(03-29-2014 11:02 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  If UCONN bolts we can get a Virginia school

Going south is an option and it make sense if there is more money down there. I just wonder if the south isn't overly saturated already.....

(03-29-2014 11:05 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:01 PM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  The UConn argument continues to surprise me, most associated with them would have us think it is only a matter of time before they end up in the B10 or ACC, while the lower teams in the AAC hold them out as a rock within the conference. There has to be some concern in the conference that they will bolt, right? If they do UMass can back-fill for them (or AAC can move to a strictly southern conference and walk away from the NE corridor) if UConn stays then you get a good rivalry.

UConn will NEVER end up in the ACC and the Big10 is an extreme long shot. I just don't see B10 adding a school that has only been playing FBS football for less than 10 years. ACC has a grant of rights too so it's not likely they get raided. IMHO, major conference realignment is pretty much set for at least the next 5 years.

The Big Ten added Rutgers and they've only been playing FBS football for 10 years.

The AAC is adding anyone or looking to add anyone right now. -30-

(03-29-2014 10:48 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)illusionescape Wrote:  Just curious, do UMass fans think that the AAC is a good enough basketball league (w/o Louisville) to bring all their Olympics sports over? Or do they think it would be a step down from the A10?

Really? 4 bids out of 10 schools in the NCAAs and UConn in the Elite 8. Also SMU in the NIT final 4. Nobody left in either tournament from the 6 bid (43%) A10.

Uhh . . .

You're counting Louisville as one of the 4 schools and they're gone. So, they're not part of the league that UMass might consider joining.

The problem that UMass had with staying in the MAC is travel for non-football sports. The AAC won't be any better. That makes it hard to figure out what they're going to do. I won't be surprised at all to see them go back to FCS football.

(03-29-2014 11:10 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:48 PM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:21 PM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 09:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  There is no school in the AAC that has had less than 9K show up to a game. There is certainly no schools in the AAC that had only 6300 people show up at a game. In the last 2 years UMass has had 6 home games with less 12,000 in attendance. Don't even act like that's similar to any AAC team. UMass is an FBS team (supposedly). You build FBS facilities because you expect FBS support---not because you got invited to "x" conference. While in the MAC, they did the bare minimum to stay in the MAC---which showed the MAC UMass just wanted to hang out in FBS with FCS facilities. That's basically why they got kicked out of the MAC. The MAC knew UMass wasn't serious about building their program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Housto...tball_team

Between 20-22k your last 4 home games last year, is that something to really hang your hat on? Sure Umass had only 10-20 but don't kid yourself and think Houston is that much better..... ahead of UMass sure but not that far ahead.... The fact of the matter is there could be a much bigger divide coming between the top conferences and everyone else so investing a ton of money before knowing where a school stand doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying the AAC is going to end up in the upper echelon of conferences but it at least gives UMass a reason to put more money into infrastructure.

Last year is not indicative of our attendance as all our games were pushed off campus for the construction of our new 40K on-campus stadium. Even with the inconvenience of multiple off campus stadiums and two rainy day games--we still averaged over 24K. I expect 35K-ish next year.

fair enough didn't realize the construction going on, looking back a year it looks like the final 4 games drew 25-27k, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Housto...ous_season again this is certainly better than UMass and most MAC schools but again we aren't talking about a much smaller divide than most naysayers would like to think

Look, if UMass was building a 30K on campus stadium---that would tell conferences that UMass was committed to doing what it takes to be a solid FBS school. At that point, given the solid UMass basketball program---they become a much more compelling expansion candidate.

I get that and to be considered UMass will have to do that, BUT my point and i have no idea if anyone who matters thinks this is: Why put the money into the stadium if it is possible to be left out in the cold? Not to mention the fact that with players unionizing, concussion, lawsuits, and who knows what is next there could be no more NCAA football as we know it in 10 years.

The prudent thing to do is work with what they have and build contingencies into any contract. The simple fact is most athletic departments lose money, even FBS football is a looser for most schools. Those that know what they are doing realize the marketing that couldn't be bought which athletics brings to the table but still it's a loss leader. So if Umass commits to a 30-40k on campus stadium within X# of years, who else are you going to get to fill UConn, Cinci, UCF/USF,'s shoes?

(03-29-2014 11:18 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:48 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)illusionescape Wrote:  Just curious, do UMass fans think that the AAC is a good enough basketball league (w/o Louisville) to bring all their Olympics sports over? Or do they think it would be a step down from the A10?

Really? 4 bids out of 10 schools in the NCAAs and UConn in the Elite 8. Also SMU in the NIT final 4. Nobody left in either tournament from the 6 bid (43%) A10.

Uhh . . .

You're counting Louisville as one of the 4 schools and they're gone. So, they're not part of the league that UMass might consider joining.

The problem that UMass had with staying in the MAC is travel for non-football sports. The AAC won't be any better. That makes it hard to figure out what they're going to do. I won't be surprised at all to see them go back to FCS football.

I think that UMass and the MAC have been very polite in this split. UMass had to say something and "your basketball sucks" wasn't going to cut it. If the AAC were broken up into N/S there would be some very reasonable trips for OLY sports vs the MAC, I think.... haven't really looked at the distances or airports/hubs necessary.

I don't see UMass dropping to FCS in the next 4 years (2MAC and 2 indy if they have to) but after that might as well drop it if UMass can't sustain FBS.

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

Yeah, this.

Everything their fans say seems like it's a program that just doesn't "get it" about major college football. It's like there is a cultural disconnect.

Here's how it works UMass fans:

- You don't "wait to see what shakes out with conference invitations" and then build stuff. You build stuff and show commitment, then the better conference invites you. Every fan of every AAC school wants more facilities built yesterday, and you're saying "wouldn't be prudent."

- You don't choose your basketball conference over your football league. If you are going to have a football team at this level, everything must be built off of football. Would Kentucky be better off basketball wise in the ACC? Yes. Would they ever leave choose that over SEC football?

There's no such thing as halfway crooks. It seems UMass fans (and the program) just don't get it.

(03-29-2014 11:33 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

Yeah, this.

Everything their fans say seems like it's a program that just doesn't "get it" about major college football. It's like there is a cultural disconnect.

Here's how it works UMass fans:

- You don't "wait to see what shakes out with conference invitations" and then build stuff. You build stuff and show commitment, then the better conference invites you. Every fan of every AAC school wants more facilities built yesterday, and you're saying "wouldn't be prudent."

- You don't choose your basketball conference over your football league. If you are going to have a football team at this level, everything must be built off of football. Would Kentucky be better off basketball wise in the ACC? Yes. Would they ever leave choose that over SEC football?

There's no such thing as halfway crooks. It seems UMass fans (and the program) just don't get it.

That's my understanding as well... UMass fans want to move up, but ignore the ways how to.

(03-29-2014 11:33 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

Yeah, this.

Everything their fans say seems like it's a program that just doesn't "get it" about major college football. It's like there is a cultural disconnect.

Here's how it works UMass fans:

- You don't "wait to see what shakes out with conference invitations" and then build stuff. You build stuff and show commitment, then the better conference invites you. Every fan of every AAC school wants more facilities built yesterday, and you're saying "wouldn't be prudent."

- You don't choose your basketball conference over your football league. If you are going to have a football team at this level, everything must be built off of football. Would Kentucky be better off basketball wise in the ACC? Yes. Would they ever leave choose that over SEC football?

There's no such thing as halfway crooks. It seems UMass fans (and the program) just don't get it.

^ This guy knows what he's talking about.

If Tulane hadn't already had Yulman Stadium in the offing, I highly doubt they would have gotten the AAC invite.

(03-29-2014 11:18 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:48 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)illusionescape Wrote:  Just curious, do UMass fans think that the AAC is a good enough basketball league (w/o Louisville) to bring all their Olympics sports over? Or do they think it would be a step down from the A10?

Really? 4 bids out of 10 schools in the NCAAs and UConn in the Elite 8. Also SMU in the NIT final 4. Nobody left in either tournament from the 6 bid (43%) A10.

Uhh . . .

You're counting Louisville as one of the 4 schools and they're gone. So, they're not part of the league that UMass might consider joining.

The problem that UMass had with staying in the MAC is travel for non-football sports. The AAC won't be any better. That makes it hard to figure out what they're going to do. I won't be surprised at all to see them go back to FCS football.

Uhh......

If you don't want to count UofL as they are leaving, then you have to count Tulsa as they are joining , that's still 4 of 11 in the NCAA and 7-8 of 11 that made a post season tournament.

(03-29-2014 11:33 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

Yeah, this.

Everything their fans say seems like it's a program that just doesn't "get it" about major college football. It's like there is a cultural disconnect.

Here's how it works UMass fans:

- You don't "wait to see what shakes out with conference invitations" and then build stuff. You build stuff and show commitment, then the better conference invites you. Every fan of every AAC school wants more facilities built yesterday, and you're saying "wouldn't be prudent."

- You don't choose your basketball conference over your football league. If you are going to have a football team at this level, everything must be built off of football. Would Kentucky be better off basketball wise in the ACC? Yes. Would they ever leave choose that over SEC football?

There's no such thing as halfway crooks. It seems UMass fans (and the program) just don't get it.

Ummmm do college football fans realize how serious the possibility that college football isn't going to exist the way it does today in 10 years? http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...alking.php Sure we would all like our schools to just pour money into infrastructure but things have changed A LOT in the last few years. Even if the status quo remains pouring money into facilities exc doesn't make sense.

The times have changed and just building the resources aren't enough.... I get the fact that AAC (Former CUSA teams & the last of the Big East) don't want to be associated with a new call up to FBS but **** Happens and now the AAC is on the outside looking up to the rest of college football. Unfortunately there is no golden bullet to bring the conference back it's going to take wins and recognition among media markets. Whether that is possible who knows.

SMU Tulsa Houston and Tulane to block UMASS

(03-29-2014 11:13 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:05 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:01 PM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  The UConn argument continues to surprise me, most associated with them would have us think it is only a matter of time before they end up in the B10 or ACC, while the lower teams in the AAC hold them out as a rock within the conference. There has to be some concern in the conference that they will bolt, right? If they do UMass can back-fill for them (or AAC can move to a strictly southern conference and walk away from the NE corridor) if UConn stays then you get a good rivalry.

UConn will NEVER end up in the ACC and the Big10 is an extreme long shot. I just don't see B10 adding a school that has only been playing FBS football for less than 10 years. ACC has a grant of rights too so it's not likely they get raided. IMHO, major conference realignment is pretty much set for at least the next 5 years.

The Big Ten added Rutgers and they've only been playing FBS football for 10 years.

?????

AAC needs Mass to grow & be successful
Why not help them

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

UMASS fans don't make the athletic decisions—but do need to show more support. Consequently, the school does have to show more interest in its “infant” fball program if getting an AAC invite will ever happen. Regardless of what we think, ESPN will ultimately determine what school adds $$$ to the conference. UMASS best option is to convince Army to join the AAC (fb only for Army) as a pair.....

(03-30-2014 05:56 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

UMASS fans don't make the athletic decisions—but do need to show more support. Consequently, the school does have to show more interest in its “infant” fball program if getting an AAC invite will ever happen. Regardless of what we think, ESPN will ultimately determine what school adds $$$ to the conference. UMASS best option is to convince Army to join the AAC (fb only for Army) as a pair.....

Not sure if you mean A: UMass all sports and Army football only!?!

AAC
12 Basketball (UMass offset's Navy)
14 Football (UMass, Navy, Army)



Or if you mean B: UMass basketball athletics only and Army football only!?!

AAC
12 Basketball (UMass offset's Navy)
13 Football (Navy, Army)

(03-30-2014 06:22 AM)BigHouston Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 05:56 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

UMASS fans don't make the athletic decisions—but do need to show more support. Consequently, the school does have to show more interest in its “infant” fball program if getting an AAC invite will ever happen. Regardless of what we think, ESPN will ultimately determine what school adds $$$ to the conference. UMASS best option is to convince Army to join the AAC (fb only for Army) as a pair.....

Not sure if you mean A: UMass all sports and Army football only!?!

AAC
12 Basketball (UMass offset's Navy)
14 Football (UMass, Navy, Army)



Or if you mean B: UMass basketball athletics only and Army football only!?!

AAC
12 Basketball (UMass offset's Navy)
13 Football (Navy, Army)

Thanks for pointing this out..... UMASS all sports invite would be contingent on Army joining as a fball only member. Upgrades to its stadium capacity would also have to be addressed. However, this isn't a deal breaker in my opinion if we also acquire Army.

(03-30-2014 12:07 AM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:33 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

Yeah, this.

Everything their fans say seems like it's a program that just doesn't "get it" about major college football. It's like there is a cultural disconnect.

Here's how it works UMass fans:

- You don't "wait to see what shakes out with conference invitations" and then build stuff. You build stuff and show commitment, then the better conference invites you. Every fan of every AAC school wants more facilities built yesterday, and you're saying "wouldn't be prudent."

- You don't choose your basketball conference over your football league. If you are going to have a football team at this level, everything must be built off of football. Would Kentucky be better off basketball wise in the ACC? Yes. Would they ever leave choose that over SEC football?

There's no such thing as halfway crooks. It seems UMass fans (and the program) just don't get it.

Ummmm do college football fans realize how serious the possibility that college football isn't going to exist the way it does today in 10 years? http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...alking.php Sure we would all like our schools to just pour money into infrastructure but things have changed A LOT in the last few years. Even if the status quo remains pouring money into facilities exc doesn't make sense.

The times have changed and just building the resources aren't enough.... I get the fact that AAC (Former CUSA teams & the last of the Big East) don't want to be associated with a new call up to FBS but **** Happens and now the AAC is on the outside looking up to the rest of college football. Unfortunately there is no golden bullet to bring the conference back it's going to take wins and recognition among media markets. Whether that is possible who knows.

Ummmm, do you know why Tulsa is in the AAC instead of UMass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skelly_Fiel...an_Stadium

(03-30-2014 08:43 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 12:07 AM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:33 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

Yeah, this.

Everything their fans say seems like it's a program that just doesn't "get it" about major college football. It's like there is a cultural disconnect.

Here's how it works UMass fans:

- You don't "wait to see what shakes out with conference invitations" and then build stuff. You build stuff and show commitment, then the better conference invites you. Every fan of every AAC school wants more facilities built yesterday, and you're saying "wouldn't be prudent."

- You don't choose your basketball conference over your football league. If you are going to have a football team at this level, everything must be built off of football. Would Kentucky be better off basketball wise in the ACC? Yes. Would they ever leave choose that over SEC football?

There's no such thing as halfway crooks. It seems UMass fans (and the program) just don't get it.

Ummmm do college football fans realize how serious the possibility that college football isn't going to exist the way it does today in 10 years? http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...alking.php Sure we would all like our schools to just pour money into infrastructure but things have changed A LOT in the last few years. Even if the status quo remains pouring money into facilities exc doesn't make sense.

The times have changed and just building the resources aren't enough.... I get the fact that AAC (Former CUSA teams & the last of the Big East) don't want to be associated with a new call up to FBS but **** Happens and now the AAC is on the outside looking up to the rest of college football. Unfortunately there is no golden bullet to bring the conference back it's going to take wins and recognition among media markets. Whether that is possible who knows.

Ummmm, do you know why Tulsa is in the AAC instead of UMass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skelly_Fiel...an_Stadium

It is isn't just a stadium. Winning conference championships & bowl games helps, too. Tulsa was the winningest football program in CUSA from 2005-2012.

(03-30-2014 08:58 AM)Tulsafanzz Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 08:43 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 12:07 AM)Sam Minuteman Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:33 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 10:42 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  The more I read from UMass fans, UMass doesn't sound like they're serious about football at all. Doesn't sound like they have a clue how college football works to be totally honest. You don't get serious about building AFTER getting an invite to a better league. Things have never worked like that.

I say all of that as somebody that actually WANTS UMass and Army in the conference. Hopefully they wake up in Amherst.

Yeah, this.

Everything their fans say seems like it's a program that just doesn't "get it" about major college football. It's like there is a cultural disconnect.

Here's how it works UMass fans:

- You don't "wait to see what shakes out with conference invitations" and then build stuff. You build stuff and show commitment, then the better conference invites you. Every fan of every AAC school wants more facilities built yesterday, and you're saying "wouldn't be prudent."

- You don't choose your basketball conference over your football league. If you are going to have a football team at this level, everything must be built off of football. Would Kentucky be better off basketball wise in the ACC? Yes. Would they ever leave choose that over SEC football?

There's no such thing as halfway crooks. It seems UMass fans (and the program) just don't get it.

Ummmm do college football fans realize how serious the possibility that college football isn't going to exist the way it does today in 10 years? http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...alking.php Sure we would all like our schools to just pour money into infrastructure but things have changed A LOT in the last few years. Even if the status quo remains pouring money into facilities exc doesn't make sense.

The times have changed and just building the resources aren't enough.... I get the fact that AAC (Former CUSA teams & the last of the Big East) don't want to be associated with a new call up to FBS but **** Happens and now the AAC is on the outside looking up to the rest of college football. Unfortunately there is no golden bullet to bring the conference back it's going to take wins and recognition among media markets. Whether that is possible who knows.

Ummmm, do you know why Tulsa is in the AAC instead of UMass?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skelly_Fiel...an_Stadium

It is isn't just a stadium. Winning conference championships & bowl games helps, too. Tulsa was the winningest football program in CUSA from 2005-2012.

The fact that Tulsa has had as much success as they have had in CUSA and yet the decision came down to them and UMass (just in it's first year at FBS) really points to an issue with the stadium at UMass. Tulsa has one and UMass doesn't.