General Membership Perspectives

Tom Yeager April 11, 2013

As we consider membership additions, I believe that it is important to evaluate a number of factors in our considerations. First and foremost is the public association that is established by the visibility of an athletic conference. After all, the Ivy League was formed around athletics. So whether we desire it or not, a significant part of our institutional perception may be shaped by the most public of our institutional affiliations/brand, our athletic conference. Therefore, it is vitally important to identify institutions with whom we wish to be identified and associated and who subscribe to the same shared values and operate an athletic program consistent with the those values. The CAA has never had a win at all costs mentality, and has in fact adopted restrictions such as increased academic standards, which some could argue inhibited athletic success but were consistent with institutional values. Throughout, CAA institutions and its student-athletes have garnered remarkable success to the envy of many. There is diversity of institutions in the membership of every conference. However, the greatest opportunity for collective success will reside with a grouping of institutions that have a critical mass of commonality of goals, commitments, resources and the ability to achieve those common objectives. Since we are approaching membership decisions as long-term investments, evaluations of prospective members should also strongly consider the future growth and potential of the institution. All our institutions have made dramatic strides in recent years and have very positive upward trajectories and aspirations. There should be consideration of the prospective institution in the next decade as part of the evaluation.

CAA Basketball Overview. While the CAA has recorded some of the biggest upsets in NCAA history and our champion was always competitive, 20 years elapsed between at-large bids (1986-2006). In the fall 2005, the conference hired a dedicated basketball person to develop a basketball enhancement plan to help build our collective basketball performance. Our recent basketball improvement was built from within with the existing members who had not achieved an at-large bid in 20 years. We achieved our first at-large bid in 2006 with a 3rd team (Hofstra) widely considered as the most prominent team snubbed. GMU as our at-large team advanced to the 2006 Final 4. In 2007 we once again achieved an at-large bid with another team (Drexel) portrayed nationally as a/the team that should have been selected for the tournament. Only our champion was selected for the NCAA tournament in 2008, 2009 and 2010, with ODU advancing to the 2nd round in 2010. The 2011 season provided a breakthrough year with 3 teams (2 at-large teams) selected for the tournament with GMU advancing and VCU earning the CAAs 2nd Final 4 appearance in 6 seasons. The CAA champion also advanced to the 2nd round in 2012.

Membership Perspectives April 11, 2013 Page No. 2.

The point of this narrative is that through institutional commitments, a conference performance plan, hiring of good coaches and the recruitment of quality student-athletes, the grouping of institutions that did not have a record of at-large performance reached a level of unprecedented success in the NCAA tournament. A success that was built from within by a commitment from the existing members not by the acquisition of free agents. This is our approach again. Understanding the RPI. The NCAA RPI (Ratings Percentage Index) is a numerical calculation of winning percentages of the team and its opponents described in 3 factors. Factor I is the teams won lost record (20-13) and is 25% of the ranking. Within the FI rating, home, road and neutral results are also weighted differently. Factor II is the teams opponents record or Strength of Schedule and is 50% of the ranking. Factor III is the teams opponents, opponents strength of schedule and is 25% of the ranking. In each schools calculations, the results of thousands of games are considered and the order of rankings is by the slimmest of margins. RPI 10 50 100 FI (25%) 26-7 .7879 21 22-11 .6667 65 19-11 .6333 89 FII (50%) .5989 12 .5847 26 .5173 132 FIII (25%) 3 39 120 Composite .6364 .5852 .5391

FI Teams record (33 games). FII The records of 23 different opponents records (e.g. 23 x 33 games = 726 games) FIII - The records of those 23 opponents opponents records (e.g. 23 x 33 games = 726 games) [Note: Many times comments are made that we beat team x and our rpi dropped 10 places. The point is that each rpi calculation potentially incorporates the results of over 1,500 games.] A further example of why strength of schedule is important is accomplished by comparing #1 Duke with #51 Bucknell both with identical 27-5 records. The winning percentage of Dukes opponents (FII) was .6364 [#1]. Bucknells opponents record was .4833 [#189]. Dukes FIII was 30, Bucknells FIII was 201. The 68 team NCAA tournament is comprised of 31 conference champions (Automatic Qualifier - AQ) and 37 at-large teams. As a general rule, at-large teams have RPIs better than 50. The CAAs RPI. As you can see from above, a teams RPI is driven by winning games against teams that also win games. The conference ranking is a compilation of its members RPI rankings. I believe that we are scheduling properly to position our teams for at-large consideration. In 2012-13 we simply did not win enough, especially key games. Specifically, here is a snapshot of our scheduling for the past 3 years.

Membership Perspectives April 11, 2013 Page No. 3.

Year 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Non-conference schedule strength 10th 18th 10th

Non-conference record to .500% +24 games -5 games -35 games

Conference RPI 10 15 24

Comparing 2010-11 to 2012-13 (the CAAs best and worst years), the CAA played essentially the same schedule strength with a differential of 59 wins. In 2011, six CAA teams had Top 100 RPIs - 3 had Top 50 RPIs. In conference play, conference teams delivered 11-12 Top 100 games building the top teams schedule strength that helped 2 teams earn at-large berths. In comparison, in 2012-13 no CAA team had a Top 100 RPI, in fact, our best RPI was 141. Further only one team had a winning non-conference record and only 5 of the 11 teams had a winning record. Our analysis is that overall we are playing the right type of opponents. We simply did not achieve winning results consistent with our past performance. Impact of possible expansion candidates for mens basketball. Apart from the major BCS conferences, there are few if any consistent locks for an at-large bid. As we noted in our basketball enhancement plan which we launched in 2005-06, the possibility of at-large consideration will be built from within. From an earlier call, the following institutions were identified: Albany Davidson Elon UNC Greensboro Stony Brook In addition, previously the CAA had been formally contacted by Hampton and Fairfield expressing interest in membership. Obviously, Davidson has the highest mens basketball profile, plays an outstanding nonconference schedule (#21), but has been unable to achieve an at-large bid in those years in which it does not win the SoCon tournament. Davidson has participated in the NCAA tournament six times in the last 12 years (as SoCon champion). Four other teams (Albany, Elon, Fairfield, & Stony Brook) have separated themselves from the pack and while not as successful as Davidson, have had reasonable regular season success in leagues that dont help those teams improve their schedule strength. In the past 3 seasons: All 4 have registered at least one 20 win season. Albany, Fairfield and Stony Brook have been either their leagues regular season or tournament champion. All four have participated in postseason basketball: NCAA Albany; NIT Fairfield & Stony Brook; CIT Elon.

Membership Perspectives April 11, 2013 Page No. 4.

Number of conference members. I believe that it is desirous to have at least 10 members in order to produce an 18 game basketball schedule. Increased numbers (10 or more) will also create more teams and games in CAA championship sports where sponsorships are diminished and may help create better travel scenarios.. Sports with fewer than six sponsoring institutions: Mens cross country (5) Mens outdoor track (3) Wrestling Womens Rowing (5) [3 + 2 associate members, Buffalo & E. Michigan] This reduced sponsorship also brings the CAAs AQ status in wrestling and womens rowing into question and the need for replenishment. Wrestling may be unfixable, but rowing could involve the addition of another associate member. I would propose that the best expansion outcome would be to expand to 12 teams. The CAA has been a 12 team league for the past 7 years, so there is general operational comfort with this number. This would mean the inclusion of 3 new teams. Recommendation. In my analysis of the information surveyed, I recommend the following three institutions as package candidates for membership in the CAA: Davidson Elon Stony Brook o o o o These 3 institutions fall within the existing membership footprint. All are outstanding academic institutions with strong brand identification and reputations. Davidson is a traditional brand. Elon and Stony Brook are upwardly mobile. Collectively they enhance our television market presence in new or existing regions (Charlotte, Greensboro and metro New York). o Individually they create instant rivalries with several current members. o The mens basketball performance of all 3 candidates fall into mid-level to mid-level+ performance of the existing membership. In my view, each of these institutions is also acceptable individually if all 3 are not interested in membership. If there is a desire to create even more regionalized conference scheduling, 14 members could be considered by adding Fairfield and Albany to Davidson, Elon and Stony Brook.

Membership Perspectives April 11, 2013 Page No. 5.

Structure (12). (Boston to Baltimore) Northeastern Hofstra Stony Brook Drexel Delaware Towson

(Virginia & Carolinas) James Madison William & Mary Elon Davidson UNC Wilmington Charleston

Understanding the limitations of divisional play. Everyone supports the principles of reduced travel (cost) and missed class time. Through thoughtful scheduling (days of week & possible travel partners), we can significantly protect these principles. It is easy to say divisional play but in reality this concept is much more complicated. Of the 22 CAA Championship sports, regular season scheduling is required in only 10 as follows: Men Basketball Soccer Lacrosse Baseball Women Basketball Soccer Lacrosse Softball Field Hockey Volleyball

Discounting the team sports that are fairly regional and not sponsored by everyone, regular season scheduling basically impacts 7 sports. Mens Basketball Soccer Baseball Womens Basketball Soccer Softball Volleyball

Basketball (18 games) Assume 10 games in region. 8 cross-over games, 4 home/4 away. With a travel partner concept, this would be 2 potential trips outside the region. Soccer (10 [men] or 11 [women] games) Single round robin usually playing travel partners. Would equate to 2 trips outside the region.

Membership Perspectives April 11, 2013 Page No. 6.

Baseball (30 games 10-3 game series) Weekend 3 game series (Fri-Sun). Would equate to 2 or 3 series outside region each year. Softball (24 games 8-3 game series) Weekend 3 game series (usually Sat-Sun). There is a 5/4 regional split which would equate to probable 2 or 3 games outside region each year. Volleyball (24 games double round robin) Will use travel partners so 3 outside region trips each year. Except for the extremity institutions, out of region does not necessarily imply air travel as some institutions in both regions can utilize ground transportation to several out of region sites. Recommendation to Council of Presidents: That the commissioner be authorized to engage in discussions with Davidson, Elon and Stony Brook with the goal of offering CAA membership subject to final approval by the Council of Presidents. Attached to this memorandum is profile information about each institution and the CAA. If you desire additional information on any particular institution, I would recommend that you consult each institutions website. If you desire a compilation of other information that has not been included, please feel free to contact me, or Chancellor Millers office.

General Membership Perspectives April 11, 2013