Page 7 of 48
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:14 pm
by 69MG
Don;t know if this has been posted yet. It was updated on 6/14. Possible football only membership in the Sun Belt Conference. I didn't realize that New Mexico State and Idaho are members. We have learned in the last few years that geography means nothing.
http://www.si.com/college-football/camp ... ealignment
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:20 pm
by Old Cage
^ Looks like you entered the way back machine. Wrong year.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:38 pm
by 69MG
^ My bad. I'm an idiot, but the person who retweeted that article today should be forced to watch the replay of every play of every game of Molnar's first season.

Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:56 pm
by photoman
^
Wow, that would be "cruel and unusual punishment" defined.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:23 am
by econalum
Navy has joined the AAC for football only. Rest is in Patriot League.
http://www.courant.com/sports/college/h ... story.html
Wonder what that might mean for any UMASS entry.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:05 pm
by Kosty
Sun Belt or bust now????
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:11 pm
by eldonabe
Kosty wrote:Sun Belt or bust now????
The cupboard is pretty bare - that's for sure.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:23 pm
by Crank
Navy footbal to the AAC has been a done deal for over a year now. Nothing new to see here.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:11 pm
by njumass08
^ Yup, nothing new. Navy to AAC has been announced for about two years now.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:49 pm
by econalum
Crank wrote:Navy footbal to the AAC has been a done deal for over a year now. Nothing new to see here.
Whether new information, or not, it is official. And the AAC aspect would seem closed to UMASS, the best of bad alternatives.
I guess that beggars cannot be choosers.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:43 pm
by njumass08
^ huh? Why would Navy joining the AAC change anything about our prospects? That was announced years ago. Doesn't change anything if they either plan to expand or some teams leave and we end up getting an invite. I'm not following what point you're trying to make.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:37 pm
by Sam Minuteman
econalum wrote:Crank wrote:Navy footbal to the AAC has been a done deal for over a year now. Nothing new to see here.
Whether new information, or not, it is official. And the AAC aspect would seem closed to UMASS, the best of bad alternatives.
I guess that beggars cannot be choosers.
I'm no expert but from what I have read this was a done deal a long time ago. But to play the game there has also been scuttlebut that NAVY will be unhappy in a conference for various reasons and should they leave that would open up a spot perhaps for UMass.
If UMass had 20th century bathrooms of course.
If Navy stays then there is the school of thought that maybe Army doesn't want to be the only service academy without a conference and UMass makes a pair as 14.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:44 am
by rsox1221
The landscape has changed since Navy agreed to join the AAC, that is true. Thing is, you'd have to think that Navy will give it at least a few years before any type of decision on potentially leaving is made. Plus there would be an exit fee to leave early.
UMass' best chance to end up in the AAC is through Big XII expansion. The most recent articles about realignment have stated that the previous hurdle in Big XII expansion (the fact that the member schools would lose money if two more teams came in) has been debunked. Now that that is the case, expect the Big XII to add two more teams at least in the next couple of years.
The teams they'd go for IMO are #1 BYU, which doesn't directly help UMass, but the most smoke for team #2 is Cincinnati, which is currently in the AAC. Cincy would give WVU a perfect travel partner and they have a solid athletic history in football and basketball. That opens the spot for UMass.
The Sun Belt is not an option, unless it's for football-only and the Big XII doesn't take Cincy. We've already approached the Sun Belt about football-only once we knew we were out of the MAC and they said no. What might change that is if the Sun Belt loses a couple of teams after this season. This is again a rumor but I did see online a few months ago speculation that the Sun Belt could drop both Idaho and New Mexico State after this year. They are both football-only members right now, and are huge outliers to the rest of the conference footprint. Scuttlebutt is that Idaho might reclassify to FCS, no idea about NMSU, but my own guess is that they might try to jump into C-USA for all sports since their basketball is good, and they would have a perfect travel partner in UTEP with other opponents much closer to them. Even so, the Sun Belt really shouldn't be on the table at all, since it's in the opposite direction from where we want and need to go.
There really aren't any other options out there for UMass as it stands now. Unless Bamford's influence is far greater than we thought we aren't getting into the ACC, at least not for a long while.
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 3:22 pm
by rsox1221
Interesting report about the Big XII. I can see how they'd want to take a UCF to get the Florida market. Myself I thought BYU would be a clear choice. Houston is in Big XII country, I thought that might hurt them given the league doesn't need them, but a good point about the size of the TV market.
If one or two teams gets poached from the AAC though, UMass is in a great spot IMO. Makes a lot of sense for the AAC to bring UMass in, even if they do it begrudgingly.
http://cardiaccoogs.com/2015/07/09/espn ... -the-fall/
Re: Conference realignment 3.0
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2015 4:25 pm
by mdogt12