Game 7: USF

Get ready for some MACtion
User avatar
rsox1221
Senior
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:37 am
Location: Shrewsbury via Southborough
Contact:

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by rsox1221 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:44 pm

McKinney wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:48 amI think the plan was we'd need Gillette for every game except weeknight MACtion. And then it turned out our attendance was so low that it just made sense to play at McGuirk basically full-time. :oops:
The plan was they needed Gillette because McG's pressbox was not FBS level and they were building the FPC. They also claimed they would expand the capacity but never did. Besides, you have to play games on campus, as many games as you possibly can.

McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: New Brunswick, NJ

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by McKinney » Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:53 pm

rsox1221 wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:44 pm
McKinney wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:48 amI think the plan was we'd need Gillette for every game except weeknight MACtion. And then it turned out our attendance was so low that it just made sense to play at McGuirk basically full-time. :oops:
The plan was they needed Gillette because McG's pressbox was not FBS level and they were building the FPC. They also claimed they would expand the capacity but never did. Besides, you have to play games on campus, as many games as you possibly can.
No, not if you listen to the FBS press conference. Which was the first time their plan was made public. To quote McCutcheon referring to Gillette:
John McCutcheon wrote: We see this venue as an outstanding opportunity for us for a very, very long time. By nature of coming here we probably have - if not the best collegiate venue in the country - it's pretty close. We do want to do some improvements on our stadium on campus. There's a possibility that we could move one or two games back there when it's in a position that we can host 1-A caliber games. Right now the press box facilities are not such that we could accommodate. We need to address those needs. But the primary home for UMass football for the foreseeable future I think is going to be here at Gillette stadium.
https://youtu.be/H_IZ5p8FM0g?t=1552

He soon later clarified the plan in regards to what those one or two games would be.
John McCutcheon wrote: The MAC has a tradition of playing late-season, midweek games (for TV). I can see possibly moving that type of game on campus, so that people don't have to make the longer trip in the middle of the week.
https://www.masslive.com/sports/index.s ... _on_c.html

I think over time McCutcheon realized there wasn't much of a point keeping the games at Gillette. However the Gillette contract was in place until June 30th, 2017. In that contract it specified a minimum of five games for the 2012 and 2013 seasons and four games for the 2014, 2015, and 2016 seasons. This contract must have been renegotiated for a compromise of three games. Both parties must have known it didn't make much sense when the attendance was less than 1/4 of capacity.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/54481134/Fin ... m#download

Moving back to McGuirk as the primary home was a move made by the Bamford administration. When the Gillette contract was up for renewal I think they chose to negotiate it on an on-demand basis. Which is what we saw with no Gillette games last year and only one game this year. Frankly this year's Gillette game might not have been a choice more than it was language in the BYU contract. That contract would have been signed before October 2014. https://www.gazettenet.com/Archives/201 ... -hg-100114

We could argue whether it was a good or bad move. On the one hand college football is traditionally played on campus. You know I'm playing devil's advocate in favor of Gillette when I've never even been to a UMass game in Foxboro. Although I am planning on going to the BYU game. On the other hand attendance is at an all time low in FBS. This despite comfortable weather, being on-campus, following their best season in FBS, their best start in FBS, recently the best opponent at McGuirk, and still the slim possibility of bowl eligibility. Not to mention this year's far more prevalent marketing campaign in Western Mass.
Last edited by McKinney on Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Class of 2019 - @StatsMass

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17645
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:29 pm

Aren't you both essentially agreeing with each other?


Gillette was necessary for the move.

Contract was adjusted, then expired.

Gillette is now used on an ad-hoc basis.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: New Brunswick, NJ

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by McKinney » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:39 pm

^ I think the disagreement is what the plan was, not what happened. We're always complaining about the state of McGuirk. But it's my understanding that when the renovations were proposed/approved there was not an intent of playing there full-time (or even anywhere close to full-time).

I think if we ended up with another conference like the Sun Belt or C-USA (which at the time did not have any weeknight games to my knowledge) we might not have built the press box. The FPC would have been the only thing "needed".
Class of 2019 - @StatsMass

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17645
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:46 pm

^

I know for a fact that the plan was to always come back to McGuirk for most of the games. It was never clear if that would be before the end of the contract, at the end of the contract, or if there would need to be an extension of the contract with Gillette. It was all very much up in the air with factors like money, wins and attendance driving what the next steps would be.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

User avatar
rsox1221
Senior
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:37 am
Location: Shrewsbury via Southborough
Contact:

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by rsox1221 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:56 pm

McKinney wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 1:39 pm ^ I think the disagreement is what the plan was, not what happened. We're always complaining about the state of McGuirk. But it's my understanding that when the renovations were proposed/approved there was not an intent of playing there full-time (or even anywhere close to full-time).

I think if we ended up with another conference like the Sun Belt or C-USA (which at the time did not have any weeknight games to my knowledge) we might not have built the press box. The FPC would have been the only thing "needed".
Stats the issue here is you're taking John McCutcheon at his word. McCutcheon was incompetent, and most of the things he said were nonsense.

They were always going to move back to campus. No matter what conference they were in they had to fix the press box, the old one was an accident waiting to happen.

Gillette was needed to move, couldn't have done it without it. The BYU games have to be there, that was contractual, they wouldn't have agreed otherwise. Now you can use it as needed, which is a significantly better situation.

Attendance is where it is due to performance, current and past, not where they're playing.

User avatar
rsox1221
Senior
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:37 am
Location: Shrewsbury via Southborough
Contact:

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by rsox1221 » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:06 pm

Stats you going to the CCU game? Swing by IV's tailgate we'll solve all UMass' problems at once.

McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: New Brunswick, NJ

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by McKinney » Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:32 pm

^ As far as I know. Only game I won't be at is Liberty. Going down to West Point that weekend for the Army-Air Force game. 🍻
Class of 2019 - @StatsMass

User avatar
Berkman
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6885
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Mooresville, NC
Contact:

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by Berkman » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:38 am

I was away on Sat so I did not see any of the game. So I thought we were 14 point under dogs so score wise we did not do that bad. With Whip out the play calling did not seem to improve. Defense is where we are hurting the most as I see it.

Now I did watch the Pats play Indy last week and the Indy coach is the OC also so I don't think that it is such a big deal that Whip does the same. I am sure other coaches also do that. They have to do what ever is necessary to win most of the remaining games to have a respectable season.

Got to get that defense fixed.

User avatar
MJatUM
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4416
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 9:46 pm
Location: Attleboro

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by MJatUM » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:52 am

^ It is not that uncommon for Head Coaches in the NFL to also call plays. What is common is for those teams to lack in other areas - particularly clock management (hello Andy Reid). It is just natural when your focus is on the offense to not pay full mind to all other phases of the game.

User avatar
gosox22
Junior
Posts: 706
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by gosox22 » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:01 pm

McKinney wrote: Thu Oct 11, 2018 2:32 pm ^ As far as I know. Only game I won't be at is Liberty. Going down to West Point that weekend for the Army-Air Force game. 🍻
Go Air Force!

Floyd
Hall of Fame
Posts: 9559
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 8:50 am
Location: Not where I should be

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by Floyd » Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:30 pm

Berkman wrote: Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:38 am I was away on Sat so I did not see any of the game.
Vegas?
Time to Win

User avatar
Berkman
Hall of Fame
Posts: 6885
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:38 pm
Location: Mooresville, NC
Contact:

Re: Game 7: USF

Post by Berkman » Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:47 pm

Super Bingo in Cherokee on Sat and the casino on Sun. Did not win. Last trip up there until spring.

Post Reply