I want UMass in the league

[tzznandrew]

Basketball....that is the crown jewel of UConn's athletic dept and I don't think you guys are giving that enough consideration in this thread. I contend that UMass brings more to the table basketball-wise than anyone you've brought in with the exception of maybe Memphis. Umass is 18-9 with a RPI 48-54 (depending on what site you look). Sure, UConn and Cincy will be the power basketball teams in the conference, but what will your RPI look like after conference play is over? Out of all the teams you're bringing in, are any of them in the top 100?

Look, we hope we're out of here. But I'm like some others on the thread--I'm not against it in theory. Were UMass to become successful at football, I'd consider (as if my opinion matters).

As for UMass basketball: the thing about this is an anomaly.

2001-02
13-16 (6-10)
2002-03
11-18 (6-10)
2003-04
10-19 (4-12)
2004-05
16-12 (9-7)
2005-06
13-15 (8-8)
2006-07
24-9 (13-3) NIT Second Round
2007-08
25-11 (10-6) NIT Runner-up)
2008-09
12-18 (7-9)
2009-10
12-20 (5-11)
2010-11
15-15 (7-9)
2011-12
25-12 (9-7) NIT Semi-Finals

So, when you compare this year to the last 11: only they times has UMass played in the post-season. Only four times were they above .500. I'm not convinced this is the profile that helps the basketball side enough to justify their inclusion. Don't get me wrong: this is better than UCF, Tulane, SMU, Houston. But it's not like we can kick them out, right? Any further addition dilutes the brand.

Get into the NCAA tournament a couple years, go more than 3 years between sub-500 seasons, and we'll talk.

 

[Mark W]

Look, we hope we're out of here. But I'm like some others on the thread--I'm not against it in theory. Were UMass to become successful at football, I'd consider (as if my opinion matters).

As for UMass basketball: the thing about this is an anomaly.

2001-02
13-16 (6-10)
2002-03
11-18 (6-10)
2003-04
10-19 (4-12)
2004-05
16-12 (9-7)
2005-06
13-15 (8-8)
2006-07
24-9 (13-3) NIT Second Round
2007-08
25-11 (10-6) NIT Runner-up)
2008-09
12-18 (7-9)
2009-10
12-20 (5-11)
2010-11
15-15 (7-9)
2011-12
25-12 (9-7) NIT Semi-Finals

So, when you compare this year to the last 11: only they times has UMass played in the post-season. Only four times were they above .500. I'm not convinced this is the profile that helps the basketball side enough to justify their inclusion. Don't get me wrong: this is better than UCF, Tulane, SMU, Houston. But it's not like we can kick them out, right? Any further addition dilutes the brand.

Get into the NCAA tournament a couple years, go more than 3 years between sub-500 seasons, and we'll talk.

Fair enough.... without knowing the dynamics of what is going on at UMass!!!!......you reference a time where UMass not only went through 3 coaches, but woefully underpaid. Lappas was an absolute disaster...Ford took the job never even really liking his position there and lobbied for a new job from day 1. In comes new AD.....in comes Derek Kellogg...Springfield native, UMass point guard (4 time A-10 champion). They just signed DK to a contract that, although not a lock to keep him forever, gives him the opportunity to make up to 880 K with incentives. Some of the incentives are a little out of reach this year, but he should be in the 650-700 K range this year.Compare that to the 350 K we paid Ford and I think we've established some stability at the coaching position.

Kellogg has put UMass back on a recruiting level that we haven't seen since Calipari. Lappas had us to an all-time low where we were fighting the likes of CCSU for guys like Jeff "Big Deli" Solovsky. Ford just didn't recruit at all and left Kellogg with pretty much an empty cupboard.

Kellogg recruiting so far.....grade B so far but trending up.......in for next year..Derrick Gordon (4 star trans from W. Kent), Zach Coleman (3 star de-commit from Mizzou), Clyde Santee ( 3 star kid from Houston) and Seth Berger ( 3 star kid from Seattle)

 

[Limbo Land]

Umass is better option in short run then Tulsa for us. We are already a laughing stock conference and that is not going to change with Tulsa. Our money is already set. Let us get something local going for the time being. Better academic school also. I keep bring up academics because I do not want to be put in with schools that are glorified community colleges. That cannot happen.

 

[CL82]

As a UMass fan, and one that is well aware of our position now without any delusions, I find this an asinine statement. UMass came to the football dance a decade late...I'm well aware of that. There are going to be growing pains, and if we continue to schedule the Wisconsins, Kansas States, and Michigans, it's gonna hurt!! That said, they've committed to growing a viable program and I have confidence they will. Basketball is on the rise and a top 60 RPI now with a great recruiting class coming in next year. Now before the onslaught of posts citing your 3 NC's, I concede...NO, we do not have that pedigree...and to your credit, not many do. Hockey, men's and women's lacrosse, field hockey, softball, and every other sport with the exception of women's basketball (horendous) are fine. So go ahead and judge an entire athletic dept on the results of their first year in FBS football. Very shallow view if you ask me.

Is it okay if we judge an entire athletic department based upon your state's lack of a commitment to the university? I'm just wondering. If not I'll go with the UGame results, if that's okay with you. Or basketball records over the past decade, whatever works best for you.

 

[CL82]

Who should we add? Please enlighten us.

Umass is a step up on half the schools already in the league.

I'd sure like to see just how you justify that statement. About the only things that UMass brings to the table are an easy commute to away games and a long dead rivalry.

 

[Vuce]

No one under the age of 35 remembers or considers Umass as a rival.

 

[Adios]

No one under the age of 35 remembers or considers Umass as a rival.

They are still part of our history. Just like Ivy League schools (particularly Yale) and those Little Ivy schools. They all completely dominated us. The Ivy League schools would dominate the Little Ivies though. We did become an FCS-level equivalent to Yale not too long ago. Now, we'd beat them all to a pulp. We need to continue to beat UMass to a pulp for fun. I am almost 35 (older than) and I consider UMass a rival. Our historic rivalry even might have come into play in stepping up to the FBS level. As you can see, they are jealous of us. They did get to a men's basketball Final Four before we did.

UMass, 1924 was the turning point! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Forgot to mention, we will absolutely be playing them in hockey every year in 2014. They have a very, very good hockey program.

 

[Mark W]

Is it okay if we judge an entire athletic department based upon your state's lack of a commitment to the university? I'm just wondering. If not I'll go with the UGame results, if that's okay with you. Or basketball records over the past decade, whatever works best for you.

This would be easier to answer is I knew exactly what you are referring to. Hopefully it is not that Faculty Senate nonsense that detractors have blown up into meaning something. Do we have the athletic budget UConn has? No. But let's look at positives in the last couple of years

More than doubled the salary of head basketball coach

Breaking ground in the spring of new basketball training facility adjacent to the Mullins Center

Upgraded to FBS football to include the hiring of a bona fide FBS coaching staff

Breaking ground on a 37 million dollar upgrade to McGuirk stadium as a phase 1 to making it suitable for FBS football. I would assume that some level of success will be required to ever see a phase 2, not a given by any means

This is just the athletic dept. I won't go into general academic positives going on at the campus, but the honors college dorms and facilities, the expansion of the Isenberg Management school, new labs built for biology dept, and being one of 11 state universities in the country actually adding professors and staff ( yes, UConn is another) are all readily available through the internet.

Are some of these baby steps...sure. Masachusetts is a cash strapped state and unfortunately secondary and higher education are easy targets for budget cuts ( Don't want to get into the political aspect here)

Now to your point, UMass has a duck**ed up system We have a president but each school has their own chancellor.Even the Medical Center in Worcester has it's own chancellor. What this causes is in-fighting and a very skewed vision of things like endowments, research grants etc. Politically I'm not sure they could ever put these under one governing body, but that would benefit the school quite a bit.

 

[UC990411]

This is exactly the type of attitude that has permeated both the Boneyard and UMasshoops boards for too long. Both boards have a majority of knowledgeable sports fans with a good grasp on reality that realize what is good for New England collegiate sports benefits all teams involved!! Then there's the folks (on both boards) that have such a skewed sense of self worth that any conversation is impossible. If UConn is such a cash cow, what are you doing in this dumpster-fire of a conference? Are you aware that as much as you badmouth the MAC, you've lost to Western Michigan( a middle of the road team in the MAC) 2 years in a row? There...did I accomplish anything there saying things just to demean? That type of discourse, although I know it is what message boards are made of, contributes nothing to finding a solution for 2 teams looking for a good place to land in this realignment. UConn and Cincy should be the leaders in trying to form a strong and viable northeast conference that works for all concerned. That's tough to do when you fancy yourself superior and spend your time looking down your nose!!!!

So UConn and Cinci should be looking out for the well being of Northeast athletics? No, Uconn and Cinci should be looking out for themselves, not for a rivalry with the worst football program in FBS.

 

[uconndogs]

I have no problem with UMASS on the football and hoops schedule. Conference affiliation should be based on what's best for the conference as a whole and I just don't know if UMASS fits that bill. It's my sincere hope that it becomes a mute point for UCONN in the very near future.

That all said, UCONN has made an enormous commitment to its athletics and has peformed at a very high level. UCONN should dictate terms to whatever extent it can (venues, etc.). As I've said before, there is no reason to let UMASS off the mat, especially in football. UCONN should own recruiting and the games should not be close. The differential in the programs should be highlighted at every opportunity.

 

[CL82]

This would be easier to answer is I knew exactly what you are referring to. Hopefully it is not that Faculty Senate nonsense that detractors have blown up into meaning something. Do we have the athletic budget UConn has? No. But let's look at positives in the last couple of years

More than doubled the salary of head basketball coach

Breaking ground in the spring of new basketball training facility adjacent to the Mullins Center

Upgraded to FBS football to include the hiring of a bona fide FBS coaching staff

Breaking ground on a 37 million dollar upgrade to McGuirk stadium as a phase 1 to making it suitable for FBS football. I would assume that some level of success will be required to ever see a phase 2, not a given by any means

This is just the athletic dept. I won't go into general academic positives going on at the campus, but the honors college dorms and facilities, the expansion of the Isenberg Management school, new labs built for biology dept, and being one of 11 state universities in the country actually adding professors and staff ( yes, UConn is another) are all readily available through the internet.

Are some of these baby steps...sure. Masachusetts is a cash strapped state and unfortunately secondary and higher education are easy targets for budget cuts ( Don't want to get into the political aspect here)

Well really Mark, I was referring to your commentary "So go ahead and judge an entire athletic dept on the results of their first year in FBS football. Very shallow view if you ask me." The point is that there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical UMass rather than just your first year in football.

The Massachusetts legislature hesitancy to invers in the school is pretty well documented.

Top UMass administrators say the university will never get more money from the state, so it doesn't, which forces the trustees to raise fees for students, which makes the Legislature believe UMass can handle its financial affairs on its own, which leads to declining state revenues, which leads to more speeches before the Chamber of Commerce declaring that the state will never fund public higher education. Down, down, down we go.

Link to Boston Globe Article. The failure of your own state to invest in the school is certainly going to make those of us outside of the school a little skeptical. Your sports teams have been less than stellar. So, I suggest, that there are plenty of reasons for people to be less than thrilled at a possible affiliation that are neither "assinine nor shallow", rather they are just a natural hesitency to be affiliated with a struggling institution. Reasonable, don't you think? That said, feel free to stop by and mention all the things you feel are steps in the right direction. You just want to be a little more open minded if we are skeptical, or just uninterested.

 

[Mark W]

So UConn and Cinci should be looking out for the well being of Northeast athletics? No, Uconn and Cinci should be looking out for themselves, not for a rivalry with the worst football program in FBS.

Agree wholeheartedly if in fact UConn is a "lock" to be out of there soon. If not, they should absolutely be looking to build as strong a conference, both competition and attendance wise that they possibly can. Not for the other schools, for themselves. As a UMass fan, I'm not asking UConn for any favors. But if you think you will draw more at the Rent for Tulsa than you will for UMass, I guess we've got nothing else to talk about.

 

[Fishy]

UMass is an awful football program at the moment - that really can't be debated.

But if they were somehow to become not awful, and if UConn is stuck in this mess for the long term, I would rather have UMass in the conference. I suspect the rest of the conference might prefer Tulsa because 1) they're not as awful, and 2) if UConn and Cincy do leave, Tulsa would likely be the first of the schools they'd invite anyway.

 

[Mark W]

Well really Mark, I was referring to your commentary "So go ahead and judge an entire athletic dept on the results of their first year in FBS football. Very shallow view if you ask me." The point is that there are a lot of reasons to be skeptical UMass rather than just your first year in football.

The Massachusetts legislature hesitancy to invers in the school is pretty well documented.
Link to Boston Globe Article. The failure of your own state to invest in the school is certainly going to make those of us outside of the school a little skeptical. Your sports teams have been less than stellar. So, I suggest, that there are plenty of reasons for people to be less than thrilled at a possible affiliation that are neither "assinine nor shallow", rather they are just a natural hesitency to be affiliated with a struggling institution. Reasonable, don't you think? That said, feel free to stop by and mention all the things you feel are steps in the right direction. You just want to be a little more open minded if we are skeptical, or just uninterested.

CL82...did you read the post that prompted my response. It was not one of the well-thought out posts discussing revenue sharing or any of the others on here that I have no problem with. I think making the comment that if you let UMass into any conference you are in you might as well give up athletics is indeed short-sighted and asinine. That is not my view of many of the other posts however.

Political posturing to a sympathetic ear at the Globe, while a perception nightmare not to mention the hit to our reputation, may or may not be the whole story. I haven't read the entire article you referenced so I'm in no position to debate that with you either way. What I do know is that I've seen more positives going on at UMass under President Caret and Chancellor Subswammy in the last 2 1/2 years than I have seen in 2 decades. For me, not being a political insider with intimate knowledge of the situation, that is where the rubber meets the road.

 

[tzznandrew]

Fair enough.... without knowing the dynamics of what is going on at UMass!!!!......you reference a time where UMass not only went through 3 coaches, but woefully underpaid. Lappas was an absolute disaster...Ford took the job never even really liking his position there and lobbied for a new job from day 1. In comes new AD.....in comes Derek Kellogg...Springfield native, UMass point guard (4 time A-10 champion). They just signed DK to a contract that, although not a lock to keep him forever, gives him the opportunity to make up to 880 K with incentives. Some of the incentives are a little out of reach this year, but he should be in the 650-700 K range this year.Compare that to the 350 K we paid Ford and I think we've established some stability at the coaching position.

Kellogg has put UMass back on a recruiting level that we haven't seen since Calipari. Lappas had us to an all-time low where we were fighting the likes of CCSU for guys like Jeff "Big Deli" Solovsky. Ford just didn't recruit at all and left Kellogg with pretty much an empty cupboard.

Kellogg recruiting so far.....grade B so far but trending up.......in for next year..Derrick Gordon (4 star trans from W. Kent), Zach Coleman (3 star de-commit from Mizzou), Clyde Santee ( 3 star kid from Houston) and Seth Berger ( 3 star kid from Seattle)

The fact that UMass has had three coaches in this period tells you a lot, though, right?

Look, if Derek Kellogg sticks around, and they keep winning, and they become an asset to the basketball side of this, fine. The ACC didn't look around and pick a mediocre BE school: they picked Syracuse and UConn--and then BC blocked UConn, and they moved to Pitt. For basketball/football schools, throw in Louisville, and those were the four best (EDIT: West Virginia had the best combination at the time of the initial expansion, but it seems academics matter to the ACC in the first two raids). The B1G was looking for markets--they picked the best market the BE had. There seems to me no reason to extend an invite to UMass (or any other school at the moment) other than potential growth. That doesn't seem a strong enough reason.

Win football games in the MAC, dominate the A10 like you did in the mid-90s, and I'll be a UMass advocate.

 

[Adios]

I have no problem with UMASS on the football and hoops schedule. Conference affiliation should be based on what's best for the conference as a whole and I just don't know if UMASS fits that bill. It's my sincere hope that it becomes a mute point for UCONN in the very near future.

That all said, UCONN has made an enormous commitment to its athletics and has peformed at a very high level. UCONN should dictate terms to whatever extent it can (venues, etc.). As I've said before, there is no reason to let UMASS off the mat, especially in football. UCONN should own recruiting and the games should not be close. The differential in the programs should be highlighted at every opportunity.

They are helping out our hockey program. Big time.

 

[huskymedic]

They are helping out our hockey program. Big time.

How so??

 

[Fishy]

They are helping out our hockey program. Big time.

No, they're not.

There is no altruism on the part of UMass to bolster UConn hockey.

 

[Mark W]

No, they're not.

There is no altruism on the part of UMass to bolster UConn hockey.

There is no effort to block the move either. I would make the same argument as to what you bring to Hockey East as you guys are making for football. There are better hockey programs out there that are a better fit for Hockey East

 

[huskymedic]

There is no effort to block the move either. I would make the same argument as to what you bring to Hockey East as you guys are making for football. There are better hockey programs out there that are a better fit for Hockey East

For example?

 

[TRest]

There is no effort to block the move either. I would make the same argument as to what you bring to Hockey East as you guys are making for football. There are better hockey programs out there that are a better fit for Hockey East

Not to pile on here, because you have been fine, but I doubt UMass has much clout in HE, all things considered. Our athletic budget is in the top 2-3 of HE before we even join, we should be able to compete at the bottom of the league.

 

[Mark W]

For example?

By bringing in Notre Dame the entire mid-west has opened up. There was a lot of talk in Hockey East to bring in a team or teams with more geographic relationship to them. There are a lot of good teams out there. My comment was not really a slam on UConn. It was more aimed at balancing the conference and bringing in a few good teams from that region.

I guess now would be a good time for a little clarification. I am a Umass alum and fan, but in NO way a UConn hater. In fact, my wife works at UConn and we go to many athletic events in which I root for UConn. We attend many UMass events as well and she does the same. Now on those occasions when they play each other...well, it gets a little ugly at our house. But I'm a Red Sox fan and she's a Yankee fan so we're used to it.

I've said before...decades ago, we were pretty even. Then UConn made some great decisions and UMass balked. Am I jealous? A little I guess. Do I begrudge UConn their success? Absolutely not. I've enjoyed watching your climb and you've proven it can be done in a predominantly pro sports region. That being said, I am a die-hard UMass fan and I am convinced that we can get to a level of success on our own.

 

[huskymedic]

By bringing in Notre Dame the entire mid-west has opened up. There was a lot of talk in Hockey East to bring in a team or teams with more geographic relationship to them. There are a lot of good teams out there. My comment was not really a slam on UConn. It was more aimed at balancing the conference and bringing in a few good teams from that region.

I guess now would be a good time for a little clarification. I am a Umass alum and fan, but in NO way a UConn hater. In fact, my wife works at UConn and we go to many athletic events in which I root for UConn. We attend many UMass events as well and she does the same. Now on those occasions when they play each other...well, it gets a little ugly at our house. But I'm a Red Sox fan and she's a Yankee fan so we're used to it.

I've said before...decades ago, we were pretty even. Then UConn made some great decisions and UMass balked. Am I jealous? A little I guess. Do I begrudge UConn their success? Absolutely not. I've enjoyed watching your climb and you've proven it can be done in a predominantly pro sports region. That being said, I am a die-hard UMass fan and I am convinced that we can get to a level of success on our own.

Fair enough... Thought you had someone specific in mind. I still have reservations that ND plays a game in HE all said and done.

 

[CL82]

CL82...did you read the post that prompted my response. It was not one of the well-thought out posts discussing revenue sharing or any of the others on here that I have no problem with. I think making the comment that if you let UMass into any conference you are in you might as well give up athletics is indeed short-sighted and asinine. That is not my view of many of the other posts however.

Political posturing to a sympathetic ear at the Globe, while a perception nightmare not to mention the hit to our reputation, may or may not be the whole story. I haven't read the entire article you referenced so I'm in no position to debate that with you either way. What I do know is that I've seen more positives going on at UMass under President Caret and Chancellor Subswammy in the last 2 1/2 years than I have seen in 2 decades. For me, not being a political insider with intimate knowledge of the situation, that is where the rubber meets the road.

Mark, did you read my posts? Let me be more clear. You may not find the Boneyard to be a source of willing cheerleaders for your program. There are very valid reasons for those who do not want to be associated with UMass. Maybe your institution is moving toward improvement at a glacial pace. Maybe, you will get there someday. Who can say? But for today, those who do not want to be in a conference with you are neither "asinine" nor "shallow." They are realistic and not blinded by being a UMass fan boy.

Posters from wanna be institutions coming onto the board and begging for validation gets tiresome very quickly. We have a name for those types, we call them Rutgers fans. You may find a more sympathetic ear among your own fan base, perhaps not since they are more familiar with your program. Do you guys have your own message board?

 

[RS9999X]

There's a difference between saying UMass is a possibility for addition and wouldn't be any worse than Tulsa or saying adding UMass would be a good thing.

I can live with UMass as an option instead of Tulsa. I just can't get excited over it

On paper Tulsa might be able to build something between SMU and Houston that rivals the Texas and Oklahomas rivalry.

OK. That was ridiculous. They had years to do that and didn't. As I wrote before away games at UMass are OK I like the area. But there's no way to get excited about adding UMass. Or any of the teams now in the league. If Derek Kellogg really produces he's gone.