Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section)

[stevemaz]

this seems like a good spot for some dillusional positivity. NCAA approves 12 team playoff just in time for an 11-1 UMass team whose only loss is a close one to Georgia.. ONWARD AND UPWARD!!

[Used to be VOR]

The question "why are we spending money on this?" when the team has been so bad on the field is certainly legitimate, but it has been answered over and over again here and elsewhere.


And anyone with an actual understanding of how this Commonwealth functions knows that if the money towards football (and Title IX requirements) is no longer used towards football (and Title IX requirements), it will also no longer be put towards the University in general... the "hope" that this money can be better spent towards other athletics or, better yet, academics at the University is quite foolish.

But what if we don't care if that lost money goes to the University? What if we simply feel that putting a "worst in the nation" product on the field with UMass on the helmet every year is not good for the school or its overall academic and athletic mission? To me, even if ending football as it exists is a zero-sum game at this point, that still works in the schools favor. We have a stadium that is a joke, a team that is a joke, no conference, and no path forward beyond being a pay day opponent.

[InnervisionsUMASS]

But what if we don't care if that lost money goes to the University? What if we simply feel that putting a "worst in the nation" product on the field with UMass on the helmet every year is not good for the school or its overall academic and athletic mission? To me, even if ending football as it exists is a zero-sum game at this point, that still works in the schools favor. We have a stadium that is a joke, a team that is a joke, no conference, and no path forward beyond being a pay day opponent.

That's fair. If you want that money put towards funding the 495/Mass Pike interchange project instead of UMass Football, or going towards state social services or whatever it is, that's fair. I don't agree, I personally want FBS football here and I think the product will get better, but it's a fair want from you.

[PintOGuinness]

Lots of passion on this topic and many good points being made pro and con on D1, but the one thing I keep seeing here and disagree with is how the teams on field performance(or lack thereof) has an impact on the reputation of the university. I am not seeing(apart from being a punchline on ESPN or the Globe sports section). As alluded to in a nearby thread on national rankings, UMass keeps rising as a national unversity and it is now more difficult than ever to be admitted as a first year student(esp at Isenberg, Nursing, Comp Science, and Engineering).

[Worcester_To_Amherst]

Lots of passion on this topic and many good points being made pro and con on D1, but the one thing I keep seeing here and disagree with is how the teams on field performance(or lack thereof) has an impact on the reputation of the university. I am not seeing(apart from being a punchline on ESPN or the Globe sports section). As alluded to in a nearby thread on national rankings, UMass keeps rising as a national unversity and it is now more difficult than ever to be admitted as a first year student(esp at Isenberg, Nursing, Comp Science, and Engineering).

B-b-b-but don't you see ESPN calling us "U-Mess" in an article only read by people who know UMass football sucks ass is causing irreparable damage to the university? /s.

I'm with Eldon, UMass football will probably never be a "good" team at the FBS level, I'd just like them to not be embarrassing. UMass needs a football team IMO, and if we're still the worst team in the country in 3 years and it makes sense to move to FCS then do it. But if the choice is staying terrible in FBS or dropping the program, then keep at it UMess.

This state has a lot of money and Umass' football budget is a drop in the bucket. I think UMie is asking some good questions and Bamford, the Chancellor, and Marty Meehan should be facing scrutiny here and be held accountable on presenting a vision for "success" and following through on it. Maybe that's already started with the Brown hire and additional funding, but I'd guess not.

But the real reason I wanted to comment is UMie is copping the smarmiest, douchiest attitude I've ever seen on this board, and that's saying something with some of the past arguments we've seen here. You're probably making great points and you might be right about everything, but winning people over to your side of an argument isn't just about having the facts- and you know that. I always like to think UMass alums are specifically not "like that", but we've got a lot of alumni and they come in all types, I guess. Say hi to the rest of the Mensa members for us little people.

[dennisdent]

Lots of passion on this topic and many good points being made pro and con on D1, but the one thing I keep seeing here and disagree with is how the teams on field performance(or lack thereof) has an impact on the reputation of the university. I am not seeing(apart from being a punchline on ESPN or the Globe sports section). As alluded to in a nearby thread on national rankings, UMass keeps rising as a national unversity and it is now more difficult than ever to be admitted as a first year student(esp at Isenberg, Nursing, Comp Science, and Engineering).

B-b-b-but don't you see ESPN calling us "U-Mess" in an article only read by people who know UMass football sucks ass is causing irreparable damage to the university? /s.

I'm with Eldon, UMass football will probably never be a "good" team at the FBS level, I'd just like them to not be embarrassing. UMass needs a football team IMO, and if we're still the worst team in the country in 3 years and it makes sense to move to FCS then do it. But if the choice is staying terrible in FBS or dropping the program, then keep at it UMess.

This state has a lot of money and Umass' football budget is a drop in the bucket. I think UMie is asking some good questions and Bamford, the Chancellor, and Marty Meehan should be facing scrutiny here and be held accountable on presenting a vision for "success" and following through on it. Maybe that's already started with the Brown hire and additional funding, but I'd guess not.

But the real reason I wanted to comment is UMie is copping the smarmiest, douchiest attitude I've ever seen on this board, and that's saying something with some of the past arguments we've seen here. You're probably making great points and you might be right about everything, but winning people over to your side of an argument isn't just about having the facts- and you know that. I always like to think UMass alums are specifically not "like that", but we've got a lot of alumni and they come in all types, I guess. Say hi to the rest of the Mensa members for us little people.

Great post and definitely agree with your last paragraph.

UMass football and its 10 year failure hasn't hurt UMass's reputation one bit. Nobody outside of us Sickos and a few media types could care less. UMass football is a niche sport as long it has a nice coach; lot of alums as assistants; nice kids as players who stay out of trouble; donors who fund
facilities and pay for fired coaches. The team fills a lot of male, minority student body at UMass with motivated students. Its gives the outstanding marching band a venue each home Saturday. Basically UMass football is a D3 program at the D1 level. 3 - 37 over the past four years and nobody cares.

Disclaimer: I'm being sarcastic but this how I feel these days about the football program at UMass.

[minutefanjsf]

He’s not stirring the pot, he’s asking legit questions and largely getting evasive answers. For this topic, at least, he does appear to be one of the smarter persons in the room. The FBS experiment as failed miserably. Miserably. And the justifications have been a moving target with the financial imperative being one of these.

Look at what I posted. Even with a horrible on field product FBS football costs $2 million less than FCS in its last year. Factor in inflation when that statement was made. 10 years after the last FCS season the school spent $2 million less from student funds. The budget has increased to $9 million and is funded 50% by operations- ticket sales, donations, pay day games, etc.

After reading this analysis, I am convinced your a top-notch numbers guy. My guess, your probably a Wharton MBA or maybe even an HBS guy. Please help a simple minded dummy like myself understand your contention-are you saying the total budget for FBS football during 2021 was $9m and the subsidy after revenues earned was $4.5m? Thank you in advance for the clarification.

And you called out what you thought was me being sarcastic? Thanks for admitting that you’re a dummy. My guess is is not arithmetic but socially. Either way, keep being you. You seem like a happy fellow.

[Merlin Samuels]

Threads like this are why I went into almost full "lurk" mode. A very thoughtful analysis was posted with numbers to back it up. Yet most still resist the conclusions those numbers draw. The simple fact is our only sustainable financial course with our football program is to be a pay-for-play punching bag. If people feel that fact justifies an investment of any size, then the amount of loss is meaningless. Take away the money we get to be a cupcake, and this whole thing is just a disaster. And saying that does not mean anyone hates football, it just means they hate our university being a punchline.

Whipple took teams to SEC stadiums and played them close. And got paid for it.

Bamford set fire to everything built, and Brown is restarting.

The Matt McCall experiment was a failure. We brought in a new (and vastly more experienced and successful) coach, and take a look at it now. Football takes a little more time to turn around because of the amount of players needed.

I should also say Don Brown would not have taken this job if failure was certain. Look at what’s going on in Storrs. There is no reason UMass can’t top that.

[jjmc85]

Objection! Leading the witness!!!

Seriously if an interviewer ever asked such a bias one sided question, any qualified candidate offered would say “thanks but no thanks.” Unless I was starving if someone tried to pull that on me during an interview I’d walk out right there and then as they are wasting my time. They aren’t hiring a leader. They’re hiring a puppet. If the goal is to cut football just do it before the new person takes the job. No need to hire someone to take the heat for a decision already made by the imaginary hiring committee. Would be gutless.

Are there legitimate arguments to be made about cutting football? Yes. Are there legitimate arguments to be made about keeping football? Also yes. Should a world renowned research institution ask extremely bias questions when hiring a leader? Absolutely not. That would be embarrassing.

[InnervisionsUMASS]

^

BINGO.

[eldonabe]

Objection! Leading the witness!!!

Seriously if an interviewer ever asked such a bias one sided question, any qualified candidate offered would say “thanks but no thanks.” Unless I was starving if someone tried to pull that on me during an interview I’d walk out right there and then as they are wasting my time. They aren’t hiring a leader. They’re hiring a puppet. If the goal is to cut football just do it before the new person takes the job. No need to hire someone to take the heat for a decision already made by the imaginary hiring committee. Would be gutless.

Are there legitimate arguments to be made about cutting football? Yes. Are there legitimate arguments to be made about keeping football? Also yes. Should a world renowned research institution ask extremely bias questions when hiring a leader? Absolutely not. That would be embarrassing.

This sums it up pretty well.

Great post! I would rep the shit out of this if that were a thing here!

[ZooMass84]

The question "why are we spending money on this?" when the team has been so bad on the field is certainly legitimate, but it has been answered over and over again here and elsewhere.


And anyone with an actual understanding of how this Commonwealth functions knows that if the money towards football (and Title IX requirements) is no longer used towards football (and Title IX requirements), it will also no longer be put towards the University in general... the "hope" that this money can be better spent towards other athletics or, better yet, academics at the University is quite foolish.

But what if we don't care if that lost money goes to the University? What if we simply feel that putting a "worst in the nation" product on the field with UMass on the helmet every year is not good for the school or its overall academic and athletic mission? To me, even if ending football as it exists is a zero-sum game at this point, that still works in the schools favor. We have a stadium that is a joke, a team that is a joke, no conference, and no path forward beyond being a pay day opponent.

Excellent points by both of you guys!!!! And I agree with both you guys and that's the conundrum: We're the second richest state in the US, so whatever money is being thrown away (I mean "spent") on football is a non issue. Even Max Page has moved on to other things. you see, if they discontinue or reduce football to 1AA, the funds appropriated or budgeted are lost forever. They are not retained and then invested. Listen to the old CPA....

[ZooMass84]

VOR sounds identical to Bay Area Umie...........the problem or as Bay Area Umie said "structural" is that in college football it's all about recruiting. The Alabama's and Ohio State's and TCUs just get all the 4 and 5 star kids and teams like Akron and New Mexico and UMass are left with the 2 or maybe 3 star kids or unrated. It becomes a chicken and the egg thing or an infinite loop or Catch 22: we suck and no one wants to come here; since no one wants to come here, we suck. Applications were over 44,000 for this year's class so who knows? I just don't when we'll ever win another game.

[Steve81]

Whipple took teams to SEC stadiums and played them close. And got paid for it.

Bamford set fire to everything built, and Brown is restarting.

The Matt McCall experiment was a failure. We brought in a new (and vastly more experienced and successful) coach, and take a look at it now. Football takes a little more time to turn around because of the amount of players needed.

I should also say Don Brown would not have taken this job if failure was certain. Look at what’s going on in Storrs. There is no reason UMass can’t top that.

Agree with this post. Also like the Martin hire, the results thus far and especially the nearly 5k in attendance for the first game. Think Don Brown will get UMass competitive again as we were beating Div 1 teams teams in the mid seventies, including Boston College.

[mdogt12]

https://www.wcvb.com/article/on-the-rec ... s/42697773
Marty Meehan asked about the cost of college athletics