UMass | Page 3 | The Boneyard

UMass

CTBballfan243 said:
......It would give UConn a team to form a good rivalry with in football and in basketball. .......
Expand ...

I have long believed, and previously posted that UConn needs a geographic rival in the AAC. Hey when we were in the old Big East UConn played a number of schools in an easy geographic radius and where the friends and acquaintances of UConn fans graduated thereby allowing UConn fans to personalize rivalries.

Now the AAC does not offer any geographic rival to UConn and who the heck has an emotional reaction to the faceless programs at Tulsa, SMU, East Carolina, Central Florida, South Florida and the other geographically mismatched schools in the AAC whose only bond is that each wants out of the AAC.

A better solution to Mass in the AAC, is IMO negotiating UConn's inclusion in the Big East,
 
Bobol said:
I have long believed, and previously posted that UConn needs a geographic rival in the AAC. Hey when we were in the old Big East UConn played a number of schools in an easy geographic radius and where the friends and acquaintances of UConn fans graduated thereby allowing UConn fans to personalize rivalries.

Now the AAC does not offer any geographic rival to UConn and who the heck has an emotional dislike of Tulsa, SMU, East Carolina, Central Florida, ?South Florida and the other geographically mismatched schools in the AAC whose only bond is that all want out of the AAC.
Expand ...

Temple football is a much better option than UMass. We don't want a rivalry with UMass--they're perceived as inferior to us by all standards, so there's really no benefit to playing them a lot for our program. It's a lose-lose.
 
uconnphil2016 said:
Temple football is a much better option than UMass. We don't want a rivalry with UMass--they're perceived as inferior to us by all standards, so there's really no benefit to playing them a lot for our program. It's a lose-lose.
Expand ...
I wouldn't perceive any school inferior to UConn in men's basketball or football and I don't think many other people do either.
 
CTBballfan243 said:
I wouldn't perceive any school inferior to UConn in men's basketball or football and I don't think many other people do either.
Expand ...

Historically. UMass had probably its most successful season as an FBS football team last year and won 4 games--three of the wins were Georgia Southern, Maine, and Appalachian State. They got kicked out of the MAC. Basketball has some historic success, but even that is limited. UMass has never been and never will be a sports school. There's no point in looking to align ourselves with them--it's essentially admitting that we're toast as an athletic department. UMass can't sell people tickets to any of their games, their athletic budget is smaller than New Mexico's and only slightly larger than Wyoming's. We don't want to be associated with UMass
 
.-.
Honestly, I probably know more about the inner workings of the UMass Athletics Department than even UConn's, so...

There isn't a single, solitary person who wants to be in the Big East at that entire university. From anyone in football or hoops, to alumni, to boosters. I'm good friends with basically everyone, know Bamford well, their marketing director worked for me for three years. I talk them a lot. They want to get into the American. Period. End of discussion. Most of them have stated - outwardly at that - that their best chance of that would be UConn leaving the AAC and leaving a gap in their northeastern footprint. And honestly, they're not wrong.

They simply don't pull the kind of market that would be remotely attractive to the P5, their football program is a debt-ridden albatross right now, but they're giving it their best possible go with what they've got and the current crop of AD officials are still trying to dig their way out of a whole swath of terrible decisions that the previous group made. And that's not discounting their own (admitted mistakes) an a whole other variety of fronts.

Their hoops program is their best shot. McCall is a really good coach. To get what he's got left over after the scraps left over from an actually good recruiting class that Kellogg brought in - is pretty remarkable - AND with what they've got coming in next year by way of transfers - they're all hands on deck for the NIT. They're optimistic that's a realistic goal. Depending on how long they can keep McCall, in three years, they should have a real, legitimate shot at winning the conference and getting into the tournament. They're doing all the right things right now on that front.

Ticket sales are a headache. They hate having such a big venue in the Mullins Center. Even when they draw 5,000 fans, the arena is like sitting in an echo chamber. But even in spite of that, they've still got a strong following.

As a department - their sponsorship revenue is a real issue. They've got Lierfield in to help, but the Department is actually signing more deals than they are. They're at about $300k in sponsorship revenue and that's gotta change.

They've started by targeting better coaches. McCall is an obvious win. Their hockey coach is really good. They finally convinced their baseball coach to retire and are considering the program's future. Right now they only have three scholarships in the program and it's you know what or get off the pot, there. Their women's programs are solid, but unspectacular.

There's an active effort to expand back into the Springfield market and repair some of the burnt bridges from the previous group.

There's just a lot. A lot of things that have to be sorted out before they're even thinknig about realignment.

So take them off the board for the forseeable future, but there's signs of life there for the first time in years and they deserve credit for that.
 
Towney007 said:
Honestly, I probably know more about the inner workings of the UMass Athletics Department than even UConn's, so...

There isn't a single, solitary person who wants to be in the Big East at that entire university. From anyone in football or hoops, to alumni, to boosters. I'm good friends with basically everyone, know Bamford well, their marketing director worked for me for three years. I talk them a lot. They want to get into the American. Period. End of discussion. Most of them have stated - outwardly at that - that their best chance of that would be UConn leaving the AAC and leaving a gap in their northeastern footprint. And honestly, they're not wrong.

They simply don't pull the kind of market that would be remotely attractive to the P5, their football program is a debt-ridden albatross right now, but they're giving it their best possible go with what they've got and the current crop of AD officials are still trying to dig their way out of a whole swath of terrible decisions that the previous group made. And that's not discounting their own (admitted mistakes) an a whole other variety of fronts.

Their hoops program is their best shot. McCall is a really good coach. To get what he's got left over after the scraps left over from an actually good recruiting class that Kellogg brought in - is pretty remarkable - AND with what they've got coming in next year by way of transfers - they're all hands on deck for the NIT. They're optimistic that's a realistic goal. Depending on how long they can keep McCall, in three years, they should have a real, legitimate shot at winning the conference and getting into the tournament. They're doing all the right things right now on that front.

Ticket sales are a headache. They hate having such a big venue in the Mullins Center. Even when they draw 5,000 fans, the arena is like sitting in an echo chamber. But even in spite of that, they've still got a strong following.

As a department - their sponsorship revenue is a real issue. They've got Lierfield in to help, but the Department is actually signing more deals than they are. They're at about $300k in sponsorship revenue and that's gotta change.

They've started by targeting better coaches. McCall is an obvious win. Their hockey coach is really good. They finally convinced their baseball coach to retire and are considering the program's future. Right now they only have three scholarships in the program and it's you know what or get off the pot, there. Their women's programs are solid, but unspectacular.

There's an active effort to expand back into the Springfield market and repair some of the burnt bridges from the previous group.

There's just a lot. A lot of things that have to be sorted out before they're even thinknig about realignment.

So take them off the board for the forseeable future, but there's signs of life there for the first time in years and they deserve credit for that.
Expand ...

"There's an active effort to expand back into the Springfield market..."

What the heck? If they don't have the Springfield market, they've got less than nothing. I also don't get how they're being allowed to remain FBS in football while it seems they are playing more of their home games at 17,000 seat McGuirk Stadium on campus than at Gillette.

I have nothing against UMASS since The Squid departed Amherst, but suggesting they should be added to the already dysfunctional AAC is sheer insanity. The real litmus test for deciding to add anybody is whether or not the potential addition adds enough value in terms of media market to justify slicing the pie so all the pieces are slightly smaller. Any school that can't pass the pie test gets left out. They might want to get into the AAC, but wanting to and deserving to are two different things.
 
UConn let the AAC add Tulane and Tulsa but didn't lift a finger for UMass. The AAC is a bad enough fit for UConn, but we seem to make it worse. UConn should play UMass in football every year. Fans would care more about this game than just about any game in our conference.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
UConn let the AAC add Tulane and Tulsa but didn't lift a finger for UMass. The AAC is a bad enough fit for UConn, but we seem to make it worse. UConn should play UMass in football every year. Fans would care more about this game than just about any game in our conference.
Expand ...

Tulane and ECU were garbage adds. At least Tulsa fields competitive football and basketball programs.

I wouldn't mind playing UMass most years in football. As long as it's not a conference game.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
UConn let the AAC add Tulane and Tulsa but didn't lift a finger for UMass. The AAC is a bad enough fit for UConn, but we seem to make it worse. UConn should play UMass in football every year. Fans would care more about this game than just about any game in our conference.
Expand ...

I have no problem with playing UMASS in football, even though it only benefits them. We beat them and it means nothing. They beat us and it means everything to them. It might at the very least improve attendance in E. Hartford for one home game.
 
There are 3 valid interesting points in this thread. (Honest)

ONE ... We should hope/desire that the Northeastern FBS Programs get better and better. Ultimately, this is the longtime albatross that we carry as UConn Football. If UMass, Buffalo, Temple, even BC, even SU, Navy and Rutgers are solid and strong, the Ecosystem for us is stronger. We can recruit just a smidge better and the whole atmosphere of sports entertainment is better. We should play Buffalo and UMass often in a five year cycle ... as we do play Temple and Navy (hate that the AAC put them in the other division - sucks). One for all. We do not need UMass rising to AAC; they are welcome to our spot if WE get a advance to a P5 in some yellow brick road scheme. WE should want Prep Football in New England to continue to rise as well. Kids need to play quality ball early; and, unfortunately, our HS ball in NE, NY etc haven't provided enough talent playing talent. (see I won't discuss Ontario or Quebec ... but I know coaches in Montreal who rave about the quality of football getting better there)

TWO ... the AAC is a Big Market league. Tulsa? Not so much. Tulane has gotten better in Football and Hoop; both coaches honestly give us a look at something that may be formidable. Orlando, Tampa, Houston, Dallas ... with the Philadelphia, New England, DC, Cincinnati markets; that is a draw that will gain the AAC more than the scraps we currently get. (whaler11 incoming) Not double digits per school though. UMass simply does not do it for that reason.

THREE ... Hoop. We need to reorient our Fanbase as we have shifted. I don't say give up the notion of being a "National" Program in Football and Hoop; but, skew our scheduling to Northeast in both. More Boston Garden/TD and Madison Square Garden/Barclays ... and occasional Auburn/Arizona. Play UMass or BC in Boston in Hoop (with Hockey also); play St. John's or Rutgers in MSG. Pull the guys/families in by Train or MassPike again. We have worn down. Some thought must be put to pleasing the core fans.
 
.-.
Pudge said:
There are 3 valid interesting points in this thread. (Honest)

ONE ... We should hope/desire that the Northeastern FBS Programs get better and better. Ultimately, this is the longtime albatross that we carry as UConn Football. If UMass, Buffalo, Temple, even BC, even SU, Navy and Rutgers are solid and strong, the Ecosystem for us is stronger. We can recruit just a smidge better and the whole atmosphere of sports entertainment is better. We should play Buffalo and UMass often in a five year cycle ... as we do play Temple and Navy (hate that the AAC put them in the other division - sucks). One for all. We do not need UMass rising to AAC; they are welcome to our spot if WE get a advance to a P5 in some yellow brick road scheme. WE should want Prep Football in New England to continue to rise as well. Kids need to play quality ball early; and, unfortunately, our HS ball in NE, NY etc haven't provided enough talent playing talent. (see I won't discuss Ontario or Quebec ... but I know coaches in Montreal who rave about the quality of football getting better there)

TWO ... the AAC is a Big Market league. Tulsa? Not so much. Tulane has gotten better in Football and Hoop; both coaches honestly give us a look at something that may be formidable. Orlando, Tampa, Houston, Dallas ... with the Philadelphia, New England, DC, Cincinnati markets; that is a draw that will gain the AAC more than the scraps we currently get. (whaler11 incoming) Not double digits per school though. UMass simply does not do it for that reason.

THREE ... Hoop. We need to reorient our Fanbase as we have shifted. I don't say give up the notion of being a "National" Program in Football and Hoop; but, skew our scheduling to Northeast in both. More Boston Garden/TD and Madison Square Garden/Barclays ... and occasional Auburn/Arizona. Play UMass or BC in Boston in Hoop (with Hockey also); play St. John's or Rutgers in MSG. Pull the guys/families in by Train or MassPike again. We have worn down. Some thought must be put to pleasing the core fans.
Expand ...

UConn gets games in NYC almost every year now so we are in good shape there. I'm not sure what is up with Boston though. I know they played Gonzaga there about a decade ago but I can't think of any other games. UConn has a lot of alumni there so it seems like a wasted opportunity to not play up there somewhat regularly.
 
UConnNick said:
I have no problem with playing UMASS in football, even though it only benefits them. We beat them and it means nothing. They beat us and it means everything to them. It might at the very least improve attendance in E. Hartford for one home game.
Expand ...
Our benefits are mostly that it is a readily winnable game with a fanbase that can drive to Rent but a little bit that it promotes New England football. Having other programs in the NE might start the rising tide that will float all boats.
 
UConnNick said:
"There's an active effort to expand back into the Springfield market..."

What the heck? If they don't have the Springfield market, they've got less than nothing. I also don't get how they're being allowed to remain FBS in football while it seems they are playing more of their home games at 17,000 seat McGuirk Stadium on campus than at Gillette.

I have nothing against UMASS since The Squid departed Amherst, but suggesting they should be added to the already dysfunctional AAC is sheer insanity. The real litmus test for deciding to add anybody is whether or not the potential addition adds enough value in terms of media market to justify slicing the pie so all the pieces are slightly smaller. Any school that can't pass the pie test gets left out. They might want to get into the AAC, but wanting to and deserving to are two different things.
Expand ...

1.) I never insinuated they SHOULD be allowed into the AAC. Not at all. But that's the goal in the department and that's what they're hoping for. Whether that's realistic/unrealistic/whatever - it's what they're thinking and hoping for. Calm down.

2.) Springfield/Western Mass is a weird place. I kind of joke with people that there's almost an imaginary, gigantic tofu curtain that extends over the top of Holyoke and South Hadley and almost separates the region from Northampton,/Amherst/Easthampton/Deerfield, etc. Everyone knows each other on either side of the curtain, but you'd be surprised at how little business cross pollination there is. UMass gets covered by Masslive, but it's not a popular read. They do well when they come to the MassMutual Center, but that's few, far between and forever. No one travels from here to there.

Go look at their billboards and advertising - and it's all Hampshire County businesses - Liquors 44, Cooley Dickinson, UMass Hotel, Country Hyundai... there's almost nothing south of that so-called curtain (which in turn effects attendance). You DO see MassMutual, but you don't see MGM. You don't see Baystate, or Trinity or Peter Pan or Teddy Bear or Smith & Wesson or Friendly's or Holyoke Medical Center or Suez or PeoplesBank or United Bank or... you get it. Now go to a Springfield Thunderbirds game? All those guys are there. And all the guy at UMass aren't at the Thunderbirds games.

They don't have a TV deal. They're not broadcasted locally. If you want to see them, you have to go see them in person.

In spite of that - they do well attendance-wise. When they're competitive, Springfield peeks its head up. When they're not, they're not. The football games were bizarrely well attended when they were in FCS, but when they moved to Gillette, they killed buzz and interest among local alums who felt slighted. Boston area alums could have cared less. They're back on campus now and the tail gating scene there laps UConn's times 100.... but no one goes into the games and the students all just go back to their dorms..

It's a weird place.
 
CL82 said:
Our benefits are mostly that it is a readily winnable game with a fanbase that can drive to Rent but a little bit that it promotes New England football. Having other programs in the NE might start the rising tide that will float all boats.
Expand ...

I thought it might boost attendance for at least one home game, but according to Towney, who knows a lot about their situation, their local fans won't even drive the relatively short distance from Amherst to Foxborough. That doesn't bode well for expecting them to show up in East Hartford for a game. And I still don't get how they're getting a free pass from the NCAA on the 30,000 seat capacity stadium requirement to be an FBS team. They seem to hardly play any games at Gillette anymore, so counting it as their home stadium is quite a stretch.
 
.-.
UConnNick said:
I also don't get how they're being allowed to remain FBS in football while it seems they are playing more of their home games at 17,000 seat McGuirk Stadium on campus than at Gillette.
Expand ...
UConnNick said:
... And I still don't get how they're getting a free pass from the NCAA on the 30,000 seat capacity stadium requirement to be an FBS team. They seem to hardly play any games at Gillette anymore, so counting it as their home stadium is quite a stretch.
Expand ...

The minimum stadium seating capacity requirement was dropped 2004ish?

To maintain FBS status now, a school must avg 15,000 in paid or actual attendance a game at least once every two seasons.
 
huskymedic said:
The minimum stadium seating capacity requirement was dropped 2004ish?

To maintain FBS status now, a school must avg 15,000 in paid or actual attendance a game at least once every two seasons.
Expand ...

I think McGuirk fails to meet FBS standards in some respects outside of seating capacity. Let me look it up...
 
Nvm. They did fail at one point and I believe that hurt them with MAC but renovations for 2016 put them up to FBS standards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,336
Messages
4,565,354
Members
10,465
Latest member
agiglax


Top Bottom