UMass and the Sun Belt are playing a game of, relatively high stakes, poker right now. Clock is ticking and Benson is saying what any good politician would say, i.e. we don't need you and we can win with the hand we have. UMass is on the other side of the table, all in, and sweating out two pairs.

Again, UMass is between a rock and a hard place because they've already spent $10's of millions improving their FBS infrastructure; will that all be a waste? It will be if they decide to fold.

(05-02-2014 05:12 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  UMass and the Sun Belt are playing a game of, relatively high stakes, poker right now. Clock is ticking and Benson is saying what any good politician would say, i.e. we don't need you and we can win with the hand we have. UMass is on the other side of the table, all in, and sweating out two pairs.

Again, UMass is between a rock and a hard place because they've already spent $10's of millions improving their FBS infrastructure; will that all be a waste? It will be if they decide to fold.

Add to that, no player will want to play in Taxachusetts when the players unionize. Just think of their income tax bill... Man oh Man, their toast

(05-02-2014 05:12 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  UMass and the Sun Belt are playing a game of, relatively high stakes, poker right now. Clock is ticking and Benson is saying what any good politician would say, i.e. we don't need you and we can win with the hand we have. UMass is on the other side of the table, all in, and sweating out two pairs.

Again, UMass is between a rock and a hard place because they've already spent $10's of millions improving their FBS infrastructure; will that all be a waste? It will be if they decide to fold.

UMass is sweating out a flush draw and just saw the river card is the wrong suit. They are holding no cards, and Benson no longer needs them at all.

(05-07-2013 12:14 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 11:51 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 11:30 AM)Libertygrad01 Wrote:  This is not about Liberty. I understand that ship has sailed. I do love the realignment talk though. Just keep this in mind for all you JMU backers. JMU has about as much in common with the Sunbelt as Harvard does. They're an northern alumni school and I just can't see their administration lowering themselves to join the SB. Missouri State is a much better option in my opinion. They're going to have to get their attendance up for football. I think they only averaged around 8,000 last year.

About 70% of our alums are Virginians. Now, I fully understand that some of ya'll consider VA to be the North, but I'll fight you over it

75,000 alums live in the South (VA to FL and over to TX)...83,000 live south of the Mason Dixon line. That is out of a total of 110,000 alumni.

Virginia is Southern. Anyone who says otherwise has never been there. Most of the Civil War was fought on Virginia's soil. Only Yankee part of Virginia are the DC suburbs.

Virginia voted Obama in 2012 and has a democrat as governor. At this point we have more in common with Pennsylvania than Alabama. Heck even New Jersey has a republican governor.

Could we, maybe, work out some kind of exit fee while we wait on getting to 12? Or does the SBC have an exit fee now?

I would just like to know that the conference gets something if stAte and/or UL jump ship, or perhaps discourages them from leaving in the first place. Not that multi-million dollar exit fees stop anyone from moving up, I've just always wondered why the SBC didn't seem to have one.

I am all for a decent exit fee but if schools want to leave they will leave. That being said, right now there is abolutely NOWHERE to go.

(05-02-2014 06:10 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  I am all for a decent exit fee but if schools want to leave they will leave. That being said, right now there is abolutely NOWHERE to go.

Like I said, I don't see an exit fee stopping anyone, because I don't think it ever has. Would just like to see the conference compensated.

I think some folks are underestimating UMass' desire to stay FBS. They know if they want to keep the basketball team relevant and ever have a chance of getting to the AAC they need to have FBS football.

(05-02-2014 08:10 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I think some folks are underestimating UMass' desire to stay FBS. They know if they want to keep the basketball team relevant and ever have a chance of getting to the AAC they need to have FBS football.

If they were that serious about FBS, they would be all sports members of the MAC today.

(05-02-2014 08:10 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I think some folks are underestimating UMass' desire to stay FBS. They know if they want to keep the basketball team relevant and ever have a chance of getting to the AAC they need to have FBS football.

UMASS makes sense so long as UMASS makes it easy for the SBC to do business with them, while giving both parties the ability to terminate the agreement after a set period.

I think our options increase the longer we wait. UTC is building a top notch football training and administration building. EKU might actually spend money, and MSU is clearly investing in football infrastructure. It also gives JMU 2 years of sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on to think about their hubris.

I see no problem at all with a 4 year commitment to UMASS with an escape for both parties after year 2. It give us 12 teams in two even divisions, $12 million dollars, and gives potential candidates time to evolve. Hey, we may find out that both IDAHO and UMASS turn out to be great conference mates. If not, we have space for two more adds and can tell them it was fun while it lasted.

Crafted right, this is a good deal for both SBC and UMASS.

UMass has 2 more years in the MAC in football before they have to have a place to go. I just think the "easy" decision for the Sun Belt leaders who meet in about 2 and a half weeks is to delay any decision on expansion another year.

I think JMU was maybe the only team this year who, if they had wanted to move the FBS, could have secured the 9 votes required to be invited to the Sun Belt.

(05-07-2013 12:24 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:20 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 12:15 PM)slycat Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 11:58 AM)troy4ever Wrote:  Replace WKU with JMU in the east. Idaho goes and does their thing elsewhere. Replace them with Missouri State in the west. Wouldn't that work?

I just don't see the conference kicking Idaho out.

For football only Idaho is just one trip every other year. No big deal.

Thats what I keep saying. And for eastern schools once every four yeras.

the same would be true for UMASS in reverse

(05-02-2014 08:40 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  UMass has 2 more years in the MAC in football before they have to have a place to go. I just think the "easy" decision for the Sun Belt leaders who meet in about 2 and a half weeks is to delay any decision on expansion another year.

I think JMU was maybe the only team this year who, if they had wanted to move the FBS, could have secured the 9 votes required to be invited to the Sun Belt.

For $250k, UMASS is free to leave to join a conference in 2015. All they would have to do is leave $250k of their playoff money with the MAC and be on their way. This goes back to the "easy to do business with" comment I made in the other thread. One sign of that would be that UMASS would move football to the SBC for the 2015 season. If they want to wait until 2016, forget them.

(05-02-2014 08:16 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:10 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I think some folks are underestimating UMass' desire to stay FBS. They know if they want to keep the basketball team relevant and ever have a chance of getting to the AAC they need to have FBS football.

If they were that serious about FBS, they would be all sports members of the MAC today.

My understanding of the contract with the MAC is that UMass still has the option to crawl back to the MAC within the next two years and say yes to joining for all sports if no other conference opportunity presents itself.

(05-02-2014 09:02 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:16 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:10 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I think some folks are underestimating UMass' desire to stay FBS. They know if they want to keep the basketball team relevant and ever have a chance of getting to the AAC they need to have FBS football.

If they were that serious about FBS, they would be all sports members of the MAC today.

My understanding of the contract with the MAC is that UMass still has the option to crawl back to the MAC within the next two years and say yes to joining for all sports if no other conference opportunity presents itself.

In that case, they may be smart to hold out. IF they can fill their football schedule.

(05-02-2014 08:10 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I think some folks are underestimating UMass' desire to stay FBS. They know if they want to keep the basketball team relevant and ever have a chance of getting to the AAC they need to have FBS football.

And everyone knows that is UMass' goal. That hurts UMass.

I support staying at 11. Or taking UMass if the alternative is Liberty. That being said,

Given that the NCAA is likely to allow us to have CCG with 11, why should we take you guys? What can you bring to help an individual Sun Belt football member?

Now if you could bring Army with you.....then we'd be talking about something that we could work with.

Quite frankly, I think the number the Belt should be looking at right now isn't 11, but 10. Take NMSU for all sports and tell Idaho that you might need to use the next 4 years looking for the next place for your program.

Ten team league. No divisions. Top two teams play in the CCG.

------------------------------------

The problem with the "MAC deal" for UMass is that A-10 basketball is more lucrative than MAC football. If UMass wants in, they might need to get creative to show the individual members of the Belt how UMass in the Belt helps them.

Hopefully by 2015, we can help by being in the middle of the league and helping to strengthen the Sun Belt. We can give you some northeast exposure and the 1 million per school up to 12 would not be harming to other teams. We give a little name recognition and help by not bring in another FCS team. Realistically have not looked and is very late, but eastern teams, going to Amherst can not be to costly than going to Texas or Idaho. There is more, but not appropriate for this board.

We also have some history with Georgia Southern and App State in the FCS championship and Louisiana in BB. Really don't know how bring a some BB games to the conference would be viewed. Hope it would help with a few schools OOC schedule and getting a top 50 team in your house.

(05-03-2014 01:00 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Hopefully by 2015, we can help by being in the middle of the league and helping to strengthen the Sun Belt. We can give you some northeast exposure and the 1 million per school up to 12 would not be harming to other teams. We give a little name recognition and help by not bring in another FCS team. Realistically have not looked and is very late, but eastern teams, going to Amherst can not be to costly than going to Texas or Idaho. There is more, but not appropriate for this board.

IIRC, each Sun Belt school gets the same amount of money regardless of whether we have 11 or 12 members.

(05-02-2014 09:02 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:16 PM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:10 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I think some folks are underestimating UMass' desire to stay FBS. They know if they want to keep the basketball team relevant and ever have a chance of getting to the AAC they need to have FBS football.

If they were that serious about FBS, they would be all sports members of the MAC today.

My understanding of the contract with the MAC is that UMass still has the option to crawl back to the MAC within the next two years and say yes to joining for all sports if no other conference opportunity presents itself.

Could see them staying in the MAC for FB only if they and the MAC could convincing Army to come on board for FB only. Could also see them staying with all sports if James Madison joins for all sports and the A-10 continues to fall apart. Option one would be better for all including Army who will eventually need a home for football.

(05-02-2014 08:22 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 08:10 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  I think some folks are underestimating UMass' desire to stay FBS. They know if they want to keep the basketball team relevant and ever have a chance of getting to the AAC they need to have FBS football.

UMASS makes sense so long as UMASS makes it easy for the SBC to do business with them, while giving both parties the ability to terminate the agreement after a set period.

I think our options increase the longer we wait. UTC is building a top notch football training and administration building. EKU might actually spend money, and MSU is clearly investing in football infrastructure. It also gives JMU 2 years of sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on to think about their hubris.

I see no problem at all with a 4 year commitment to UMASS with an escape for both parties after year 2. It give us 12 teams in two even divisions, $12 million dollars, and gives potential candidates time to evolve. Hey, we may find out that both IDAHO and UMASS turn out to be great conference mates. If not, we have space for two more adds and can tell them it was fun while it lasted.

Crafted right, this is a good deal for both SBC and UMASS.

This ^^^^^^^^