Aceinthehole

Not sure it is in the best interest of SBU or the league to play a Nationally-televised AE Conference championship at a D-II gym, but this looks like a decent facility from a distance.

LIU-Post

mainejeff

Who are we trying to impress?????

Just keep Stony Brook happy so they don't leave the league.

Aceinthehole

How about the gym at Farmingdale State? Can't find any good pics, but the website says it seats 4k+.

http://www.farmingdalesports.com/facilities/20090819

Redwyn

I saw that one, and trust me - it's not a good gym. The entire seating is temporary - and not temporary as in "Pritchard style". Parking at Farmingdale is terrible, and the gym isn't equipped with any accommodations for media.

It would be a disaster.

Nice pic of Post. Wouldn't have been the worst - but I wouldn't negotiate half my profit to play an hour away from home there. That said, hands tied...

oceandogs

You guys are being ridiculous. To make Stony Brook host off campus would be a gross misinterpretation of the bylaw. The by law is supposed to encourage the host team to put their best face forward, not prevent certain teams from hosting. That's why every school in the conference (when not rennovating) has a facility that meets criterion.

nycwolf

Redwyn doing a great job on this. oceandogs great point.

Did everyone go nuts when jake obrien got a medical redshirt WAIVER? i mean rules are rules right?

hoopcat why were the two past waivers denied? because we had a gym. we do not have that this year. the circumstances are totally different today than they were last year.

NEBaller BU is leaving. the league isnt good for them anymore. BOston U had every opurtunity to meet the by law. Stay in the league and you can play. pretty simple. they chose to leave. SBU chose to build a new gym. are you telling me you would punish someone for upgrading or innovation? you would reward SBU for not changing and complacant? sounds like the welfare system. dont work get money, work less money. rewarding failure. as oceandog says this is incentive for the schools to make themselves better.


Let's just go on record that everyone but SBU posters dont believe in waivers. So if a athlete with a severe learning disability should not be allowed to get a waiver and take less credits in order to play? this happens and has been approved. If a player decids to go to college in california but his mother gets cancer in ny the player should not be able to get a waiver to play immediatly the next year eventhough he left because his mom has cancer? this happens and has been approved. so if a player tears his ACL in the first play of the first game he should not be able to get a medical redshirt waiver?

DougFromLI

I understand UVM fans' frustration here, especially since SBU now has the Golden Ticket to being a # 1 seed. But try to step back and look at the big picture. The SBU Sports Complex revamp has been on hold for many years due to state budgeting freezes, and is now finally underway. This new complex will be an amazing, state-of-the-art facility, that will add an intangible to a Conference that has been at the bottom of the barrel nationwide for many years (athletically speaking). BU is leaving. Yes, SBU has bigger aspirations. Why let SBU walk out the door that easily, when they are on a massive upswing athletically and academically, and can only help the reputation of the AE? As for BU not getting a waiver to play in the Tourn, that is a tough thing for their players for sure, but if a waiver was granted for that, how easy would the AE be losing the likes of SBU and UVM? The penalty is necessary in the spirit of league preservation. This decision was made looking at the big-picture, and in an attempt to preserve and increase the credibility of the AE. Pure business decision, IMO, and to be honest, I think the right decision. Yes, I am an SBU fan, but I'm looking at the big picture in the eyes of the AE commissioner. SBU will probably eventually leave the AE, but this waiver and penalty associated with leaving the AE, will certainly retard the demise of the AE, and allow them to exist and replenish, and do some longer range planning.

bosiydid

This whole thread reads a lot like a cry-fest. I got no hate for SBU regarding this...good on you guys. Annoyed at the AE but whatever. Enjoy it guys...if you survive up in Albany...#SUNYPOWER

__________________

SaltySeawolf

I think the SB fan base is way off base here. Typical New Yorkers who have to have their way wether right or wrong. Why have bylaws if they are going to be enforced haphazardly? What a joke. SB fans are doing a great job of justifying and rationalizing why this game should be played in Pritchard. The bottom line is the bylaws state clearly arena size of at least 3000. SB fans want to make it everyone elses problem that SB is not able to fulfill this obligation.

As a SB fan I love that the weak morons at the league office allowed SB to bully their way to this waiver. I want my team to finally get an NCAA bid in the worst way and this certainly increases the odds of that happening tremendously.

What I do not want, and hate, is the perception that we are using some perceived leverage that we have in the league to get our way. That is NOT the way to be a good member with these other schools. From a purely SB stand point this move is great. From the view point of every other member allowing SB to play in Pritchard reeks and they are right. IF SB fans stop being so typically New York, narcissistic, self centered, and self serving they would realize that there are 9 members to make this right for, not just 1.

farfromtheshow

Just about all of this... except for stereotyping New Yorkers...

The issue here is not with Stony Brook - every school in their position would do the exact same thing they did, can't blame Stony Brook for wanting to host it in their home gym, where they are used to playing and get a big home court advantage.

The issue here is that the league is picking and choosing when and with whom they are going to follow the league bylaws to the T and who they are going to skirt the rules for.

The other issue is that from what I am hearing the league office made this decision unilaterally - it was not voted on or approved by the other schools. Several coaches have stated that they had no idea about this decision until this week - they were completely in the dark - and that it was made a long time ago.

Stony Brook did nothing wrong, but the league is treating them differently: Make no mistake, in previous years if something like this had happened at say BU, and the Agganis was unavailable, the league would not have allowed the Terriers to play in Case - they would have made them rent out another venue. Same thing at UNH, or just about anywhere...

Furthermore, from what I'm being told, this was basically a back-door agreement the league made with SBU - "if you guys start your renovations now, then we can justify allowing you to use Pritchard."

The big thing is the league office just seeming very disingenuous... and they appear to be giving favorable treatment to one school over the rest of the conference, which is not a good sign... Furthermore, with all of this coming to light, the treatment of BU smacks of extreme hypocrisy.

DougFromLI

I understand the argument about rules not being followed, but you are missing the big picture here. Both SBU waiver and the BU penalty are being done for league survival reasons. These are business survival decisions only. Having SBU play Championship game @ a neutral site, and allowing BU to play in tourney, means that the AE is dead meat in 5 years or less. By making exceptions, it buys AE time for long term survival. Hypocrisy perhaps, but without it, you have no conference to write about.

BingGrad

I see the league giving a waiver on the bylaws to a on-going member in good standing and enforcing the bylaws on a member who has decided to leave us.

It's called life, and people should get used to it.

oceandogs

Exactly they are two totally different situations. The bylaw banning BU was put in place for EXACTLY this situation - to punish a leaving member institution. The bylaw that got waived for Stony Brook was NOT put in place to punish a member institution for upgrading their facilities.

farfromtheshow

Well, that's fine to see it that way, but I know the coaches in the league are not happy - the way I keep hearing it, they see it as a league front office that they really can't trust, that will arbitrarily enforce bylaws when they see fit and ignore them other times. It isn't simply about BU - I'm just pointing out that now simply hiding behind the bylaws doesn't hold water - it's about the fact that the league is giving big time preferential treatment to a school that holds power. If say something happened to the Events center and Binghamton wanted to hold the CHIP in the Old West Gym, the league would not ok it. If something happened to the Alfond and Maine wanted to hold the CHIP in the Pitt, the league would not allow it...

The other issue is - if what the coaches are saying is true is true - that the league basically went behind the backs of the other seven (we wont count BU) member institutions and kept them in the dark on this decision, creating another level of distrust...

They say those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, well, from the 90's through the mid-to-late 2000's, the AE let BU dictate the direction of the league - the Terriers killed America East Hockey, killed America East football, and the AE office let them run roughshod over the rest of the conference to appease them... did it do them any good? No, BU still bolted, and the league missed out on some big opportunities as a result. They seem to be heading down that same path with Stony Brook.

farfromtheshow

I think you guys are looking at it from a rational angle, the problem is that what is being presented is a much shadier back-door angle. Stony Brook basically leaning on the AE offices to hold it in Pritchard, and the AE basically telling them if they started construction on X date, then they could justify it. It wasn't SBU starting construction and then being put in a bind, but rather the timing was worked out by both parties so that SBU could host the game in Pritchard.