Flying Dutchmen Fans

Wags wrote:Stony Brook got the same treatment today that JMU got. SBU ruled ineligible to compete for AE championships in any sport due to its upcoming defection to the CAA (SBU voted the same against Boston U. when that school was leaving the AE, so as with JMU's vote years ago, what goes around comes around).

Even though is our rival, is a BS rule and hate to see innocent student athletes suffer over decision out of their control. We all would be crying bloody murder if this happened to us.

HofstraPride1 wrote:

Wags wrote:Stony Brook got the same treatment today that JMU got. SBU ruled ineligible to compete for AE championships in any sport due to its upcoming defection to the CAA (SBU voted the same against Boston U. when that school was leaving the AE, so as with JMU's vote years ago, what goes around comes around).

Even though is our rival, is a BS rule and hate to see innocent student athletes suffer over decision out of their control. We all would be crying bloody murder if this happened to us.

Totally agree, and both the men's & women's teams had a chance to win their respective tourneys.

SBU women are 18-2 and received votes in the top 25 poll They are on the bubble for an at large
There mens team are not on bubble and lost to a mediocre Binghampton team at home

Their men were 5-2 in AE before last night, and the loss can be explained to the circumstances. They are still in 2nd place.

HofstraPride1 wrote:

Wags wrote:Stony Brook got the same treatment today that JMU got. SBU ruled ineligible to compete for AE championships in any sport due to its upcoming defection to the CAA (SBU voted the same against Boston U. when that school was leaving the AE, so as with JMU's vote years ago, what goes around comes around).

Even though is our rival, is a BS rule and hate to see innocent student athletes suffer over decision out of their control. We all would be crying bloody murder if this happened to us.

School-wise, what goes around comes around. When you vote the same against other schools years earlier (like JMU and SBU did), you deserve to have the same done to you should you leave later on. That said, I hate it for current players and for the fans, and I think it's an awful, spiteful bylaw that no conference should have. If you're still a member of your conference, you should compete in every championship in that conference until you actually leave that conference.

Wags wrote:

HofstraPride1 wrote:

Wags wrote:Stony Brook got the same treatment today that JMU got. SBU ruled ineligible to compete for AE championships in any sport due to its upcoming defection to the CAA (SBU voted the same against Boston U. when that school was leaving the AE, so as with JMU's vote years ago, what goes around comes around).

Even though is our rival, is a BS rule and hate to see innocent student athletes suffer over decision out of their control. We all would be crying bloody murder if this happened to us.

School-wise, what goes around comes around. When you vote the same against other schools years earlier (like JMU and SBU did), you deserve to have the same done to you should you leave later on. That said, I hate it for current players and for the fans, and I think it's an awful, spiteful bylaw that no conference should have. If you're still a member of your conference, you should compete in every championship in that conference until you actually leave that conference.

I'm sure it is viewed by the conferences as a disincentive to leave, but yes it does hurt the student athletes unfortunately, but in the long run surely the schools have weighed that issue against long term improvement in their programs.

HUSID74 wrote: I'm sure it is viewed by the conferences as a disincentive to leave, but yes it does hurt the student athletes unfortunately, but in the long run surely the schools have weighed that issue against long term improvement in their programs.

It's just pure spite though. Disincentives only work if they change decisions. What member of a conference ever decides to stay instead of bolting because they know a conference bylaw would prevent them from competing for title in the final year of the conference they're leaving? And what conference which has such bylaw ever truly believes that such a bylaw would ever make a school stay if it wants to leave?

Wags wrote:

HUSID74 wrote: I'm sure it is viewed by the conferences as a disincentive to leave, but yes it does hurt the student athletes unfortunately, but in the long run surely the schools have weighed that issue against long term improvement in their programs.

It's just pure spite though. Disincentives only work if they change decisions. What member of a conference ever decides to stay instead of bolting because they know a conference bylaw would prevent them from competing for title in the final year of the conference they're leaving? And what conference which has such bylaw ever truly believes that such a bylaw would ever make a school stay if it wants to leave?

Great point Wags and you could just as easily have disincentives without punishing student athletes like doubling the exit fee or not allowing school that makes NCAA Tournament to receive revenue. Either way the last people that be harmed are the student-athletes who played zero role in the move.

Wags wrote:

HUSID74 wrote: I'm sure it is viewed by the conferences as a disincentive to leave, but yes it does hurt the student athletes unfortunately, but in the long run surely the schools have weighed that issue against long term improvement in their programs.

It's just pure spite though. Disincentives only work if they change decisions. What member of a conference ever decides to stay instead of bolting because they know a conference bylaw would prevent them from competing for title in the final year of the conference they're leaving? And what conference which has such bylaw ever truly believes that such a bylaw would ever make a school stay if it wants to leave?

I don't know if I am over thinking this but the only reason I could think besides spite is to prevent a team from deciding to leave to a better conference but not leave for a couple years. And in that time essentially use the better conference to recruit better players and win the league. Probably not the actual reason but just trying to think of any rationale that could make sense.

stuball888 wrote: SBU women are 18-2 and received votes in the top 25 poll They are on the bubble for an at large
There mens team are not on bubble and lost to a mediocre Binghampton team at home

They're 93rd in the NET, and 64th in the RPI. They have one win against the top 118 in the NET, which was hosting Number 64 Washington State. The America East is 26th in the NET and RPI, and the next best NET is Vermont in 164th. I don't know what the record is for fewest losses without going to the NCAA Tournament. In 2017, Central Florida was the only undefeated Football team, and they finished 6th in the AP Poll. Stony Brook could have the fewest losses without being ranked. No teams are undefeated. Number 1 South Carolina has 1 loss. Florida Gulf Coast has 1 loss, but nobody expects them to be a 1 loss champion.

HofstraMathew wrote:

Wags wrote:

HUSID74 wrote: I'm sure it is viewed by the conferences as a disincentive to leave, but yes it does hurt the student athletes unfortunately, but in the long run surely the schools have weighed that issue against long term improvement in their programs.

It's just pure spite though. Disincentives only work if they change decisions. What member of a conference ever decides to stay instead of bolting because they know a conference bylaw would prevent them from competing for title in the final year of the conference they're leaving? And what conference which has such bylaw ever truly believes that such a bylaw would ever make a school stay if it wants to leave?

I don't know if I am over thinking this but the only reason I could think besides spite is to prevent a team from deciding to leave to a better conference but not leave for a couple years. And in that time essentially use the better conference to recruit better players and win the league. Probably not the actual reason but just trying to think of any rationale that could make sense.

Even if that were case wouldn't;'t apply in this scenario since they are leaving after this season. Is a beyond moronic rule and thank god it wasn't in place in America East when we announced we were leaving in December 2000 or we would have no 2001 NCAA bid.

The other CAA boards are reporting that with a positive trustees vote tomorrow, NC A&T is the 13th CAA member. Speculation remains for the possible addition of Fairfield or Howard for the 14th spot.

The Shadow wrote:The other CAA boards are reporting that with a positive trustees vote tomorrow, NC A&T is the 13th CAA member. Speculation remains for the possible addition of Fairfield or Howard for the 14th spot.

Not a fan of adding NC A&T but on positive side they have decent men's basketball and don't have women's soccer or women's lacrosse, so won't drain our RPI in those. Academically are also decent as 8th ranked HBCU and second-ranked among public institutions. I hope Fairfield is the 14th since would be another nearby opponent, but Howard would also be strong addition.

Let's say there are two divisions of seven. If Fairfield joins, it's an evolution from Towson being a northern team from the America East to being in the south division. If Howard joins, they would go in the south, so they wouldn't be in the same division as Towson. I don't care between Fairfield and Howard. How about Rider?

EvanJ wrote:Let's say there are two divisions of seven. If Fairfield joins, it's an evolution from Towson being a northern team from the America East to being in the south division. If Howard joins, they would go in the south, so they wouldn't be in the same division as Towson. I don't care between Fairfield and Howard. How about Rider?

I don't think Rider would add much since we already have Monmouth.

Good gracious... NC A&T?!?! Bwwahahaha

Warned you all. This is going to be awful. The CAA is going to destroy itself, rather than strengthen itself to navigate the future of athletics. You don't just expand for the hell of it. You ONLY expand to IMPROVE. This does nothing of the sort.

Mark my words folks. This is a mistake.

The plan is for 14 teams with north and south divisions…if this is what it takes to get Delaware and Towson into the north I’ll take it. Then, down the road we add, say a Fairfield and one more and we have a nice nine team conference with the potential to be ten.

Polito wrote:Good gracious... NC A&T?!?! Bwwahahaha

Warned you all. This is going to be awful. The CAA is going to destroy itself, rather than strengthen itself to navigate the future of athletics. You don't just expand for the hell of it. You ONLY expand to IMPROVE. This does nothing of the sort.

Mark my words folks. This is a mistake.

We'll see how this all shakes out - truth is, we won't know either way for years. But to the point above, quality should be the goal over quantity and at least as of right now, the conference appears shaken by JMU's move, is afraid more will leave, and appears to simply be adding whatever quantity it can add without regard to more of a focus on quality simply to keep its numbers up down the road should more teams defect. And I'm not sure that's the best way to go.

Bryant just announced joining the America East Conference leaving the NEC. Bryant will join the Big South for football.

Have seen some rumors about Fairfield and/or Quinnipiac possibly joining CAA. Would love either of them in terms of geography and both solid academic schools.