UMass Ponders Dropping FB Down to FCS

[stever20]

I think I would phrase it as if the conference and individual team is good enough, a .500 conference record is no problem. You can't just say if the conference is good enough a .500 conference record is no problem- because as PC showed last year- that's not the case.

[notkirkcameron]

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.

Are they really so different from UMass? Remember, this is a conversation about basketball.

UMass: Zero NCAA Tournament appearances since 1998
Delaware: Zero NCAA Tournament appearances since 1999
Rhode Island: Zero NCAA Tournament appearances since 1999
New Hampshire: Zero NCAA Tournament appearances in program history
Maine: Zero NCAA Tournament appearances in program history

Yes, UMass is very different from the others because it's the flagship university of a state of 6.6 million people. That means that even with a bad team, it has more value to the conference with the television market that it brings.

You can't simply shut off the conversation with your arbitrary post 1998 date. That's just too convenient for you to make your point. It has been demonstrated that it is possible to build a big time program at UMass (7 bids, 3 Sweet 16's, back-to-back Elite 8's, a Final Four) and sustain it for the better part of a decade. No one has ever been able to achieve that kind of success at those other programs other than URI and while they've had their moments, just not the same kind of dominance as UMass.

All that was demonstrated by UMass' success in the mid-90s is that by hook or by crook, John Calipari can recruit and take teams deep in the NCAA Tournament. UMass has won exactly zero NCAA Tournament games in program history without Calipari as coach.

I'll grant you that UMass is the flagship state university of a state of 6.6 million people, and there is certainly some merit to that, but in a region with as many colleges as New England, it seems like UMass isn't getting the cross-over support from people who didn't go there. Here in the Midwest, we call those people "Wal-Mart Wolverines" or perhaps, "UW-Hyphen Badgers."


UMass only has about 27k students. It's not as if the Big East adding UMass is like adding Ohio State (approximately 57k students in Columbus alone) where you have a giant student body and crossover support from across the state from people who didn't even go there. In that vein, it's worth pointing out that Delaware's enrollment (21k) is not that different from UMass'.

I'll confess to being ignorant as to how many eyeballs UMass gets in the Boston TV market (which, if UMass were in Maine, we wouldn't be having this conversation), but given that the Minutemen haven't appeared in the Tournament since 1998, have never won an NCAA Tournament game with anyone other than John Calipari as head coach, and their FBS football team is, by all indications, a tepidly-supported financial disaster, my guess is not many.

[Bill Marsh]

All that was demonstrated by UMass' success in the mid-90s is that by hook or by crook, John Calipari can recruit and take teams deep in the NCAA Tournament. UMass has won exactly zero NCAA Tournament games in program history without Calipari as coach.

I'll grant you that UMass is the flagship state university of a state of 6.6 million people, and there is certainly some merit to that, but in a region with as many colleges as New England, it seems like UMass isn't getting the cross-over support from people who didn't go there. Here in the Midwest, we call those people "Wal-Mart Wolverines" or perhaps, "UW-Hyphen Badgers."


UMass only has about 27k students. It's not as if the Big East adding UMass is like adding Ohio State (approximately 57k students in Columbus alone) where you have a giant student body and crossover support from across the state from people who didn't even go there. In that vein, it's worth pointing out that Delaware's enrollment (21k) is not that different from UMass'.

I'll confess to being ignorant as to how many eyeballs UMass gets in the Boston TV market (which, if UMass were in Maine, we wouldn't be having this conversation), but given that the Minutemen haven't appeared in the Tournament since 1998, have never won an NCAA Tournament game with anyone other than John Calipari as head coach, and their FBS football team is, by all indications, a tepidly-supported financial disaster, my guess is not many.

I live and work in the Hartford area. Some of my colleagues commute down from Massachusetts. During the 1990's, the support for UMass in Massachusetts was intense. Calipari's sleaze factor aside, what he did demonstrate that when someone can ignite this program, he will set the surrounding community on fire.

As for the UMass enrollment, you're acting like 27K is a small school. And they do have campuses in Boston and Worcester which add to that enrollment. Even at 27K in Amherst, it's 3-4 times the size of most Big East programs. It's not Ohio State, but it is similar to Iowa. It's smaller than Indiana or Purdue, but it's in a state with the same population as Indiana without the fan base being split between 2 major state universities and Notre Dame. UMass only has to worry about BC. The enrollment at UMass is larger than every schools in the ACC except for Florida State. So, let's ease up on the Big Ten comparisons. The whole point is that UMass has potential.

[PawJoe]

I live in Mass and let me tell you you are right no one cares about UMass... And and just a little info on the area Springfield is the 114th T.V. market and the 85th Metro area in the country. Even Providence in the smallest state has the 38th largest metro area in the country and is also included as part of the Boston 10th CSA metro area. Now how does this make sense to bring them in? I'm happy where I'm at thank you!

[Bill Marsh]

Steve, what does that have to do with the point I was making?

you said:
If the conference is good enough, a .500 conference record is no problem. Cincinnati got in last year with a .500 conference record. UConn got in with a .500 conference record when it won the national championship in 2011.

I said:
The conference has nothing to do with the .500 teams. The individual team is what matters. Cincy last year went 12-1 OOC. That's why they made the tourney because they had 22 wins. If the wrong team finishes .500, they just won't have a shot

I mean- last year, Cincy and Providence finished both with .500 conference records. Cincy was 12-1 OOC and made the tourney with out even having to play in a PIG. Providence went 8-4 OOC and didn't make the tourney. Same conference. The individual teams that finish at 9-9 for sure, and quite possibly 10-8 for 2-3 teams will determine if they get in, not the conference.

Ah, I see where you're going and I agree with you.

I was responding to XU's point that the conference will be limited by middle of the pack teams having conference records of .500 or below. By saying that a .500 conference record won't hold anyone back if the conference is good enough, I'm saying the same thing as you are. The conference proves its worth against the rest of the country by how good it does OOC. Cincinnati didn't make the tournament just because they went 12-1 OOC. Look at that OOC record. They played some real dogs. They got into the tournament because they beat some good teams OOC like Iowa State, Oregon, and Xavier. Just as important is the fact that they beat a bunch of good teams IN conference as well like Pitt, Marquette, Villanova, UConn, and Providence.

Where I disagree with you a little bit is when you say that each individual team proves itself by its OOC record. A team can have a good record OOC but gain no quality wins. However, if another team in the conference racks up a bunch of quality OOC wins, that team than becomes an opportunity for a quality win for every team that faces it in conference. Just as Cincinnati's in conference wins mattered more than their OOC wins in helping them make the tournament, so will a win over Villanova for any Big East team that can do that this year. So, the overall strength of the conference becomes SOS for every conference member.

Providence was hurt not just by its OOC record but by the fact that 3 of its 4 OOC losses were bad losses - BC, Penn State, and Brown. Their 4th loss was to UMass, not a tournament team although not a bod team.Had those losses come against better teams and had PC been competitive, they wouldn't have been hurt so much by them. Cincy's only loss was to New Mexico, a fairly highly seeded tournament team, a loss that didn't really hurt them. Moreover, Cincy beat PC in the BE tournament. That not only gave them a head to head win, but it gained them a 2nd game against Georgetown. While they lost, the game helped their SOS.

[Bill Marsh]

I live in Mass and let me tell you you are right no one cares about UMass... And and just a little info on the area Springfield is the 114th T.V. market and the 85th Metro area in the country. Even Providence in the smallest state has the 38th largest metro area in the country and is also included as part of the Boston 10th CSA metro area. Now how does this make sense to bring them in? I'm happy where I'm at thank you!

What difference does it make what the Springfield market is? UMass isn't a commuter school, drawing only from the local market. They have a statewide presence. The whole state is their market, not just Springfield. Frankly I doubt that Amherst is even included in the Springfield DMA. I wasn't suggesting that anyone in the state cares about UMass today. Their low attendance at game shows that they don't. I'm only saying that when the program was hot 15-20 years ago, everyone cared. That shows that UMass is a place where interest can be ignited.

[NJRedman]

I think it's funny when people say "We can't add to many teams or we'll be the A-10 on steroids!", Well yeah duh! The Big East originally was the A-10 on steroids! Whats the matter with being a top 5/6 BBall conference on steroids? Wouldn't that make us a top 3 BBall conference? The best from the A-10 (X, Dayton, UMass) as well as the best team from the MVC (Creighton), the best team from the Horizon (Butler), the best from the CAA (VCU) and half of the founding members from the Big East (SJU, Hall, GTown, Nova, PC) as well as three BBall schools from the old powerful CUSA (Marq, ThePaul, SLU). Is that some conference to be embarrassed of? Seems to me it's a BBall super conference. A conference that will be one of the best in the country in any given year and covers most of the country where basketball is taken seriously, and not just something to distract people until spring practice and signing day comes around.

I say call us the A-10 on steroids! I find that a term of endearment, since thats what the founders were trying to accomplish from the get go.

[stever20]

My point though- OOC play determined who went to the tourney between the 2 teams. Even if PC's losses were to 3 good teams by 1 point each- they still would have been NIT. You have to have a minimum level record to make the tourney. 17-14 just doesn't get you in any longer. That stopped about 10 years ago or so. Raw numbers matter. I don't know if we're ever going to see a 17-14 team ever make the tourney again. I kind of doubt it.

And, I wouldn't say that Cincy's in conference wins mattered more than the OOC wins. Maybe the 2 vs Marquette and Pitt. But Oregon and Iowa St mattered as much as Nova and UConn- and more than Providence. Just like this year- Nova's win over Kansas will matter more than any BE win they get this year.

I look at OOC play kind of like a golf tournament 1st 2 rounds. You can't win the golf tournament, but you sure can lose it. Look at UVA last year. They had a great conference season, but didn't make the tourney because of OOC play. You might not be able to prove your self based on OOC play, but you sure can dis-prove your self in OOC play.

What you are saying is what's going to happen in the Big 12 this year. They have 4 top notch teams in the top 25- and 2 more good teams.

[Bill Marsh]

My point though- OOC play determined who went to the tourney between the 2 teams. Even if PC's losses were to 3 good teams by 1 point each- they still would have been NIT. You have to have a minimum level record to make the tourney. 17-14 just doesn't get you in any longer. That stopped about 10 years ago or so. Raw numbers matter. I don't know if we're ever going to see a 17-14 team ever make the tourney again. I kind of doubt it.

And, I wouldn't say that Cincy's in conference wins mattered more than the OOC wins. Maybe the 2 vs Marquette and Pitt. But Oregon and Iowa St mattered as much as Nova and UConn- and more than Providence. Just like this year- Nova's win over Kansas will matter more than any BE win they get this year.

I look at OOC play kind of like a golf tournament 1st 2 rounds. You can't win the golf tournament, but you sure can lose it. Look at UVA last year. They had a great conference season, but didn't make the tourney because of OOC play. You might not be able to prove your self based on OOC play, but you sure can dis-prove your self in OOC play.

What you are saying is what's going to happen in the Big 12 this year. They have 4 top notch teams in the top 25- and 2 more good teams.

Steve, I don't know what you're basing your conclusions are. Strength of Schedule matters. I can't recall a 17-14 team ever going to the tournament but a 13 loss Villanova team went to the tournament just last year. As did 11 loss Illinois and Minnesota teams. Those teams were invited based on SOS, which was largely derived from the leagues they played in, which were considered to be the 2 strongest conferences in the country last year. Wisconsin went with 11 losses and in spite of a 9-4 OOC record which was almost the same as PC's. Villanova was also 9-4 OOC. Those 4 losses didn't kill their chances either.

[stever20]

My point though- OOC play determined who went to the tourney between the 2 teams. Even if PC's losses were to 3 good teams by 1 point each- they still would have been NIT. You have to have a minimum level record to make the tourney. 17-14 just doesn't get you in any longer. That stopped about 10 years ago or so. Raw numbers matter. I don't know if we're ever going to see a 17-14 team ever make the tourney again. I kind of doubt it.

And, I wouldn't say that Cincy's in conference wins mattered more than the OOC wins. Maybe the 2 vs Marquette and Pitt. But Oregon and Iowa St mattered as much as Nova and UConn- and more than Providence. Just like this year- Nova's win over Kansas will matter more than any BE win they get this year.

I look at OOC play kind of like a golf tournament 1st 2 rounds. You can't win the golf tournament, but you sure can lose it. Look at UVA last year. They had a great conference season, but didn't make the tourney because of OOC play. You might not be able to prove your self based on OOC play, but you sure can dis-prove your self in OOC play.

What you are saying is what's going to happen in the Big 12 this year. They have 4 top notch teams in the top 25- and 2 more good teams.

Steve, I don't know what you're basing your conclusions are. Strength of Schedule matters. I can't recall a 17-14 team ever going to the tournament but a 13 loss Villanova team went to the tournament just last year. As did 11 loss Illinois and Minnesota teams. Those teams were invited based on SOS, which was largely derived from the leagues they played in, which were considered to be the 2 strongest conferences in the country last year. Wisconsin went with 11 losses and in spite of a 9-4 OOC record which was almost the same as PC's. Villanova was also 9-4 OOC. Those 4 losses didn't kill their chances either.

16-14 Georgia went to the tourney about 10 years ago...

13 loss Nova team yes- but they had 20 wins. Also- huge difference between 13 and 11 losses quite frankly... SOS does matter, but end of the day, you have to have the raw # of wins to even be considered. It's 19-20 wins bare minimum now. If you have 11 losses as Illinois and Minnesota had- you have to have 20+ wins- since you play 31 games plus. Nova had 20 wins. Wisconsin was 12-6 in conference play. If you have 9-4 record OOC you can make the tourney, but you have to be really good in conference play to make up for the OOC losses... If Wisocnsin was 9-9 and lost 1st round in the Big Ten tourney- I seriously doubt a 18-14 team makes the tourney. Strength of Schedule matters, but just plain raw number of wins matters quite a bit as well. You could have the #1 SOS in the country, but if you are 18-14, you just aren't making the tourney. Not with how the committee has been doing it the last several years.