What could have been done differently?

Please be specific

(02-28-2018 11:39 AM)solohawks Wrote:  What could have been done differently?

Please be specific

I'm not paid handsomely to do that job, so I don't know. That's like saying I can't be critical of the Jets owner because I don't know a lot about what I'd do differently (although hiring of VP to run the team would be my first move). I just know what he does doesn't work very well.

And yeah, yeah. I know Teddy Roosevelt said it's not the critic who counts, etc etc.

One specific thing I'd do is invest more in baseball. Prioritize adding teams that call that their # 2 sport. It's not a revenue sport, but it's still been steadily growing in popularity, and doesn't really cost that much money to invest in it. In that respect, he did well to add Charleston. Elon too, to a lesser extent (that's their # 3 sport, I think).

We're a strong soccer conference, but baseball has the bigger upside. Omaha presents a lot more opportunity for exposure and donor dollars than soccer success provides. As would any league squad hosting a Regional or Super Regional.

No problem with being critical and frustrated with how things turned out. I think it's important to try and understand why things turned out the way they did when analyzing someone's tenure.

It's not as if Yeager ran off Richmond and VCU and turned down Davidson and App St to make room for Hofstra, Northeastern, Drexel, and Delaware.

Yeagar's biggest failure in my opinion was not figuring out a way to land Davidson and Charleston when the CAA was in its prime. The A10, being a multi bid conference, was always was going to have an advantage over the CAA, especially once Richmond came on board

My thoughts on this - if UNCW wants to leave, why does the entire CAA have to break-up? I don't get the question.

The CAA does have a core. It runs basically from Philly to Raleigh - and includes W&M, Delaware, Towson, Elon and for now, JMU. All these schools have football and want an all-sports/regional conference. It has served a good purpose so far - it's the top league in FCS and among the highest ranking mid majors in mens basketball.

To me, basketball-only schools seem to have limited loyalty to any conference. Conferences that rely on basketball are the most volatile of any - the Big East, the A10, the old Metro, the A-Sun, the MAAC. It's like revolving doors with schools coming and going.

I like having UNCW in the CAA but if you think it's time to go, them you should move. Not sure where you would fit best though probably the ASun would probably be best considering the concern on travel and that you do not have football.

For this reason, I think the CAA should focus their expansion on schools regional (Atlantic Coast) that have football. Movement here is much more limited and the rivalries tend to build across all sports.

Just because a few on these boards think it's time for UNCW to move on, doesn't mean the school or majority of the fans feel that way. I personally I don't see any reasonable options for us to be considering leaving. I would rather see the conference do things to get stronger as a whole. I never thought Yeager had the ability to sell this conference as a potential mid-major power.
We may not have football, but we offer strong programs in baseball, soccer, swimming, golf and much improved programs in softball and volleyball. Charleston offers basically the same. And I do believe if we were to leave, so would they.
With the combination of market potential and vacation spots for fans, I see a lot more growth that could happen. My biggest worry is that we may now have Yeager lite running the show. We need a commissioner with new ideas and one that will fight for any of our schools, who are in position to make post-season play, to get selected.

The biggest mistake the CAA made while we were on top was our revenue sharing model. Once we had 2-3 bids we should have modeled the A10 with far more going to the schools bringing in the money via NCAA appearances and wins. The "share the wealth" model was fine when we were a one bid conference as it helped everyone build their war chest, but teams bolted for the bigger payouts as the CAA moved up.

(02-28-2018 04:35 PM)82hawk Wrote:  The biggest mistake the CAA made while we were on top was our revenue sharing model. Once we had 2-3 bids we should have modeled the A10 with far more going to the schools bringing in the money via NCAA appearances and wins. The "share the wealth" model was fine when we were a one bid conference as it helped everyone build their war chest, but teams bolted for the bigger payouts as the CAA moved up.

We did have an incentive pool that paid successful programs more

(02-28-2018 05:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 04:35 PM)82hawk Wrote:  The biggest mistake the CAA made while we were on top was our revenue sharing model. Once we had 2-3 bids we should have modeled the A10 with far more going to the schools bringing in the money via NCAA appearances and wins. The "share the wealth" model was fine when we were a one bid conference as it helped everyone build their war chest, but teams bolted for the bigger payouts as the CAA moved up.

We did have an incentive pool that paid successful programs more

Still do. But nowhere near what the A10 was paying out to those who won the games.

The A10 gives 75% to the school winning the games. For comparison sake, the CAA split 60% of the revenue equally among the schools, and the remaining 40% went to the excellence fund and was split amongst those who did well. That was the way it was when VCU and GMU were still here. That's a huge discrepancy in terms of payout to those who earn it.

(02-28-2018 05:36 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 04:35 PM)82hawk Wrote:  The biggest mistake the CAA made while we were on top was our revenue sharing model. Once we had 2-3 bids we should have modeled the A10 with far more going to the schools bringing in the money via NCAA appearances and wins. The "share the wealth" model was fine when we were a one bid conference as it helped everyone build their war chest, but teams bolted for the bigger payouts as the CAA moved up.

We did have an incentive pool that paid successful programs more

Still do. But nowhere near what the A10 was paying out to those who won the games.

The A10 gives 75% to the school winning the games. For comparison sake, the CAA split 60% of the revenue equally among the schools, and the remaining 40% went to the excellence fund and was split amongst those who did well. That was the way it was when VCU and GMU were still here. That's a huge discrepancy in terms of payout to those who earn it.

I agree 110% with 82 here. It makes zero sense to give the majority of the award away distributed between teams that didn't earn it.

(03-01-2018 01:33 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:36 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 04:35 PM)82hawk Wrote:  The biggest mistake the CAA made while we were on top was our revenue sharing model. Once we had 2-3 bids we should have modeled the A10 with far more going to the schools bringing in the money via NCAA appearances and wins. The "share the wealth" model was fine when we were a one bid conference as it helped everyone build their war chest, but teams bolted for the bigger payouts as the CAA moved up.

We did have an incentive pool that paid successful programs more

Still do. But nowhere near what the A10 was paying out to those who won the games.

The A10 gives 75% to the school winning the games. For comparison sake, the CAA split 60% of the revenue equally among the schools, and the remaining 40% went to the excellence fund and was split amongst those who did well. That was the way it was when VCU and GMU were still here. That's a huge discrepancy in terms of payout to those who earn it.

I agree 110% with 82 here. It makes zero sense to give the majority of the award away distributed between teams that didn't earn it.

I get the idea of an excellence fund. It rewards OOC wins and doing the things that help the conference as a whole. But, those schools who perform on the court and bring home the NCAA winnings should get at least 60% + of the incoming dollars from NCAA tournament games played. It is the primary reason VCU left.

(03-01-2018 06:21 AM)82hawk Wrote:  

(03-01-2018 01:33 AM)CG_Hawk06 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:36 PM)82hawk Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 05:16 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 04:35 PM)82hawk Wrote:  The biggest mistake the CAA made while we were on top was our revenue sharing model. Once we had 2-3 bids we should have modeled the A10 with far more going to the schools bringing in the money via NCAA appearances and wins. The "share the wealth" model was fine when we were a one bid conference as it helped everyone build their war chest, but teams bolted for the bigger payouts as the CAA moved up.

We did have an incentive pool that paid successful programs more

Still do. But nowhere near what the A10 was paying out to those who won the games.

The A10 gives 75% to the school winning the games. For comparison sake, the CAA split 60% of the revenue equally among the schools, and the remaining 40% went to the excellence fund and was split amongst those who did well. That was the way it was when VCU and GMU were still here. That's a huge discrepancy in terms of payout to those who earn it.

I agree 110% with 82 here. It makes zero sense to give the majority of the award away distributed between teams that didn't earn it.

I get the idea of an excellence fund. It rewards OOC wins and doing the things that help the conference as a whole. But, those schools who perform on the court and bring home the NCAA winnings should get at least 60% + of the incoming dollars from NCAA tournament games played. It is the primary reason VCU left.

I think its a good idea, but VCU was going to go to the A10 no matter what. It is an annual 2 bid (at least) conference and was a chance to be in a conference again with Richmond. Their other biggest rival ODU was going to leave the CAA sooner than later due to FBS football. The A10 was always going to be able to pick off basketball schools from the CAA at will.

(03-01-2018 08:14 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I think its a good idea, but VCU was going to go to the A10 no matter what. It is an annual 2 bid (at least) conference and was a chance to be in a conference again with Richmond. Their other biggest rival ODU was going to leave the CAA sooner than later due to FBS football. The A10 was always going to be able to pick off basketball schools from the CAA at will.

True, but they forfeited a bunch of money from their run because their program was as a height where the potential money gained in the A-10 through their rewards was higher than their own payouts from their own run plus the buyout. It was as much about capitalizing on potential money gain as it was reuniting with Richmond (they would be playing annually regardless).

Am I the only one who thinks there was nothing realisitc the CAA could have done to keep VCU?

(03-01-2018 09:50 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Am I the only one who thinks there was nothing realisitc the CAA could have done to keep VCU?

Of course not. And I don't blame Yeager for the schools that elected to leave.

Well, except for the whole part where the CAA just wasn't a great league. A good one that got multiple bids, but not a great league. Make the league great and teams stay. But that's easier said than done.

(03-01-2018 09:50 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Am I the only one who thinks there was nothing realisitc the CAA could have done to keep VCU?

We'll never know. It is a fact that VCU pointed to the NCAA split in the A10 vs. the CAA as a reason for leaving. At the time, the CAA had multiple bids and was close to the A10. Unfortunately, UNCW was in the toilet at the time. They were trying to keep Shaka, and the monies that went out the door prevented them from increasing his pay based on the results he was getting.

If VCU had stayed, GMU would have as well. That would have maintained the Virginia centric conference with JMU, William and Mary, GMU and VCU. Richmond had been gone for quite awhile before VCU left, so that may have helped in reuniting, but it wasn't a huge factor.

I do think the constant bantering of JMU leaving for FBS football played a part as well, based on long term probabilities. Plus, the A10 spends zero focus or money on football, so VCU was entering a top basketball only conference.

(03-01-2018 01:05 PM)82hawk Wrote:  I do think the constant bantering of JMU leaving for FBS football played a part as well, based on long term probabilities. Plus, the A10 spends zero focus or money on football, so VCU was entering a top basketball only conference.

Exactly. And the VCU administration will not be pressured into adding football in the A10.

It would have been extremely difficult to keep VCU. They got too big for the CAA and they needed an out if they wanted to keep progessing.

(02-28-2018 12:30 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I like having UNCW in the CAA but if you think it's time to go, them you should move. Not sure where you would fit best though probably the ASun would probably be best considering the concern on travel and that you do not have football.

The Atlantic Sun is in the bottom 6 of the Conference RPI for the fourth consecutive season. The Atlantic Sun has 8 teams, and the nearest team to UNCW is South Carolina-Upstate, which is 4:31 away according to Google Maps. South Carolina-Upstate is in Spartanburg in western South Carolina. There's also Lipscomb in Nashville, Kennesaw State in Kennesaw a little north of Atlanta, four teams in Florida (Stetson, North Florida, Jacksonville, and Florida Gulf Coast), and geographically out of place New Jersey Institute of Technology. Let's say Charleston was willing to move with you, and you could join the Atlantic Sun to give it 10 teams.
Would UNCW like going west to Spartanburg and Nashville and south to Florida better than going north in the CAA? I think the CAA would have to change a lot for UNCW to want the Atlantic Sun.