(04-01-2014 01:34 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:00 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:00 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  What if I was to tell you that Umass is not a true flagship in the same way as the school's you listed. Would that matter?

Maybe, go ahead and explain it to me.

I would check out the beginning of the 44 page discussion following the news that UMass was leaving the MAC.

Generally speaking, the legislature and the citizens of MA view UMass as an after thought or in the case of students, for many it's just a safety school if they don't get into or get a good financial package from another (normally private) school. The pride just isn't there and the interest level in athletics (I argue it is the lack of dedication on the part of the admin and poor marketing) just isn't there. We see these same sort of issues with other New England "flagships" but UMass is certainly a cut above the rest of it's neighbors, aside from UConn which really had the same type of problems a few decades ago and arguably still struggles to keep the best CT students in state.

On the other side, many kids from true flagships plan on attending their state school from day one and/or at least consider it in their top few schools. The entire state, regardless if they attended the given flagship, tend to support the school (believe me LSU/Bama is a prime example in my back yard). Now for UMass, Joe Masshole (non alum) really doesn't get too attached to UMass in their good times.

I attended Umass undergrad and grew up near Boston, for what it's worth. I still believe that athletics can be the route into the hearts and minds of MA residents. The problem is their FBall situation is a mess.

As I said, there is a long thread addressing this exact topic, I suggest you take a look.

OK, thanks for info.

just flagship is foolish, but umass is a flagish of a very populated state.

idaho and new mexico, hawaii, wyoming (north dakota, delaware, montana,maine) etc. i honestly i have no interest in, they are states with very small poplulation, little tv markets all of which are dramatically smaller than the city of houston by itself

Massachusetts is a major state which has a rather large population, a some of the best tv markets included in it. most dont see that umass is a diamond in the ruff. if we could honestly get umass success at this level and have dramatically better facilities i could honestly see them 9-10 years down the line filling up a 50-60k stadium. i feel the same way about everyone in our league (not tulsa). and honestly a sucessful umass would control the entire NE corridor (New hamspshire, maine, vermont) the way the New england patriots do in the NFL.

umass resembles rutgers in a lot of ways, everyone thought it was foolish for rutgers to jump to the fbs when they joined in the 90's and rutgers struggled (technically never stopped struggling) but today they are valueable enought to be added by the big 10 and they sell 50k+ a game

(04-01-2014 01:23 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:20 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:16 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Let's just grab all of the New England flagships in addition to UMASS. University of Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine...Welcome to the AAC!!

Take that P5s!!!!!!!!!!!

HuskyU, Actually, if they all had Division 1 football, then why the heck not? UCONN started up a division 1 football program and that worked for them immediately as they were playing football in a BCS league a few short years later.....If it worked for you, it can work for them. (Bracing myself for the comeback attacks on why UCONN is special and different and etc. etc.) .

ARRRGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you ever been to Northern New England? They really just care about hockey and the TV markets there consist of a very small number of viewers. Comparing UConn to them is not apples to apples. UConn is up the road from NYC. Maine and Vermont are up the road from black bears and moose.

Conceivably it could work because their demos are not all that different than rural southern schools, but their just ins't the interest level in FBall. This is a bit of an April fools discussion, sort of ridiculous if grew up in the region and understand how it works.

UMass is not a viable option. As was previously said, the pride is not there. I am friends with a large number of UMass alums who have told me directly that they don't really care about UMass sports. They will follow the UMass basketball team when they are having a good year, but otherwise they are more interested in Boston PRO sports (Celts, Pats, Sox, Bruins).

Every single one of my UMass fan friends has not attended a UMass football game in the FBS era and all admit that they haven't even bothered to tune into UMass football on television.

This isn't Texas.... it is Massachusetts. Basketball and pro sports will always take priority over college football. In Texas, college football is king and hoop isn't that important (SMU is changing that a bit in Dallas, though - props SMU!)

Additionally, UConn and UMass aren't the same culture. UConn hoop is the closest major basketball program to NYC (which attracts players like Kemba Walker who want to play close to home - we have a history of recruiting great NYC guards). Those players don't identify with UMass as much. As for football, Connecticut has no pro sports so college football plays a pretty nice role in the sports fabric of the state. UMass is so far from Boston that football is an afterthought (even when playing in Foxboro)

(04-01-2014 01:35 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  After we scoop up the Maine Black Bears, perhaps we can go north into Canada and complete our conference expansion with the Canadian maritime land grant universities. I hear that the University of New Brunswick and the University of Prince Edward Island are looking for a home for their Olympic sports and are seriously considering an upgrade to American FBS football.

That would be a ridiculous idea. It would make much more sense to recruit University of Bermuda and the University of the Azores.

Next time please be serious and post some constructive ideas like I am.

My idea for a 16 "best of the rest" National Super Conference:
East:
1 UMASS
2 UCONN
3 Cincinnati
4 Navy
5 ECU
6 Central Florida
7 Memphis
8 Houston
West:
1 San Diego St
2 Boise St
3 UNLV
4 Colorado St
5 BYU
6 New Mexico
7 Air Force
8 SMU
9 game schedule, 2 cross over games, to ensure AF/Navy play each year and SMU/Houston each year. A conference Championship Game at the Cotton Bowl. (Also league HQ would be in Dallas) This would be for football. Olympic sports could be one division with the ability for each school to schedule what they want with very limited restrictions. 4 flagships, 2 military institutions, 2 private institutions. The rest are mainly schools with somewhat large athletic budgets, very good facilities that are owned by the school themselves--just 1 exception-- and long term rivalries with existing schools.

Would anyone be interested in grabbing Umass for Olympic Sports and give them a scheduling agreement for a few games a year. They slide in if we can land a BYU or Army with an all-sports invite.


If this doesn't work, we should add either Wichita State or VCU for hoops

(04-01-2014 01:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  just flagship is foolish, but umass is a flagish of a very populated state.

idaho and new mexico, hawaii, wyoming (north dakota, delaware, montana,maine) etc. i honestly i have no interest in, they are states with very small poplulation, little tv markets all of which are dramatically smaller than the city of houston by itself

Massachusetts is a major state which has a rather large population, a some of the best tv markets included in it. most dont see that umass is a diamond in the ruff. if we could honestly get umass success at this level and have dramatically better facilities i could honestly see them 9-10 years down the line filling up a 50-60k stadium. i feel the same way about everyone in our league (not tulsa). and honestly a sucessful umass would control the entire NE corridor (New hamspshire, maine, vermont) the way the New england patriots do in the NFL.

umass resembles rutgers in a lot of ways, everyone thought it was foolish for rutgers to jump to the fbs when they joined in the 90's and rutgers struggled (technically never stopped struggling) but today they are valueable enought to be added by the big 10 and they sell 50k+ a game

Very good point and very similar. If UMass invested like Rutgers they would either be in a P5 or competing with UConn for the next opening.

(04-01-2014 01:55 PM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Would anyone be interested in grabbing Umass for Olympic Sports and give them a scheduling agreement for a few games a year. They slide in if we can land a BYU or Army with an all-sports invite.


If this doesn't work, we should add either Wichita State or VCU for hoops

I wouldn't be and I'm sure they wouldn't be interested. Why leave the A10 for partial membership in the AAC? If we invite them, we need to commit to helping them get football on track in exchange for that same committment from them. I'm all for full committments all the way around. They could build a following with better exposure and more relevant conference games.

(04-01-2014 01:57 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  just flagship is foolish, but umass is a flagish of a very populated state.

idaho and new mexico, hawaii, wyoming (north dakota, delaware, montana,maine) etc. i honestly i have no interest in, they are states with very small poplulation, little tv markets all of which are dramatically smaller than the city of houston by itself

Massachusetts is a major state which has a rather large population, a some of the best tv markets included in it. most dont see that umass is a diamond in the ruff. if we could honestly get umass success at this level and have dramatically better facilities i could honestly see them 9-10 years down the line filling up a 50-60k stadium. i feel the same way about everyone in our league (not tulsa). and honestly a sucessful umass would control the entire NE corridor (New hamspshire, maine, vermont) the way the New england patriots do in the NFL.

umass resembles rutgers in a lot of ways, everyone thought it was foolish for rutgers to jump to the fbs when they joined in the 90's and rutgers struggled (technically never stopped struggling) but today they are valueable enought to be added by the big 10 and they sell 50k+ a game

Very good point and very similar. If UMass invested like Rutgers they would either be in a P5 or competing with UConn for the next opening.

Rutgers is in a P5 due to proximity to NYC. UMass is located in western Massachusetts.

I don't see how UMass would be competing with UConn.
- UConn has 3 titles in men's hoop. UMass has none
- UConn has 8 titles in women's hoop. UMass has none
- UConn has their own 40,000 seat football stadium and fills 98% of their stadium on gameday. UMass plays at a pro stadium and fills 12% of the Patriots stadium on gameday
- UConn is closer to New York than UMass
- UConn is closer to Boston than UMass
- UMass is located in UConn's media market (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield), not Boston's. The heart of that market is Hartford.

UMass competing with UConn?

(04-01-2014 01:53 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:35 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  After we scoop up the Maine Black Bears, perhaps we can go north into Canada and complete our conference expansion with the Canadian maritime land grant universities. I hear that the University of New Brunswick and the University of Prince Edward Island are looking for a home for their Olympic sports and are seriously considering an upgrade to American FBS football.

That would be a ridiculous idea. It would make much more sense to recruit University of Bermuda and the University of the Azores.

Next time please be serious and post some constructive ideas like I am.

I like your idea of the University of Bermuda and the University of the Azores. We would be better than the MWC because that is essentially like having TWO Hawaiis.

Also, I think that the University of Puerto Rico could be a good add. They are a land grant territory university, are located in a very populated "soon to be state", and the area around their campus is similar to Rutgers.

(04-01-2014 02:09 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:53 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:35 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  After we scoop up the Maine Black Bears, perhaps we can go north into Canada and complete our conference expansion with the Canadian maritime land grant universities. I hear that the University of New Brunswick and the University of Prince Edward Island are looking for a home for their Olympic sports and are seriously considering an upgrade to American FBS football.

That would be a ridiculous idea. It would make much more sense to recruit University of Bermuda and the University of the Azores.

Next time please be serious and post some constructive ideas like I am.

I like your idea of the University of Bermuda and the University of the Azores. We would be better than the MWC because that is essentially like having TWO Hawaiis.

Also, I think that the University of Puerto Rico could be a good add. They are a land grant territory university, are located in a very populated state, and the area around their campus is similar to Rutgers.

I'd go to those away games...

(04-01-2014 02:05 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:57 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  just flagship is foolish, but umass is a flagish of a very populated state.

idaho and new mexico, hawaii, wyoming (north dakota, delaware, montana,maine) etc. i honestly i have no interest in, they are states with very small poplulation, little tv markets all of which are dramatically smaller than the city of houston by itself

Massachusetts is a major state which has a rather large population, a some of the best tv markets included in it. most dont see that umass is a diamond in the ruff. if we could honestly get umass success at this level and have dramatically better facilities i could honestly see them 9-10 years down the line filling up a 50-60k stadium. i feel the same way about everyone in our league (not tulsa). and honestly a sucessful umass would control the entire NE corridor (New hamspshire, maine, vermont) the way the New england patriots do in the NFL.

umass resembles rutgers in a lot of ways, everyone thought it was foolish for rutgers to jump to the fbs when they joined in the 90's and rutgers struggled (technically never stopped struggling) but today they are valueable enought to be added by the big 10 and they sell 50k+ a game

Very good point and very similar. If UMass invested like Rutgers they would either be in a P5 or competing with UConn for the next opening.

Rutgers is in a P5 due to proximity to NYC. UMass is located in western Massachusetts.

I don't see how UMass would be competing with UConn.
- UConn has 3 titles in men's hoop. UMass has none
- UConn has 8 titles in women's hoop. UMass has none
- UConn has their own 40,000 seat football stadium and fills 98% of their stadium on gameday. UMass plays at a pro stadium and fills 12% of the Patriots stadium on gameday
- UConn is closer to New York that UMass
- UConn is closer to Boston than UMass
- UMass is located in UConn's media market (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield), not Boston's. The heart of that market is Hartford.

UMass competing with UConn?

Focusing on proximity is a bit unfair. The fact is that the NY market, though much larger, is highly fractured, while MA is far less. My point is that if UMass made consistent investments going back to the 90's, we would be every bit the brand of UConn. UMass would have the luxury of drawing from all of New England along a state with double the population (huge supply of high end students) and 50% greater GDP. Not to mention the GDP of MA is insular while CT is directly connected to bleed out from NYC.

You can feel whatever you like, I don't see how you can truthfully argue that a UMass dedicated to athletics over a prolonged period, would not have competed with the UConn brand. My argument is predicated on investing in the past, moving forward the landscape has changed as access is more limited and it could be too late for UMass to overcome the future obstacles.

(04-01-2014 01:47 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  UMass is not a viable option. As was previously said, the pride is not there. I am friends with a large number of UMass alums who have told me directly that they don't really care about UMass sports. They will follow the UMass basketball team when they are having a good year, but otherwise they are more interested in Boston PRO sports (Celts, Pats, Sox, Bruins).

Every single one of my UMass fan friends has not attended a UMass football game in the FBS era and all admit that they haven't even bothered to tune into UMass football on television.

This isn't Texas.... it is Massachusetts. Basketball and pro sports will always take priority over college football. In Texas, college football is king and hoop isn't that important (SMU is changing that a bit in Dallas, though - props SMU!)

Additionally, UConn and UMass aren't the same culture. UConn hoop is the closest major basketball program to NYC (which attracts players like Kemba Walker who want to play close to home - we have a history of recruiting great NYC guards). Those players don't identify with UMass as much. As for football, Connecticut has no pro sports so college football plays a pretty nice role in the sports fabric of the state. UMass is so far from Boston that football is an afterthought (even when playing in Foxboro)

the pride isn't their because they've played in fcs most of their history and completely horrible in the fbs while basically never on tv. they have no reason to be prideful. you are looking at the current value which is still in its infancy (in reference to trying to get on the national level) not their future value.

the pride will come when they can compete at this level. if umass beat vt or ucla or something like that, you very well know this would be headline news EVERYWHERE in boston and all over mass. and you can tell yourself whatever you want to believe but if uconn did that i doubt it would be news in the boston markets of any significance. again its about representation. FSU is in the middle of nowhere like honestly in the middle of nowhere not close to any major city in florida, but they represent florida and whenever they win the entire sate celebrates including the cities 10-12 hours away.

again no one is saying this would happen tomorrow but umass even just decent under a few years of success and national exposure will be worth a lot to this league. again you can draw parallels between rutgers and umass.

(04-01-2014 02:18 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 02:05 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:57 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  just flagship is foolish, but umass is a flagish of a very populated state.

idaho and new mexico, hawaii, wyoming (north dakota, delaware, montana,maine) etc. i honestly i have no interest in, they are states with very small poplulation, little tv markets all of which are dramatically smaller than the city of houston by itself

Massachusetts is a major state which has a rather large population, a some of the best tv markets included in it. most dont see that umass is a diamond in the ruff. if we could honestly get umass success at this level and have dramatically better facilities i could honestly see them 9-10 years down the line filling up a 50-60k stadium. i feel the same way about everyone in our league (not tulsa). and honestly a sucessful umass would control the entire NE corridor (New hamspshire, maine, vermont) the way the New england patriots do in the NFL.

umass resembles rutgers in a lot of ways, everyone thought it was foolish for rutgers to jump to the fbs when they joined in the 90's and rutgers struggled (technically never stopped struggling) but today they are valueable enought to be added by the big 10 and they sell 50k+ a game

Very good point and very similar. If UMass invested like Rutgers they would either be in a P5 or competing with UConn for the next opening.

Rutgers is in a P5 due to proximity to NYC. UMass is located in western Massachusetts.

I don't see how UMass would be competing with UConn.
- UConn has 3 titles in men's hoop. UMass has none
- UConn has 8 titles in women's hoop. UMass has none
- UConn has their own 40,000 seat football stadium and fills 98% of their stadium on gameday. UMass plays at a pro stadium and fills 12% of the Patriots stadium on gameday
- UConn is closer to New York that UMass
- UConn is closer to Boston than UMass
- UMass is located in UConn's media market (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield), not Boston's. The heart of that market is Hartford.

UMass competing with UConn?

Focusing on proximity is a bit unfair. The fact is that the NY market, though much larger, is highly fractured, while MA is far less. My point is that if UMass made consistent investments going back to the 90's, we would be every bit the brand of UConn. UMass would have the luxury of drawing from all of New England along a state with double the population (huge supply of high end students) and 50% greater GDP. Not to mention the GDP of MA is insular while CT is directly connected to bleed out from NYC.

You can feel whatever you like, I don't see how you can truthfully argue that a UMass dedicated to athletics over a prolonged period, would not have competed with the UConn brand. My argument is predicated on investing in the past, moving forward the landscape has changed as access is more limited and it could be too late for UMass to overcome the future obstacles.

That is like me saying that if UConn had made consistent investments in football going back to the year 1900, we would be every bit the brand of Michigan. It is a possibility, but both statements are rooted in a lot of speculation and are highly unlikely based on the geography of UConn and UMass. I think UMass has more of a disadvantage over UConn because there are more private colleges in Massachusetts and the heard of the population base (Boston) has a zillion of them. Boston College, Boston University, Harvard, and Northeastern comprise the vast majority of college students in Boston and are located in the center of the media market. This certainly lessens exposure for UMass. UConn has no similar competition (unless we are talking about Yale and Quinnipiac hockey).

You are correct that UMass waited too long to throw their hat into the ring. To build a stadium like UConn's in 2014 would cost significantly more than the $91.2M that UConn spent in 2000. It would cost about $124M now. I just don't see Mass taxpayers wanting to pony up that kind of cash when they don't have a conference home for football.

A huge NO to UMASS and Army. Why is this even a thread.

I don't really know that much about Umass, although from reading the Uconn board most Uconn fans have an elitist attitude towards them, much like UNC fans have towards NC State.

I googled this:
One result: over the past decade, UConn has seen a 70 percent rise in the number of undergraduates from Massachusetts, while the number of Connecticut students enrolled at UMass Amherst has fallen by 5.5 percent.

“Connecticut set a goal 20 years ago to turn the Storrs campus into the leading public university in New England,’’ said state Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg, an Amherst Democrat and UMass Amherst alumnus. “They made a plan, they stuck with the plan, and it’s paying off. In head-to-head competition, Storrs looks better and better decade by decade, and we’re struggling.’’

However, if Umass is serious it would benefit everyone to invite them and suny new york/long island. But umass will have to show they want to compete. As for umass being looked down on by the better in state students? They used to say the same thing about Uconn, but that changed when uconn spent money. It just shows you can change perception if you plan.

(04-01-2014 02:29 PM)pesik Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:47 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  UMass is not a viable option. As was previously said, the pride is not there. I am friends with a large number of UMass alums who have told me directly that they don't really care about UMass sports. They will follow the UMass basketball team when they are having a good year, but otherwise they are more interested in Boston PRO sports (Celts, Pats, Sox, Bruins).

Every single one of my UMass fan friends has not attended a UMass football game in the FBS era and all admit that they haven't even bothered to tune into UMass football on television.

This isn't Texas.... it is Massachusetts. Basketball and pro sports will always take priority over college football. In Texas, college football is king and hoop isn't that important (SMU is changing that a bit in Dallas, though - props SMU!)

Additionally, UConn and UMass aren't the same culture. UConn hoop is the closest major basketball program to NYC (which attracts players like Kemba Walker who want to play close to home - we have a history of recruiting great NYC guards). Those players don't identify with UMass as much. As for football, Connecticut has no pro sports so college football plays a pretty nice role in the sports fabric of the state. UMass is so far from Boston that football is an afterthought (even when playing in Foxboro)

the pride isn't their because they've played in fcs most of their history and completely horrible in the fbs while basically never on tv. they have no reason to be prideful. you are looking at the current value which is still in its infancy (in reference to trying to get on the national level) not their future value.

the pride will come when they can compete at this level. if umass beat vt or ucla or something like that, you very well know this would be headline news EVERYWHERE in boston and all over mass. and you can tell yourself whatever you want to believe but if uconn did that i doubt it would be news in the boston markets of any significance. again its about representation. FSU is in the middle of nowhere like honestly in the middle of nowhere not close to any major city in florida, but they represent florida and whenever they win the entire sate celebrates including the cities 10-12 hours away.

again no one is saying this would happen tomorrow but umass even just decent under a few years of success and national exposure will be worth a lot to this league. again you can draw parallels between rutgers and umass.

Dude, I LIVE in Boston. I think that it qualifies me to expound on what is covered and not covered by the media more than someone who isn't even from this region.

Once again, Massachusetts DOES NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT COLLEGE SPORTS. For proof, look at BC. They are IN Boston and I barely even hear about their sports on the nightly news or in the papers. UMass is 90 miles away and most Bostonians didn't go there. Boston attracts residents who are alums from all over America. It waters down the market. There are probably more alums of B1G schools combined in Boston than UMass alums. This means that I hear about UMass sports only when their men's bball team is ranked (which is once a decade).

Also, pro sports are king. Most bars that I have been to in Boston would rather show a Red Sox Spring Training Game over a BC or UMass hoop game if they have limited televisions. Why? It will appeal to a broader fanbase. Everyone in Boston loves the Sox. Only BC alums and UMass alums care about UMass. Same goes for football. If UMass football or BC football are up against BC hockey or BU hockey, the bars will show the hockey game!!!! No lie!!!! Boston is a hockey and baseball town. They will show a BU hockey game over a Alabama-Michigan football game!!!!

Mass just ain't the place you think that it is.

(04-01-2014 02:32 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 02:18 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 02:05 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:57 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 01:36 PM)pesik Wrote:  just flagship is foolish, but umass is a flagish of a very populated state.

idaho and new mexico, hawaii, wyoming (north dakota, delaware, montana,maine) etc. i honestly i have no interest in, they are states with very small poplulation, little tv markets all of which are dramatically smaller than the city of houston by itself

Massachusetts is a major state which has a rather large population, a some of the best tv markets included in it. most dont see that umass is a diamond in the ruff. if we could honestly get umass success at this level and have dramatically better facilities i could honestly see them 9-10 years down the line filling up a 50-60k stadium. i feel the same way about everyone in our league (not tulsa). and honestly a sucessful umass would control the entire NE corridor (New hamspshire, maine, vermont) the way the New england patriots do in the NFL.

umass resembles rutgers in a lot of ways, everyone thought it was foolish for rutgers to jump to the fbs when they joined in the 90's and rutgers struggled (technically never stopped struggling) but today they are valueable enought to be added by the big 10 and they sell 50k+ a game

Very good point and very similar. If UMass invested like Rutgers they would either be in a P5 or competing with UConn for the next opening.

Rutgers is in a P5 due to proximity to NYC. UMass is located in western Massachusetts.

I don't see how UMass would be competing with UConn.
- UConn has 3 titles in men's hoop. UMass has none
- UConn has 8 titles in women's hoop. UMass has none
- UConn has their own 40,000 seat football stadium and fills 98% of their stadium on gameday. UMass plays at a pro stadium and fills 12% of the Patriots stadium on gameday
- UConn is closer to New York that UMass
- UConn is closer to Boston than UMass
- UMass is located in UConn's media market (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield), not Boston's. The heart of that market is Hartford.

UMass competing with UConn?

Focusing on proximity is a bit unfair. The fact is that the NY market, though much larger, is highly fractured, while MA is far less. My point is that if UMass made consistent investments going back to the 90's, we would be every bit the brand of UConn. UMass would have the luxury of drawing from all of New England along a state with double the population (huge supply of high end students) and 50% greater GDP. Not to mention the GDP of MA is insular while CT is directly connected to bleed out from NYC.

You can feel whatever you like, I don't see how you can truthfully argue that a UMass dedicated to athletics over a prolonged period, would not have competed with the UConn brand. My argument is predicated on investing in the past, moving forward the landscape has changed as access is more limited and it could be too late for UMass to overcome the future obstacles.

That is like me saying that if UConn had made consistent investments in football going back to the year 1900, we would be every bit the brand of Michigan. It is a possibility, but both statements are rooted in a lot of speculation and are highly unlikely based on the geography of UConn and UMass. I think UMass has more of a disadvantage over UConn because there are more private colleges in Massachusetts and the heard of the population base (Boston) has a zillion of them. Boston College, Boston University, Harvard, and Northeastern comprise the vast majority of college students in Boston and are located in the center of the media market. This certainly lessens exposure for UMass. UConn has no similar competition (unless we are talking about Yale and Quinnipiac hockey).

You are correct that UMass waited too long to throw their hat into the ring. To build a stadium like UConn's in 2014 would cost significantly more than the $91.2M that UConn spent in 2000. It would cost about $124M now. I just don't see Mass taxpayers wanting to pony up that kind of cash when they don't have a conference home for football.

Though the Mich analogy is over the top as the states are in different regions and Mich had the benefit of being largely exclusive in their market for years, I would say UConn could mirror Mich if they invested very early on in FBall, not unlike Penn St.

You analogy on cost is absurd because of inflation. If UMass had built on Calipari's success, that stadium cost would be a piece of cake. MA has better home state grown businesses that would have stepped up, not to mention alumni and legislators.

The private school stuff really isn't any different then CT. They have just as much bleed out from their HS students going to privates. From an athletics POV, even BC doesn't move the needle with locals, a successful UMass would. You disagree, congrats, but I am firm on my POV. I was a teenager during those Calipari runs, people cared. MA and CT are very similar states and people, Umass would certainly be at a min equal to UConn if they had invested long ago. I could easily see them surpassing UConn because they have more rabid sport fans. You see these crazy pro sports team, if they actually had a direct connection the the team (i.e a UMass alum, wife/husband/parent/child of an alum) they would be insane.

(04-01-2014 02:34 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  A huge NO to UMASS and Army. Why is this even a thread.

Because some Tulane fan isn't grateful enough that they even got in this conference in the first place. They are about one missed text message from still being in C-USA, now they want UMass