+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SunBeltbbs (/forum-317.html)
+---- Forum: Sun Belt East Team Talk (/forum-289.html)
+----- Forum: Old Dominion (/forum-688.html)
+----- Thread: URI (/thread-579604.html)
URI - bit_9 - 07-26-2012 09:24 PM
I have a question that might have been addressed already in some other posts but didn't find anything.
Is there any particular reason that URI is allowed to play for a CAA Championship this season when they too are leaving? Is it because they are football only member so they don't get a vote? Not sure I follow.
But it reminded me to ask when I heard today mention that in his interview yesterday with Wilder that he was "very pissed that URI was allowed to play for a CAA title."
RE: URI - djnva - 07-26-2012 09:39 PM
Maybe because they are football only and not jumping to FBS?
I'll see if I can find out.
EDIT: One rumor is that URI is going to announce soon that they are staying in the CAA, with the CAA paying the NEC a fee that URI owes.
RE: URI - Monarchist13 - 07-26-2012 09:45 PM
I agree, it's busch league. But I'm guessing it's because URI is downgrading -not upgrading- their program. They're moving to the NEC, a league that only requires 40 schollies (as opposed to the 63 required in the CAA). They are making this move in order to save the program and really had no choice in this matter.
RE: URI - bit_9 - 07-26-2012 09:55 PM
Oh gotcha. I guess that is a bit different. Thanks
RE: URI - ODUalum78 - 07-26-2012 10:03 PM
(07-26-2012 09:24 PM)Cr8n Wrote: I have a question that might have been addressed already in some other posts but didn't find anything.
Is there any particular reason that URI is allowed to play for a CAA Championship this season when they too are leaving? Is it because they are football only member so they don't get a vote? Not sure I follow.
But it reminded me to ask when I heard today mention that in his interview yesterday with Wilder that he was "very pissed that URI was allowed to play for a CAA title."
The CAA football conference is a seperate entity from the CAA. The football rules are similar to those of the CAA ; except that the vote to determine the date at which membership rights (including championship eligibility) are rescinded is optional.
From the Constitution portion of CAA Football Handbook:
7.03 Upon the notice of withdrawal, the remaining Conference members retain the right to determine the
effective date of the institution’s membership withdrawal and the rights and privileges of membership
that will be extended prior to the effective date of the institution’s withdrawal. Particular care,
discussion and consideration shall be given to any action that would negatively impact the interests of all
student-athletes.
http://www.nmnathletics.com/fls/8500/supportfiles/Handbook/FB/CAAFBHANDBOOKweb.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=8500
Just like the CAA proper, an individual vote (or possibly not, under the football rules) is done for each school.
Apparently, the CAA football conference decided to vote each on ODU and GSU, but not on URI, and just like the CAA proper, each school is addressed individually and arbitrarily.
RE: URI - djnva - 07-26-2012 10:08 PM
Except now there are strong rumors they are staying. CAA brings in more northern teams (Stony Brook? Albany?) then the scheduling for URI is much easier.
RE: URI - ODUalum78 - 07-26-2012 10:23 PM
(07-26-2012 10:08 PM)djnva Wrote: Except now there are strong rumors they are staying. CAA brings in more northern teams (Stony Brook? Albany?) then the scheduling for URI is much easier.I made such a big deal early on about eligibility for both football and team sports, because the continually and incorrectly reported "The CAA upheld it's bylaws on the ban" made it look like ODU and GSU were looking for special favors, and looked like 'whiners' because they wanted exceptions or amendments. Additionally, the Presidents and the CAA administration came out "smelling like a rose" because they were just "upholding the ban as per the CAA bylaws".
Nothing could be further from the truth, and no one in the media, to my knowledge, ever corrected this. The perception of unwarranted entitlement by ODU and GSU continues to this day.
The fact is that the CAA all sports has NO codified postseason ban; either stated or implied. The CAA has NO bylaw that references departing members whatsoever; much less one that defines championship ineligibility.
It is, in fact, the CAA Constitution that addresses departures, but it makes no demands or recommendations. Article IV, 4.06 E merely requires the Council of Presidents, by majority vote, to set a date at which time a school will become ineligible for conference postseason championship participation. They (Presidents) have the unrestricted option to set that date to any they so choose, up to and including the last day of said school's conference membership. Each and every instance (school) must voted on individually.
http://www.caasports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8500&ATCLID=299298
CAA football doesn't even go that far. It allows the CAA Presidents the option of not voting at all, (7.03) and therefore allowing an institution to remain a full member with all rights up until the very last day of it's membership. Or, it can vote just like the CAA proper, but can "cherry pick" what rights a school has and when it loses them, or not.
So yeah, URI was probably not voted on at all. I would be interested in the rationale of the Council of Presidents vs ODU.