UMassHoops.com

With the AAC moving its headquarters to Dallas (from Providence) in two years, would UMass make the list of football teams that they would like to add to their conference?

I know that the AAC probably seemed like the most natural move for the football team to go into a conference, but the southwestern football influence always scared me. Now that the headquarters are moving to Dallas, this concerns me even more.

The best possible solution I think would be to try and get into the AAC as a football only member. They currently have one football-only member in Navy and one non-football member in Wichita State. Maybe if another football team joins as a full member or football only (someone like Army possibly?). Then you could possibly do two 7 team divisions:

East: UMass, Army, UConn, Temple, Navy, East Carolina, UCF
West: Cincy, Memphis, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane, USF

Splitting the two Florida schools might not work but I figured that teams might want a guaranteed game in Florida at least every other year for recruiting purposes. This is probably more important for the northern schools. You could also keep the Florida teams together with the northern schools and more EC to the other division.

This is a football only fix, I don't think that it would make sense to have the basketball teams and other sports move into this conference as the travel would be quite daunting.

Clearly they're shifting more to the South so I don't see how UMass would ever be part of their plans. If the conference were to expand I think UAB, Rice, UTEP, and La Tech would be looked at before us.

Sheck wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:21 pm Clearly they're shifting more to the South so I don't see how UMass would ever be part of their plans. If the conference were to expand I think UAB, Rice, UTEP, and La Tech would be looked at before us.

Why would you think that? UMASS is a MUCH better fit than any of those Universities - especially if AAC wishes to retain its current members.

Jack wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:09 am

Sheck wrote: Fri Jun 01, 2018 11:21 pm Clearly they're shifting more to the South so I don't see how UMass would ever be part of their plans. If the conference were to expand I think UAB, Rice, UTEP, and La Tech would be looked at before us.

Why would you think that? UMASS is a MUCH better fit than any of those Universities - especially if AAC wishes to retain its current members.

I'd agree with UTEP and Rice being worse candidates. UTEP is a better fit for Mountain West. Rice is a fantastic school, but the AAC doesn't need two schools in Houston. Rice would also have a very similar situation to what the AAC has now with Tulsa (it's really hard to fund athletics with a small enrollment and alumni base, even if that base is wealthy).

UAB? Now that's an interesting candidate that the AAC really might go for. UAB is a good school with some of the highest research expenditures in the country (mainly due to their med school). They're building a brand new stadium with a capacity that will be in line with other AAC schools. They open up the state of Alabama for recruiting, which is huge. Also, UAB made a lot of noise last year going 8-5 in their return from hiatus.

UMASS is a much better University than UAB is UAB is ranked about 75 places behind UMASS. UMASS is also far better candidate for the AAC i terms of regional balance, media market and instant rivalry games w/ukon, temple etc. UMASS obviously needs to keep improving on the field and needs to get to work on a Stadium renovation of the East side stands ... nevertheless UMASS would still be a much better addition to the AAC than UAB would be.

I think Independent status may work out longer term than anyone realizes.. Texas and USC both considering bolting to INDY status.. they want their own tv money..

I see a lot of people referencing media market as a selling point for our athletic programs, but the reality is we are not part of the Boston media market - we're in the Springfield/Holyoke media market, which ranks 116th in the U.S. Sadly the only Boston exposure we get right now is the Boston media telling the world that UMass should eliminate its football program

Minutemaniac74 wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 7:09 pm I see a lot of people referencing media market as a selling point for our athletic programs, but the reality is we are not part of the Boston media market - we're in the Springfield/Holyoke media market, which ranks 116th in the U.S. Sadly the only Boston exposure we get right now is the Boston media telling the world that UMass should eliminate its football program

Don't forget Mt. Ida..

^ the same Mt Ida that has the Boston media and politicians so upset that they're trying to pass through legislation to restrict Meehan's powers as president of the UMass system? The presence of less than 5% of UMass' undergrads at Mt Ida does not put Amherst in the Boston media market

^ Seeing how ~42% of all UMass Amherst alums live in the Boston area (according to LinkedIn), I'd say there's a hell of a lot more potential in the Boston market for UMass than there is in Springfield. To be completely honest UMass hasn't tapped either market in a long time, so since really it's arbitrary I'll pick #9 over #114 any day of the week.

Theoretically, that makes sense. But, UMASS games at Gilette were almost a complete bust in energizing the UMASS alum base. Many just never engaged in UMASS football as students, why would they now as alums?

Minutemaniac74 wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 9:57 pm ^ the same Mt Ida that has the Boston media and politicians so upset that they're trying to pass through legislation to restrict Meehan's powers as president of the UMass system? The presence of less than 5% of UMass' undergrads at Mt Ida does not put Amherst in the Boston media market

Is that for real re Mt Ida?? If so, I'd argue UMass's opponents (political hacks and journalists) within the state must think it's a bigger deal for UMass in the Boston market than you're painting it as. When UMass tries to make big moves that threaten to elevate it over other institutions located around Boston, that is typically the response from politicians and journalists beholden to those institutions; if it was viewed as a minor thing there wouldn't be such a reaction.

Also, I agree with McKinney, the fact that there is a large(r) alumni base in Boston, and UMass being the flagship public U of the state, makes sense that Boston would be the market to claim. Just because it hasn't been tapped (since the 90's at least) doesn't mean it can't be - that should be the goal (the test will be what happens when we field a good team, in basketball and/or football, if we can get to that point).

McKinney wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:15 pm ^ Seeing how ~42% of all UMass Amherst alums live in the Boston area (according to LinkedIn), I'd say there's a hell of a lot more potential in the Boston market for UMass than there is in Springfield. To be completely honest UMass hasn't tapped either market in a long time, so since really it's arbitrary I'll pick #9 over #114 any day of the week.

Despite the fact that we have all those alums living in the Boston area, UMass athletics has historically been very unsuccessful tapping into that market. You can't just lay claim to a #9 media market that pays almost zero attention to us, especially when the campus doesn't even sit in that market.

Good spot for my semi annual non P5 school rankings in terms of best fits for P5

1. Houston (this is clear cut)
2. UCF
3. Cincy
4. UConn
5. Umass
6. BYU (religious bias keeps them from being #2)
7. USF
8. Boise St
9. San Diego St
10. SMU
11. Temple
12. Tulane
13. Col St
14. Memphis
15. Tulsa
16. Navy
17. Army
18. UNLV

I think the Boston market does come into play and we will see games at Gillette on a regular basis albeit we do need to revamp the on campus stadium to at least 30K. The number one strength of UMass is it's increasingly higher Public school ranking. That coupled with what could be a few successful seasons in a row, UMass will be able to validate my ranking. This year needs to be at least 6-6 (hopefully 7-5 or 8-4) and next year I would not be surprised at all if the record is 9-3 (same with 2020).

econalum wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:24 pm Theoretically, that makes sense. But, UMASS games at Gilette were almost a complete bust in energizing the UMASS alum base. Many just never engaged in UMASS football as students, why would they now as alums?

Disagree with the total bust claim here. The Gillette games attracted higher attendance numbers than any season at FCS and relied primarily on non western MA fans for a team that won very little and played against directional schools from the mid west. Also, most students do not engage with football as students, even at the bigger schools. Football is primarily an alumni function. Personally, more of my cohort of UMass alums have attended games since the move up. In fact friends have traveled to UF and ND to watch as well. I am a western MA resident, 19 year STH. While the Gillette games did not get the 25k they projected, an expanded base has been established. Fickle fans wanting wins or at least a shot at winning will show when we start winning. Some of these same eastern MA fans that never came to an FCS game in Amherst have come to see the FBS version. I know it is anecdotal and personal, but I don't believ my experience is an anonomly.