(03-26-2014 03:29 PM)HCJag Wrote:  UMass to the SBC? I'll believe that when I see it. We have absolutely nothing in common with them and I'm sure they'd be more than willing to agree. The Idaho and NMSU idea was nowhere near the stretch of the imagination that adding UMass would be. I also wonder why the MAC would want to expand to 14 when the magic number is 12. They have been stable up to this point so why feel the need?

UMass is 805 miles from Boone.
Idaho is 1455 miles from NMSU and 1922 from AState the closest full member to them.

UMass makes more sense than Idaho and is easier to fly to.

(03-26-2014 04:03 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:50 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:47 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  The scenario that seems off to me is that the MAC would want to add 2 to go to 14 and diminish their playoff money as well. If they wanted 14 why didn't they add someone already before UMASS ultimately said they were not willing to move thier olympics? I don't see the logic in that.

What if they had 2 additions all lined up who were willing to join for all sports?

Its an interesting though because the MAC had to know that UMass would reject an all sports invite.

This is going to take some time to work out I think. the big worry for JMU has to be, what if the SBC at some point decides to stop waiting on JMU, and then the MAC sits at 12?

As long as the MAC Had UMass JMU could effectively argue they had a chance to make 14. Now that they are gone...that argument is out the door, and it becomes can they pare with Delaware fast enough.

Not sure it would matter. The MAC wanted Temple badly enough to take them and add UMass to make an even number. They kind of got burned on that even though they made some money. Not so sure that puts their conference presidents into another expansion mentality so soon after. Especially now that it would lose each school some money. True, not a lot of money probably @ $125,000 each plus other splits, but remember how very conservative the MAC is. They might look at further expansion as just bringing up more FBS competition. That's why I do not think they will expand. Which is accurate if the earlier report of their commissioner saying that they would be staying at 12 is correct.

(03-26-2014 03:43 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:39 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  UMass just became a huge bargaining chip for the Sun Belt if the MAC tells JMU they're set at 12. The Dukes may be on the clock for good.

I am getting this strange feeling that JMU may voluntarily choose to stay behind the fence.

Almost ready to lay money down JMU is in the CAA for the next several years.

(03-26-2014 04:08 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:29 PM)HCJag Wrote:  UMass to the SBC? I'll believe that when I see it. We have absolutely nothing in common with them and I'm sure they'd be more than willing to agree. The Idaho and NMSU idea was nowhere near the stretch of the imagination that adding UMass would be. I also wonder why the MAC would want to expand to 14 when the magic number is 12. They have been stable up to this point so why feel the need?

UMass is 805 miles from Boone.
Idaho is 1455 miles from NMSU and 1922 from AState the closest full member to them.

UMass makes more sense than Idaho and is easier to fly to.

Saying something makes more sense than Idaho doesn't mean it makes sense.

ANYTHING makes more sense than Idaho.

I'm not against UMass for football only. They add the Boston TV market to the conference. That's better than what Idaho brings. They do share a common history with Georgia Southern, we faced each other in the playoffs a few times and they beat us in the 1998 I-AA championship game. I say kick Idaho out the conference, make NMSU all sports, add UMass football only, add JMU all sports and call it a day.

(03-26-2014 04:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:43 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:39 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  UMass just became a huge bargaining chip for the Sun Belt if the MAC tells JMU they're set at 12. The Dukes may be on the clock for good.

I am getting this strange feeling that JMU may voluntarily choose to stay behind the fence.

Almost ready to lay money down JMU is in the CAA for the next several years.

So, what, if we can't have the MAC we aren't going?

(03-26-2014 04:15 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:43 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:39 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  UMass just became a huge bargaining chip for the Sun Belt if the MAC tells JMU they're set at 12. The Dukes may be on the clock for good.

I am getting this strange feeling that JMU may voluntarily choose to stay behind the fence.

Almost ready to lay money down JMU is in the CAA for the next several years.

So, what, if we can't have the MAC we aren't going?

I think he is saying that the Sun Belt will take UMass and leave JMU hanging.

(03-26-2014 04:14 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  I'm not against UMass for football only. They add the Boston TV market to the conference. That's better than what Idaho brings. They do share a common history with Georgia Southern, we faced each other in the playoffs a few times and they beat us in the 1998 I-AA championship game. I say kick Idaho out the conference, make NMSU all sports, add UMass football only, add JMU all sports and call it a day.

Actually they aren't in the Boston TV market.

(03-26-2014 02:59 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:57 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:54 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  Don't forget, UMass is still in the MAC until after 2015. If Umass is the move for the Sun Belt, you're stuck with 11 football teams for another two seasons.

May not, but if they announce to the NCAA prior to July 1st they could be in the Sun Belt July 1st 2015.

Nope. They have to play the 2014 and 2015 seasons in the MAC. That's the contract. Earliest they could be in the Sun Belt is 2016.

That's incorrect. UMass can leave the MAC immediately if it pays a $500k exit fee. After one year, the exit fee drops to $250k, then obviously it's $0 after the second year. I forget when the notice deadline is, but they obviously wouldn't put separate exit fees in the agreement if UMass couldn't exit.

What would make sense for both the Sun Belt and UMass is a term agreement with an expiration date, like Temple originally had with the MAC. This allows the SBC to get their championship game while both sides kick the can down the road. UMass uses the time to find a more suitable home and the SBC uses the time to wait on more suitable expansion candidates in their footprint that may need a bit more time to get ready, and to put more pressure on JMU. If nothing has changed for either side by the end of the agreement, we just execute another one, and so on. Neither side wants to marry the other, but we both need a date to the prom, right? At least we'd know what we're getting into this time.

(03-26-2014 04:17 PM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:15 PM)knucklehead Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:10 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:43 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:39 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  UMass just became a huge bargaining chip for the Sun Belt if the MAC tells JMU they're set at 12. The Dukes may be on the clock for good.

I am getting this strange feeling that JMU may voluntarily choose to stay behind the fence.

Almost ready to lay money down JMU is in the CAA for the next several years.

So, what, if we can't have the MAC we aren't going?

I think he is saying that the Sun Belt will take UMass and leave JMU hanging.

No. He got it right.

(03-26-2014 02:13 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:10 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:09 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:07 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 02:05 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  One would think this locks JMU out of the MAC. I don't see the MAC going to 14.

Why not? They were willing to go to 13 for all sports. They WANT to expand, and UMass had the first invite and declined.

You would think though that it would make more sense to bring UMass and JMU in and play with 14...or to kick both out and play with 12.

JMU/Delaware to MAC for 14. Been speculated a lot in the past.

Or JMU/Missouri State.

We wouldn't accept that with no close teams. That would be horrendous travel for our Olympics.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(03-26-2014 03:56 PM)Liberty22 Wrote:  I believe he is referencing the sources in this link

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...er-sources

Quoted for importance. MAC wants 12.

UMass vs Georgia St would be the pillow fight of all time

I can only accept the idea of UMass if it means going to 14 with JMU and MSU and NMSU all sports.

(03-26-2014 04:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:14 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  I'm not against UMass for football only. They add the Boston TV market to the conference. That's better than what Idaho brings. They do share a common history with Georgia Southern, we faced each other in the playoffs a few times and they beat us in the 1998 I-AA championship game. I say kick Idaho out the conference, make NMSU all sports, add UMass football only, add JMU all sports and call it a day.

Actually they aren't in the Boston TV market.

They play some home games at Foxboro.

(03-26-2014 04:23 PM)slycat Wrote:  I can only accept the idea of UMass if it means going to 14 with JMU and MSU and NMSU all sports.

Just remember UMass football only, JMU all sports. UMass temporary, JMU, who knows.
SBC presidents might have a hard time not taking JMU for all sports. Could see them doing
that and adding UMass football only for a few years. Could always add Liberty or MoState
and make it an even number.

Would also think NMSU would get an all sports add if UMass is added football only for a few years.

(03-26-2014 04:18 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  That's incorrect. UMass can leave the MAC immediately if it pays a $500k exit fee. After one year, the exit fee drops to $250k, then obviously it's $0 after the second year. I forget when the notice deadline is, but they obviously wouldn't put separate exit fees in the agreement if UMass couldn't exit.

What would make sense for both the Sun Belt and UMass is a term agreement with an expiration date, like Temple originally had with the MAC. This allows the SBC to get their championship game while both sides kick the can down the road. UMass uses the time to find a more suitable home and the SBC uses the time to wait on more suitable expansion candidates in their footprint that may need a bit more time to get ready, and to put more pressure on JMU. If nothing has changed for either side by the end of the agreement, we just execute another one, and so on. Neither side wants to marry the other, but we both need a date to the prom, right? At least we'd know what we're getting into this time.

Yeah, uh, I think UMass would need to sweeten the pot a bit. Perhaps a four game annual OOC hoops agreement while they 'share' a conference. UMass can't just keep using conferences they have no desire to be a part of just to keep their FBS football dreams alive.

Who wants a guest who doesn't help pay the bills?