadium even if UMass wants to be successful in the MAC. No reason not to get moving.

(01-25-2014 04:42 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(01-25-2014 12:44 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  We won't know what the real deal is until UMass puts a winning team in Gillette and sees the result. It's the weirdest arrangement in the NCAA, but consider that the demographics of UMass are that 80% of students are from in-state, and that the center of population in Massachusetts is about 15 miles north of Gillette Stadium. This is exactly where most UMass students and alums come from, safely inside the Boston DMA. The problem is, we took a lower subdivision product, moved it to the other side of the state, and played poorly, particularly on offense. That's a hard sell when you're trying to replace western Mass fans who resented the team moving with new eastern Mass fans. You've got to attract fans who previously weren't going to college football games on Saturday, in an era when fewer people are going out to see sporting events live. And then what they see is a whole lot of hanging on for dear life on defense, because the offense just went 3 & out again.

But all we know for now, is that a 1-11 team without a FBS history won't draw big crowds 100 miles off campus. And while that sounds like one of those needless "Scientists Discover That Men Like Big Boobs" studies, it's a process UMass has to go through. We would like a greater presence in Boston. Our conference mates would no doubt like us to have a greater presence in Boston. Playing football in Boston is one way to be in Boston. But we don't know if a modest 6-6 or 7-5 bowl team will bring in the Bostonians. Now is the time to find out. We've got the Gillette lease until 2017. It costs us nothing. If we're still drawing 15k for a 6-6 team, then we go back to campus and build the stadium we need without worrying whether we've wasted an opportunity. That also gives us a chance to wait and watch the conference realignment map a bit longer, so we know whether we're building a stadium for long term MAC membership or otherwise. It's much easier to make investments based on certainty rather than uncertainty. The same goes for conference expansion, which is why UMass wasn't invited to join the AAC over Tulsa.

You're moving too slowly, which is the point. You're going to wait until you have a winning season at Gillette before you start fundraising and investing in a 30-35k seat stadium on campus?

I just don't think that is what the AAC needs. Here's what works: Build the facility. Show the commitment. Then you get rewarded with results.

They're renovating their on-campus 17,000 seat stadium, but they've decided to not add any additional seating, making them the smallest stadium in the MAC.

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

Again.....It's UMASS/the state of Massachusetts not looking toward the future...If you're going to renovate the stadium, why not add some additional seating (at least be on-par with your MAC conference members)?

yu mark my words umass will be in the aac all sports shortly

They could add Rice after winning Conference USA this past season.

East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, South Florida, Temple
West: Houston, Memphis, Navy, Rice, Southern Methodist, Tulane, Tulsa