UMass Ponders Dropping FB Down to FCS

[TheHall]

First and foremost, the Big East is going to get a minimum of 4 in this year and if the league rank stays where it is I think you can probably feel pretty good about the 5th.

Secondly, can we stop acting like adding (insert random mid major/flavor of the week public school) is going to increase the number of bids? Its just as likely the league still gets those 4/5 bids but the winnings are spread across 12/14 schools.

It makes NO SENSE AT ALL to expand the conference if the incremental team(s) are not greater than the average current conference team in its present configuration. (not to mention that those incremental teams need to bring them incremental media monies)

So, go ahead and find a private school with a Final Four on its resume, that would entice Fox, or whomever, to pay more than they are currently willing, we can start talking...

That assumes that sed program doesn't dramatically improve with a tremendous increase in cash (for better coaches, facilities, recruiting budget, etc), tv exposure, and recruiting credibility. It's too early to cap the potential for ALL of our teams in this new era. Only a few years after the formation of the OG BE we had 3 teams in the FF, who saw that coming for a "hodgepodge" conference.

[BillEsq]

While personally i think UMass should go back to FCS (Uconn too for that matter), the fact is that both of these schools have just invested millions into moving up. Giving up now would take huge cahonnes for a President and an AD. I don't see it likely.
Agreed with the Memphis... These guys will never give up FBS they toiled for decades in lower football leagues they are committed.

Regarding BE expansion. the BE will expand for one of 4 reasons. (1) If the rumors of a slated fox increase are true, the BE will expand as the additional money becomes available; (2) If the BE finds that the current formula for gaining NCAA at larges favors having 12 teams over 10 teams; (3) the presidents started the league with the agenda to expand to 12 similar minded institutions regardless of any other factors; and (4) if the P5 conferences split (or threaten split) and the BE needs a bigger conference to guarantee inclusion into their new division.

anyone on this board knows that i favor expansion and believe that it will eventually happen. However, it will not happen unless one of these things are true. Ok maybe 1 more... (S/D/R) starts winning national titles forcing the BE hand.

[XU85]

Although I love the round robin, and although 10 had a nice petite, family type feel to it- the Big East must expand. Its all about brand recognition and NCAA resume's. More schools= more games, more recognition, more teams in the NCAA, more big games, more everything. With 10 schools, if we get 5 to the tourny every year that is an accomplishment. With 14 schools, getting 7 into the tourny every year is a lot different even though the ratio is the same. More teams means more chances to go deep into March and have people take notice. We are starting a new chapter and we need to solidify ourselves as a conference. Its a lot easier to do with more teams, more cities/states watching, alumni, fanbases, more teams in the top 25, etc. Thats just how I feel.

As a selfish PC guy, I would rather expand elsewhere and allow for PC to dominate the New England talent. But a scenario of UCONN, Memphis, Dayton, St. Louis would be my aim if possible. VCU, UMASS, Dayton, St. Louis is also manageable in my mind.

UConn and Memphis are highly unlikely as others have stated repeatedly. Would a league with your "manageable" additions of VCU, UMASS, Dayton, and St. Louis be the Big East, or the A-10 on steroids?

[stever20]

league rank has nothing to do with NCAA spots. Nothing. I mean, where is SEC right now? #8? But how many bids did they have in Lunardi's bracketology? 6 or 7? Individual teams matter, not leagues.

Losses matter. I mean, right now we have 3 schools with 4 losses. If they finished 9-9, that would mean they would have 13 losses-+1 in the tourney. 14 loss schools just don't make the tourney unless they have something like Nova last year with all the top 10 wins(something none of our teams have this year).

[cm5yz6]

Expansion talk is ruining this message board for me... can't we all just wait until someone from a Big East school or the conference says something relevant? At least then there is a glimmer of something. Otherwise, we will have the same discussion every week, because hey UMass is good this year and may, one day drop FBS down, or someone else just rolled three good wins against power conference teams, or some other irrelevant event. Please guys, don't ruin this board, we've heard all these things before.

[Edrick]

league rank has nothing to do with NCAA spots. Nothing. I mean, where is SEC right now? #8? But how many bids did they have in Lunardi's bracketology? 6 or 7? Individual teams matter, not leagues.

Losses matter. I mean, right now we have 3 schools with 4 losses. If they finished 9-9, that would mean they would have 13 losses-+1 in the tourney. 14 loss schools just don't make the tourney unless they have something like Nova last year with all the top 10 wins(something none of our teams have this year).

Of course it does, don't be silly. Guess what happens when you play an 18-game schedule in a league the rates among the country's elite? You get RESUME WINS by default. NCAA selection is largely a ponzie scheme. All you need to do is get your conference rank high in the OOC then collect intra-conference wins. Its just how the math works.

Old Big East teams that, in reality, had absolutely no business making the tournament were making it for years simply because they enjoyed the fruits of getting a whole bunch of home games against teams with strong computer numbers, buttressed by their conference rank -- see Notre Dame.

Its the other side of the same coin that causes Missouri State with a Top 40 RPI to not get an at-large invite --- they just didnt have the luxury of hosting resume wins in Springfield.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball ... cn-8081608

[stever20]

league rank has nothing to do with NCAA spots. Nothing. I mean, where is SEC right now? #8? But how many bids did they have in Lunardi's bracketology? 6 or 7? Individual teams matter, not leagues.

Losses matter. I mean, right now we have 3 schools with 4 losses. If they finished 9-9, that would mean they would have 13 losses-+1 in the tourney. 14 loss schools just don't make the tourney unless they have something like Nova last year with all the top 10 wins(something none of our teams have this year).

Of course it does, don't be silly. Guess what happens when you play an 18-game schedule in a league the rates among the country's elite? You get RESUME WINS by default. NCAA selection is largely a ponzie scheme. All you need to do is get your conference rank high in the OOC then collect intra-conference wins. Its just how the math works.

Old Big East teams that, in reality, had absolutely no business making the tournament were making it for years simply because they enjoyed the fruits of getting a whole bunch of home games against teams with strong computer numbers, buttressed by their conference rank -- see Notre Dame.

Its the other side of the same coin that causes Missouri State with a Top 20 RPI to not get an at-large invite --- they just didnt have the luxury of hosting resume wins in Springfield.

um no. Conferences don't get bids, teams get bids.

And if we used to get teams in that had no business of makign the tourney, what do you think is going to happen with the ACC now? Same thing. Same with the SEC.

Right now, our RPI is down to #4. We have 26 losses. If we had say 20 even, what you are saying could be true. If we were where the Big 12 is #1 in RPI with 20 losses- it would be true. Right now, we're 4-16 vs top 50 schools RPI. B12 is 10-13 vs top 50. That's the difference.

[aughnanure]

I think you should generally grab flagship state schools if you can. That's what the Big East did with UConn. Flagship state schools always have a ton of potential, and built-in support that make them attractive no matter their current struggles. Now, they'd have to drop football but I think they should jump to the top of the list with SLU if true.

I really don't like the number 14 for scheduling though.

If that's true, then it would appear New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, and Delaware are on their way to the Big East...

Expansion is a simple formula. It doesn't happen at all unless the value added to the pie makes it worth it for each CURRENT member to take a smaller slice of it.

Simplified, right now you have $500 million from FOX split among 10 schools over 12 years (approximately $41.6 million per year, or $4.16 million per school per year). Expansion to 12 (assuming the same amount of money per school per year, would mean Fox paying out $50 million per season to the Big East. If a given school can bring at least an extra $4.16 million in TV revenue to the table every year, it's not a guarantee that they become a Big East member, but without it, that school doesn't have a chance because no one is going to water down the product in exchange for LESS money.

UMass, like Delaware or URI or UNH or Maine does not move the needle far enough to convince Georgetown or Butler or Marquette or whoever to take less money, and if UMass hadn't barely cracked the Top 25 (in December), then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Oh come on, Delaware, RI and New Hampshire aren't UMass and I wouldn't call for them to join. I get the point you're making, but I think you're overreaching. No one is calling for North dakoita or Montana or Wyoming either. Massachusetts is different. I think it would be very short-sighted to not grab Massachusetts #1 state school, but grab Virginia's #4. Plus, perfectly matches the last northeast area where the Big East isn't (plus, pisses off BC).

Also, the Fox deal would not be split more ways. It would increase, and every team would keep the same amount. This has been stated and reported multiple times.

[milwaukeejedi1]

Switch to Top Tier a Costly Decision for UMass Football

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/12/16/switch-to-top-tier-a-costly-decision-for-umass-foo/

[Edrick]

league rank has nothing to do with NCAA spots. Nothing. I mean, where is SEC right now? #8? But how many bids did they have in Lunardi's bracketology? 6 or 7? Individual teams matter, not leagues.

Losses matter. I mean, right now we have 3 schools with 4 losses. If they finished 9-9, that would mean they would have 13 losses-+1 in the tourney. 14 loss schools just don't make the tourney unless they have something like Nova last year with all the top 10 wins(something none of our teams have this year).

Of course it does, don't be silly. Guess what happens when you play an 18-game schedule in a league the rates among the country's elite? You get RESUME WINS by default. NCAA selection is largely a ponzie scheme. All you need to do is get your conference rank high in the OOC then collect intra-conference wins. Its just how the math works.

Old Big East teams that, in reality, had absolutely no business making the tournament were making it for years simply because they enjoyed the fruits of getting a whole bunch of home games against teams with strong computer numbers, buttressed by their conference rank -- see Notre Dame.

Its the other side of the same coin that causes Missouri State with a Top 20 RPI to not get an at-large invite --- they just didnt have the luxury of hosting resume wins in Springfield.

um no. Conferences don't get bids, teams get bids.

And if we used to get teams in that had no business of makign the tourney, what do you think is going to happen with the ACC now? Same thing. Same with the SEC.

Right now, our RPI is down to #4. We have 26 losses. If we had say 20 even, what you are saying could be true. If we were where the Big 12 is #1 in RPI with 20 losses- it would be true. Right now, we're 4-16 vs top 50 schools RPI. B12 is 10-13 vs top 50. That's the difference.

Well, Ill give you this, if you are going to be wrong its probably better to be loudly wrong. The amplitude is a nice distraction to the weak premises.