UVM Hoop Cat

Well said, it's important to note not one but two rules are being broken to appease SBU.

There are still two schools in this game- seems like that's been completely forgotten.

(And I still don't think it would be fine if the visiting school got 600 tickets, but it's a moot point because there would never be an application for waiver if the split was 1000/600)

__________________
"Let's win this game for all the small schools that never had a chance to get here"
- Hoosiers,
& UVM mens basketball NCAA's 2005

oceandogs

I take it you would have been furious when Rosa Parks refused to get to the back of that bus, huh?

UVM Hoop Cat

Wow- that's a pretty big quantum leap there son- not to mention in extremely poor taste.

__________________
"Let's win this game for all the small schools that never had a chance to get here"
- Hoosiers,
& UVM mens basketball NCAA's 2005

Catamount05

It was interesting the TV announcers mentioned Stony Brook was on track to host the championship, but didn't really talk about how it would change from the Arena to the tiny gym. I bet Frank Sullivan could have filled us in a little on how the decision came about. Hopefully the AE will eventually learn it's better to be more transparent in the future.

I fully expect the AE to now grant Vermont a chance to host the tournament in two years. I remember hearing Tom Brennan and the administration pushing hard to host at the end of his tenure, and the school was denied by the league. I think UVM has "earned" the opportunity to host. All they have to do is make sure the hockey team isn't in town and use the locker rooms at Gutterson.

ImaSeawolf

Look, I get it. I really do get that Pritchard presents two major disadvantages to the opposing team: the smaller capacity to support opposing team fans and the record of strong Seawolves play in Pritchard; the distinctive, home court advantage.

I also get (and agree if it is true) that there would be anger over a decision made in an undemocratic way and without consultation with other member institutions.

Here's what really grinds my gears though:

1) If we are going to have a worthwhile discussion, then we should do so based on the facts. As many have mentioned, SB spent $75,000 to ready the arena for championship game. In 2012 and so very recently, SB spent another $80,000+ to so again. In total, over $150k has been spent in the last three years to abide by league by-laws. Let's consider that fact when thinking about and discussing this issue. The arena was used in those instances because it could be, albeit at significant cost. This year it simply cannot. Hartford may have been a viable option then because the tournament was hosted there and could be a natural extension of that in some sense, but SEFCU is a different circumstance.

2) There is a fundamental failure of analysis in citing the application of by-laws to the BU case vs. the Pritchard case. All aspects of context are completely different (time, history, league administration, league dynamics). BU was leaving the conference and SB is looking to add value to that conference through the addition of a $20million arena and growth in athletic profile (i.e. CWS) and investment in fan, student, community support. All great things for all members of the conference. Applying this dualistic (black/white, either/or)thinking - the lowest on the scale of intellectual development (seriously - look it up (Perry, 1968) - is to not appreciate the multiple changing circumstances taht the league has experienced in the very recent past. If rules were so easy to apply, we would not need a Supreme court of Harvard trained thinkers to help us sort through it all. I believe and know there is great intelligence on this board and I think we can raise the level of the current conversation beyond "But the rules say..."

3) Has anyone else wondered why a 3000 seat minimum facility is written into the by-laws in the first place. Specifically a 3000 seat minimum. Might it have anything to do with the fact the Patrick gym holds only 3228, the smallest basketball venue in all of America East? This, of course, does not include the "Micky Mouse, High school" temporary facility SB has has had to play in whilst it awaits completion of its newly constructed 4200+ seat arena. Why not a 3500 or 4000 minimum? My point? That rules need to fairly, appropriately, reasonably and within context, accommodate all member institutions in the conference and not every situations presents itself perfectly to the law if what has written is invariably unaccommodating. Do we really think that fairness is achieved by having the game hosted by someone other than the higher seed (which could be Albany for all we know!) despite the long standing tradition and preference by all member institutions toward this principle of higher seeded host? Would fairness be achieved at a neutral not close to either institution (as with the case with the Hartford suggestion). More often that we might like, competing priorities rendering cut and dry rules moot and other ways of achieving fairness need to be enacted. I am not saying I agree or disagree with the decision and its reported process. Just pointing out that we sometimes are confronted with the need to actually think and not rely on what was written for a different circumstance and time period. We all know why 3000 was listed in the rules to begin with (i.e., BU).


4) It's really worth highlighting that a smaller venue also has the consequence (as UVMHC has rightly mentioned) of limiting the number of SB fans in that facility, severely. Compare (4500-600) = 3900 SB fans last year to around 1000 SB fans in a potential Pritchard-hosted Championship game. The proportion of fans significantly advantages the opposing team in Pritchard (1000:600) (37%) where the ratio and potential impact of opposing team fans in the Arena was 3900:600 (15%) by more than double. This would be a significant change in the environment of Pritchard.


5) I'd really like people to stop talking about this as if we have already determined that Stony Brook and Vermont will be playing in the championship game. And don't tell me no one is saying that. It may not have been stated overtly, but we seem to hearing a great deal from Vermont fans (and SB fans defending the move) on this topic (save for a few others). Certainly these are the top two teams in the conference right now, but the thought process which writes UVM vs. SB into the final game is tainted with a hot maple-syrupy elitism that has persisted on these boards for a long, long time. I respect the UVM program by leaps and bounds, but you need to just stop it! I'm tired of the p*ssing, whining, moanin, and fatalist-filled arrogance of some UVM fans and I really despise, even more than that, seeing anything from SB fans that remotely approaches this kind of attitude (and at times it does). Seawolves fans ought to know better the hard way after these last three years than to open our mouths before the final buzzer sounds. UVM fans, I hope you don't have to learn the same way, because it tortures the heart. Keep up some of your hegemonic ways, and karma just might write that in.

SaltySeawolf

As a SB fan i'm going to take this situation and run with it. I am also not going to try and justify or rationalize the indefensible. SB fans should just tuck their tail between their legs and accept that we caught a break but there is no need to brag about it. If I find a bag of money on the side of the road i'm keeping the money, but I ain't telling anyone I got it.

The other issue is that as a SB fan I am indeed going to be pissed if i've supported the team all year, attended many games, but am not a season ticket holder and get shut out of a spot in Pritchard. What's the saying, "It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye."

BingGrad

I think a rational angle is the only one to look at it from. The league has by-laws. Those by-laws presumably have a process by which a by-law may be waived. Boston U asked for just such a waiver so they could participate in the post-season and they were denied. Presumably Stony Brook asked for a waiver so they could host the championship at Pritchard and this waiver was approved.

A bunch of (mainly Vermont) fans crying that they don't like the decision and FFTS saying that the coaches are upset with the decision doesn't mean that anything other than due process was followed.

Tell me what the process for a waiver is supposed to be, then tell me that it wasn't followed and then I'll agree that what happened is wrong.

uvm4life20

I think SB did something wrong when they went behind people's backs and made a shady agreement to have the renovations timely with hosting the championship game at Pritchard so the AE had an excuse to allow in at Pritchard.

Zonid

You'd think for a school ranked so highly in the US News rankings (which we are reminded of constantly, and which is apparently VERY VERY important) that there would be at least one reasonable, intelligent poster here representing said school.

Catamount05

ImaSeawolf, obviously the ratio will not be 1,000-600 in the breakdown between home and away fans. It's already been stated by several people. There would be a couple hundred tickets for the away team. Once tickets go to family members of the team, admins, big-time donors and others with connections, that leaves a hundred or so for students and general fans of the away school.

This doesn't have anything to do with Vermont. Just wait and see the uproar if Stony Brook hosts, regardless of who it is against.

mainejeff

Can Maine apply for a waiver into the semi-finals?

farfromtheshow

No, Boston University did not ask for a bylaw to be waved. According to the league bylaws, BU was entitled to play in the conference tournament UNLESS the other eight athletic directors voted to ban them - that is what the bylaw stated. The league chose to "follow the bylaw" by allowing such a vote, in which case BU was voted out and banned. The bylaw was followed, not waived. It was a decision by the rest of the league athletic directors - everyone in the conference effected by BU participating or not participating had a say in it...

No one effected by this decision to IGNORE a bylaw had any say in the decision except for Stony Brook (to ask) and the league office to then choose to arbitrarily ignore an existing bylaw. That is different. One decision followed the rules (banning BU) one did not.

If a league is going to enforce bylaws - written up by the member institution presidents and Athletic Directors - when they choose to, and completely ignore them when they see fit, why have any bylaws at all?

What this did was undermine the trust in the league between the other seven schools for the sake of one school -- a school that has every intent to bolt if a better opportunity comes along -- it just doesn't make much sense in the long run...

And it would have been much, much better to at least announce it outright and have some transparency, as others on here have said, instead of keeping such a decision hidden from the rest of the league.

SaltySeawolf

I thought I was in the running.

uvm4life20

1. Calling Pritchard Gym a temporary facility is a joke. Temporary is not season after season after season. The fact that SB can't fit in more fans to Pritchard is SB's problem. After 600 opposing fans get tickets to a championship game it's the hosting schools problem how much room they have for their fans. At UVM's gym they only have 2600 after giving up 600 tickets. A lot more people would like to go to the game but it's UVM's problem they can't fit more than 2600 fans.

2. SB is not building a new facility for the AE. It's not to benefit the AE. It's not going to help the AE very much if at all. So far the arena with the convenient renovating around championship game time is hurting the AE. It has put a distrust between schools and the league office. Far more damaging than any benefit. The benefit of having a tournament there in the future might happen for 1 or 2 seasons because SB has had a foot out the door for awhile now. SB is building the facility only for themselves. They are building it to improve their brand and make themselves more attractive to other conferences. All this for the good of the AE talk is nonsense. They are not building it for the good of the AE.

3. The bylaws and due process. The schools of the conference didn't vote on it. When BU asked for a waiver it was voted on by all the schools. When SB asked for a waiver recently schools just found out about it. There is a huge difference in how the waiver process happened. With BU it was done the right way. With SB it was done the wrong way. It's pretty black and white.

uvm4life20

I fixed it for you. Not only is it going against a minimum 3000 seat facility but also against and more importantly 600 tickets going to the opposing teams fans.