UMass signals CUSA | Page 8 | The Boneyard

UMass signals CUSA

ZooCougar said:
Yeah I’m not paying for that.

Sounds like there is still ZERO interests in CUSA on the UConn side and that’s why it’s a No Go across the board.
Expand ...
Good. Keep in mind CUSA, MAC, and Sun Belt will likely opt out so we would not want to join any of those leagues anyway.
 
shizzle787 said:
Nothing burger article. I actually think they are still holding out hope for a football-only invite which is not coming.
Expand ...
Not true, portion of extrapoints and will add, since a few years ago, we have a new Chancellor. He received his doctorate from Texas A&M and is a Dallas Cowboy fan.
For what it’s worth, multiple industry sources have also told me that any future conference additions for Conference USA are expected to be for all sports, and not football-only affiliate memberships. I’m told that UMass had previously considered joining Conference USA in all sports a few years earlier, but decided against it, not wanting to move their basketball program and other Olympic sports from the A-10. But UMass, college football, and the A10 have all changed since 2021.

I’m told that UConn is not considered to be a potential Conference USA target,
Expand ...
 
Steve1981 said:
Not true, portion of extrapoints and will add, since a few years ago, we have a new Chancellor. He received his doctorate from Texas A&M and is a Dallas Cowboy fan.
Expand ...

UConn isn’t a target because they know UConn has no interest.
 
We'll been hoping UMass would join a G5 conference, now believe it will happen for 2025-26. Particularly after watching the video and hearing words "if it means the department, we'll have to evaluate and we are an outlier in the A10 with hockey and FBS football".
 
.-.
Steve1981 said:
We'll been hoping UMass would join a G5 conference, now believe it will happen for 2025-26. Particularly after watching the video and hearing words "if it means the department, we'll have to evaluate and we are an outlier in the A10 with hockey and FBS football".
Expand ...


I would think that it would be a no brainer to not continue to tank the football program for the sake of playing A10 sports.
 
Steve1981 said:
We'll been hoping UMass would join a G5 conference, now believe it will happen for 2025-26. Particularly after watching the video and hearing words "if it means the department, we'll have to evaluate and we are an outlier in the A10 with hockey and FBS football".
Expand ...

I'd love to see them go America East for basketball + non-rev sports, Hockey East for hockey, AAC as football-only with us.

A10 is becoming a bloated, underperforming conference anyhow. I'd support the same move with URI (minus FBS football) as well, especially if the rumors of VCU wanting out are true
 
Since many are not going to watch the above 30 minute video, will create a few bullets.
The key points start at the 8:12 mark.
  • Behind the scenes and not public facing
  • No more "football only" or "loyal to the A10" stated
  • Bigger picture a move for the whole athletic department
  • Reinforce a full membership change from football only, by saying "we are an outlier in the A10, the only ones with hockey and FBS football"
  • We know we need to make investments in the stadium, which is used for graduations and other events.
  • Football investments have grown in 8 years from the bottom of FBS to the top 1/3 of G5. That is our sweet spot.
  • Right strategic investments. While institution support has gone down the quality, competitiveness, and salaries have gone up.
  • Collectives are strong. The Midnight Ride collective has raised over 100k in the past week and will go from 8-10 players this year to around a 1/3 of the roster.
  • Keeping scores and the Chancellor wants to win!
 
Steve1981 said:
Since many are not going to watch the above 30 minute video, will create a few bullets.
The key points start at the 8:12 mark.
  • Behind the scenes and not public facing
  • No more "football only" or "loyal to the A10" stated
  • Bigger picture a move for the whole athletic department
  • Reinforce a full membership change from football only, by saying "we are an outlier in the A10, the only ones with hockey and FBS football"
  • We know we need to make investments in the stadium, which is used for graduations and other events.
  • Football investments have grown in 8 years from the bottom of FBS to the top 1/3 of G5. That is our sweet spot.
  • Right strategic investments. While institution support has gone down the quality, competitiveness, and salaries have gone up.
  • Collectives are strong. The Midnight Ride collective has raised over 100k in the past week and will go from 8-10 players this year to around a 1/3 of the roster.
  • Keeping scores and the Chancellor wants to win!
Expand ...
I am glad to see this and it is good for college football in the New York/New England region. Love to see Delaware moving up- wish we could convince Holy Cross and a couple others to make the jump as well (URI??)
 
Drew said:
I am glad to see this and it is good for college football in the New York/New England region. Love to see Delaware moving up- wish we could convince Holy Cross and a couple others to make the jump as well (URI??)
Expand ...
Why? The less teams in the northeast in FBS the better for recruiting.
 
.-.
Drew said:
Because we are in the process of getting shut out of big time college athletics and I’d like to play other peer institutions that are close to us than Utah State
Expand ...
Overreaction. The NCAA just got sued again this week. Charlie Baker's plan will never happen. True pay for play is coming and we will pay our athletes (even if it means dropping to the bare minimum of sports necessary).
 
shizzle787 said:
Overreaction. The NCAA just got sued again this week. Charlie Baker's plan will never happen. True pay for play is coming and we will pay our athletes (even if it means dropping to the bare minimum of sports necessary).
Expand ...
What is the bare minimum of sports? You are required to sponsor a certain amount of sports in order to be in the NCAA. With the autonomy group, becoming a real thing, what would preclude a School from saying we are sponsoring one sport only, football or basketball?
 
AllHusky said:
What is the bare minimum of sports? You are required to sponsor a certain amount of sports in order to be in the NCAA. With the autonomy group, becoming a real thing, what would preclude a School from saying we are sponsoring one sport only, football or basketball?
Expand ...
Those who have power will make the rules. The schools who pay players will have minimums needed to compete.
 
shizzle787 said:
Those who have power will make the rules. The schools who pay players will have minimums needed to compete.
Expand ...
Exactly, seems like the Roosters will be making the rules for the henhouse, yes?
 
Remember, this is a new Chancellor and a big change, it will take longer than many UMass fans like, but cool with it, provided it happens before June 30th. Matt Brown was correct not to be surprised if this goes into late spring.
 
.-.
AllHusky said:
What is the bare minimum of sports? You are required to sponsor a certain amount of sports in order to be in the NCAA. With the autonomy group, becoming a real thing, what would preclude a School from saying we are sponsoring one sport only, football or basketball?
Expand ...
The D1 minimum is 16 sports
 
Drew said:
The D1 minimum is 16 sports
Expand ...
Yes, my point is, as the Autonomy group takes over, those rules can be modified or disappear altogether. Theoretically, the rules could allow a school to have football and no other sports. It would just be an actualization of how many of those folks feel already,

"Who needs those silly Title IX womens sports, or sports that draw little fanfare, but are more for the athletes. Spend more on Football!"
 
1702434883482.jpeg
 
AllHusky said:
Yes, my point is, as the Autonomy group takes over, those rules can be modified or disappear altogether. Theoretically, the rules could allow a school to have football and no other sports. It would just be an actualization of how many of those folks feel already,

"Who needs those silly Title IX womens sports, or sports that draw little fanfare, but are more for the athletes. Spend more on Football!"
Expand ...
Those silly title ix sports will exist because of title ix. That being said they could jettison a lot of mens sports. Men's football, basketball, and baseball then a bunch of women's sports.
 
Patman said:
Those silly title ix sports will exist because of title ix. That being said they could jettison a lot of mens sports. Men's football, basketball, and baseball then a bunch of women's sports.
Expand ...
What if the top tier becomes 100% financially independent, no subsidies from University(ie Professional sport more or less). Will they be able to be organized in a way that affiliates with the University but not be bound by Title IX since no federal moneys are accepted?

A little farfetched, but when you talk to the most radical of the top tier, they don't see any need to do anything except Football, and maybe some Baseball and Hoops as an offseason diversion.
 
.-.
AllHusky said:
What if the top tier becomes 100% financially independent, no subsidies from University(ie Professional sport more or less). Will they be able to be organized in a way that affiliates with the University but not be bound by Title IX since no federal moneys are accepted?

A little farfetched, but when you talk to the most radical of the top tier, they don't see any need to do anything except Football, and maybe some Baseball and Hoops as an offseason diversion.
Expand ...
Title IX is applied by institution not by sport. so the fact that a particular sport isn't "receiving any federal aid" wouldn't seem to be relevant to the school needing to comply with the rules.

If Title IX has a loophole it is that so long as there are athletic opportunities for female students that are roughly proportional to the opportunities presented to male students, adjusting for the relative population of each of the genders, then the school should be deemed in compliance. It's only if you do not meet that standard that safe harbor you start a more nuance analysis. Take that for what it's worth. It's based on a vague recollection of an article which described the three prong test under the rules. I've yet to hear of a school relying on this, so it may be a bad recollection on my part, a misstatement by the author, or something that has been modified by later changes to the rules.
 
CL82 said:
… I've yet to hear of a school relying on this, so it may be a bad recollection on my part, a misstatement by the author, or something that has been modified by later changes to the rules.
Expand ...
Great caveat - future w/ the NCAA? ;)
 
CL82 said:
Probably not given that I don't expect it to be around very much longer.
Expand ...
CL82 said:
Title IX is applied by institution not by sport. so the fact that a particular sport isn't "receiving any federal aid" wouldn't seem to be relevant to the school needing to comply with the rules.

If Title IX has a loophole it is that so long as there are athletic opportunities for female students that are roughly proportional to the opportunities presented to male students, adjusting for the relative population of each of the genders, then the school should be deemed in compliance. It's only if you do not meet that standard that safe harbor you start a more nuance analysis. Take that for what it's worth. It's based on a vague recollection of an article which described the three prong test under the rules. I've yet to hear of a school relying on this, so it may be a bad recollection on my part, a misstatement by the author, or something that has been modified by later changes to the rules.
Expand ...
I'm pretty clear on what it takes to comply with title ix (and under the letter of the law no one at the top level comes close in reality) just not 100% sure what situation(if any) exists or could exist that would allow an athletic department to not be bound by it, ie we only play football
 
AllHusky said:
I'm pretty clear on what it takes to comply with title ix (and under the letter of the law no one at the top level comes close in reality) just not 100% sure what situation(if any) exists or could exist that would allow an athletic department to not be bound by it, ie we only play football
Expand ...
As noted in my post, take this with a grain of salt, but if I recall correctly there are three tears to complying with title IX. The first year is that there be proportionality of athletics on campus. That basically means that the offerings to men be equivalent to the offerings to women adjusted based upon the relative proportions of each gender. So the offerings would have to be identical if the ratio was 50-50, but if as it often is, women occupy some higher percentage than the amount allocated to them has to be adjusted upward. If you meet that test then you have satisfied your title nine requirements and no further inquiry needs to go forward.

So, it's not a matter of not complying with title IX it is a matter of complying with the safe harbor rule of title IX. But I'm not feeling ambitious enough to actually go look it up confirm that recollection from years ago.
 


Shortcut <<

“CUSA will add Kennesaw State next summer and Delaware in summer 2025, both from the FCS. After getting to nine members, the league took its time with expansion, favoring schools with success and infrastructure in place. It wants to get to 12 members. UMass is the top option, but only as an all-sports member, which remains a hurdle to the school’s loyalty of being a founding member of the Atlantic-10 conference.”
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,359
Messages
4,567,634
Members
10,469
Latest member
xxBlueChips


Top Bottom