HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
CAA has decided to opt-in to the settlement and has not set any scholarship cap.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
CAA
- Thread starter HelenaHandBasket
- Start date
I can't imagine there's a single school in the CAA that could hardly exceed the current scholarship limit
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
It isn't a scholarship cap, it is a roster cap. For football it is 105. For example, our soccer team currently has 32 players. The roster cap for Soccer if opting in is 28. If UM opted in, they could only carry 28 on their roster, so they'd need to cut 4 players.
I believe it opens the door to more schollies though correct depending on the conference decision as a whole. Big Sky could dictate an expansion to more scholarships is what I mean
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
Ah I see. Yes. I think!
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
There is a roster cap and they can offer up to 105 scholarships to match, but conferences can set a scholarship cap and schools can divide them up just like now.
Several of those CAA schools are already running on athletic budgets of $30 million plus. Delaware had a $40 million athletic budget before they left.
I wouldn’t underestimate the money that schools in the New England region can raise. When you look at JMU’s ability to continue to continually increase enrollment when they were in the CAA while also having outrageous and increasing student athletic fees, it’s apparent that the financial support to academic institutions is far different than in the Midwest and West.
alabamagrizzly
Well-known member
And this will probably be the #1 reason we can’t afford to move up.
I would expect the Big Sky Conference to go with fewer scholarships if given the chance. The members with better state support, but lower attendance than either Montana school always vote for the cheap way out.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
Fewer than what...63? That won't happen.
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
Probably not, but if something dumb happens, I wouldn't be surprised as the conference always defaults to the lowest common denominator and hurting institutions like UM and MSU, instead of making the slackers up their game.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
What if it isn't possible for the slackers to 'up their game"? Many BSC conference schools can't squeeze anymore blood from the turnip.
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
Then if they can't keep up, it is on them. They can stay in the conference, but can't whine when they get their ass kicked because they offer less scholarships than everyone else.
Office-space "fixing the glitch" as it were.
Honestly, I dunno what the solution is, but I can guarantee the conference will find a way screw the top of the conference and make them deal with other schools who don't give a damn.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
Do you really think the BSC won't set a level that everyone can maintain?
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
That's exactly what I'm saying. They have, will, and will continue to do so at the detriment of the institutions that are keeping things going for them. Which I understand, but is dumb and gives you things happening like schools only being required to have 4 cameras for replay.
It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
I totally understand how I sound. I have no argument or clue how to make it better, only that it is annoying and I wish the UM and MSU would flex their muscle more when it comes to things like this. See Gonzaga and Boise getting more TV earnings than their conference counter-parts because they had data to back-up that folks were tuning in to see them. UM and MSU could make the same argument and yes, they wouldn't make much more probably, but still more than what they earn now.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
I think your ssue is thinking UM and FCS are in any way comparable to Gonzaga or Boise. That isn't the reality. UM and MSU have zero leverage unlike Gonzaga or Boise currently. This is what happens when you are in the minor leagues.
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
Sure. Hence the word wish.
I wish it wasn't. It shouldn't be based on the the supposed high regard of the instutitons keeping the big sky afloat. That isn't reality though.
Doesn't make me feel any different in wishing it was different.
And "leverage"? The little leverage the schools have is pointing at the attendance and viewing of their events. Which....really doesn't matter as you've pointed out because most of that already goes to the schools anyway.
Not saying it will happen, but what if the majority of the conference decides to limit scholarships lower than what they already are? What then?
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
I don't think that will happen, but if so, the only option for UM and similar would be to leave...unless they are agreeable.
DoubleNicks
Well-known member
I know this thread is about the opt-in but can we take a moment to talk about just how far the CAA has fallen since they went from being the Colonial Athletic Association to the Coastal Athletic Association?
Since 2022, the CAA added Hampton, Monmouth, Campbell, NC A&T, and Bryant. Meanwhile, they lost James Madison and Delaware to FBS. But probably most revealing is Richmond perceiving the Patriot League as greener pasture. The CAA has won 6 national championships but only one is from a current member (Villanova in 2009). The CAA has 14 NC appearances but only the aforementioned Nova and Towson (2013) are current members,
This past season, despite being gifted FOUR seeds to the playoffs (with resumes buoyed by the influx of bottom feeders and the sheer bloat of the conference) the CAA went 2-4 with no teams making the quarterfinals. And it's not like they ran into a dynasty wall, like having to go to Fargo or Brookings or something. No, that included #9 Richmond losing 20-16 to unseeded Lehigh and #16 New Hampshire losing to unseeded UT Martin 41-10, both at home in the first round. #10 Rhode Island squeaked by unseeded Central Connecticut State and #11 Villanova squeaked by unseeded Eastern Kentucky, both at home. Villanova and Rhode Island had better showings in the 2nd round on the road but ultimately they both lost.
Anyways, my main point of this post was to ask if people think that the CAA will continue to get multiple at-larges/seeds just because of the size of their conference or will the Big South/OVC, SoCon, etc. start taking more of the traditional CAA spots in the playoffs/rankings?
Since 2022, the CAA added Hampton, Monmouth, Campbell, NC A&T, and Bryant. Meanwhile, they lost James Madison and Delaware to FBS. But probably most revealing is Richmond perceiving the Patriot League as greener pasture. The CAA has won 6 national championships but only one is from a current member (Villanova in 2009). The CAA has 14 NC appearances but only the aforementioned Nova and Towson (2013) are current members,
This past season, despite being gifted FOUR seeds to the playoffs (with resumes buoyed by the influx of bottom feeders and the sheer bloat of the conference) the CAA went 2-4 with no teams making the quarterfinals. And it's not like they ran into a dynasty wall, like having to go to Fargo or Brookings or something. No, that included #9 Richmond losing 20-16 to unseeded Lehigh and #16 New Hampshire losing to unseeded UT Martin 41-10, both at home in the first round. #10 Rhode Island squeaked by unseeded Central Connecticut State and #11 Villanova squeaked by unseeded Eastern Kentucky, both at home. Villanova and Rhode Island had better showings in the 2nd round on the road but ultimately they both lost.
Anyways, my main point of this post was to ask if people think that the CAA will continue to get multiple at-larges/seeds just because of the size of their conference or will the Big South/OVC, SoCon, etc. start taking more of the traditional CAA spots in the playoffs/rankings?
