(07-03-2013 09:02 AM)ODUalum78 Wrote: (07-03-2013 07:33 AM)MONARCHSWIN Wrote: That is a great piece of journalism.
Thank you Harry for speaking the truth and saying what needs to be said. 
Well....factually there is an error.
The GMU situation was different.
Quote:Yet, 10 months later, when George Mason announced it was also leaving for the A-10, its spring sports teams were immediately banned from CAA tournaments.
1. Prior to June 2012 (which applied to ODU and GaSt), the CAA rules required only a vote by the Council of Presidents in order to determine eligibility. In June the rules were changed to mandate ineligibility. In other words it became out of the hands of the presidents. It is now a hard and fast rule, which applied to GMU.
2. Yeager, like the school ADs, had zero authority in that process. He may well have advised the COP to make ODU and GaSt ineligible (I don't know for sure, do you?) just as the ADs voted to ALLOW ODU and GaSt.
However, it was the Council Of Presidents ALONE that made the decision.
EDIT: I am speculating here, but remember it has been widely reported that the alleged underhanded way that UR left the CAA was the cause for the vote of ineligibility in 2001.
Was the secret private meeting orchestrated by ODU (Selig) with JMU and UD in Fredricksburg to explore options leading to leaving the CAA as a group any less underhanded?
I wonder how ODU voted in 2001....
I wonder how it was Richmond got back into the CAA when they started sponsoring football? Did JMU and William and Mary make it a condition of their move? If they were really that cheesed at UR, why not tell them to go pound salt in the Southern or Patriot?
I didn't see the ODU-JMU-Delaware meeting as an attempt to bring down the CAA so much as a collaboration with schools with similarly-aligned goals trying to feel them out on a move. I'm sure JMU and Delaware were at some level contemplating an eventual move up before ODU even restarted its program. VCU and George Mason obviously had similar conversations before their eventual moves. And 10-gets-you-20 that the old American East schools have talked about their futures, especially with the CAA going south for their latest members.
As for the rule change, I don't think the writer was saying that the CAA broke its own rules on the matter, just that it's been maddeningly inconsistent with how they treat departing teams in general. Like Rhode Island getting to remain eligible for football titles after announcing their intention to depart. Sure, they were no threat to win one, but neither was Georgia State, and they got banned for that one year. Plus the rule change backs up the column's thesis statement that the CAA and Yeager act punitively to the point of throwing a temper tantrum every time a school considers leaving for a better fit.
Contrast that with CUSA, which allowed its many departing schools to continue competing for titles until the very end. They did act punitively in yanking the men's basketball tournament from Memphis, but otherwise they've been above board in their treatment of the programs headed out the door. Ditto the A-10. And the ACC. And the Big East. As the writer pointed out, only the America East has acted this way (the Horizon was considering doing the same to Butler, but they beat feet to the A-10 a year early before it could happen).
I'm happy for the time spent in the CAA, I think some good stuff happened in that time, but they do not cover themselves in glory when it comes to saying goodbye. Conference affiliation is not national identity. It's headstrong and foolhardy for Yeager and the CAA to think this way, especially since they have no qualms about mining the America East and Southern for new citizens.
/
ODU is growing up. But will the CAA? Tom Yeager acts like a big baby
ODU is growing up. But will the CAA? Tom Yeager acts like a big baby 
