Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Just got done listening to the final KC Keeler show of the year, recorded last night:

http://www.wdsd.com/pages/bhensfootball ... le=6273981

At the beginning of the final segment, he's asked about the 2010 schedule and changes that will need to be made based on Northeastern's departure. He mentioned that the original plan (as reported here) called for a revised 11-team schedule, which included Delaware traveling to Hofstra vice Northeastern.

Keeler stated that after the CAA conferences this week, that plan has now been scrapped. He says the CAA is leaning toward adding another team for football in 2010 (drumroll please) "from the New York area". When pressed, he said Fordham makes the most sense.

that would mean both Fordham and Hofstra, two teams from the New York area? I find that interesting but then again there's two NYC teams for every sport in the new york area (Giants, Jets, Knicks, Nets, Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Yankees, Mets).

Double Post

Fordham or Stony Brook are the only options in the NY area, and Stony Brook is locked into the Big South for another year.

That would put some pressure on the PL to expand. (I know Fordham is ineligible for conference title, but still counts for conference standings, IIRC)

Fordham makes the most sense, but from what I understand, the board of trustees has unequivocally said they would not approve a move out of the Patriot League to anywhere but independent status.

danefan wrote:Fordham makes the most sense, but from what I understand, the board of trustees has unequivocally said they would not approve a move out of the Patriot League to anywhere but independent status.

Why that restriction?

Maybe Keeler didn't mean Fordham? I mean, Albany's another good team in New York, but I don't know about their scholarship situation and how they stack up with the CAA. Also, they're only associate members in the NEC, so I guess they can make the switch to the CAA without too much hassle...

dbackjon wrote:

danefan wrote:Fordham makes the most sense, but from what I understand, the board of trustees has unequivocally said they would not approve a move out of the Patriot League to anywhere but independent status.

Why that restriction?

I don't know the reasoning behind it, but I thinks its pretty reliable info. Dane96's Aunt is a Trustee and JoltinJoe appears to agree that the restriction is accurate.

I corresponded with the Albany AD about the situation, and his response was that he is doing everything possible to get Albany playing with its peer institutions (Maine, UNH, UMass, etc) as soon as possible.

I know we have 1 more year on our NEC contract, so I don't think we'll see Albany in the CAA next year.

Same with SBU in the big south which has a contract through the 2012 season.

danefan wrote:Fordham makes the most sense, but from what I understand, the board of trustees has unequivocally said they would not approve a move out of the Patriot League to anywhere but independent status.

It's not up to the Board of Trustees, what the CAA wants the CAA gets. Albany better get in line, or they will be sleeping with the fishes, like Northeastern.

That would work well for the CAA. They need a patsie to replace Northeastern.

danefan wrote:Same with SBU in the big south which has a contract through the 2012 season.

I may be mistaken, but I think their contract with the Big South expires at the conclusion of the 2011 football season. I'm really not sure, though. That said, I think Stony Brook will probably not be in the Big South for much longer - in fact, I've got a gut feeling that they won't be renewing their contract with us.

The next few months/years are going to be very interesting, seeing what events occur and who's changing conferences. Does anyone know if Northwestern is considering pulling the rest of their sports out of the CAA? I found it interesting that they cited concerns about travel expenses to member schools as part of their reason for canceling football.

Interesting sidenote: Then-owner Dan Reeves named his expansion Cleveland Rams after Fordham.

danefan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Why that restriction?

I don't know the reasoning behind it, but I thinks its pretty reliable info. Dane96's Aunt is a Trustee and JoltinJoe appears to agree that the restriction is accurate.

I corresponded with the Albany AD about the situation, and his response was that he is doing everything possible to get Albany playing with its peer institutions (Maine, UNH, UMass, etc) as soon as possible.

I know we have 1 more year on our NEC contract, so I don't think we'll see Albany in the CAA next year.

Same with SBU in the big south which has a contract through the 2012 season.

From what I understand, the current reasoning is this: Fordham was running a successful Division III program when an invite came to join the PL in the late 1980s. The original plan was to have three recruiting years to gear up for the transition, with a gradual move from a Division III schedule to a a I-AA schedule. But then Davidson suddenly departed the PL, and Fordham started to play a I-AA schedule almost immediately the next season, with just one recruting class, the freshmen, having been recruited as a I-AA class.

Fordham's results against the I-AA schedule with a Division III roster were lopsided. Moreover, because of the almost immediate shift in status, Fordham found recruiting at the I-AA level more difficult due to its sudden reputation as a "losing" program. The belief was that the sudden shift in status left the program in disarray and unable to compete in the PL for upwards of a decade as the pattern of lopsided losses scared away the vast majority of recruits.

Many on the Board do not want to repeat this history with a sudden jump to a highly-competitive scholarship conference. The preference, even as the program transitions to scholarship play, is to play a PL schedule and choose out-of-conference opponents on a progressively more challenging basis. Also for this reason, if the PL rules out scholarships outright, Fordham would preferably move to an indepedent status and choose opponents on the same basis, while also continuing to play PL schools like Georgetown and Holy Cross, with whom we share long histories; continue the annual New York meeting with Coumbia, etc.

We shall see if this reasoning holds. I heard from someone in the know Wednesday night that Fordham has been officially approached by the CAA.

JoltinJoe wrote:Many on the Board do not want to repeat this history with a sudden jump to a highly-competitive scholarship conference. The preference, even as the program transitions to scholarship play, is to play a PL schedule and choose out-of-conference opponents on a progressively more challenging basis. Also for this reason, if the PL rules out scholarships outright, Fordham would preferably move to an indepedent status and choose opponents on the same basis, while also continuing to play PL schools like Georgetown and Holy Cross, with whom we share long histories; continue the annual New York meeting with Coumbia, etc.

We shall see if this reasoning holds. I heard from someone in the know Wednesday night that Fordham has been officially approached by the CAA.

If Fordham wants to upgrade their football program.. they won't get a better opportunity than the one that is apparently being presented by the CAA. Better to join now and take a few lumps for a couple of years.. then to decline and miss what might be your best or only chance to become a member of what is currently the most dominate the FCS football conference in the nation.

Fordham's reasoning is sound. Why join the CAA if you can't be competitive?

The CAA is going to be transitioning in the next few years anyways, IMHO. A 13/14 team association is too big to be stable in the long term.

dbackjon wrote:Fordham's reasoning is sound. Why join the CAA if you can't be competitive?

The CAA is going to be transitioning in the next few years anyways, IMHO. A 13/14 team association is too big to be stable in the long term.

I think we are starting to see that, now. The CAA had more disparity this year than it has in the past, IMO.

wideright82 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Fordham's reasoning is sound. Why join the CAA if you can't be competitive?

The CAA is going to be transitioning in the next few years anyways, IMHO. A 13/14 team association is too big to be stable in the long term.

I think we are starting to see that, now. The CAA had more disparity this year than it has in the past, IMO.

Really? Other than perennial also-rans Northeastern, URI and Towson.......everyone else was very competitive.

mainejeff wrote:

wideright82 wrote:


I think we are starting to see that, now. The CAA had more disparity this year than it has in the past, IMO.

Really? Other than perennial also-rans Northeastern, URI and Towson.......everyone else was very competitive.

The top 4 teams either had 1 or 2 losses and not another person in the league was above .500 in the conference and only those teams in the south were above .500 overall. AND I'd go as far as to say the UMass victory over UNH was a fluke. What exactly looks competitive about that?
Team CAA Overall
North
New Hampshire 6-2 9-2
Maine 4-4 5-6
Hofstra 3-5 5-6
Massachusetts 3-5 5-6
Northeastern 3-5 3-8
Rhode Island 0-8 1-10
South
Richmond 7-1 10-1
Villanova 7-1 10-1
William & Mary 6-2 9-2
Delaware 4-4 6-5
James Madison 4-4 6-5
Towson 1-7 2-9

wideright82 wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Really? Other than perennial also-rans Northeastern, URI and Towson.......everyone else was very competitive.

The top 4 teams either had 1 or 2 losses and not another person in the league was above .500 in the conference and only those teams in the south were above .500 overall. AND I'd go as far as to say the UMass victory over UNH was a fluke. What exactly looks competitive about that?
Team CAA Overall
North
New Hampshire 6-2 9-2
Maine 4-4 5-6
Hofstra 3-5 5-6
Massachusetts 3-5 5-6
Northeastern 3-5 3-8
Rhode Island 0-8 1-10
South
Richmond 7-1 10-1
Villanova 7-1 10-1
William & Mary 6-2 9-2
Delaware 4-4 6-5
James Madison 4-4 6-5
Towson 1-7 2-9

JMU and Maine were in the playoffs last year. Delaware and UMass are perennial contenders........any other conference have 8 teams that could win the conference year in and year out?

mainejeff wrote:

wideright82 wrote:

The top 4 teams either had 1 or 2 losses and not another person in the league was above .500 in the conference and only those teams in the south were above .500 overall. AND I'd go as far as to say the UMass victory over UNH was a fluke. What exactly looks competitive about that?
Team CAA Overall
North
New Hampshire 6-2 9-2
Maine 4-4 5-6
Hofstra 3-5 5-6
Massachusetts 3-5 5-6
Northeastern 3-5 3-8
Rhode Island 0-8 1-10
South
Richmond 7-1 10-1
Villanova 7-1 10-1
William & Mary 6-2 9-2
Delaware 4-4 6-5
James Madison 4-4 6-5
Towson 1-7 2-9

JMU and Maine were in the playoffs last year. Delaware and UMass are perennial contenders........any other conference have 8 teams that could win the conference year in and year out?

So, when I said this year saw the more disparity than in the past, what exactly made you come up with this point?

My question is, " When does the CAA get too big?" You are adding GSU and ODU and possible Fordham. that is net 2 from what you have now and as mentioned before, the strength this year, was in the south. Unless I am off with my geography, GSU and ODU would fit in the south. At the FCS level does it make sense to have a 14 team 7/7 conference and who moves from the South to North to balance out?

putter wrote:My question is, " When does the CAA get too big?" You are adding GSU and ODU and possible Fordham. that is net 2 from what you have now and as mentioned before, the strength this year, was in the south. Unless I am off with my geography, GSU and ODU would fit in the south. At the FCS level does it make sense to have a 14 team 7/7 conference and who moves from the South to North to balance out?

It already is too big, but 12 teams worked. I think when they get to 14 teams a split becomes a real posibility.

FWIW - I think the bigger the CAA gets, the more valid the complaints that every doesn't play everyone else become. So far I think that has been a non-issue since everyone plays enough conference games to weed out the fraud teams. 14 teams makes it a real posibility that a team can sneak into the playoffs by avoiding the conference powers and finishing with a good record.

BlueHen86 wrote:

putter wrote:My question is, " When does the CAA get too big?" You are adding GSU and ODU and possible Fordham. that is net 2 from what you have now and as mentioned before, the strength this year, was in the south. Unless I am off with my geography, GSU and ODU would fit in the south. At the FCS level does it make sense to have a 14 team 7/7 conference and who moves from the South to North to balance out?

It already is too big, but 12 teams worked. I think when they get to 14 teams a split becomes a real posibility.

FWIW - I think the bigger the CAA gets, the more valid the complaints that every doesn't play everyone else become. So far I think that has been a non-issue since everyone plays enough conference games to weed out the fraud teams. 14 teams makes it a real posibility that a team can sneak into the playoffs by avoiding the conference powers and finishing with a good record.

Hen, do you think with the talk that the expansion of the playoffs wont stop with 20 but rather expand again to 24, that the time for a CAA split makes sense? That way you could easily have another AQ and at large without adding additional teams?

wideright82 wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
JMU and Maine were in the playoffs last year. Delaware and UMass are perennial contenders........any other conference have 8 teams that could win the conference year in and year out?

So, when I said this year saw the more disparity than in the past, what exactly made you come up with this point?

And like I said.......YOU are a fvckhead.

mainejeff wrote:

wideright82 wrote:


So, when I said this year saw the more disparity than in the past, what exactly made you come up with this point?

And like I said.......YOU are a fvckhead.