UMass’ football move called a ‘huge financial disaster’

[PlayerRep]

Recent Boston Globe article.

"Students and taxpayers have spent $1 million more than projected to help fund the first two seasons of the UMass Amherst football team’s ambitious — and so far disappointing — upgrade to elite collegiate competition, according to a report presented Thursday to the university’s Faculty Senate.

The subsidy, known as institutional support, is expected to exceed projections by an additional $600,000 next season, reaching $5.1 million of the $7.8 million football budget. The overrun is considered a reflection of the Minutemen’s struggle to generate enthusiasm for the upgrade, which included moving most of the team’s home games to Gillette Stadium.

The report triggered a new round of complaints that UMass leaders invested scarce public dollars that could have been better spent when they elevated the football team in 2012 to the NCAA’s top Football Bowl Subdivision."

1 win each year.

"UMass improved defensively, surrendering an average of 33 points per game, down from 40.2 in 2012. But they scored only 11.7 points per game, a drop from 12.7 the previous year."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2013/12/13/umass-football-subsidy-exceeds-projections/LdMZCquclCgNI7YFMYWeNP/story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[OldtiredGRiz]

I think the decision to play home games at Gillette Stadium was a big mistake. Sure, UMass was trying to get alumni in the Boston area out to the game, but if I'm not mistaken, it's an hour or more from Amherst to Gillette Stadium. That's not good for students. College football, after all, begins with the students -- the band, the student fans, the cheerleaders, etc, create a big element of the enthusiasm. And the best way to get to the game is to walk from the dorm, student apartments, etc. Take away that on-campus feel and things get more barren. UMass has an enrollment of something like 27,000...and many of those students, I'll venture a guess, are not heading down to Gillette on game day.

 

[EverettGriz]

I think the decision to play home games at Gillette Stadium was a big mistake. Sure, UMass was trying to get alumni in the Boston area out to the game, but if I'm not mistaken, it's an hour or more from Amherst to Gillette Stadium. That's not good for students. College football, after all, begins with the students -- the band, the student fans, the cheerleaders, etc, create a big element of the enthusiasm. And the best way to get to the game is to walk from the dorm, student apartments, etc. Take away that on-campus feel and things get more barren. UMass has an enrollment of something like 27,000...and many of those students, I'll venture a guess, are not heading down to Gillette on game day.

Exactly. College football cannot succeed 90 minutes -- without traffic -- from campus. A colossal error by UMass athletics.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I think the decision to play home games at Gillette Stadium was a big mistake. Sure, UMass was trying to get alumni in the Boston area out to the game, but if I'm not mistaken, it's an hour or more from Amherst to Gillette Stadium. That's not good for students. College football, after all, begins with the students -- the band, the student fans, the cheerleaders, etc, create a big element of the enthusiasm. And the best way to get to the game is to walk from the dorm, student apartments, etc. Take away that on-campus feel and things get more barren. UMass has an enrollment of something like 27,000...and many of those students, I'll venture a guess, are not heading down to Gillette on game day.

Exactly. College football cannot succeed 90 minutes -- without traffic -- from campus. A colossal error by UMass athletics.

But it's the exact same scenario UM would face, right PR? :roll:

 

[GrizPDX]

I think the decision to play home games at Gillette Stadium was a big mistake. Sure, UMass was trying to get alumni in the Boston area out to the game, but if I'm not mistaken, it's an hour or more from Amherst to Gillette Stadium. That's not good for students. College football, after all, begins with the students -- the band, the student fans, the cheerleaders, etc, create a big element of the enthusiasm. And the best way to get to the game is to walk from the dorm, student apartments, etc. Take away that on-campus feel and things get more barren. UMass has an enrollment of something like 27,000...and many of those students, I'll venture a guess, are not heading down to Gillette on game day.

Exactly. College football cannot succeed 90 minutes -- without traffic -- from campus. A colossal error by UMass athletics.

The move is not permanent, only temporary while they finish renovations to Warren McGuirk Alumni Stadium. They will continue to play some games at Gillette near there alumni base (see Washington State's game in Seattle every year), but the renovations are McGuirk were required for FBS membership.

The north end will have a new training facility and locker rooms added, and the old press box was demolished, with a new one to be constructed to two levels with more TV/radio booths as well as luxury suites being added. The stadium was not suitable for FBS football in its previous configuration. It would have been prohibitively difficult to meet the minimum FBS attendance of least 15,000 fans per game, and its press box and replay facilities were well below MAC standards.

 

[MrTitleist]

UMass provided the blue print of how a school should not move up.. what a mess they made.

 

[montana_jack]

UMass provided the blue print of how a school should not move up.. what a mess they made.

As did Idaho.

 

[SaskGriz]

UMass provided the blue print of how a school should not move up.. what a mess they made.

As did Idaho.

It's actually tougher for the Vandals because IIIIIIIIDDDDAAAAAHHHHHOOOOO SUCKS!

 

[AZGrizFan]

UMass provided the blue print of how a school should not move up.. what a mess they made.

As did Idaho.

Neither of which have situations that are comparable to Montana's.

 

[montana_jack]

UMass provided the blue print of how a school should not move up.. what a mess they made.

As did Idaho.

Neither of which have situations that are comparable to Montana's.

True, but a move up done poorly is a death blow. I'm interested to see how App St. does.

 

[PlayerRep]

Playing in a stadium 1.5 hours from campus is not what caused two 1-11 seasons.

How would back to back 1-11 seasons be viewed in Missoula?

What was UMass thinking? They had a prior study saying a move up wasn't financially feasible. I wonder if UMass will ever recover from this. Who would want to play there if they had any other choices? Fans have already disappeared. They may never come back even if the team starts winning and playing on campus.

 

[EverettGriz]

UMass is, was, and always will be a BB school.

The support their FB team gets is comparable to that if Gonzaga were to add FB. I bet a significant portion of Boston residents don't know a thing about UMass FB.

Any suggestion that their situation is similar to Monatan's ends with the fact that both states start with the letter M.

 

[Potomac Griz]

Fans have already disappeared. They may never come back even if the team starts winning and playing on campus.

Out of curiosity, where did you get that? From the article it stated this was the highest average attendance they've Ever had for UMass football. Might have been even better if they weren't playing 90 minutes away from campus.

Ticket sales at Gillette improved from an average of 10,901 in 2012 to 15,830 in 2013, the highest ever for a UMass football team. Still, attendance remained significantly lower than school officials had projected.

So it's not all doom and gloom. They drew more fans than they ever have on average, including those years when they were a playoff team in the FCS (which last happened in 2007).

Here are their attendance numbers going back to 2007:

2007: 6 home games, AVG 11,709 - (10-3, Playoffs)
2008: 6 home games, AVG 12,383 - (7-5, No playoffs)
2009: 6 home games, AVG 10,887 - (5-6, No playoffs)
2010: 5 home games, AVG 13,005 - (6-5, No playoffs)
2011: 4 home games, AVG 10,005 - (5-6, No playoffs, last year in the FCS)
2012: 5 home games, AVG 10,901 - (1-11, First year in the FBS)
2013: 6 home games, AVG 15,830 - (1-11, Best AVG attendance they've ever had)


Also from the article:

Lacey, a professor of finance, said he would prefer to evaluate the upgrade after three to five years. He said he is not opposed to the university increasing its football budget in the early years of the upgrade.

Probably more fair to take a look at how they are doing after a few more years than it is after only their 2nd season in the FBS. It's quite the jump and there aren't many teams that kick ass immediately after making the jump.

Oh, and of course as others in this thread have pointed out it's not comparable to Montana's situation. At UMass You have a team that drew usually around 10k fans per game and hadn't been in the playoffs since 2007. They weren't exactly a constant FCS power with a huge following to begin with.

 

[PlayerRep]

Fans have already disappeared. They may never come back even if the team starts winning and playing on campus.

Out of curiosity, where did you get that? From the article it stated this was the highest average attendance they've Ever had for UMass football. Might have been even better if they weren't playing 90 minutes away from campus.

Ticket sales at Gillette improved from an average of 10,901 in 2012 to 15,830 in 2013, the highest ever for a UMass football team. Still, attendance remained significantly lower than school officials had projected.

So it's not all doom and gloom. They drew more fans than they ever have on average, including those years when they were a playoff team in the FCS (which last happened in 2007).

Here are their attendance numbers going back to 2007:

2007: 6 home games, AVG 11,709 - (10-3, Playoffs)
2008: 6 home games, AVG 12,383 - (7-5, No playoffs)
2009: 6 home games, AVG 10,887 - (5-6, No playoffs)
2010: 5 home games, AVG 13,005 - (6-5, No playoffs)
2011: 4 home games, AVG 10,005 - (5-6, No playoffs, last year in the FCS)
2012: 5 home games, AVG 10,901 - (1-11, First year in the FBS)
2013: 6 home games, AVG 15,830 - (1-11, Best AVG attendance they've ever had)


Also from the article:

Lacey, a professor of finance, said he would prefer to evaluate the upgrade after three to five years. He said he is not opposed to the university increasing its football budget in the early years of the upgrade.

Probably more fair to take a look at how they are doing after a few more years than it is after only their 2nd season in the FBS. It's quite the jump and there aren't many teams that kick ass immediately after making the jump.

Oh, and of course as others in this thread have pointed out it's not comparable to Montana's situation. At UMass You have a team that drew usually around 10k fans per game and hadn't been in the playoffs since 2007. They weren't exactly a constant FCS power with a huge following to begin with.

Good point on the stats, but I was meaning to talk about the students, alums, and local people near UMass who would normally attend UMass games at UMass. It's my understanding that those people generally aren't driving to Boston for games in large numbers, and that it isn't likely that many of the Boston area people attending games (which includes fans of the opposing teams) aren't necessarily going to drive to UMass when the games are eventually played there.

Attendance for the last home game against Akron was 10,599. You may think 15,830 is good attendance for an FBS team, but I don't. Their initial goals were 22,000-25,000. Prices were $25 per ticket this year (and free for students).

CLUB LEVEL $50
LOWER LEVEL SIDELINE $25 - Maine (Sept. 7)
$25 - Vanderbilt (Sept. 21)
$25 - Miami (OH) (Oct. 12)
$25 - Western Michigan (Oct. 26)
$25 - Northern Illinois (Nov. 2)
$25 - Akron (Nov. 16)

There was a big push to get more students to attend this year. Free tickets again. Small charge for bus ride. A big marketing push too. Something must have helped.

Here's some info on the split fan base issues. I think the new stadium will be done in 2014, but I think the plan is still to play in both locations. “In the near future, we’ll be playing a split schedule between eastern Mass. and western Mass. I think both constituencies will feel like they have a lot of UMass football. If they want more they’ll have to travel from one side of the state to the other. They’ll have to drive a little bit. I don’t think what we’re asking our fans to do is unique in college football."

“If there’s only three games a year, maybe the demand will be much higher,” Molnar said. “Maybe we’ll have more of a push for tickets. Fan will be able to buy a three-game package in the eastern part and a three-game package in the western part. Maybe we’ll have two distinct fan bases. I’d really like to see by year five that maybe it’s a melded group where everybody in the state wants to watch UMass football and they’ll travel to Amherst or Foxborough.”