UMass Football going Independent

jpatsfan · Post by **jpatsfan** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 5:54 pm

For the second time today I have heard that UMass Football is going Independent for two years after it is leaving the MAC in hopes of getting into a new conference.

Follow the link below to a radio report on UM football:

http://www.wbur.org/2014/08/29/umass-football

It was also brought up today by the ESPN 3 crew that we are going Independent. How in the hell are we going to be competitive as an Independent without a TV contract, without a conference and bowl-tie-ins? Does anyone have information about this. Independent FBS football is going to be very tough.

UMass87 · Post by **UMass87** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:37 pm

Where have you been for the past few months??? This news is very old and has been discussed a lot. Try the search function and you'll find discussion of it. There are dreamers who hope for a B1G invite and dreamers who think the AAC will invite AND be worth joining. Then there is everyone else who pretty much is thinking wtf, how does this end well?

Steve81 · Post by **Steve81** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:12 pm

The conference affiliation will work its self out. We'd receive indy money*. Basically adding one additional buy game replaces the CFP money and we have a FCS home buy game to balance the schedule. That's if we are even indy in 2016. We'll be OK. Doesn't Notre Dame play 5 games in the ACC and gets considered in their bowl tie in? Just thinking there are a number of angles.

*

Notre Dame will receive around one percent, about $3.5-4 million, and other FBS independents get about 0.5 percent of the deal.[60][61]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_Football_Playoff

We'd replace Navy and FBSchedule lists BYU and Army as other independents. Seems high but 3 into almost 2 million would be 600k each.

econalum · Post by **econalum** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:13 pm

Errr. we do not have the rabid fan base, nor history, of any of these independents.

98% of FBS teams are in a conference. We are spread across A10, MAC, CAA at least.

Perhaps we can cobble things together, but it will not build the types of rivalries that bring fan support and interest.

Sheck · Post by **Sheck** » Sun Aug 31, 2014 9:03 pm

UMass87 wrote:Where have you been for the past few months??? This news is very old and has been discussed a lot. Try the search function and you'll find discussion of it. There are dreamers who hope for a B1G invite and dreamers who think the AAC will invite AND be worth joining. Then there is everyone else who pretty much is thinking wtf, how does this end well?

Why wouldn't the AAC be worth joining? That's the best conference we can hope to get into realistically. Going independent is a short term solution at best. To make this FBS move work we're going to have to jump to an all-sports conference and say goodbye to the A10 at some point.

jpatsfan · Post by **jpatsfan** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 9:42 am

Sheck wrote:
UMass87 wrote:Where have you been for the past few months??? This news is very old and has been discussed a lot. Try the search function and you'll find discussion of it. There are dreamers who hope for a B1G invite and dreamers who think the AAC will invite AND be worth joining. Then there is everyone else who pretty much is thinking wtf, how does this end well?
Why wouldn't the AAC be worth joining? That's the best conference we can hope to get into realistically. Going independent is a short term solution at best. To make this FBS move work we're going to have to jump to an all-sports conference and say goodbye to the A10 at some point.

Could not agree more with the above comment. The FBS will only work with an all-sports conference affiliation with the exception being hockey. We need to unify all our sports into one conference. Our current set-up is dizzying and convoluted.

UMass87 · Post by **UMass87** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:02 am

The problem is more with what the AAC will look like when UMass is asked to join. Even if the conference isn't the same it will never be grouped with the P5 and the overwhleming likelihood is that the P5 will be the only economically feasible BCS conferences. UMass waited a decade too long to upgrade and there is very little chance the move will work. The only chance is the extremely unlikely invite to the ACC or B1G. This is about money from start to finish.

Franklin Fanatic · Post by **Franklin Fanatic** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:12 am

UMass87 wrote:The problem is more with what the AAC will look like when UMass is asked to join. Even if the conference isn't the same it will never be grouped with the P5 and the overwhleming likelihood is that the P5 will be the only economically feasible BCS conferences. UMass waited a decade too long to upgrade and there is very little chance the move will work. The only chance is the extremely unlikely invite to the ACC or B1G. This is about money from start to finish.

So, if not the AAC, what's your plan? I think we end up all in with the MAC for 2016 and beyond. To say the AAC may not be worth it is ridiculous.

UMass87 · Post by **UMass87** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:48 am

Franklin Fanatic wrote:...

So, if not the AAC, what's your plan? I think we end up all in with the MAC for 2016 and beyond. To say the AAC may not be worth it is ridiculous.

If UMass' net outlays for football are $5MM then UMass will not be playing FBS football in five years. The only way to keep the costs of football down are to play in a conference with significant tv and bowl revenue. I have zero faith that the AAC will provide either of these. Financially, the MAC is no better than the AAC. Neither of these options will be considered sustainable by the Trustees or the Commonwealth - particularly with the Max Pages getting all the press and driving the narrative.

DEM · Post by **DEM** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 12:07 pm

87, the American is almost definitely the goal. The Big 10 and even ACC are unrealistic at this point...possibly at some point in the future once we have some success, but certainly not now.

UMass87 · Post by **UMass87** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:49 pm

DEM - from an alumni fan perspective I agree. From a realistic observer standpoint I just don't think the MA legislature is going to accept the short term costs (which, absent a P5 invite will become long term). One of the big selling points for the FBS upgrade was that it would save money in the long term because revenue increses would be greater than cost increases and therefore the net cost of football would go down. As the P5 tighten their grip on the available revenue the likelihood is that the FBS programs outside of the P5 will see an increasing gap between their costs and their revenue - and not in the direction we'd like.

vanmeter · Post by **vanmeter** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:07 am

The Mass legislators do not run Umass. Thje Board of Trustees do. If we got into the AAC it would be a homerun for us. The residuals money that comes in from 1A Football cannot be easily measured. Losing a few million dollars a year does not come close to equating to the additional money donated by alumni because of Division 1A Football.

How many schools lose, on paper, money from 1A Football - probably over 50%. We all know that you are against 1A Football 87, but try and consider the larger picture.

UMass87 · Post by **UMass87** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 9:31 am

vanmeter wrote:... We all know that you are against 1A Football 87, but try and consider the larger picture.

?????

WTF are you talking about?

Sam Minuteman · Post by **Sam Minuteman** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:01 pm

I have said this a million times but for everyone who bitches about the money UMass looses on FBS, Football, or Athletics in general and wants to move that budget to academic departments, how do you plan on marketing the university? The coverage it garners whether in the form of articles, games on tv, or just the ticker at the bottom all has value and wouldn't exist without Athletics.

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article ... chieving-0

There may be some tough years ahead and I for one hope the football team doesn't end up independent but it beats the alternative of not having a team!

Calmass9 · Post by **Calmass9** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:28 pm

Sam Minuteman wrote:I have said this a million times but for everyone who bitches about the money UMass looses on FBS, Football, or Athletics in general and wants to move that budget to academic departments, how do you plan on marketing the university? The coverage it garners whether in the form of articles, games on tv, or just the ticker at the bottom all has value and wouldn't exist without Athletics.

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/article ... chieving-0

There may be some tough years ahead and I for one hope the football team doesn't end up independent but it beats the alternative of not having a team!

Yep. It really is brand management 101 and so many overly tax-conscious trolls/alumni around Massachusetts fail to see any correlation. We have students coming in with incredible academic resume's and the perception of UMass as an academic institution around this state (whether the 'safety school opinion' was fair or not) has done nearly a 180 in 10 years. 10 YEARS!

Higher academia = more success post graduation and you'd like to think that could/would mean more donations back to the school years down the road. It's all cyclical and high level athletics is a massive part in a state university's brand, whether the loud minority will ever understand that or not is yet to be seen.