The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-17-2017 12:36 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:35 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:31 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Ian McCaw is a disgrace of a man. Hard to believe anyone likes him.

He should be in jail.

Glad to see that you guys are more familiar with his culpability in Baylor's scandals than the investigators. Show me one piece of evidence that he had anything to do with what occurred in the football program's ghastly actions. As someone who lives in Texas and used to cover the Baylor program, a head football coach has more power than an AD. None of the allegations state that McCaw had direct knowledge of the facts and covered it up. The more that comes out from the Title IX lawsuits the more this will become clear.

I totally get the furor over what happened at Baylor. It was reprehensible. But McCaw is not the person you think he is.

Being in his position and not having knowledge of what was going on would be more than enough for me to not want him at my school.

(05-17-2017 12:36 PM)SlyFox Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:35 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 10:31 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Ian McCaw is a disgrace of a man. Hard to believe anyone likes him.

He should be in jail.

Glad to see that you guys are more familiar with his culpability in Baylor's scandals than the investigators. Show me one piece of evidence that he had anything to do with what occurred in the football program's ghastly actions. As someone who lives in Texas and used to cover the Baylor program, a head football coach has more power than an AD. None of the allegations state that McCaw had direct knowledge of the facts and covered it up. The more that comes out from the Title IX lawsuits the more this will become clear.

I totally get the furor over what happened at Baylor. It was reprehensible. But McCaw is not the person you think he is.

He absolutely knew

SLY- welcome to the business of FBS football. It's not as idealistic as FCS. It's a high stakes enterprise where many people lose perspective and sell their souls for money and publicity. Keep a very close eye on your program. When someone as ambitious as Falwell starts throwing money around, it does not portend well.

(05-17-2017 02:38 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  SLY- welcome to the business of FBS football. It's not as idealistic as FCS. It's a high stakes enterprise where many people lose perspective and sell their souls for money and publicity. Keep a very close eye on your program. When someone as ambitious as Falwell starts throwing money around, it does not portend well.

So would your stance be the same if ODU had the resources back in 2013 to do the same thing Liberty is doing?

(05-17-2017 02:59 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:38 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  SLY- welcome to the business of FBS football. It's not as idealistic as FCS. It's a high stakes enterprise where many people lose perspective and sell their souls for money and publicity. Keep a very close eye on your program. When someone as ambitious as Falwell starts throwing money around, it does not portend well.

So would your stance be the same if ODU had the resources back in 2013 to do the same thing Liberty is doing?

I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

(05-17-2017 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:59 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:38 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  SLY- welcome to the business of FBS football. It's not as idealistic as FCS. It's a high stakes enterprise where many people lose perspective and sell their souls for money and publicity. Keep a very close eye on your program. When someone as ambitious as Falwell starts throwing money around, it does not portend well.

So would your stance be the same if ODU had the resources back in 2013 to do the same thing Liberty is doing?

I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

(05-17-2017 03:40 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:59 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:38 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  SLY- welcome to the business of FBS football. It's not as idealistic as FCS. It's a high stakes enterprise where many people lose perspective and sell their souls for money and publicity. Keep a very close eye on your program. When someone as ambitious as Falwell starts throwing money around, it does not portend well.

So would your stance be the same if ODU had the resources back in 2013 to do the same thing Liberty is doing?

I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

What makes you think they are? We'll play them on even terms in the future the same as many teams. Their deal with UVA is not much different than what we got.
But to get a bunch of teams to move around a bunch of games for the following year then you're going to have to open your wallet, they were in a position to do that. We were in a position to be taken in by an FBS conference so we didn't face the problems they are now. I wouldn't want to switch positions with them. Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

They're only raving about this scum because they hired him. Dont act like you wouldnt condemn this man had he not been hired at Liberty. I smell bullsh*t

(05-17-2017 03:48 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:40 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:59 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:38 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  SLY- welcome to the business of FBS football. It's not as idealistic as FCS. It's a high stakes enterprise where many people lose perspective and sell their souls for money and publicity. Keep a very close eye on your program. When someone as ambitious as Falwell starts throwing money around, it does not portend well.

So would your stance be the same if ODU had the resources back in 2013 to do the same thing Liberty is doing?

I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

What makes you think they are? We'll play them on even terms in the future the same as many teams. Their deal with UVA is not much different than what we got.
But to get a bunch of teams to move around a bunch of games for the following year then you're going to have to open your wallet, they were in a position to do that. We were in a position to be taken in by an FBS conference so we didn't face the problems they are now. I wouldn't want to switch positions with them. Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

I absolutely agree that we were in a better position due to having a conference home. My question was about the comment "But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference".

(05-17-2017 03:48 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:40 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:59 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:38 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  SLY- welcome to the business of FBS football. It's not as idealistic as FCS. It's a high stakes enterprise where many people lose perspective and sell their souls for money and publicity. Keep a very close eye on your program. When someone as ambitious as Falwell starts throwing money around, it does not portend well.

So would your stance be the same if ODU had the resources back in 2013 to do the same thing Liberty is doing?

I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

Yes. But not as good as FBS independence and the A10. Thats what I would aim for if the AAC doesn't happen.

(05-17-2017 03:52 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:48 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:40 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:59 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  So would your stance be the same if ODU had the resources back in 2013 to do the same thing Liberty is doing?

I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

What makes you think they are? We'll play them on even terms in the future the same as many teams. Their deal with UVA is not much different than what we got.
But to get a bunch of teams to move around a bunch of games for the following year then you're going to have to open your wallet, they were in a position to do that. We were in a position to be taken in by an FBS conference so we didn't face the problems they are now. I wouldn't want to switch positions with them. Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

I absolutely agree that we were in a better position due to having a conference home. My question was about the comment "But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference".

Liberty's AD is entirely built on being able to make money from online programs and funnel it into athletics. They're building nice facilities but they're still miles behind us as far as an athletic department goes. Is that what you want to bet on when choosing conference mates. Have you seen their basketball program? Is that your first choice? Maybe you want me to say religion but truthfully that's just a small part of it.

(05-17-2017 04:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:52 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:48 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:40 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

What makes you think they are? We'll play them on even terms in the future the same as many teams. Their deal with UVA is not much different than what we got.
But to get a bunch of teams to move around a bunch of games for the following year then you're going to have to open your wallet, they were in a position to do that. We were in a position to be taken in by an FBS conference so we didn't face the problems they are now. I wouldn't want to switch positions with them. Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

I absolutely agree that we were in a better position due to having a conference home. My question was about the comment "But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference".

Liberty's AD is entirely built on being able to make money from online programs and funnel it into athletics. They're building nice facilities but they're still miles behind us as far as an athletic department goes. Is that what you want to bet on when choosing conference mates. Have you seen their basketball program? Is that your first choice? Maybe you want me to say religion but truthfully that's just a small part of it.

Their women's program is better than ours these days. Man, that was hard to type. :(

(05-17-2017 03:52 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:48 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:40 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:59 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  So would your stance be the same if ODU had the resources back in 2013 to do the same thing Liberty is doing?

I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

Yes. But not as good as FBS independence and the A10. Thats what I would aim for if the AAC doesn't happen.

Why would the A10 expand? They're already at 14 schools.

I'm not adverse to football independence but let's see how contemporary schools handle it before we gamble the school's athletic future on it. Even presuming that schedules will fill quickly and bowl bids will be available, the only way I'd support it is if the A10 were interested; FBS independence and CAA all-sports membership, for example, does nothing for me.

(05-17-2017 04:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:52 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:48 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:40 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

What makes you think they are? We'll play them on even terms in the future the same as many teams. Their deal with UVA is not much different than what we got.
But to get a bunch of teams to move around a bunch of games for the following year then you're going to have to open your wallet, they were in a position to do that. We were in a position to be taken in by an FBS conference so we didn't face the problems they are now. I wouldn't want to switch positions with them. Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

I absolutely agree that we were in a better position due to having a conference home. My question was about the comment "But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference".

Liberty's AD is entirely built on being able to make money from online programs and funnel it into athletics. They're building nice facilities but they're still miles behind us as far as an athletic department goes. Is that what you want to bet on when choosing conference mates. Have you seen their basketball program? Is that your first choice? Maybe you want me to say religion but truthfully that's just a small part of it.

Miles behind? How so? Any objective measurements here? Are we talking the objective wins/losses of major programs, or the athletic department as a whole?

(05-17-2017 02:59 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 02:38 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  SLY- welcome to the business of FBS football. It's not as idealistic as FCS. It's a high stakes enterprise where many people lose perspective and sell their souls for money and publicity. Keep a very close eye on your program. When someone as ambitious as Falwell starts throwing money around, it does not portend well.

So would your stance be the same if ODU had the resources back in 2013 to do the same thing Liberty is doing?

Absolutely. As much as I love football, I see the obscene salaries, coddling of players, cheating and complete dysfunction of sports in general to be a symptom of much that's wrong with our country. I know I'm hypocritical in that I love the game and support it financially. But ODU shelling out that kind of money, even if they had it, would have been and is today a travesty. Luckily we don't have that kind of money and are forced to act in a more moderate way.
Still, we are FBS and have to raise money somehow.
It's all about unbridled ambition. Broderick and Selig and the BOV luckily are not as driven to rise to the top so fast and have a more realistic sense of priorities.

(05-17-2017 04:53 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 04:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:52 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:48 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:40 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

What makes you think they are? We'll play them on even terms in the future the same as many teams. Their deal with UVA is not much different than what we got.
But to get a bunch of teams to move around a bunch of games for the following year then you're going to have to open your wallet, they were in a position to do that. We were in a position to be taken in by an FBS conference so we didn't face the problems they are now. I wouldn't want to switch positions with them. Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

I absolutely agree that we were in a better position due to having a conference home. My question was about the comment "But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference".

Liberty's AD is entirely built on being able to make money from online programs and funnel it into athletics. They're building nice facilities but they're still miles behind us as far as an athletic department goes. Is that what you want to bet on when choosing conference mates. Have you seen their basketball program? Is that your first choice? Maybe you want me to say religion but truthfully that's just a small part of it.

Miles behind? How so? Any objective measurements here? Are we talking the objective wins/losses of major programs, or the athletic department as a whole?

Really? You're questioning this? Any measurement you want.

(05-17-2017 06:24 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 04:53 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 04:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:52 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:48 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  What makes you think they are? We'll play them on even terms in the future the same as many teams. Their deal with UVA is not much different than what we got.
But to get a bunch of teams to move around a bunch of games for the following year then you're going to have to open your wallet, they were in a position to do that. We were in a position to be taken in by an FBS conference so we didn't face the problems they are now. I wouldn't want to switch positions with them. Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

I absolutely agree that we were in a better position due to having a conference home. My question was about the comment "But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference".

Liberty's AD is entirely built on being able to make money from online programs and funnel it into athletics. They're building nice facilities but they're still miles behind us as far as an athletic department goes. Is that what you want to bet on when choosing conference mates. Have you seen their basketball program? Is that your first choice? Maybe you want me to say religion but truthfully that's just a small part of it.

Miles behind? How so? Any objective measurements here? Are we talking the objective wins/losses of major programs, or the athletic department as a whole?

Really? You're questioning this? Any measurement you want.

Please...we don't need to do this. Let's just look ahead.

(05-17-2017 06:29 PM)Quagmire Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 06:24 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 04:53 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 04:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:52 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  I absolutely agree that we were in a better position due to having a conference home. My question was about the comment "But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference".

Liberty's AD is entirely built on being able to make money from online programs and funnel it into athletics. They're building nice facilities but they're still miles behind us as far as an athletic department goes. Is that what you want to bet on when choosing conference mates. Have you seen their basketball program? Is that your first choice? Maybe you want me to say religion but truthfully that's just a small part of it.

Miles behind? How so? Any objective measurements here? Are we talking the objective wins/losses of major programs, or the athletic department as a whole?

Really? You're questioning this? Any measurement you want.

Please...we don't need to do this. Let's just look ahead.

I didn't think it needed to be done either. Liberty's the second youngest school playing in Div I. We're not Ohio State but we've got an established fan base and successful history. Liberty has some nice facilities and they've got money so they could possibly catch up real quick but they're not there yet. I have no problem playing Liberty in FB, I'm not too proud to take their money for a buy game but I think we should pump the brakes before we get in a conference with them. A lot of talk about peers and like minded schools when you talk about conference mates. I'm not sure if Liberty has peers. They're certainly not peers with ND and BYU yet but they're not really like Presbyterian either. If they end up rising to the ranks of the former then we may do well developing a rivalry with them. But it could never really gain traction, their situation is unprecedented. Right now they're performing on a Big South level.

(05-17-2017 04:00 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:52 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:48 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:40 PM)84Monarch Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 03:13 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd have been pissed if we paid 1.3 million to play a local G5 team regardless of whether we had the resources. But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference. I'd be pissed if we hired anyone from the cesspool of Baylor regardless of his connections.

Would I spend the dollars in the way Liberty is, probably not. Unless we got four or five years down the road and could not get a decent non conference FBS program to come play at our place. But why is Liberty's football team viewed as less desirable to play versus us?

What makes you think they are? We'll play them on even terms in the future the same as many teams. Their deal with UVA is not much different than what we got.
But to get a bunch of teams to move around a bunch of games for the following year then you're going to have to open your wallet, they were in a position to do that. We were in a position to be taken in by an FBS conference so we didn't face the problems they are now. I wouldn't want to switch positions with them. Say what you want about CUSA, it's better than FBS Independence and the Big South.

I absolutely agree that we were in a better position due to having a conference home. My question was about the comment "But then again we're not Liberty. We were a desirable add to an FBS conference".

Liberty's AD is entirely built on being able to make money from online programs and funnel it into athletics. They're building nice facilities but they're still miles behind us as far as an athletic department goes. Is that what you want to bet on when choosing conference mates. Have you seen their basketball program? Is that your first choice? Maybe you want me to say religion but truthfully that's just a small part of it.

I see where you're coming from and I was just curious of your thoughts. Good points.

We didn't move to FBS to join conferences with Big South schools.