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

(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

New Mexico State hosted Minnesota and Boston College last year. First time we've ever hosted two BCS schools in one year. And I can only think of two other times - Cal in 2005 and Oregon State in 2001.

Look, I'm not opposed to extending a temporary and revokable lifeline to UMass if it means not taking a school I'm opposed to as a permanent member. That being said.

Is UMass really getting a 'home' game when they play 100 miles from campus?

Benson likes to add these so wouldn't be surprised if UMass is thrown in.

We're hosting Missouri next year.....that would be local to stAte.

(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

WKU will host Louisville this year (very local and recent ncaa champs)and hosted Ole Miss this season.

(04-13-2014 11:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, I'm not opposed to extending a temporary and revokable lifeline to UMass if it means not taking a school I'm opposed to as a permanent member. That being said.

Is UMass really getting a 'home' game when they play 100 miles from campus?

Does it matter to us Away teams when we visit for a game in the Boston area? I think it is a win for the Sun Belt to accept UMASS as the 12th member FB only with NMSU all sports.

(04-13-2014 11:42 AM)Panarican Wrote:  

(04-13-2014 11:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look, I'm not opposed to extending a temporary and revokable lifeline to UMass if it means not taking a school I'm opposed to as a permanent member. That being said.

Is UMass really getting a 'home' game when they play 100 miles from campus?

Does it matter to us Away teams when we visit for a game in the Boston area? I think it is a win for the Sun Belt to accept UMASS as the 12th member FB only with NMSU all sports.

I don't think it is a win for the Sun Belt. Especially since they SUCK in football. They will bring the conference down.

And their stadium location doesn't matter as much to visiting fans except that there is going to be less excitement to play them if their side of the stadium is empty. AND - if they have little home support due to playing so far away from campus, then they probably aren't going to travel many fans which will hurt the reciprocal attendance numbers for the entire conference. As if that wouldn't already be impacted enough due to the distance they are from the rest of us. How many are going to Moscow this year from Southern? I'm not!

If they were permanent, I'd be worried about the future of a member that is failing to capture the support of their current students. If those current students don't experience fun times going to UMASS football games now, they aren't going to come back to "re-live" the glory days once they graduate and start making money that could find its way back to the program otherwise. What kind of future is that for them?

Now if we weren't going to take any body else (MSU,JMU,LU, EKU, etc.) then I could see it as a temp fix ONLY until one of those guys is ready or we are willing to take them. I'd rather go ahead and take Liberty.

I am not pushing for UMass membership just thought it was a nice plus for them. The future schedules are three on campus three in Gillette. They are finishing up a thirty million dollar renovation before next season . Going forward only one or two Gillette games a year the rest on campus is the plan.

Does that make them desirable probably not but their situation is not as bad as most think.

It is pretty simple, UMASS is a loss for the S-BC. They bring zero to the table when it comes to FBS football, and won't bring anything they are good at to the table. Unlike Notre Dame in the ACC, they are OK in one sport of note only. We do not need the 12th team, especially one that clearly only wants a safe harbor.

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.

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.

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)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)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 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 07:22 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 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.

(04-13-2014 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.

(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.