Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
A big plus for UMASS
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
GE and MTS Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 1,953
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #11
RE: A big plus for UMASS
If I were a fan of the Sun Belt, I'd probably be okay with UMass as a temporary football-only member under strict scenarios:
-Have an opt out clause similar to Idaho where the Sun Belt can give them a two year notice on when they have to find a new home.
-Give them a performance clause that makes them have to be at least .500 OOC winning percentage in any two year rolling calendar against FBS competition in order to take their share of the conference college football playoff payout.
-Play at least four basketball games against Sun Belt schools each season, with at least two being a home game for the Sun Belt school. Also be in a rotation so that you play all Sun Belt schools equally.

I think those would be fair concessions by the Sun Belt for a football-only invite to UMass.
04-13-2014 06:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MJG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,269
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 30
I Root For: U I , UMich, SC
Location: Myrtle Beach
Post: #12
RE: A big plus for UMASS
What DOES New Mexico States contract have in it . Since they were turned down for all sports.

Idaho , NMSU and UMass can hold down spots until the right Southeastern teams are ready. One bonus all three raise the academic profile so maybe JMU will join later.
04-13-2014 06:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rik Flair Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 635
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 17
I Root For: stAte
Location:
Post: #13
RE: A big plus for UMASS
I think the Sun Belt should give NMSU and ultimatum and boot Idaho. Moscow is just too far. Our league is not as desperate as Benson acts. To NMSU, I would offer all sports, move on or pay about $500k to be a football only member. The same for UMASS, they can be football only, but it will cost them $500k. If they don't like it, no hard feelings and good luck.
04-13-2014 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheRevSWT Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,213
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Bobcats!
Location:
Post: #14
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-13-2014 06:31 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  I think the Sun Belt should give NMSU and ultimatum and boot Idaho. Moscow is just too far. Our league is not as desperate as Benson acts. To NMSU, I would offer all sports, move on or pay about $500k to be a football only member. The same for UMASS, they can be football only, but it will cost them $500k. If they don't like it, no hard feelings and good luck.

Why would NMSU need an ultimatum? They WANT to be in all sports. It was the Sun Belt that said no to that.
04-13-2014 06:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rik Flair Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 635
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 17
I Root For: stAte
Location:
Post: #15
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-13-2014 06:54 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 06:31 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  I think the Sun Belt should give NMSU and ultimatum and boot Idaho. Moscow is just too far. Our league is not as desperate as Benson acts. To NMSU, I would offer all sports, move on or pay about $500k to be a football only member. The same for UMASS, they can be football only, but it will cost them $500k. If they don't like it, no hard feelings and good luck.

Why would NMSU need an ultimatum? They WANT to be in all sports. It was the Sun Belt that said no to that.

If that it is true, I wasn't aware. First time I have heard that. I would hope the SBC would change their minds and offer them a chance for all sports.
04-13-2014 07:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,006
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #16
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-13-2014 06:31 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  The same for UMASS, they can be football only, but it will cost them $500k.
You mean, $500,000 out of the extra $1m CFP money they bring from raising the Sunbelt to 12 from 11?

Is that instead of or in addition to the four BBall games deal that the MAC had with their two eastern FB-only schools (they also had the four FB deal with Temple when Temple was FB-only in the MAC).

Actually, the Sunbelt might be able to land the BBall games if there are enough schools that really want them without adding UMass by allowing Sunbelt schools that schedule paired home and home with UMass FB & BBall (home FB when away BBall and visa versa) scheduling flexibility to play those games between mid-October and mid-November. That kind of scheduling flexibility would be the critical element UMass would need to play as an independent, and they don't have any leverage to get it on their own.

Then if more than four Sunbelt schools wanted to take up that option, those games could be doled out on a most recently played stands at the back of the line basis. And any school that doesn't want to travel to either Boston or Amherst could just give it a miss.
04-13-2014 07:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheRevSWT Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,213
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Bobcats!
Location:
Post: #17
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-13-2014 07:22 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 06:54 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  
(04-13-2014 06:31 PM)Rik Flair Wrote:  I think the Sun Belt should give NMSU and ultimatum and boot Idaho. Moscow is just too far. Our league is not as desperate as Benson acts. To NMSU, I would offer all sports, move on or pay about $500k to be a football only member. The same for UMASS, they can be football only, but it will cost them $500k. If they don't like it, no hard feelings and good luck.

Why would NMSU need an ultimatum? They WANT to be in all sports. It was the Sun Belt that said no to that.

If that it is true, I wasn't aware. First time I have heard that. I would hope the SBC would change their minds and offer them a chance for all sports.

It has been mentioned several times on here by the stAte folks (I believe) that the eastern schools were against it (mainly WKU, but others fell in line with them).

Perhaps now that WKU is no longer in the conference, a revote might be in order.
04-13-2014 07:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lance99 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,033
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Akron Zips
Location:
Post: #18
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-13-2014 06:04 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If I were a fan of the Sun Belt, I'd probably be okay with UMass as a temporary football-only member under strict scenarios:
-Have an opt out clause similar to Idaho where the Sun Belt can give them a two year notice on when they have to find a new home.
-Give them a performance clause that makes them have to be at least .500 OOC winning percentage in any two year rolling calendar against FBS competition in order to take their share of the conference college football playoff payout.
-Play at least four basketball games against Sun Belt schools each season, with at least two being a home game for the Sun Belt school. Also be in a rotation so that you play all Sun Belt schools equally.

I think those would be fair concessions by the Sun Belt for a football-only invite to UMass.

The MAC did two of the three you mentioned and look how far it got them.
04-14-2014 08:12 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rik Flair Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 635
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 17
I Root For: stAte
Location:
Post: #19
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-13-2014 07:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='Rik Flair' pid='10665255' dateline='1397431909'] The same for UMASS, they can be football only, but it will cost them $500k.
You mean, $500,000 out of the extra $1m CFP money they bring from raising the Sunbelt to 12 from 11?





If it the SBC gets 1 million dollars simply by going from 11 to 12 then it WILL happen this year. Is that 1 million exclusively tied to UMASS?

Call the 500k a rent/lease fee. I chose 500k because I doubt they would pay 1 million to join and I want something for the trouble of bringing in another outlier school that nobody in the SBC cares about playing.

So that would be an extra 500k on top of whatever any other school would have to provide that is: 1. an all sports member; 2. within the SBC footprint; 3. plans on staying for a while instead of looking for a temporary home.
(This post was last modified: 04-14-2014 08:43 AM by Rik Flair.)
04-14-2014 08:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Niner National Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,832
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 260
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location:
Post: #20
RE: A big plus for UMASS
(04-13-2014 10:16 AM)MJG Wrote:  They host two BCS schools this year one that is local.
Expanding their on campus stadium and only playing these types of games at Gillette would be huge. How many non BCS schools can host a local BCS school or two in one year.

Boston College and Colorado
I haven't read through the thread, but UTSA is doing a great job scheduling home games against BCS schools.

This year they host Arizona and New Mexico. Last year they hosted OK St.

In 2014 they host Kansas State and Colorado State.

In 2016 they host Arizona State.

In 2018 they host Baylor and Colorado State.

I'd gladly take a Big XII/PAC 12 and a MWC team at home every year.

Having the dome is doing wonders for UTSA's scheduling.
04-14-2014 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.