(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.dbm...LID=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.