UMASS and AAC need each other | Page 2 | The Boneyard

UMASS and AAC need each other

Status
Not open for further replies.
Confident Carl said:
Fishy, take some time to read the article. Blaudschun suggests letting UMASS in for all sports EXCEPT football. Navy is just football. He adds that they could schedule 6 OOC games with AAC teams and let them prove themselves over time. They would be quasi Independent and highly motivated to build their football program.
They had a better football team than we had last year. They lost to Colorado and Vanderbilt by a total of 6 points! Adding them for Basketball and other sports wouldn't hurt anything.
Expand ...

I read it - you didn't.

Or at least you didn't understand it.

The piece advocates UMass joining the American in all sports via some convoluted scheduling plan that culminates with the American expanding to 14 schools in all sports.

"If the American Conference is smart, it will use UMass in basketball to build much needed rivalries and it will eventually absorb the Minutemen in football in a 14 team league..."

No, it wouldn't.

And for giggles, try to imagine the response of the conference's bowl partners when you tell them that you want UMass to have a tie-in to the conference's bowls.
 
Fishy said:
I read it - you didn't.

Or at least you didn't understand it.

The piece advocates UMass joining the American in all sports via some convoluted scheduling plan that culminates with the American expanding to 14 schools in all sports.

"If the American Conference is smart, it will use UMass in basketball to build much needed rivalries and it will eventually absorb the Minutemen in football in a 14 team league..."

No, it wouldn't.

And for giggles, try to imagine the response of the conference's bowl partners when you tell them that you want UMass to have a tie-in to the conference's bowls.
Expand ...

There is not a single dimension on which the AAC makes sense for UConn, and yet you are arguing that a major state university that is about 70 miles away doesn't belong in a league with us.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
There is not a single dimension on which the AAC makes sense for UConn, and yet you are arguing that a major state university that is about 70 miles away doesn't belong in a league with us.
Expand ...

Rhody doesn't belong either.
 
UConnJim said:
UMass does not have a competitive athletic program as they have not and do not invest. Look at the major teams:

Football: 5-31 since going FBS. Unfortunately, they were late to upgrade and couldn't upgrade to a BCS conference like UConn did.
Men's basketball: One NCAA tournament in 15 years.
Women's basketball: 1 winning season since 1999. Last 5 year records: 12-18, 4-27, 3-26, 8-21, 7-23.
Baseball: Last 5 year records: 13-31, 14-31, 22-22, 17-29-1, 19-27.
Men's soccer: Last 5 year records: 3-14-1, 4-14-1, 5-11-2, 4-13-2, 5-5-8.
Women's soccer: Last 5 year records: 5-9-5, 7-9-4, 9-10-1, 14-5-2, 8-11.

When you look at UMass' athletic results, it is obvious that they are not committed to major college athletics. Do you think any of the AAC teams want to add UMass based on past athletic results? And, if UConn ever left the AAC, what would have been the rationale to have invited UMass?

One last point. UConn deserves a P5 conference invite based on athletic achievements, fan support, facilities, and investment, which is why BC's blocking of UConn was based on spite and not merit. Mass does not deserve an AAC invite based on athletic achievements, fan support, facilities, and investment.
Expand ...

But the UMASS Band is really good. Does that count?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
There is not a single dimension on which the AAC makes sense for UConn, and yet you are arguing that a major state university that is about 70 miles away doesn't belong in a league with us.
Expand ...

I'm saying that "major state university" that essentially doesn't have a Division I football program makes no sense for the American.
 
UMass needs the AAC and it needs that to happen before we leave. After we leave, there is no way the conference, w/1 school above the mason-dixon line looks 250 miles north of Temple to add. they would have to look South or Southwest, to schools like ODU, Marshall, Charlotte, So. Miss, etc. And UMass is forever stuck on an island.

I've an idea - for those who think playing UMass in MBB is a good idea, how about we schedule them as an OOC game. Are we not allowed to do that?
 
.-.
Fishy said:
I read it - you didn't.

Or at least you didn't understand it.

The piece advocates UMass joining the American in all sports via some convoluted scheduling plan that culminates with the American expanding to 14 schools in all sports.

"If the American Conference is smart, it will use UMass in basketball to build much needed rivalries and it will eventually absorb the Minutemen in football in a 14 team league..."

No, it wouldn't.

And for giggles, try to imagine the response of the conference's bowl partners when you tell them that you want UMass to have a tie-in to the conference's bowls.
Expand ...

I understood it fine. It's important to define what EVENTUALLY means. Blaudschun suggests UMASS inclusion for football in like 5-10 years, not the near future. At that time, the AAC would need another team for football because they would be uneven. Perhaps Army could be the 14th.
 
noeynox said "I am one of the few that wouldn't mind a "local rival" for as long as were here."

I agree! :)
 
confident carl said "..basketball game which felt like a high school Gym. Believe me, playing UMASS in basketball is not as silly as playing before 2500 people against Tulane, 2,000 miles away from Storrs!"

well said.
 
Confident Carl said:
Fishy, take some time to read the article. Blaudschun suggests letting UMASS in for all sports EXCEPT football. Navy is just football. He adds that they could schedule 6 OOC games with AAC teams and let them prove themselves over time. They would be quasi Independent and highly motivated to build their football program.
They had a better football team than we had last year. They lost to Colorado and Vanderbilt by a total of 6 points! Adding them for Basketball and other sports wouldn't hurt anything.
Expand ...

Adding UMass in other sports besides football wouldn't hurt anything? Open your eyes! UMass is not competitive in most major sports that the American sponsors. Their most competitive sport for the American is men's basketball and they have been to the NCAAs once in 15 years! Women's basketball is beyond a train wreck: One winning season since 1999! Baseball - not competitive. Men's and women's soccer - not very competitive. Why would the American think adding UMass in all sports but football is a good idea?

As for investing in the program, UMass coaching salaries in the major sports would rank dead last in the AAC. Their athletic spending would rank dead last in the AAC as they currently spend around $30 mill of which ~$25 million is subsidized!! That is not a sustainable model. Their athletic department generates almost no revenue!

UMass should drop football and either join the A-10 or America East. Heck, UMass' athletic spending, even with FBS football, looks like an America East school:

UMass: $30 mill.
UNH: $26 mill.
URI: $25 mill.
Stony Brook: $25 mill
Maine: $19 mill
Vermont: $18 mill
 
Confident Carl said:
I understood it fine. It's important to define what EVENTUALLY means. Blaudschun suggests UMASS inclusion for football in like 5-10 years, not the near future. At that time, the AAC would need another team for football because they would be uneven. Perhaps Army could be the 14th.
Expand ...

Previously, your argument was Blauds was not advocating UMass to the American in football. Hence your admonishment to me that I "take some time to read the article" because "Blaudschun suggests letting UMASS in for all sports EXCEPT football."

Now you're back with a different take. Still wrong-headed, but at least you're on the same page as Blauds now.

His plan is the integration of UMass football into the American Conference. The definition of "eventually" is meaningless - the American's investment in UMass would begin immediately in the form of scheduling alliances and bowl tie-ins and culminate in an invitation to UMass and another school to join the conference.

That's certainly a positive for UMass - it basically gives them life via an umbilical cord attached to the AAC.

But it makes no sense for the American. It cannot be justified on the field, in the travel budget, in television negotiations, etc., etc.
 
Confident Carl said:
Check out Memphis football record for the past ten years. They finished 25th in the country last year beating BYU in a bowl game. They elevated their program under Fuentes. Although the AAC is not P5 and teams want out, it is the next best thing. All of the AAC have made significant investment in infrastructure.

I am not being nostalgic, just pointed out what occurred in the past. College sports is nostalgic by nature which fuels the rivalries, etc. The glory days of SMU, Houston, Navy and to some extent Temple in basketball have some meaning in the grand scheme.

Memorial stadium has absolutely zero to do with this conversation.
Expand ...
Well said Carl.
 
.-.
Two things I'm not seeking more of on this board are 1)hypothetical conferences and 2)adding more teams to the AAC.

I'll take bullshot tweets from WV hillbillies all day every day over those two things.

You can post what you like, obvs, but in my opinion you're wasting your time.

I'm here to hear news on how we are getting out of this conference, and for the women.

image.jpg
 
Confident Carl said:
I understood it fine. It's important to define what EVENTUALLY means. Blaudschun suggests UMASS inclusion for football in like 5-10 years, not the near future. At that time, the AAC would need another team for football because they would be uneven. Perhaps Army could be the 14th.
Expand ...
Essentially UMass would be building to fill the empty NE space in the AAC and G5 CFB left by UConn when we move to greener pastures. We need more investment not less here in NE in FB or my gravest fears on HS and CFB will come to fruition sooner than I'd hoped. We'll be left watching or not 2 hand touch!
 
Fishy said:
Previously, your argument was Blauds was not advocating UMass to the American in football. Hence your admonishment to me that I "take some time to read the article" because "Blaudschun suggests letting UMASS in for all sports EXCEPT football."

Now you're back with a different take. Still wrong-headed, but at least you're on the same page as Blauds now.

His plan is the integration of UMass football into the American Conference. The definition of "eventually" is meaningless - the American's investment in UMass would begin immediately in the form of scheduling alliances and bowl tie-ins and culminate in an invitation to UMass and another school to join the conference.

That's certainly a positive for UMass - it basically gives them life via an umbilical cord attached to the AAC.

But it makes no sense for the American. It cannot be justified on the field, in the travel budget, in television negotiations, etc., etc.
Expand ...

This thread was a result of an article written by a seasoned sportswriter that I happen to agree with.
I understood everything he wrote including the 6 OOC games with AAC teams and possibly a bowl tie in. I don't see what would be wrong with AAC teams playing UMASS in OOC games? We play teams like Stonybrook, Villanova or Towson State. Jersey guy is making a reasonable argument to take advantage of UMASS's availability.

UMASS football dosn't do much for building up the AAC which is why I like the idea of an non football membership with 6 non league football games with AAC teams.

It makes a lot of sense for UCONN and Temple as has been said before. Check out the future schedules, UMASS has some interesting match ups (many away I know) They already have UCONN and Temple on future schedules along with teams like Notre Dame, BYU, Indiana, Florida and Boston College.

http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/mid-amer/umass-minutemen.php

Have a nice weekend.
 
.-.
I think hoops (in a vacum) is obviously a good deal for both. I don't think UMass makes it a hugely better conference, but the local rivalry would be nice and they def. bring up the bottom of the conference. You get Temple-UMass back, UMass-UConn, etc. Mix them in and you've got a pretty good little hoops conference. That being said - you don't need a conference spot to schedule them, either if you're Temple/UConn, so there's that.

They're a depth add - but certainly not a centerpiece. I just don't see any real value in adding them for football.

Thing is - i'm not really sure UMass needs big time sports at all. They're investing in it - but they've worked their way up the national rankings without it just fine. There was a huge piece in the Boston Globe a few weeks ago dumping on them for bothering with big time football when it's such an unnecessary addition. Everyone keeps harping on the benefit to the AAC - but UMass is doing well across the board. It'd have to make sense for them, too.

That being said - they hired a new Athletic Director (Former Georgia Tech guy), have a home grown coach (who may leave, rumor is) and a new President as of today who was a former US Congressman (Marty Meehan). Could be a different world there, so who knows what their plans are. So all in all - i'm agnostic to seeing them here, unsure of the real value-add to the conference, but certainly would welcome them if they were added. I'd rather play them than Tulane or East Carolina.
 
Last edited:
When the day arrives that we have a better home than this conference. the only remaining AAC schools that would possibly consider looking outside of the bible belt for our replacement would be Temple and Navy. If the AAC were to add UMass it would be time to cash in as the only thing we would be able to derive from the move would be that we are stuck in this dump for the long term (and by long term I mean far longer than another eight to ten years).

Not only would I not treat news of this as something positive. I would begin breaking things of value in an attempt to manage my anger.
 
Confident Carl said:
Fishy, take some time to read the article. Blaudschun suggests letting UMASS in for all sports EXCEPT football. Navy is just football. He adds that they could schedule 6 OOC games with AAC teams and let them prove themselves over time. They would be quasi Independent and highly motivated to build their football program.
They had a better football team than we had last year. They lost to Colorado and Vanderbilt by a total of 6 points! Adding them for Basketball and other sports wouldn't hurt anything.
Expand ...
Except for the fact that non football schools are worth $0.00 in tv dollars, which is the whole point of realignment.

Where's that ignore button?
 
Wouldn't it be a lot easier for UCONN to simply schedule UMASS OOC in both football and basketball every year, as opposed to trying to get the rest of The AAC on board with a UMASS Membership? I'm sure schools like Tulsa and SMU would be psyched about sending all of their non revenue sports to another destination in New England.
 
Ldandy said:
Wouldn't it be a lot easier for UCONN to simply schedule UMASS OOC in both football and basketball every year, as opposed to trying to get the rest of The AAC on board with a UMASS Membership? I'm sure schools like Tulsa and SMU would be psyched about sending all of their non revenue sports to another destination in New England.
Expand ...

It would be a lot easier. Also, it wouldn't require the other AAC schools to get on board with adding UMASS and having another mouth to feed with a pitiful, meager pot of TV money that they do less than nothing to contribute to.
 
Fishy said:
I have nothing against UMass and don't like seeing them caught up in limbo.
Expand ...

Well I have plenty against UMass and I am indifferent to their limbo since it's of their own making. When they made their very brief run in the 90's. they would badmouth UConn at every opportunity. I've read disparaging comments about UConn football from their coaches and AD. Who needs 'em? We don't owe them a frigging thing.
 
.-.
Until the people of Massachusetts and the legislature see UMass as an investment rather than an expense, nothing will change up there.
 
Can't see an 'all in' UMass to AAC will hurt / effect UConn in any way. It's a good add and will not impact your eventual ACC invite.
 
Gretchen said:
Can't see an 'all in' UMass to AAC will hurt / effect UConn in any way. It's a good add and will not impact your eventual ACC invite.
Expand ...

You brought up a big "if" by saying an "all in" UMass. They are not all in today, so why is that going to change? None, and I mean none of their major sports would be competitive in the AAC today. Men's basketball has made 1 NCAA tournament in 15 years! Their athletic spending and coaching salaries would be last in the AAC and the AD is almost entirely funded by subsidies, not revenue generation.

UMass does not have much financial or athletic support within Massachusetts today. How is that going to change?

Finally, if UConn ever left the AAC, why would the rest of the schools want UMass? Geographically, they would be an outlier in the conference if UConn wasn't in the AAC. Yes, UConn is a geographic outlier in the AAC, but they bring athletic success, fan support, media recognition, and the largest athletic budget in the AAC. UMass brings none of that to the conference.
 
Imagining the AAC without UConn....why would any of the schools in the AAC want to invite UMass?

Please don't say basketball...those cats have made one NCAA tournament since 1998.
 
Waquoit said:
We need UMass like we need painful, rectal itch.
Expand ...
Uconn needs Tulsa... and a few other of these far away AAC football programs, " like a painful, rectal itch " too. Playing Umass in football has far more regional interest than a Uconn- Tulsa, or SMU snoozer. So if BC is not interested, than playing an annual regional interest football game with Umass is at least as interesting as playing some of these other AAC teams that are outside the New England region.
 
Last edited:
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,420
Members
10,466
Latest member
agiglax


Top Bottom