Page 1 of 1
NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:15 am
by danefan
http://blogs.app.com/hawks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“When Monmouth University decided to accept an invitation to join the MAAC, they did so with full knowledge that the MAAC did not sponsor the sports of football, field hockey and bowling. Monmouth subsequently submitted an application to be an associate member in the NEC in each of those three sports. The NEC Council of Presidents evaluated the associate membership requests separately, and in doing so made their decisions relative to the long term stability and interests of the Conference. We look forward to continuing our partnership with Monmouth in the sport of field hockey, and wish Monmouth success in the sports of football and bowling as they seek new partnerships in those sports.”
I suspect they'll end up in the Big South as I have to believe they've already approached the CAA and were rebuked.
I don't really see the NEC's hard-nosed stance on this. Any way you look at it, the football league is better off with Monmouth than they are without them.
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:18 am
by AZGrizFan
Dumb. But the BSC did a similar thing with some schools wanting "football only" memberships back when the BSC was stuck on full membership only.
They've since seen the error of their ways.
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:21 am
by danefan
AZGrizFan wrote:Dumb. But the BSC did a similar thing with some schools wanting "football only" memberships back when the BSC was stuck on full membership only.
They've since seen the error of their ways.
The NEC has now religated itself to a life of terrible non-conference schedules.
They will only have 6 league games each and there is a league rule that forbids playing Sub-DI games.
Something has to budge and I don't see it being a benefit for the NEC either way.
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:23 am
by AZGrizFan
danefan wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:Dumb. But the BSC did a similar thing with some schools wanting "football only" memberships back when the BSC was stuck on full membership only.
They've since seen the error of their ways.
The NEC has now religated itself to a life of terrible non-conference schedules.
They will only have 6 league games each and there is a league rule that forbids playing Sub-DI games.
Something has to budge and I don't see it being a benefit for the NEC either way.
That equates to a LOT of road games.
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:25 am
by bluehenbillk
Hmm, no Albany, no Monmouth, yea that opening round playoff game is looking softer every week....
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 11:25 am
by danefan
AZGrizFan wrote:danefan wrote:
The NEC has now religated itself to a life of terrible non-conference schedules.
They will only have 6 league games each and there is a league rule that forbids playing Sub-DI games.
Something has to budge and I don't see it being a benefit for the NEC either way.
That equates to a LOT of road games.
As if they didn't have enough already. One season we played our first 5 games on the road.
I'd be shocked if the NEC teams had more than 4 home games a year in this set up. Good luck with that.
Thank god for the CAA!
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:02 pm
by CoachL
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:08 pm
by nwFL Griz
Does that mean that this season (2013), Monmouth is effectively an independent?
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:55 am
by dal4018
nwFL Griz wrote:Does that mean that this season (2013), Monmouth is effectively an independent?
Wasn't Monmouth a original member of the NEC????
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:39 am
by danefan
nwFL Griz wrote:Does that mean that this season (2013), Monmouth is effectively an independent?
As of right now, yes. Although I think its likely they'll be in the Big South for the 2013 season by the week's end.
Easy for the Big South to just slot Monmouth in where they had Stony Brook.
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 11:19 am
by Libertine
danefan wrote:nwFL Griz wrote:Does that mean that this season (2013), Monmouth is effectively an independent?
As of right now, yes. Although I think its likely they'll be in the Big South for the 2013 season by the week's end.
Easy for the Big South to just slot Monmouth in where they had Stony Brook.
Except that OOC schedules and contracts have already been made with Stony Brook's absence factored in. There is no way that Monmouth could be just "slotted in" for next season.
Re: NEC denies Monmouth Affiliate membership
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:02 pm
by kdinva
Libertine wrote:danefan wrote:
As of right now, yes. Although I think its likely they'll be in the Big South for the 2013 season by the week's end.
Easy for the Big South to just slot Monmouth in where they had Stony Brook.
Except that OOC schedules and contracts have already been made with Stony Brook's absence factored in. There is no way that Monmouth could be just "slotted in" for next season.
And I am 99.4% sure VMI has all 12 of their games signed, just waiting for the formal presser.......2014 should not be a problem w/scheduling.
