UMass as an Independent in Football: Tough to Schedule | Page 3 | The Boneyard

UMass as an Independent in Football: Tough to Schedule

Status
Not open for further replies.
UCONN13KC said:
The AAC, MAC, and CUSA should get together and realign. At least make it more regional so there is a reason for interest. We are now the worst football team in a weak conference which only hurts our cause and of the 37 teams that make up those 3 conferences, not many teams are worse than us. Otherwise, UCONN and UMass should join the Big East and go Indy in football just in case, by some miracle, UCONN gets the call. The writing is on the Rent wall. Low attendance at our conference home opener.
Expand ...

The one saving grace for the AAC is that it's a solid basketball conference, which is something that neither the MAC nor C-USA can state. If UMass didn't want any part of MAC basketball (and the MAC is really the only league where regionalism works for UConn), then it's hard to see how a hoops superpower like UConn would think that would work.

I don't think the Big East wants FBS independents at all, either. The one thing that the Big East has now that the old football/hybrid Big East didn't have was stability... and inviting independents whose sole athletic department purpose will be to leave to find a better all-sports home goes against why the Catholic 7 split off in the first place. If the Big East wanted a more powerful slate of basketball programs that also had FBS programs (i.e. UConn, Memphis, Cincinnati, etc.), then they would have just stayed in a hybrid AAC (or whatever it would have been called).
 
frankthetank said:
The one saving grace for the AAC is that it's a solid basketball conference, which is something that neither the MAC nor C-USA can state. If UMass didn't want any part of MAC basketball (and the MAC is really the only league where regionalism works for UConn), then it's hard to see how a hoops superpower like UConn would think that would work.

I don't think the Big East wants FBS independents at all, either. The one thing that the Big East has now that the old football/hybrid Big East didn't have was stability... and inviting independents whose sole athletic department purpose will be to leave to find a better all-sports home goes against why the Catholic 7 split off in the first place. If the Big East wanted a more powerful slate of basketball programs that also had FBS programs (i.e. UConn, Memphis, Cincinnati, etc.), then they would have just stayed in a hybrid AAC (or whatever it would have been called).
Expand ...
This is all true. But even if the AAC is a solid basketball conference, that is only a by-product of the bad football conference affiliation. If Cincy, Memphis, or UCONN have down basketball years, the basketball conference stinks. If not the Big East, join the A10 and figure football out later.

Most importantly, UCONN doesn't deserve a "decent" basketball conference. If UCONN has to accept decent, then it's time to do something radical.
 
Last edited:
UCONN13KC said:
This is all true. But even if the AAC is a solid basketball conference, that is only a by-product of the bad football conference affiliation. If Cincy, Memphis, or UCONN have down basketball years, the basketball conference stinks. If not the Big East, join the A10 and figure football out later.

Most importantly, UCONN doesn't deserve a "decent" basketball conference. If UCONN has to accept decent, then it's time to do something radical.
Expand ...

The AAC is a better basketball conference than most conferences and it will improve. SMU with Larry Brown is now a good program. (After Larry Brown, who knows.) Houston hired Kelvin Sampson which means they are committed to improving. Temple is a good program, but was down last year. The AAC could have 6 quality programs and maybe you get Tulsa to be good once in a while.
 
UConnJim said:
The AAC is a better basketball conference than most conferences and it will improve. SMU with Larry Brown is now a good program. (After Larry Brown, who knows.) Houston hired Kelvin Sampson which means they are committed to improving. Temple is a good program, but was down last year. The AAC could have 6 quality programs and maybe you get Tulsa to be good once in a while.
Expand ...
Who cares about AAC basketball. It's just not Ivy League (so to speak), now is it.
 
.-.
So wait, now the AAC is a basketball league? Outside of UConn, Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple and SMU (as long as Brown is there), this conference is abysmal in basketball. I had hoped that the football would be strong, but that is terrible too, so I am not sure what the point of this league is. I would like UMass in it because it would be two more good basketball games and a drivable road trip.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
So wait, now the AAC is a basketball league? Outside of UConn, Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple and SMU (as long as Brown is there), this conference is abysmal in basketball. I had hoped that the football would be strong, but that is terrible too, so I am not sure what the point of this league is. I would like UMass in it because it would be two more good basketball games and a drivable road trip.
Expand ...

I would think Houston with Kelvin Sampson will improve quickly. Tulsa is OK right now so that is 7 out of 11 that are decent. That's not bad. I'm not sure about UCF and USF, but they could have a decent season now and then. ECU and Tulane are projects.

As for road trips to UMass, is that a joke? How many UConn fans have ever been to a UMass football or basketball game in Amherst? Or, even been to Amherst? I live in Massachusetts and I have a better chance of going to a UConn game in Orlando, New Orleans, or Houston than in Amherst. In fact, I have been in those cities as well as Charlotte, Tampa, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Dallas, and Baltimore more than I have been to Amherst.

UMass/BC football and basketball games IN Massachusetts doesn't draw fans. Anyone who thinks UMass is a good idea to join the AAC doesn't have a clue. They have very little support in the state. Heck, it would not be surprising if UMass-Lowell surpassed UMass-Amherst as a university in 20 years.
 
You have no idea what you're talking about.

UMass hoop would instantly draw better than Temple, UCF, USF, ECU, Houston, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane.

Why?

Because they already do - outside of UConn and Cincy, not one AAC school outdrew UMass last year.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
So wait, now the AAC is a basketball league? Outside of UConn, Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple and SMU (as long as Brown is there), this conference is abysmal in basketball. I had hoped that the football would be strong, but that is terrible too, so I am not sure what the point of this league is. I would like UMass in it because it would be two more good basketball games and a drivable road trip.
Expand ...

Those programs you list are traditionally good men's basketball programs. Temple was down last year, and SMU was better than normal. But still good basketball. There is something to build on there. I don't know much about UMass. I think of Marcus Camby and basketball as well as the time UVA played UMass for the Men's lacrosse national championship. I don't think football. I know they are trying to make the transition to FBS a success. They really need to upgrade Amhearst and get out of Foxboro to do that IMO. I also think of a UMass-Temple basketball rivalry. I remember a fist fight or something between Calipari and Cheney at an Atlantic 10 press conference or something. Heated. Could be wrong. With VCU and Richmond in the A10 now, we'll be getting more UMass basketball info.

One would think that Boston College, UConn, and UMass could collectively work toward promoting college athletics in New England together, and that BC would be sponsoring both UConn and UMass into the ACC. Drivable rivalry games, New England fan interest, and just plain fun should drive this. All three are doing it in Hockey. What's the problem in football, basketball? Don't get it. There is something to be said for promoting the whole region together rather than fighting over it. Politics aside.

We've already gone over why BC blackballed UConn in the ACC many times. No need to revisit. My only point is that this UMass thing is the same thing again. I agree with Fishy that a drivable rivaly is important for fans. UMass would not hurt the AAC if they get their home football stadium issue resolved.
 
When the league's decision is to let Tulane and Tulsa in, I can't imagine what criteria they use to keep anyone else out. Tulane and Tulsa are stupid on a lot of levels, including the fact that they are both small private schools that share markets with massively popular programs. Both suck, and there is not really a viable path to long-term success for either one. UMass is a big public school in a state where the only in-state competition sucks and is only marginally popular. Addazio followed up his great win over USC with a home loss to Colorado State. UMass would have natural rivalries with Temple and UConn, and would generate a lot more fan interest than most of the dreck on the schedule.

Buffalo and UMass should have been added over Tulane and Tulsa, but apparently UConn was either not trying to influence the decision or was unable to.
 
.-.
In my opinion, and this won't be popular in Amherst, is that UMass has a long way to go before they could be a productive and valuable member of the AAC. Although I agree they would have been as good a choice as Tulane or Tulsa, that in itself doesn't say much.
UMass is trying, I'll give them that much. They sat on their hands back when they should have made a move. Within a couple of years of each other they were in a Final Four in basketball and won a National Championship in football. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I admire UConn's forward thinking at a time when moves were possible. Now, with that being said, there are some good things happening in Amherst. Donations to athletics, and some fairly big ones, are at an all time high. There is a phase 2 to the McGuirk plan that will add seating and amenities. Not sure of the timetable for such an announcement, but it is coming. This is just my opinion, but President Caret is the best thing to happen for the Amherst campus in a long time. His commitment is real and he is a strong leader in a very vulnerable time.
Bottom line is that UMass needs to find a way to double their athletic budget, finish making McGuirk a viable stadium, and market themselves better to fans and alumni. Tall order.
 
Fishy said:
You have no idea what you're talking about.

UMass hoop would instantly draw better than Temple, UCF, USF, ECU, Houston, SMU, Tulsa and Tulane.

Why?

Because they already do - outside of UConn and Cincy, not one AAC school outdrew UMass last year.
Expand ...

Yeah, but they would have an AAC schedule.
 
I just don't understand how people want UMass. They would not add anything to the AAC.

Well, let's look at the facts.

First, let's look at UMass basketball. The AAC will have 11 basketball members. How does UMass stack up?

5 Year average attendance:

1) Memphis
2) UConn
3) Cincinnati
4) Temple
5) UCF
6) Tulsa
7) UMass

UMass has averaged 4673, barely above USF at 4552 and ECU at 4464.

Where would UMass place in basketball in the AAC based on Sagarin ratings?

2014: 5th
2013: 5th
2012: 6th
2011: 8th
2010: 8th

Bottom line: UMass would be a below average addition to AAC basketball.


Now let's look at football?

Obviously, it's an unfair comparison because UMass is a newbie to FBS, but...

5 year average football attendance:

UMass would be in last place in the AAC in each of the last 5 years.

Where would UMass place in football in the AAC based on Sagarin ratings?

2013: 13th
2012: 13th
2011: 11th
2010: 11th
2009: 11th

Bottom line: UMass would probably be the worst football program in the AAC.

So people want to add a school to the AAC that would be below average in basketball and probably the worst football program in the AAC because they could drive to an away game?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,407
Members
10,466
Latest member
agiglax


Top Bottom