Jump to content


Member Since 26 Nov 2014
Offline Last Active Today, 05:07 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: [FB] Game 7 - vs Maine - 10/21 - 3:30PM

16 October 2017 - 06:21 AM


This week Maine trailed Rhode Island 14-7 after one, but ended winning 51-27. Over 530 yards total offense

Hopefully our amazing D can keep that to about 250-300 for the game.



319 yards rushing, 248 of that by one back, Josh Mack. 

In Topic: Add Women's Crew as a Varsity Sport - Title IX?

14 October 2017 - 07:04 AM

Add Women's Crew as a Varsity Sport - Title IX[/size]
Since this got a lot of play on another thread it seems as though it should get it's own.
Quick Recap:  UAlbany Athletics has been found to be in violation of Title IX and that the school has offered fewer athletic opportunities for women than required by law.
Mark Benson and UAlbany need to find a way to make up 97 roster spots either through adding a women's sport, reducing the total number of male athletes, or some combination of the two.
This thread is intended to help make the case that adding Women's Crew is the obvious and logical choice for at least the following reasons: 
(1) It is the only Women's sport that can offset the size of a football roster - 100+ rosters are not uncommon;
(2) It is the only sport that provides a cost-effective solution on a per athlete basis - consistent with Cross Country;
(3) There are already an established and LARGE group of students rowing that have indicated they would be open to becoming an NCAA program.  
The notion that the equipment costs are exorbitant and therefore prohibitive has already been debunked so I'd rather not revisit that. But will show how a started up program can be done for an equipment purchase of roughly $20,000.
I have tons of questions. Throwing out a couple now.
Is Crew a good fit for the Athletic Department? Are their cultural hurdle to overcome?
What are the non-financial barriers to adding a Crew team?

I would have no objections to women's crew. The reason they dropped tennis was due to a lack of conferences they could join...at least that was the official one. A little research shows that it would not be a barrier to crew as it appears there are lots of conferences including the CAA and the MAAC that would be a good fit. Crew seems to be quite popular at the local HS level and there's activity all the time on the Hudson and Mohawk rivers. It's cited in articles that women's crew is popular at the big football schools to balance off football scholarships. So I say go for it!
I've been doing a ton of research. It appears that the current team starting attending an early season MAAC invitational in 2012 and performed reasonably well (particularly notable since they would have had no institutional support.)  It also looks like they see those same schools on at least one other occasion during the regular spring season. 
Since Women's Golf is already an Associate Member of the MAAC, it's not a stretch to think that Crew could also join as an Associate Member.  The MAAC Championships for Crew is an AQ for NCAA's so there would be a direct line to post season play.  It's also realistic since the they've already been able to hang with the current MAAC program.   
The CAA also has a championships that is an AQ.  Again, direct line to post season play.  The current team doesn't really travel in those circles for competition so there's no direct comparison to be make.  But we know that football is already an Associate Member. It's not a leap to see the team join that conference too. It's also my understanding that there's an opening as an Associate Member for Crew just left the conference.

I scanned the resolution between UA and the OCR and it appears that Nov 30, 2017 is the date by which UA has to have a plan and procedure in place for interested parties to submit requests to add new intercollegiate sports. So maybe that will be the point at which any requests will be taken seriously. I have no inside knowledge at all, just what I read in the newspaper and their links. Good luck with it!

In Topic: 2017-18 Season

13 October 2017 - 03:27 PM

Nice article in the Gazette today about the Australians (plus one about Testaverde). 

In Topic: [FB] Game 7 - vs Maine - 10/21 - 3:30PM

11 October 2017 - 03:54 AM

Makes sense.

In Topic: [FB] Game 6 - @ Richmond - 10/7 - 3PM

09 October 2017 - 06:27 AM

Our D got a little pressure on him but missed like 5 opportunities for sacks. You can't do that and let him make plays, and still expect to win.
I thought Brunson did a fine job, even if some throws were a bit high. Someone said he was off all game...I disagree with that. He made a few mistakes, which is expected considering he still technically hasn't played a full year of CAA football (this is what, his 8th game?). Dude is definitely growing and making strides. Diggs bailed him out a few times, but that's fine...this is a team sport. The other half of the team (defense) failed him and let up a TON of big plays and gave up a ton of points.

Newspaper articles quoted at least one player who said those deep jump balls were planned. They had no defense for it. I do take issue with UA playing it safe all of a sudden when UR kicked the FG to pull within 7. That was some lousy play calling. Why not take another deep ball shot?