(05-07-2013 04:05 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  In Liberty's defense (did I just type that?), there's not many conferences ranked below the Big South. Big South doesn't have a lot of leverage if they feel like Liberty or any other school wasn't giving the conference the appropriate level of respect.

Liberty is like the homely girl dying for an invite to the prom. She has to let it be known that she is available and ready.
Many state schools are troubled of possible issues that Liberty may present making JMU more attractive.

(05-07-2013 03:32 PM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 02:39 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  I also don't think we would have released a statement from Bourne a while back stating our displeasure with the departure of Mason and the fate of the CAA if we were pleased where we stand.

Come on man. Have you not seen or heard anything from the last 3 years of conference realignment? How many countless times have we seen ADs from big time programs state how pleased they are to be in the conference they're in, only to announce a move literally the next day??
The only thing the statement you refer to does is show that we're not as stupid as Liberty, openly announcing that we'll jump ship at the first sign of a taker.

Have you been following JMU's stance on CAA? Why has JMU been so "in bed" with the CAA? It's a simple answer- we had regional foes and rivals. What was one a Virginia heavy, it is no longer that. Losing George Mason was the blow that in my opinion no longer made CAA as favorable as it once was. JMU's statement reflected that. I feel that the CAA has forced JMU's hand to search for greener pastures. Had VCU, GMU, ODU still stayed in the conference, I still think JMU hires Carr to assess the future of JMU's conference future, but results would favor JMU staying in the CAA. Now... I think they get a completely different answer.

(05-07-2013 04:19 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 03:32 PM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 02:39 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  I also don't think we would have released a statement from Bourne a while back stating our displeasure with the departure of Mason and the fate of the CAA if we were pleased where we stand.

Come on man. Have you not seen or heard anything from the last 3 years of conference realignment? How many countless times have we seen ADs from big time programs state how pleased they are to be in the conference they're in, only to announce a move literally the next day??
The only thing the statement you refer to does is show that we're not as stupid as Liberty, openly announcing that we'll jump ship at the first sign of a taker.

Have you been following JMU's stance on CAA? Why has JMU been so "in bed" with the CAA? It's a simple answer- we had regional foes and rivals. What was one a Virginia heavy, it is no longer that. Losing George Mason was the blow that in my opinion no longer made CAA as favorable as it once was. JMU's statement reflected that. I feel that the CAA has forced JMU's hand to search for greener pastures. Had VCU, GMU, ODU still stayed in the conference, I still think JMU hires Carr to assess the future of JMU's conference future, but results would favor JMU staying in the CAA. Now... I think they get a completely different answer.

I don't think this study is going to result in a conclusive yes or no regarding going FBS. I think JMU's hand has been forced as far as that goes. That's basically been decided for JMU. I'm guessing the purpose is to understand the holistic implications of many different scenarios. Here's how much scenario A will cost. Here's how many scholarships you'll have to add to women's athletics. Here's what conferences might accommodate a sport that your new conference doesn't have, etc.

(05-07-2013 04:19 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  Have you been following JMU's stance on CAA? Why has JMU been so "in bed" with the CAA? It's a simple answer- we had regional foes and rivals. What was one a Virginia heavy, it is no longer that. Losing George Mason was the blow that in my opinion no longer made CAA as favorable as it once was. JMU's statement reflected that. I feel that the CAA has forced JMU's hand to search for greener pastures. Had VCU, GMU, ODU still stayed in the conference, I still think JMU hires Carr to assess the future of JMU's conference future, but results would favor JMU staying in the CAA. Now... I think they get a completely different answer.

To be honest, I read your initial post that I replied to incorrectly. I thought you had initially said that Borne's stance was indicative of JMU being pleased with staying in the CAA. My apologies there, we agree.

That being said, hasn't the company line always been 'JMU didn't build half of a stadium to stay in FCS'? Are you saying you think JMU would have stayed put as long as VCU, GMU and ODU were still in the fold?

(05-07-2013 04:53 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  I don't think this study is going to result in a conclusive yes or no regarding going FBS. I think JMU's hand has been forced as far as that goes. That's basically been decided for JMU. I'm guessing the purpose is to understand the holistic implications of many different scenarios. Here's how much scenario A will cost. Here's how many scholarships you'll have to add to women's athletics. Here's what conferences might accommodate a sport that your new conference doesn't have, etc.

Yeah, I agree. I think there would have been more of a yes or no under circumstances where CAA was what it was a few years ago. I still think JMU would have involved Carr, but under different circumstances.
To JMU's fault, I think they were a bit too content in the CAA because it was an ideal fit at the time and refused to "Be the change" and got left behind.

Which is still odd, considering the stadium plan. Did we really expect the CAA to move up as a whole?

(05-07-2013 05:08 PM)brizzock Wrote:  Which is still odd, considering the stadium plan. Did we really expect the CAA to move up as a whole?

Things we'll probably never know, but I'd love someday for the complete inside story to leak out. Just my opinion, but I do truly believe we'd have stayed in the CAA until forced to move. As others have alluded to at times, I don't think we ever wanted to be the lead dog in an exodus. VCU, GMU, and ODU are forcing our hand. Otherwise, I think we'd have been content to wait until the 64 team super conferences possibly formed.

(05-07-2013 08:07 AM)Mad victory Wrote:  This is all good, but seriously does anyone understand how a group like this can fairly consult two or sometimes three schools at the same time that may be after the same position. I know it was stated that they are largely hired to support an already existing position, but come on doesn't there have to be some consulting in the consulting business? Anybody? Bueller?

It's not exactly litigation or an audit ... who would require independence?

Yeager asked Rose about moving the CAA up as a conference.

Rose said absolutely not

We should all be thankful that Rose is gone.

(05-07-2013 05:04 PM)bjk3047 Wrote:  To be honest, I read your initial post that I replied to incorrectly. I thought you had initially said that Borne's stance was indicative of JMU being pleased with staying in the CAA. My apologies there, we agree.

That being said, hasn't the company line always been 'JMU didn't build half of a stadium to stay in FCS'? Are you saying you think JMU would have stayed put as long as VCU, GMU and ODU were still in the fold?

It's all good.

Regarding the second part, here's what I think the admin's thinking is and I totally disagree with it. I've heard before that JMU's reasoning on building the stadium was to handle attendance, not a plan for moving up.
I believe "eventually" JMU had FBS intentions, but didn't think it would happen so soon and to the extent in which it has. Had VCU, GMU, and ODU stayed in the CAA, I think JMU would have tried to have its cake and ate it too: stay in CAA for all sports except football, and would have tried to either push the CAA into moving up to FBS, or went to another conference just for football. Keep in mind just what I think the admins thinking was. I don't agree with it, but that's how I think it may have happened. Thankfully it didn't.

(05-07-2013 08:22 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  I believe "eventually" JMU had FBS intentions, but didn't think it would happen so soon and to the extent in which it has. Had VCU, GMU, and ODU stayed in the CAA, I think JMU would have tried to have its cake and ate it too: stay in CAA for all sports except football, and would have tried to either push the CAA into moving up to FBS, or went to another conference just for football. Keep in mind just what I think the admins thinking was. I don't agree with it, but that's how I think it may have happened. Thankfully it didn't.

This is my take on it. I believe there was a "long-term" plan to move, but it was accelerated much faster than I believe we anticipated. (And shame on us for that being the case.) I find evidence for that in the fact that we now suddenly have a study "virtually complete" from Carr. Sounds an awful lot to me like we suddenly started a study when ODU and VCU left and they started hearing the Mason to A-10 rumblings last year.

(05-07-2013 08:38 PM)bulldogg Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 06:51 PM)Dukeman Wrote:  We should all be thankful that Rose is gone.

Rose was horrible!!!! I am certainly thankful that that complete joke is gone.

JMU Nation,
Jon boy Alger is on board. You have my word.
Your buddy,
Terry Holland

(05-07-2013 11:34 PM)The Ghost of Terry Holland Wrote:  JMU Nation,
Jon boy Alger is on board. You have my word.
Your buddy,
Terry Holland

Good to hear Terry, but that is kind of a radical departure from your most recent post.

(05-07-2013 08:26 PM)JMUDUKE9 Wrote:  Sounds an awful lot to me like we suddenly started a study when ODU and VCU left and they started hearing the Mason to A-10 rumblings last year.

No.

(05-08-2013 08:32 AM)jmufan2008 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:26 PM)JMUDUKE9 Wrote:  Sounds an awful lot to me like we suddenly started a study when ODU and VCU left and they started hearing the Mason to A-10 rumblings last year.

No.

When did we start?

(05-08-2013 10:48 AM)JMUDUKE9 Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 08:32 AM)jmufan2008 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:26 PM)JMUDUKE9 Wrote:  Sounds an awful lot to me like we suddenly started a study when ODU and VCU left and they started hearing the Mason to A-10 rumblings last year.

No.

When did we start?

Before VCU even started their final four run.

(05-08-2013 11:46 AM)jmufan2008 Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 10:48 AM)JMUDUKE9 Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 08:32 AM)jmufan2008 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:26 PM)JMUDUKE9 Wrote:  Sounds an awful lot to me like we suddenly started a study when ODU and VCU left and they started hearing the Mason to A-10 rumblings last year.

No.

When did we start?

Before VCU even started their final four run.

Sounds like whether people like it or not, JMU has its own timetable to move up, and isn't going to let it be dictated to others.

(05-08-2013 12:26 PM)BDKJMU Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 11:46 AM)jmufan2008 Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 10:48 AM)JMUDUKE9 Wrote:  

(05-08-2013 08:32 AM)jmufan2008 Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 08:26 PM)JMUDUKE9 Wrote:  Sounds an awful lot to me like we suddenly started a study when ODU and VCU left and they started hearing the Mason to A-10 rumblings last year.

No.

When did we start?

Before VCU even started their final four run.

Sounds like whether people like it or not, JMU has its own timetable to move up, and isn't going to let it be dictated to others.

I agree with that statement. I served on the JMU Alumni Board of Directors in '94-95. We met regularly with the administration. During those meetings the goal was to move football to the next level in 15-20 years. That timeframe would put us exactly where we are today with JMU working behind the scenes.