Hofstra Dropping Football?

[mainejeff]

Look for all 8 in next years playoffs

If NAU was in the CAA, they'd be 9-2

Or dropping football.

[Marcus Garvey]

I only just learned tonight about N'eastern's program when the ESPN ticker mentioned them along with Hofstra. (Admittedly, I'm hardly paying any attention to I-AA football these days, hence why I'm barely on this board, or that other one.)

Northeastern's decision is certainly no surprise. I'm actually surprised they didn't drop the team in the 70's. In Hofstra's case, I can see why, but it kind of strikes me as odd, considering all the money they've poured into the program the last 20 years, facilities, upgrading to I-AA, etc... Reminds me of when I worked for a defense contractor. I got off a doomed program that should have been canceled 2 years before it finally was. When the DoD finally did cancel it, I was like, "Wow. I know it was a drain and all... but what took so damn long? They were finally showing progress by now."

I guess in the end, they couldn't generate much interest in the team, even among students.

[BlueHen86]

Round robin is when every one plays every one else. Your conference has already been using a round robin schedule.

The CAA still won't be playing a true round robin unless it drops to 9 teams or they play a 9 game conference schedule.

I never considered playing your whole conference a round robin. Just normal. I suppose, thinking on it, it's a very large one. I was thinking more along the lines of the baseball NCAA's. In any case, it's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science, yet you still didn't know what it was. Nuff said.

[BlueHen86]

Keep in mind, all CAA teams play an FBS school. In light of the potentially tougher conference schedule, they may choose to drop the FBS in lieu of a more "winable" game.

nuff said

You should apply that rule to all of your posts.

[Willie]

Sucks for Hofstra. I remember being at the 2002 game in Missoula against them.

[CatMom]

I never considered playing your whole conference a round robin. Just normal. I suppose, thinking on it, it's a very large one. I was thinking more along the lines of the baseball NCAA's. In any case, it's not rocket science.

It's not rocket science, yet you still didn't know what it was. Nuff said.

The rocket science part is in reply to all the CAA people who can't figure out how this would work.
How many people you know call conference play a round robin - seriously (oh right, the CAA, who doesn't use it)
Baseball playoffs with 4 teams just stuck out as an example. It's more "normal" to call it that

If you took the time to sit back and evaluate what I'm saying you wouldn't be such an ass in your reply.

[BlueHen86]

It's not rocket science, yet you still didn't know what it was. Nuff said.

If you took the time to sit back and evaluate what I'm saying you wouldn't be such an ass in your reply.

Considering that you take a shot at the CAA every chance you get, my reply is appropriate.

[CatMom]

Come on, I'd take a shot at any conference with this issue. It's just this time it's the CAA. I'm not alone here. I also take shots at the SLC when warranted. You missing my posts about that?

[BlueHen86]

Come on, I'd take a shot at any conference with this issue. It's just this time it's the CAA. I'm not alone here. I also take shots at the SLC when warranted. You missing my posts about that?

I assume that you know what you are talking about when you post about the SLC, so I don't challenge you on SLC related topics.

But you've posted a lot of negative CAA stuff, some of which is wrong/unfair, so I will challenge you on those posts.

[CatMom]

What I'm saying is, other people made posts about this same thing (look back) and nobody said a word to them. They have done so in the past too. I was really trying to be a bit facetious because it just seemed so logical yet there was a this, seemingly, head scratching going on.

Maybe we both just need to lighten up a bit

But you've posted a lot of negative CAA stuff, some of which is wrong/unfair, so I will challenge you on those posts.

It's the Jersey girl in me

[BlueHen86]

What I'm saying is, other people made posts about this same thing (look back) and nobody said a word to them. They have done so in the past too. I was really trying to be a bit facetious because it just seemed so logical yet there was a this, seemingly, head scratching going on.

Maybe we both just need to lighten up a bit

But you've posted a lot of negative CAA stuff, some of which is wrong/unfair, so I will challenge you on those posts.

It's the Jersey girl in me

No need to lighten up, I don't take this seriously to begin with. It's a message board and we are having a discussion, don't take my taunts seriously.

[shorsky]

Here's someone from cnnsi.com with his perspective. Hopefully the guy trips trying to step down from his pedestal.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... ?eref=sihp

[Marcus Garvey]

Here's someone from cnnsi.com with his perspective. Hopefully the guy trips trying to step down from his pedestal.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... ?eref=sihp

Agreed. I mean, the decision to drop football was the correct one, but why's this guy got to be a smarmy prick about it? They weren't doing it for any "high and mighty" reasons. It was simple dollars and cents. If there had been sufficient student and community interest, then revenues could have helped ease the cost and there'd be a team still. It was standard administrative decision, nothing more.

[COBBLESTONE]

http://www.projo.com/uri/content/sp_fbc ... 1504b.html

projo chimes in, most already discussed in this thread.

Does talk about a reborn Yankee Conference

“We have to be very strategic and very smart in looking at our future,” he said. “We have to look at this as an opportunity to really sit down and think about the best way for us to put together a successful football program. . . . We’re certainly interested in playing at the highest possible level for us.”

The key to that comment is “for us.” The highest possible level for URI may be lower than the highest possible level for teams in the CAA South that have greater resources and where interest in college football is more intense.

Given that context, and economic factors such as travel costs, the re-birth of the Yankee Conference makes sense. The conference could consist of the original charter members URI, UMass, UNH and Maine, plus Albany, Stony Brook and Fordham.

Forming such a league would be relatively easy. Albany is an affiliate of the Northeast Conference, Stony Brook of the Big South and Fordham of the Patriot League. Albany and Stony Brook are in the America East in other sports, Fordham in the Atlantic 10. This seven-team conference would allow for six league games and bus trips to all league away games and would permit expansion.

Also, Yeager did a lot of hinting today about the breakup. Is it possible that 2011 we see the new Yankee?

Is this the perfect time to make such a move? Yeager said if they could get eight league games, “then maybe that answer is yes.”

Bringing back the YC would be a good move. It would make sense as far as travel cost is concerned. Hopefully the champion of that conference would get an autobid.

[danefan]

http://www.projo.com/uri/content/sp_fbc ... 1504b.html

projo chimes in, most already discussed in this thread.

Does talk about a reborn Yankee Conference



Also, Yeager did a lot of hinting today about the breakup. Is it possible that 2011 we see the new Yankee?

Bringing back the YC would be a good move. It would make sense as far as travel cost is concerned. Hopefully the champion of that conference would get an autobid.

It would take two years of the league being in existence to qualify for an AQ under the current rules. I don't really think that's a factor though, because I think the NCAA would grant and exemption and even if they didn't, I think the winner of the conference the first two years would undoubedtly get an at-large in the new expanded playoff field.