UMass as leverage | Page 2 | The Boneyard

UMass as leverage

Status
Not open for further replies.
I love when waylon lectures us common folk about market studies. It must be so frustrating for him to be the smartest person he's ever known.

As if he's too stupid to realize that the college football market in Mass (like NYC) isn't the same as Omaha, Columbus (OH), Atlanta, or Austin. The reason we shouldn't consider UMass is the reason Nebraska was invited to the Big 10 and not Rutgers. It doesn't matter how wealthy, or how large the population is if they don't care enough to spend money on your product.

If we add UMass, the ACC will sit back and laugh. They will call our bluff, we will water down the big east, and recruiting will become even more difficult for us. Not to mention the fact it will jeopardize the already fragile BCS status. We don't need a market study to know that. If UMass was as valuable as Waylon claims, why isn't the ACC interested?
 
0% of a large market is still 0%.

From any sort of business sense, it's entirely too early to even think about UMass in this light. You are essentially betting on a penny stock. They are a start up, and most start ups fail. If UMass meets the next few years with success on the field and putting fannies in the stands, then it may be worth revisiting.
 
I have several UMass alum friends who live in eastern MA and big sport fans. They could not care that their schools football team went to the MAC. BC owns the area and look how crappy they do in terms of getting butts in the seats. Eastern MA is a pro area and UMass would never capture the interest. To say it could swell as it did in CT is a farce. CT does not have the pro teams to deal with and UMass, eventhough it is the state school, doesn't have the brand recognition even in its own state as UConn does (thank you Jim and Geno).
 
The NFL flopped in Boston about 4 or 5 times before the Patriots succeeded.
 
WingU-Conn said:
I love when waylon lectures us common folk about market studies. It must be so frustrating for him to be the smartest person he's ever known.

As if he's too stupid to realize that the college football market in Mass (like NYC) isn't the same as Omaha, Columbus (OH), Atlanta, or Austin. The reason we shouldn't consider UMass is the reason Nebraska was invited to the Big 10 and not Rutgers. It doesn't matter how wealthy, or how large the population is if they don't care enough to spend money on your product.

If we add UMass, the ACC will sit back and laugh. They will call our bluff, we will water down the big east, and recruiting will become even more difficult for us. Not to mention the fact it will jeopardize the already fragile BCS status. We don't need a market study to know that. If UMass was as valuable as Waylon claims, why isn't the ACC interested?
Expand ...

Just my opinion, but I find most of Waylon's/Nelson's posts to be interesting and good reads even if I don't agree with them. WingU's posts generally seem kind of douchie...but that is just me.
 
.-.
buckley503 said:
I have several UMass alum friends who live in eastern MA and big sport fans. They could not care that their schools football team went to the MAC. BC owns the area and look how crappy they do in terms of getting butts in the seats. Eastern MA is a pro area and UMass would never capture the interest. To say it could swell as it did in CT is a farce. CT does not have the pro teams to deal with and UMass, eventhough it is the state school, doesn't have the brand recognition even in its own state as UConn does (thank you Jim and Geno).
Expand ...
As a Mass resident, I agree. Honestly nobody here knows or cares about college football, other than a reasonable number of BC alumns, and the folks who are interested in Harvard, and the Williams - Amherst game. Frankly, Connecticut isn't mcuh different. It's not a college football market. Nor is California other than some pockets of USC and UCLA fans. When I lived in San Jose, nobody knew or cared anything about Stanford, Cal or SJSU football. When I visit my parents in South Carolina, college football is THE sport, along with high school football. It will never, ever be that in MA, or NY.
 
metsfan2323 said:
Just my opinion, but I find most of Waylon's/Nelson's posts to be interesting and good reads even if I don't agree with them. WingU's posts generally seem kind of douchie...but that is just me.
Expand ...
Then you must not have a problem with someone creating your opinion for you, and then in a generally condescending tone, talk about how stupid your opinion is.

In other words, you probably aren't bright enough to realize when he's being a to you. I keep it simple for you so there's no confusion.
 
I'm sensing a lot of anger directed at one another here. Good rule of thumb, if you don't have something nice to say don't say anything.:cool:
 
metsfan2323 said:
Before people decide that MA would never support their state university for D1 football, please remind yourself how much fan support UCONN football received when we were D2. I think its a good idea, and I doubt BC really wants to see UMASS in the BIG EAST.
Expand ...

So the Big East really wants another team that struggles to sell out a 40,000 seat stadium when they are competing for conference championships. Another team in a market where college football comes after the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL?

The Big East wants another team that will play in the same stadium as, but get fewer fans than, MLS' New England Revolution?

We want another team that doesn't travel well, won't impress any bowl committee, and will jeopardize our BCS rankings?

Yes, an upgrade in UMass will make recruiting harder. No, this is nothing like USF/UCF. UCF brings a lot more to the table than UMess. I could live with the recruiting being more difficult if UMess brought as much to the table as UCF, or Houston. They don't, they add no value. We are not in a position to bring in projects that add no immediate value, and only the potential for long-term positives.
 
WingU-Conn said:
So the Big East really wants another team that struggles to sell out a 40,000 seat stadium when they are competing for conference championships. Another team in a market where college football comes after the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL?

The Big East wants another team that will play in the same stadium as, but get fewer fans than, MLS' New England Revolution?

We want another team that doesn't travel well, won't impress any bowl committee, and will jeopardize our BCS rankings?

Yes, an upgrade in UMass will make recruiting harder. No, this is nothing like USF/UCF. UCF brings a lot more to the table than UMess. I could live with the recruiting being more difficult if UMess brought as much to the table as UCF, or Houston. They don't, they add no value. We are not in a position to bring in projects that add no immediate value, and only the potential for long-term positives.
Expand ...
When we were IAA how many fans came to the home games?
 
The infatuation with UMass baffles me. Do you realize they averaged 3,300 for basketball and 13,000 for football last year? Ok, they would probably average more in 1A football, but they play top level basketball and they average 3,300! There is almost no fan support or state interest. There are plenty of better choices than UMass for expansion.
 
.-.
One thing that should be alarming about UMass and attendance is the track record of their basketball program. When they were very good (and by veryu good I am talking about being capable at remaining in the top ten for a couple of entire seasons and legitimately making a run at the national championship without requiring more than at worst a mild upset in the final four), they did sell the joint out. Once they started to fall a little bit from that point, it took a major opponent to attract a decent crowd and less than a decade removed from those glory days, the Mullins Center became a wasteland.

In all candor, a school that size with an on campus basketball arena should never draw less than 4,000 fans for a basketball gamae and when they are playing a conference (or reasonably prominent non conference) opponent, they should get closer to 8,000, even if they best they can hope for is a close to .500 season. UMass as basketball program was little mor than a fad to their 'fanbase' and like mood rings and the pet rock, someone may find a refuse to lose t-shirt at a garage sale and the seller will giggle to admit that he or she actually was caught up in that fad.
 
fasko said:
Aren't the UMass called the Minutemen? I don't like that name, it's the same name that vigilante border patrol group uses. We should not be playing teams with nicknames that are offensive. I was so glad when St. Johns changed from the Redmen to the Red Storm.
Expand ...

I think the Patriots should change their name then too. Sometimes Patriotism offends the PC crowd. Can't have that.
 
The UMass "minutemen" nickname is actually the only thing remotely cool about UMass. That and some of the members of Pixies went there.

Some people are so PC that they should stop communicating with every
 
WingU-Conn said:
I love when waylon lectures us common folk about market studies. It must be so frustrating for him to be the smartest person he's ever known.

As if he's too stupid to realize that the college football market in Mass (like NYC) isn't the same as Omaha, Columbus (OH), Atlanta, or Austin. The reason we shouldn't consider UMass is the reason Nebraska was invited to the Big 10 and not Rutgers. It doesn't matter how wealthy, or how large the population is if they don't care enough to spend money on your product.

If we add UMass, the ACC will sit back and laugh. They will call our bluff, we will water down the big east, and recruiting will become even more difficult for us. Not to mention the fact it will jeopardize the already fragile BCS status. We don't need a market study to know that. If UMass was as valuable as Waylon claims, why isn't the ACC interested?
Expand ...

Good point. Lets add Alabama and Florida instead. Those are the alternatives, right?
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
Good point. Lets add Alabama and Florida instead. Those are the alternatives, right?
Expand ...

Instead of creating a strawman, why don't you attempt to refute the list of reasons why UMass isn't a good idea?

We have better alternatives than UMass. UCF, Navy, and ECU for starters.

It's amazing how duplicitous you are. The Big East is so good we aren't harmed by losing Pitt/Quse, but so bad we can't do any better than UMass. UConn is so valuable, Herbst herself is responsible if some schools deflect to the Big 12 (rather than Quse/Pitt who put us in this position), but UConn isn't valuable enough to get an ACC invite. And somehow Quse/Pitt were valuable enough for the ACC to add them, but not so valuable that they can't be easily replaced by Houston and UMass. LMAO.
 
I read this post the other day and decided not to reply. I was just relooking for news, saw this and it made ROFL. UMass as leverage is one of the most absurd comments in this whole realignment morass.
 
Drumguy said:
I read this post the other day and decided not to reply. I was just relooking for news, saw this and it made ROFL. UMass as leverage is one of the most absurd comments in this whole realignment morass.
Expand ...

True. If UMass is the answer, then what pray tell, is the question?
 
.-.
I remember when UConn ever competing in Big East football was "laughable". Fortunately, some in CT can see far enough down the road and now we have a steadily improving D-1 football program that is a year or two away from being very attractive to either the ACC or the Big 10+. It took a decade but who's to say that a decade from now UMass may be in the same position. They actually have space right on campus to build a real nice stadium unlike UConn. The state would have to fix the Rte 9 entrance and exit ramps to I-91 for better access and widen that Rte 9 bridge but they are gonna have to do that sooner or later anyways. If Big East football does try to rebuild I can't think of better teams to rebuild with than UMass, Temple and Navy. They are all in the North East. Philly and the state of Massachusetts are both ripe for the picking as far as college football is concerned.
 
WingU-Conn said:
Instead of creating a strawman, why don't you attempt to refute the list of reasons why UMass isn't a good idea?

We have better alternatives than UMass. UCF, Navy, and ECU for starters.

It's amazing how duplicitous you are. The Big East is so good we aren't harmed by losing Pitt/Quse, but so bad we can't do any better than UMass. UConn is so valuable, Herbst herself is responsible if some schools deflect to the Big 12 (rather than Quse/Pitt who put us in this position), but UConn isn't valuable enough to get an ACC invite. And somehow Quse/Pitt were valuable enough for the ACC to add them, but not so valuable that they can't be easily replaced by Houston and UMass. LMAO.
Expand ...

It is about choices. ECU is the #5 team in a large poor state. UCF is the #5 team in a very large state that has several of the top programs in college football to compete with. UMass is the #1 school in a large state that has weak competition for viewers and fans.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
It is about choices. ECU is the #5 team in a large poor state. UCF is the #5 team in a very large state that has several of the top programs in college football to compete with. UMass is the #1 school in a large state that has weak competition for viewers and fans.
Expand ...

If you assume we're all staying in the Big East, it seems the argument boils down to this: is the goal to build a conference with the best basketball, to build a conference with the best markets or to build a conference that has the best chance of maintaining a BCS bid. There is not necessarily one right answer to this question.

Having said that, the move to superconferences does appear to be coming. Therefore, my belief is that you are trying to maintain a BCS berth for the short -- intermediate term above all us. That means Navy and Air Force are fine, as they put political pressure on the other conferences to not screw us and they don't dilute basketball. And it means you are picking from the best CUSA football programs, which would appear to be UCF, Houston and ECU. Temple and UMass dilute your computer rankings in football in the short term and have to be avoided.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
It is about choices. ECU is the #5 team in a large poor state. UCF is the #5 team in a very large state that has several of the top programs in college football to compete with. UMass is the #1 school in a large state that has weak competition for viewers and fans.
Expand ...

UMASS drew 32,000 people to Gillette last year for a game against New Hampshire. If they could draw that many for New Hampshire i'm sure they could get
close to 50,000 for Big East games. I'd be willing to bet that UMASS could draw more fans to games than BC which would have to be pretty embarrassing to BC.

The question people need to ask themselves is can UMASS generate more fan support than BC if they were moved into a quality league? The answer to that question is absolutely YES, which is why UMASS as leverage might work.
 
metsfan2323 said:
UMASS drew 32,000 people to Gillette last year for a game against New Hampshire. If they could draw that many for New Hampshire i'm sure they could get
close to 50,000 for Big East games. I'd be willing to bet that UMASS could draw more fans to games than BC which would have to be pretty embarrassing to BC.

The question people need to ask themselves is can UMASS generate more fan support than BC if they were moved into a quality league? The answer to that question is absolutely YES, which is why UMASS as leverage might work.
Expand ...

So they average 15,000, as a ballpark.

They have a 1 time game vs UNH which they get 32,000
(that's assuming not one fan there was for UNH).

And that's enough for you to say they could average close to 50,000 for BE games.
 
metsfan2323 said:
UMASS drew 32,000 people to Gillette last year for a game against New Hampshire.
Expand ...
How many of those 32k were New Hampshire fans (a school who I believe normally has better attendance than UMass)?

There are a ton of UNH grads in the Boston ara and unlike many UMass grads, they actually prefer admitting to where they went to school and take pride in their alma mater.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,259
Messages
4,560,165
Members
10,448
Latest member
MillerLitEd


Top Bottom