(03-26-2014 05:55 PM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:28 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  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?

The SBC gets their championship game without making a long term commitment to a member they're not sure they want. OOC basketball scheduling would probably be fine. Both Temple and UMass did that with the MAC during our football-only deals. UMass isn't afraid to play road games. We played at Elon this year for no particular reason, and played at Ohio where they had some ridiculously long win streak. (They don't anymore.)

UMass didn't use anyone. The MAC got the deal they wanted with Temple thanks to UMass, and $6.5 million in entry and exit fees. That's more than they got from NIU's BCS bowl appearance. UMass did everything the MAC asked, invested $30 million in football facilities (required by the MAC), agreed to the lease with Gillette Stadium (required by the MAC), upgraded at maximum speed without being able to get a FBS recruiting class in (required by the MAC), scheduled 8 basketball games (required by the MAC), paid a $500k entry fee, and got exactly one season of full football membership before the MAC killed the deal. The 2012 season basically amounted to only a scheduling agreement, with no share of MAC TV and bowl revenues and no championship game eligibility. The MAC has nothing to complain about.

With a term agreement with the SBC, we'd at least know exactly what we're getting and when it would be ending.

The MAC isn't going to withhold any monies that would be coming to UMass in the meantime are they? If they are would behoove you to get out now.